1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Israel offers Palestinians part of Jerusalem

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Misu, Dec 20, 2002.

  1. Misu

    Misu Hey, I saw that.


    Said in article: <i>Israel's Labor Party has adopted a new platform offering the Palestinians parts of Jerusalem and joint administration of disputed holy sites the most explicit program of compromise laid out before an election by a major Israeli party. </i>

    Now the part of the article that caught my eye was the following: <i>Palestinian Cabinet Minister Saeb Erekat said Labor's plans were a "step in the right direction."

    "I hope they will cut the long story short and start telling the Israeli people that the road to peace is to end the occupation and withdraw," Erekat said.</i>

    What does he mean by "end the occupation and withdraw" ? Does he mean that Israel give up it's country and hand it over to Palestine? What would happen to Israelis then?

    I don't know much about politics in this region, but I think this is a pretty awesome offer. I don't know if it's an official offer from Israel, but it sure sounds like something Palestinians should give serious consideration to AND accept.
  2. Sir Joseph

    Sir Joseph Registered User

    It's an offer that was on the table before. Arafat turned it down.
    It's never going to happen. Labor is like the Democrats here. They have no vision and have no clue what the country wants.

    Let's reward the terrorists by giving them what they want.
  3. Ravenink

    Ravenink Veteran Member

    it sounds like a wonderful proposal which unfortunately won't make a damn bit of difference.
  4. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Misu, the occupation they are referring to is the occupation of the West Bank after the 6 day war. The West Bank was formerly part of Jordan. Jordan is completely satisfied with not taking it and the associated Palestinian problem back. It is the west bank that would be the new palestinian homeland. Unfortunately, the Palestinians want all of Jerusalem.
  5. Sir Joseph

    Sir Joseph Registered User

    ...and all of Haifa...and all of Tel-Aviv....and all of Eilat.... etc.
    Get the picture? Some of them even want NY, LA, Chicago.
  6. joseftu

    joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    Sir J may be exaggerating with the NY, LA and Chicago assertion, but I'm afraid he's completely right about this same offer having been turned down before. The Palestinians want all of Jerusalem, and a very large number of them want all of Israel.
    Neither of those things are ever going to happen.
    I feel no optimism whatsoever.
  7. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    Yeah. They may not say they want all of New York, but they've already got a large chunk of Brooklyn so we have to watch them They tend to have large families and are likely to spread iout. :)
  8. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    But the move is a shrewd one politically, at this point in time. With all the demonization the Israelis are taking now with the occupation, this is an offer that the world will press the Palestinians to accept, and when they don't, the Israelis will be on the high road.

    This is important, with the impending Gulf War part 2. Makes it tougher to say that Iraq is bombing Israel again for just causes.
  9. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    Or maybe, somebody woke up and realized the current policy is a dismal failure with no chance of success.
  10. Ravenink

    Ravenink Veteran Member

    I'd say the current policy had a good chance of success, it was however not enforced stricly enough and not carried far enough to be truly effective.
  11. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    Yes, genocide is usually 100% effective.
    You don't make a lasting peace through violence.
    Please cite one single instance of violence ever effectively working.
  12. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Stopped Hitler and Tojo and Mussolini
  13. -Ken

    -Ken Guest


    It did indeed stop the three you named but I believe it was the Marshall Plan, which saved the world from repeating the history after WWI.

    For me, this is proof of the effectiveness of good foreign policy rather than the heavy handed military. Please don't misunderstand me, both have a place but we need to find the correct balance.

    Had we not rebuilt both Germany (well Europe) and Japan, we would have found ourselves in another war within twenty years. We managed to break that cycle thanks to some brilliant thinking.

    It seems we are short on brilliant thinking these days. I'm not taking a swing at the present administration but I have to admire some of the brilliant men who rose to the occasion in the 1940's. They didn't do everything correctly but where they succeeded, they did it tremendously.
  14. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    You are right. Out policies in Europe and Japan after the war is why those countries are still at peace and relatively friendly with us. But it took war, violence applied for political gain, that got it to the point where we could be magnanimous. In the Mideast we have one side that has offered compromise and one side that has repeatedly turned it down with more death of innocents. Israel's restraint has been admirable. If I were PM of Israel there might have been a lot more exporting of unhappy Palestinians. At least until they could see the sense in agreeing to less than the annihilation of Israel.
  15. Ravenink

    Ravenink Veteran Member

    and when did I suggest genocide? the current policy wasn't genoicde...you want an example of violence working? define "working" so I know what you are talking about in terms of war. Personally, I'm tired of the left-wing sympathy for suicide bombers.
  16. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Ken, the Marshall Plan addressed a host of issues, many of which don't exist in the middle east, much less the West Bank.
    The Marshall Plan treated Europe as a region; a region whose people were largely well educated and held the same core values as we did and who wanted the same outcome as we did.

    Additionally, Europe was financially decimated from the war and had neither the resources nor the wealth to rebuild itself. Most importantly, the Europeans knew what to do with both the financial and the industrial infrastructure once it was rebuilt.

    That situation does not exist in the middle east. Furthermore, the bellicose nations in Europe had been fully and unequivocably subdued.

    To be sure, there are poor nations in the middle east, but the region itself is fabulously wealthy already, and that wealth is diametrically opposed to a stable infrastructure.

    The Marshall Plan was absolutely not about nation building, it was about building the economic infrastructure necessary for the continent to rebuild itself.

    The vast wealth of the middle east is tied up almost exclusively in the hands of a very small minority that is already walking a political tightrope. On the one hand you have the royalty and some very wealthy citizens, and on the other you have the wild eyed mullahs and their huge following in the peasant class. The mullahs would like nothing better than to destroy the royalty...OBL would love to do this also. The wealthy non-royals are funneling money to al qaeda in an effort to play both ends against the middle.

    The idea that something like the Marshall Plan can work on a country by country basis in the middle east is also highly suspect. If for example a State of Palestine were established on the West Bank, and somehow the Palestinian belligerance were mitigated, I have grave doubts that anything worthwhile would be built there by infusing the new country in money and industry as all of the various other countries that have been training, funding and inciting the Palestinians would be sabotaging the effort at every turn...most likely violently. I would also expect that this would be funded by the royalty itself, as the last thing they would want to see in their own backyard is a successful Muslim parliamentary government. This would be a significant threat to the mullahs also.

    So what then? Do we bring down all of the governments in the region in order to rebuild it? A second crusade to convert the 'heathens' and attempt to establish a core set of moral values wherein the plan would work?

    I've read your many posts to the effect that we need to do this. I don't take your position lightly and I didn't discount it out of hand. I discount it because I do not believe it is workable.

    The cultural revolution that would be the impetus for the region as a whole to join the 21st century world community in earnest has to come from within. Nation building is not the answer.

    If there is an answer to the shortcut that most of us would like for the process, it will take a coalition of minds much sharper than that which is contained in our little community here. Barring that, in my own estimation, the best we will be able to realistically achieve is to draw lines in the sand in terms of acceptable international behavior, stepping across which is met with swift action and of the force necessary to inhibit further outbreaks.

Share This Page