Israeli E1 Settlement Plan

[Sparking Neuron]

Almost everyone here must be aware of this one:

Which was followed by this E1 plan:

Some Palestinians activists responded to this by establishing a tent village on the E1 site:

Which were then "escorted" out of that place:

Well, this is interesting isn't it?

[Parihaka]

Good work by the Palestinians, IIRC the land they were on belongs specifically to an Israeli Arab and were there with the permission of the owner. it'll be interesting to see how the govt. tries to wiggle this one past the Israeli high court.

[bigross86]

There's something many people here don't realize: The media's posturing regarding E1 is far from accurate, it won't cut any Palestinian lands in half, won't limit Palestinian movement, or bring about the War of Gog and Magog.

That being said, I think the entire thing was a stupid, knee-jerk response, and has already almost been entirely shelved. Netanyahu did it to shore up his political base in the right wing for the upcoming elections on Tuesday. It has more to do with internal Israeli politics than anything else.

I'm already of the opinion that no one should be allowed to build anywhere until some sort of a deal is organized, aside from natural growth on both sides. No new Israeli settlements, no new Palestinian villages/settlements. The settlements are already there, nothing to be done about that until an agreement is reached, but new ones should not be built either. No point making a sticky situation even more complicated.

[astralis]

BR,

not a rhetorical question-- what is the status of settlements according to israeli- not international- law? ie, what is the difference between an "illegal" settlement and a legal one?

[bigross86]

Pretty much what the difference always is between legal and illegal. One of them has a government permit to build there and the other one doesn't. The problem is that some of these settlements, like Amona, the Ulpana Hill and others have been there for so long already, uprooting them is getting harder and harder as each day passes. If the government/police/border police (usually not the IDF) decide to dismantle a settlement in the early days, the only ones that really care are the rabid right wingers. I think even the settlers at this point (at least the smarter ones, anyway) have realized that they are in a precarious position and it's better to accept the current status quo while it is still in their favor before it turns against them.

Of course, the more extreme settlers realize this, and so they keep trying to open new settlements, trying to force the issue, gambling that as long as the right is in power (something not likely to change on Tuesday, Netanyahu will still most likely retain the Premiership), the status quo will remain in their favor. The problem is that this is extremely short sighted and is dependent on the right-wing, and specifically Netanyahu, staying in power for as long as possible, and doesn't take into account the fact that while the Israeli left is fragmented at the moment, it wasn't so long ago that they won the Premiership under Barak. As soon as Netanyahu steps down or is replaced with someone even slightly more dove-ish, their entire strategy gets thrown out the window.

But then again, contrary to what Zraver would have you believe, I hold more moderate opinions regarding the situation than others do. I can see both sides of the debate, and while I agree with the right more than I do with the left, that doesn't mean the right are all angels and kittens. I believe that an all-or-nothing standing point is stupid, and that real compromise that will bring real pain to both sides if they sign the deal is the only real way to peace. Unilateral moves like the Gaza Disengagement Plan and the Palestinian UN Statehood Bid both end up doing more damage than good. Yes, I have admitted to being prejudiced against Palestinians before, and I still am, I happen to not see eye-to-eye with people that try to kill me and my friends and family. That doesn't mean that I'm unwilling to put those prejudices aside if they promise to stop trying to kill me and mine. I promise you, less people are hurt by my prejudice than by their rockets, mortars and bombs.

[Doktor]

Good work by the Palestinians, IIRC the land they were on belongs specifically to an Israeli Arab and were there with the permission of the owner. it'll be interesting to see how the govt. tries to wiggle this one past the Israeli high court.

Put a "planned" highway on the map maybe?

[zraver]

Ross, you still start from the Premise that Israel has a right to keep Palestinian land and use force to keep it. That is not moderate, not by a long shot.

[Doktor]

Z,

The land you talk about, Israel never took it from the Pals. Egypt, Syria and Jordan did. They don't ask it back.

