Should Palestine unilaterally declare independence?

[ljkeane]

It's irrelevant because the Palestinians did not break off talks due to this issue, but rather, the right of return.

Again I'm not saying that the Palestinians won't have to compromise on the right of return, I'm saying that the proposed Israeli solutions so far aren't a reasonable basis for compromise on the issue.

They disagreed on the borders as-well, while the proposition regarding borders was more than fair (roughly 100% equivalent of the 1967 borders), which is yet another argument against the Palestinians. Allso, you are avoiding the simple matter of the Palestinians refusing to make any counter-offer and lay out their own proposition, probably because they feared Israel would accept it.

They also disagreed on Jerusalem and security issues, which was pretty much the all the issues being discussed.

The territory dispute was a far more complicated issue than you're making out and a fairly reasonable argument can be made that the proposed solution by Israel still constitutes Israel breaking international law. So it's hardly as simple as you imply.

Again I agree that the Palestinians should have tried to negotiate further but the Israeli position was hardly as conciliatory as you are suggesting.

[Yoadm]

Again I'm not saying that the Palestinians won't have to compromise on the right of return, I'm saying that the proposed Israeli solutions so far aren't a reasonable basis for compromise on the issue.

If the Palestinians thought that it wasn't a good enough solution, they could have (as expected in any negotiation), proposed their own solution (a counteroffer). They were asked to do so countless times during the negotiations, but they refused. Allso, you keep forgetting that the parts of the Israeli offer you deem unfair were not a breaking point for the Palestinians, but rather an issue which, in essence, is the basis for 'two states for two people's'.

They also disagreed on Jerusalem and security issues, which was pretty much the all the issues being discussed.

I allready said that they refused the offer essentially giving them close to 100% of their territorial demands, including in Jerusalem. Oh, and Barak, in the final offer, consented on the jordan river security demands.

The territory dispute was a far more complicated issue than you're making out and a fairly reasonable argument can be made that the proposed solution by Israel still constitutes Israel breaking international law. So it's hardly as simple as you imply.

Please elaborate.

[ljkeane]

I allready said that they refused the offer essentially giving them close to 100% of their territorial demands, including in Jerusalem.

It really didn't though, it was considerably less than 100% and the proposed exchanges were disputed. So I'm disagreeing with you.

Please elaborate.

I don't really want to get into an extended debate on the subject but suffice to say that numerous authorities consider all Israeli settlements on on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem to be a violation of international law.

[Yoadm]

It really didn't though, it was considerably less than 100% and the proposed exchanges were disputed. So I'm disagreeing with you.

I don't consider 100% of Gaza, 98% of the WB + territorial concessions 'condsiderably less' than 100%. Even if they did not accept it, they could have (and were expected) to present their own counteroffer. They flatly refused, and refused to explain their position, probably because they feared Israel might just accept their demands, thus they would have no way out of agreeing to the terms.

I don't really want to get into an extended debate on the subject but suffice to say that numerous authorities consider all Israeli settlements on on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem to be a violation of international law.

You said that the proposed solution breaks international law, not the settlements themselves. Need I remind you that the lands conquered in 1967 are considered by the UN disputed lands?

[ljkeane]

I don't consider 100% of Gaza, 98% of the WB + territorial concessions 'condsiderably less' than 100%.

None of the figures I can find are remotely approaching 98% of the West Bank, perhaps you could provide some evidence? Beyond that the issue of territory and the level of control over that territory is rather more complicated than the percentage issue you are presenting it as.

You said that the proposed solution breaks international law, not the settlements themselves.

The proposed Israeli territorial solution doesn't include Israel annexing numerous settlements in the West Bank?

[Galactus]

That's not a concession, since they disagreed on stopping the demand for the 'right of return' for the refugee's decendents, making any future Israel (within their demands) crumble demographically within a decade. It's more like a trojan-horse peace offering than a concession.

No, that's a huge concession. It is giving away more than half of what they consider to have been stolen from them, and that concession was *not* easy for Fatah to make: It came at a considerable political cost.

[Galactus]

Whether you believe flooding Israel with millions of refugees is right or not, it goes against the whole formula of two-state's for two people's. It extinguishes one side's self-determination, and is hardly a way for peace. It's a critical issue, thus as long as they do not concede on this, then one might say they arn't even conceding on the basic issue of Israel's existance. And the 2000 final offer was more than fair.

There are ways of reconciling the two though. Acknowledging a "Right of Return" and then commuting the actual right to immigrate to some kind of compensatory payment, at least for descendants of refugees, for instance.

I don't think "Right of Return" would actually be synonomous to an actual return of palestinian refugees, neccessarily.

[Yoadm]

None of the figures I can find are remotely approaching 98% of the West Bank, perhaps you could provide some evidence? Beyond that the issue of territory and the level of control over that territory is rather more complicated than the percentage issue you are presenting it as.

