K&R if you support President Obama's opposition to the West Bank settlements

[Ken Burch]

The man took a ballsy step last night. He needs our backing.

Getting rid of the settlements is the ONLY chance for peace.

[Political Heretic]

1. I'm in.

[flpoljunkie]

126. Luckovich on the Israeli settlements...

[lamp_shade]

2. Yup.

[Big Blue Marble]

3. It is essential to the peace process. n/t

[Cant trust em]

4. This has to set a record for fastest post to get to the greatest page.

Maybe it's second to "K&R if you think George Bush is a poopface."

[patrice]

5. Kickin'!

[Howardx]

6. yep

here

[Zenlitened]

7. K&R

[vaberella]

8. I am. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

9. BEEN supporting it!

His support for Palestinain state hood was one of the many reasons I voted for him.

[flpoljunkie]

10. K&R!

[sohndrsmith]

11. Ashamedly, I find the whole background confusing. BUT -

the fact that Obama (in Cairo, in front of actual people) stated that both sides of this issue deserve respect as separate, border-sharing sovereign entities. If thats what you mean then K + R passionately and enthusiastically. I'm guessing this is kinda/sorta what you're speaking of? Oh well, I'm K + R-ing anyway. :

[SamCooke]

12. What does K&R mean? nt

[Occam Bandage]

17. Klondike and Regina. It's a rail line in western Canada. nt

[Raster]

113. Bad!

:spank:

[pleah]

18. You kick a thread when you post a response and

to recommend, there is a place at the bottom of the original post that says (recommend)click on it to recommend.


:)

[inna]

97. Kick & Recommend

recommending is self-explanatory;

kicking means commenting on a thread, so it gets bumped to the top of the list of most recently commented on topics.


(it took me a while to figure all the abbreviations out, so.... trust me, you're not alone! :P)

[mantis49]

13. K&R

n/t

[pleah]

14. K&R

[KT2000]

15. Kick!! n/t

[quiller4]

16. Without a doubt. The settlements must go. n/t

[bvar22]

19. As a vocal critic of most of Obama's policies,

I enjoy this opportunity to stand up and applaud our president !
:patriot:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

147. As a critic of some of Obama's policies

I enjoy this opportunity to stand up and applaud our president as well.

[Occam Bandage]

20. Peace requires not just two states, but two sovereign states. nt

[marimour]

21. absolutely!

[JuniperLea]

22. Actually, he supports my opposition...

But yeah, we're on the same page here, no question.

It's a pity this has gone on so long.

[Sentath]

26. K&R

[democracy1st]

23. K & R

[grantcart]

24. Isn't that a unanimous sentiment here? K and R

[JuniperLea]

31. You'd be surprised...

Really surprised.

[Occam Bandage]

33. And Lord knows DU never has K&R threads intended to express the popularity of a sentiment. nt

[Ken Burch]

35. You've never ventured into the I/P forum here?

n/t.

[Perky]

61. absolutely not

[Perky]

62. absolutely not

[Ken Burch]

63. Bobby Kennedy, were he alive today, would tell Israel to stop oppressing the Palestinians.

You can't claim RFK as a defender of the Occupation or the settlements.

[Perky]

117. And I didn't claim any such thing, But interesting timing

Bobby was assasinated on the 1st anniversary of the Six-day war and was killed by Sirhan Sirhan (a Jerusalem Born Palestinian) becaus of his support of Israel. 41 years ago today.


I do not believe in "outpost settlements" I do not believe that the boundaries of the existing settlements should be expanded. I readily admit that the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza should end and end soon.

Having said that I think the issue of Settlements is very complex and there are territorial claims that predate the six-day war and the Holocaust and the pogroms that kicked Jews out of place like Hebron a century ago where thay had lived continually for nearly 4,000 years.

Israel has done many many things terribly wrong, but so has Palestine.

How these thing resolve are "well beyond my pay grade" and they will admittedly rail against my "democratic" sensibilities. But the issues are tribal and territorial and epochal at their core and go back to Isaac and Ishmael and the promises to Abraham. But greater than my allegiance to democratic principle is my allegiance to principle of "justice" and "mercy". Concepts that Bobby certainly cared deeply about as a Democrat, as a Liberal and as a Catholic.

[alberg]

152. Sirhan Sirhan did not kill RFK.

Just a point of clarification, not one bullet from Sirhan Sirhan's gun reached Bobby Kennedy. RFK was killed by a bullet fired by a temporary security guard hired for the evening. The bullet was fired from behind and less than 2 feet away and struck RFK in the head. This is all documented and has been acknowledged by the Kennedy family. The story, of course, was that it was all a regrettable accident and was covered up initially to prevent embarrassment. You can do the research yourself.

[Ken Burch]

166. You're mostly correct

Although the bullet was actually fired from within one to three inches of RFK(the coroner found gunpowder in the hair shaved from Bobby's head, and gunpowder only travels three inches out of the barrel of a gun when that gun is fired, not to take this further into thread drift but still it had to be said).

[Ken Burch]

164. You didn't mention Bobby by name but he's your posting icon.

Agreed that Bobby cared abot "justice" and "mercy", especially after the shock of his brother's assassination had the effect of intellectually and spiritually opening him to views he hadn't previously listened to.

[zipplewrath]

168. Over mine as well.

I'm in no position to dictate to the people of that land how to live in peace with each other. I don't care if it is one state or seven. What I know is that what will be, will be because the people of that land choose to make it so. I do know that in Northern Ireland, the solution was for everyone to learn to live and govern together. I know the "two state" solution in India/Pakistan hasn't worked out so well. I also know the Soviet Union was never unified and split at its first chance. And I know that the British Empire was unable to sustain itself and "split" into many contries.

I support Obama's active engagement in the region and agree that one of many keys to being an effective agent for change is to be responsive to EVERYONE'S interests. And I suspect, without knowing, that his current opposition to new or expanded settlements is that, at least in the short term, it interferes with advancing the dialogue between ALL the parties.

[DutchLiberal]

201. You really think it was a lone gun man who killed him over his Israel policy?

[jenmito]

25. K&R!

[chazzio]

34. K&R

K&R

[Bettie]

27. I'm in!

no message!

[LooseWilly]

28. AbsoFrigginLutely!!!

[eridani]

29. Excellent. Hope he sticks to his guns on this one n/t

[mrbarber]

30. Just out of curiosity..

If, hypothetically, the Israeli's did dismantel all of their settlements, and go back to the pre-1964 borders, and do recognize Palestinian as a sovereign state-and despite all that, was still being attacked-would you support Israel?

[Ken Burch]

36. It's the pre-1967 borders, not pre-1964.

I support Israel's right to exist within those borders. The U.S. would defend it.

Since you know the settlements don't protect Israel from attack and never have, why even ask?

[Occam Bandage]

38. What do you mean by, "support Israel?"

While I can't speak for the OP, I currently support Israel's right to exist as well as Israel's right to defend its borders and its people. I also strongly deny any right to settlements outside its borders, any right to military actions or blockades targeted at Palestinian civilians, and any right to violate United Nations resolutions at will. That would not change in any appreciable way if Israel were to return to pre-1967 borders (I assume you mean '67) and return "settlement" land to its rightful owners.

[cali]

32. yes he did take a courageous stand- one with which I whole heartdly agree.

[Avalux]

37. K & R. I've got Obama's back.

He told the truth as he said he would, whether Netanyahu or Lieberman like it or not. Too fucking bad for them. Now let's see if Obama's brave words will make a difference.

[Sebastian Doyle]

39. K&R

NuttyYahoo is the most dangerous lunatic on the planet right now, and it's a good thing to let him know first thing that he does NOT have a blank check to do whatever the fuck he wants.

[CakeGrrl]

40. K/R

[sandyj999]

41. K&R

[northamericancitizen]

42. K & R

[Scurrilous]

43. K & R

:thumbsup:

[supernova]

44. The segment about the settlements has needed saying

for a very long time.

KnR!

[moobu2]

45. Peace!

[rateyes]

46. I'll kick and rec the thread, because right now it's the best we can hope for...

but, I would go further and call for all settlements to be dismantled, and the occupation to end.

[Better Believe It]

47. K & R

[Agony]

48. k&r BIG step in the right direction!

[mecherosegarden]

49. k&R N/T

[varelse]

50. I support his whole approach to the I/P conflict

K&R before this ends up in the dungeon :P

[gtar100]

51. The elephant in the room has been outed.

K&R

[Wizard777]

52. Israel cannot be allowed to wipe Palestine off the map!

[Richd506]

53. K & R

[NYC_SKP]

54. K&R "Settlements" these are NOT. It's invasion and murder.

"Settlements" sounds so innocuous.

"Settlers" might settle and inhabit an uninhabited mountain or island, but when people are already there, it is a different concept.

:patriot:

[Jennicut]

65. I agree. Total interlopers.

[Enthusiast]

106. Now now.

The settlements are not all so different that those of frontier America (on Indian land). That worked out well. :sarcasm:

[Ken Burch]

193. Father: "Hello, Soaring Eagle, it's good to have you home"

Son: "Aw gee, dad, call me Eddie. I'm an AMERICAN now".

Father: "What have they been teaching you at school?"

Son: "Just what we need for a better life: French horn, Italian, water polo-"

Slick Announcer Voice :"Yes, here at the Custer Memorial Indian School, Eddie's one of our prize pupils. We're giving him away next week!"

(From "Temporarily Humboldt County", by The Firesign Theatre.)

