Alternative 'peace deal' for Mid-East

[JamesM]

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3186538.stm):

The unofficial pact has not been published yet, but sources say there is a key trade-off at its heart.

Palestinians would not demand the right of return for refugees.

In exchange, they would get sovereignty over one of the most disputed religious sites in the Middle East, Jerusalem's Temple Mount, known to Arabs as Haram al-Sharif.

But what about the settlements?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JamesM
From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3186538.stm):



But what about the settlements?

What about the fact it has about zero chance of getting off the ground? I don't doubt the sincerity of those negotiating. Sharon and friends, as they indicate in the article, want no part of it and see Oslo as a total failure that the Palestinians are entirely to blame for.

We can see in the 'roadmap' how much committment there is to peace. Sharon would see in the wall his chance to grasp victory. He had to twist the arms of his cabinet to even get them to make a pretence at following it. All the while, they were carrying out the assasinations of supposed 'senior' members of Hamas. The tactic worked, the roadmap is dead.

With it, he can totally control Palestinian access to the rest of the world from within their prison.

Israelis, who previously had supported a peaceful settlement to the situation, now back Sharon in his solution of force to achieve victory.

You ask about the settlements. That has always been the sticking point, because even Israel as a whole cannot bring itself to do anything about them. The charge of being 'anti-semitic' is too much of a libel for anyone to bear, even if it is just in reference to religous fanatics.

[Cleopatra]

Settlements are not the real problem; the real problem is Nakba, “the Right of Return”.

Anyway I have news.

The whole thing is about a preliminary agreement between part of the Opposition (having Yosi Beilin as negotiator) with members of the Palestinian authority.

3/4 of the settlements that are beyond the Green-Line won't be dismantled and Palestinians will be given land elsewhere. Beilin might be a master in constructive...ambiguity BUT the real problem is about how this Right of Return will be worded.

Sharon's government and part of the Opposition (obviously those that they were excluded from the negotiations) claim that what Beilin and Co did is illegal and outrageous.

It might be illegal indeed but the political message that delivers is very powerful.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
BUT the real problem is about how this Right of Return will be worded.
The BBC article said that it would be swapped for financial recompense.
It might be illegal indeed but the political message that delivers is very powerful.
Is there a suggestion that an elected Labour party would honour this plan? Why is it illegal, by the way?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JamesM

Is there a suggestion that an elected Labour party would honour this plan? Why is it illegal, by the way?

That is what I was wondering. Probably because it is deemed to be traitorous.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by JamesM
The BBC article said that it would be swapped for financial recompense.

They won't accept it, if you visit their official site http://www.alnakba.org/ you will start wondering if there is any possibility for an agreement. They want 6.000.000 people to return...

I haven't argued about that with Unique so far, I will start a thread.

Is there a suggestion that an elected Labour party would honour this plan? Why is it illegal, by the way?

My info comes from a friend who lives in Israel so I don't know yet how the Labour Party sees things.Have in mind that parties have internal issues, although Beilin is a leading figure he will become very... leading if the talks proceed, I am not sure about the equilibrium in the Labour Party .

According to the Constitution only the government negotiates the issues of security and foreign affairs of the Nation.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That is what I was wondering. Probably because it is deemed to be traitorous.


You are right about that.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



You are right about that.

Cool, I want the $1,000,000.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Cool, I want the $1,000,000.

You ask for money just because we have agreed on something??

Tsk tsk tsk... :nope:

Your generation is totally corrupted...

God knows what you will ask for next.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


You ask for money just because we have agreed on something??Psssst... he's talking about Randi's mil for paranormal abilities. Was a joke.

Your generation is totally corrupted...Not even sure what generation AUP is in.

God knows what you will ask for next. Under the right conditions, that might win God the mil. ;)

[Cleopatra]

Aoidoi

I cannot really believe that you wanted to clarify about the million thing :)

Life without teasing Unique is very boring :)

[Cleopatra]

A friend of mine who lurks in the forum pointed to me a mistake I made in this thread.

Of course the mistake wasn't deliberate. It was a "slip of tongue".

I mentioned that according to the Constitution only the PM is entitled to make negotiations with the Army.Well, this is wrong because as most of you do not know, Israel doesn't have a Constitution.

I apologize it wasn't deliberate.