Peace negotiations a facade...

[mcZu]

Abbas sleeps through the first round of negotiations, this is how he will sign away Palestinian rights. Terrific. This is exactly why I have no faith at all in these ''negotiations''.

[Dark Blue]

i can't do much more than just facepalm him

[AbramIsaac]

There will never be peace in that region.

It's unfortunate, but it's the truth.

Between the economic, political, and religious issues, it seems like there will forever be conflict in the Middle East.

[Emadyville]

I hate hearing about this shit, cause it never ends and it's unfortunate, but I agree with the

[mcZu]

It's not just the sleeping fatigued Abbas that I don't have any trust in these negotiations, don't get me wrong... But it's like AbramIsaac said, there will probably never be peace in that region.

Both governments are too stubborn to be even remotely reciprocal towards the other. Both parties have to realize that they do need to give away certain things to achieve peace, they shouldn't try to eschew each others interests.

And in the meanwhile people are dying, predominately Arabs, but so are Jews. Both sides are suffering, while the governments are having dinner to ''negotiate'' peace.

[SilverLining]

To anyone who is not an Israeli or a Palestinian, this may be newsworthy. People in Europe and North America, who have never even stepped foot on Middle Eastern soil, like to think they know what's going on and what advice to give. Obama is a great example of someone who is not respected by either side and knows only what he is told in the safety of universities. Abbas will fall asleep at this meeting because he has no respect for him, but not many officials in the Middle East do. Peace talks are just semantics. Palestinians do not want peace; they want the Jews out. This is not a big secret over there, but people in Europe and North America cannot grasp this. Or rather, don't want to.

I'm not sure why you (McZu) feel the need to keep mentioning that "Arabs are dying! Some Jews too, but mostly Arabs" while trying to advocate peace, but I'm curious as to what time frame you're talking about. The past 5 years? Yes, more Palestinians than Israelis (Arab Israelis are not considered any less Israeli than Jews) have been dying the past 5 years. This is for two reasons. 1.) The security wall people that don't live there love to condemn. Israeli civilian deaths have drastically decreased since it was erected. Even the critics cannot deny this. 2.) Most Palestinians consider it an honor to be a Martyr for their cause. This makes protecting civilians a lot less important to Hamas. Dying is obviously not beneficial to the Palestinian people, but it is for Hamas. Firing missiles from dense, civilian areas is a brilliant, but evil military strategy. So is using human shields. And it works for them, because people are far too busy condemning Israel to give attention to it. The best you'll get from most critics is is, "Israel needs to stop committing the worst war crimes in recent history. ........Oh, and also Hamas should take some responsibility for some of their actions too. They aren't perfect."

Also, saying that Israel hasn't made concessions or tried to be remotely reciprocal is patently false. I can't actually list what they've tried to do in the past ten years in here. Israel has tried to make meaningful peaceful gestures through-out it's history, and not just toward the Palestinians. Israel offered Egypt the Sinai Desert as a symbolic peaceful gesture. Egypt rejected the offer for some rarely discussed tactical reasons, but are now in a cold peace with Israel. They didn't respond by blowing up a bus full of civilians, so progress was made. Shocking! That's really the fact of the matter. Israel would tear down the security wall and shut down the blockades and close the checkpoints if the Palestinians actually stopped attacking them. But that's not going to happen. By the way, Israel eased the land blockade in July, and I think that counts as a peaceful gesture.

[mcZu]

Nah, I must have been talking about the year 1987, right...

Why do YOU feel the urge to defend Israel when nobody has even mentioned Israel in this topic? Nobody has verbally attacked Israel. You're painting me as pro-Palestinian, while, clearly, you're the one who has chosen a side. Israel's side. I would describe myself rather neutral than anything in this matter. I said that more Arabs have died because it is the truth. You said it yourself, more Palestinians than Israelies have died. And like you said, there are Israeli Arabs.. Which just means that more Arabs have died/are dying. This would mean nothing if the media wouldn't value Israeli blood over Palestinian blood. We're all human beings, doesn't matter if we're Arabic or Jewish, but for some strange reason, the media values Jewish blood more than Arabic. That's why when Israeli people die, it's all over the news in most cases. But when Palestinians die, it's almost never mentioned. That's why I mention it, it has nothing do with being pro anything. Because it's just as bad in both cases. If the media chooses to hide certain facts, then I have to stress those facts.