In 2000 Barak agreed in full to the Clinton Parameters of a Palestinian state, on 98 percent of the West Bank and Gaza land swap, and Jerusalem as a shared capital.

http://www.thecommentfactory.com/noam-chomsky-is-misguided-on-the-israel-palestine-dispute-1397

http://www.peacelobby.org/clinton_parameters.htm

And it isn't so complicated, since it includes territorial contiguity for the Palestinians, a capital in East Jerusalem, controll of the Muslim and Christian holy sites, and of the non-Jewish quarters in the old city.

The proposed Israeli territorial solution doesn't include Israel annexing numerous settlements in the West Bank?

It does (3-6% of the WB), and in return, the Palestinians were offered numerous options for territorial swaps as compensations, and many of them were far more critical for the Palestinians in order to create a viable state, including either an enlargening of Gaza by 50%, or of the WB in the fertile areas west of the southern WB.

No, that's a huge concession. It is giving away more than half of what they consider to have been stolen from them, and that concession was *not* easy for Fatah to make: It came at a considerable political cost.

It's not a concession, since it is the internationally agreed formula, two states for two people's. Demanding the right of return equals demanding the whole cake. It is akin to Israel suddenly demanding Jordan since it was promised to the Jews in the balfur agreement. Both are irrelevant to current negotiations.

There are ways of reconciling the two though. Acknowledging a "Right of Return" and then commuting the actual right to immigrate to some kind of compensatory payment, at least for descendants of refugees, for instance.

I don't think "Right of Return" would actually be synonomous to an actual return of palestinian refugees, neccessarily.

You may not see it that way, but the Palestinian negotiators did.

[Galactus]

It's irrelevant because the Palestinians did not break off talks due to this issue, but rather, the right of return. Allso, Israel could have allso demanded an apology for the 1948 war, attempted genocide, and 50 years of terrorism. So, thus you end up with two sides demanding the other 'say sorry' before a peace deal is made. It doesnt work that way, and the side which demands it is simply using it as a ploy to delay negotiations. As it happened, neither side did, because the Palestinians broke off negotiations due to ROR itself.

If the palestinians are to give up the Right of Return, they are going to need a reason to do so: The israelis are going to have to offer something in return, something substantial and yes, that's something that is going to hurt to give up.

[Yoadm]

If the palestinians are to give up the Right of Return, they are going to need a reason to do so: The israelis are going to have to offer something in return, something substantial and yes, that's something that is going to hurt to give up.

The west bank, Gaza, and half their capital is precisely the optimal solution agreed upon by the international community, and even the current leadership of most of the Arab world. Saying that 'conceding ROR' would demand yet more Israeli concessions, is like Israel now saying "well, we now demand Jordan, since it was promised in the past, to give it up, we want half the WB". Both are unrealistic to the extreme, and go against the whole formula of two states for two people's.

[ljkeane]

In 2000 Barak agreed in full to the Clinton Parameters of a Palestinian state, on 98 percent of the West Bank and Gaza land swap, and Jerusalem as a shared capital.

http://www.peacelobby.org/clinton_parameters.htm

The Clinton parameters were general guidelines, with no specific commitments. Actual Israeli proposals I can find were more like 80% of the West Bank.

It does (3-6% of the WB), and in return, the Palestinians were offered numerous options for territorial swaps as compensations

I think most people agree that there's going to have to be some compromise on the issue, the point is that from a Palestinian perspective they are having to concede to a degree of illegal Israeli expansionism. So the issue is not as simply resolved as you suggest.

[Galactus]

The west bank, Gaza, and half their capital is precisely the optimal solution agreed upon by the international community, and even the current leadership of most of the Arab world. Saying that 'conceding ROR' would demand yet more Israeli concessions, is like Israel now saying "well, we now demand Jordan, since it was promised in the past, to give it up, we want half the WB". Both are unrealistic to the extreme, and go against the whole formula of two states for two people's.

I'm not neccessarily talking land. I'm talking other stuff (economic concessions, access, water rights, promises to respect palestinian sovereignity...) I do agree that the borders are pretty much generally agreed upon by the international community to be the 1967 ones, i suspect that those (both israelis and palestinians) who do NOT agree to them are more or less using it as a bargaining position: As long as they refuse to accept this they can keep undermining the negotiating position of the other side.

[Yoadm]

The Clinton parameters were general guidelines, with no specific commitments. Actual Israeli proposals I can find were more like 80% of the West Bank.

I allready provided you with a source outlining the offer, which included 94-96% plus land reparations of 1-3%. And, general guidelines or not, they were rejected out of hand. Had the Palestinians said "Ok, there's something here, let's continue negotiating and set the borders according to those general guidelines", you might have had a point. Had they said "we reject these guidelines, here's our counteroffer", you might have had a point. They did nothing of the sort, and simply left the negotiations.

I think most people agree that there's going to have to be some compromise on the issue, the point is that from a Palestinian perspective they are having to concede to a degree of illegal Israeli expansionism. So the issue is not as simply resolved as you suggest.

And yet you fail to outline what was so 'complicated' that the Palestinians neither agreed to the mapped proposal, clinton parameters, or even made their own offer. They simply left.

I'm not neccessarily talking land. I'm talking other stuff (economic concessions, access, water rights, promises to respect palestinian sovereignity...)

