Israel to Seperate from Palestinian Side

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0
From CNN.com

Sharon: Israel will begin separating itself from Palestinians within several months if Palestinian side does not make moves toward peace. Details soon.
Not exactly sure what this means... physically? in terms of peace talks?
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,707
5
0
I don't know either, but if he means withdrawing their settlers and tanks from the Palestinian side that can only be good :D

 

kandarp

Platinum Member
May 19, 2003
2,852
0
0
sounds like he wants some settlements removed not because they are on the otherside of the 67 borderd but because they need to be removed from some strategic standpoint to separate Israeil from Palestine.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,707
5
0
This "disengagement procedure," to be pursued "in maximum coordination with the United States," would include moving some Israeli settlements, drawing new security lines and altering the deployment of Israeli forces, Sharon said at a security conference in Herzliya, Israel. It would not create a final border, he said.
Hmm, very vague. Relocating how? taking more territory? Removing settlements?

If Israel were to disengage, Palestinians would get substantially less than what they could negotiate through the road-map procedure, Sharon said.
Ahh, so they would get 'substantially less'? So it sounds like they are considering perhaps gouging their infamous wall deeper into Palestinian territory, while removing any settlements beyond the wall so everything will be behind this wall- at least that's what I'm interpreting this as.

I don't like the language here, it's a direct threat. It's as if saying you better accept this peace no matter what the terms or conditions are or else! Sounds similar to the stance used in Oslo which ultimately caused it's failure.

What if the Palestinians told the Israeli's, you better accept our terms of peace or else we'll increase suicide attacks on civilians?
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
maybe a completion of the wall, annexing all the land on the other side of the wall and pulling back from all palestinian cities and towns
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: Czar
maybe a completion of the wall, annexing all the land on the other side of the wall and pulling back from all palestinian cities and towns
Exactly what he's telling them he's going to do. Exactly what he SHOULD do. (although I don't think they should take land to accomplish it). Israel is moving to create the palestine THEY want because Arafat refuses to negotiate with anything but terror. I really don't have much simpathy, they made their bed and now they are going to lie in it. That wall will bring Israel security from terrorism and the isolation from the state of Israel will destroy the fledgling Palestinian state because they are totally dependent on Israel economically.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Czar
maybe a completion of the wall, annexing all the land on the other side of the wall and pulling back from all palestinian cities and towns
Exactly what he's telling them he's going to do. Exactly what he SHOULD do. (although I don't think they should take land to accomplish it). Israel is moving to create the palestine THEY want because Arafat refuses to negotiate with anything but terror. I really don't have much simpathy, they made their bed and now they are going to lie in it. That wall will bring Israel security from terrorism and the isolation from the state of Israel will destroy the fledgling Palestinian state because they are totally dependent on Israel economically.
that would be a terrible move and I dont think Bush would allow it, building the wall on the border I would support, along with that possible move, annexing land is bad
and also by abandoning certain settlements and the whole idea of settling the west bank and gaza strip will piss off the Israeli right
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,707
5
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Czar
maybe a completion of the wall, annexing all the land on the other side of the wall and pulling back from all palestinian cities and towns
Exactly what he's telling them he's going to do. Exactly what he SHOULD do. (although I don't think they should take land to accomplish it). Israel is moving to create the palestine THEY want because Arafat refuses to negotiate with anything but terror. I really don't have much simpathy, they made their bed and now they are going to lie in it. That wall will bring Israel security from terrorism and the isolation from the state of Israel will destroy the fledgling Palestinian state because they are totally dependent on Israel economically.

Oh, it's all Arafat's fault? Whew I'm glad it's so simple.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Czar
maybe a completion of the wall, annexing all the land on the other side of the wall and pulling back from all palestinian cities and towns
Exactly what he's telling them he's going to do. Exactly what he SHOULD do. (although I don't think they should take land to accomplish it). Israel is moving to create the palestine THEY want because Arafat refuses to negotiate with anything but terror. I really don't have much simpathy, they made their bed and now they are going to lie in it. That wall will bring Israel security from terrorism and the isolation from the state of Israel will destroy the fledgling Palestinian state because they are totally dependent on Israel economically.

Oh, it's all Arafat's fault? Whew I'm glad it's so simple.
Israel's shift away from negotiation and unilateral action is a direct result of the PLO failing to stop the terrorist attacks. It's funny how quickly people forget that Israel was willing to give the Palestinians 99% of what they wanted and Arafat stood up and told them to go to hell and then did nothing as the 2000 intifada started. 10,000+ Israel civillians have died by direct attacks on them. If this was happening to America there would be 3 million Palestinians stored in Gitmo.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Rahvin, when was Isreal willing to give the Palestinians 99% of what they wanted. I definitely missed that?

