Arafat himself has said he's in favor of a two state solution. There are terrorist elements that definitely aren't and some members of the PLA that aren't in favor of a Jewish Israel. The same holds true for Israel. There are members of the ruling party who voted to never recognize a Palestinian state regardless of whether Arafat was the leader or not. They voted to not recognize a Palestinian state no matter what. They too want control of the whole area. The numbers feeling this way about the other has gone up and down to varying degrees since before 1948 even.
My reasoning is that all these people would still be alive if the Palestinian leadership was more committed to peace, and terror wasn't still the de facto answer to their ills. As long as that continues to be promoted, war will keep on, and it's the average Palestinian who will continue to suffer. And it will only get worse in time for them as what is left of their economy and infrastructure deteriorates completely from neglect.
Arafat says one thing in English to the world press and another in Arabic. There's plenty written about it. I saw some footage a year ago in the same day he talked about how he longed for peace with Israel and sought reconciliation, and then at a rally of his own people it was "Jihad, jihad, smite the Zionist occupiers and push them in the sea" stuff. It's depressing stuff.
I wasn't trying to support Arafat, just saying that it would be possible to get him to comit, and then include stipulations for what would happen if he or his Israeli counterpart broke the commitements and have an international force there to oversee things.
Wanna know the sad thing. There is no PALESTINIAN authority, there is no one group that leads the people, there are MANY MANY different sects of people doing there own thing trying to get their lands back, and or revenge for family members lost. There is not one single person that the whole of Palestinian people can rely on or listen to, and there is no way for the Palestinians to enforce any peace plan that they would want to.
The <i>Right of Return</i> was one of the key points that blocked any prospects of agreement between Barak (<i>Labor</i>) & Arafat in 2000 - early 2001. <hr color=green> <a HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/02/mideast.05/">Arafat concludes second meeting with Clinton</a> <i><b>Major differences remain</b> Although Clinton's proposals were never officially made public, reports indicated that they envisioned an independent Palestinian state covering 95 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza. Additionally, it is believed the proposals included Palestinian control over Haram al-Sharif, a Muslim holy spot in east Jerusalem, known to and revered by Jews as the Temple Mount. In exchange, the Palestinians were to drop their demand for a right of return for Palestinian refugees -- and their descendants -- who fled or were driven out of Israel when it was founded in 1948. Initially, the Israeli government indicated it was prepared, with reservations, to negotiate on the basis of Clinton's proposals, but the Palestinians declared they needed more details. In the days that followed, Barak said that he would never sign an agreement that handed over sovereignty of the Temple Mount. The Palestinians followed with a declaration that they would never give up the refugees' right of return to Israel, a point the Israelis said was non-negotiable. </i> <hr color=green> Roughly 18 months after Sharon (<i>Likud</i>) gains power, Arafat makes a statement that he is willing to accept Clinton's Peace Plan of 2000. <a HREF="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/06/21/arafat-full.htm">For first time, Arafat accepts Clinton's peace plan</a> <i>....Arafat did not repeat the demand for the right of return of all the refugees and their families to Israel, Eldar said. Instead, he said, a solution must be found for the 200,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, adding that he was calling on European and other world bodies to help. Israel has refused to take in large numbers of refugees. Lebanon says there are 350,000 refugees there......</i> <hr color=green> This past weekend, there was a gathering of notables from the political center & left of Israel that spoke out for the need to reach an agreement with the Palestinians. <a HREF="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/427755.html"> The left won't be held hostage by the Likud</a> <i>More than 150,000 people took part last night in a mass demonstration in Tel Aviv, and called on the government to pull out of Gaza and start peace talks. The figures are not official and will probably be challenged by the right wing. However, the exact number of protesters is less important in this case. The rally, organized by the umbrella organization of all the left-wing movements, set out to bring a larger number of people than the Likud's 60,000 members who foiled Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan. The throng that crowded into Rabin Square and spilled over into the surrounding streets gave an unequivocal proof they did. The terrorist attacks failed to get the peace camp out to the square. But the soldiers' deaths in Gaza, coupled with this public's sense of insult at being held hostage by Likud voters, drove the masses to the square........... The speakers at this rally were a little different from usual. Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin and Tzaly Reshef were accompanied by Amir Peretz, Ami Ayalon and a bereaved father, Yinon Ashkenazi. Between the politicians' speeches, an Arab female student, a young man about to enlist in the army and a young resident of Sderot contributed their own statements. People at the rally were already asking themselves how to continue the momentum created in the square. </i> <hr color=green> Beilin is the key Israeli behind the <i>Geneva Accord</i> and it doesn't give a complete <i>Right of Return</i> as Arafat & the Palestinians wanted in 2000. <a HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3245838.stm">Q&A: The Geneva accord</a> <i> It is a detailed, "unofficial" blueprint for peace sponsored by what is left of the Israeli and Palestinian peace camps. It is the result of two and a half years of secret negotiations led by former Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin and former Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo. Both are former official peace negotiators. <b> The initiative, which is being officially launched in Geneva on 1 December, has European backing, as well as verbal support from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. </b> Q: What does it propose? The basic framework looks like this: Palestinians would, in effect, give up the right of return for the hundreds of thousands of refugees who left or were driven out during previous wars. A few might go back, but only with Israeli agreement, while others would be able to come back to a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza or settle for good in their present host countries, mainly Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Some would get some form of compensation. In exchange, the Palestinians would recognise the Israeli state and get 97.5% of all the land occupied by Israel in the 1967 war......</i> <hr color=green> Ami Ayalon is the key figure behind the <i>People's Voice</i>. <a HREF="http://www.mifkad.org.il/eng/PrinciplesAgreement.asp">People's Choice Statment of Principles</a> <i>......Right of return: Recognizing the suffering and the plight of the Palestinian refugees, the international community, Israel, and the Palestinian State will initiate and contribute to an international fund to compensate them. Palestinian refugees will return only to the State of Palestine; Jews will return only to the State of Israel. The international community will offer to compensate toward bettering the lot of those refugees willing to remain in their present country of residence, or who wish to immigrate to third-party countries.........</i> <hr color=green> The Israelis (Beilin, Ayalon, Peres etc) who represent positive change for the Palestinian situation show some needed unity instead of being independent operators. Neither the <i>People's Voice</i> or the <i>Geneva Accord</i> give Arafat the full <i>Right of Return</i> that he asked for in 2000. Does Arafat do something positive to help the Israeli Peace Camp cause? On the same weekend of the Peace Camp gathering...... <a HREF="http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2004/May/middleeast_May436.xml§ion=middleeast">Arafat says refugees’ right of return is “holy” and backed by law</a> <i>........RAMALLAH, West Bank - Palestinian president Yasser Arafat said on Saturday that no one could legally deny the right of refugees to return to their homes, as thousands of Palestinians marched to mark the “Naqba”, or catastrophe, of Israel’s creation in 1948. In a televised address, Arafat said Israel could not turn a blind eye to the suffering caused when it came into being. “Israel cannot ignore its moral and political responsibility for this national tragedy which has hurt the Palestinian refugees,” he said. “The Palestinian refugees’ right of return is a holy right confirmed by international law. It is not right that anybody in the world deny the right of the refugees to return to their homes,” he said. Such a right was non-negotiable, he added. As Arafat was speaking, thousands of Palestinians took to the streets across the West Bank and Gaza, waving flags and carrying large keys in memory of the “Naqba”, AFP correspondents witnessed. In the West Bank city of Ramallah, over 2,500 people flocked to the centre, waving flags and chanting “No peace, no stability without the right of return”..........</i> <hr color=green> Arafat brings up a key demand that lead to the failure of the Clinton - Barak - Arafat talks of 2000. The Israeli Peace Camp gets a poke in the eye rather than something positive from Arafat. You didn't give details on the stipulations (punishment) that would happen if the agreement was broken, so I am unable to address that. Military action against the offending party? International Force between the two groups? 1) Israel seems opposed to the idea, while Arafat endorses it. 2) Why should the presence of UN and/or EU forces deter the demands & efforts of militant Palestinians for the elimination of Israel? 3) Probably the presence of 10,000 (minimum) troops between the two sides for a long time. That is a sizable commitment for something that is likely to be measured in years rather than months. 4) Based on Europe's failure to lead during the conflict in the Balkans in the 1990's, it is doubtful that the EU would have the stomach for a long term assignment in the Israel - Palestine area.
The right of return was a huge sticking point, and Israel will never grant it. That's why I like the Geneva accord so much. That's something that the Palestinians sacrifice, and is a big issue for them, in turn for what Israel gives up.
You have to love the language here. You cannot sacrifice something you do not have. All that the Palestinians give up in any of the proposed peace plans, EVER, is the continuation of their attacks on Israel. Since there are never any consequences detailed for what happens in the event that terror continues, they really aren't even giving that up. Basically the plan is for Israel to give the Palestinians a bunch of land, move their troops out of position so they cannot defend Israel as well anymore, and hope that the peace loving people of Palestine will suddenly decide that they don't REALLY want to kill all the Israelis and take the whole area for themselves. The Israelis are getting shafted worse than Germany after WWI and if any side could be considered the winners in this conflict, it is Israel.
Well they are giving up conditions. Since Israel forbids the Palestinians from having anything to give up that's about all they can sacrifice. They aren't allowed to have new water wells, they aren't allowed to own businesses that can compete economically with Israeli businesses, their lands our occupied. The only thing they can sacrifice are conditions.
