The Palestine Solution -- Why not the Olmert Plan?

[Coyote]

DNA sampling is a vile modern method of racial discrimination.

Which is why self-identification and culture should be the determining values when deciding someone's ethnicity.

The only value in DNA research is that it shows the relationship of groups to each other and migration patterns over time. It's a fascinating tool. I can see how it could be used for discrimminatoin- in fact, in some of the very arguments here on both sides claiming certain Jewish groups are European and Palestinians are Arab.

I don't see what DNA sampling would accomplish in Phoenall's claims.

It would accomplish the truth once and for all, and set up the Palestinians for the biggest fail of their existence. It would show that their claims to being indigenous are false, and that their claims to ownership of the land are at best false and at worst fraudulent. That is why they wont submit to the testing

Unfortunately for you, it shows nothing of the kind as genetic testing HAS been done and I've never heard anything about refusals.

 

[Lipush]

It's a bad deal because it would never have been implimented - Olmert was weak and on his way out and the Palestinians recognized this. The plan was a good one but the time frame very tight. I'm not sure how these things work with the Israeli Knesset - but did Olmert's plan have wide enough support behind it on Israel's side? Could Olmert have unilaterally pushed it through or is there a process by which it is approved and passed?

Olmert was wiser than people gave him credit for. Now the plan, as the man himself, are irrelevant.

 

[Lipush]

The Olmert Plan is no longer possible at this point (sadly). It was the very best offer the Palestnians were going to get. Anything they get now, even based on the principles of the Olmert Plan, will be less than what they might have had.

Less land for swap. No division of Jerusalem. No corridor between West Bank and Gaza. A security corridor for Israel through to the Jordan border. A security corridor in the Jordan valley. Those are the new realities in that past eight years. Its only going to get worse.

Shusha - could Olmert have pulled it off? If someone answered this already and I missed it, then I apologize. I don't think he could have - wouldn't the Knesset have had to go along with it? Would they have? What was offered was far more than I can imagine Israel agreeing to given public opinion on certain things like Jerusalem. Abbas had to have known this.

It was less than what was on the table at Camp David, and Arafat turned that down.

Do you know that the Palestinians demand that new talks start at the point they walked out of the last talks, and now they walk out as soon as Israel refuses. Everyone knows that if the talks break down you start from the beginning again

Doesn't answer the question - could Olmert have pulled it off, particularly given the climate in Israel at the time?

Didn't Sharon pull off something much more extreme, with minimal support?

 

[Coyote]

The Olmert Plan is no longer possible at this point (sadly). It was the very best offer the Palestnians were going to get. Anything they get now, even based on the principles of the Olmert Plan, will be less than what they might have had.

Less land for swap. No division of Jerusalem. No corridor between West Bank and Gaza. A security corridor for Israel through to the Jordan border. A security corridor in the Jordan valley. Those are the new realities in that past eight years. Its only going to get worse.

Shusha - could Olmert have pulled it off? If someone answered this already and I missed it, then I apologize. I don't think he could have - wouldn't the Knesset have had to go along with it? Would they have? What was offered was far more than I can imagine Israel agreeing to given public opinion on certain things like Jerusalem. Abbas had to have known this.

It was less than what was on the table at Camp David, and Arafat turned that down.

Do you know that the Palestinians demand that new talks start at the point they walked out of the last talks, and now they walk out as soon as Israel refuses. Everyone knows that if the talks break down you start from the beginning again

Doesn't answer the question - could Olmert have pulled it off, particularly given the climate in Israel at the time?

Didn't Sharon pull off something much more extreme, with minimal support?

Did he? Was his really more extreme? He was also secure in his office. Olmert's seems to be giving much greater concessions on some very controversial items:

Annexation by Israel of portions of East Jerusalem and surrounding areas (Gush Etzion, Ariel, Ma'aleh) as well as some areas along what the border would be.

Concession of an equal area of land.

Concession of parts of Jerusalem (dividing Jerusalem).

Palestinian contiguity on the West Bank and an access corridor to Gaza.

Shared control of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif between Palestine, Israel and a 3 nation international committee.

Israeli withdrawal from the Jordan Valley.

Acceptance of the return of 5000 refugees.

Demilitarizaion of Palestine, control over airspace, and some supervision of border controls between Jordan and Palestine, temporarily.

Do you think Israeli public opinion and the knesset would have gone along with this?

 

[Lipush]

The Olmert Plan is no longer possible at this point (sadly). It was the very best offer the Palestnians were going to get. Anything they get now, even based on the principles of the Olmert Plan, will be less than what they might have had.

