|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should Israeel allow the Palestinians refugees' return? |
| Yes |
|
61% |
[ 8 ] |
| No |
|
38% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 13 |
|
| Author |
Message |
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:23 pm Post subject: Should Israel allow the Palestinian refugees' return? |
 |
|
Should Israel allow the displaced Palestinians and their descendents to return to what is now Israel if they so wish?
Yes - given the nature of the original displacement, it would be a fair and reasonable compromise.
No - Israel should be allowed to retain a Jewish majority |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:30 am Post subject: Re: Should Israel allow the Palestinian refugees' return? |
|
|
| deadman wrote: |
Should Israel allow the displaced Palestinians and their descendents to return to what is now Israel if they so wish?
Yes - given the nature of the original displacement, it would be a fair and reasonable compromise.
No - Israel should be allowed to retain a Jewish majority |
Those who lost land in 1948 ought to be compensated for land lost & Israel has offered to do so . That is more than Israel's enemies have offered to do for arab jews who they persecuted. anything for them?
Lets also not forget that the Arab states intended to do the same or worse to Israel during the war of 1948.
It is not only about protecting a jewish minority. It is that Bathists , and Khomenists and Bin Laden supporters and those who share similar political ideologies will almost certainly persecute those who they rule. It is their nature.
Bathists , Khomeni followers and Bin Laden supporters and all the similiar political types can't be trusted to protect their minorites or govern fairly. Until these ideologies are gone from the mideast or a least not popular I don't think it is right to consider dismantling Israel.
Anyway if Israel belongs to the Arab world then maybe the Arab world ought to go back to Turkey. Wasn't Transjordan part of the Ottoman empire until like 1920 or so?
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:24 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joo,
You are not for justice on the ground. Just the same old , "he hit me, I hit him...tit for tat, patty wack , give a dog a bone."
God forbid you would ever be my judge.!
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think Joo's right on this, and also pretty much anyone from a country that has displaced an indigenous population (probably the majority here) doesn't really have a leg to stand on either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
Joo,
You are not for justice on the ground. Just the same old , "he hit me, I hit him...tit for tat, patty wack , give a dog a bone."
God forbid you would ever be my judge.!
DD |
Tell you what get all the bathists and Khomeni lovers and Bin Laden followers out of the mideast and in a place where they can't effect anyone else but themselves then you can talk about major changes in the mideast. Tell me how mideast regimes treat their minorities. That is one subject you will avoid.
You would be a terrible judge cause you never know what you are talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
Joo,
You are not for justice on the ground. Just the same old , "he hit me, I hit him...tit for tat, patty wack , give a dog a bone."
God forbid you would ever be my judge.!
DD |
Before talking about "justice on the ground" let's see you give your home back to the original inhabitants or their descendants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| I think Joo's right on this, and also pretty much anyone from a country that has displaced an indigenous population (probably the majority here) doesn't really have a leg to stand on either. |
You should amend that to say something like "everybody in the world," because that is the reality.
We are all descendants of peoples and cultures who have violently displaced other peoples and cultures -- even Native Americans and Canada's "First Nation's Peoples" did it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| even Native Americans and Canada's "First Nation's Peoples" did it. |
No, no, no. What one tribe of Indians did to another tribe of Indians is not admissable evidence (for example: the Iroquois walking from up-state New York to down-state Illinois to massacre the Illini Confederacy--roughly twice the distance between London and Edinburgh). It only muddles things when you claim that good guys have done bad things and bad guys have done good things.
Please refrain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Give it back??? Gotta go with Joo, and everyone before me minus Ddeubel on this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
What you guys are talking about (and I do agree, the whole of human history is basically a record of it), is Might is Right.
Well I thought we might progress towards something more civil and intelligent. Like doing the right thing, compromise, meeting in the middle and agreeing that just because I came in on a tank, doesn't mean I can't in some way rectify things, find a solution of RETURN or compromise.
The palestinians have long ago for the most part, given up on a full return. They only want a symbolic recognition of this, their home. This is human. Also compensation and a way to preserve their traditions and ties to their homes......
Your position is that MIght is Right. We took it, we keep it, go eat grass.......... that the whole human record agrees with this, does in know way mean it is the right thing. Ties to land are very primal and very deep. We dishonour it through the principle of Might. Shame there is no humanity....
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
What you guys are talking about (and I do agree, the whole of human history is basically a record of it), is Might is Right.
Well I thought we might progress towards something more civil and intelligent. Like doing the right thing, compromise, meeting in the middle and agreeing that just because I came in on a tank, doesn't mean I can't in some way rectify things, find a solution of RETURN or compromise.
The palestinians have long ago for the most part, given up on a full return. They only want a symbolic recognition of this, their home. This is human. Also compensation and a way to preserve their traditions and ties to their homes......
