[BlackGriffen]

CBC News Article.

Rough summary: it appears that a group of Palestinians and a group of Israelies have been holding negotiations outside of the auspices of their respective governments. The unofficial document is referred to as the 'Geneva accord.'

Basically, it contains compromises for both sides of the issue. </summary>

What impact will this have (if any)? Will it just be ignored? The gist of the article was that the PLO was more open to such the terms of the 'accord' than the Israeli government was (naturally, since Israel has the upper hand militarily).

*sigh* we now return you to your regularly scheduled program of suicide bombings and ham-fisted reprisals.

BlackGriffen

[shmerek]

It will be ignored.

[BlackGriffen]

The Beeb puts a little more spin on the story.

BG

[macvillage.net]

On the radio it said both sides were rather upset with these parties for underminining appointed authorities.

Palestinians don't want to hear it.

Israel is looking into it as negotiating with an enemy is a crime.

[Mithras]

The document sounds pretty fair to me.
Both the 'right of return' and the 'Ariel settlement' are demands that both sides know to be absurd, that hold no real value unto themselves, except for their ability to stop any peace deal in its tracks.

Compromising on both of those questions will sound fair to most moderates, I think.

Unfortunately, moderates are in short supply these days.


P.S. BBC WTF? "New 'peace deal' angers Israel" -- there's a balanced headline if there ever were one...

[thunderous_funker]

What kills me about this whole thing is that no new agreements are necessary. Both sides have already agreed to everything essential to the 2-state solution. Its been in place for 30 years.

What is needed is compliance. Since voluntary compliance has failed so completely, I recommend mandatory compliance backed by force.

I'm tired of the appeaseniks in Washington caving in to Israel's every whim no matter how illegal or immoral and the appeaseniks in the PLO winking at terror groups and robbing the Arabs.

Nothing would help the War on Terror more than once and for all settling this issue.

Get. It. Done.

Israel gets out or it gets bombed. Arabs cut terror groups off at the knees or they get a big fat occupying army sent to do it for them.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Mithras:
P.S. BBC WTF? "New 'peace deal' angers Israel" -- there's a balanced headline if there ever were one...

To be fair to the Beeb, the author of the article makes the following claim:

The Palestinians involved, including former ministers, are reported to have the backing of Mr Arafat.

The CBC article is consistent with this possibility as well. If true, then the headline seems to me like it would be accurate.

BlackGriffen

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Will it just be ignored?

Probably. Which is a real shame.

See what I mean, though? When people who actually want peace deal with each other, things generally happen. Unfortunately, unless those people are in power, it doesn't usually mean all that much.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Probably. Which is a real shame.

See what I mean, though? When people who actually want peace deal with each other, things generally happen. Unfortunately, unless those people are in power, it doesn't usually mean all that much.

well said.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Probably. Which is a real shame.

See what I mean, though? When people who actually want peace deal with each other, things generally happen. Unfortunately, unless those people are in power, it doesn't usually mean all that much.

That's a good point.

Several people here fail to make the distinction on one/both sides that there is a difference from the bigotry of the minority in power... vs the general feelings of the public.

They assume all Israeli's hate other groups.

All Palestinians wear bombs around their belts.

When your right.... the people who should be in office (the ones who want peace)... are not.


Hence my call for regime change on both sides. A simple solution.

[DBursey]

From the Toronto Star:

Unofficial Peace Pact Ignites Uproar

An Excerpt:

Israeli media reports said the main thrust of the plan, as yet unpublished, runs as follows:

* Palestinian refugees will concede the right of return to Israel in exchange for financial compensation.

* The Palestinians will recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

* Israel will withdraw to the borders of 1967, with certain territorial exchanges in which several major Jewish settlement blocks in the West Bank will become part of Israel, while Israel will cede equivalent territories in its southern Negev desert.

* Jerusalem will be divided by nationality, with Arab neighbourhoods becoming part of the Palestinian state and Jewish neighbourhoods remaining part of Israel.

* The Western Wall will remain under Israeli sovereignty, while the Temple Mount above it, known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif, will be under Palestinian sovereignty. An international force will ensure freedom of worship for all faiths.

* The Palestinians will pledge to prevent terror and incitement and disarm all militias. An international force will supervise the demilitarized state, including border crossings.

Hopefully this grassroots movement will gain momentum. Compromise may yet win out over entrenchment and intransigence. Power to the people!

[einmakom]

Originally posted by DBursey:
From the Toronto Star:

Unofficial Peace Pact Ignites Uproar

An Excerpt:

* Palestinian refugees will concede the right of return to Israel in exchange for financial compensation.

fine and well, except that the UNRWA has artificially inflated the number of Palestinians, so who gets compensated must be subject to great scrutiny.

* The Palestinians will recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

About darn time.

* Israel will withdraw to the borders of 1967, with certain territorial exchanges in which several major Jewish settlement blocks in the West Bank will become part of Israel, while Israel will cede equivalent territories in its southern Negev desert.

while this isn't a favorite, there's precedent in having given the Sinai back to Egypt.

* Jerusalem will be divided by nationality, with Arab neighbourhoods becoming part of the Palestinian state and Jewish neighbourhoods remaining part of Israel.

This is a poor solution. Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, reside happily within Israel's borders as Israeli. There's no good reason to slice a city by neighborhoods, and folks ought to know better based on the example set by Berlin in the cold war.

