See what MODERATES can do in the Mid East!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


This is why the right of return will be the dealbreaker.

That will be true without any right of return, which is why Israel, for all it's military might, is the one fighting against time. Right now they can pull of jewish and democratic..but not for many decades more...when they will have to decide for one or the other.

[Sandman]

I dunno. Will this deal lead to a Palestinian state that isn't as convoluted and fragile as a snowflake?

[Grandpa Troll]

Grrrrr

I feel like "SUCH AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!

I saw the thread title and being a little tired.I thought it said "see what the MODERATORS CAN DO IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

and I am thinking..Solver

Ming

MtG and UR as well as RAH..well maybe his name may get him "out" of trouble

But 4-Real..I was thinking

"Man, these guys may a wee bit out of their limits of authority"

Then I am thinking more deeply..

Perhaps with the "All-Knowing" attitude sometimes displayed by the Mods here..just perhaps after all the great minds have had a wack at diplomacy maybe what we need is a Tight-@r$e Moderator to come in and straighten things out..

I could just see it now...

First all these morons here (yeah U guys know whom you are!!) complained about Gitmo prisoner detention center...I cannot wait to see people complain about the conditions at either

SOLVER-HALL


or even

~gasp~

~shudder~

MING-A-PULCO!!!

I mean I been there and it aint pretty!

Say you havent been there?

Well..just watch Midnight Express and thats like the welcome center for both facilities....

The Big Turkish gaurd..

I am not sure if that was based on a depiction of Ming or not but surely if the Middle East had to deal with the likes of these folks then we could have a lot more civility!

Take the deal?

I say Take it and be nice play nice in the sandbox and remember

OT Forums is a great place to play and enjoy the Moderators, for if they were to play in our World but RULE in your World then we would not have as many problems as their are!

Peace

Grandpa "Not-The-Governor-Elect-of-California-sworn-in-today"-Troll

[Gatekeeper]

Moderates are A-OK in my book.

[Bosh]

Sounds like the fairest deal I've ever heard of on this issue. Needs to address water rights though...

[Zevico]

Right...because this has worked SO MANY TIMES BEFORE WITH YASSER ARAFAT AND COMPANY.
Wake up, people. The PA education system consists of hatred against Israel and Jews; the PA media consists of hatred against Israel and Jews; everything about Israel and Jews is utterly, completely vilified, including its right to exist at all.
Palestinian schoolbooks praise "martyrs" while at the same time, Yasser Arafat says he wants peace. The two are mutually exclusive, in my not so humble opinion.
Yasser Arafat is incompetent at leading a small amount of territories, funds terrorist organisations, is corrupt, and yet people still want to talk to him or the PA.
The Geneva Initiative might have been a good idea, if none of this were true, if Yasser and his henchmen (and his henchmen did sign this) were really good guys at heart. A quick look at the facts should show otherwise, however.

[Zevico]

As to your claim that moderates actually exist on the Arab side, they are, to my regret, untrue. Dear Leader Yasser controls the PA in its entirety, and though opposition to Yasser is tentatively allowed, it is followed by gunmen coming by the house of the opposition and firing AK 47 rounds. Thus moderates simply cannot exist, for they are stamped out by the majority of the organisation. Which is another point--anyone in the Palestinian territories that wants recognition of Israel's existence is a heretic; anyone who does not want a future Palestinian state "in theory" in Israel is considered as a far right winger. Sharon and the Likud are right wing, but not far right. Even far right, however, respects the right to live of Arabs, unlike the radicals (and I 'daresay' the moderates) of the palestinian poltical arena.

[Zevico]

The fact is, the continual and planned humiliation and harassment of the entire palestinian nation by the IDF was going on decades before the first suicide bombings happened. Now they just provide a somewhat convenient excuse for said activity.

Edit for clarification (and politeness, no doubt):
Suicide bombings are not the only form of terrorism, Buckseed. Before suicide bombers could be used, infiltrations into Israeli territory occurred MANY times: the War of Attrition is the probably the most prominent string of examples. Thus your claim is incorrect.
Furthermore, even assuming that what you say of deliberate harassment and etc by the IDF is true (and I personally disagree):
1) Terror attacks occurred before the IDF had the run of any Palestinian civilian population.
2) Even so, the most Palestinians could do according to their very argument is to attack soldiers and the military. Though the military has been occasionally been targetted during the Intifada, the vast majority of attacks have been of a terrorist nature-ie. specifically against civilians.

