Rigged Death Trap posted:

The IDF has collapsed the tunnels under Alshifa in their retreat.

So i guess well never know if there really was a hamas superbase under there

Fidelitious posted:

Can you please provide sources when making relatively big claims like this.

Rigged Death Trap posted:

The IDF has collapsed the tunnels under Alshifa in their retreat.

So i guess well never know if there really was a hamas superbase under there

Shaocaholica posted:

Are there any historical similarities to this conflict? Oppressed/oppressor geopolitics etc

Shaocaholica posted:

Are there any historical similarities to this conflict? Oppressed/oppressor geopolitics etc

quote:

Many analogies have been proposed for Al-Aqsa Flood: the Tet Offensive, Pearl Harbor, Egypt’s attack in October 1973, which started the Yom Kippur War, and, of course, 9/11. But the most suggestive analogy is a pivotal, and largely forgotten, episode in the Algerian War of Independence: the Philippeville uprising of August 1955. Encircled by the French army, fearful of losing ground to reformist Muslim politicians who favoured a negotiated settlement, the FLN launched a gruesome attack in and around the harbour town of Philippeville. Peasants armed with grenades, knives, clubs, axes and pitchforks killed – and in many cases disembowelled – 123 people, mostly Europeans but also a number of Muslims. To the French, the violence seemed unprovoked, but the perpetrators believed they were avenging the killing of tens of thousands of Muslims by the French army, assisted by settler militias, after the independence riots of 1945. In response to Philippeville, France’s liberal governor-general, Jacques Soustelle, whom the European community considered an untrustworthy ‘Arab lover’, carried out a campaign of repression in which more than ten thousand Algerians were killed. By over-reacting, Soustelle fell into the FLN’s trap: the army’s brutality drove Algerians into the arms of the rebels, just as Israel’s ferocious response is likely to strengthen Hamas at least temporarily, even among Palestinians in Gaza who resent its authoritarian rule. Soustelle himself admitted that he had helped dig ‘a moat through which flowed a river of blood’.

quote:

The inescapable truth is that Israel cannot extinguish Palestinian resistance by violence, any more than the Palestinians can win an Algerian-style liberation war: Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs are stuck with each other, unless Israel, the far stronger party, drives the Palestinians into exile for good.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

And the key difference between Israel and French Algeria is that there is no France for the Israelis to flee to:

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Is it crazy to think that the "high concentrations of particulate matter" have something to do with the mass bombing of buildings throughout Gaza?

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

They do have a huge number of dual nationals though and if it came to it those without dual nationality would almost certainly have the US and Europe expedite their asylum claims. They absolutely have a Metropole.

quote:

According to a Shiluv/Ipanel poll of 500 Israelis conducted for Channel 2 news, 17 percent of Israelis already hold a foreign passport and 56% would like one.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/most-israelis-want-foreign-citizenship-passport-to-prosperity

The Question of Palestine posted:

Two things are certain: the Jews of Israel will remain; the Palestinians will also remain.

Arabs and Jews posted:

We must give up, once and for all, the idea that we shall have a Middle East that is as if Zionism had never happened. The Israeli Jew is there in the Middle East, and we cannot, I might even say that we must not, pretend that he will not be there tomorrow, after the struggle is over.

kiminewt posted:

It's definitely crazy to claim out of thin air (heh) to make a good analogy. Without checking what is usually the air quality around this time of year and how unique this is, or if there are any meteorological events that could cause this.

I don't know anything about air quality but I also don't know why this is in any way relevant

punishedkissinger posted:

a one state solution does not equate to ethnically cleansing jewish Israeli's either way, that's Zionist propaganda. There's enough room in Palestine for all people to coexist. There is NOT room for an apartheid state.

punishedkissinger posted:

a one state solution does not equate to ethnically cleansing jewish Israeli's either way, that's Zionist propaganda. There's enough room in Palestine for all people to coexist. There is NOT room for an apartheid state.

punishedkissinger posted:

a one state solution does not equate to ethnically cleansing jewish Israeli's either way, that's Zionist propaganda. There's enough room in Palestine for all people to coexist. There is NOT room for an apartheid state.

Main Paineframe posted:

Jaxyon posted:

You posted earlier about the terms of the Camp David agreement in 2000, and how unfair it was.

Is there an easy source for that? I'm looking at what are supposed to be that and not seeing those details.

quote:

We went to Camp David carrying our well-known positions, positions that were adopted by several of our legislative bodies. The positions we adopted are, in our point of view, the minimum that we can accept. They are positions that are based on United Nations Resolutions 242, 338 and 194. They are based on agreements signed between the Israelis and us, they are based on Israeli documents concerning the 1948 nakba (catastrophe) and the forced expulsion of Palestinians from their homes, and they are based on UN Security Council resolutions dealing with Jerusalem and Jewish settlements.

