Israeli settlement

[He219]

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=487035

The unauthorized West Bank Jewish outpost settlement of Migron, east of Ramallah, is seen on a hilltop Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has told a parliamentary committee he will move some Jewish settlements as part of an emerging unilateral plan for dealing with Israel's conflict with the Palestinians, according to a participant. About 220,000 Jews live in 150 settlements and illegal outposts in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer)

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=487029

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=487026

An Israeli settler walks with her children in the West Bank unauthorized Jewish outpost settlement of Migron, Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003. About 220,000 Jews live in 150 settlements and illegal outposts in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Some are near main West Bank population centres, such as the outpost of Migron, which lies east of Ramallah. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer)

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=487025

An Israeli settler boy plays on a swing set as a man walks with his automatic rifle in the West Bank Jewish outpost settlement Migron, east of Ramallah, Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003.

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=487031

Israeli settler Sharon Haver plays the guitar as a copy of the torah and his automatic rifle sit next to him as he guards the unauthorized West Bank Jewish outpost settlement of Migron, east of Ramallah, Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003.

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=487033

A manequin dressed in army fatigues and helmet sit in the guard post at the unauthorized West Bank Jewish outpost settlement of Migron, east of Ramallah, Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has told a parliamentary committee he will move some Jewish settlements as part of an emerging unilateral plan for dealing with Israel's conflict with the Palestinians, according to a participant. About 220,000 Jews live in 150 settlements and illegal outposts in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer)

Question for our Israeli colleagues:
Why do they 'settle' in unauthorized outposts? Who has building jurisdiction in those areas?

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=486989

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=486987

Palestinians go through the rubble of a house belonging to the Shahin family, destroyed by the Israeli authorities in the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Ras al-Amud Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003. The authorities used a crane-like construction vehicle to push the walls of the one-story house down, saying that the owners didn't have a building permit. The Israeli Interior Ministry refused to comment but Israel routinely demolishes homes built by Arabs without proper permits. (AP Photo/Oded Balilty)

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=486985

A Palestinian woman from the Sahin family talks on her mobile phone as she stands next to the family belongings salvaged from their house before it was demolished by the Israeli authorities in the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Ras al-Amud, Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003. The authorities used a crane-like construction vehicle to push the walls of the one-story house down, saying that the owners didn't have a building permit.


Correct me if I'm mistaken, but is Arab East Jerusalem part of the occupied territories? Why would Israel have building jurisdiction over Arab construction in Arab municipalities or lands? Are permits purposely designed to make it difficult for Arabs communities to develop, thus altering the future demographic representation of the areas?

On one hand we see the settlers living in un-authorized camps colonizing the West Bank and Gaza while Arab settlements are routinely demolished because they are met without Israeli approval? I am not talking about security measures like the bombing of the four apartment towers near the Nezarim settlement last month....


http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=486981

U.S. actor Richard Gere, right, talks with Israel's President Moshe Katzav during their meeting in the presidential residence in Jerusalem Wednesday Dec. 10. 2003. Gere is on a peace tour through the region. (AP Photo/Amit Shabi)

The most important part...

Estableshing lasting PEACE!

[Vance]

Can't you see, it's Chevy Chase and Richard Gere :cantbeli:

[hahaha]

I'm confused - a unauthorised settlement is allowed to stand but the illegaly built Palestinian house gets torn down ?? What kind of hypocricy is this ?
Granted there could be a very legimate reason behind this, if one of the Israeli posters could answer this or give a legitimate reasoning behind this, it would be much appreciated

Would the Israelis have a problem if the Palestinian authority started to tear down illeagal Israeli settlements ?

[Seoulstriker]

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=486981


gere is too ugly to get any new film bids.

[0#256]

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=487031
Israeli settler Sharon Haver plays the guitar as a copy of the torah and his automatic rifle sit next to him as he guards the unauthorized West Bank Jewish outpost settlement of Migron, east of Ramallah, Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003.

No! That is not the way to keep your gun!
Barrel against concrete!? :bash:

[Guttorm]

It's sorta like the american trailer parks! Hicks with guns! :D

[Subliminal One]

Why would you want to live in a settlement knowing that you have to live in fear... to the point where you need to carry a rifle when you're out playing with your kids? That's not how I'd want to live. It's self-imprisonment.

[UoUo]

And what about living in a israeli city...lets say jeruslem...you have to fear about bus bombing....

So we all should move to another place ? it doesn't work like that.

[Mr. Nielsen]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but is Arab East Jerusalem part of the occupied territories?

East jerusalem is occupied just as the West bank and Gaza.


Why do they 'settle' in unauthorized outposts?

They believe that once they have settled there they have laid claim to the land. Which is of course not so.

And it dosn't matter if it is an "unauthorized outpost" or a settlement they are all illegal. Anything built outside the 1967 border are considered illegal.

[Haiw]

Still waiting for any real proper answer...

*roaring silence*

[non-zero possibility]

Yeah but scince when has anyone stoped Israel from doing whatever they want...

[Marmot1]

OUR ISRAELI FRIENDS ARE SUSPICOUS QUIET IN THIS TOPIC.....and at the same time they are active on other threads...

[Subliminal One]

I read a story this past summer about one elderly Orthodox Jew who decided to plop his rear down in a trailer home on some hill top in the West Bank, and 6 IDF soldiers had to protect him 24-7.

My original question still holds, why choose to move into a desolate area (illegal settlement) that you know puts you and your family at higher danger than living with the main population? Plus you're more or less caged in because of increased security measures.

I have a couple friends who are from Jeruselum, and they insist it's really not all that dangerous for the everyday person. Not more so than traveling around Los Angeles, USA.

[mocking_loudly_died]

I'm on a mission to kill every one in the middle east.

Problem solved through mass death.

[Jack Mehoff]

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=487025

what a life!!

[dumbass]

Reason they live there is because they believe that it is their duty as jews to reclaim historic Israel in it's entirety. Settlers do not live in fear because they believe they will be protected by god (don't forget the IDF). Certain settlements are criticized by a large part of the public because they require a lot of soldiers to keep them safe. I.E. Netzarim in Gaza where there is something like 4 soldiers for every person living there. There is actually a large debate about whether or not to abandon the Netzarim settlement.Certain illegal settlements are sometimes dismantled, but as you can see, most of the homes in these outposts are mobile so they simply pack up and move to another site and set up another outpost. Houses in Jerusalem built without proper permits are often demolished and not all of them are those that belong to Arabs. This is not to say that every demolition is okay, not all of Israels policies are perfectly good.