[Enthusiast]

205. I love Firesign Theatre!

:toast:

[Fire1]

55. K&R

[geek tragedy]

56. All in. n/t

[bdamomma]

57. kick and rec

[TheBigotBasher]

58. K&R

[idahoblue]

59. K&R

Yes!!!

[stray cat]

60. And his call on the palestinians to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist

He called on both sides and that is the only way any peace will ever come. It is not either or but and.

[Ken Burch]

70. Getting the settlements stopped is the best way to get the Palestinians to change tactics.

n/t.

[imdjh]

95. And buy ice cream. Don't forget the ice cream. nt

[T Wolf]

141. Don't think I've ever seen that string of words together - "either or but and" does work. Congrats.

[DissedByBush]

199. A side too many people forget

Israel can make concessions year after year but they will be for nothing and only seen as weakness in the eyes of those who denounce Israel's very right to exist.

I saw a case of a suicide bomber. She had been going into Israel for free medical care for a time, they had saved her life, and one day she showed up at the checkpoint wearing a bomb. Among these people there is no gratitude for anything Israel does right, only pure hatred that Israel exists at all.

[wileedog]

64. A Jewish K&R

FWIW

[Ken Burch]

71. It's worth a lot. Even most Israelis don't actually back the settlers

n/t.

[LittleBlue]

87. It's worth a lot

The right-wing tries to spread propaganda that all Jews are against peace. I know for a fact this is not true!

Thank you for your support in debunking this treacherous myth!

[TellTheTruth82]

144. Please check

Because a lot of right wingers say the left wingers believe that all Jews are against peace. I know for a fact that is not true either.

[sonias]

142. You are not alone

Talking Points Memo 6/5/09

Friday Poll in Israel shows Majority/Solid Support for Settlement Evacuation

Every Friday, the Israeli papers publish a national poll catching a snapshot of the public's mood. This week's poll is unequivocal in showing major public support for an end to the settlement foolery. This gives Bibi Netanyahu the political cover he needs, if he wants to transform, but as the Friday commentators also point out in the Israeli papers, whether his own personality and personal history trap him in the paradigm of the past is the question of the moment....as one top Israeli commentator says, if he doesn't respond to Obama's program, the current government is on a collision course that puts it on a trajectory for toppling and soon....the right politician in Israel (with help from Israel's friends) can capture the current mood and make progress --Here is the poll:

(snip)
Q: Should Israel freeze settlement construction?
Yes -- 52%
No -- 43%
Q: Should the illegal outposts be evacuated?
Yes -- 70%
No -- 25%

:applause:


Sonia

[aaaaaa5a]

66. K&R! NT

[ooglymoogly]

67. For this, for shure; I am on board kr

[DireStrike]

68. There's my R, and here's my K

No more lawbreaking.

[jwirr]

69. I do not think there can ever be peace with the expansion of the West Bank. nt

[thread-bear]

72. k&r

I didn't hear it all,but what I heard was great. This may sound crazy,but I wonder if Netanyahu didn't secretly go along. It gives him the cover he needs. He can say he has no choice other than to curtail the settlements.

[onestepforward]

73. K&R

[Nothing Without Hope]

74. About damn time the nod-and-wink policy about West Bank settlements ended. N/t

[Imalittleteapot]

75. kick for votes.

[dwilso40641]

76. K&R n/t

[caseymoz]

77. k&r

[colsohlibgal]

78. K&R

[rhett o rick]

79. Im in

[Kaleko]

80. Yes.

[AtomicKitten]

81. His speech was historical. K&R n/t

[The Magistrate]

82. Absolutely, Mr. Burch

[TahitiNut]

83. D'uh.

:thumbsup:

[Bette Noir]

84. Good speech. I hope he follows through.

[Plucketeer]

85. Either make them a state or end the ridiculous backing

We can't even take care of our own!

[LittleBlue]

86. K&R- time to get peace, don't bow down to the Israeli right wing

and sacrifice this chance at peace for all parties.

[tomg]

88. K & R nt

[jonnyblitz]

89. k & r. nt

[Rhiannon12866]

90. You've got mine! There will never be a two state solution without

dismantling the settlements... :-(

[shellgame26]

91. He is very brave

I honestly fear for his life.

[Autonomy]

92. K&R

[Douglas Carpenter]

93. ABSOLUTELY!! It is time that opposition to ALL settlements in Occupied territories be considered

an absolute and nonnegotiable litmus test for any and all progressives and liberals of all types.

I respect the fact, even if it is at times a little hard for me to grasp with my particular background, that there are progressives and liberals who feel genuine affinity with the State of Israel and might be called or consider themselves to be pro-Israeli.

But, for the sake of the peace of the entire world and for the hope for the day when Jews, Christians and Muslims throughout the Middle East can live side by side in peace, justice, equality and dignity - ALL SETTLEMENTS IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY MUST GO!!!

