![]() | |
This is a discussion on Why did Arafat turn down 97% of the W Bank and all of Gaza in 2000? within the Israel and Palestine forums, part of the Global Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by tinydancer Quote: Originally Posted by P F Tinmore Quote: Originally Posted by tinydancer I'd really like to know what posters think ...
| |||||||
| Israel and Palestine Thoughts in this conflict? |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| ||||
| Quote: Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01). The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region's scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump. Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new "independent state" would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called "bypass roads" that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank. Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military. Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel. A message from Canada to the Palestinians In his own words. In the very liberal New York Times blaming Arafat for the failure. IMPASSE AT CAMP DAVID: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON ENDS DEADLOCKED PEACE TALKS By JANE PERLEZ Published: July 26, 2000 At the end of two weeks of marathon negotiations with the leaders of Israel and the Palestinians, a visibly fatigued President Clinton announced today that they were unable to reach an agreement ''at this time.'' The president and other American mediators made clear that it was Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, who balked in the end, and by all accounts the issue was Jerusalem, the Holy City both Israelis and Palestinians claim as their sacred capital. Speaking at the White House, Mr. Clinton singled out the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, for his readiness to make hard compromises. ''I would be making a mistake not to praise Barak, because I think he took a big risk,'' the president said. ''The prime minister moved forward more from his initial position than Chairman Arafat, particularly surrounding the question of Jerusalem.'' IMPASSE AT CAMP DAVID: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON ENDS DEADLOCKED PEACE TALKS - New York Times Quote: So President Clinton's a liar? The New York Times is lying? |
| Sponsored Links |
|
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free! |
| ||||
![]() Lets say the UN decided to give America to China due to it's massive debt. The Chinese army invaded and herded all American citizens to Ohio and built a wall around it. And would shoot anyone trying to escape and bomb them whenever they wanted. Questions: How long would the American citizens resist after having their country stolen from them? 5 years? 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? Knowing the American spirit; would we ever concede defeat, and just be happy with our situation? Or would we; dig tunnels, smuggle arms, build home made rockets, sneak out and attack Chinese soldiers, and basically do anything to try to get our country back? Do you think the American |
| ||||
| Lets say the UN decided to give America to China due to it's massive debt. The Chinese army invaded and herded all American citizens to Ohio and built a wall around it. And would shoot anyone trying to escape and bomb them whenever they wanted. Questions: How long would the American citizens resist after having their country stolen from them? 5 years? 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? Knowing the American spirit; would we ever concede defeat, and just be happy with our situation? Or would we; dig tunnels, smuggle arms, build home made rockets, sneak out and attack Chinese soldiers, and basically do anything to try to get our country back? Do you think the American ![]() |
| |||
| sunni----from where do you get your infomation about Gaza and the West Bank----your local mosque? big wall? no "escape"? I live in the USA-----I never went to gaza----I have met LOTS OF GAZANS they did not have to "escape" to get to the USA---- when you talk about "ESCAPING" think Sudanese christians, in fact think jews from lots of different islamic lands |
| ||||
| Hypothetical. Lets say the UN decided to give America to China due to it's massive debt. The Chinese army invaded and herded all American citizens to Ohio and built a wall around it. And would shoot anyone trying to escape and bomb them whenever they wanted. Questions: How long would the American citizens resist after having their country stolen from them? 5 years? 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? Knowing the American spirit; would we ever concede defeat, and just be happy with our situation? Or would we; dig tunnels, smuggle arms, build home made rockets, sneak out and attack Chinese soldiers, and basically do anything to try to get our country back? Do you think the American ![]() |
| ||||
| And the rest of the land given to the jews and renamed Israel........ Last edited by Sunni Man; 03-07-2013 at 01:09 PM. |
| ||||
| Quote: Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01). The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region's scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump. Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new "independent state" would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called "bypass roads" that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank. Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military. Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel. A message from Canada to the Palestinians In his own words. In the very liberal New York Times blaming Arafat for the failure. IMPASSE AT CAMP DAVID: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON ENDS DEADLOCKED PEACE TALKS By JANE PERLEZ Published: July 26, 2000 At the end of two weeks of marathon negotiations with the leaders of Israel and the Palestinians, a visibly fatigued President Clinton announced today that they were unable to reach an agreement ''at this time.'' The president and other American mediators made clear that it was Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, who balked in the end, and by all accounts the issue was Jerusalem, the Holy City both Israelis and Palestinians claim as their sacred capital. Speaking at the White House, Mr. Clinton singled out the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, for his readiness to make hard compromises. ''I would be making a mistake not to praise Barak, because I think he took a big risk,'' the president said. ''The prime minister moved forward more from his initial position than Chairman Arafat, particularly surrounding the question of Jerusalem.'' IMPASSE AT CAMP DAVID: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON ENDS DEADLOCKED PEACE TALKS - New York Times
__________________ The difference - Hamas/Hezbollah/Islamic Jihad/Al Qaeda/Kalam hide behind civilians using them as human shields and Israel stands in front of them protecting them like shields! Help Win the Trade War with China, Japan, India and the 3rd World! Join the Fair Tax Coalition - Repeal the 16h Amendment! http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServ...name=about_faq Anti-zionism morphs into anti-semitism 100% of the time! "When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews - this is God's own truth." - MLK Jr. ![]() To Alcohol, the cause of and the solution to all of life's daily problems. - Homer Simpson |
| |||
| And the rest of the land given to the jews and renamed Israel........ ![]() |
| |||
| Good question. It's called Palestinian Mentality! |
| |||
| Israel was formed within the CALIPHATE -----the OTTOMAN TURKS could not collect taxes from arab squatters in palestne ----so they decided to sell land to jews----this took place in the early 1800s Jews were jumping for joy because previously they could not buy land in palestine. Lots of people donated money to the project and jews started migrating TO PALESTINE from europe ---parts of asia and Africa etc and developed a society there -----hoping to develope an independent country. Some people call that the ZIONIST PROJECT--- it was one of many historically----sometimes jews did manage to get to palestine-----but----it often did not work out because strictly speaking ----according to islamic law----all land is OWNED BY THE UMMAH--- that means all land is MUSLIM LAND |
| ||||
| In his own words. In the very liberal New York Times blaming Arafat for the failure. IMPASSE AT CAMP DAVID: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON ENDS DEADLOCKED PEACE TALKS By JANE PERLEZ Published: July 26, 2000 At the end of two weeks of marathon negotiations with the leaders of Israel and the Palestinians, a visibly fatigued President Clinton announced today that they were unable to reach an agreement ''at this time.'' The president and other American mediators made clear that it was Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, who balked in the end, and by all accounts the issue was Jerusalem, the Holy City both Israelis and Palestinians claim as their sacred capital. Speaking at the White House, Mr. Clinton singled out the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, for his readiness to make hard compromises. ''I would be making a mistake not to praise Barak, because I think he took a big risk,'' the president said. ''The prime minister moved forward more from his initial position than Chairman Arafat, particularly surrounding the question of Jerusalem.'' IMPASSE AT CAMP DAVID: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON ENDS DEADLOCKED PEACE TALKS - New York Times |
| ||||
| And the rest of the land given to the jews and renamed Israel........ ![]() |
| |||
| Where did you get this number from? |
![]() |
Lower Navigation
| ||||||
| ||||||
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
| Search tags for this page |
why did palestine turn down camp david
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.
|