Gaza now vs. 2000

CBL4

Master Poster
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
2,346
In most of the articles about the Gaza pullout, Hamas takes credit for the pullout. But in taking credit for the pullout, terrorists also need to take credit/blame for the failure of the 2000 agreement.

Did the Palestinians gain anything in this pullout that was not offered in 2000? I assume that they are getting less land but I have not seen an actual comparison. I would also assume that they have no more political control but again I have not seen a comparison. Palestinians complain about the security fence, the lack of crossing into Israel and an worsening economy which all are negatives.

It seems to me that in 5 years the terrorists are responsible for the death of lots of Israelis, even more Palestinian deaths, loss of land, loss of freedom, a much worse economy, etc. Hamas is in a stronger position but the Palestinians have gained nothing and lost a lot.

Am I missing anything?

(Arafat's death was a great gain but that is unrelated to the terrorists.)

CBL
 
If you trying to find logic and reason in all of this, you will fail.

It's the same record the hits, ignore the misses crap.
 
If you trying to find logic and reason in all of this, you will fail.
I realize that but I would truly like to know the land and political authority compares. I assume the Palistinians have lots in both categories but I would like to know for sure.

CBL
 
CBL4 said:
Did the Palestinians gain anything in this pullout that was not offered in 2000?
You will hear a billion pundits "opinions" on this...Here is the truth from the horses mouth...

Transcripted excerpt of Middle East envoy Dennis Ross - Fox News Sunday - Sunday, April 21, 2002

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.
(emphasis mine)
 
ZN,

I understand the basic of the 2000 accord.

How does the current situation in Gaza compare in land and political automony? I see from your quote that the Palestinians lost $30 billion. Are they being offered anything comparable now?

CBL
 
CBL4 said:
How does the current situation in Gaza compare in land and political automony? I see from your quote that the Palestinians lost $30 billion. Are they being offered anything comparable now?

CBL
In 2000 the Palestinians were offered:

  • 97 percent of a contiguous West Bank.
  • Israel completely out of Gaza.
  • East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital
  • The Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem
  • $30 billion to cover repatriation, resettlement and rehabilitation of Palestinian refugees.
  • An elevated highway and an elevated railroad between Gaza and the West Bank.

In 2005 the Palestinians are getting:

  • A unilateral disengagement of Gaza by Israel.
 
CBL4 said:
ZN,

I understand the basic of the 2000 accord.

How does the current situation in Gaza compare in land and political automony? I see from your quote that the Palestinians lost $30 billion. Are they being offered anything comparable now?

CBL

Bragging rights?
 
zenith-nadir said:
In 2000 the Palestinians were offered:

  • 97 percent of a contiguous West Bank.
  • Israel completely out of Gaza.
  • East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital
  • The Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem
  • $30 billion to cover repatriation, resettlement and rehabilitation of Palestinian refugees.
  • An elevated highway and an elevated railroad between Gaza and the West Bank.

In 2005 the Palestinians are getting:

  • A unilateral disengagement of Gaza by Israel.

Are they going to hold out for less?
 
zenith-nadir said:
In 2000 the Palestinians were offered:

  • 97 percent of a contiguous West Bank.
  • Israel completely out of Gaza.
  • East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital
  • The Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem
  • $30 billion to cover repatriation, resettlement and rehabilitation of Palestinian refugees.
  • An elevated highway and an elevated railroad between Gaza and the West Bank.

In 2005 the Palestinians are getting:

  • A unilateral disengagement of Gaza by Israel.

Let's not forget something else they are getting from 2000 to 2005: 5+ years of terrorist attacks, resulting in the deaths of innocent Jews. And THAT is much more important than land, to some in the middle east.
 
zenith-nadir said:
In 2000 the Palestinians were offered:


97 percent of a contiguous West Bank.

No formal deal offer has ever shown this

Israel completely out of Gaza.
East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital
The Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem
$30 billion to cover repatriation, resettlement and rehabilitation of Palestinian refugees.

This would be a prommise of international aid or in other words that $30 billion offer would bbe luck to break 1 billion on the ground.

An elevated highway and an elevated railroad between Gaza and the West Bank.

See blockade of berlin

In 2005 the Palestinians are getting:

A unilateral disengagement of Gaza by Israel.

It's a start. should be interesting who win the political battles in both populations over the next few years.
 
zenith-nadir said:
So then it is up to you to prove Middle East envoy Dennis Ross is a liar. Point by point. Start proving.

He is a poltical apointee and a dimplomat and I assume he is at least vague competant. Case proved.
 
geni said:
He is a poltical apointee and a dimplomat and I assume he is at least vague competant. Case proved.
Geni, I am not trying to trick you or make you look bad. As I said, you will hear a billion pundits "opinions" on what happened in 2000, maybe even a trillion ;)... So I cut through all the chaff and propoganda and posted - from the proverbial horses mouth - the statements of an official - Middle East envoy Dennis Ross - who was instrumental in the negotiations and who was actually there during the negotiations.

If you can prove he is lying about the events in 2000 then the burden of proof is on you.
 
zenith-nadir said:
Geni, I am not trying to trick you or make you look bad. As I said, you will hear a billion pundits "opinions" on what happened in 2000, maybe even a trillion ;)... So I cut through all the chaff and propoganda and posted - from the proverbial horses mouth - the statements of an official - Middle East envoy Dennis Ross - who was instrumental in the negotiations and who was actually there during the negotiations.

If you can prove he is lying about the events in 2000 then the burden of proof is on you.


No you have to prove he isn't nothing writen down no records and we know how unrelible witnesses are.
 

Back
Top Bottom