And, BDawg. The thread title is a little misleading. There's a world of difference between "Israel To Separate From Palestinian Side" to "Israel to Undertake Some Withdrawals." Talk about bait and switch!

 

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0
Originally posted by: Whitling
Rahvin, when was Isreal willing to give the Palestinians 99% of what they wanted. I definitely missed that?

And, BDawg. The thread title is a little misleading. There's a world of difference between "Israel To Separate From Palestinian Side" to "Israel to Undertake Some Withdrawals." Talk about bait and switch!
I took the thread title from the original quote. There was no attempt to bait and switch.

"Istrael to Seperate from Palestinian Side"

compared to

"Israel will begin seperating itself from Palestinians withing several months if Palestinian side does not make moves towards peace."

I don't see them being very different.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Czar
maybe a completion of the wall, annexing all the land on the other side of the wall and pulling back from all palestinian cities and towns
Exactly what he's telling them he's going to do. Exactly what he SHOULD do. (although I don't think they should take land to accomplish it). Israel is moving to create the palestine THEY want because Arafat refuses to negotiate with anything but terror. I really don't have much simpathy, they made their bed and now they are going to lie in it. That wall will bring Israel security from terrorism and the isolation from the state of Israel will destroy the fledgling Palestinian state because they are totally dependent on Israel economically.

Oh, it's all Arafat's fault? Whew I'm glad it's so simple.
Israel's shift away from negotiation and unilateral action is a direct result of the PLO failing to stop the terrorist attacks. It's funny how quickly people forget that Israel was willing to give the Palestinians 99% of what they wanted and Arafat stood up and told them to go to hell and then did nothing as the 2000 intifada started. 10,000+ Israel civillians have died by direct attacks on them. If this was happening to America there would be 3 million Palestinians stored in Gitmo.
99%? read up on it and come back
and if you like numbers then here
http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/resources/mrates.asp
What has israel done about the settlments then?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: Whitling
Rahvin, when was Isreal willing to give the Palestinians 99% of what they wanted. I definitely missed that?

And, BDawg. The thread title is a little misleading. There's a world of difference between "Israel To Separate From Palestinian Side" to "Israel to Undertake Some Withdrawals." Talk about bait and switch!
Percentage may be slightly less -

Oslo Accords
Palestine Center

Arafat insisted all or nothing. Nothing is what he got.

Israel at that time was willing to return most of the land in return for the termination of the terror attacks.
At that time the government was much less hardline.
Arafat was under pressure from the militants for even negotiating with Israel. It was thought that he took a unacceptable stand because he was worried about his own political life (threats were made on him for negotiating).
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
99% by my estimate the right of return is the only demand they refused.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php

The details were not disclosed formally, but according to media reports Barak's offer included:

Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
"Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967

In return Arafat had to declare the "end of conflict" and agree that no further claims on Israel could be made in the future. Despite the considerable concessions by Israel, Arafat chose not to negotiate, not to make a counter-offer but to just walk out.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
99% by my estimate the right of return is the only demand they refused. From a Palestinian source:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php

The details were not disclosed formally, but according to media reports Barak's offer included:

Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
"Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967

In return Arafat had to declare the "end of conflict" and agree that no further claims on Israel could be made in the future. Despite the considerable concessions by Israel, Arafat chose not to negotiate, not to make a counter-offer but to just walk out.
That is exactly why it was turned, down, it was a final talk, there would be no discussions about a few issues like water, air space, border control which would all be under Israeli control, along with borders which werent exactly good... well going to see lotr now, take care :)

http://www.stanford.edu/group/cjip/barakdemo.htm
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: Czar<br.That is exactly why it was turned, down, it was a final talk, there would be no discussions about a few issues like water, air space, border control which would all be under Israeli control, along with borders which werent exactly good... well going to see lotr now, take care :)

http://www.stanford.edu/group/cjip/barakdemo.htm
There is a good article linked at the bottom of the one I linked:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4419440-103680,00.html

Clinton was speaking of the two-week-long Camp David conference in July 2000 which he had organised and mediated and its failure, and the eruption at the end of September of the Palestinian intifada which has continued since. Halfway through the conference, apparently on July 18, Clinton had "slowly" - to avoid misunderstanding - read out to Arafat a document, endorsed in advance by Barak, outlining the main points of a future settlement. The proposals included the establishment of a demilitarised Palestinian state on some 92% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip, with some territorial compensation for the Palestinians from pre-1967 Israeli territory; the dismantling of most of the settlements and the concentration of the bulk of the settlers inside the 8% of the West Bank to be annexed by Israel; the establishment of the Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem, in which some Arab neighborhoods would become sovereign Palestinian territory and others would enjoy "functional autonomy"; Palestinian sovereignty over half the Old City of Jerusalem (the Muslim and Christian quarters) and "custodianship," though not sovereignty, over the Temple Mount; a return of refugees to the prospective Palestinian state though with no "right of return" to Israel proper; and the organisation by the international community of a massive aid programme to facilitate the refugees' rehabilitation.

Arafat said no. Enraged, Clinton banged on the table and said: "You are leading your people and the region to a catastrophe." A formal Palestinian rejection of the proposals reached the Americans the next day. The summit sputtered on for a few days more but to all intents and purposes it was over.

Today Barak portrays Arafat's behaviour at Camp David as a "performance" geared to exacting from the Israelis as many concessions as possible without ever seriously intending to reach a peace settlement or sign an "end to the conflict".

"He did not negotiate in good faith; indeed, he did not negotiate at all. He just kept saying no to every offer, never making any counterproposals of his own," he says. Barak shifts between charging Arafat with "lacking the character or will" to make a historic compromise (as did the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1977-79, when he made peace with Israel) to accusing him of secretly planning Israel's demise while he strings along a succession of Israeli and Western leaders and, on the way, hoodwinks "naive journalists".
Czar if it had truely been as you alledge then you would think Arafat would have counter-offered and brought up these "serious" issues that were deal busters. He refused to even negotiate. But the revisionists march on.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
sorry on my way out, there is a good article on the bbc site about what failed at camp david and who is responsible, conclusion is that they all did and I tend to agree with that
 

Teclis2323

Senior member
Dec 27, 2002
307
0
0
Unfortunately, there is no solution which is going to appease everyone; however, the Palestinians need to step up to their agreement to stop terror. Israeli action in Palestinian land is done in reaction to Palestinian terror, which has ebbed and flowed throughout the past 50 years. While a large percentage of the Palestinians (I don't know exact numbers, so bug off) are peaceful and agreable, unfortunately quite a percentage still hail Arafat as a "hero," instead of the terrorist he is. Let us not forget the original goals of the PLO, which were akin to those of Hamas.
Of course, the problem is not only perpetuated by the Palestinians, but the lack of compromise on the Palestinians' part is leading the Middle East further down the road of violence. It is unfortunate, but the fact remains that the Palestinians, in their current state, pose serious and fatal threats to the well-being of Israeli citizens, AND to the needs of peaceful Palestinian citizens.
Personally, I am for the formation of a sovereign Palestinian state, but not at the expense of Israeli's freedom and safety. By stringing along the Israelis during so called "peace talks," only to bombard Israel with suicide bombers, the Palestinians in control are creating an unfair future for the Palestinians who desire peace and compromise. Israel has been put in a situation where it is forced to fend for itself. Since the Palestinians are unwilling to compromise, Israel should (and is) do what it needs to ensure its safety.
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: Teclis2323
Unfortunately, there is no solution which is going to appease everyone; however, the Palestinians need to step up to their agreement to stop terror. Israeli action in Palestinian land is done in reaction to Palestinian terror, which has ebbed and flowed throughout the past 50 years. While a large percentage of the Palestinians (I don't know exact numbers, so bug off) are peaceful and agreable, unfortunately quite a percentage still hail Arafat as a "hero," instead of the terrorist he is. Let us not forget the original goals of the PLO, which were akin to those of Hamas.
Of course, the problem is not only perpetuated by the Palestinians, but the lack of compromise on the Palestinians' part is leading the Middle East further down the road of violence. It is unfortunate, but the fact remains that the Palestinians, in their current state, pose serious and fatal threats to the well-being of Israeli citizens, AND to the needs of peaceful Palestinian citizens.
Personally, I am for the formation of a sovereign Palestinian state, but not at the expense of Israeli's freedom and safety. By stringing along the Israelis during so called "peace talks," only to bombard Israel with suicide bombers, the Palestinians in control are creating an unfair future for the Palestinians who desire peace and compromise. Israel has been put in a situation where it is forced to fend for itself. Since the Palestinians are unwilling to compromise, Israel should (and is) do what it needs to ensure its safety.
very well put.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I've always said this needs to happen. In fact kick all the 2 million palestinian israeli citizens palestinian co-conspirators out too. Have a 5 mile no-mans land perimeter surrounding israel and anyone within' it gets lead. This will end all terror on both sides.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,707
5
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
While a large percentage of the Palestinians (I don't know exact numbers, so bug off) are peaceful and agreable,
not really, Poll: 59% of Palestinians support continuation of terror even after state is created

and well, 75% support the general use of suicide terror against civilians. clashes with normal western assumptions about supposed oppressed people, but its reality.


Can you tell me:

What was the sample size of this poll?
What was the margin of error?
What exactly were the questions in this poll?
In what context was this poll taken? Was it handed out during the funeral of a Palestinian baby shot by Israeli occupation forces?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY