On 27 Sep 2001, at 23:14, Trent Shipley wrote: Date sent: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:14:45 -0700 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Trent Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brin-L) Subject: Palestinian right of return
> I regard the following as a reliable source. > > On this basis I submit that the insistence by Crystal and others that > "right of return" killed a sweetheart deal for the Palestinians is so > gross a misrepresentation as to be false. Pfffffffffffffft. Sure, it's not the only reason, it was the excuse. > Furthermore, I submit that failure to achive a peace deal lies > primarally with Ariel Sharon. (Whether this is good or bad depends on > your POV.) Sharon? What HE really have to do with Barak's deal? Not much, is the answer. I don't like Sharon, but blaming him for that is unfair. > Finally, I reiterate my point that under the current prevailing > conditions the cleansing the West Bank of its Palestinian population > is doable and in the best interests of Israel. And it absolutely inexcusable, especially in the light of Jewish history. You're sick, if you feel that genocide is acceptable. It would *destroy* Israel's position internationally. > morally distasteful) solution. Furthermore, ethnic cleansing is > preferable to a status-quo situation in Israel-Palestine for the > US-EU. LMAO! Clueless. Totally ******* clueless. > Since the Israeli public looked at the records of the Taba > negotiations they seem to have rejected land-for-peace as a fool's > bargain. Therefore the only remaining options are variations on > status-quo and ethnic cleansing. The PALESTINIANS rejected it. Most Isralies still want peace. What we see with Sharon is a natural backlash to the refusal of Barak's offer. > By DEBORAH SONTAG: New York Times Who's admitted at least once she doesn't like Israel, BTW. > ''They have to control the Jordan Valley, with five early warning > stations there,'' Absolutely, for the security of Israel, yes. Israel HAS to maintain it's security, and that has never been seriously argued against, even in the UN. > Mr. Arafat said. ''They have to control the air above, the > water aquifers below, the sea and the borders. They have to divide the > West Bank in three cantons. They keep 10 percent of it for settlements > and roads and their forces. No sovereignty over Haram al Sharif. And > refugees, we didn't have a serious discussion about.'' The whole deal was based on a principle, that the MAJORITY of an area would control the land. Israel majority, Isralie land, Palestian majority, Palestinian land. 10% is also an overstatement, it's less than 7% of the West Bank, and mainly in areas like the Etzion Block, which has an amazing amount of significance for Israel*. > ''They agreed to Israeli > sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, 11 of them,'' > he said. ''They agreed to the idea that three blocs of the settlements > they so oppose could remain in place and that the Western Wall and > Jewish Quarter could be under Israeli sovereignty.'' Hang on. Wait, this was based on the principle of majoritys on the land. And thus, it's NO concession at ALL. Also, do you REALLY think that we'd surrender soverienty over the Jewish Quater of the old city? Or over out holiest site, the Kotel (Western Wall). > Mr. Malley added that the Palestinians had agreed to negotiate a > solution to the refugee issue that would not end up threatening Israel's Jewish > majority. So why didn't they? They stonewalled on the right to return! > In the public analysis, the summit meeting fell apart in bitter > disagreement over how to share or divide Jerusalem. And it did..I think I believe Clinton over a policy analyst.. > existential fears in Israel. But Mr. Beilin, the Israeli who ran the > negotiations on refugees at Taba, said the two sides were exploring an > ''agreed narrative'' that would defuse the explosive nature of this > issue and protect the Jewish identity of Israel. They noted that about > 200,000 Palestinians living in East Jerusalem would drop off the > Israeli demographic rolls, and they devised a mechanism giving > refugees more financial incentive to settle outside Israel. Yes, but they never GOT anywhere on final agreement! > Mr. Abu Ala said: ''When other issues move, this will move. It's not > a deal breaker.'' But it turned out to be so. *The story of the Etzion block is VERY interesting. It is to the south of Jerusalem. The land there was settled by the Kibbutz movement, before the foundation of the State of Israel. It was a flourishing community. And then, even before the Declaration of Indipendence, the region was attacked. It was the key to controlling the strategically important Tel Aviv - Jerusalem road. The settlers sent their dependents away - although quite a few women chose to stay and fight - and fortified themselves. They held for quite some time, the State was declared and Israel's position was beginning to stabilise. They were ground down, though, and eventually surrendered. The Arabs rounded up the survivors, hearded them togeather and gunned them down. However, they had held the Arabs back from the Tel Aviv - Jerusalem road, and thus played a cruical role in the defence of Israel. Most of the Etzion Block was in the West Bank, and thus Jordanian (and uninhabited) for may years. After the six day war, the descendents of the settlers returned to the Etzion Block, and live there still. THAT is some of the land they wish us to give up. Jewish land, where no Arabs lived even when they could. Andy Dawn Falcon