We stressed to the Americans that for a summit at such a level to succeed it must be prepared for and prepared for well. We cautioned that because of the lack of preparation the prospect of its failure is high. The Americans agreed that a summit that this level needed preparation and they agreed with us that time must be given for preparations. We agreed with Secretary Albright that would have two weeks to prepare. We were later surprised by a telephone call from President Clinton inviting us to a summit that was to be held within a week.

We were faced with two choices, to go knowing very well that the summit will fail and that the Americans may blame us for its failure, or to refuse to attend and be accused of sabotaging the peace process. So we took the first choice.

We went to Camp David not to say NO to the Americans and the world Zionists. We went to say YES to a lasting and just peace. To say YES to international legitimacy and when we failed to reach that, we said NO. Again, we did not go to Camp David to not reach an agreement or to reject points for the sake of rejection so that it would be said that we stood strong. We went to reach an agreement; we dealt with every issue with a strong desire to reach an agreement that would end this conflict that has lasted the entire century.

To assist us in this effort we brought to Camp David eight young, bright legal advisors and maps experts who, on request were ready to present documentation and advise which they had been preparing for such occasions. We feel very proud of these fine, energetic lawyers in who we have great trust and are very happy to have on our side.

Through the Americans the Israelis presented their vision on Jerusalem. They envisioned a Jerusalem where some villages around the city would come under Palestinian sovereignty. Neighborhoods outsides the walled the Old City would remain under Israeli sovereignty with the Palestinians having some type of sefl-rule. The quarters inside the Old City would be divided. The Jewish and Armenian Quarters will be sliced away from the Muslim and Christian Quarters, which will be ruled under a special system. In their attempt to sell this to the Palestinians, they threw in sovereign headquarters for the Palestinian President inside the Old City.

Israel refused to accept moral and legal responsibility for the plight of the refugees. Israel only showed willingness to allow several hundreds to return every year on humanitarian causes. As for compensation, Israel said any fund that will be established would also compensate Jews who left Arab countries.

On borders, Israel demanded control over the Palestinian borders with Jordan and Egypt. Israel also asked to control 15-20 percent of the Jordan River and a sector of the Jordan Valley. Israel also wants to annex 10.5 percent of the West Bank to absorb the settlements. But all West Bank settlements do not sit on more than 1.8 percent.

Israel says it needs 3-5 army bases for monitoring and intervention purposes. Israel also demands that the air space be completely under its control. It asked for a presence at all international entry points to monitor persons, products and weapons. As for the state of Palestine, it must be a demilitarized state.

If we were to summarize the positions of both, the Palestinians and Israel it would be as follows:

Security:

The Israelis want control over a part of the Jordan Valley for a maximum 12-year period. That would keep the current military bases and settlements there untouched. The Israelis asked for six bases in the West Bank and three military monitoring areas. Israel demanded it have a presence at the international crossings (to monitor those entering and leaving the area. Israel also demanded the entire air space and electro-magnetic space to be under its control. The Palestinians said they would accept an international force or a multi-national force on the borders. What we won't accept is an Israeli presence, in any form on Palestinian territory.

Borders:

Israel wants to crave out 15-20 percent of the Jordan River and Dead Sea border and to annex 10.5 percent of West Bank Land. The Palestinians rejected any carving of borders. Light border amendments and an exchange of lands equal in quantity and quality that does not exceed 2 percent is acceptable.

Refugees:

The Israelis agree to contribute to an international fund to be established for the compensation of Palestinian refugees. However, Israel wants the fund to compensate Jews who came to the country from Arab states. Israel agrees to the return of hundreds of refugees under a family reunification plan or on humanitarian cases. The Palestinians want Israel to take moral and legal responsibility for the refugee crisis. UN Resolution 194 must be accepted so that all refuges are guaranteed the right of return, and by return we mean to Israel. Refugees who chose to return and those who do not must be compensated. The Absentee Treasurer created in Israel in 1949 to administer refugee money is responsible for the compensation. Host countries should also be compensated. An international fund could be established but that fund would only be responsible for part of the compensation. We refuse to mix the issue of Palestinian refugees with Jews immigrants.

Jerusalem:

Jerusalem, occupied in 1967, is the city within the walls that includes the Haram al-Sharif, the Holy Sepulcher, and the Muslim, Christian, and Armenian quarters. It is also the city outside the walls, with neighborhoods like Sheikh Jarrah. Musrara, Damascus Gate, Saleh Eldin Street and others.

The Israeli position divides Jerusalem into several sections and gave each section a different legal status.