[/quote]Anything built outside the 1967 border are considered illegal.[quote]

Not everything built outisde the 67' borders is illegal. the pre-67' borders are virtually indefensible in many parts, and certain settlements were built out of military necessity which IS considered "Legal". Today there are certain guidelines by which settlements are deemed legal or illegal.

[dumbass]

By the way... Under Barak's plan at Camp David 2000, East Jerusalem would have become the capital of the Palestinian state and the vast majority of ALL settlements ("Legal" and "illegal") would have been dismantled and the settlers would be relocated to several settlements left for them. Too bad Arafat rejected it and incited a very bloody conflict, otherwise we would not be having this discussion right now.

[army cadet_ngcsu]

I completely agree with dumbass

[non-zero possibility]

Israel, no matter how much you wish, is not a Jew only country, and, I can name anouther group who is tried to reclaim what they percived as theirs....

Nazi's

Scince Israels creation they have been one of the most if not, offensive millitary powers in the region. Saying that they fortify what is not theirs is legal because of defense? that cannot be true, if it is, why are children and swing sets on the front lines. Face it, to many people just act like people from palistine are not people, they have just as much claim to The west bank as Israel. Face it, Jewish people chose to spread out, which is not wrong, but in doing so they gave up their rights to land in the middle east, It is not fair to just say they deserve their supposed land back all of a sudden. The pal' while using horrable and wrong tactics are attempting toreclaim what to a extent is just as much theirs as Israel.

For the record... UoUo, Jerusalam is not a israeli city, it is land taken by the idf. Not to mention religiously the city is a christian jewish and islamic icon. So how about you give a better example. In my opinion it was amazingly simple to just take land so, why is it so hard to give it back. What justification do you use to fuel Israels expansion?

[uri]

OUR ISRAELI FRIENDS ARE SUSPICOUS QUIET IN THIS TOPIC.....and at the same time they are active on other threads...

I'll try to explain.

This topic is also very hard and painful disscusion in Israel itself. I think that most of israelis don't support in settlements in Gaza strip, and they keep the settlements only as a reason for keepeng the army there also. This exact settlement of Netzarin is right now on the head of disscusion, the politicians talk about getting the sivilians out and let the army stay there. I really don't know if it's good or not, I don't think that kids should grow up that way, but on the other hand - The Army Must Stay there.
Most of Isaraelis don't have a strong opinion on this one, it's very hard to write "against" your people, it's not possible to take someone from his home just like that.

As someone said: Barak gave Yaser EVERYTHING, but he didn't took it, he started a war, instead of "thank you" we got this:
http://uri.staff.fresh.co.il/army/mf/TelAviv_1994-2002.jpg
http://uri.staff.fresh.co.il/army/mf/PetachTikva_May_27_2002.jpg

___________________________________________________________



Scince Israels creation they have been one of the most if not, offensive millitary powers in the region.


IDF - Israel Defense Forces.
The ones who put children in front are Palestinians.
The ones who hurt children and women in terror acts are Palestinians.
The ones who talk about war and not about peace are Palestinians.
The ones who talk about killing all Jews (Natzis you said?) are Palestinians.

[Mr. Nielsen]

The ones who put children in front are Palestinians.

Apart from those throwing stones, I don't believe they do that. And those there kids are in their home towns. While the illegal settlers have brought theirs into the occupied territories.



The ones who hurt children and women in terror acts are Palestinians.

But still the IDF have killed more civilians than Hamas and Jihad.


The ones who talk about war and not about peace are Palestinians.

Lots of palestinians talk about war. Lots of israelis talk about war. Fortunately there are also people on both sides talking peace.


The ones who talk about killing all Jews (Natzis you said?) are Palestinians.

I also hear elected members of the israeli parliament talking about etnic cleansing and greater israel including jordan etc. Actually quite disturbing. During the nazi occupation of denmark, you also had people wishing all germans death. Considering the occupation being much less severe than elsewhere in europe, i wonder what the poles were thinking?

[Mr. Nielsen]

Not everything built outisde the 67' borders is illegal. the pre-67' borders are virtually indefensible in many parts, and certain settlements were built out of military necessity which IS considered "Legal". Today there are certain guidelines by which settlements are deemed legal or illegal.

International law regarding occupied territories are quite clear their are no room for "legal settlements". Military necessity can allow you to occupie a territory, like germany and japan after ww2, not colonize it.

[S'13]

Apart from those throwing stones, I don't believe they do that.

Then you didn't hear about the Palestinian children who been recruited by terrorists and been used as humen shields or sent to infiltrate Israeli settlements. The main purpose of these "missions" is to test the security of the settlement and gather information for future attacks or to smuggle weapons, of course all of these "missions" end with the children been caught (and then released after promising not to repeat what they did) or shot dead, but that doesn't matter since they have been promised a place in paradise. :roll:


And those there kids are in their home towns.

That's no excuse, the fact is that they are placing themselves in harms way and they are aware of that.


But still the IDF have killed more civilians than Hamas and Jihad.

Does the IDF kill civilians deliberately like Hamas and Jihad? And can you prove all those civilians who are said to have been killed were actually civilians and not combatants? The Palestinians have been known to fake funerals so why not fake numbers?

[uri]

Apart from those throwing stones, I don't believe they do that. And those there kids are in their home towns. While the illegal settlers have brought theirs into the occupied territories. ?


http://uri.staff.fresh.co.il/army/mf/terrorANDchildren.JPG
In the picture - palestinians carrying dead body of terrorist (who wanted to put bomb charges) and hiding bihind a kid, for IDF soldiers won't shoot on them.



But still the IDF have killed more civilians than Hamas and Jihad.

We don't kill civilians, we kill terrorists. Sometime the terrorist use their own population as a shield, so the get hurt. Life Sux.



Lots of palestinians talk about war. Lots of israelis talk about war. Fortunately there are also people on both sides talking peace.

The problem is that we talk and act, they only talk.



I also hear elected members of the israeli parliament talking about etnic cleansing and greater israel including jordan etc. Actually quite disturbing. During the nazi occupation of denmark, you also had people wishing all germans death. Considering the occupation being much less severe than elsewhere in europe, i wonder what the poles were thinking?
It's a minority froup, 1 or 2 percents of jewish population.
On the Palstinian side the percentage is much higher.
The palestinian goverment was given full control on their population (in Oslo agreements) and they didn't stoped the terror acts, so IDF had to take actions...

