Israel - Palestine peace process

ecce homo

ecce homo

Well-Known Member
Possible breakthrough for Middle East peace at US-Arab League talks

After meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry, Arab states appear to have softened conditions for Israeli-Palestinian peace. A land swap could now form part of any deal.


Speaking on behalf of an Arab League delegation, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, Qatar's prime minister and foreign minister, raised the possibility of land swaps. Talk of adjusting the bargain came after a group of Arab officials and US Secretary of State John Kerry discussed Israeli-Palestinian peace Monday.

"This news is very positive," Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni told Army Radio on Tuesday. "In the tumultuous world around ... it could allow the Palestinians to enter the room and make the needed compromises and it sends a message to the Israeli public that this is not just about us and the Palestinians."

Kerry has expressed hope of reviving talks and ensuring that a new peace process would have the backing of the Arab states, which could provide an incentive for compromise by offering Israel a comprehensive deal. It remains unclear whether US President Barack Obama will decide to back a major effort.

"The Arab League delegation affirmed that agreement should be based on the two-state solution on the basis of the 4th of June 1967 line, with the (possibility) of comparable and mutual agreed minor swap of the land," Kerry told reporters after the meeting at the Blair House in Washington, DC.

The Bahraini, Egyptian, Jordanian and Qatari foreign ministers as well as officials from Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and the Arab League attended Monday's talks. US Vice President Joe Biden also made an appearance.

Rejected by Israel when it was originally proposed at a Beirut summit in 2002, the original plan still has obstacles to overcome. Core issues include borders, the fate of Palestinian refugees, the future of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and the status of Jerusalem.

(AFP, Reuters, dpa, AP)
 
  • Advertisement
  • dodzi

    dodzi

    Legendary Member
    My opinion is that if a land swap should happen, Gaza needs to be compensated. Big settlements can be included into Israel, but then Gaza needs to be compensated with greater amount of land than the West Bank is losing.

    That's because land swap deals should be concluded based on the quality and the value of the lands, not on the size of it!
     
    Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    What will happen is the following:

    1-Israelis will say it's a good progress and seems a positive step and a good idea.
    2-Palestinians will try to appear reluctant then will finally declare that they accept.
    3-Israelis will refuse.
    4-A precedent will take place according to which Israelis will claim that the 67 borders have been dismissed as definitive borders by the Palestinians themselves.

    The the land stealing will keep going ...
     
    Danny Z

    Danny Z

    Legendary Member
    What will happen is the following:

    1-Israelis will say it's a good progress and seems a positive step and a good idea.
    2-Palestinians will try to appear reluctant then will finally declare that they accept.
    3-Israelis will refuse.
    4-A precedent will take place according to which Israelis will claim that the 67 borders have been dismissed as definitive borders by the Palestinians themselves.

    The the land stealing will keep going ...
    it is either a two state solution based on 1967 where the Israelis will have to dismantle homes on squatted lands and move millions into the Israeli interior which they can't afford socially and economically; or a one state solution where they will be a minority. The other solution or rather the no solution is a continuation of what is happening today, apartheid, racism, Palestinians confined to the biggest jail in the world with no charges and hatred to Israel and their western backers growing bigger and bigger. The world will have to decide how long they can back Apartheid and suffer from the international terrorism that grips the world and that came as a child of ill biased non humane policies. Sometimes collateral damage as they call it is the price countries are ready to pay to maintain this status quo of biased policies that fits their interest but maybe at some point they will decide to get rid of the burden and stop their interference in other countries to get their peace, like Spain did after Iraq invasion and the attack on their trains, like France did after the Algerian terrorized Paris metros for a year.
    It is not Israel alone that will decided to bring in a solution, they live much better today after they have built a wall and used an iron dome defense than they have ever lived before, their northern border has been quiet for over 6 years an awful long time in comparison to past decades, their Syrian border is no thread as the country is in turmoil. The solution needs to come from the international community by forcing Israel's hand.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    what do they mean by "land swap".which land are they "swapping" and how?
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

    Albert Einstein
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

    Albert Einstein
    Which thing that is being done over and over again do you mean?
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    What will happen is the following:

    1-Israelis will say it's a good progress and seems a positive step and a good idea.
    2-Palestinians will try to appear reluctant then will finally declare that they accept.
    3-Israelis will refuse.
    4-A precedent will take place according to which Israelis will claim that the 67 borders have been dismissed as definitive borders by the Palestinians themselves.