1-The walled city:

The Haram al-Sharif: Israel to have sovereignty and the Palestinians will be given guardianship The Muslim, Christian, and Armenian Quarters: to remain under Israeli sovereignty A Palestinian presidential complex inside the Muslim Quarter that will be given sovereign power.

2- Outside the walled city: sovereignty remains with Israel with municipal functions over these neighborhoods to be carried out by the municipality of Abu Dis. With the exception of two villages, villages surrounding Jerusalem, most of which are area B, will come under Palestinian sovereignty. Israel will have a road that runs through the villages linking them to areas under their sovereignty. The Palestinians will only have one road linking them to the Haram.

The Palestinian position:

All of east Jerusalem should be returned to Palestinian sovereignty. The Jewish Quarter and Western Wall should be placed under Israeli authority not Israeli sovereignty. An open city and cooperation on municipal services

This is our summary of the results of the Camp David negotiations. But the Israelis had a different understanding that was revealed in subsequent local meetings. Israel wants 10.5 percent of the West Bank and rejects the idea of a land exchange. Israel wants 5 monitoring posts with three roads leading to them. Three Israeli administered early warning systems with a Palestinian liaison officer present at the stations. Israeli control over 8 percent of the Jordan Valley for a 12-15 year period. No right of return to Israel. Israel may accept the return of 10,000 Palestinians over a 15-year period under a family reunification plan. Air space to come under Palestinian sovereignty but will be controlled by Israel through guiding systems. An end to the conflict A demilitarized Palestinian state Jerusalem: The same position as in Camp David.

This is the Israeli position as told to us ten days ago. It shows that there are fundamental differences in the positions and that the gaps between the two sides remain very wide.

A declaration of an independent state is a right our people can execute at any time. In 1988, when we declared our state in exile, more than 100 countries recognized that declaration. But recognition of a state on the ground is different that that of a state in exile. And though many nations have said they are in favor of an independent state many hinted of the necessity to declare once prepared on the ground and or after an agreement between the sides is reached. And so we must now stop and think.

Committing to a date has its positive side, it shows that dates and promise are respected and kept, but such a commitment must be based on good preparations not emotional reactions.

We need to carefully study the Israeli response to the declaration. If Israel were to respond negatively, we need to study what measures she will take and how will we respond to these measures.

quote:

Q: If I may go back to Camp David? You couldn't accept the proposals in Camp David. Why?

A: Because there are some points which, if you are in my place, you will not accept it. I will give you the control ... of the airspace. ... And also, I accepted for them ... early-warning station. ... Early warning station, three, with the participation of the Americans and the participation of the Palestinians.

But they are insisting to have, also, big -- not only military, big military bases with all armaments in Jordan Valley under their control. What's the meaning of that? And also, the borders between us and the Egyptians. Who can accept that? I told him, OK. Why not to be like Sinai, international forces headed by the Americans? Or like Syria, Golan Heights, or like south Lebanon, also international forces? Why only the Palestinians will accept your conditions? And not only that, some very critical points for our sacred Christian and Muslim holy places. As an example, the control of the Armenian quarter with all its churches. Who can accept this? I told him, "You have to remember" -- in front of Clinton -- "I cannot betray my brothers to the Armenians." And also, they have to control the area in which Santa Maria church is there. ... And they didn't reply.

Also, they have the sovereignty beyond the Harem as-Sharif. And we have the control over the Harem as-Sharif. Who can accept this? For this, if you remember, when I returned, I asked for immediate meeting for the Committee of Jerusalem of the Islamic Conference. And for the first time, I asked His Majesty, the King of Morocco, King Mohammed VI, that special representatives for all the mosques and for all the churches in Jerusalem will participate with us. And he accepted.

And after that, they had participated also in the Islamic Conference, took place in Qatar. And the meeting of the Foreign Affairs, Islamic Foreign-- And recently, in the meeting also of Jerusalem which took place recently, one week ago in Morocco, and I offered to them what had been offered to me. And this had been refused.

quote:

Members of the panel of experts working alongside the Palestinian negotiating team, who have American passports in their possession that open Israel Defense Forces roadblocks, have embarked in recent weeks on a round of appearances throughout Israel. They lecture at living room meetings in homes in Herzliya and meet with forums of confused intellectuals in Jerusalem.

The questions repeat themselves: There is always someone who will ask why Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat reacted with such violence to the very generous proposals of former prime minister Ehud Barak? Had they really been prepared to accept Barak's proposal for an exchange of territories? And how could a pointed question about the right of return fail to be asked?

The young Palestinians, among them a legal adviser from New York and a doctoral student in law from Oxford, pull out an answer - in excellent English - to every question.

When Barak embarked on a spate of attacks against Arafat under the heading "I exposed his true face," the members of the Palestinian panel decided that this time they would not neglect Israeli public opinion. Under the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) logo, they collected the typical questions asked by Israeli listeners and next to
them detailed the Palestinian positions and their version of Camp David and the events that snowballed from it.

