Originally posted by adam warlockWhat does that have to do with anything?
Because they are humans lives involved.
If I'm suing Walmart for 20 million dollars in a high profile case, I might say to the media "We're willing to talk" or "We are willing to settle." But, I NEVER would say " We'd settle for $5 million paid out in installments over 10 years" even if we would.
You don't negotiate against yourself. It's rule #1 in negotiations. You can say that you're willing to compromise, but you NEVER unilaterally offer specifics that represent much of a concession.
You make concessions in negotiations, not in the media.
If you think that Benjamin Netanyahu is going to divulge his absolute bottom line position on the terms of a Palestinian state, then you're not thinking of it like a negotiator.
Originally posted by sh76"What does that have to do with anything?"
What does that have to do with anything?
If I'm suing Walmart for 20 million dollars in a high profile case, I might say to the media "We're willing to talk" or "We are willing to settle." But, I NEVER would say " We'd settle for $5 million paid out in installments over 10 years" even if we would.
You don't negotiate against yourself. It's rule #1 in nego ...[text shortened]... the terms of a Palestinian state, then you're not thinking of it like a negotiator.
I may be naive, but I think that the fact that there are human lives involved is very important.
"If you think that Benjamin Netanyahu is going to divulge his absolute bottom line position on the terms of a Palestinian state, then you're not thinking of it like a negotiator."
Don't get me started on Netanyahu. Please don't.
Originally posted by adam warlockOkay. But how does that change things practically? Because there are lives involved, the Israelis should be more willing to negotiate in the media? I understand lives are involved. But how does that impact this particular issue?
"What does that have to do with anything?"
I may be naive, but I think that the fact that there are human lives involved is very important.
Originally posted by sh76Not in the media of course. Some real negotiations with some sensible propositions. Not the usual crap they try to throw into the palestinians.
Okay. But how does that change things practically? Because there are lives involved, the Israelis should be more willing to negotiate in the media? I understand lives are involved. But how does that impact this particular issue?
Originally posted by adam warlockThen they should get together, sit down and work something out.
Not in the media of course. Some real negotiations with some sensible propositions. Not the usual crap they try to throw into the palestinians.
If you were negotiating on behalf of the Palestinians, would you accept the terms I proposed last page?
Originally posted by sh76- The basis for the division is the 1967 borders
Then they should get together, sit down and work something out.
If you were negotiating on behalf of the Palestinians, would you accept the terms I proposed last page?
- Israel annxes the sections of the WB than adjoin its pre-1967 territory that contain large Jewish settlement
- Palestine is compensated with other empty land of equivalent geographic area in other areas
- West Jerusalem (the Jewish section) becomes the internationally recognized capital of Israel
- East Jerusalem (the Arab section) becomes capital of Palestine
- The Old city is jointly governed by a consortium that includes Israelis, Arabs and international peacekeepers. Safe access to the old city holy sites is guaranteed for all people
- An above ground highway that connects the WB and Gaza is constructed and maintained and is Palestinian territory, though the land underneath is Israeli territory
- All Palestinians that can show that they were forced to leave areas that are now Israel receive reasonable compensation to allow them to purchase new housing in the new Palestinian state
- Palestine promises to alter its educational system to stop encouraging the murder of Israelis or the destruction of Israel. Hamas agrees to renounce the idea of violence and the destruction of Israel
- The Kahanas and similar settler movements on the Israeli side agree to do the same
- Egypt and Jordan agree to continue and expand their peace agreements with Israel
- The Golan, Sheeba farms and other disputed areas become the bases for peace talks between Israel, Syria and Lebanon.
- Israeli and Palestinian panels agree to meet yearly to cooperate to allocate natural resources such as the Jordan River.
- Israel and Palestine become most favored trading partners, Teams from Jericho, Jenin, Damascus and Gaza join Israeli sports leagues. Eventually, they become the best of friends.
- Everyone agrees once and for all that they're not entitled to a damn thing based on their religion and religion can never be a reason to demean, hurt or discriminate against another person.
Deal?
"- Palestine is compensated with other empty land of equivalent geographic area in other areas "
Doesn't this mean that Palestine will get a territory that is divided? If it is, it is a no-no in my book.
"- All Palestinians that can show that they were forced to leave areas that are now Israel receive reasonable compensation to allow them to purchase new housing in the new Palestinian state "
What about descendants? But I think that most palestinians would take this clause in an offensive way (hell I take it in an offensive way).
"- Palestine promises to alter its educational system to stop encouraging the murder of Israelis or the destruction of Israel. Hamas agrees to renounce the idea of violence and the destruction of Israel "
I'm aware of the kids show that is transmitted in palestine that is highly racist, antisemitic and all that. But is it like that in all palestine. And will Israel stop their analogue policies? Will Israel stop the hostaging of civilians? Will Israel close down Facility 1391? Will Israel finally acknowledge their nuclear weapons program?
