3736, RE: Barak did not offer the Palestinians their 'own sta|
Posted by 40thStreetBlack, Sun Oct-12-03 11:32 AM
>Isnt that largely because they lack the resources to control
>those things. As far as I remember, they were to be offered
>those things if they could police the land. They proved
>unable to do that. This is not to say it was a great deal,
>or that the Israelis dont screw the palestinians over, but
>you are offering a one sided story. That deal was the best
>deal on the table ever and since.
No, it's because Israel feels that its security cannot be assured with a Palestinian state in control of its own borders and airspace. Which is a reasonable enough fear from their perspective I suppose, but it's rather ironic that Israel says this is necessary to ensure that it has secure and defendable borders, while at the same time it deprives the Palestinians of those very same things. So basically they are saying that they have a right to those things but the Palestinians do not. As for the water resources, that is just plain theft.
And no, Israel never offered the Palestinians those things if they could police the land. They were offered the Barak deal as a final binding proposal, meaning that if they accepted it, the Palestinians would concede those rights forever. You are the one offering a one-sided story; all I did was point out the actual facts of the matter. And regardless of it being the best deal ever offered by Israel, it was still total garbage, so that's not much of an argument.
>The six million Jews
>living in Israel arent going anywhere.The "we were there
>first" argument holds no truck with me, because the Israelis
>could equally say that.
Well that's nice, but I didn't use any such argument, I simply stated the facts of the deal. But since you brought it up... no, the Israelis could not "equally" say that, but that's a moot point in this debate. And actually there's only about 5 million Jews in Israel, just for accuracy's sake.
>And while we are talking about funding, well it isnt as
>though the Arab world doesnt pour millions of dollars into
>terrorist groups (supposedly fighting for palestinians) and
>yet doesnt actually give the Palestinians themselves any
>money to change. This is because the Arabs have alwasy
>regarded the Palestinians as the Pariahs of the Arab world.
>This explains why Palestinians in Israel have lower rates of
>infant mortality and higher rates of literacy than
>Palestinians elsewhere in the middle east.
Well, "we" weren't talking about funding, *you* are talking about funding. But yes, much of the Arab world treats the Palestinians like crap and largely uses them as pawns in their conflict with Israel... but that has nothing to do with whether or not Barak's offer was any good.
>Your final point proves mine really. The Palestinians wont
>ever be able to move into a position of negotiation as long
>as that mentality remains.
No, it proves that your portrayal of a noble Barak making a personal sacrifice for peace and a devious Arafat rejecting peace for his own nefarious purposes is a load of horseshit.
And while unfortunate, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Palestinians won't ever be able to negotiate as long as that mentality remains. A similar situation occurred in the Anglo-Irish War treaty negotiations - at the signing of the treaty, British representative Lord Birkenhead remarked to IRA commander Michael Collins, "I may have just signed my political death-warrant", to which Collins replied, "I may have signed my *actual* death-warrant" - and nine months later, Collins was assassinated by former comrades-in-arms who were opposed to the treaty.
But still, peace was achieved with the British (at least in the south) and out of that strife the Republic of Ireland gained its independence... so no, that mentality does not necessarily preclude the possibility of negotiation. It may take a Palestinian leader willing to take an assassin's bullet for the greater good, but it is not impossible. But either way, it would still take a better deal than the garbage Barak was offering to achieve peace.
>I maintain (because I know Israelis soldiers) that most of
>those people (religous fanatics excepted) arent interested
>in killing innocent people, and humiliating old ladies, and
>many arent interested in joining the army at all, but they
Again, this has nothing to do with what I was talking about, but since you brought it up...
>Picture the scene, you are a jumpy 18 year old with a
>machine gun and someone starts throwing rocks at you....
I wouldn't shoot at someone with a maching gun just for throwing rocks at me...
>Or you are a 12 year old and you are going to start throwing
>rocks at a jumpy 18 year old with a machine gun. Would you
>have done that stuff unless you had been told to?
If I was a 12 year old, and a jumpy 18 year old with a machine gun had killed my brother or my friend for throwing rocks, and I felt that I had no hope for peace or a future of any kind, I'd probably forget about throwing rocks and instead wait a few years until I was big enough to get a machine gun myself, and then kill the next jumpy 18 year old I came across machine-gunning 12 year old kids for throwing rocks.
>I think killing people is wrong. I think that training
>people to kill each other is wrong. I think that planning
>the deaths of yourself and or members of your family for
>political gain is wrong. Ill say it again, the bottom line
>is that killing people is wrong, no matter how good your
Well that's a nice sentiment, but you also seem to think that Israelis killing Palestinians is somehow less wrong than Palestinians killing Israelis, so your pacifist sentiments ring hollow.
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude