New Threat to Arafat - Proletariat rising?

[Sirotnikov]

The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period.

= No one declares a unilatreal state before the end of negociations.

Notice this applies only to the interim perioud.

Literacy is a great thing, when one applies it.

does not refer to the massacre in 1982...

Oh so you've heard of it.

A large palestinian massacare of christian south lebanese that occured some two weeks after Sabra and Shatilla and claimed the lives of hundreds... can't remember the town's name now, though.

As opposed to Oslo which offered ALL of the West Bank and Gaza

huh?
Where?

[Sirotnikov]

We put in $3 billion a year to Israel, which could be drawn down over time, with an Israeli "peace dividend".

1 billion.



What really worries me is that Hamas is using all of his money to help the people. The Pals do not have any kind of social security, and Hamas does that for them.

They do have the money.

[KrazyHorse]

1 billion

Flagrantly untrue. Do a search on it yourself.

[Giancarlo]

The US does infact put $4 billion into Israel.... BUT the US puts $6 billion into Egypt each year to maintain its US military equipiment.

And this might be of some interest...

http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/world.html

[KrazyHorse]

Next time you guys moan at the US for daring to criticize Israel, you might want to remember that they're pouring something like 700$US into each and every Israeli's pocket every year. You're their ***** and should learn how to act it.

[Giancarlo]

This is what pisses me off when Israel starts opening their little mouth about the US:

http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/notif_db.php?regionin=nesa&ctryin=isr&descin=&date1in=2001&date2in=2002&typein=%

The US supplies you.

[CyberGnu]

Fez, if you can't be civil when you are wrong, that is one thing. But if you can't be civil when you don't express yourself coherently, then you don't belong here.

You are more than welcome to come back on this issue when you have decided to be an adult.

[CyberGnu]

Siro, in the Oslo treaty the west bank was guaranteed to be treated as a coherent entity. In the camp david proposal, the west bank was divided into a minium of two physically separate cantons.

The viabilty of the potential palestinian state is naturally one of the biggest issues, so an offer not presenting a coherent state is less than an offer that does.

That the first treaty was temporary is not relevant. It was never intended to be permanent, but would only stay in effect until final negotiations were under way.

That the new offer actually would leave a LESS viable state is relevant, however, and claiming that it was 'generous' is even worse....

[CyberGnu]

Siro, what is your point in regards to the second massacre you talk about? Are you saying that Sharon is repsonsible for that one too? Or are you trying to defend Sharon with 'the palestinians did something bad too?'

[Sirotnikov]

Flagrantly untrue. Do a search on it yourself.

I distictively remember, after making such searches in the past, that 3-4 millions is an old figure.

Siro, in the Oslo treaty the west bank was guaranteed to be treated as a coherent entity

For the duration of the interim period. This was done to prevent palestinian independance declaration

The viabilty of the potential palestinian state is naturally one of the biggest issues, so an offer not presenting a coherent state is less than an offer that does.

How is having jerusalem, or refugees in Israel going to make it more viable?

If you read the press releases immediatelly after camp david, and not the rewritten history on the PA information ministry website, you'll see that those were the most serious points of conflict.

In the camp david proposal, the west bank was divided into a minium of two physically separate cantons.

huh?
How exactly was the west bank divided into cantons? And why I haven't seen such a map yet?

And what about the Tabaa offer, where some 97% were offered, including the whole of Gaza, and the Jordan valley immediatelly (compared to over a period of 4 years, as originally suggested in camp david)??

You're reading rewritten history.

That the first treaty was temporary is not relevant. It was never intended to be permanent, but would only stay in effect until final negotiations were under way.

I completely afree that Oslo was temporary and is not relevant anymore. So stop trying to abuse it's wording to say we promised the whole west bank.

Do you actually think that Israel under Rabin, Israel after the 1988 intifada, agreed to give up the entire west bank?

Siro, what is your point in regards to the second massacre you talk about? Are you saying that Sharon is repsonsible for that one too? Or are you trying to defend Sharon with 'the palestinians did something bad too?'

My point is that you're seeking out Israeli crimes and jumping up and down blaming Israel, while ignoring it's enviroment.

It's like taking a person that lives in some wild prairy in Africa, where he has to kill to survive, and judge him Hague.

[CyberGnu]

For the duration of the interim period. This was done to prevent palestinian independance declaration

Israels motivation doesn't matter. And it is still irrelevant...

The viabilty of the potential palestinian state is naturally one of the biggest issues, so an offer not presenting a coherent state is less than an offer that does.

The viabilty of the potential palestinian state is naturally one of the biggest issues, so an offer not presenting a coherent state is less than an offer that does. (emphasis added for clarification purposes).

Look, siro, I assume you have read the Oslo treaties. They set a bare minimum palestinian state, with several issues left for future negotiation. Thus, a new offer would be expected to build on the Oslo treaty, not backtrack on one of the most important issues only to claim that it is 'generous' because they have finally touched upon the final issues.

[CyberGnu]

huh?
How exactly was the west bank divided into cantons? And why I haven't seen such a map yet?

I posted two on the previous page, in a response to Fez.

The first one is the map presented after the Stockholm meeting in May (?) 2000. This map was the only actual map offered at Camp David (ackording to the Israeli negotiatior Ben-Ami in Yehorot). The second map is one that the palestinian negotiators claimed is the result of negotiations at Camp David in regards to the first map. I'm pretty sure you will say it is a lie, so please disregard it if you will and only concern yourself with the fist one.

The Tabaa offer was too late for everyone included, and as far as I know, never presented as a formal offer. If you have any details I'd be glad to peruse them, however.

You're reading rewritten history.

Nah, I'm sticking to plain history. You, my friend, are reading history after the spin-doctors have tailored it...

[CyberGnu]

I completely afree that Oslo was temporary and is not relevant anymore. So stop trying to abuse it's wording to say we promised the whole west bank.

Do you actually think that Israel under Rabin, Israel after the 1988 intifada, agreed to give up the entire west bank?

Actually, he did. Well, he offered to implement resolution 242, which the entire world interpreted as give up all Israeli occupied territory (i.e. everything outside the green line). At that point the spin started again, however, with the endless debating about the word 'all'. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

That is neither here nor there, however. A lot of more important people than us have wrangled that for years without getting to a solution.

I thus did not claim that the Oslo treaty offered the entire west bank. I claimed that it offered a viable palestinian state. That is it. Nothing else. And I've shown it with the actual line from the Oslo treaty.

The camp david offer did not offer a viable palestinian state, however, and the repetition of 'Arafat refused a very generous offer' is just another grand political lie.

[CyberGnu]

(Personally, I think a genereous offer would be 'all of west bank and gaza, east jerusalem, full ROR and $20 billion in annual aid'. A reasonable offer would be 'of west bank and gaza, east jerusalem, full ROR'. Anything less would be subject of negotiations.

[CyberGnu]

My point is that you're seeking out Israeli crimes and jumping up and down blaming Israel, while ignoring it's enviroment.

Well, I didn't bring it up, Ned did. I guess you have to yell at him for seeking out Israels crimes and jumping and whatnot...

But, since you brought it up as well...

It's like taking a person that lives in some wild prairy in Africa, where he has to kill to survive, and judge him Hague.

So, how did the palestinian civilians in those camps threaten Sharon? In the same way those evil jews threatened Hitler, perhaps?

Face it, siro... I can understand you defending Israels occupation... Israel has been feeding your doctored history all your life, and it doesn't make you a bad person becuase you are mislead.

But defending sharons massacre of civilians is really beyond the pale. It was a crime against humanity, and if there is one people on earth that should hate it more than any else, it should be the jews....