For the sake of the day when the animosity between Arabs and Jews, Muslims and the West will become a distant and sad memory of the past, It is absolutely imperative and the time is NOW for all Democrats, progressives and liberals of all stripes to unite around this issue. - ALL SETTLEMENTS IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY MUST GO!!!

[concerned canadian]

94. Kand R

[azurnoir]

96. K&R And hopefully he will not be undercut by people

in Congress who are more interested in their campaign funding than in doing what is right

(my major fear for this)

[ihavenobias]

98. K & R n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

99. K&R n/t

[Raksha]

100. K & R

[Stevepol]

101. K&R

[MirrorAshes]

102. Absolutely. This is REAL LEADERSHIP. K&R!

[DeSwiss]

103. K&R n/t

[Chulanowa]

104. They're not settlements

Settlers move into unclaimed land and set up shop. These fucks threw the inhabitents out of their shops and took over. These are colonies, expansions of a colonial state.

K&R, even if Obama's only taking baby steps

[chimpymustgo]

127. Ding ding ding!!!! Still, K&R!

[Enthusiast]

105. K&R

[TomClash]

107. Kick, Kick, Kick

The Israeli lebensraum must end.

[barbtries]

108. peace

[and-justice-for-all]

109. Kick! ABSOLUTLY!! nt

[LeftishBrit]

110. k&r for Obama and some hope of Middle East peace

[ProgressiveMuslim]

111. K & R. Maybe he'll call on Israel to renounce violence too! t

[Douglas Carpenter]

181. indeed!

[kayecy]

112. Yes - at last - a US President prepared to tell it as it is

[The Wizard]

114. K&R

:kick:

[tpsbmam]

115. I've never fallen for a K&R thread before -- I just think they're tacky and irritating.

Had to do this one, though -- I think the Washington-types would be really surprised to learn the degree to which average Americans support BOTH Israel & Palestine. Their policies have been so blindly in favor of Israel for so long, it appears that they don't think before they vote in favor of Israel. Listening to one of the Hamas leaders on CNN right now, they don't get it either (he's essentially saying they're the victims and Israel has to make all of the concessions; that includes recognition of Israel's right to exist -- you don't give that concession to an occupying country. If they get out, THEN maybe we'll recognize them. Everyone has their heels dug in -- Obama has his work cut out for him.

[swilton]

116. K & R

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

118. K&R 200 n/t

[MyUserNameIsBroken]

119. K/R and n/t

[bullwinkle428]

120. K&R.

[FraDon]

121. k&r • End exemptions for the "orthodox" & start drafting THEIR daughters & son ...

THEN you'll see some hasty changes in national policy.

[FourScore]

122. I never K&R a thread if the headline says to "K&R " -- except this one. n/t

[madmom]

123. Here's another K&R

[subsuelo]

124. K&R

absolutely!

[graywarrior]

125. Hell yeah

[kmac3]

128. Bout Time . . . .

K & R :thumbsup:

[McCamy Taylor]

129. I do! Equal justice for everyone! (Including native peoples).

[jeff30997]

130. K&R

[sonias]

131. Peace requires sacrifices on both sides

It's time for Israel to step back from those settlements.

:kick:


Sonia

[Donald Ian Rankin]

132. K&R

[Soylent Brice]

133. K&R

[Deep13]

134. Well, I agree with it.

Can't say I've done much to support it in any meaningful sense.

[redqueen]

135. K&R

[Duval]

136. This had to be said and I agree with Obama.n/t

[NJmaverick]

137. A kick for justice

[Jack Rabbit]

138. K/R

!!

[MUAD_DIB]

139. Supported and kicked!

[Bushknew]

140. He said the right thing, let's hope he does the right thing. K&R

[goclark]

143. Count me in~

[ezedi]

145. By time

Long overdue and give "settlers" the ultimatum to
leave or to remain and be a part of the Palestinian state
living under the same laws and being subject to the same
rights and restrictions as Israeli Arabs in Israel.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

146. The settlements were always a stupid idea

Here's a plan: You take one of the most crowded places on earth, add the most fanatical variety of people whom the original inhabitants hate, and... what do you expect? Sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows?

The plan sounded crazy to me when Menachem Begin first suggested it. I wonder if he was deliberately trying to stir up trouble so that the increasingly diverse Israeli population would have a more active common enemy to unite against. Or maybe he was just nuts.

[CTyankee]

169. Am I crazy to think that the settlement thing was something whose time had come

and has now passed? That the Israeli hardliners are still just going thru the motions? I want to believe this so I may BE crazy...

[Ken Burch]

194. Ariel Sharon, when he was part of the national unity government in the early 70's, started it

Sharon thought he could bring the settlers in as a security/bargaining thing, and then just take them out if he needed to.

He didn't realize the inmates(Arutz Sheva and the "In Blood And Fire Judea Will Arise" crowd) would take over the asylum(The West Bank). OR he decided at some point that he didn't care.