* The Western Wall will remain under Israeli sovereignty, while the Temple Mount above it, known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif, will be under Palestinian sovereignty. An international force will ensure freedom of worship for all faiths.

Two real problems here. One, when this area was under control by Muslim Arabs, the Western Wall was desecrated and there was no freedom of worship for all faiths. Two, an 'international force' ? Heck no. Israel's only experience with International Forces was the UN that picked up and fled when Egypt decided to launch the war against Israel in 1967. International Forces have proven themselves to be utterly ineffective at doing anything in this area, other than inflating numbers of refugees and propping up refugee camps that double as bomb factories under their very noses.

This 'International Force' seems like a cop-out- "who will enforce this?" "gee, dunno, let's make the rest of the world do it."

* The Palestinians will pledge to prevent terror and incitement and disarm all militias. An international force will supervise the demilitarized state, including border crossings.

Again, sounds pretty on the surface but leaves an awful lot up to some benevolent 'International Force' as opposed to leaving the currently involved parties as responsible.

Hopefully this grassroots movement will gain momentum. Compromise may yet win out over entrenchment and intransigence. Power to the people!

No, the people have prescribed methods of getting leaders who will make these deals- Arafat was elected, Sharon was elected. Throw the bums out with a new vote, but negotiating to give up land and become subservient to some unknown 'international force' is tantamount to revolution/overthrow of the state.

do it through proper channels, start a lobby, publicize the proposed plan, but for heaven's sakes, don't pull a Carter-in-North-Korea and make promises without any authority. - Unless of course you believe in anarchy.

[DBursey]

This is a poor solution. Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, reside happily within Israel's borders as Israeli. There's no good reason to slice a city by neighborhoods, and folks ought to know better based on the example set by Berlin in the cold war.

I don't think this refers to physical separation a la Berlin (or the west bank wall now under construction). It refers to delineation of political control.

No, the people have prescribed methods of getting leaders who will make these deals

Agreed, and yet grassroots movements are sometimes necessary to alter the inertia of political institutions. If an idea gains popularity from the ground up, it can become part of the political agenda, no matter the reluctance of elected leaders. If they are interested in being returned to power, that is.

I agree with most of your points, especially in regard to the nebulous idea of an international force. This idea has long held weight with some, and yet a 'separation force', would be just as ineffective as the ISF in using conventional forces to deter guerilla (against military targets) or terror (against civilian) attacks.

[eklipse]

Why would anybody be 'angry' at the possibility of a peace deal?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Why would anybody be 'angry' at the possibility of a peace deal?

those less interested in "peace" and more interested in the "deal".

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by einmakom:
This is a poor solution. Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, reside happily within Israel's borders as Israeli. There's no good reason to slice a city by neighborhoods, and folks ought to know better based on the example set by Berlin in the cold war.[/B]

Jerusalem has always been an extremely sticky topic. Even the original demarcation by the UN made it an 'international zone' which was to be under the control of no country and have UN forces police it.

Slicing up Jerusalem may not be a pleasant idea. Is there any other idea that both sides have a chance of agreeing to, though? Neither side is willing to 'give up' Jerusalem because both want to use it as a capital.

I, too, honestly think it silly to divide a city up, but until both sides can agree to live under one government, I don't see a way around it.

Two real problems here. One, when this area was under control by Muslim Arabs, the Western Wall was desecrated and there was no freedom of worship for all faiths. Two, an 'international force' ? Heck no. Israel's only experience with International Forces was the UN that picked up and fled when Egypt decided to launch the war against Israel in 1967. International Forces have proven themselves to be utterly ineffective at doing anything in this area, other than inflating numbers of refugees and propping up refugee camps that double as bomb factories under their very noses.

I agree that the "international forces" thing is probably not the best idea. Better would be Palestinian and Israeli forces with international observers.

Also, to your complaint about desecrating the wall: did you not read what you quoted? The wall would be in Israeli territory. The dividing line would literally run along the mount, letting Israel keep its precious wall and Palestine keep its precious dome.

BlackGriffen

[einmakom]

Posted by BlackGriffen

I agree that the "international forces" thing is probably not the best idea. Better would be Palestinian and Israeli forces with international observers.

Also, to your complaint about desecrating the wall: did you not read what you quoted? The wall would be in Israeli territory. The dividing line would literally run along the mount, letting Israel keep its precious wall and Palestine keep its precious dome.

BlackGriffen

I read it- but hear this: first of all, the Mosque is built on the site of the Temple Mount. It's Holy to Jews as well, and before 1967, Jews were barred from it, and still aren't really welcome today.

Also consider, the Wall was desecrated with shops and garbage heaps. The Mosque is above the wall. It's very easy for tourist litter, bombs, etc. to casually drop over the edge. Hasn't happened in terms of bomb, although police have thwarted such things in the past.

Additionally, the land for peace notion is a dangerous one that must be approached with care. It sends the message that violence is rewarded with land. All that means is, create a signifigant amount of violence and the whole country will be given up, piece by piece, in the name of peace.

We have to be careful to not reach that stage, and only let those authorized to make such deals do so. If we want a deal like this Geneva pact, it must be done by those with the authority to do so.

Shoot, even Arafat isn't backing this one. (Which just leaves him room to undermine it later, mind you.)