Their version, especially concerning the map that Barak proposed there, is quite close to the one that Robert Malley, former U.S. president Bill Clinton's special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs, is now publishing in the world press (to Clinton's displeasure).

The weak points in their 11 replies, from the perspective of the Israeli questioner, remain in the areas of the violence and the right of return. It is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to explain the transition from the blow-up of the negotiations to the blowing-up of explosive devices. It is not easy to go along with the right of return while convincing suspicious Zionists that they are planning to send the refugees to Canada, with no right of return.

But the importance of the document is in the obvious effort the Palestinians are making to rehabilitate the trust in them among supporters of compromise in Israel and to allay their anxieties. If this publication is put together with the little ladder Arafat has been given in the form of observers in the territories, and if Arafat does indeed make use of it to stop the violence - the document can perhaps boost the trampled status of talks and a compromise. The document was written both in Hebrew and in English. The following is the English version:

1. Why did the Palestinians reject the Camp David Peace Proposal?
For a true and lasting peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, there must be two viable and independent states living as equal neighbors. Israel's Camp David proposal, which was never set forth in writing, denied the Palestinian state viability and independence by dividing Palestinian territory into four separate cantons entirely surrounded, and therefore controlled, by Israel. The Camp David proposal also denied Palestinians control over their own borders, airspace and water resources while legitimizing and expanding illegal Israeli colonies in Palestinian territory. Israel's Camp David proposal presented a `re-packaging' of military occupation, not an end to military occupation.

2. Didn't Israel's proposal give the Palestinians almost all of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967?
No. Israel sought to annex almost 9 percent of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in exchange offered only 1 percent of Israel's own territory. In addition, Israel sought control over an additional 10 percent of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the form of a "long-term lease." However, the issue is not one of percentages - the issue is one of viability and independence. In a prison for example, 95 percent of the prison compound is ostensibly for the prisoners - cells, cafeterias, gym and medical facilities - but the remaining 5 percent is all that is needed for the prison guards to maintain control over the prisoner population. Similarly, the Camp David proposal, while admittedly making Palestinian prison cells larger, failed to end Israeli control over the Palestinian population.

3. Did the Palestinians accept the idea of a land swap?
The Palestinians were (and are) prepared to consider any idea that is consistent with a fair peace based on international law and equality of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. The Palestinians did consider the idea of a land swap but proposed that such land swap must be based on a one-to-one ratio, with land of equal value and in areas adjacent to the border with Palestine and in the same vicinity as the lands to be annexed by Israel. However, Israel's Camp David proposal of a nine-to-one land swap (in Israel's favor) was viewed as so unfair as to seriously undermine belief in Israel's commitment to a fair territorial compromise.

4. How did Israel's proposal envision the territory of a Palestinian state?
Israel's proposal divided Palestine into four separate cantons surrounded by Israel: the Northern West Bank, the Central West Bank, the Southern West Bank and Gaza. Going from any one area to another would require crossing Israeli sovereign territory and consequently subject movement of Palestinians within their own country to Israeli control. Not only would such restrictions apply to the movement of people, but also to the movement of goods, in effect subjecting the Palestinian economy to Israeli control. Lastly, the Camp David proposal would have left Israel in control over all Palestinian borders, thereby allowing Israel to control not only internal movement of people and goods but international movement as well. Such a Palestinian state would have had less sovereignty and viability than the Bantustans created by the South African apartheid government.

5. How did Israel's proposal address Palestinian East Jerusalem?
The Camp David Proposal required Palestinians to give up any claim to the occupied portion of Jerusalem. The proposal would have forced recognition of Israel's annexation of all of Arab East Jerusalem. Talks after Camp David suggested that Israel was prepared to allow Palestinians sovereignty over isolated Palestinian neighborhoods in the heart of East Jerusalem, however such neighborhoods would remain surrounded by illegal Israeli colonies and would remain separated not only from each other but also from the rest of the Palestinian state. In effect, such a proposal would create Palestinian ghettos in the heart of Jerusalem.

6. Why didn't the Palestinians ever present a comprehensive permanent settlement proposal of their own in response to Barak's proposals?
The comprehensive settlement to the conflict is embodied in United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, as was accepted by both sides at the Madrid Summit in 1991 and later in the Oslo Accords of 1993. The purpose of the negotiations is to implement these UN [Security Council] resolutions (which call for an Israeli withdrawal from land occupied by force by Israel in 1967) and reach agreement on final status issues. On a number of occasions since Camp David - especially at the Taba talks - the Palestinian negotiating team presented its concept for the resolution of the key permanent status issues. It is important to keep in mind, however, that Israel and the Palestinians are differently situated. Israel seeks broad concessions from the Palestinians. Israel has not offered a single concession involving its own territory and rights. The Palestinians, on the other hand, seek to establish a viable, sovereign state on their own territory, to provide for the withdrawal of Israeli military forces and colonies (which are universally recognized as illegal), and to secure the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the homes they were forced to flee in 1948. Although Palestinian negotiators have been willing to accommodate legitimate Israeli needs within that context, particularly with respect to security and refugees, it is up to Israel to define these needs and to suggest the narrowest possible means of addressing them.