[Saranof]

OUR ISRAELI FRIENDS ARE SUSPICOUS QUIET IN THIS TOPIC.....and at the same time they are active on other threads...

This is because they know that their brothers actions are wrong.

IDF - Israel Defense Forces.
The ones who put children in front are Palestinians.
The ones who hurt children and women in terror acts are Palestinians.
The ones who talk about war and not about peace are Palestinians.
The ones who talk about killing all Jews (Natzis you said?) are Palestinians.


I have many accounts of israeli soldiers using palestinians as human shields.
The IDF mainly kills civilians.
The IDF is the party bulldozing houses, shooting childen.
The ones who keep an entire people in camps under gunthreat, have an aparteid system against them, are the Israelis.

Now, one thing you must understand. I do not defend the terrorist acts of some palestinians.
BUT you CANNOT call ALL palestinans terrorists. Likewhys, I cannot call all Israelis babykillers.
Now, terrorists do many nasty things to israelis. BUT the IDF commits many crimes aswell.
It' s just the way it is.

Just my ching ching

[uri]

I have many accounts of israeli soldiers using palestinians as human shields.
The IDF mainly kills civilians.
The IDF is the party bulldozing houses, shooting childen.
The ones who keep an entire people in camps under gunthreat, have an aparteid system against them, are the Israelis.

Now, one thing you must understand. I do not defend the terrorist acts of some palestinians.
BUT you CANNOT call ALL palestinans terrorists. Likewhys, I cannot call all Israelis babykillers.
Now, terrorists do many nasty things to israelis. BUT the IDF commits many crimes aswell.
It' s just the way it is.

Just my ching ching

As I have already written, Europe suffers from Pro-Palestinian propaganda, but i'll try to explain:

Yes, we used in past palestinians as human shiels. When some terrorist covering me by himseld, my chances to get hit is smaller. Simple as that. We use only militants, not civils.

IDF kills only militants, the civils that got hurt - help terrorists.

IDF use buldozers to clear roads from bomb charges and to ruin terrorists houses as punishment.

IDF don't kill children, but if a child pointing a gun at us - we shoot.
Like this one:
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20031208/capt.jrl10112080322.mideast_israel_paestinians_jrl101.jpg

You think we keep they under a gunthreat? Every time we open our borders for them to come to work in Israel - a Bomb goes off at our cities.
you think they live in fear? come to israel, enter a bus in Jerusalem, if you think you are brave.

The IDF is the most humanitary army in the world, i wish we could do what US Army doies in Iraq...

Look how they use their children for cover:
http://uri.staff.fresh.co.il/army/mf/terrorANDchildren.JPG
In the picture - palestinians carrying dead body of terrorist (who wanted to put bomb charges) and hiding bihind a kid, for IDF soldiers won't shoot on them.

Sorry, your "ching ching" is wrong, but again i can't blame you for being that way, just don't buy everything that your press feeds you.

[S'13]

BUT you CANNOT call ALL palestinans terrorists. Likewhys, I cannot call all Israelis babykillers.

Most of the Palestinians support terrorism. A survey conducted by Palestinians showed 54.8% of the Palestinian population would support suicied bombings even if Israel changed it's policy in the territories, I think this says something, don't you?


The IDF mainly kills civilians.

The IDF doesn't target civilians and when civilians are killed by the IDF it is not deliberate.


The IDF is the party bulldozing houses, shooting childen

Houses that belong to terrorists or their families. When did IDF soldiers shot children (deliberately)?

[Marmot1]

well i can say that you are blinded by your own Israeli propaganda... destroying homes of civilian is war crime if it`s not during cimbat and what IDF does is planed demolition.....you said you kill only militants and civilians helping them for me suicide blowing in night club ie. is also killing IDF recruits...if we go by your theory....and haw about tour prime minister Sharon isn`t he accused of war crimes? was`t he concreting wells on Negev desert to get rid of Beduins.....you say that palestinians use terrorist metods so how you will cal bombing of KING DAVID hotel by israelis in 1948? was`t it a terrorist act? the problem is that every criticism of israel is always called antysemitism....well i have couple of jewish friends and i like them but i Hate the state of israel since for me is no diference betwen the Israel and third reich...and how you explain building of this famous wall well it is build on the palestinian side of border and they will loose 13% of west bank is that ok according to geneva convention?
or expelin me why u expeled almost all arabs from your country is that ok with geneva conventio that forbids ethnical changes on ocupied territories???

[uri]

well i can say that you are blinded by your own Israeli propaganda... destroying homes of civilian is war crime if it`s not during cimbat and what IDF does is planed demolition.....you said you kill only militants and civilians helping them for me suicide blowing in night club ie. is also killing IDF recruits...if we go by your theory....and haw about tour prime minister Sharon isn`t he accused of war crimes? was`t he concreting wells on Negev desert to get rid of Beduins.....you say that palestinians use terrorist metods so how you will cal bombing of KING DAVID hotel by israelis in 1948? was`t it a terrorist act? the problem is that every criticism of israel is always called antysemitism....well i have couple of jewish friends and i like them but i Hate the state of israel since for me is no diference betwen the Israel and third reich...and how you explain building of this famous wall well it is build on the palestinian side of border and they will loose 13% of west bank is that ok according to geneva convention?
or expelin me why u expeled almost all arabs from your country is that ok with geneva conventio that forbids ethnical changes on ocupied territories???

BS.

The wall is a border. I sure you have a border in Poland to. Don't you?

Israel has more than 1 milion arab sitizens, we don't transfer them, they are equal to every jew.

It's very easy to blame Israel in everything, and yes. that antysemitism.
The daily photos that posted here, from Israel and from Iraq - are almost the same.
US Army learning everyday something new from israel, and use our methods fighting terrorism in Iraq. The D9's, the "killig of civils", everything what US does - they learned from Israel. Yet, nobody sais US does something wrong.
Hypocracy...

[army cadet_ngcsu]

LOL, if the Israelis wanted to kill all the Palestinians children and the middle east in general they could. I cannot tell you how many times I've seen 100's of Palestinian children throwing stones at Israeli riot police, if the Israelis wanted to, all they would need would be 2 to 3 SAW gunners and they could completely mow down all of those kids. Like in Afghanistan and Iraq, when these people stage demonstrations and riots a couple times a week and get violent, people are going to die. [/img]

[S'13]

you say that palestinians use terrorist metods so how you will cal bombing of KING DAVID hotel by israelis in 1948? was`t it a terrorist act?