Less land for swap. No division of Jerusalem. No corridor between West Bank and Gaza. A security corridor for Israel through to the Jordan border. A security corridor in the Jordan valley. Those are the new realities in that past eight years. Its only going to get worse.

Shusha - could Olmert have pulled it off? If someone answered this already and I missed it, then I apologize. I don't think he could have - wouldn't the Knesset have had to go along with it? Would they have? What was offered was far more than I can imagine Israel agreeing to given public opinion on certain things like Jerusalem. Abbas had to have known this.

It was less than what was on the table at Camp David, and Arafat turned that down.

Do you know that the Palestinians demand that new talks start at the point they walked out of the last talks, and now they walk out as soon as Israel refuses. Everyone knows that if the talks break down you start from the beginning again

Doesn't answer the question - could Olmert have pulled it off, particularly given the climate in Israel at the time?

Didn't Sharon pull off something much more extreme, with minimal support?

Did he? Was his really more extreme? He was also secure in his office. Olmert's seems to be giving much greater concessions on some very controversial items:

Annexation by Israel of portions of East Jerusalem and surrounding areas (Gush Etzion, Ariel, Ma'aleh) as well as some areas along what the border would be.

Concession of an equal area of land.

Concession of parts of Jerusalem (dividing Jerusalem).

Palestinian contiguity on the West Bank and an access corridor to Gaza.

Shared control of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif between Palestine, Israel and a 3 nation international committee.

Israeli withdrawal from the Jordan Valley.

Acceptance of the return of 5000 refugees.

Demilitarizaion of Palestine, control over airspace, and some supervision of border controls between Jordan and Palestine, temporarily.

Do you think Israeli public opinion and the knesset would have gone along with this?

Sharon's disengagement plan was much more extreme, yes.

And I think that anything regarding a long peace plan with the Palestinians would have required a setting of Israel's first referendum.

Partly because of Sharon's disengagement plan.

 

[Coyote]

Shusha - could Olmert have pulled it off? If someone answered this already and I missed it, then I apologize. I don't think he could have - wouldn't the Knesset have had to go along with it? Would they have? What was offered was far more than I can imagine Israel agreeing to given public opinion on certain things like Jerusalem. Abbas had to have known this.

It was less than what was on the table at Camp David, and Arafat turned that down.

Do you know that the Palestinians demand that new talks start at the point they walked out of the last talks, and now they walk out as soon as Israel refuses. Everyone knows that if the talks break down you start from the beginning again

Doesn't answer the question - could Olmert have pulled it off, particularly given the climate in Israel at the time?

Didn't Sharon pull off something much more extreme, with minimal support?

Did he? Was his really more extreme? He was also secure in his office. Olmert's seems to be giving much greater concessions on some very controversial items:

Annexation by Israel of portions of East Jerusalem and surrounding areas (Gush Etzion, Ariel, Ma'aleh) as well as some areas along what the border would be.

Concession of an equal area of land.

Concession of parts of Jerusalem (dividing Jerusalem).

Palestinian contiguity on the West Bank and an access corridor to Gaza.

Shared control of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif between Palestine, Israel and a 3 nation international committee.

Israeli withdrawal from the Jordan Valley.

Acceptance of the return of 5000 refugees.

Demilitarizaion of Palestine, control over airspace, and some supervision of border controls between Jordan and Palestine, temporarily.

Do you think Israeli public opinion and the knesset would have gone along with this?

Sharon's disengagement plan was much more extreme, yes.

And I think that anything regarding a long peace plan with the Palestinians would have required a setting of Israel's first referendum.

Partly because of Sharon's disengagement plan.

What were the salient points of Sharon's plan that made it much more extreme?

 

[Lipush]

It was less than what was on the table at Camp David, and Arafat turned that down.

Do you know that the Palestinians demand that new talks start at the point they walked out of the last talks, and now they walk out as soon as Israel refuses. Everyone knows that if the talks break down you start from the beginning again

Doesn't answer the question - could Olmert have pulled it off, particularly given the climate in Israel at the time?

Didn't Sharon pull off something much more extreme, with minimal support?

Did he? Was his really more extreme? He was also secure in his office. Olmert's seems to be giving much greater concessions on some very controversial items:

Annexation by Israel of portions of East Jerusalem and surrounding areas (Gush Etzion, Ariel, Ma'aleh) as well as some areas along what the border would be.

Concession of an equal area of land.

Concession of parts of Jerusalem (dividing Jerusalem).

Palestinian contiguity on the West Bank and an access corridor to Gaza.

Shared control of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif between Palestine, Israel and a 3 nation international committee.

Israeli withdrawal from the Jordan Valley.

Acceptance of the return of 5000 refugees.