Basically the plan is for Israel to give the Palestinians a bunch of land, move their troops out of position so they cannot defend Israel as well anymore, and hope that the peace loving people of Palestine will suddenly decide that they don't REALLY want to kill all the Israelis and take the whole area for themselves. Not true. Many In Israeli intelligence say that it is actually easier to defend Israelis at the border rather than putting settlers in the middle of millions of Palestinians. This is obvious. Sort of like trying to protect some Amerian sttlers in the middle of Fallujah, easier to protect them in say Kuwait. Thinkl!!!
anyone remember the israeli pilots that refused to take part in attacks on civilian areas? 20-30 of them from what i remember. even some israelis feel sharon's tactics are no different than the suicide bomber's.
It is much harder to go after the terrorist organizations that everyone seems to think will just disappear if the Israelis cut a deal when all of their troops are on the other side of the border, especially since they would not likely be allowed back.
anyone remember the israeli pilots that refused to take part in attacks on civilian areas? 20-30 of them from what i remember. even some israelis feel sharon's tactics are no different than the suicide bomber's. An important point to remember. There are many,who see the one group, pilots who shoot the missiles and the leaders who give the orders as admirable persons of high moral character, while the suicide bombers and their supporters as sub-human monsters. Let's face it, occasionally a near miracle occurs or at least could potentially occur and when the Israelis shoot the missile to kill the say Hamas leader is his apartment with his children there or in front of the mosque when services are letting out or on a crowded street, no innocents are killed. So allegedly that means the Israelis don't intend to kill innocents, while the suicide bombers do..
More cracks in Sharon's government and a searing indictment of Israel's Gaza offensive by the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister... Key Israeli Condemns Offensive in Gaza Cabinet Official Says Images Evoke Holocaust Images By Glenn Frankel Washington Post Foreign Service Sunday, May 23, 2004; 5:09 PM JERUSALEM, May 23 -- One of the key political moderates in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's cabinet deplored the Israel army's offensive in the Gaza Strip on Sunday, saying TV images reminded him of the suffering of his family during the Holocaust. In stark and emotional language, Deputy Prime Minister Yosef Lapid, who also holds the Justice ministry portfolio and is himself a Holocaust survivor, told Israeli radio that the country risked further international condemnation if the army continued its campaign of pursuing Palestinian gunmen, demolishing homes and expelling civilians from the heart of the populous Rafah refugee camp. "On TV I saw an old woman rummaging through the ruins of her house looking for her medication, and it reminded me of my grandmother who was thrown out of her house during the Shoah" or Holocaust, said Lapid in a radio interview after the weekly cabinet session. "We look like monsters in the eyes of the world," he added. "This makes me sick." Lapid also confirmed during the interview that the army is considering destroying hundreds more houses to expand the security corridor between the camp and the Egyptian border to prevent the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. Israel has already destroyed an estimated 1,300 houses in the area since the Palestinian uprising began in September 2000, uprooting an estimated 11,000 people. "The destruction of homes must stop because it is inhuman, un-Jewish, and causes us great harm around the world," Lapid said. "In the end we'll be kicked out of the U.N., we'll be put on trial in The Hague [site of the International Court of Justice], and no one will want to have anything to do with us." Although Lapid denied he was comparing Israeli soldiers to Nazis, his remarks were immediately denounced by some of the more hawkish members of the cabinet, who demanded a retraction. Sharon himself said Lapid's remarks were "like oil for the Arab propaganda machine," according to Israeli media. Lapid is a former television talk show host and newcomer to politics who helped guide the fledgling Shinui to a strong third-place finish in last year's parliamentary elections on a platform that placed the party squarely in the political middle on the peace process. With 15 seats in the 120-member Knesset, it is the second largest party in Sharon's government and a pivotal element in his coalition. Lapid has been a strong supporter of Sharon's plan to withdraw troops and 7,500 Jewish settlers from Gaza, and he has grown increasingly impatient with the army's continuing presence there. He has warned he would pull out his party from the cabinet if the prime minister does not come up with a new proposal by the end of the month to replace the one that was defeated in a referendum of Sharon's own Likud party three weeks ago. His remarks underscored the political problems Sharon faces as he seeks to steer a new plan through his fractious cabinet. Analysts said the prime minister faces a difficult choice: he can present a watered-down proposal and risk a walkout by Shinui, or he can present a stronger proposal and further alienate members of his own party. Earlier on Sunday, Israeli tanks and armored bulldozers returned to Rafah's Brazil neighborhood in a search for militants and weapons. Hundreds of residents fled again, while helicopters and tanks fired and soldiers and militants exchanged gunfire. Some 40 Palestinians died last week when the army sealed off and invaded several sections of the city and adjoining refugee camp in a major campaign. In the West Bank city of Nablus, three members of Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, were killed when their car exploded. Witnesses at first said the car had been rocketed by an Israeli aircraft, but later accounts said explosives stored in an abandoned vehicle had detonated next to the car. The Israeli army denied any knowledge of or responsibility for the blast. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A49787-2004May23?language=printer