No it wasn't a terrorist act since the King David hotel was used as a British military command and the British Criminal Investigation Division thus making it a legitimate target. You may not know this but the Irgun gave three telephone calls as warnings so civilian would be evacuated, one to the hotel, another to the French Consulate, and a third to the Palestine Post, warning that explosives in the King David Hotel would soon be detonated. The call into the hotel was apparently received and ignored. One British official who refused to evacuate the building, said: "We don't take orders from the Jews."
By the way, the bombing occured on July 22, 1946, not 1948 as you wrote. The least you can do is get the date right...

[Marmot1]

well i can say that you are blinded by your own Israeli propaganda... destroying homes of civilian is war crime if it`s not during cimbat and what IDF does is planed demolition.....you said you kill only militants and civilians helping them for me suicide blowing in night club ie. is also killing IDF recruits...if we go by your theory....and haw about tour prime minister Sharon isn`t he accused of war crimes? was`t he concreting wells on Negev desert to get rid of Beduins.....you say that palestinians use terrorist metods so how you will cal bombing of KING DAVID hotel by israelis in 1948? was`t it a terrorist act? the problem is that every criticism of israel is always called antysemitism....well i have couple of jewish friends and i like them but i Hate the state of israel since for me is no diference betwen the Israel and third reich...and how you explain building of this famous wall well it is build on the palestinian side of border and they will loose 13% of west bank is that ok according to geneva convention?
or expelin me why u expeled almost all arabs from your country is that ok with geneva conventio that forbids ethnical changes on ocupied territories???

BS.

The wall is a border. I sure you have a border in Poland to. Don't you?

Israel has more than 1 milion arab sitizens, we don't transfer them, they are equal to every jew.

It's very easy to blame Israel in everything, and yes. that antysemitism.
The daily photos that posted here, from Israel and from Iraq - are almost the same.
US Army learning everyday something new from israel, and use our methods fighting terrorism in Iraq. The D9's, the "killig of civils", everything what US does - they learned from Israel. Yet, nobody sais US does something wrong.
Hypocracy...

well so i will say it KILING UNARMED CIVILIAN IS FOR ME A WAR CRIME IN IRAQ OR IN ISRAELI OR ELSEWHERE..

and I am wondering about one thing there is multinational division in IRAQ there are polish soldiers and so far only one was killed and 2 wounded in combat + couple wounded from other coutries and so far polish soldiers killed onl 2 iraquis how u explain that.... maybe the method US ARMY use is wrong??? and they are making enemies not friends??? that means the tactic they learned from IDF is bad... you know if somebody would blow my apartment becouse guy living next floor was terroris I would take a gun and start killingll those damn bastards who destroyed my home....

[dumbass]

International law regarding occupied territories are quite clear their are no room for "legal settlements". Military necessity can allow you to occupie a territory, like germany and japan after ww2, not colonize it.

Even when I hear the biggest hippy liberals talk about the territories, I never hear the word "colonies". The fact is the territories are "Occupied", some even say "disputed". Yes, land may be occupied under " Military Necessity".

FACT: Jordan did not make peace with Israel until less then a decade ago
FACT: Syria is still extremely hostile towards Israel, houses and supports many Terrorist groups that operate in the territories, in Lebanon, and in Israel proper.
FACT: Egypt does nothing to prevent arms, which are later used against Israeli civillians, from entering Gaza from egypt.
FACT: 19 Arab nations have not made peace with Israel to this day.

SO, when you look at it from that perspective, and look at the fact that every time Israel withdraws from any land in the Terroritories, terror increases, and when they launch major security operations, terror decreases (See Operation Defensive Shield), there is plenty of military necessity behind the occupation. The occupation was a result of a DEFENSIVE WAR. We never asked to be there. The thing the Palestinians do not understand is that it was their own Arab leaders that used them (and continue to use them) , as a pawn against Israel, and when **** hit the fan, they abandoned them (Only one nation in the Arab world has accepted Palestinian Refugees).


you say that palestinians use terrorist metods so how you will cal bombing of KING DAVID hotel by israelis in 1948? was`t it a terrorist act

Bombing of the King David hotel targeted mostly british military personnel as well as british government officials. Not civillians. NEVERTHELESS, soon after the King David bombing, David Ben-Gurion shelled the boat of the Irgun (the radical group that was behind the bombing, killing something like 18 jews) in order to ensure that radical tactics were abandoned and there would be a united IDF.




destroying homes of civilian is war crime if it`s not during cimbat

The homes that the IDF destroys of "civillians" is in self defense. The homes in Rafah ( which u may be hearing a lot about these days) , sit only yards from the Egyptian border, and like I said, because Egypt does NOTHING to prevent arms smuggling, tunnels are built under the border from Egyp into these homes. Don't worry, people who live there get paid a great deal of money to have these tunnels. Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who have embezzled hundreds of millions of dollars from the Palestinian people, or the PLO (estimated $50 BILLION in assets) will surely pay for them to build another house to make more tunnels. Don't believe every picture that you see if it comes from the Palestinian Authority or their media.


how you explain building of this famous wall well it is build on the palestinian side of border and they will loose 13% of west bank is that ok according to geneva convention?


Yes it is okay under the Geneva Convention. Resolution 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from TERRITORIES (not THE terroritories) acquired in the '67 war after peace is made. Noone expected Israel to withdraw to the pre-'67 borders (Read testament by those who drafted the resolution) because these borders are virtually indefensible! Furthermore, those borders have no significance historically, they are simply where the armistice lines were drawn in the '48 war ( Also started by the Arabs). I don't necessarily agree with the exact route of the fence, but it is absurd to expect Israel to return to the 67 borders. Furthermore Israel is building a wall. It hasn't taken much time to build this wall , or fence, and if peace ever comes it won't take much time to take it down, Israel is not annexing any of the west bank with this wall. Perhaps i am mistaken but i do recall the Geneva Convention allowing for Annexation if it is because of Military Necessity.


expelin me why u expeled almost all arabs from your country is that ok with geneva conventio that forbids ethnical changes on ocupied territories???