7. Why did the peace process fall apart just as it was making real progress toward a permanent agreement?
Palestinians entered the peace process on the understanding that (1) it would deliver concrete improvements to their lives during the interim period, (2) that the interim period would be relatively short in duration - i.e., five years, and (3) that a permanent agreement would implement United Nations [Security Council] Resolutions 242 and 338. But the peace process delivered none of these things. Instead, Palestinians suffered more burdensome restrictions on their movement and a serious decline in their economic situation. Israeli colonies expanded at an unprecedented pace and the West Bank and Gaza Strip became more fragmented with the construction of settler "by-pass" roads and the proliferation of Israeli military checkpoints. Deadlines were repeatedly missed in the implementation of agreements. In sum, Palestinians simply did not experience any "progress" in terms of their daily lives.
However, what decisively undermined Palestinian support for the peace process was the way Israel presented its proposal. Prior to entering into the first negotiations on permanent status issues, Prime Minister Barak publicly and repeatedly threatened Palestinians that his "offer" would be Israel's best and final offer and if not accepted, Israel would seriously consider "unilateral separation" (a euphemism for imposing a settlement rather than negotiating one). Palestinians felt that they had been betrayed by Israel who had committed itself at the beginning of the Oslo process to ending its occupation of Palestinian lands in accordance with Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

8. Doesn't the violence which erupted following Camp David prove that Palestinians do not really want to live in peace with Israel?
Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist in 1988 and reiterated this recognition on several occasions including Madrid in 1991 and the Oslo Accords in September, 1993. Nevertheless, Israel has yet to explicitly and formally recognize Palestine's right to exist. The Palestinian people waited patiently since the Madrid Conference in 1991 for their freedom and independence despite Israel's incessant policy of creating facts on the ground by building colonies in occupied territory (Israeli housing units in Occupied Palestinian Territory - not including East Jerusalem - increased by 52 percent since the signing of the Oslo Accords and the settler population, including those in East Jerusalem, more than doubled). The Palestinians do indeed wish to live at peace with Israel but peace with Israel must be a fair peace - not an unfair peace imposed by a stronger party over a weaker party.

9. Doesn't the failure of Camp David prove that the Palestinians are just not prepared to compromise?
The Palestinians have indeed compromised. In the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians recognized Israeli sovereignty over 78 percent of historic Palestine (23 percent more than Israel was granted pursuant to the 1947 UN Partition Plan) on the assumption that the Palestinians would be able to exercise sovereignty over the remaining 22 percent. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians accepted this compromise but this extremely generous compromise was ignored at Camp David and the Palestinians were asked to "compromise the compromise" and make further concessions in favor of Israel. Though the Palestinians can continue to make compromises, no people can be expected to compromise fundamental rights or the viability of their state.

10. Have the Palestinians abandoned the two-state solution and do they now insist on all of historic Palestine?
The current situation has undoubtedly hardened positions on both sides, with extremists in both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories claiming all of historic Palestine. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the Palestinian Authority or the majority of Palestinians have abandoned the two-state solution. The two-state solution, however, is most seriously threatened by the on-going construction of Israeli colonies and bypass roads aimed at incorporating the Occupied Palestinian Territories into Israel. Without a halt to such construction, a two-state solution may simply be impossible to implement - already prompting a number of Palestinian academics and intellectuals to argue that Israel will never allow the Palestinians to have a viable state and Palestinians should instead focus their efforts on obtaining equal rights as Israeli citizens.

11. Isn't it unreasonable for the Palestinians to demand the unlimited right of return to Israel of all Palestinian refugees?
The refugees were never seriously discussed at Camp David because Prime Minister Barak declared that Israel bore no responsibility for the refugee problem or its solution. Obviously, there can be no comprehensive solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without resolving one of its key components: the plight of the Palestinian refugees.
There is a clearly recognized right under international law that non-combatants who flee during a conflict have the right to return after the conflict is over. But an Israeli recognition of the Palestinian right of return does not mean that all refugees will exercise that right. What is needed in addition to such recognition is the concept of choice. Many refugees may opt for (i) resettlement in third countries, (ii) resettlement in a newly independent Palestine (though they originate from that part of Palestine which became Israel) or (iii) normalization of their legal status in the host country where they currently reside. In addition, the right of return may be implemented in phases so as to address Israel's demographic concerns.