The Pals are also not asking the land back trough proper channels. They don't recognize Israel, so who they ask this land from? Egypt and Syria?

Then you have Israel who holds the land, wants to trade it for peace, but has conditions. Surprised?

[Sparking Neuron]

Settlements in Focus: "E-1 & Ma'ale Adumim"

Found this article from APN:
Americans for Peace Now (APN) is a nonprofit organization based in the United States whose stated aim is to help achieve a comprehensive political settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Founded in 1981 as the sister organization to Israel’s Shalom Achshav (Peace Now), APN describes itself as an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, pro-Israel, pro-peace, American Jewish organization. The current President and CEO of APN is Debra DeLee.

_________________________________________

What is E-1? Is it the same as reported plans to expand Ma'ale Adumim?

E-1 is short for "East 1," the administrative name given to the stretch of land northeast of Jerusalem, to the west of the settlement of Ma'ale Adumim. When people talk about E-1 today, they are referring to a longstanding Israeli plan - never implemented - to build a large new Israeli neighborhood in this area.

E-1 is not the same as the expansion of Ma'ale Adumim. The ongoing expansion of Ma'ale Adumim, which the biggest settlement in the West Bank (about 30,000 people), is toward the east, in the direction of another settlement, the Mishor Adumim industrial park.

Is E-1 part of Israel or the West Bank?

E-1 is part of the West Bank. It was never annexed to Israel and since 1967 it has been under Israeli military law.

Is Ma'ale Adumim part of Israel or the West Bank?

Due to its close proximity to Jerusalem, Ma'ale Adumim is viewed by most Israelis as a suburb or neighborhood of Jerusalem. However, Ma'ale Adumim is located in the West Bank and is therefore a settlement. The area on which it is located was never annexed to Israel and since 1967 has been under Israeli military law. Ma'ale Adumim is the largest settlement in the West Bank and is one of only four settlements in the West Bank classified by Israel as a "city." Many observers expect that under any future peace agreement Ma'ale Adumim will remain part of Israel, as was the case under the Clinton proposal and the Geneva Initiative (with a land swap to compensate the Palestinians for the territory).

Why are Israeli construction of E-1 and the expansion of Ma'ale Adumim a big deal?

Construction of E-1 would jeopardize the hopes for a two-state solution. It would, by design, block off the narrow undeveloped land corridor which runs east of Jerusalem and which is necessary for any meaningful future connection between the southern and the northern parts of the West Bank. It would thus break the West Bank into two parts - north and south. It would also sever access to East Jerusalem for Palestinians in the West Bank, and sever access to the West Bank for Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem. Both of these situations are antithetical to the achievement of any real, durable peace agreement and the establishment of a viable, contiguous Palestinian state.

The expansion of Ma'ale Adumim, as with the expansion of any other settlement, is a unilateral act which undermines and jeopardizes efforts to resume negotiations which are based on the principal of two states living side by side with peace and security.

If E-1 is constructed, can't the Palestinians have contiguity via road around or through the area?

If E-1 were constructed Palestinians could, theoretically, travel between the northern and southern West Bank via a road - that at this time does not exist - through the Judean desert, looping around the Ma'ale Adumim bloc and the expanded area of Jerusalem whose outskirts would stretch nearly to Jericho. Similarly, there have been suggestions of a road for Palestinians running north-south between Ma'ale Adumim and Jerusalem, using overpasses and tunnels to bypass Israeli built-up areas (which already exists to some extent).

However, either of these arrangements, which would involve enormous expense and damage to the landscape, would create only "transportational connectivity"- distinct communities with no real connection except via roads. Such a situation is different from "territorial contiguity," which implies a continuous area in which Palestinian life - commerce, economy, education, health services, political activity, etc. - can function and flow normally, and hopefully flourish, as required for Israel's long-term security and regional stability. Moreover, such arrangements assume that Israeli-Palestinian peace and a two-state solution are possible without East Jerusalem being contiguous with and part of a Palestinian state - an assumption that no serous analyst would support.