"- Israeli and Palestinian panels agree to meet yearly to cooperate to allocate natural resources such as the Jordan River. "
This one I like very much. And I think that done in the right way it could help to heal a lot of wounds.
"- Everyone agrees once and for all that they're not entitled to a damn thing based on their religion and religion can never be a reason to demean, hurt or discriminate against another person. "
The thing that bothers me about this is that palestinians were always there. And they were forced out. I think that it would be a good thing to aknowledge this too.
I think I'd like more your propositions if you were able to be more stringent with Israel from the beginning.
3 edits
"- Palestine is compensated with other empty land of equivalent geographic area in other areas "
Doesn't this mean that Palestine will get a territory that is divided? If it is, it is a no-no in my book.
No, it can be contiguous. The only thing that obviously has to be divided is the WB from Gaza.
"- All Palestinians that can show that they were forced to leave areas that are now Israel receive reasonable compensation to allow them to purchase new housing in the new Palestinian state "
What about descendants? But I think that most palestinians would take this clause in an offensive way (hell I take it in an offensive way).
Yes, I meant descendants too. If you take offense to it, what do you counter-propose? That all land owned by Palestinians in 1947 now occupied by Israelis be returned to the Palestinian owners of 3 generations ago? We both know that's not going to happen.
"- Palestine promises to alter its educational system to stop encouraging the murder of Israelis or the destruction of Israel. Hamas agrees to renounce the idea of violence and the destruction of Israel "
I'm aware of the kids show that is transmitted in palestine that is highly racist, antisemitic and all that. But is it like that in all palestine. And will Israel stop their analogue policies?
It should be bilateral, of course
Will Israel stop the hostaging of civilians?
As long as there's no more war, why would they need to hostage civilians?
Will Israel close down Facility 1391?
If there's peace, it won't be necessary. People who are convicted of crimes should serve their sentences and others will be released as part of a final status agreement.
Will Israel finally acknowledge their nuclear weapons program?
What does that have to do with the Palestinian issue?
"- Israeli and Palestinian panels agree to meet yearly to cooperate to allocate natural resources such as the Jordan River. "
This one I like very much. And I think that done in the right way it could help to heal a lot of wounds.
Good
"- Everyone agrees once and for all that they're not entitled to a damn thing based on their religion and religion can never be a reason to demean, hurt or discriminate against another person. "
The thing that bothers me about this is that palestinians were always there. And they were forced out. I think that it would be a good thing to aknowledge this too.
And if you can acknowledge that the same has happened to Jews in the region over and over and over again through history, then we can be sympathetic to each others' plights and make a lasting peace agreement.
I think I'd like more your propositions if you were able to be more stringent with Israel from the beginning.
You can be stringent on the Israelis and I'll be stringent on the Palestinians.
If you want to start ripping the Palestinians for their multiple terrorism campaigns and the Arab countries in general for refusing to help the refugees and bringing on multiple wars with Israel, then I'll start being critical of Israel for the wrong things its done as well.
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76"Yes, I descendants too. If you take offense to it, what do you counter-propose? That all land owned by Palestinians in 1947 now occupied by Israelis be returned to the Palestinian owners of 3 generations ago? We both know that's not going to happen."
"- Palestine is compensated with other empty land of equivalent geographic area in other areas "
Doesn't this mean that Palestine will get a territory that is divided? If it is, it is a no-no in my book.
No, it can be contiguous. The only thing that obviously has to be divided is the WB from Gaza.
"- All Palestinians that can show that they wer sitions if you were able to be more stringent with Israel from the beginning.
Well but all the land that belonged to palestinians from eons ago were taken from them and they couldn't even say a word. One other thing though: will the illegal settlement growth be repaired too?
"As long as there's no more war, why would they need to hostage civilians?"
Why should there be civilian hostaging during a war? I mean they are civilians.
"If there's peace, it won't be necessary. People who are convicted of crimes should serve their sentences and others will be released as part of a final status agreement."
Facility 1391 should be closed down now. Not just when there is peace. Apparently most people there are civilians and I think that it would serve Israel interests.
"What does that have to do with the Palestinian issue?"
It has to do with everybody's issue. One more stress point along the border. And keep it non-official when everybody knows that it exists just helps things get more credible and transparent.
"And if you can acknowledge that the same has happened to Jews in the region over and over and over again through history, then we can be sympathetic to each others' plights and make a lasting peace agreement."