[CTyankee]

206. However, the sobering reality is that in Israel's experience, taking down settlements

INCREASED violence and attacks by the Palestinians, who interpreted Israel's action as weakness.

We should not be surprised if that happens again and I wonder what the DU consensus will be...

[Ken Burch]

209. You've got correlation, not causation, between those things

The Gaza settlements were removed. Violence followed. But you don't have CAUSATION.

Gaza erupted for a variety of reasons. And the way the settlement removal happened was one of them. That removal was not, for the most part, negotiated with the PA. It was, for the most part, done unilatarally, and Sharon meant the unilataral aspect of it to be a gesture of disrespect towards the PA. When an Arab leadership is made to lose face(as Sharon did by NOT treating the PA as an equal negotiating partner in the disengagement)the immediate response is an urge among the rank-and-file people under that government to avenge that shame. Sharon knew this. The man is a sabra, and grew up hearing stories of the revenge cycle and how it played out among various Arab groups.

Sharon was also making it clear that, in exchange for the Gaza "pullout", the Palestinians were expected to give up on getting their state to include the West Bank. Given the huge number of West Bank refugees in the refugee camps in Gaza, this was inevitably going to have an inflammatory effect, and it did. And, most likely, Sharon meant it to. He wanted a situation he could use to justify not engaging the Palestinians any further. Remember, this was the same Ariel Sharon who had said, only a few years previously "the dirty work of Zionism is not yet done". Israelis deserved a better leader than that, and they deserve a better government today. If Shimon Peres hadn't helped destroy the Labor Party for committing the unspeakable crime of defeating him for its leadership in favor of a representative of the Mizrahi majority within Israel, the political situation would be far different and the Livnis and Bibis would not have the dominance the now hold.

[Douglas Carpenter]

211. Israel withdrew the settlements from the Gaza - and doubled the settlement construction plans in

the West Bank.

links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082701113_pf.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/world/africa/26iht-mideast.4024302.html

Israel has more than doubled the number of settlers since the Oslo Accord in 1993 and is still continuing to relentlessly expand settlements all the time!! And when Israel redeployed from Gaza they greatly exhilarated their settlement expansions plans in the West Bank while keeping control of Gaza's air, land and sea access.

Including a whole new settlement in the Jordan Valley. That's a long, long way from the Green Line. link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6210721.stm

There are approximately 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, (*now closer to 500,000)including East Jerusalem. According to B'tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, " the built-up area of the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank".* http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp

=================================================================

Settlement expansion actually massively exhilarated after the signing of the Oslo Accord in September 1993 resulting in increasing the number of setters by approximately 90% by the time of the Camp David 2000 talks - the greatest settlement expansion occured in 2000 under the Labor government of Ehud Barak. The Kadima goverment exhiliarated expansion again following the Gaza redeployment.

New UN map charts West Bank reality
From the Financial Times of London:



snip:"Diplomats say the effect of the infrastructure changes would be to formalise the de facto cantonisation of the West Bank. Some 450,000 Israelis live in the West Bank and occupied east Jerusalem and settlements have grown by at least 5.5 per cent a year compared with less than 3 per cent among Palestinians."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/728a69d4-12b1-11dc-a475-000b5df10621,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F728a69d4-12b1-11dc-a475-000b5df10621.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2Fdiscuss%2Fdu

====================================================


“there is no Palestinian state, even though the Israelis speak of one.” Instead, he said, “there will be a settler state and a Palestinian built-up area, divided into three sectors, cut by fingers of Israeli settlement and connected only by narrow roads.”"


link to full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/world/middleeast/11road.html?_r=7&pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=22948d4799a34065&ex=1187496000&emc=eta1&oref=

=====================================


As appears from the map, while the built-up area of the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank.

full PDF map: http://www.btselem.org/Download/Settlements_Map_Eng.pdf

other map of settlements from B'tsellem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories

http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp

July/August 2002

The Myth of the Generous Offer

Distorting the Camp David negotiations


By Seth Ackerman

link:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113


The seemingly endless volleys of attack and retaliation in the Middle East leave many people wondering why the two sides can't reach an agreement. The answer is simple, according to numerous commentators: At the Camp David meeting in July 2000, Israel "offered extraordinary concessions" (Michael Kelly, Washington Post, 3/13/02), "far-reaching concessions" (Boston Globe, 12/30/01), "unprecedented concessions" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). Israel’s "generous peace terms" (L.A. Times editorial, 3/15/02) constituted "the most far-reaching offer ever" (Chicago Tribune editorial, 6/6/01) to create a Palestinian state. In short, Camp David was "an unprecedented concession" to the Palestinians (Time, 12/25/00).

