According to Palestenian sources...

[mrdave543]

What Really Happens Pallywood


8/1/2006 - This is a really interesting 60 minutes segment from a few years ago about how the Palestinians use their own camera crews and actors to basically set up war scenes in their favor. Their calling it Pallywood and I thought it was pretty relavent considering whats happening now in the middle east


http://www.break.com/index/what_really_happens_pallywood.html


This type of stuff happens all the time and goes undocumented, another reason to not trust the media IMO

Go Israel!!

[tigermission1]

So you're saying there is propoganda from the 'other' side? Shocking!

[mrdave543]

So you're saying there is propoganda from the 'other' side? Shocking!

solid response :rolleyes:

explain the propoganda the israelis have produced?

[tigermission1]

solid response :rolleyes:

explain the propoganda the israelis have produced?

Both sides use massive propaganda to gain support for their cause. As we speak, the Israelis and their pro-Israel 'agents' have a solid lead in that department, but the Palestinians have learned quickly and are now doing a much better job at winning the 'propaganda war', which is gaining them support worldwide.

Propaganda is an important tool and both sides are using it extensively.

[mrdave543]

Both sides use massive propaganda to gain support for their cause. As we speak, the Israelis and their pro-Israel 'agents' have a solid lead in that department, but the Palestinians have learned quickly and are now doing a much better job at winning the 'propaganda war', which is gaining them support worldwide.

Propaganda is an important tool and both sides are using it extensively.

Again you have not cited anything remotely close to what was produced years ago according to 60 minutes. Israel is always under the microscope when it comes to killings of "innocent civlians" but that is all Hezbollah/Hamas and the palestenians use as their reason for attacking Israel, yet all Hezbollah is doing is shooting random missles into innocent civilian populations in Israel but do not have the accuracy....Obvioulsy we both can agree to disagree on the matter but Israel is constantly potrayed as killing innocent civilians when there is no other option.

[blazer_ben]

Both sides are bad as eachother. the worst thing here is, it's the innocent who are bound to suffer.

[ROXRAN]

Both sides are bad as eachother. the worst thing here is, it's the innocent who are bound to suffer.

the quicker we can get to step#1, the better...

Step#1 is either the complete destruction or deconstruction of Hezbollah...I wish the best for the lebanese people...It is the world's fault that we have allowed Hezbollah to instill itself the way it has had...

[FranchiseBlade]

solid response :rolleyes:

explain the propoganda the israelis have produced?
Israel likes to claim that they were living peaceful until they were attacked the instant they were created. Of course the people would eventually become the govt. of Israel had already occupied several Palestinian villages outside the boundaries set aside for Israeli land.

They like to claim and have many believing that they were attacked in '67 as well, which is also false.

Israel won't tell you that they have had military orders to destroy any Palestinian businesses which could compete economically, until very recently they wouldn't allow Palestinians to drill new water wells. They then used slant drilling to take the water from underneath Palestinian wells. ISrael gave more water to its settlers for washing than Palestinians had to irrigate, cook, clean, and drink.

Israel has spread the word that the PAlestinians turned down Oslo which offered them 95% of what they asked for. That is also false. IT was actually about 70% and it wasn't the land with any resources. Furthermore Israeli propoganda won't tell you that they didn't live up to their end of the agreements and rather than getting rid of settlements they actually increased them.

Just like now the Israelis don't publicize that they didn't live up to their end of the 48 hour period in which their air bombing should have stopped so humanitarian aid could get through. They didn't even wait 24 hours.

They regularly call the abduction of its soldiers a terrorist act. But that act was against a military unit, and not against civilians. The Israeli propoganda does this time and time again.

[blazer_ben]

the quicker we can get to step#1, the better...

Step#1 is either the complete destruction or deconstruction of Hezbollah...I wish the best for the lebanese people...It is the world's fault that we have allowed Hezbollah to instill itself the way it has had...


Agreed. hezbollah is a evil entity that has been Surrving on the iranian peoples natural resources. the hezbollah and the mollahs dissapear, the better off the free world will be.