    The the land stealing will keep going ...
    I do not care much about #1 through #3 for it is highly speculative and it could go either way and not necessarily the way you are predicting.

    However, your #4 is completely wrong.

    Because Arabs have refused UN partition there are no recognized borders and everything should be up for grabs.

    Still, land swap is something new, it is something Arabs have never agreed to nor even offered before and it certainly much better formula for Israel than so called land-for-peace.

    "land-for-land" is akin to my favorite "peace-for-peace" and that is progress in my book despite all your negativity.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    My opinion is that if a land swap should happen, Gaza needs to be compensated. Big settlements can be included into Israel, but then Gaza needs to be compensated with greater amount of land than the West Bank is losing.

    That's because land swap deals should be concluded based on the quality and the value of the lands, not on the size of it!
    I agree that real deal must be beneficial to both sides, but I doubt your approach will be well received in the area where every square inch is counted.

    Besides I do not think Gaza needs to be touched, if anything it is not part of ancient Israel and could stay where it is and do whatever it wants.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Which thing that is being done over and over again do you mean?
    Empty negotiations put on for show.

    Still, land swap is something new, it is something Arabs have never agreed to nor even offered before
    Not so...

    In 2008 Olmert made two offers to the Palestinians. In April he proposed that Israel annex 9.2 % of the West Bank in exchange for Israeli territory equivalent of 5% of the West Bank. Then on 31 August he offered the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas a landswap in which Israel would annex 8.7% of the West Bank in exchange for Israeli territory equivalent of 5.5%. This second 'offer' was not a formal one: Olmert would not allow it to be presented to the broader negotiation teams. The maps he presented were reportedly "similar to the Wall".

    Already it is difficult to see what the fuss is about. Annexing nearly ten percent of the West Bank along roughly the route of the Wall violates basic Palestinian legal rights and renders a viable and contiguous Palestinian state impossible. But it's worse than the mere percentages suggest. The fundamental problem is that Olmert continued to insist on annexing "all the major [settlement] 'blocs'", keeping 90% of Israeli settlers in place. This is an important point to understand. The settlements themselves - the actual built-up areas - take up almost no space. The problem is that Israel wants to annex, not settlements, but settlement blocs: large chunks of Palestinian territory that link settlements to each other and to Israel proper, dissecting the West Bank into de facto non-contiguous cantons, appropriating key water and agricultural resources, and cutting Palestinians off from East Jerusalem in the process (without East Jerusalem, the West Bank's economic hub, there can be no Palestinian state). Note that this was still Israel's negotiating position in November 2008, after the "secret offer" made by Olmert and recently "revealed" by Condoleeza Rice (a mere two years after it appeared in Ha'aretz) to sell her memoirs.

    If Olmert's deal was a non-starter, did the Palestinians offer an alternative? Yes. The Palestinians came up with an official offer that both upheld their legal rights and made reasonable compromises to accommodate Israeli interests.

    Note that under this proposal over 60% of Israeli settlers would remain in situ, on just 1.9% of Palestinian territory, which would be exchanged for land of equal size and value inside Israel. As the International Court of Justice unanimously determined, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza constitute occupied Palestinian territory, and all of Israel's settlements are illegal. And yet, this notwithstanding, Palestinian negotiators offered to allow over 60% of them to stay where they are. That's a breathtaking compromise, but one that nonetheless leaves a contiguous West Bank intact to serve as the basis for a viable Palestinian state.

    Unlike Olmert's slight modification of Israel's standard rejectionist position, this Palestinian proposal received no media plaudits, and garnered no international praise. Indeed it hasn't even been reported. Also unlike Olmert's 'offer', it represents the basis for a genuine peace settlement. It embodies the overwhelming international political and legal consensus for resolving the conflict, making extraordinary compromises to accommodate Israel's interests while still providing for a contiguous, viable state on the whole of Palestinian territory.

    http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2011/11/14/6373/5596
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    "Still, land swap is something new, it is something Arabs have never agreed to nor even offered before" - Not so...
    OK, offers were made, but not by Arabs.

    Having land swap offer coming from Arab side is new and cannot really qualify as "the same thing over and over again".

    It actually shows that ice has begun to melt.

    Granted it is mostly due to current volatile situation in Arab Middle East, but who cares.