You mentioned those peace gestures from Israels side. OK, that might be all true, but that doesn't justify the illegal occupation of land. Especially in the case right now of Gaza. It's against international law. Plus there are a lot of right winged politcians who want to expand Israel and occupy even more. Peace gestures? Yeah, right..

Bottom line, BOTH parties are at fault. But you need to stop portraying Israel as a victim, 'cause it is not.

[SilverLining]

It's funny, cause I feel the exact same way you do, vice versa. I have not seen one figure that says more Arabs have died than Jews since 1890. This conflict stretches back that far. That's why I argued the point. I don't think it's fair to ignore the history and early stages of the conflict. You may be right about it, but I haven't seen any proof you're right and you haven't provided it. It's a very big claim that should not be presented as fact unless there is credible evidence. That's all I'm trying to say. I do think you are on a side. I don't think you can say the media values Jewish blood over Palestinian blood, that when Palestinians die it's ignored, and not be taking a side. That's not a fact, just my personal view. I'm also reading between the lines. You post articles from Electronic Intifada trying to convince people that Martin Luther King was not a zionist, and think zionism is racist and maybe even evil. Is that not anti-Israel? There is also the cultural aspect. In Norway, this may be considered a neutral position. In some other places, it's not. I just wonder if you have heard all sides of the story. Most people haven't. Most people read Electronic Intifada and don't want to hear the other side of the story. There are many people (including myself) that believe the media is actually biased against Israel, not the other way around. Gaza gets more financial aid per capita than anywhere else in the world. That's not an opinion. It's a fact. If the media barely reported on Palestinian deaths or didn't care, why is that the case?

If Electronic Intifada is right, and the world ignores their plight, why did the European Union give $200 million in aid to the Gaza Strip after Operation Cast Lead? In contrast, the EU gave Haiti $10 million by the end of January 2010, after almost a quarter of a million people died. The USA gave Gaza 7.5 times as much aid per person. Gaza gets $579.95 but Haiti only $77.47. If you also look at the death toll, Haiti lost an estimated 230,000 on Jan 12, 2010, which equals US aid of $3,043 for every fatality. The highest official allegation of the Gaza death toll is 1,417 which would equal US aid of $635,144 per fatality. The media hides these facts too.

I figured it was okay to mention Israel since it was a meeting about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and it was implied. And if you're wondering about my problem with Electronic Intifada, it's because they spread misinformation. The worst example was an entire fabricated interview of an Israeli General, who doesn't exist, talking hate speech and advocating violence against Palestinians. Also included were claims that Israel wants to expand more and control most of the Middle East. The first time I saw this interview, it was presented to me by a girl who was trying to prove that Israelis hate Palestinians and were an expansionist state. I was shocked and the only response I could give was that he doesn't speak for the vast majority of Israeli citizens. A few months later, a media watchdog site challenged the validity of the interview and also asked for a source. Electronic Intifada immediately removed the interview, but did not post a retraction or announcement that it had the fake interview up. It was too late anyway, because the damage was done. People went around quoting it as evidence and spreading it. Maybe you've even heard it.

How many right wing politicians want to expand Israel and occupy more? And if Israel is an expansionist state, why would they give Egypt the Sinai Desert? The British offered the Jews the full Palestine Mandate. The Zionists agreed to 1/5th of the land. The other 4/5ths were for the Arabs and is known as Jordan. Israel also offered the Palestinians a state on 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank with a land exchange that would bring the total area to 100% and a shared capital in Jerusalem at Camp David in 2000 and Taba in 2001. Is that not a peace offering and sacrifice? These offers were rejected, of course.

[Weather Man]

That's fucking dumb in my opinion I don't even know what to respond to something like this in a situation.

[mcZu]

Basically we have the same opinion, however we live in different worlds.

I don't read the Electronic Intifada, I found links on the internet to those articles which I thought to be interesting articles, so I posted them. Just to start a litle discussion since this forum hasn't had any interesting discussions for a while. And what better than the Middle East? The Middle East is always an interesting topic.

I didn't try to convince anyone that MLK was in fact a Zionist, I hadn't even formed my opinion on the matter as you can read in that thread.