[Mr. Clutch]

Agreed. hezbollah is a evil entity that has been Surrving on the iranian peoples natural resources. the hezbollah and the mollahs dissapear, the better off the free world will be.

Let's give Israel a chance to annihilate Hezbollah.

[blazer_ben]

Until the theocracy in iran is in power, terrorist groups like hezbollah will survive. you have to cut the dragons head off. not it's proxies. the mollahs are the source of terrorisim.

[ROXRAN]

Israel likes to claim that they were living peaceful until they were attacked theIsrael has spread the word that the PAlestinians turned down Oslo which offered them 95% of what they asked for. That is also false. IT was actually about 70% and it wasn't the land with any resources. Furthermore Israeli propoganda won't tell you that they didn't live up to their end of the agreements and rather than getting rid of settlements they actually increased them.



FB, I have questions on the above...What exact parts of the land had resources? How does it differ from defined territory that is now recognized to be part of Israel? Did Israel have to give up it's territory in addition to the gaza strip and almost all of the golan heights? Why not a counteroffer? If you say Israel didn't live up to it's end of the agreements, does this make any sense considering there wan't any agreement that was agreed to?

If the deal involved a range of 70% to 95% of what was asked for, what disparity of percentage would have brought it closer to 100% and how do you define that? Would the extra land of resources had brought it closer to 100%? what else in the deal? If it's too late, please answer tommarrow...I will do some research as well...Should be fun,...Huh...?

[FranchiseBlade]

FB, I have questions on the above...What exact parts of the land had resources? How does it differ from defined territory that is now recognized to be part of Israel? Did Israel have to give up it's territory in addition to the gaza strip and almost all of the golan heights? Why not a counteroffer? If you say Israel didn't live up to it's end of the agreements, does this make any sense considering there wan't any agreement that was agreed to?

If the deal involved a range of 70% to 95% of what was asked for, what disparity of percentage would have brought it closer to 100% and how do you define that? Would the extra land of resources had brought it closer to 100%? what else in the deal? If it's too late, please answer tommarrow...I will do some research as well...Should be fun,...Huh...?
First of all the land with Israeli settlements on it aren't defined or recognized as part of Israel, even by Israel itself. Israel doesn't want to do that or they will lose their Jewish majority.

The land has resources such as water which is probably the most valuable commodity there is in the region. You do understand living in the U.S. that land in the desert is going to have different resources than on our fertile plains right? It is like giving the Palestinians all the desert land, and Israel taking all the fertile plains and then spreading the word that the Palestinians don't want peace because they wouldn't accept that deal.

Here is some info on it, collected by the group Jews For Justice.

"Israel has failed the test"

"In the Oslo Agreements, Israel and the West put Palestinian leadership to a test: In exchange for an Israeli promise to gradually dismantle the mechanisms of the occupation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian leadership promised to stop every act of violence and terror immediately. For that purpose, all the apparatus for security coordination was created, more and more Palestinian jails were built, and demonstrators were barred from approaching the [Jewish] settlements.

"The two sides agreed on a period of five years for completion of the new deployment and the negotiations on a final agreement. The Palestinian leadership agreed again and again to extend its trial period...From their perspective, Israel was also put to a test: Was Israel really giving up its attitude of superiority and domination, built up in order to keep the Palestinian people under its control?

"More than seven years have gone by and Israel has security and administrative control of 61.2% of the West Bank and about 20% of the Gaza Strip and security control over another 26.8% of the West Bank. This control is what has enabled Israel to double the number of settlers in 10 years..and to seal an entire nation into restricted areas, imprisoned in a network of bypass roads meant for Jews only...

"Israel has failed the test. Palestinians control of 12% of the West Bank does not mean that Israel has given up its attitude of superiority and domination...The bloodbath that has been going on for three weeks is the natural outcome of seven years of [Israeli] lying and deception." Israeli journalist Amira Hass, "Israel Has Failed The Test," in Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, 10/18/00.