quote:

Balance is something this meticulous diplomat prizes. But a recurrent issue with Ross, who embraced the Jewish faith after being raised in a nonreligious home by a Jewish mother and Catholic stepfather, has been whether he is too close to the American Jewish community and Israel to be an honest broker with Iran or Arabs. Miller, after years of working with Ross, concluded in a book that he “had an inherent tendency to see the world of Arab-Israeli politics first from Israel’s vantage point rather than that of the Palestinians.” Another former senior State Department official, who requested anonymity because he didn’t want to jeopardize his relationship with the administration, told me, “Ross’s bad habit is preconsultation with the Israelis.” Ross earned $421,775 from speeches last year, of which more than half came from Israeli and Jewish groups, according to a financial-disclosure statement.

quote:

At the summit, Israel offered to establish a sovereign Palestinian state encompassing the Gaza Strip, 92 percent of the West Bank, and some parts of Arab East Jerusalem.5 In return, it proposed the annexation of Jewish neighborhoods (settlements) in East Jerusalem. Israel also asked for several security measures, including early warning stations in the West Bank and an Israeli presence at Palestinian border crossings. In addition, it would accept no more than a token return of Palestinian refugees under a family reuniªcation program.6 The summit concluded without Israel and the Palestinian Authority reaching an agreement.

quote:

At Camp David, Israel made a major concession by agreeing to give Palestinians sovereignty in some areas of East Jerusalem and by offering 92 percent of the West Bank for a Palestinian state (91 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from a land swap). By proposing to divide sovereignty in Jerusalem, Barak went further than any previous Israeli leader.

Nevertheless, on some issues the Israeli proposal at Camp David was not forthcoming enough, while on others it omitted key components. On security, territory, and Jerusalem, elements of the Israeli offer at Camp David would have prevented the emergence of a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state. These flaws in the Israeli offer formed the basis of Palestinian objections.

Israel demanded extensive security mechanisms, including three early warning stations in the West Bank and a demilitarized Palestinian state. Israel also wanted to retain control of the Jordan Valley to protect against an Arab invasion from the east via the new Palestinian state. Regardless of whether the Palestinians were accorded sovereignty in the valley, Israel planned to retain control of it for six to twenty-one years.40

Three factors made Israel’s territorial offer less forthcoming than it initially appeared. First, the 91 percent land offer was based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, but this differs by approximately 5 percentage points from the Palestinian definition. Palestinians use a total area of 5,854 square kilometers. Israel, however, omits the area known as No Man’s Land (50 sq. km near Latrun),41 post-1967 East Jerusalem (71 sq. km), and the territorial waters of the Dead Sea (195 sq. km), which reduces the total to 5,538 sq. km.42 Thus, an Israeli offer of 91 percent (of 5,538 sq. km) of the West Bank translates into only 86 percent from the Palestinian perspective.

Second, at Camp David, key details related to the exchange of land were left unresolved. In principle, both Israel and the Palestinians agreed to land swaps whereby the Palestinians would get some territory from pre-1967 Israel in exchange for Israeli annexation of some land in the West Bank. In practice, Israel offered only the equivalent of 1 percent of the West Bank in exchange for its annexation of 9 percent. Nor could the Israelis and Palestinians agree on the territory that should be included in the land swaps. At Camp David, the Palestinians rejected the Halutza Sand region (78 sq. km) alongside the Gaza Strip, in part because they claimed that it was inferior in quality to the West Bank land they would be giving up to Israel.43

Third, the Israeli territorial offer at Camp David was noncontiguous, breaking the West Bank into two, if not three, separate areas. At a minimum, as Barak has since confirmed, the Israeli offer broke the West Bank into two parts: “The Palestinians were promised a continuous piece of sovereign territory except for a razor-thin Israeli wedge running from Jerusalem through from [the Israeli settlement of] Maale Adumim to the Jordan River.”44 The Palestinian negotiators and others have alleged that Israel included a second east-west salient in the northern West Bank (through the Israeli settlement of Ariel).45 If true, the salient through Ariel would have cut the West Bank portion of the Palestinian state into three pieces.

Thus, at Camp David, the total Palestinian land share of the West Bank would have been closer to 77 percent for the first six to twenty-one years. Israel planned to annex 9 percent of West Bank territory while giving the Palestinians the equivalent of 1 percent from pre-1967 Israel. Israel proposed retaining control of 10 percent or more of the Jordan Valley and did not include roughly 5 percent annexation in the total (e.g., Latrun and parts of East Jerusalem).