I trust no news source 100%. I always try to inquire as much information as I can from different news sources. The staged interview seems like a very low move from their side.

The funny thing is that we both have different views about the term Zionism. You regard it as being just pro-Israel. You regard it as being for a homeland for the Jewish people, together for the Arabs.
I don't. Your version of Zionism is great, and I know you claim that there is only one version of Zoinism. But the way Zionism has been executed over the past few decades proves the opposite.

And here is where our opinions about peace differ. History and media. For some reason we are both under the impression that the majority of either Arabs or Jews are dying. Which is strange. I don't know in which country you live so I can't possibly speak for the media in your environment. But where I live it is like I said it is.

And if Israel is an expansionist state, why would they give Egypt the Sinai Desert? The British offered the Jews the full Palestine Mandate. The Zionists agreed to 1/5th of the land. The other 4/5ths were for the Arabs and is known as Jordan. Israel also offered the Palestinians a state on 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank with a land exchange that would bring the total area to 100% and a shared capital in Jerusalem at Camp David in 2000 and Taba in 2001. Is that not a peace offering and sacrifice? These offers were rejected, of course.

I really want to believe you on that, but as you know there are a lot of different sources regarding this issue. Could you provide me with a link or any other source regarding those facts? I would love to do some research on that. And a link, or anything else in that area, would be helpful.

[SilverLining]

Allow me to try my best and create a small summary of the events. There are a lot of sources, (and when I say a lot, I mean I literally cannot list them here, and half of them are not internet sources which I can link you to. You would have to go out and buy books, go to the library, or check the original maps yourself if you disbelieve it. But with a quick google search you will find there is a consensus that these land distribution numbers are correct and the maps accurately depict the Palestine Mandate and UN Partition Plans. Even die hard anti-Israel critics have not challenged them. They're just sourced from various British and UN documents.)

Here is the simplest map I can find, which just colors in the areas according to time/region.

The area of the original Palestine Mandate was 118,000 square kilometers. The entire Palestine Mandate was originally

In 1921, a partition plan was proposed that would give the Arab residents the 91,000 square kilometers to the east of the Jordan River for them to create a state of their own, and west of the Jordan River would be reserved for a Jewish state. The Zionists agreed to it. In 1922, the League of Nations Council (the precursor to the UN) approved the Churchill White Paper which included the proposal. Jews were not allowed to settle in Trans-Jordan, but the Arabs west of Jordan River were free to stay. By 1923, it was in effect.


It was named Trans-Jordan, meaning "Across Jordan", referring to the river. Eventually it was named Jordan, after said river.

Over the next years violence broke out against the Jews, which is another story. There was a second White Paper in 1939, but I'm not going to get into that. Eventually the British handed over the territory west of the Jordan River to the UN. The UN wanted to stop the violence, so they offered the Arabs more land and intended to make two states in 1947. One Jewish Palestinian state, and another Arab Palestinian state. This was the proposed arrangement.

The Jewish Palestinians accepted this proposal, but the Arab Palestinians rejected it and declared war. The 1948 War of Independence. They lost and during the war the hotly debated Naqba occurred.

A lot more interesting stuff happened afterwards and to this day, but this post is getting really long trying to explain the 4/5ths of Palestine Mandate statement.


Text of Mandate: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/britman.htm
Text of first Churchill White Paper: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp
Text of San Remo Convention: http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/San_Remo_Convention
Palestine becoming Transjordan/Jordan :http://www.archiveeditions.co.uk/titledetails.asp?tid=96
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_transjordan.php
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_ww1_british_mandate_jordan.php
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/jordan.html
http://www.danielpipes.org/298/is-jordan-palestine

Land Area Facts: http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_overview.php

I'll try and send you something about the Oslo Accords as soon as possible. I've got some important stuff to do.

[mcZu]

Thanks for the information and for the links. I'll make sure to read up on all that when I got some time. I appreciate it.

[Bistnal]

Abbas sleeps through the first round of negotiations, this is how he will sign away Palestinian rights. Terrific. This is exactly why I have no faith at all in these ''negotiations''.

Abbas is a useless, shitty leader anyway and IMO the "peace" talks have been a facade for a LONG time.