Steve

Those maps are not of any final proposal from Camp David. There just wasn't one. Arafat had rejected those maps previously. Even David Boaz indicates he accepts Arafat couldn't settle for those conditions. It has been the Wests and Israel's widely published position Arafat was condemned for rejecting Israel's peace offers.

Why don't you accept the Arab League put forward a proposal for peace in 2002? You know the one Olmert is now accepting as a basis for renewed discussion. The one everyone else now recognises as basically a just solution for the Palestinians.

David your question re Jerusalem could be asked of the Israelis.

Bushbred kennelly@st.net.au

Keith :) now you know why I asked you that question.

cheers

.....and...as I've said many times. THAT .. is the key to the whole conflict.

Believe it...or not.

yvonne

So you recently spoke with a former Arab Muslim resident of Jerusalem who migrated here to peaceful Australia. I often speak with an eighth generation Jewish Israeli who also migrated here to peaceful Australia. She is angered with the idea that her family should be expected by the Islamic countries to leave for somewhere else. Where? Back to the Arab countries which they left because of discrimination and in many cases persecution? And what about the true indigenes of Israel, the descendants of the Jews who never left the ancient land?

Does it require a brain transplant to get it into the thick skulls of many of you that nearly half of Israel's population are from families who left other middle eastern lands to obtain freedom. And this includes some Christians, Baha'i and other non-Muslim faiths.

Perhaps you deliberately ignore this because it requires a rethink. After all We don't want truth to get in the way of a good story!

I’m fascinated by sganot’s authorative take on my view on Jewish history.

Perhaps you didn’t like the issue I raised in the last paragraph, which made you dismiss it. The truth is that everything that is happening on that piece of land, including the issues John raised, and which I might add, affects this entire global village, are precisely because Jewish people want a homeland which is amongst a greater majority who are not Jewish. We're discussing a Jewish nation here. Not just a democratic nation.

I’m sympathetic to the wish of a Jewish homeland. But it is disingenuous to suggest that the territory settled was not occupied by a people who also have a claim. Here in Australia we have come away from the historical rationalization of ‘an empty land waiting to be settled by productive people’.

As to the conflict not being financially beneficial. I’d never thought of the possibility of it creating an industry of its own. Maybe the rest of the world then just needs to wait until one side runs out of cash. The cost of armaments, building walls and settlements being what they are, that shouldn’t take too long.

Logic, though your pen name, your argument has no bearing on logic. Should an 8th generation Jewish person have more rights to live where grandparents lived than a non-Jewish person?

Keith,

You asked for maps of "what Israel proposed in 2000." The FMEP site includes such maps.

You later erroneously claimed you had requested maps of "what Barak proposed to Arafat at Camp David".

In any case, David linked to a number of maps interpreting what was offered prior to and during Camp David. So did I. If you want more, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit#Maps

The following are probably most relevant:
http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/rossmap2.html

True, the offers proposed to and rejected by Arafat at Camp David were characterized as coming from Clinton, not Barak. It's a semantic argument, and does not support your revisionist claim that no "final proposal" was discussed. The Palestinians themselves dispute your assertion.

Keith: "Even David Boaz indicates he accepts Arafat couldn't settle for those conditions."

That Arafat rejected this or that plan is not at issue, and doesn't excuse the lack of a Palestinian counteroffer.

Keith: "It has been the Wests and Israel's widely published position... "

A meaningless statement. "The West and Israel" don't speak as one about this or anything. Individuals are entitled to their opinions. Many people relevant to this issue -- Israelis, Palestinians, Americans, and others -- condemned Arafat for refusing to negotiate. Some also criticized his rejection of the specific offers presented, and it is their right to do so.

Keith: “Why don't you accept the Arab League put forward a proposal for peace in 2002? You know the one Olmert is now accepting as a basis for renewed discussion. The one everyone else now recognises as basically a just solution for the Palestinians.”

1) I already explained my objections to specific parts of the proposal. But like Olmert, and indeed like Sharon, I think it has positive aspects, and is worth discussing further.

2) Not everyone recognizes it as “a just solution for the Palestinians”. The Palestinian government does not accept this. Neither does the Israeli government. And when you get right down to it, the Quartet doesn’t either. In fact, if the Arab League thought it was going to be implemented as is, many member states would likewise object.