Jimmy Carter's simple statement of the facts - November 2000

"An underlying reason that years of U.S. diplomacy have failed and violence in the Middle East persists is that some Israeli leaders continue to 'create facts' by building settlements in occupied territory...

"At Camp David in September 1978...the bilateral provisions led to a comprehensive and lasting treaty between Egypt and Israel, made possible at the last minute by Israel's agreement to remove its settlers from the Sinai. But similar constraints concerning the status of the West Bank and Gaza have not been honored, and have led to continuing confrontation and violence...

"[Concerning UN Resolution 242] Our government's legal commitment to support this well-balanced resolution has not changed...It was clear that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories were a direct violation of this agreement and were, according to the long-stated American position, both 'illegal and an obstacle to peace.' Accordingly, Prime Minister Begin pledged that there would be no establishment of new settlements until after the final peace negotiations were completed. But later, under Likud pressure, he declined to honor this commitment...

"It is unlikely that real progress can be made...as long as Israel insists on its settlement policy, illegal under international laws that are supported by the United States and all other nations.

"There are many questions as we contine to seek an end to violence in the Middle East, but there is no way to escape the vital one: Land or peace?" Former President Jimmy Carter in The Washington Post, November 26, 2000.

Oslo and Intifada 2000 - continued

"After three weeks of virtual war in the Israeli occupied territories, Prime Minister Ehud Barak announced a new plan to determine the final status of the region. During these weeks, over 100 Palestinians were killed, including 30 children, often by 'excessive use of lethal force in circumstances in which neither the lives of security forces nor others were in immminent danger, resulting in unlawful killings,' Amnesty International concluded in a detailed report that was scarcely mentioned in the US.

"Barak's plan...ensure(s) that useable land and resources (primarily water) remain largely in Israeli hands while the population is administered by a corrupt and brutal Palestinian Authority (PA), playing the role traditionally assigned to indigenous collaborators under the several varieties of imperial rule: the Black leadership of South Africa's Bantustans, to mention only the most obvious analagoue...

"It is important to recall that the policies have not only been proposed, but implemented, with the support of the U.S. That support has been decisive since 1971, when Washington abandoned the basic diplomatic framework that it had initiated (UN Security Council Resolution 242), then pursued its unilateral rejection of Palestinian rights in the years that followed, culminating in the 'Oslo process.' Since all of this has been effectively vetoed from history in the US., it takles a little work to discover the essential facts. They are not controversial, only evaded," Noam Chomsky, "Al-Aqsa Intifada", October 2000, on Znet, [url]www.lbbs.org/meastwatch[/url]

What Arafat was offered - continued

"Barak appears to be asking for only 10% of the occupied territories. In reality, it's closer to 30%, taking into account the territories he wants to annex in the Jerusalem area and place under his "security control" in the Jordan Valley. But even worse, in the map submitted to the Palestinians, these percentage points cut the country up from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state will consist of groups of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers.

"World opinion is always on the side of the underdog. In this fight, we are Goliath and they are David. In the eyes of the world [outside the US], the Palestinians are fighting a war of liberation against a foreign occupation. We are in their territory, not they on ours. We are the occupiers, they are the victims. This is the objective situation, and no minister of propaganda can change that." Israeli peace activist. Uri Avnery, "12 Conventional Lies About the Palestine-Israeli Conflict" from Palestine Media Watch, [url]www.pmwatch.org[/url].

Oslo and Intifada 2000 - continued

"After three weeks of virtual war in the Israeli occupied territories, Prime Minister Ehud Barak announced a new plan to determine the final status of the region. During these weeks, over 100 Palestinians were killed, including 30 children, often by 'excessive use of lethal force in circumstances in which neither the lives of security forces nor others were in immminent danger, resulting in unlawful killings,' Amnesty International concluded in a detailed report that was scarcely mentioned in the US.

"Barak's plan...ensure(s) that useable land and resources (primarily water) remain largely in Israeli hands while the population is administered by a corrupt and brutal Palestinian Authority (PA), playing the role traditionally assigned to indigenous collaborators under the several varieties of imperial rule: the Black leadership of South Africa's Bantustans, to mention only the most obvious analagoue...

"It is important to recall that the policies have not only been proposed, but implemented, with the support of the U.S. That support has been decisive since 1971, when Washington abandoned the basic diplomatic framework that it had initiated (UN Security Council Resolution 242), then pursued its unilateral rejection of Palestinian rights in the years that followed, culminating in the 'Oslo process.' Since all of this has been effectively vetoed from history in the US., it takles a little work to discover the essential facts. They are not controversial, only evaded," Noam Chomsky, "Al-Aqsa Intifada", October 2000, on Znet, [url]www.lbbs.org/meastwatch.http://www.cactus48.com/intifada2000.html[/url]

You can start there and go to the website for more information which dissiminates alot of the propoganda from the truth.

Here is more on the water resources and problems

Israel controls the greater part of the Jordan River basin and the West Bank's aquifers. Palestinian consumption is severely restricted by the military authorities, causing serious water deficiencies in most Palestinian homes. Questions of rights to water resources have thus far been insufficiently addressed in both the multilateral negotiating fora and the Israeli-Palestinian bilateral agreements, the DOP and Cairo Agreement. Yet any attempt to bypass the allocation dispute will lead, at best, to an unstable final settlement. This paper outlines a set of much-needed measures. Firstly, Israel should instigate a number of confidence building measures: a recognition of Palestinian water rights, and an increase in water supply to Gaza and the West Bank. Secondly, Israel and Palestine should adopt a Water Charter: this could act as a springboard for the agreement of an integrated water program in which allocation, conservation, enhancement and quality are considered as a totality.
[url]http://www.arij.org/pub/corissues/[/url]

Over the past two years these restrictions have become more acute, and in many places more permanent, with the construction of a “separation barrier” inside the West Bank. While the stated Israeli security rationale for the barrier is to prevent Palestinian armed groups from carrying out attacks in Israel, 85 percent of its route extends into the West Bank, effectively annexing to Israel most of the large illegal Jewish settlements constructed over the past several decades as well as confiscating some of the most productive Palestinian farmlands and key water resources. *
[url]http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/isrlpa9806.htm[/url]

Human Rights Watch asserts that Israel's plan to remove settlers and troops from Gaza will not end Israeli occupation. Israel will continue to control Gaza's coastline, borders and airspace as well as telecommunications, water, electricity and sewage networks. In addition, Israel's "overwhelming power over the territory's economy and its access to trade" could lead to a worsened economy in Gaza following withdrawal. International law, including the Geneva Convention, contradicts the plan's assertion that "disengagement" absolves Israel of any responsibility for Palestinians living in Gaza. [url]http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/occupindex.htm[/url]

This one even talks about Oslo would have cemented Israel's control over almost all the water in the territories.


Control over water resources may provide a clue as to the purpose of this wall. Control over water resources has long been one of the primary objectives of Israeli settlement policy, even dating back to before the existence of Israel. From the 1930s on, the Zionist movement focused its settlement activities on fertile land. The policy has been consistent ever since, from the Jordan Valley to the coastal aquifers in the west and south. It is no accident that the Gaza settlements lie on top of the Gaza Aquifer in the Strip.

Since the overexploitation of the waters of the Jordan River and the Coastal Aquifer, the aquifers of the West Bank, particularly the Western Aquifer, became the center of focus. Consequently, the Israeli occupation authorities prohibited Palestinians from digging wells in those areas, and Israeli officials publicly stressed the importance to Israel of maintaining control over the mountainous regions of the West Bank that straddle the aquifer. In 1991, for example, then Israeli Minister of Agriculture Rafael Eitan told the Jerusalem Post that Israeli water needs made it imperative for Israel to retain control over those areas.