Indeed. But when all the Palestinian side said 'no, no, no' to every offer, and refused to outline its own offer, but rather, left the negotiations, it is inexusable.

[WhiteHaven]

Since this news is somewhat related to the topic:

http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=55564

Now. The source is actually Pro-Islamistic because Akif Emre is one of the writers there, and he owns a Islamistic newspaper in Turkey. However, it's funny that we (at least I) did not hear a lot about this in the German News landscape. Probably because of the "We killed 6millions jews, that's why we can't critisize them" bullshit. A whatever, seems like a third Intifada is on the way.

Palestine should just declare independence and see if some Arab or Anti-American countries would recognize them. If so, then Israel would basically have declared war on Palestine. Well yeah, dunno what this accomplishes, but is better than nothing.

Eta: Western source: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/pictures-177/

[El-ahrairah]

So is it really possible to have a viable state basically split in two, with their greatest rival in the middle, as the Strip and the Bank are? Even if they can stop killing each other the geography is just too weird.

[Werthead]

So is it really possible to have a viable state basically split in two, with their greatest rival in the middle, as the Strip and the Bank are? Even if they can stop killing each other the geography is just too weird.

Well in the recent past you could see Israel itself is acting as a sort of buffer zone between Fatah and Hamas when they were intent on killing one another, possibly the only time Hamas at least saw any kind of benefit to Israel's location ;)

As for being split in two, that's not too much of a problem. Spain has exclaves in Morocco, Lesotho is completely encircled by South Africa on all sides, there's a small chunk of Britain located 900 miles away from it on the south coast of Spain (sort of, not to mention the Falklands 8,000 miles away) and so on. There's Kaliningrad, part of Russia but separated from it by several hundred miles on the Baltic. There's also the main body of the USA and Alaska separated by a couple of hundred miles of Canada.

A state actually existing in different chunks isn't a problem, it's getting back and forth between the various chunks which the question, especially if you have strained relationships with the nation or territory dividing the chunks apart from one another.

Since this news is somewhat related to the topic:

Yeah, it's on the BBC as well. This isn't far off from how the second intifada began either. What was that line about people not remembering the past being condemned to repeat it again and again?

[Shryke]

Well in the recent past you could see Israel itself is acting as a sort of buffer zone between Fatah and Hamas when they were intent on killing one another, possibly the only time Hamas at least saw any kind of benefit to Israel's location ;)

I remember something I was reading showing that Hamas has killed about 10 times more members of Fatah then they have Israelis.

[Shryke]

Some interesting stuff on the recent thing with the Biden and just how pissed the current Administration is with it:

Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has told the country's diplomats there that U.S.-Israeli relations face their worst crisis in 35 years, despite attempts by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office to project a sense of "business as usual."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1156467.html

Also, an interesting move by Petraeus here that may show the winds in some parts of the US government are changing: http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/14/the_petraeus_briefing_biden_s_embarrassment_is_not_the_whole_story

The team had been dispatched by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus to underline his growing worries at the lack of progress in resolving the issue. The 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Mullen. The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) "too old, too slow ... and too late."

"Everywhere they went, the message was pretty humbling," a Pentagon officer familiar with the briefing says. "America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding." But Petraeus wasn't finished: two days after the Mullen briefing, Petraeus sent a paper to the White House requesting that the West Bank and Gaza (which, with Israel, is a part of the European Command -- or EUCOM), be made a part of his area of operations. Petraeus's reason was straightforward: with U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military had to be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged in the region's most troublesome conflict.

Basically, with US soldiers in the area, unilateral support for Israel is now being seen as a liability and a danger to American soldier's lives. And the latest crap from the Israeli Government has potentially pissed off the US military something fierce.

[snake]

Well, I doubt Obama or anyone in his administration are going to be overly tough on Israel. They didn't like what happened and they let it be known but they were very quick to say that Israel is still their favourite friend and that nothing would ever change that. I mean, there's midterm elections coming up and another presidential term as well. They sure as hell don't want AIPAC pissed off.

So nothing will change with regards to the "peace" process and in the end the blame will fall on Abbas.

[El-ahrairah]

Well in the recent past you could see Israel itself is acting as a sort of buffer zone between Fatah and Hamas when they were intent on killing one another, possibly the only time Hamas at least saw any kind of benefit to Israel's location ;)

As for being split in two, that's not too much of a problem. Spain has exclaves in Morocco, Lesotho is completely encircled by South Africa on all sides, there's a small chunk of Britain located 900 miles away from it on the south coast of Spain (sort of, not to mention the Falklands 8,000 miles away) and so on. There's Kaliningrad, part of Russia but separated from it by several hundred miles on the Baltic. There's also the main body of the USA and Alaska separated by a couple of hundred miles of Canada.

A state actually existing in different chunks isn't a problem, it's getting back and forth between the various chunks which the question, especially if you have strained relationships with the nation or territory dividing the chunks apart from one another.

Little enclaves and exclaves is one thing, but the two chunks of Palestine are pretty equal in population. It's more like the U.S. being the East Coast and West Coast with the Louisiana Territory still under French rule.