I think that in that area the case for palestinians is a much stronger one. Don't get me wrong I have lots of admiration for the jewish people (I'm a physicist and Physics has a lot to owe to jewish people) but I don't think that just because they were persecuted through history they can now do the same to another people. If this doesn't make you sick I don't know what will:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israeli-soldiers-reveal-the-brutal-truth-of-gaza-attack-1746485.html
http://www.shovrimshtika.org/oferet/testimonies_category_e.asp
A side note here: When are we going to see a gipsy country? They were also persecuted, pushed around, adn vilified through history. They were also highly targeted by the nazies. Everytime I ponder about this I see it as a big lack of coherence from the international community.
"You can be stringent on the Israelis and I'll be stringent on the Palestinians. "
I think that you should that not as a reaction too what I say but from your own principles. Even though I wasn't that explicit I already said: "I'm aware of the kids show that is transmitted in palestine that is highly racist, antisemitic and all that." If you want I can even be more stringent than that, but for me I'll do because it is a question of coherence and nothing more, Now if you need me to throw some stones to some actions of some palestinians so that you can do the same to some israeli policies I think that you need to do some real self-critical evaluation.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=pilger+israel&emb=0&aq=f#
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6c3kw_john-pilger-is-israel-a-terroristic
Originally posted by sh76It's all true. The Labor party in the late '90s expanded the settlements more than Likud. As for Netanyahu's "peace" deal -- I've heard better options from Saddam. And that, my friend, is saying something.
Wrong, wrong, not sure, and wrong.
Not sure about YB, but the other parties have all accepted the idea of a Palestinian state.
The fact that you'd make that allegation regarding Labor is truly bizarre, since Ehud Barack, a member of Labor, offered a comprehensive idea for a Pal. state in 2000 that was rejected by Arafat.
Originally posted by adam warlockSo, is your position that you do want to negotiate peace or you don't?
"Yes, I descendants too. If you take offense to it, what do you counter-propose? That all land owned by Palestinians in 1947 now occupied by Israelis be returned to the Palestinian owners of 3 generations ago? We both know that's not going to happen."
Well but all the land that belonged to palestinians from eons ago were taken from them and they couldn ...[text shortened]... w.dailymotion.com/video/x6c3kw_john-pilger-is-israel-a-terroristic
You seem to be interested in peace, but every proposal is met with some variation of "Well, that's historically not fair."
You say the land all belonged to the Palestinians, but Jews have lived in that area for millenia as well. The Jews only lost the area millenia ago because they were conquered and expelled. Any line you draw that says that Jews are not entitled to any self-determination in that area is arbitrary.
History is repleat to forced confiscations. You want every Arab country to be forced to make amends for every piece of Jewish property that's been wrongfully confiscated and we'll match that against what the Palestinians are "entitled" to? I think you know who will net more on that calculation.
As for "civilian hostaging," first of all, Israel doesn't take civilian hostages. I'm not saying they don't hold people on tenuous evidence which perhaps they shouldn't, but it's not like they just go and raid villages and take people hostage for no reason. Second, maybe Hamas and Co. should stop firing from civilian areas and using human shields and there will be no need to fight in the area of civilians.
You want Facility 1391 shut down now? Fine. I don't care. It's all a blip on the radar in the big picture. And, the big picture is that peace depends on finding a solution amenable to BOTH sides.
Yes, SOME settlements should be dismantled. But the ones that adjoin Israeli cities that were built on previously empty land? Those don't have to be torn down. And, in any case, we both know, they won't be.
As for a Gypsy country, I have no problem with one. In any case, I'm not saying there HAS TO be a Jewish country. We lived fine for almost 2,000 years without one and we can do without one now as well. I'm not a Zionist. But I don't see why the 5,000,000 Jews living in Israel now are not entitled to self-autonomy. Compromise? Sure. Let's sit down and work one out. But dissolve the state and give the hegemony to the Palestinians? I don't see how you can maintain that;s equitable.
Originally posted by sh76No deal.
If it's anyone's fault that the UN Palestine doesn't exist, it's that of Egypt, Jordan and Syria, who wouldn't let Palestine exist at the outset of its creation.
Okay, but forget about blame. What's past is past. Nobody should really care who's fault it is going forward.
How about this:
- The basis for the division is the 1967 borders
First of all, your history is warped.
The Israeli's implimented plan D and ethnically cleansed 50% of the Palestinian population. Nothing to do with anybody else, other than the Israeli's themselves.
Why the 1967 borders?
Why not the borders drawn up by the UN in 1948, which were already extremely unfair towards the Palestinians (who made up 70% of the population and owned 90% of the land)?
Originally posted by shavixmirYes, and why don't Europeans go back to the borders of 1914?
No deal.
First of all, your history is warped.
The Israeli's implimented plan D and ethnically cleansed 50% of the Palestinian population. Nothing to do with anybody else, other than the Israeli's themselves.
Why the 1967 borders?
Why not the borders drawn up by the UN in 1948, which were already extremely unfair towards the Palestinians (who made up 70% of the population and owned 90% of the land)?