Yes it's clearly the palestinians building a wall around Israel and keeping an army dedicated to harassing its population. And all those horrible Palestinian settlers wrecking the peace process, nasty stuff.

Firstly, the wall is to protect the Israeli civilian population from terror attacks. I personally would prefer it a few people lost their farmland over a few people losing their lives. As for the settlers, they are the least of the peace process' problems. If it were a matter of settlers, then the issue would long be over, or at least there would be no intifada, in my opinion.

Also, the journalist in the article stated that Yossi Beilin was a fanatical moderate. This is incorrect. Yossi Beilin is regarded by the Israeli public mainly as a left/far left/delusional politican (depending on how far your views go). But he is certainly not a moderate. I think that this sheer ignorance of Israeli politics alone should make any other opinion this journalist has on the ME (or at least Israel and the the conflict b/w Israel and the Palestinians) totally irrelevant.

[Arrian]

Sounds like a decent plan. There have been several decent plans generated in the past. The basic outline of a deal has been pretty clear for a while. It's actually DOING it that seems to be impossible for either side's leadership.

Which is all the more upsetting, of course.

-Arrian

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Arrian
Sounds like a decent plan. There have been several decent plans generated in the past. The basic outline of a deal has been pretty clear for a while. It's actually DOING it that seems to be impossible for either side's leadership.

Which is all the more upsetting, of course.

-Arrian

Actually, I think this plan is the worse, most irresponsable, and most dangerous plan yet. Israel would surrender way way too much!

[Arrian]

In return for peace with Israel, the Palestinians get a nonmilitarized state in the West Bank and Gaza. They also get the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and sovereignty over the Temple Mount, but under a permanent international security force, with full Jewish access. The Israelis get to keep settlements housing about 300,000 of the 400,000 Jews in the West Bank (in return for an equivalent amount of land from Israel), including virtually all the new Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem built in the Arab side of the city. About 30,000 Palestinian refugees get to return to their homes in Israel proper, and all refugees receive compensation.

Giving up too much? Please.

-Arrian

[Az]

I sort of like the deal, though I don't like a bunch of factors in it:
a) We're making a deal with the PA? that's great. What about Hamas and IJ?
b) I am sort of fearing that the palestinian on the street isn't getting the full picture. A similar deal that had No right of return whatsoever, and return to the 67' borders, aka Ayalon-Nuseiba, has been rejected, completely so. I don't think that the 30-40k people can change this.

time will tell, I guess.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The truth is that many of these guys were in power, and they offered almost this exact same plan, and Arafat rejected it!

Then why is Sharon blabbering on about how much of a traitor Beilin is?

The fact of the matter is that it does give more concessions than that Clinton plan. First, it gives Palestine control over Arab East Jerusalem settlements (the Clinton plan did not). It exchanges settlement land (given to Israel) for Israeli land given to Palestine. And MOST important is allows about 30,000 Palestines right of return (compensation for the rest).

Actually, you're incorrect (or at least misleading):

The Clinton plan gave Arabs sovereignty over one neighborhood in East Jerusalem, as well as administrative control of all Arabs in Jerusalem.
The clinton plan did have have a swap for land (although I'm not sure if that swap is different now than it was before), and the Clinton plan did allow for a number of Palestinians to enter Israel for "family reunification" (as well as compensation for the rest) in order to completely end the right of return issue - indeed, I think th enumber being proposed was somewhat higher than 30,000 (maybe 50k?) - but the right of return has become far less an important issue now that polls have shown that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians don't want to "return".

OTOH, this plan makes Israel give up Ariel, IIRC, so it gives slighly more to the Palestinians than the Clinton proposal (although I very much doubt Ariel was a deal breaker).

In the end, it seems like a reasonable (if not perfect) plan. Assuming it ever goes anywhere, and that the Palestinians are capable of dismantling the terrorist groups.

[chequita guevara]

I posted about this months ago.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As to your claim that moderates actually exist on the Arab side, they are, to my regret, untrue.

So I made up Abed Rabbo? He was a former information minister for the PA, as well.

anyone who does not want a future Palestinian state "in theory" in Israel is considered as a far right winger.

They are far right wingers. They want a colony, and I'd consider colonizers to be reactionaries. Self-determination was a principle well established decades ago.