MUNICH

[juanesky 0]

I don't think so, but it could be very possible that he thinks the Moore's Fahrenheit 911 is a documentary....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

The struggle between Jews and Muslims has been going on for thousands of years in the Middle East. Exactly how far back do you want to go to determine "who started it"?

I have mention this many times before. To me it has nothing to do with Jews or Muslims it has to do with a land dispute.

I'm talking about the land dispute. Israel as a Jewish nation is well documented in both books of the Bible as well as elsewhere.

Quote

For Palestine we only need to go back what is it 51 or so years I think.

Any reason for that arbitrary cutoff?

[sundevil777 102]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For Palestine we only need to go back what is it 51 or so years I think.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Any reason for that arbitrary cutoff?

Because it fits their template.

When Israel was created, the Arab nations chose to not participate, and promised to destroy it. They tried again and again, but have always failed. The Grand Mufti made the refugees by declaring that anyone in the path of his attack would be considered an enemy.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Charles Krauthammer is so far to the right as to be out of sight.

Yes, he is definitely a conservative.

Because you offer no other rebuttal, I am left to conclude that it is especially irritating to you when conservatives are correct.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Darius11 12]

The current reason and only one i know of that the Palestinian and the Israeli are in a fight is the creation of Israel witch happened about 51 years ago.


Simple logic should have explained that.
I am all for going back 3000 years and giving most of the Middle East to Iran witch used to ancient Persia but that would be ridicules don’t you think?

We can all play dumb if you like but the facts are facts. The Israelis started this war then broke the peace when they felt like it, and ask for peace once they felt oeacful. It gets annoying when the Israelis want what they want when they want when they are the ones who have always been the aggressors

There was no bombs EVER blasted in Israel until it was done in retaliation for the murders of Muslims at a holy site. Who murdered these Muslims an Israeli.


I think the Israeli government should be viewed as the murderess they are. There is no reason for forgiveness.
Sharon has no remorse for even the children he has killed unless there is huge international pursuer.

The reasons are endless. It is not just the land they have stolen but the way they treated it’s natives.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[likearock 2]

You obviously have an axe to grind in that you only see one side of the issue.

The fact of the matter is that Israel (as well as Palestine) has a historical claim to statehood in the Middle East. You can argue all you want that the Israelis are always the agressors but an objective observer can see that excesses come from both sides of the aisle.

[juanesky 0]

And saddly is the same Axe the current Iranian Prez is pushing for.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Israelis want what they want when they want when they are the ones who have always been the aggressors

Israel was attacked immediately after it was created.

Arafat was not sincere in his stated quest for peace. Thankfully, Bush had the good sense to refuse to negotiate with him, and to actually demand that the PA get new leadership before the US would help both sides achieve peace.

For so long the Arab nations had as stated policy the destruction of Israel. They have defined themselves as the aggressors and confirmed it with their actions.

Some Arab leaders were able to realize the insanity in their quest to destroy Israel and see the way to peaceful coexistence, such as Sadat of Egypt. It is too bad that his example was tossed aside with his assasination.

It is sad that you cannot see that Israel's leadership has sought peace, while the so many Arab nations have sought war.

I think there should be no more aid to the PA without it being matched by the money that Arafat's stole from his own people.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Gravitymaster 0]

Would you agree there isn't much hope for a long and lasting peace as long as Muslims and Palestinians in particular continue with this mindset? I see Israel as extending olive branch after olive branch only to have their hand continuously bitten.
It's going to have to stop eventually or the Palestinians are going to become more and more isolated from the rest of the world.

[wmw999 2,445]

I see both sides as wanting to have it their way, and wanting the other side to do all of the adapting.

The Muslims by and large are treated as inferior citizens by Israel, and live in far poorer conditions. They don't have as much freedom, and it's just not their country anymore -- everything is in Hebrew, the holidays are the Jewish ones, etc.

Except that it used to be their country, within their grandparents' lifetime. Not as organized a one, but still their country.

That doesn't excuse the suicide bombings etc, but the Israelis are pretty seriously of the "don't fuck we us or we'll fuck you up" mold. Admirable to some Americans, but probably not good if you have to coexist with others.

They have an uneasy peace, but a peace, with Egypt. Until the Arab world feels like the bulk of the Palestinians are getting an even shake, it won't change.

