Keith

"Equally I believe Palestine should be allowed to be unoccupied by the Israeli's and the soverignity of all illegal settlements should be returned to a Palestinian free state.”

Given that there is no such place as "Palestine" or a "Palestinian free state," nor has there have ever been, and nor given the current disgusting behaviour of these people - will there ever be, one wonders what your idea of "Israel" is!

Simple neocommie

Pre '67 borders. I'd have thought that obvious. I've said it enough.

Keith, you indicate that the demands of most Palestinians, and of their elected government, are limited to return to the 1967 lines and establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. I disagree.

You seem to think that if Israel does not return to the exact pre-1967 lines, peace is impossible. Again, I disagree. On the contrary, I believe the demand that the conflict be settled exactly along those lines is a formula for ongoing war. And I believe that Arabs who cling to this mantra do so to avoid making peace with Israel, because they believe (with some justification) that time is on their side, and that war serves the long-term interests of maximalists and extremists on their side.

That’s what I think. But more significantly, during the Oslo interim period, Palestinian negotiators showed a keen understanding that return to the 1949 armistice lines is not in the interests of moderates on either side, and is impossible. That’s why they discussed alternatives that would, for example, leave the large Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. Likewise, the Beilin-Abu Mazen Plan did not recreate the pre-1967 line. Likewise, the line between Israel and Palestine as conceived in the unofficial Geneva Agreement did not recreate that line.

There have been many peace proposals over the years -- some serious and others mere declarations intended to establish that their creators have “peaceful” intentions. Plans that have no chance of being implemented are public relations gimmicks. Interestingly, the more serious plans have a great deal in common. Thus, it is often said that “everyone knows” more or less what the final status settlement needs to look like. Really, the large outlines of an agreement have already been negotiated multiple times. But the devil is in the details, both sides need the right internal and external political conditions to reach the only agreement that everyone knows is possible, and in the meantime, conditions on the ground won’t stand still for anyone.

Continued…

Since the mid-1980s, when Jordan renounced its claim to the West Bank, all serious proposals have a few things in common, for example they include the establishment of a Palestinian state in the approximate borders of the West Bank and Gaza; they don’t exactly recreate the old Green Line, though the variation from it is quite small; and they reject any mass “return” to Israel for the descendents of Palestinian refugees.

Keith, if the 1967 border is not holy to either the Israelis or the Palestinians, why is holy to you?

Keith: “I will not accept your usual generalised and racist ‘yeah but look at the faults of the Arabs’ protestations. We are talking about you and your attitudes to securing peace.”

1) I say what I say, without regard to whether you “accept” it.

2) It is not my practice to deflect arguments as you describe.

3) Some of our discussion has been about me and my attitudes, and some about you and your attitudes. But the primary topic here ought to be Ted’s article, which was indeed about the need for Arabs to take responsibility for their own faults and problems. And there is nothing racist about it.

Keith: “Who is Ken? I think you meant Ted?”

Yes, sorry about that. Ted.

OK, I have more or less reached my 350-word limit. Rather than waiting another day to complete my response, and because we’re hardly discussing Ted’s article at all, but are dealing with many interesting issues far more related to the Palestinian-Israeli relationship, I will write the rest of my response on the Jewish-Palestinian Encounter website (http://www.salam-shalom.net/salam-shalom/salamforum1.html ) that I mentioned earlier. Keith, I urge you and other OnlineOpinion readers to go there to see the rest of my response (which I’ll write under my full name – Steve Ganot) and to continue the discussion. If you go to that site in a few days and cannot find my response on the main page, it will have been moved to the archives and will be available there (linked from the main page).

I can't resist this.....

JEWISH LOBBY IN AMERICA ? has often been denied by various (usually Jewish) posters.

If there is one, I personally don't have a problem with it as I support Israels right to exist and be sovereign over all Biblical Israels lands.

But for Keith and others who might say there is one, you might like this :)

QUOTE
["A record number of Jewish members will enter (USA) Congress Thursday, but more remarkable are the unparalleled positions of power they will hold on committees related to Israel, many local Jewish activists say.

Six new Jewish legislators will be joining 37 familiar faces as the 110th Congress convenes, making the total the highest-ever, according to Doug Bloomfield, a former legislative director for AIPAC.

"It's unprecedented that there have been so many [Jews] in so many positions of leadership in both houses," Bloomfield said, using a Jewish simile for how that fact will affect support for Israel: Like chicken soup, it won't hurt.]

SOURCE ? of course its that ultra left, loony, and always hateful to Israel....THE JERUSALEM POST :)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467657033&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I'd be interested in Steves, Teds and Celeste's comments on this.

Keith..stop drooling please :)

David

I've never suggested there is a Jewish loddy anywhere nor have I criticised people for supporting Jewish people.

You shouldn't try to assign racist values to me in this way. It is underhanded and deceitful.

I have criticised people, like yourself for supporting the actions of Israel. Actions that clearly are in breach of world standards and which go against world opinion and our liberal democratic traditions.

If indeed Jewish people are over represented in the US congress and their actions go against the very traditions of the US and lead to a weakening of the US, as is the probable result of such behaviour, then the US people will eventually discover the treachery and take steps to rectify the matter. As they usually do. Israel has more to fear from the US than it and it's supporters imagine. And Israel will need a true and strong friend once Iran has enriched it's uranium.

You should stick to talking about your racist 'final solution'.