As a result of the 1948 war there were about 400,000 Palestinian refugees. In studies done by LEBANESE groups (not Israeli), it has been concluded that the majority of these refugees left out of fear, or because they were told to do so by the same Arab leaders that later betrayed them. Israel did expell certain Palestinians, however to say they expelled ALL is erroneus. Today 20% of the Israeli population are Arabs and all of them have more rights than in any Arab nation. Furthermore, in '48 there were 800,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries as a result of the war. Difference is the Jews took in their brothers and sisters while the Arabs have let them rott away in refugee camps for the past 55 years.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

[dumbass]

UoUo, Jerusalam is not a israeli city, it is land taken by the idf. Not to mention religiously the city is a christian jewish and islamic icon. So how about you give a better example. In my opinion it was amazingly simple to just take land so, why is it so hard to give it back

It was not amazingly easy to take land. Many Israeli soldiers and civillians died to defend Israel and reunify Jerusalem. Jerusalem is in fact an icon for all three religions. Under Israeli control, Muslims and Christians have been free to practice at their holy sites. In fact, the Temple Mount, Judaisms holiest place, is under muslim control, and Jews are not even allowed to pray or worship there. The PA has done nothing to prevent the destruction and desecration of Jewish and Christian sites in the territories. Just yesterday, 7 jews were shot as they prayed at Joseph's tomb in Nablus. If you want prrof of Palestinian desecration of not only jewish but Christian sites, watch these two movies.

http://www.zoa.org/videos/HolyLand1.htm
http://www.zoa.org/videos/HolyLand2.htm




Scince Israels creation they have been one of the most if not, offensive millitary powers in the region

Upon Israel's creation, they were greatly outnumbered and miraculously survived the '48 war. Today, Israel is far outnumbered by Arab neighbors, and the technology they posses is catching up to Israels. Only thing Israel has right now that Arabs don't is unity and nukes.


Face it, Jewish people chose to spread out, which is not wrong, but in doing so they gave up their rights to land in the middle east,

Jews did not leave Israel by choice, they were conquered and forced out almost 2000 years ago. Since then it has been the longing of most Jews to return to the holy land, hence every year we pray to be united in Jerusalem in the year to come.


Israel, no matter how much you wish, is not a Jew only country, and, I can name anouther group who is tried to reclaim what they percived as theirs.... Nazi's


The nazis didn't "reclaim" land in a defensive war, they were out to conquer all of europe. Israel gained this land as a result of a war they did not start, and is yet to annex the west bank and gaza.


Israel, no matter how much you wish, is not a Jew only country

You are right, thats why Israel is the only country in the middle east that guarantees religious freedom to all.

[Whistler]

Bravo! :hug:

[Javehn]

You damn lier !! That just filthy jewish propaganda !!
Kill em all . Those movies are fake .

Personally , i just can bellieve that you can twist something like that . Unbellievable. More unbellivable that people (mostly european ) "eating" this as fish going on bate . The only false that Israel did , is watch how those lies go out , and do nothing . When we did something , it was too little to late . The people here just don't understand Islamic menthality , and judge the situation , like it happened in they back yard . Israel is guilty - guilty of being to much patient on expence of human lifes , guilty of letting the propaganda fly in the air and did nothing to stop it . Guilty of being to much self judgement , and expose other to easy critisism of Israel . We are guilty . Yes , we are guilty . Guilty of but licking to Europe , and All "Free" world . We are guilty .

[non-zero possibility]

Dumbass, point being they precived it to be their rightfull land, just as Israel is perciving the west bank to be theirs, it isnt, so be quiet,

p.s. to the pic of the kid covering the mans body....

I have a question, why would idf soilders attack a group of pal's carry a dead body? how do you know that body is not his fathers? or have your unwaivering offense against innocent civillians led you to not be able to differentiate?

the IDF stands for israeli defense force? why is the i D f attacking and OFFENSIVLY striking targets? When Nazi Germany took over france there was a resistance, a attempt to get france back to the french. How can you say this is not based on the same principal?

Jahven... you spat out a paragraph attempting to sound patriotic, you failed. There is no excuse for what you have done, only a explination, the explination that you have chosen to supress a group attempting to regain land you have "decided" was rightfully yours.

[Javehn]

Ok , i see your point .
If you want real answer , post your questions in thread i have opened , and i shurely will answer to you . For now what you said , just a flame based on nothing . Many Israeli members here served the army . We know what we are talking about . And we are ready to share , unless it leads to dead end discussion , where people without obviose even basic knowladge try to defend something they not understand .
No excuse to what we have done ?? No excuse for you to open your mouth and spill **** you have no clue . For that you have no excuse .

[S'13]

have a question, why would idf soilders attack a group of pal's carry a dead body? how do you know that body is not his fathers? or have your unwaivering offense against innocent civillians led you to not be able to differentiate?

Are you blind or something? under the picture It's written that the Palestinians are carrying the dead body of a terrorist (who wanted to plant bomb charges) and are hiding behind a child. Undoubtedly these "group of pal's" are terrorists...

[uri]

Dumbass, point being they precived it to be their rightfull land, just as Israel is perciving the west bank to be theirs, it isnt, so be quiet,

p.s. to the pic of the kid covering the mans body....

I have a question, why would idf soilders attack a group of pal's carry a dead body? how do you know that body is not his fathers? or have your unwaivering offense against innocent civillians led you to not be able to differentiate?


I'm sorry, i don't have the full video. The movie was released to the press showing couple of Pals try to set a bomb charge near a civil settlement, IDF sniper took one of them down. Then showed up the rest of his 'pals', took the body and ran off, using the young boy to cover themself knowing that IDF won't shoot towards them if a little boy around.
believe it or not...

[non-zero possibility]

Alright, I belive you, it wouldnt suprise me. It is to bad they are forced to have to do somthing like that,

thats all I have to say.

[dumbass]

It is to bad they are forced to have to do somthing like that

they are not FORCED to do anything like that. No one points a gun to their head and says KILL CIVILIANS. They are cowards who kill innocent Israelis and whose actions lead to a lot of unnecessary suffering for the Palestinians.

[non-zero possibility]

Since they have no land, they can not cunstruct a army, because of this, they have no other means to attempt to regain stolen land, it is sad, that they are forced to do horrid things like terrorist attacks against civillians.

[Whistler]

People like the last poster are the kind that make me sick when it comes to Israel/Palestine debates.

You know the type, the kind that try to justify attacks against civilians because the Palestinians are a poor and downtrodden people that "don't have an army".

Give me a break. Nobody "forces" them to kill civilians. They could just as easily take those bombs and point them at IDF bases, checkpoints, and vehicles.

But no, they CHOOSE to target Pizza Parlours. They CHOOSE to target schools. They CHOOSE to target cafes.

Why? Not because they are forced too, because they think causing as much damage to Israeli civilians as possible will make them pack up and leave.