Although Barak received significant credit for proposing to divide Jerusalem, he did not offer full Palestinian sovereignty in all the Arab neighborhoods and villages of East Jerusalem. Israel offered full Palestinian sovereignty in outlying areas of East Jerusalem, including Abu Dis, al-Aysawiyah, Shu’fat, Bayt Hanina, Qalandiya, al-Thuri, Umm Tuba, al-Sawahirah al-Gharbiyah, Kafr Aqb, and Samir Amis.46 Israel offered only Palestinian functional autonomy, not Palestinian sovereignty, in core Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, including al-Shaykh Jarrah, al-Suwwanah, al-Tur, Salah-al-Din Street, Bab al-Amud (Damascus Gate), Ra’s al-Amud, and Silwan.47 When combined with
uncertainties about the future disposition of the Old City of Jerusalem, this meant that Israel would retain signiªcant sovereign rights in Arab areas of Jerusalem.

The distinction between sovereignty and functional autonomy in Jerusalem and the issue of Israeli east-west salients running through the West Bank speak directly to the history of relations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. For Israelis, control of a single, thin road that stretched across the West Bank might have seemed nonthreatening and not like a border at all. Yet given Israel’s repeated closures of Palestinian areas, extensive use of checkpoints, and emphasis on asserting every right in past agreements, the Palestinians probably feared that narrow salients or even individual roadways could very quickly become permanent divisions. Barak’s later claim, for instance, that “Palestinian territorial continuity would have been assured by a tunnel or bridge” might sound hollow given such promises as the long-delayed travel corridor linking the Gaza Strip and West Bank for Palestinians.48 The same held true for Jerusalem: Functional autonomy is not the same as sovereignty, and that distinction could come back to haunt Palestinians in the future.

At Camp David, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators made little progress on the right of return for Palestinian refugees. It was not a central focus of the talks at the summit. According to one Palestinian negotiator, “The refugee issue did not budge one inch at Camp David.”49

Pookah posted:

Edit : oh poo poo, this is the terrible thread, did not mean to post here in calm Hitler land.

Jaxyon posted:

You posted earlier about the terms of the Camp David agreement in 2000, and how unfair it was.

Is there an easy source for that? I'm looking at what are supposed to be that and not seeing those details.

Kalit posted:

I stumbled upon an article about a couple of kids that were part of the latest batch of Hamas hostage releases: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/26/israeli-teenagers-freed-hamas-not-aware-mother-murdered.

This is absolutely devastating. It talks about how they were abducted and the fate of their parents. I don't have much to say beyond this is an example of why I can never support targeting civilians.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

The idea that America and Europe would, out of the goodness of their hearts, open their doors to millions of refugees "if it came to it" is obviously ridiculous - and even in this fantasy, to flee and seek asylum is not remotely comparable to moving/returning somewhere where you already have citizenship, as the French in Algeria got to do.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

It wouldn't be out of the goodness of their hearts, it offers them a loyal group of hardened White supremacists to break emerging labour radicalism a la Ukrainian and Croatian collaborators after the war, or Cuban exiles in the US.

Shaocaholica posted:

So past examples of apartheid have mostly been white Europeans vs some other race. But in the case of Israelis and Palestinians, aren’t they basically the same race?

Shaocaholica posted:

^^^ I looked up the definitions of race and ethnicity just to be clear and I think you have it backwards. I think we mean the same thing tho^^^

So past examples of apartheid have mostly been white Europeans vs some other race. But in the case of Israelis and Palestinians, aren’t they basically the same race?

The Lemondrop Dandy posted:

Something like 30%-40% of the Jewish population is from Europe (Ashkenazi or Soviet origin). Netanyahu was born in Philadelphia, for example.

Main Paineframe posted:

The pieds-noirs were never actually forced to leave, in fact. They did have the option to remain and be granted Algerian citizenship as theoretical equals under a non-apartheid system. However, it seems that after fiercely advocating for the brutal suppression of Algerian ambitions for equality, leading to the deaths of more than a million Algerians in the increasingly bloody struggle to maintain their apartheid regime, the million pieds-noirs living in Algeria didn't find nominal equality under Algerian rule to be a particularly attractive idea and didn't expect to be welcomed warmly by their Algerian neighbors. Rather than try being equals to the colonial underclass they'd looked down upon and oppressed so harshly, most of them figured they'd be happier retreating to the metropole.

Shaocaholica posted:

^^^ I looked up the definitions of race and ethnicity just to be clear and I think you have it backwards. I think we mean the same thing tho^^^

So past examples of apartheid have mostly been white Europeans vs some other race. But in the case of Israelis and Palestinians, aren’t they basically the same race?