    If I were Israeli government I would've milked this to the last drop before agreeing to anything.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    OK, offers were made, but not by Arabs.

    Having land swap offer coming from Arab side is new and cannot really qualify as "the same thing over and over again".
    *sigh*

    If Olmert's deal was a non-starter, did the Palestinians offer an alternative? Yes. The Palestinians came up with an official offer that both upheld their legal rights and made reasonable compromises to accommodate Israeli interests.

    Note that under this proposal over 60% of Israeli settlers would remain in situ, on just 1.9% of Palestinian territory, which would be exchanged for land of equal size and value inside Israel. As the International Court of Justice unanimously determined, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza constitute occupied Palestinian territory, and all of Israel's settlements are illegal. And yet, this notwithstanding, Palestinian negotiators offered to allow over 60% of them to stay where they are. That's a breathtaking compromise, but one that nonetheless leaves a contiguous West Bank intact to serve as the basis for a viable Palestinian state.

    http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2011/11/14/6373/5596
    If I were Israeli government I would've milked this to the last drop before agreeing to anything.
    That is exactly what they're going to do, as they have always done. And they're going to push the limits until the terms are no longer acceptable for the Palestinians, as they have always done. Then they're going to walk-out of the negotiations and claim that it's the Palestinians who walked out, as they have always claimed. Hence, "the same thing over and over again."
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    [/I]"If I were Israeli government I would've milked this to the last drop before agreeing to anything."

    That is exactly what they're going to do, as they have always done. And they're going to push the limits until the terms are no longer acceptable for the Palestinians, as they have always done. Then they're going to walk-out of the negotiations and claim that it's the Palestinians who walked out, as they have always claimed. Hence, "the same thing over and over again."


    Both sides equally do not want to accept peace because both sides keep hoping to get more.

    I believe shoe today is on Israeli foot and before it will slip off they must get as much as possible and close the deal right before that.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Both sides equally do not want to accept peace because both sides keep hoping to get more.

    I believe shoe today is on Israeli foot and before it will slip off they must get as much as possible and close the deal right before that.

    Both sides may want more, but one side has the right and obligation to ask for more, while the other side, who already has too much, must learn to concede.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Both sides may want more, but one side has the right and obligation to ask for more, while the other side, who already has too much, must learn to concede.
    I would not care to guess whoever you mean, but just this idea.

    Arabs must settle in Arabia and Jews must settle in Judea.

    There will be peace if we all will accept this simple fact.


    BTW, milking has already begun:
    "Netanyahu: Conflict over recognition, not territory"
    www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4374896,00.html
     
    Danny Z

    Danny Z

    Legendary Member
    I would not care to guess whoever you mean, but just this idea.

    Arabs must settle in Arabia and Jews must settle in Judea.

    There will be peace if we all will accept this simple fact.


    BTW, milking has already begun:
    "Netanyahu: Conflict over recognition, not territory"
    www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4374896,00.html
    You started with saying that a land swap never happened before, you were proven wrong, then you said that Palestinians never proposed one then you were proven wrong again so here you came up with this close minded bigoted statement that nobody can even discuss it with you as it is racist and moves 180 degrees from your attempt to show you were open for peace. Rou7 khayyet bi gher hall msalle you don't want peace you exactly proved the point of Indie here that people are stupid if they think that by repeating doing the same thing they will get different results, you don't want peace, you want to exterminate them and kick them out of Palestine, you just said it, so why did you waste two pages trying to show you were a peaceful man, you're only a racist biggot
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    They can milk the cow to death, but it's much better to have a live, well-treated and healthy cow than a dead one.
    If this particular cow will die I will remain inconsolable for very long time, maybe even for whole hour.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    You started with saying that a land swap never happened before, you were proven wrong, then you said that Palestinians never proposed one then you were proven wrong again so here you came up with this close minded bigoted statement that nobody can even discuss it with you as it is racist and moves 180 degrees from your attempt to show you were open for peace. Rou7 khayyet bi gher hall msalle you don't want peace you exactly proved the point of Indie here that people are stupid if they think that by repeating doing the same thing they will get different results, you don't want peace, you want to exterminate them and kick them out of Palestine, you just said it, so why did you waste two pages trying to show you were a peaceful man, you're only a racist biggot
    Just curious, what is so bigoted about my statement?
     
    Top