But due to "Arafat's recalcitrance" (L.A. Times editorial, 4/9/02) and "Palestinian rejectionism" (Mortimer Zuckerman, U.S. News & World Report, 3/22/02), "Arafat walked away from generous Israeli peacemaking proposals without even making a counteroffer" (Salon, 3/8/01). Yes, Arafat "walked away without making a counteroffer" (Samuel G. Freedman, USA Today, 6/18/01). Israel "offered peace terms more generous than ever before and Arafat did not even make a counteroffer" (Chicago Sun-Times editorial, 11/10/00). In case the point isn't clear: "At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians an astonishingly generous peace with dignity and statehood. Arafat not only turned it down, he refused to make a counteroffer!" (Charles Krauthammer, Seattle Times, 10/16/00).

This account is one of the most tenacious myths of the conflict. Its implications are obvious: There is nothing Israel can do to make peace with its Palestinian neighbors. The Israeli army’s increasingly deadly attacks, in this version, can be seen purely as self-defense against Palestinian aggression that is motivated by little more than blind hatred.

Locking in occupation

To understand what actually happened at Camp David, it's necessary to know that for many years the PLO has officially called for a two-state solution in which Israel would keep the 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate (as Britain's protectorate was called) that it has controlled since 1948, and a Palestinian state would be formed on the remaining 22 percent that Israel has occupied since the 1967 war (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem). Israel would withdraw completely from those lands, return to the pre-1967 borders and a resolution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee their homes in 1948 would be negotiated between the two sides. Then, in exchange, the Palestinians would agree to recognize Israel (PLO Declaration, 12/7/88; PLO Negotiations Department).

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region's scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new "independent state" would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called "bypass roads" that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.

Violence or negotiation?

The Camp David meeting ended without agreement on July 25, 2000. At this point, according to conventional wisdom, the Palestinian leader's "response to the Camp David proposals was not a counteroffer but an assault" (Oregonian editorial, 8/15/01). "Arafat figured he could push one more time to get one more batch of concessions. The talks collapsed. Violence erupted again" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). He "used the uprising to obtain through violence...what he couldn't get at the Camp David bargaining table" (Chicago Sun-Times, 12/21/00).

But the Intifada actually did not start for another two months. In the meantime, there was relative calm in the occupied territories. During this period of quiet, the two sides continued negotiating behind closed doors. Meanwhile, life for the Palestinian population under Israeli occupation went on as usual. On July 28, Prime Minister Barak announced that Israel had no plans to withdraw from the town of Abu Dis, as it had pledged to do in the 1995 Oslo II agreement (Israel Wire, 7/28/00). In August and early September, Israel announced new construction on Jewish-only settlements in Efrat and Har Adar, while the Israeli statistics bureau reported that settlement building had increased 81 percent in the first quarter of 2000. Two Palestinian houses were demolished in East Jerusalem, and Arab residents of Sur Bahir and Suwahara received expropriation notices; their houses lay in the path of a planned Jewish-only highway (Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 11-12/00).

The Intifada began on September 29, 2000, when Israeli troops opened fire on unarmed Palestinian rock-throwers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, killing four and wounding over 200 (State Department human rights report for Israel, 2/01). Demonstrations spread throughout the territories. Barak and Arafat, having both staked their domestic reputations on their ability to win a negotiated peace from the other side, now felt politically threatened by the violence. In January 2001, they resumed formal negotiations at Taba, Egypt.

The Taba talks are one of the most significant and least remembered events of the "peace process." While so far in 2002 (1/1/02-5/31/02), Camp David has been mentioned in conjunction with Israel 35 times on broadcast network news shows, Taba has come up only four times--never on any of the nightly newscasts. In February 2002, Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz (2/14/02), published for the first time the text of the European Union's official notes of the Taba talks, which were confirmed in their essential points by negotiators from both sides.

"Anyone who reads the European Union account of the Taba talks," Ha'aretz noted in its introduction, "will find it hard to believe that only 13 months ago, Israel and the Palestinians were so close to a peace agreement." At Taba, Israel dropped its demand to control Palestine's borders and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians, for the first time, made detailed counterproposals--in other words, counteroffers--showing which changes to the 1967 borders they would be willing to accept. The Israeli map that has emerged from the talks shows a fully contiguous West Bank, though with a very narrow middle and a strange gerrymandered western border to accommodate annexed settlements.

In the end, however, all this proved too much for Israel's Labor prime minister. On January 28, Barak unilaterally broke off the negotiations. "The pressure of Israeli public opinion against the talks could not be resisted," Ben-Ami said (New York Times, 7/26/01).

Settlements off the table

In February 2001, Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister of Israel. Sharon has made his position on the negotiations crystal clear. "You know, it's not by accident that the settlements are located where they are," he said in an interview a few months after his election (Ha'aretz, 4/12/01).


They safeguard the cradle of the Jewish people's birth and also provide strategic depth which is vital to our existence.