There are some Palestinians, and some Israelis, who are so far away from compromise that it doesn't matter. But once a decent percentage sees that there is more future in cooperating than in not cooperating, it'll start to improve slowly. The problem is that each side sees "cooperating" and understands "my way."

And the Israelis have the big guns.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[charmsdroppop 0]

Gee Politics even then. I was born in Munich and am Fuckin' Ass Proud of IT..............all this religious crap is so old already. Oh yeah ,I got ADD.............

is it dark yet

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Quote

If you kill the inocent people of others with no remorse how and why would you expect sympathy for the murder of your inocent people?

Is this question for the Palestinians?

I think it was a question for the usa.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[likearock 2]

Quote

I see both sides as wanting to have it their way, and wanting the other side to do all of the adapting.

The only realistic chance there was for a settlement that would result in Palestinian state was during the Barak-Arafat talks that Clinton sponsored in 2000. Israel made a lot of compromises to try and make that happen. It wasn't they that dropped the ball at that time.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

I see both sides as wanting to have it their way, and wanting the other side to do all of the adapting.

The only realistic chance there was for a settlement that would result in Palestinian state was during the Barak-Arafat talks that Clinton sponsored in 2000. Israel made a lot of compromises to try and make that happen. It wasn't they that dropped the ball at that time.

Quite right.

Dennis Ross, the chief negotiator for the US, has described it in length in various interviews and his book. Arafat pulled the rug out of his own negotiation team.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I see both sides as wanting to have it their way, and wanting the other side to do all of the adapting.

This is a common perception that I think is completely wrong.

The Palestinians are certainly very skilled at portraying themselves as the victims. The Israelis are not so skilled at getting mainstream media to tell their side.

Dennis Ross was the middle east envoy working for Clinton. I give credit to Clinton for trying so hard and coming so close.

He has been telling the truth about what happened and I think he deserves our attention. The following was an interview (a lot of text, but worth it) with Fox News, and he now works for them. If you think this invalidates his commentary, then no need to look further, keep your blinders in place and turn away in denial:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50830,00.html

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS: Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross has worked to achieve Middle East peace throughout President Clinton's final days in office. In the months following Clinton's failed peace summit at Camp David, U.S. negotiators continued behind-the-scenes peace talks with the Palestinians and Israelis up until January 2001, and that followed Clinton's presentation of ideas at the end of December 2000.

Dennis Ross joins us now with more details on all that, and Fred Barnes joins the questioning.

So, Dennis, talk to us a little bit, if you can -- I might note that we're proud to able to say that you're a Fox News contributing analyst.

DENNIS ROSS: Thank you.

HUME: Talk to us about the sequence of events. The Camp David talks, there was an offer. That was rejected. Talks continued. You come now to December, and the president has a new set of ideas. What unfolded?
ROSS: Let me give you the sequence, because I think it puts all this in perspective.

Number one, at Camp David we did not put a comprehensive set of ideas on the table. We put ideas on the table that would have affected the borders and would have affected Jerusalem.

Arafat could not accept any of that. In fact, during the 15 days there, he never himself raised a single idea. His negotiators did, to be fair to them, but he didn't. The only new idea he raised at Camp David was that the temple didn't exist in Jerusalem, it existed in Nablus.

HUME: This is the temple where Ariel Sharon paid a visit, which was used as a kind of a pre-text for the beginning of the new intifada, correct?

ROSS: This is the core of the Jewish faith.

HUME: Right.

ROSS: So he was denying the core of the Jewish faith there.

After the summit, he immediately came back to us and he said, "We need to have another summit," to which we said, "We just shot our wad. We got a no from you. You're prepared actually do a deal before we go back to something like that."

He agreed to set up a private channel between his people and the Israelis, which I joined at the end of August. And there were serious discussions that went on, and we were poised to present our ideas the end of September, which is when the intifada erupted. He knew we were poised to present the ideas. His own people were telling him they looked good. And we asked him to intervene to ensure there wouldn't be violence after the Sharon visit, the day after. He said he would. He didn't lift a finger.

Now, eventually we were able to get back to a point where private channels between the two sides led each of them to again ask us to present the ideas. This was in early December. We brought the negotiators here.

HUME: Now, this was a request to the Clinton administration...

ROSS: Yes.

HUME: ... to formulate a plan. Both sides wanted this?

ROSS: Absolutely.

HUME: All right.

ROSS: Both sides asked us to present these ideas.

HUME: All right. And they were?

ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 by the president, and they basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go to the Palestinians.