Indeed, the Oslo Accords tried to cement Israeli control over the water resources there, and as late as the Camp David negotiations the Israeli side clearly stated that it would not accept any autonomous Palestinian control over the Western Aquifer.
[url]http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2004/0819waterwall.htm[/url]

Above ground, the Jordan River connects all communities of the Levant: Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Syria and the Occupied West Bank. Most significantly, 80% of Jordan River Valley Basin, including Lake Tiberias (also known as the Sea of Galilee) and its principal arteries, straddles Israeli controlled territory, including the Occupied Syrian Golan Heights, Jordan and the West Bank.* From the north the Upper Jordan River flows into Lake Tiberias, the north-west portion of which is used extensively by Israel to withdraw and transport water through the National Water Carrier to coastal cities and the Negev desert. This surface water comprises about 30% of Israel’s total water consumption. Groundwater aquifers underlying the West Bank, Gaza, the Galilee, and the Negev, as well as desalination and wastewater recycling programs supply the rest . The large volume of water extracted sharply reduces the flow of the Lower Jordan River, which runs along the north-west border between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the West Bank. Since the beginning of the Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank in 1967, land adjoining the Lower Jordan River has been declared a “closed military zone” and, thus, for Palestinians, access to the Lower Jordan River has been consistently denied.

Israeli control over pumping and distribution of the two main groundwater aquifers has severely restricted Palestinian water use. This remains the main source of tension regarding water between Israel and Palestinians in the territories. Much of the West Bank sits atop the Mountain Aquifer, composed of the Western, Eastern, and North-Eastern basins. The Gaza strip and coastal south Israel share the Coastal Aquifer Basin, of which the portion underneath Gaza provides a mostly independent source of extraction and recharge.

The Mountain Aquifer underlying, for the most part, the West Bank, provides approximately 30% of Israel’s water supply.* It supplies Israel’s growing settlements as well as its military infrastructure in the West Bank, and a substantial amount is redirected to the state of Israel proper. In terms of groundwater obtained, Israel “receives 79% of the Mountain Aquifer and the Palestinians 21%.”*

The discrepancy in comparative usage and consumption is glaring. Out of a total available groundwater of 1, 209 million cubic meters mcm/year in Israel and the West Bank, 1,046 mcm/year is currently for the benefit of Israel, while only 259 mcm/year is allocated to the Palestinians.* And Palestinian residents continue to be denied access to surface water from the Lower Jordan River. As a result of this lopsided water usage, water consumption levels are reaching dangerously low levels in certain Palestinian areas.
*
According to recommended standards of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S Agency for International Development (USAID),* a minimum of 100 liters a day per capita are needed for balanced and healthy domestic consumption in rural households.* In contrast, B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, documents that Israeli per capita consumption of water already reaches 350 l/day, about five-times Palestinian consumption.* Per capita consumption of water in Israeli settlements, most of which are strategically located directly above main water extraction sources, can reach even higher levels, estimated at “seven-fold” the Palestinian consumption rate.* In contrast, Palestinian consumption rates per capita vary between 35-80 l/c/d , well below WHO and USAID recommendations, and in some communities, water consumption can dip to as low as 7 l/c/d under certain conditions.*

Areas most affected by water shortages and pollution are “residents of villages and refugee camps in the Occupied Territories not connected to a running water network.”* A recent survey of Palestinian villages and rural communities by the Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG) in the West Bank underscores the volatile nature of water distribution and the adverse effects of the political, economic, and military policies of the Israeli presence in the territory. The Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Monitoring Project (WaSH MP) estimates that 31% of non-urban “Palestinian communities are not currently connected to a water network.”* Moreover, the water supply to those who are being supplied by Mekorot, the national Israeli water carrier, is, nevertheless, unstable. 76% of the communities surveyed “reported a reduction in or, in some cases, a complete halt to their supply of water,” forcing many to seek unreliable, often contaminated alternative means of satisfying basic needs, for example through tankers, cisterns and springs. As a result, communities throughout the West Bank have experienced a large increase in water-related diseases, including skin-infections, diarrhea and amoeba.*

Inequitable distribution of water is becoming more severe by growing ‘facts on the ground’ that have entrenched the Israeli presence and control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
[url]http://fmep.org/analysis/articles/water_policy_maher.html[/url]

I'm sorry but any treaty that doesn't address these issues isn't realistic and is the true fantasy. It isn't quibbling about a few extra acres of land, it is a matter of survival.