Shaocaholica posted:

Sure but I’m referring to Israelis not Jewish converts. Not sure that’s the correct term either. The Jews of the Old Testament.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

It will absolutely happen. You might have diehards choosing to live there for decades afterwards, but just like the Boers they're going to chafe living equally with a population they see as subhuman and start leaving in droves.

nivdes posted:

Ashkenazi Jews are not descendants of converts.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

It wouldn't be out of the goodness of their hearts, it offers them a loyal group of hardened White supremacists to break emerging labour radicalism a la Ukrainian and Croatian collaborators after the war, or Cuban exiles in the US.

Shaocaholica posted:

^^^ I looked up the definitions of race and ethnicity just to be clear and I think you have it backwards. I think we mean the same thing tho^^^

So past examples of apartheid have mostly been white Europeans vs some other race. But in the case of Israelis and Palestinians, aren’t they basically the same race?

Saladman posted:

That’s not really quite accurate nation-wide. Many people of European descent did try to stay, particularly in Oran which had been a European-majority city since 1500, and had been directly part of Spain for about 270 of the 350 years between 1500 and the French conquest of Algeria in the 1830s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oran_massacre_of_1962

Oran absolutely was ethnically cleansed, people didn’t just leave because "oh I’m a racist guess I should go now." In many parts of the country yes, but Oran was a significant percentage of all people of European descent living in Algeria in 1950. The attack on Oran also spurred many other people of European descent to leave, giving that it gave the impression the newly independent Algeria was either tacitly supporting, or at best turning a blind eye, to reciprocal attacks even after the war was fully over.

Yes the French were awful, but let’s not pretend the FLN was led by Nelson Mandela either.

quote:

The Évian Accords intended to guarantee the rights and safety of the pieds-noirs, French and Spanish colonial residents, many born in Algeria, and indigenous Sephardi Jews in an independent Algeria. However, the flight of French pieds-noirs and pro-French native Algerians began in April 1962, and by late May hundreds of thousands had emigrated from Algeria, chiefly to metropolitan France. In fact, within weeks, three-quarters of the pieds-noirs had resettled in France.

With armed conflict apparently at an end, the French government loosened security on Algeria's border with Morocco, allowing the FLN freer movement within Algeria. Independence had been bitterly opposed by the pieds-noirs and many members of the French military, and the anti-independence Organisation armée secrète (OAS) started a campaign of open rebellion against the French government, declaring its military to be an "occupying power". The OAS engaged in a bombing campaign that killed an estimated 10 to 50 Algerians in Oran daily in May 1962. The violence was so intense in Oran that people living in European neighbourhoods rapidly left them; some Muslims left Oran to join their families in the villages, or in cities that did not have a large European population. The OAS similarly declared a "scorched earth" policy to deny French-built facilities and development to the future FLN government, a policy that reached its climax on 7 June 1962 when the OAS Delta Commando burned Algiers Library and its 60,000 volumes and blew up Oran's town hall, the municipal library, and four schools. On June 25 and 26 1962, the OAS commandos attacked and robbed six banks.

Hong XiuQuan posted:

Genetically they would be less distinct from other people in the lands they lived in than from each-other. The modern concept of Jews as a race is essentially an offshoot of scientific racism and eugenics from the 19th and 20th centuries. Nazis, Messianic Christians, secular Zionists et al had hands in creating the conception of Jews as a race.

The Lemondrop Dandy posted:

Something like 30%-40% of the Jewish population is from Europe (Ashkenazi or Soviet origin). Netanyahu was born in Philadelphia, for example.

DeadlyMuffin posted:

Personally, I don't think a solution that involves moving millions of people out of the region as a good idea.

quote:

Elon Musk, I congratulate you for reaching a principle understanding with the Ministry of Communications under my leadership.

As a result of this significant agreement, Starlink satellite units can only be operated in Israel with the approval of the Israeli Ministry of Communications, including the Gaza Strip.

As the State of Israel fights against Hamas - ISIS, this understanding is vital, as is it for everyone who desires a better world, free of evil and free of anti-Semitism, for our children's sake.

During your time in Israel, I hope that you will be able to gain valuable insight, and that it will serve as a springboard for future endeavors, as well as enhance your relationship with the Jewish people and values we share with the entire world.

I welcome you to Israel.
@elonmusk

Hong XiuQuan posted:

Previously, they'd better be described as multiple nationalities united only by a thin thread of liturgy. Ie in the 18th century there was nearly nothing linking an Iraqi or a Moroccan Jew with a French Jew beyond (if they were religious) some aspects of their religion.

punishedkissinger posted:

speaking of targeting civilians, Israel killed four children in the West Bank

https://twitter.com/AJEnglish/status/1728697047040082426?t=6VhtWUmVWLVlJUPa2Zmwrw&s=19

https://www.dci-palestine.org/israeli_forces_kill_four_palestinian_children_in_jenin_al_bireh