Demilitarizaion of Palestine, control over airspace, and some supervision of border controls between Jordan and Palestine, temporarily.

Do you think Israeli public opinion and the knesset would have gone along with this?

Sharon's disengagement plan was much more extreme, yes.

And I think that anything regarding a long peace plan with the Palestinians would have required a setting of Israel's first referendum.

Partly because of Sharon's disengagement plan.

What were the salient points of Sharon's plan that made it much more extreme?

Did I ever tell you guys I'm originally from southern Israel?

 

[Coyote]

Doesn't answer the question - could Olmert have pulled it off, particularly given the climate in Israel at the time?

Didn't Sharon pull off something much more extreme, with minimal support?

Did he? Was his really more extreme? He was also secure in his office. Olmert's seems to be giving much greater concessions on some very controversial items:

Annexation by Israel of portions of East Jerusalem and surrounding areas (Gush Etzion, Ariel, Ma'aleh) as well as some areas along what the border would be.

Concession of an equal area of land.

Concession of parts of Jerusalem (dividing Jerusalem).

Palestinian contiguity on the West Bank and an access corridor to Gaza.

Shared control of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif between Palestine, Israel and a 3 nation international committee.

Israeli withdrawal from the Jordan Valley.

Acceptance of the return of 5000 refugees.

Demilitarizaion of Palestine, control over airspace, and some supervision of border controls between Jordan and Palestine, temporarily.

Do you think Israeli public opinion and the knesset would have gone along with this?

Sharon's disengagement plan was much more extreme, yes.

And I think that anything regarding a long peace plan with the Palestinians would have required a setting of Israel's first referendum.

Partly because of Sharon's disengagement plan.

What were the salient points of Sharon's plan that made it much more extreme?

Did I ever tell you guys I'm originally from southern Israel?

I don't think so - but, I also don't have a good sense of Israeli geography and how it relates to the plans.

 

[Lipush]

Didn't Sharon pull off something much more extreme, with minimal support?

Did he? Was his really more extreme? He was also secure in his office. Olmert's seems to be giving much greater concessions on some very controversial items:

Annexation by Israel of portions of East Jerusalem and surrounding areas (Gush Etzion, Ariel, Ma'aleh) as well as some areas along what the border would be.

Concession of an equal area of land.

Concession of parts of Jerusalem (dividing Jerusalem).

Palestinian contiguity on the West Bank and an access corridor to Gaza.

Shared control of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif between Palestine, Israel and a 3 nation international committee.

Israeli withdrawal from the Jordan Valley.

Acceptance of the return of 5000 refugees.

Demilitarizaion of Palestine, control over airspace, and some supervision of border controls between Jordan and Palestine, temporarily.

Do you think Israeli public opinion and the knesset would have gone along with this?

Sharon's disengagement plan was much more extreme, yes.

And I think that anything regarding a long peace plan with the Palestinians would have required a setting of Israel's first referendum.

Partly because of Sharon's disengagement plan.

What were the salient points of Sharon's plan that made it much more extreme?

Did I ever tell you guys I'm originally from southern Israel?

I don't think so - but, I also don't have a good sense of Israeli geography and how it relates to the plans.

So, this map shows the range of Hamas Rockets in previous clashings. Right beneath Rahat there's Mishmar HaNgev and Lehavim. I'm from Lehavim. Small town, less than 10,000 people.

Anyhow. The same places where Jewish towns used to be pre-2005, are the same places they launch rockets at us post-2005.

Us, means nearly 2 million people of southern Israel. And now not only the south, but all of Israel joined in.

So that is how Sharon's plan was extreme.

 

[montelatici]

Sharon's plan was not extreme at all. It reduced the cost of protecting a few thousand settlers by turning Gaza into a large concentration camp (in the original British definition of the word which meant concentrating belligerent native populations into easily guarded camps) that is easily ruled over by controlling the land border, the air space and territorial sea and maintaining taxing authority, power distribution etc.

 

[Lipush]

Sharon's plan was not extreme at all. It reduced the cost of protecting a few thousand settlers by turning Gaza into a large concentration camp (in the original British definition of the word which meant concentrating belligerent native populations into easily guarded camps) that is easily ruled over by controlling the land border, the air space and territorial sea and maintaining taxing authority, power distribution etc.

As an Israeli, I don't give a **** about what the people of Gaza chose to do with their hellhole. They were the ones voting for Hamas to steal their sources and force them into living like sewer rats.

Sharon didn't care for them either, he chose to do it out of the wrong thinking that it would improve the Israeli lives. But it reduced the cost of protecting a few thousands settlers, and exchanged it for the costs of protecting 2.1 million people within the green line!.