Newsflash, its not working. It never will. The Israelis are a strong people, they will never be destroyed by terrorism.

I'm a reasonable guy thats open to looking at things from the Palestinian perspective, but I will NEVER be convinced that their horrid acts against Israeli civilians are "neccessary acts of a desperate people", and as long as those attacks continue, I am not going to critisize the Israelis for defending against them.

[non-zero possibility]

Whistler... Your retain the classic idea of picking apart my post, ignoring aspects of the previouse conversations to make a point.

...Be quiet

How can you say that they should just give up. Just let Israel walk all over them. Terrorism is a wrong, unnacepptable way to attempt to regain what is theirs. Point out where I said I supported terrorism... still looking? probobly cause I didn't

I never said that it morally justifes. Nor did I ever say anyone forced them to... you people take what I say to make your point by putting your stupid spin, like my point was "THERE IS SOMEONE POINT GUNS AT THEIR BACKS AND MAKING THEM DO IT!" you think thats my point? if you do, your the most retarded person on the face of the earth. I have no respect for people like you. Your just attempting to attack me. Were discussing israeli settelments in non Israeli territory, not how I make you sick. If I make you sick, pm me about it, no one else wants to hear it, of your half wit argument.

[dumbass]

If you dont want people picking apart your post maybe you should make arguments that are valid. For instance saying the Palestinians are trying to regain Stolen land. None of that makes sense. If you say stupid things people will correct you in a discussion. THEREFORE, Make valid points, otherwise don't cry when people point out the holes in your arguments.

[Marmot1]

Well you Israeli have poor Public Relations (PR) and you will loose this war just like US lost in Vietnam,after the Tet offensive general Nguyen from N Vietnamise Army said that they had forces for only 6 months more of fight if US wouldn`t retreat....but because of poor PR US loost at "home front", and you will loose to look how this palestinian uprising hurts your economy especialy tourism...

somone said that muslims desacrate christian holly places but i live in country that is in 97% roman catholic and nobody even heard about that so maybe this is only Israeli propaganda since nobody except you hear about this... think about this maybe you are feed with israeli propaganda and maybe you are blinded.... not we in europe...

[Mr. Nielsen]

I'm sorry, i don't have the full video. The movie was released to the press showing couple of Pals try to set a bomb charge near a civil settlement, IDF sniper took one of them down. Then showed up the rest of his 'pals', took the body and ran off, using the young boy to cover themself knowing that IDF won't shoot towards them if a little boy around.
believe it or not...

This episode have been discussed a lot. Now I'am curious as to where it happended and at what date?

[volfram]

Well you Israeli have poor Public Relations (PR) and you will loose this war just like US lost in Vietnam,after the Tet offensive general Nguyen from N Vietnamise Army said that they had forces for only 6 months more of fight if US wouldn`t retreat....but because of poor PR US loost at "home front", and you will loose to look how this palestinian uprising hurts your economy especialy tourism...

somone said that muslims desacrate christian holly places but i live in country that is in 97% roman catholic and nobody even heard about that so maybe this is only Israeli propaganda since nobody except you hear about this... think about this maybe you are feed with israeli propaganda and maybe you are blinded.... not we in europe...
Situation in Israel and Vietnam are totaly diferent.USA withdraw from Vietnam because lack of support for war.Israeli public opinion think that they have no choice but keep on fighting.

[citizen-k]

Well you Israeli have poor Public Relations (PR) and you will loose this war just like US lost in Vietnam,after the Tet offensive general Nguyen from N Vietnamise Army said that they had forces for only 6 months more of fight if US wouldn`t retreat....but because of poor PR US loost at "home front", and you will loose to look how this palestinian uprising hurts your economy especialy tourism...

somone said that muslims desacrate christian holly places but i live in country that is in 97% roman catholic and nobody even heard about that so maybe this is only Israeli propaganda since nobody except you hear about this... think about this maybe you are feed with israeli propaganda and maybe you are blinded.... not we in europe...

True, we have BAD PR, just like we had 60 years ago...

Israeli propaganda if exists, believe it or not, is pro-palestinian :cantbeli:

[Marmot1]

Well you Israeli have poor Public Relations (PR) and you will loose this war just like US lost in Vietnam,after the Tet offensive general Nguyen from N Vietnamise Army said that they had forces for only 6 months more of fight if US wouldn`t retreat....but because of poor PR US loost at "home front", and you will loose to look how this palestinian uprising hurts your economy especialy tourism...

somone said that muslims desacrate christian holly places but i live in country that is in 97% roman catholic and nobody even heard about that so maybe this is only Israeli propaganda since nobody except you hear about this... think about this maybe you are feed with israeli propaganda and maybe you are blinded.... not we in europe...
Situation in Israel and Vietnam are totaly diferent.USA withdraw from Vietnam because lack of support for war.Israeli public opinion think that they have no choice but keep on fighting.

well but one day they will have to understan that this lead to nowhere and only peace is solution and there will be no peace without Palestina in 67 borders since every palestinian politic wo will try to deal at the cost of land is suicider

[Mr. Nielsen]

Well you Israeli have poor Public Relations (PR) and you will loose this war just like US lost in Vietnam

Is it so bad? From reading US news sources it appears if it was the palestinians that was the occupiers, and not the other way around.

[non-zero possibility]

Dumbass, you need to back up your statement, ok its not valid? why....

[S'13]

well but one day they will have to understan that this lead to nowhere and only peace is solution and there will be no peace without Palestina in 67 borders since every palestinian politic wo will try to deal at the cost of land is suicider

What do you think we were trying to achieve in Oslo and Camp David (2000)?

[Mr. Nielsen]

Quote:
well but one day they will have to understan that this lead to nowhere and only peace is solution and there will be no peace without Palestina in 67 borders since every palestinian politic wo will try to deal at the cost of land is suicider


What do you think we were trying to achieve in Oslo and Camp David (2000)?

I think Oslo and Camp David were an attempt to keep as much land as possible without having to bother with millions of palestnians.

[UoUo]

Yoc can think what ever you want..israel gave in camp david 96 % of the land....the other 4 % were goven from the "negev"
the palstinian refuse...cuz israel did't agree to "right of return"

[S'13]

I think Oslo and Camp David were an attempt to keep as much land as possible without having to bother with millions of palestnians

Really? Well Dennis Ross doesn't seem to think so:


Interview with Dennis Ross about the Camp David Summit and the continued behind-the-scenes peace talks

Following is a transcripted excerpt from Fox News Sunday, April 21, 2002.