The settlements were established according to the conception that, come what may, we have to hold the western security area , which is adjacent to the Green Line, and the eastern security area along the Jordan River and the roads linking the two. And Jerusalem, of course. And the hill aquifer. Nothing has changed with respect to any of those things. The importance of the security areas has not diminished, it may even have increased. So I see no reason for evacuating any settlements.


Meanwhile, Ehud Barak has repudiated his own positions at Taba, and now speaks pointedly of the need for a negotiated settlement "based on the principles presented at Camp David" (New York Times op-ed, 4/14/02).

In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02).

Ariel Sharon responded by declaring that "a return to the 1967 borders will destroy Israel" (New York Times, 5/4/02). In a commentary on the Arab plan, Ha'aretz's Bradley Burston (2/27/02) noted that the offer was "forcing Israel to confront peace terms it has quietly feared for decades."

[CTyankee]

213. I read your postings with interest. I have a few questions.

In your opinion, why was Israel building up settlements on the West Bank while dismantling them in Gaza?

In your opinion, what do you think Israel could/should have done to ensure peace with the Palestinians while also ensuring their own security?

Do the Israelis have an historic claim on the land it now occupies as a sovereign state? Why has it not had a continuous claim on that land? What happened?

What do you think would happen if Israel gave up ALL of its settlements in return for a promise of peace with the Palestinian? Do the Palestinians say this is what they want? If it is NOT, what DO they say and/or mean they want?

I am trying to drill down here and get the gist of the conflict at a very basic level. It seems that you have a knowledge base here and I want to hear a bit more about what lessons you have learned from the conflict that could be useful in a resolution of that conflict.

[Douglas Carpenter]

214. Prime Minister Sharon justified his withdrawal from the Gaza to the settler movement

on the ground that they could then devote their resources to consolidating settlements and control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It was also a great P.R. exercise for him and for the State of Israel.

The Gaza does not contain the kind of religious claim that most religious settlers have in part of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In fact the Gaza was essentially an expensive waist of resources for the State of Israel.

The essential minimal demands for the vast majority of Palestinians - and this is supported by a wide range of polling and has been stated clearly and unambiguously by the PLO, the Arab League and the Palestinian Authority:

1. A genuinely contiguous, independent and sovereign Palestinian state based on the 1967 border with unimpeded movement and control over their own borders and unimpeded movement and access to a Palestinian capital in a Palestinian sovereign East Jerusalem. This would require the removal of the vast majority of settlements. The notes from the Taba talks and words from senior PLO and PA officials indicate that they could accept some settlements near the 1967 border, such as the Old Jewish Quarter in Arab East Jerusalem and some other settlements very close to the border, in exchange for land swaps such as a land corridor with tunnels and bypasses connecting the West Bank to the Gaza - a distance of about 40 miles.

2. A capital in East Jerusalem with sovereignty over the Muslim and Christian holy sites previously controlled by Jordan prior to the 1967 War. This can get a little tricky since some of the Muslim holy sites overlap at places with Jewish holy sites. The Haram al Sharif and Temple Mount are pretty much in the same place. However, there have been some very creative solutions put together by Palestinian and Israeli negotiators to work out detail of how this could be done. Here is a reasonable and probably workable proposal put together by both Israelis and Palestinian in the Geneva Initiative that seems like it would satisfy the majority of Palestinian and Israelis: http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/english
Please see Article 6 - Jerusalem.

3. Recognition of the Right of Return. I emphasize the word, "Recognition". Most Palestinian recognize that implementing an unconditional right of return for those who are from land inside the pre-1948 border is simply not going to happen even if in principle they, and international law and every independent human rights organization in the world agrees, it is their right. What this would mean in practical terms is that Israel would acknowledge their role in creating the refugee problem and that a negotiated number of those who are still alive would be allowed to return - the negotiated number would probably mean a few thousand to a few tens of thousands would have the option to return to their homes if they choose. The rest, the vast majority, would be given compensation and could return to live in the new Palestinian state in the West Bank, East Jerusalem or the Gaza.

As far as Israeli claims on the land, even the Arab League has unanimously declared along with the endorsement of the PLO that they have been prepared for sometime to accept the Israeli state based on the 1948 to 1967 border. However, all international bodies including the United Nations and even the official position of the U.S. State Department declares all the land occupied after June, 1967 to be occupied land and all settlement activity to be illegal. There is not one single credible and independent legal body in the entire world that disagrees. Here is something I wrote about that subject with references just the other day: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8452649&mesg_id=8453183

==============

For your perusal here are some interesting sources. In January, 2001, Israeli and Palestinian negotiator came the closest they ever came to agreement. Here is an article originally published in Haaretz in February, 2002 which explains what happened and includes the European Union observer notes of the Taba Talks:

http://prrn.mcgill.ca/research/papers/moratinos.htm

Here is the 2002 official and unanimously adopted statement from the Arab League and endorsed by the PLO on the offer to accept and establish full diplomatic relations with Israel:

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm

Here is a neutral and dispassionate detailed analysis by Dr. Jeremy Pressman of the University of Connecticut, "Vision in Collision: What happened at Camp David and Taba":

http://www.samed-syr.org/CampDavidAndTaba.pdf

.