[FranchiseBlade]

Here is more on water and the Oslo accords.

During the period, from September 1995 to May 1999, there was a nominal transfer of responsibility for the water sector to the areas governed by the Palestinian Authority, but this accomplished only limited changes in the actual distribution of water.* The Joint Water Committee proved unable to facilitate equitable water distribution arrangements since Israel retained a “virtual veto power”* in the Committee and was unwilling to fulfill agreed obligations. For example, during this period, there was an agreement to increase the water supply to the OPT “by some 30 percent.”* Nevertheless, according to B’Tselem, by June 2000, before the outbreak of the second Intifada, only half of this “promised additional quantity was produced and supplied to the Palestinians.”*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The water crisis for Palestinians, which is growing worse, is, foremost, a direct product of the military occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel.* The exploitation of Palestinian water resources by Israel, inequitable distribution of joint resources, the construction of the barrier inside the West Bank, the restrictions on movement within the occupied territories, and continued military activities by the Israel Defense Forces all contribute to the deteriorating Palestinian water and health situation. These problems will not be addressed by creating alternative sources of water, such as desalinization plants, that Israel is planning to reduce water shortages for Israelis.* Relief for Palestinians will require the dismantling of Israel’s military and civilian occupation infrastructure throughout the Palestinian territories and equitable access to water for Palestinians. If pursued in accordance with international law, this would greatly alleviate Palestinian suffering and reenergize agricultural and economic output.

In the longer term, since water inextricably binds Israelis and Palestinians together, they must deal with it as a joint issue that demands an integrated, cooperative approach. The status quo, within Israel and between Israel and Palestine, only perpetuates the unsustainable reality of water exploitation, misallocation and overuse. When final status negotiations are resumed – or preferably before if the parties can move toward accommodation and a shared vision of peace in the interim - water must be addressed as a primary humanitarian, public health and economic issue, not as a secondary environmental problem.
http://fmep.org/analysis/articles/water_policy_maher.html

There is a great injustice going on in the occupied territories. The Palestinians are the victims, and the Israelis are the perpetrators.

The fact is that UN resolution 242 calls for Israel to withdraw to its 67 borders. To allow them to keep all the water in the region, not follow that resolution and give the Palestinian a land that can not support them, is a huge injustice, an unrealistic solution, and one that should never be allowed to happen.

[ROXRAN]

You make decent points, FB...but why was there at least not a counteroffer?

If the agreement would be accepted simply by according to 1967 borders, then why this was not included in a counteroffer...

I recall Israel's offer included wording which offered negotiation on topics such as resources if the agreement was initially accepted.

Also please answer this: If you say Israel didn't live up to it's end of the agreements, does this make any sense considering there wan't any agreement that was agreed to?

BTW, this is an aspect which supports that "resources" was to be included in negotiation IF the offer was accepted...(from wiki.) Permanent issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, Israeli settlements in the area, security and borders were deliberately excluded from the Accords and left to be decided. The interim self-government was to be granted in phases.

[Cohen]

FB,

Thanks for bringing up the water issue. I don't think that it's been discussed here previously.

[FranchiseBlade]

You make decent points, FB...but why was there at least not a counteroffer?

If the agreement would be accepted simply by according to 1967 borders, then why this was not included in a counteroffer...

I recall Israel's offer included wording which offered negotiation on topics such as resources if the agreement was initially accepted.

Also please answer this: If you say Israel didn't live up to it's end of the agreements, does this make any sense considering there wan't any agreement that was agreed to?

BTW, this is an aspect which supports that "resources" was to be included in negotiation IF the offer was accepted...(from wiki.) Permanent issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, Israeli settlements in the area, security and borders were deliberately excluded from the Accords and left to be decided. The interim self-government was to be granted in phases.