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS:
Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross has worked to achieve Middle East peace throughout President Clinton's final days in office. In the months following Clinton's failed peace summit at Camp David, U.S. negotiators continued behind-the-scenes peace talks with the Palestinians and Israelis up until January 2001, and that followed Clinton's presentation of ideas at the end of December 2000.

Dennis Ross joins us now with more details on all that, and Fred Barnes joins the questioning.

So, Dennis, talk to us a little bit, if you can -- I might note that we're proud to able to say that you're a Fox News contributing analyst.

DENNIS ROSS: Thank you.

HUME: Talk to us about the sequence of events. The Camp David talks, there was an offer. That was rejected. Talks continued. You come now to December, and the president has a new set of ideas. What unfolded?

ROSS: Let me give you the sequence, because I think it puts all this in perspective.

Number one, at Camp David we did not put a comprehensive set of ideas on the table. We put ideas on the table that would have affected the borders and would have affected Jerusalem.

Arafat could not accept any of that. In fact, during the 15 days there, he never himself raised a single idea. His negotiators did, to be fair to them, but he didn't. The only new idea he raised at Camp David was that the temple didn't exist in Jerusalem, it existed in Nablus.

HUME: This is the temple where Ariel Sharon paid a visit, which was used as a kind of a pre-text for the beginning of the new intifada, correct?

ROSS: This is the core of the Jewish faith.

HUME: Right.

ROSS: So he was denying the core of the Jewish faith there.

After the summit, he immediately came back to us and he said, "We need to have another summit," to which we said, "We just shot our wad. We got a no from you. You're prepared actually do a deal before we go back to something like that."

He agreed to set up a private channel between his people and the Israelis, which I joined at the end of August. And there were serious discussions that went on, and we were poised to present our ideas the end of September, which is when the intifada erupted. He knew we were poised to present the ideas. His own people were telling him they looked good. And we asked him to intervene to ensure there wouldn't be violence after the Sharon visit, the day after. He said he would. He didn't lift a finger.

Now, eventually we were able to get back to a point where private channels between the two sides led each of them to again ask us to present the ideas. This was in early December. We brought the negotiators here.

HUME: Now, this was a request to the Clinton administration...

ROSS: Yes.

HUME: ... to formulate a plan. Both sides wanted this?

ROSS: Absolutely.

HUME: All right.

ROSS: Both sides asked us to present these ideas.

HUME: All right. And they were?

ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 by the president, and they basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go to the Palestinians.

On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capitol of the Palestinian state.

On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs.

And when it came to security, there would be a international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley.

These were ideas that were comprehensive, unprecedented, stretched very far, represented a culmination of an effort in our best judgment as to what each side could accept after thousands of hours of debate, discussion with each side.

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Now, Palestinian officials say to this day that Arafat said yes.

ROSS: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.

HUME: What was he supposed to give?

ROSS: He supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be for the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected that.

HUME: He rejected their being able to have that?

ROSS: He rejected that.

He rejected the idea on the refugees. He said we need a whole new formula, as if what we had presented was non-existent.

He rejected the basic ideas on security. He wouldn't even countenance the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian airspace.

You know when you fly into Israel today you go to Ben Gurion. You fly in over the West Bank because you can't -- there's no space through otherwise. He rejected that.

So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him he rejected.

HUME: Now, let's take a look at the map. Now, this is what -- how the Israelis had created a map based on the president's ideas. And...

ROSS: Right.

HUME: ... what can we -- that situation shows that the territory at least is contiguous. What about Gaza on that map?

ROSS: The Israelis would have gotten completely out of Gaza.

ROSS: And what you see also in this line, they show an area of temporary Israeli control along the border.

HUME: Right.

ROSS: Now, that was an Israeli desire. That was not what we presented. But we presented something that did point out that it would take six years before the Israelis would be totally out of the Jordan Valley.

So that map there that you see, which shows a very narrow green space along the border, would become part of the orange. So the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous.

HUME: Cantons being ghettos, in effect...

ROSS: Right.

HUME: ... that would be cut off from other parts of the Palestinian state.

ROSS: Completely untrue.

And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage.

BARNES: I have two other questions. One, the Palestinians point out that this was never put on paper, this offer. Why not?

ROSS: We presented this to them so that they could record it. When the president presented it, he went over it at dictation speed. He then left the cabinet room. I stayed behind. I sat with them to be sure, and checked to be sure that every single word.

The reason we did it this way was to be sure they had it and they could record it. But we told the Palestinians and Israelis, if you cannot accept these ideas, this is the culmination of the effort, we withdraw them. We did not want to formalize it. We wanted them to understand we meant what we said. You don't accept it, it's not for negotiation, this is the end of it, we withdraw it.

So that's why they have it themselves recorded. And to this day, the Palestinians have not presented to their own people what was available.

BARNES: In other words, Arafat might use it as a basis for further negotiations so he'd get more?

ROSS: Well, exactly.

HUME: Which is what, in fact, he tried to do, according to your account.

ROSS: We treated it as not only a culmination. We wanted to be sure it couldn't be a floor for negotiations.

HUME: Right.

ROSS: It couldn't be a ceiling. It was the roof.

HUME: This was a final offer?

ROSS: Exactly. Exactly right.

HUME: This was the solution.

BARNES: Was Arafat alone in rejecting it? I mean, what about his negotiators?

ROSS: It's very clear to me that his negotiators understood this was the best they were ever going to get. They wanted him to accept it. He was not prepared to accept it.

HUME: Now, it is often said that this whole sequence of talks here sort of fell apart or ended or broke down or whatever because of the intervention of the Israeli elections. What about that?

ROSS: The real issue you have to understand was not the Israeli elections. It was the end of the Clinton administration. The reason we would come with what was a culminating offer was because we were out of time.

They asked us to present the ideas, both sides. We were governed by the fact that the Clinton administration was going to end, and both sides said we understand this is the point of decision.

HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said no?

ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.

Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.

HUME: Might it not also have been true, though, Dennis, that, because the intifada had already begun -- so you had the Camp David offer rejected, the violence begins anew, a new offer from the Clinton administration comes along, the Israelis agree to it, Barak agrees to it...

ROSS: Yes.

HUME: ... might he not have concluded that the violence was working?

ROSS: It is possible he concluded that. It is possible he thought he could do and get more with the violence. There's no doubt in my mind that he thought the violence would create pressure on the Israelis and on us and maybe the rest of the world.