[CTyankee]

215. Thanks for the info...n/t

[invictus]

148. K&R!

[cactusfractal]

149. Of course. Any rational person must be.

[SUMMERTREE2]

150. K & R -- Although I just heard opposition to new or expansion

of settlements

[Ignis]

151. Hell yes. (nt)

[Kajsa]

153. Yes!

K&R

[Joey Liberal]

154. K&R - I'm with Obama! nt

[Captain Hilts]

155. Count me in. nt

[kestrel91316]

156. K&R

[kenfrequed]

157. Yup

Actually Papa Bush also sort of half heartedly stood up to the Israeli's on this issue. Of course since I hated even Bush the senior I don't really mind that it might have cost him the election.

[Scurrilous]

158. Thanks for posting this Ken Burch.

:thumbsup:

[HughMoran]

159. All parties need to give up something

If lsst night's party is any indication, my Jewish friends and family also agree that Israel needs to stop building settlements - now!

[MNDemNY]

160. yes, man.

[movonne]

161. K@R

[Douglas Carpenter]

162. another kick

[Jefferson23]

163. K&R for PEACE!

[grillo7]

165. As a Jew myselfl, K & R... n/t

[roberto]

167. Go obama Go !!!

[winyanstaz]

170. I do support Obama in this...

He has been pissing me off a lot but this is great news and good for the whole world.
Thank you President Obama!

[Vidar]

171. K&R.

[Tarheel_Dem]

172. k&r (nt)

:kick:

[gula]

173. K&R

[LSK]

174. You mean DU finally woke up about I/P issues???

No dungeon???

K&R btw.

[Better Believe It]

175. K & R

[leftstreet]

176. K&R

[Blue_In_AK]

177. Absolutely, Ken,

and it's nice to see you getting so much agreement for a change. :P

[rhett o rick]

178. "Error: You've already recommended that thread." dang

[TheKentuckian]

179. I don't oppose. I figure it is required to make some progress over there

though my general opinion that occupied territories are spoils of a war of aggression and if the areas were so important the Arabs should have thought of that before launching the six days war.

[Bluenorthwest]

180. absolutely

and I have been there.

[kirby]

182. Yes...

Building settlements is both a violation of the letter and spirit of the law. It is about time they stop.

[ClearPresentDanger]

183. K&R

k

[shanti2]

184. Definitely approve of stopping all settlements in WB

This is the only sane statement a President can make if they
are
interested in helping set up a free Palestinian state.

[LaPera]

185. Kick!!!

[La Coliniere]

186. They need to give them up.

The sooner the better.

[hardtoport]

187. I applaud President Obama's leadership on this issue.

I hope to see peace in the ME in my lifetime. I've lived to see the Berlin Wall fall and a black man become President. Maybe this will also come to pass.

[treestar]

188. K&R

Those settlements are wrong.

[Ilovevermont]

189. It is good to have a president who understands

the need for making peace. Not since Jimmy Carter have I felt
such hope, tricky as these negotiations are and will continue
to be. There are many people in Israel who are courageous
people and who want peace and justice and harmony with their
neighbors. Sometimes they seem to feel as we did during the
Bush/Cheney nightmare. Majorities may win elections, but it is
necessary to remember the people of good will in every
country. Israel deserves to exist in peace, but not to dictate
our foreign policy.

[Unvanguard]

190. Right here. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

191. People concerned with the issue may consider signing this petition from Avaaz

http://www.avaaz.org/en/obama_stop_settlements/?cl=246024791&v=3424

[proReality]

192. K&R n/t

[JohnyCanuck]

195. K&R n/t

[NuttyFluffers]

196. K&R

:)

[reprehensor]

197. {{punt}}

hells yes

[DesertRat]

198. k&r

[DutchLiberal]

200. I'm not able to rec anymore, but I will kick it! NO settlements should remain.

They're not called 'colonists' for nothing. Get the hell out of there!

[Idealism]

202. I was late to this shindig, but I am down with it!

:P

[shaayecanaan]

203. K&R from me -nt-

[backscatter712]

204. Hell, yeah, K&R!

About time someone with some clout demanded sanity from the Israeli neocons!

Really, all Obama's doing is asking that the Israelis figure out how to play well with others. He's also asking that of the Palestinians.

Losing the settlements and walls and Warsaw-Ghettoization of Gaza is absolutely necessary.

Edit: The thread can no longer get recs, but it still gets the kick!

[N.Y. to Paris]

207. I too, am in! Big time...

[bcoylepa]

208. yes yes

and yes - a necessary truth to be told

[Odin2005]

210. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[invictus]

212. Kick!