Your position is that MIght is Right. We took it, we keep it, go eat grass.......... that the whole human record agrees with this, does in know way mean it is the right thing. Ties to land are very primal and very deep. We dishonour it through the principle of Might. Shame there is no humanity....
DD |
They should be compensated and such was included in Bill Clinton's peace plan. ( 30 Billion)
In the Clinton plan there was also symbolic return to reunite families.
and a full right of return to the West Bank and Gaza.
Arafat demanded a right of return for those who had never been to Israel ever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
What you guys are talking about (and I do agree, the whole of human history is basically a record of it), is Might is Right.
Well I thought we might progress towards something more civil and intelligent. Like doing the right thing, compromise, meeting in the middle and agreeing that just because I came in on a tank, doesn't mean I can't in some way rectify things, find a solution of RETURN or compromise.
The palestinians have long ago for the most part, given up on a full return. They only want a symbolic recognition of this, their home. This is human. Also compensation and a way to preserve their traditions and ties to their homes......
Your position is that MIght is Right. We took it, we keep it, go eat grass.......... that the whole human record agrees with this, does in know way mean it is the right thing. Ties to land are very primal and very deep. We dishonour it through the principle of Might. Shame there is no humanity....
DD |
So when are you giving YOUR home back? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joo,
Just like your death threats, your intelligence doesn't even meet the task either. I won't respond to your incomplete and revisionist version of the Clinton peace deal. You don't know what you are talking about.
I'll enjoy my wine tonight rather than tell you some more about things you will never ever even try to understand or "meet" in the middle.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
Joo,
Just like your death threats, your intelligence doesn't even meet the task either. I won't respond to your incomplete and revisionist version of the Clinton peace deal. You don't know what you are talking about.
I'll enjoy my wine tonight rather than tell you some more about things you will never ever even try to understand or "meet" in the middle.
DD |
No ddeubel you don't know what you are talking
| Quote: |
Dennis Ross on Fox News Sunday
Sunday , April 21, 2002
Following is a transcripted excerpt from Fox News Sunday, April 21, 2002.
BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS: Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross has worked to achieve Middle East peace throughout President Clinton's final days in office. In the months following Clinton's failed peace summit at Camp David, U.S. negotiators continued behind-the-scenes peace talks with the Palestinians and Israelis up until January 2001, and that followed Clinton's presentation of ideas at the end of December 2000.
Dennis Ross joins us now with more details on all that, and Fred Barnes joins the questioning.
So, Dennis, talk to us a little bit, if you can -- I might note that we're proud to able to say that you're a Fox News contributing analyst.
DENNIS ROSS: Thank you.
HUME: Talk to us about the sequence of events. The Camp David talks, there was an offer. That was rejected. Talks continued. You come now to December, and the president has a new set of ideas. What unfolded?
ROSS: Let me give you the sequence, because I think it puts all this in perspective.
Number one, at Camp David we did not put a comprehensive set of ideas on the table. We put ideas on the table that would have affected the borders and would have affected Jerusalem.
Arafat could not accept any of that. In fact, during the 15 days there, he never himself raised a single idea. His negotiators did, to be fair to them, but he didn't. The only new idea he raised at Camp David was that the temple didn't exist in Jerusalem, it existed in Nablus.
HUME: This is the temple where Ariel Sharon paid a visit, which was used as a kind of a pre-text for the beginning of the new intifada, correct?
ROSS: This is the core of the Jewish faith.
HUME: Right.
ROSS: So he was denying the core of the Jewish faith there.
After the summit, he immediately came back to us and he said, "We need to have another summit," to which we said, "We just shot our wad. We got a no from you. You're prepared actually do a deal before we go back to something like that."
He agreed to set up a private channel between his people and the Israelis, which I joined at the end of August. And there were serious discussions that went on, and we were poised to present our ideas the end of September, which is when the intifada erupted. He knew we were poised to present the ideas. His own people were telling him they looked good. And we asked him to intervene to ensure there wouldn't be violence after the Sharon visit, the day after. He said he would. He didn't lift a finger.
Now, eventually we were able to get back to a point where private channels between the two sides led each of them to again ask us to present the ideas. This was in early December. We brought the negotiators here.
HUME: Now, this was a request to the Clinton administration...
ROSS: Yes.
HUME: ... to formulate a plan. Both sides wanted this?
ROSS: Absolutely.
HUME: All right.
ROSS: Both sides asked us to present these ideas.
HUME: All right. And they were?
ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 by the president, and they basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go to the Palestinians.
On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capitol of the Palestinian state.
On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs.
And when it came to security, there would be a international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley.
These were ideas that were comprehensive, unprecedented, stretched very far, represented a culmination of an effort in our best judgment as to what each side could accept after thousands of hours of debate, discussion with each side.
FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Now, Palestinian officials say to this day that Arafat said yes.
ROSS: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.
HUME: What was he supposed to give?
ROSS: He supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be for the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected that.
HUME: He rejected their being able to have that?
ROSS: He rejected that.
He rejected the idea on the refugees. He said we need a whole new formula, as if what we had presented was non-existent.
He rejected the basic ideas on security. He wouldn't even countenance the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian airspace.
You know when you fly into Israel today you go to Ben Gurion. You fly in over the West Bank because you can't -- there's no space through otherwise. He rejected that.
So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him he rejected.
HUME: Now, let's take a look at the map. Now, this is what -- how the Israelis had created a map based on the president's ideas. And...
ROSS: Right.
HUME: ... what can we -- that situation shows that the territory at least is contiguous. What about Gaza on that map?
ROSS: The Israelis would have gotten completely out of Gaza.
ROSS: And what you see also in this line, they show an area of temporary Israeli control along the border.
HUME: Right.
ROSS: Now, that was an Israeli desire. That was not what we presented. But we presented something that did point out that it would take six years before the Israelis would be totally out of the Jordan Valley.
So that map there that you see, which shows a very narrow green space along the border, would become part of the orange. So the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous.
HUME: Cantons being ghettos, in effect...
ROSS: Right.
HUME: ... that would be cut off from other parts of the Palestinian state.
ROSS: Completely untrue.
And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage.
BARNES: I have two other questions. One, the Palestinians point out that this was never put on paper, this offer. Why not?
ROSS: We presented this to them so that they could record it. When the president presented it, he went over it at dictation speed. He then left the cabinet room. I stayed behind. I sat with them to be sure, and checked to be sure that every single word.
The reason we did it this way was to be sure they had it and they could record it. But we told the Palestinians and Israelis, if you cannot accept these ideas, this is the culmination of the effort, we withdraw them. We did not want to formalize it. We wanted them to understand we meant what we said. You don't accept it, it's not for negotiation, this is the end of it, we withdraw it.
So that's why they have it themselves recorded. And to this day, the Palestinians have not presented to their own people what was available.
BARNES: In other words, Arafat might use it as a basis for further negotiations so he'd get more?
ROSS: Well, exactly.
HUME: Which is what, in fact, he tried to do, according to your account.
ROSS: We treated it as not only a culmination. We wanted to be sure it couldn't be a floor for negotiations.
HUME: Right.
ROSS: It couldn't be a ceiling. It was the roof.
HUME: This was a final offer?
ROSS: Exactly. Exactly right.
HUME: This was the solution.
BARNES: Was Arafat alone in rejecting it? I mean, what about his negotiators?
ROSS: It's very clear to me that his negotiators understood this was the best they were ever going to get. They wanted him to accept it. He was not prepared to accept it.
HUME: Now, it is often said that this whole sequence of talks here sort of fell apart or ended or broke down or whatever because of the intervention of the Israeli elections. What about that?
ROSS: The real issue you have to understand was not the Israeli elections. It was the end of the Clinton administration. The reason we would come with what was a culminating offer was because we were out of time.
They asked us to present the ideas, both sides. We were governed by the fact that the Clinton administration was going to end, and both sides said we understand this is the point of decision.
HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said no?
ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.
Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.
HUME: Might it not also have been true, though, Dennis, that, because the intifada had already begun -- so you had the Camp David offer rejected, the violence begins anew, a new offer from the Clinton administration comes along, the Israelis agree to it, Barak agrees to it...
ROSS: Yes.
HUME: ... might he not have concluded that the violence was working?
ROSS: It is possible he concluded that. It is possible he thought he could do and get more with the violence. There's no doubt in my mind that he thought the violence would create pressure on the Israelis and on us and maybe the rest of the world.
And I think there's one other factor. You have to understand that Barak was able to reposition Israel internationally. Israel was seen as having demonstrated unmistakably it wanted peace, and the reason it wasn't available, achievable was because Arafat wouldn't accept it.
Arafat needed to re-establish the Palestinians as a victim, and unfortunately they are a victim, and we see it now in a terrible way.
HUME: Dennis Ross, thank you so much. |
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50830,00.html
And Clinton backs Ross
| Quote: |
The ex-president said the best solution to the Middle East conflict is an interim settlement that would "establish a Palestinian state now."
But he stressed that the creation of such a state must be preceded by security assurances for Israel and a timetable to resolve other issues.
Clinton said Arafat made a "disastrous mistake" by turning down past peace proposals that would have given the Palestinian leader control of 97 percent of the West Bank.
Yet, Clinton said, "There is reason for hope.
"I think this will be resolved on the terms the Palestinians walked away from." |
ddeubel who is your source? What is your source One thing that is true ddeubel you are just in denial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
