On 12 Aug 2002 at 14:44, Hermit wrote:
> [Hermit] The above was opinion. Your opinion is that we should break
> International law, discard treaties and basically behave like
> barbarians in pursuit of an impossible vision of security. Mine is
> that we should not. Quite legitimate to disagree.
Your opinion is that we should sit around and twidle out thumbs while Al
quaeda trains pilots and buys jumbo jects, and while Saddam puts the
finishing touches on his US-bound nukes. Mine is that we should not.
Quite legitimate to disagree.
> [Hermit] On the other hand the following is not opinion, but a widely
> published lie.
> [Joe Dees] In other words; accept the overwhelming majority of the
> territories and allow the fate of the rest to be determined by further
> negotiations, or walk away and begin an intifadeh.
> [Hermit] Here is the map used at the Camp David Meeting:
> http://www.mediamonitors.net/images/campdavid.pdf and here
> http://www.mediamonitors.net/gushshalom1.html from Gush Shalom is a
> discussion about "The Reality of Barak's "Generous" Offers." with
> additional maps. To quote from it "The West Bank and the Gaza Strip,
> captured in 1967, comprise 22% of pre-1948 Palestine. When the
> Palestinians signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993 they agreed to accept
> only these 22% and recognize Israel within the Green Line borders."
100% would of course include all of Israel.
> Camp David, Israel demanded a further 10% of the territory to enable
> them to keep the "settlers" they have illegally placed in Palestinian
> territory as well as an indefinite mandate over a further 10%.
These are two cases of 10% of the 22%, meaning 2.2 (that is two-point-
two) % each, respectively.
> addition, the Israelis insisted on control over water (and they are
> taking 80% of the water extracted from the Palestinian areas),
According to the map, access to the Jordan River was to be ceded as
soon a security concerns had been met.
> (leaving Palestine as a "homeland" within Israel)
Ahh; the Pre-Mandela South African solution! Palestinian state
sovereignty, however, would have been inevitable once control over
territory was granted (and not abused as an assault staging ground).
> and a security system
> that would have managed all Palestinian travel between the "homeland
> areas" - something which Palestinians understand all to well.
The Israelis certainly understand what feee Palestinian travel around
Israleis means; suicide bombings.
> not what was agreed at Oslo. So the Israelis were the ones playing
> "bait and switch."
The settlements would have to go, and the entire 22% (or 100% of the
West bank and Gaza) would have to be included for the settlement to
hokd; it was, nevertheless, an acceptable interim solution, with the
other issues to be decided by further negotiations as Palestinian
attacks waned and trust increased. But it doesn't sound like Arafat
bellieved that Palestinian attacks WOULD cease, thus he saw the
territories not immediately ceded to in effect be denied the Palestinians
Arafat feared for his life if he signed ANYTHING; to actually DO a deal
with the devil Israelis rather than use negotiations as a stalling and
weakening technique would have been lethally unacceptable to the
> [Joe Dees] Clinton had it right; Arafat called him a great man, to
> which Clinton responded, "No, I am a failure, and you have made me
> one." He then called George W. and specifically warned him that
> Arafat could not be successfully negotiated with, for the only power
> he possessed was the power to say no.
> [Hermit] While much of the above is opinion, it seems that you are
> asserting that Clinton lied to dubya. It wouldn't surprise me. What
> does surprise me is that you accept these lies too. After all, the
> Palestinians did keep to the letter of the Oslo accord up to Camp
> David - and the Israelis did not. See my Response to Jonathan Davis on
> the BBS at "Re: virus: Dear Hermit: You Constitutionally Can't Admit
> When You Lose", Reply 25, Hermit, 2002-08-10
> id=26000;start=15) for more details.
No, I do NOT think that Clinton lied to Dubya; I believe that Arafat
accurately believed that he simply could not politically survive the
signing of ANY settlement with Israel.
> [Hermit] Was it really Arafat's doing that the conference fell apart.
> Here is why the Palestinians say they withdrew
> http://www.mediamonitors.net/pnt1.html. Despite the vast amount of
> media to the contrary, they appear to be legitimate concerns.
Of course they have to give reasons; both sides of any failed
negotiations always feel the necessity to do the same, and it is never
the fault of the party speaking; just ask them, and they'll tell you so.
> [Hermit] Further resources may be found at
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
> Virus BBS.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:19 MDT