And I think there's one other factor. You have to understand that Barak was able to reposition Israel internationally. Israel was seen as having demonstrated unmistakably it wanted peace, and the reason it wasn't available, achievable was because Arafat wouldn't accept it.

Arafat needed to re-establish the Palestinians as a victim, and unfortunately they are a victim, and we see it now in a terrible way.

HUME: Dennis Ross, thank you so much.

[Mr. Nielsen]

Dennis Ross is telling the same version of events as President Clinton.

The following is an article written by Robert Malley, who was also present in Camp David.


July 8, 2001


Fictions About the Failure at Camp David

By ROBERT MALLEY





ASHINGTON — A year ago this week, President Bill Clinton, Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel and the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat gathered at Camp David for what, in retrospect, many consider a turning point in Israeli-Palestinian relations. From right to left, hawks to doves, comes unusual harmony of opinion both here and in Israel: Camp David is said to have been a test that Mr. Barak passed and Mr. Arafat failed. Offered close to 99 percent of their dreams, the thinking goes, the Palestinians said no and chose to hold out for more. Worse, they did not present any concession of their own, adopting a no-compromise attitude that unmasked their unwillingness to live peacefully with a Jewish state by their side.

I was at Camp David, a member of the small American peace team, and I, too, was frustrated almost to the point of despair by the Palestinians' passivity and inability to seize the moment. But there is no purpose — and considerable harm — in adding to their real mistakes a list of fictional ones. Here are the most dangerous myths about the Camp David summit.

Myth 1: Camp David was an ideal test of Mr. Arafat's intentions.

Mr. Arafat told us on numerous occasions that he had not wanted to go to Camp David. He thought that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators had not sufficiently narrowed the gaps separating their positions before the summit, and once there, he made clear in his comments that he felt both isolated from the Arab world and alienated by the close Israeli-American partnership. Moreover, the summit occurred at a low point in Mr. Arafat's relationship with Mr. Barak — the man with whom he was supposed to strike a historic deal. A number of Israeli commitments, including a long-postponed Israeli withdrawal from parts of the West Bank and the transfer to Palestinian control of villages abutting Jerusalem, remained unfulfilled, and Mr. Arafat believed that Mr. Barak was simply trying to skirt his obligations. It also took a genuine leap of faith — for Mr. Barak as for the United States — to imagine that the 100-year conflict between Jews and Palestinians living in this region, with roots going back thousands of years more and tens of thousands of victims along the way, could be resolved in a fortnight without any of the core issues — territory, refugees, or the fate of Jerusalem — having previously been discussed by the leaders.

Myth 2: Israel's offer met most if not all of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations.

Yes, what was put on the table was more far-reaching than anything any Israeli leader had discussed in the past — whether with the Palestinians or with Washington. But it was not the dream offer it has been made out to be, at least not from a Palestinian perspective.

To accommodate the settlers, Israel was to annex 9 percent of the West Bank; in exchange, the new Palestinian state would be granted sovereignty over parts of Israel proper, equivalent to one-ninth of the annexed land. A Palestinian state covering 91 percent of the West Bank and Gaza was more than most Americans or Israelis had thought possible, but how would Mr. Arafat explain the unfavorable 9-to-1 ratio in land swaps to his people?

In Jerusalem, Palestine would have been given sovereignty over many Arab neighborhoods of the eastern half and over the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City. While it would enjoy custody over the Haram al Sharif, the location of the third- holiest Muslim shrine, Israel would exercise overall sovereignty over this area, known to Jews as the Temple Mount. This, too, was far more than had been thinkable only a few weeks earlier, and a very difficult proposition for the Israeli people to accept. But how could Mr. Arafat have justified to his people that Israel would retain sovereignty over some Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, let alone over the Haram al Sharif? As for the future of refugees — for many Palestinians, the heart of the matter — the ideas put forward at Camp David spoke vaguely of a "satisfactory solution," leading Mr. Arafat to fear that he would be asked to swallow an unacceptable last-minute proposal.

Myth 3: The Palestinians made no concession of their own.

Many have come to believe that the Palestinians' rejection of the Camp David ideas exposed an underlying rejection of Israel's right to exist. But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem — neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel — not Anwar el- Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria — ever came close to even considering such compromises.

If peace is to be achieved, the parties cannot afford to tolerate the growing acceptance of these myths as reality.

The facts do not indicate, however, any lack of foresight or vision on the part of Ehud Barak. He had uncommon political courage as well. But the measure of Israel's concessions ought not be how far it has moved from its own starting point; it must be how far it has moved toward a fair solution.

The Palestinians did not meet their historic responsibilities at the summit either. I suspect they will long regret their failure to respond to President Clinton — at Camp David and later on — with more forthcoming and comprehensive ideas of their own.

Finally, Camp David was not rushed. It was many things — inadequately prepared for, perhaps; too informal, possibly; lacking proper fall-back options, without a doubt — but premature it was not. By the spring of 2000, every serious Israeli, Palestinian and American analyst was predicting an outbreak of Palestinian violence absent a major breakthrough in the peace process. The Oslo process had run its natural course; if anything, tackling the sensitive final status issues came too late, not too soon.



The gloss that is put on the past matters. The way the two sides choose to view yesterday largely will determine how they choose to behave tomorrow. And, if unchallenged, their respective interpretations will gradually harden into divergent versions of reality and unassailable truths — that Yasir Arafat is incapable of reaching a final agreement, for example, or that Israel is intent on perpetuating an oppressive regime. As the two sides continue to debate what went wrong at Camp David, it is important that they get the lessons right.

Robert Malley was special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs to President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001. He is joining the Council on Foreign Relations as a senior fellow.

This is the source: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/08/opinion/08MALL.html?ex=1071550800&en=00588c3c70f9837e&ei=5070

[Javehn]

Mr. Nielsen , this article saying exactly the same , that all Israelies members trying to say here , and it's saying exactly what S'13 said before . It's prooves the same thing over and over again , about Oslo agreements . There is one saying from the place i came : you give pig to sit on chair next to table , then he will put his legs on the table ..
No matter what proposals Araphat get , he still wanted more of it . We just can't take our pence down , let him to do us from behind , and thank the world on it . He wanted over 13 percent of Israeli land to West Bank . That creates very rough strategic position for Israel -in map it looks like central Israel have something like 20 km in length , and it's very easy to "strangle" us , and cut Israel to 2 parts this way . That was one of the reasons that Israel started to attack to Jordanian territory on 6 day war , before they did just that to us .