On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capitol of the Palestinian state.

On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs.

And when it came to security, there would be a international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley.

These were ideas that were comprehensive, unprecedented, stretched very far, represented a culmination of an effort in our best judgment as to what each side could accept after thousands of hours of debate, discussion with each side.

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Now, Palestinian officials say to this day that Arafat said yes.

ROSS: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.

HUME: What was he supposed to give?

ROSS: He supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be for the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected that.

HUME: He rejected their being able to have that?

ROSS: He rejected that.

He rejected the idea on the refugees. He said we need a whole new formula, as if what we had presented was non-existent.

He rejected the basic ideas on security. He wouldn't even countenance the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian airspace.

You know when you fly into Israel today you go to Ben Gurion. You fly in over the West Bank because you can't -- there's no space through otherwise. He rejected that.

So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him he rejected.

HUME: Now, let's take a look at the map. Now, this is what -- how the Israelis had created a map based on the president's ideas. And...

ROSS: Right.

HUME: ... what can we -- that situation shows that the territory at least is contiguous. What about Gaza on that map?

ROSS: The Israelis would have gotten completely out of Gaza.

ROSS: And what you see also in this line, they show an area of temporary Israeli control along the border.

HUME: Right.

ROSS: Now, that was an Israeli desire. That was not what we presented. But we presented something that did point out that it would take six years before the Israelis would be totally out of the Jordan Valley.

So that map there that you see, which shows a very narrow green space along the border, would become part of the orange. So the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous.

HUME: Cantons being ghettos, in effect...

ROSS: Right.

HUME: ... that would be cut off from other parts of the Palestinian state.

ROSS: Completely untrue.

And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage.

BARNES: I have two other questions. One, the Palestinians point out that this was never put on paper, this offer. Why not?

ROSS: We presented this to them so that they could record it. When the president presented it, he went over it at dictation speed. He then left the cabinet room. I stayed behind. I sat with them to be sure, and checked to be sure that every single word.

The reason we did it this way was to be sure they had it and they could record it. But we told the Palestinians and Israelis, if you cannot accept these ideas, this is the culmination of the effort, we withdraw them. We did not want to formalize it. We wanted them to understand we meant what we said. You don't accept it, it's not for negotiation, this is the end of it, we withdraw it.

So that's why they have it themselves recorded. And to this day, the Palestinians have not presented to their own people what was available.

BARNES: In other words, Arafat might use it as a basis for further negotiations so he'd get more?

ROSS: Well, exactly.

HUME: Which is what, in fact, he tried to do, according to your account.

ROSS: We treated it as not only a culmination. We wanted to be sure it couldn't be a floor for negotiations.

HUME: Right.

ROSS: It couldn't be a ceiling. It was the roof.

HUME: This was a final offer?

ROSS: Exactly. Exactly right.

HUME: This was the solution.

BARNES: Was Arafat alone in rejecting it? I mean, what about his negotiators?

ROSS: It's very clear to me that his negotiators understood this was the best they were ever going to get. They wanted him to accept it. He was not prepared to accept it.

HUME: Now, it is often said that this whole sequence of talks here sort of fell apart or ended or broke down or whatever because of the intervention of the Israeli elections. What about that?

ROSS: The real issue you have to understand was not the Israeli elections. It was the end of the Clinton administration. The reason we would come with what was a culminating offer was because we were out of time.

They asked us to present the ideas, both sides. We were governed by the fact that the Clinton administration was going to end, and both sides said we understand this is the point of decision.

HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said no?

ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.

Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.

HUME: Might it not also have been true, though, Dennis, that, because the intifada had already begun -- so you had the Camp David offer rejected, the violence begins anew, a new offer from the Clinton administration comes along, the Israelis agree to it, Barak agrees to it...

ROSS: Yes.

HUME: ... might he not have concluded that the violence was working?

ROSS: It is possible he concluded that. It is possible he thought he could do and get more with the violence. There's no doubt in my mind that he thought the violence would create pressure on the Israelis and on us and maybe the rest of the world.

And I think there's one other factor. You have to understand that Barak was able to reposition Israel internationally. Israel was seen as having demonstrated unmistakably it wanted peace, and the reason it wasn't available, achievable was because Arafat wouldn't accept it.

Arafat needed to re-establish the Palestinians as a victim, and unfortunately they are a victim, and we see it now in a terrible way.

HUME: Dennis Ross, thank you so much.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am