That's extreme.

 

[montelatici]

It's not what the people of Gaza do, it's what the Israelis do. They control the territory.

 

[Hollie]

It's not what the people of Gaza do, it's what the Israelis do. They control the territory.

That's just more of the stereotypical excuses from the Islamic terrorist huggers. What a shame that those like you are so quick to make excuses for Islamic-retrogrades.

Your Islamic terrorist heroes were given an opportunity to make a first attempt at building a functioning society when Israel withdrew from Gaza'istan. But, given the ideology of islamo-fascism and an unlimited UN sponsored welfare program designed to maintain Islamic terrorists, it should not have been a surprise that Islamic terrorists behaved the way one would expect Islamic terrorists to behave.

What is interesting to watch is the deepening pathology of the Islamic terrorist huggers as their heroes suffer one self-inflicted disaster after another.

 

[USAF 2023]

The plan was a good one ....

Thank you. We agree.

Yes. But could he have pulled it off? That was one of the concerns that led it to it's demise.

The plan was a good one? Abbas still didn't agree to it! Why doesn't he put forth that plan today?

 

[montelatici]

It's not what the people of Gaza do, it's what the Israelis do. They control the territory.

That's just more of the stereotypical excuses from the Islamic terrorist huggers. What a shame that those like you are so quick to make excuses for Islamic-retrogrades.

Your Islamic terrorist heroes were given an opportunity to make a first attempt at building a functioning society when Israel withdrew from Gaza'istan. But, given the ideology of islamo-fascism and an unlimited UN sponsored welfare program designed to maintain Islamic terrorists, it should not have been a surprise that Islamic terrorists behaved the way one would expect Islamic terrorists to behave.

What is interesting to watch is the deepening pathology of the Islamic terrorist huggers as their heroes suffer one self-inflicted disaster after another.

Israel never withdrew. They just positioned their troops and Navy around Gaza and created a convenient easy to guard prison.

 

[Hollie]

It's not what the people of Gaza do, it's what the Israelis do. They control the territory.

That's just more of the stereotypical excuses from the Islamic terrorist huggers. What a shame that those like you are so quick to make excuses for Islamic-retrogrades.

Your Islamic terrorist heroes were given an opportunity to make a first attempt at building a functioning society when Israel withdrew from Gaza'istan. But, given the ideology of islamo-fascism and an unlimited UN sponsored welfare program designed to maintain Islamic terrorists, it should not have been a surprise that Islamic terrorists behaved the way one would expect Islamic terrorists to behave.

What is interesting to watch is the deepening pathology of the Islamic terrorist huggers as their heroes suffer one self-inflicted disaster after another.

Israel never withdrew. They just positioned their troops and Navy around Gaza and created a convenient easy to guard prison.

Of course Israel withdrew. That's how Gaza became an Islamic terrorist encampment.

 

[montelatici]

You can't claim withdrawal and continue to unilaterally control the borders, the air space and territorial sea, Hollow Holly.

 

[Hollie]

You can't claim withdrawal and continue to unilaterally control the borders, the air space and territorial sea, Hollow Holly.

You poor, name-caller. That's your best effort.

Israel unilaterally withdrew. Sorry that the history causes you such angst.

 

[montelatici]

You can't claim withdrawal and continue to unilaterally control the borders, the air space and territorial sea, Hollow Holly.

You poor, name-caller. That's your best effort.

Israel unilaterally withdrew. Sorry that the history causes you such angst.

What pains me is to break the truth to you. Not only did Israel not withdraw, The International Court of Justice has determined that Israel still occupies Gaza. Oh dear, Hollie's feeling even more hollow. LOL

"All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power. "

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

 

[Hollie]

You can't claim withdrawal and continue to unilaterally control the borders, the air space and territorial sea, Hollow Holly.

You poor, name-caller. That's your best effort.

Israel unilaterally withdrew. Sorry that the history causes you such angst.

What pains me is to break the truth to you. Not only did Israel not withdraw, The International Court of Justice has determined that Israel still occupies Gaza. Oh dear, Hollie's feeling even more hollow. LOL

"All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power. "

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

Oh my. The name-caller is getting quite desperate.

If knew any of the history surrounding your Islamic terrorist heroes you would have learned that Israel was finalizing its withdrawal from Gaza in August of 2005. By September, your Islamic terrorist heroes were already committing acts of war with rockets striking Israeli territory.

It's a case of your Islamic terrorist heroes doing what is expected of Islamic terrorists. For all the Pom Pom flailing you do for your Islamic terrorist heroes, it must be a shared pathology of self-hate that binds you to them.