There were agreements reached. The overall agreement didn't come to fruition but there were portions that were agreed to.

This talks about specific agreement in the process. It is from one of the selections I posted above.

The first agreement of the Oslo process, the Gaza Jericho Agreement of 4 May, 1994 discussed the issue of water and sewage in Annex II, Article II regarding the Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities of the Civil Administration.

[FranchiseBlade]

FB,

Thanks for bringing up the water issue. I don't think that it's been discussed here previously.
Well the water issue isn't big news, because it isn't really exciting, or spectacular. And both sides don't really discuss it publically very much on news talk shows. So while I think it is extremely important, it almost never gets news coverage.

I think before we can blame one side or another for any land for peace deal that water issue has to be looked at.

But I think it is necessary to address before the land and who owns what can be decided. That is something that underlies almost all of the other problems.

[ROXRAN]

Well the water issue isn't big news, because it isn't really exciting, or spectacular. And both sides don't really discuss it publically very much on news talk shows. So while I think it is extremely important, it almost never gets news coverage.

I think before we can blame one side or another for any land for peace deal that water issue has to be looked at.

But I think it is necessary to address before the land and who owns what can be decided. That is something that underlies almost all of the other problems.

Cohen is right though...IMO, I believe this is one of your best points you have recently brought up...

[qrui]

Again you have not cited anything remotely close to what was produced years ago according to 60 minutes. Israel is always under the microscope when it comes to killings of "innocent civlians" but that is all Hezbollah/Hamas and the palestenians use as their reason for attacking Israel, yet all Hezbollah is doing is shooting random missles into innocent civilian populations in Israel but do not have the accuracy....Obvioulsy we both can agree to disagree on the matter but Israel is constantly potrayed as killing innocent civilians when there is no other option.

you see... the thing is one side is called terrorists and the other is not. a terrorist group by definition is aiming at civilians. the solution for your complain is to call them both terrorists. because it's actually what they both are, although neither of them admit it. one claims to be resistance force, the other says the civilians it kills are only collaterals.

[geeimsobored]

You make decent points, FB...but why was there at least not a counteroffer?

If the agreement would be accepted simply by according to 1967 borders, then why this was not included in a counteroffer...

I recall Israel's offer included wording which offered negotiation on topics such as resources if the agreement was initially accepted.

Also please answer this: If you say Israel didn't live up to it's end of the agreements, does this make any sense considering there wan't any agreement that was agreed to?

BTW, this is an aspect which supports that "resources" was to be included in negotiation IF the offer was accepted...(from wiki.) Permanent issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, Israeli settlements in the area, security and borders were deliberately excluded from the Accords and left to be decided. The interim self-government was to be granted in phases.

This was one of the big problems with Oslo. It left a lot of things up in the air but provided a basic framework for a future division of the Isreal and Palestine.

The biggest failure wasn't Israel or Palestine but rather it was the assasination of Rabin which basically crushed any sort of progress. Combined with the rise of Netanyahu and Likud, the best chance at peace disappeared.

While future questions like the right of return and Jerusalem weren't answered in Oslo, Oslo did explicity ban future settlements which Israel plainly ignored. Also, the Y river agreement with Netanyahu called for phased pullouts of Israel from Palestinian territory which were never truly fulfilled despite years of relative peace at the time.

Both sides screwed up majorly but don't pretend that Israel has been a servent of the law and its agreements because it has done plenty to violate accords to which it agreed to.

[tigermission1]

Some experts have been saying for a few years now that future conflicts would be fought over water more so than anything else.

[StupidMoniker]

The water issue is not a tough one to solve. Israel allows Palestine access to the lower Jordan River. Problem solved.

[FranchiseBlade]

The water issue is not a tough one to solve. Israel allows Palestine access to the lower Jordan River. Problem solved.
They need at least partial control of it, as well the aquifers. They also need access to the farmland. It would be easy if Israel would do it. But they haven't been willing to so far.