It is possible that, within the context of a negotiated agreement, some of these challenges could be surmounted via mutually agreed-upon mechanisms, including innovative transportation schemes and land-sharing or land-swap agreements. However, unilateral acts by Israel that would impose this reality on the Palestinians are antithetical to the development of a stable, viable Palestinian state, undermining the legitimacy of moderate, pro-peace Palestinian leaders and empowering radicals. President Bush has repeatedly expressed his concern regarding the need for territorial contiguity for a future Palestinian state, and has called on the Israeli government to freeze all settlement activities in the West Bank, and especially E-1.

Isn't this whole area (Ma'ale Adumim and E-1) going to end up in Israel anyway?

Regardless of who may end up in control of or with sovereignty over these areas under a future peace agreement, if Israel is serious about wanting to make peace with the Palestinians, the future of these areas must be left to negotiations and not determined by unilateral acts. This is all the more true at a time when the newly elected Palestinian Authority needs to demonstrate to the Palestinian people that diplomacy and negotiations are the only route to achieving Palestinian aspirations. Unilateral acts by Israel in this carefully watched and strategically critical geographic area will likely undermine President Abbas and the hopes for achieving peace and a two state solution. Such acts also publicly defy and embarrass the United States, waste goodwill towards Israel around the world, and pointlessly consume valuable Israeli political capital.

Many observers expect that under any future peace agreement Ma'ale Adumim will remain part of Israel, as was the case under the Clinton proposal and the Geneva Initiative (with a land swap to compensate the Palestinians for the territory); there is no similar consensus over the future of E-1.

How much land is included in E-1?

E-1 comprises about 12,000 dunams, which is roughly 12 square kilometers.

What is on this land now?

Up to this point a few basic infrastructure projects have been initiated in the E-1 area. For example, there is a new road carved into the landscape (still unpaved). During 2004 some land in E-1 was cleared in preparation for future construction. Those efforts were carried out without a permit (i.e., illegally) and were stopped a few months after their initiation. Most of the E-1 area remains untouched.

Who does the land in E-1 actually belong to?

The question must be addressed in both administrative terms and in terms of property rights. Administratively, Israel considers E-1 as an official part of Ma'ale Adumim; however, this is misleading, since the municipal area of Ma'ale Adumim (i.e., total land allocated to the settlement) is much bigger than the actual constructed area of the settlement (53,000 dunams total municipal area - larger that Tel Aviv - versus 7,000 dunams of actual built-up area). E-1's inclusion in the Ma'ale Adumim municipal area is merely an administrative step and does not reflect the land's actual use or the needs of the settlement.

In the 1980's Israel declared most, but not all, of the lands of E-1 "state land," i.e., land that is not owned by any individual and is thus the property of the state (although since E-1 is part of the West Bank, there are other legal issues about Israel's right to develop the land for Israeli use). Significant portions of the lands of E-1 remained - and remain today - privately owned Palestinian lands. Consequently, plans relating to the area of E-1 resemble a slice of Swiss cheese: plans for built-up areas on "state land," with Palestinian-owned land (the holes in the cheese) scattered throughout and left unplanned.

Aren't the Palestinians building illegally in E-1?

There is no Palestinian construction in E-1.

What is the population and population growth rate in Ma'ale Adumim?

Population figures for Ma'ale Adumim, 2000-2004
(source: Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics)

End of Year Population Actual Increase
2000 24,900 ---
2001 25,800 900
2002 26,500 700
2003 27,259 759
2004 30,346 3087

Doesn't Ma'ale Adumim need to expand to meet "natural growth" requirements?

The Israeli government has declared its intention to construct 3,500 housing unites in E-1 - sufficient to accommodate an increase of about 20,000 settlers in Ma'ale Adumim. As the table above shows, this number has nothing to do with the actual growth of the settlement's population in recent years - a rate of growth which, because of immigration from outside of the settlement, is actually much higher than the so-called "natural growth" rate of the settlement (e.g., growth due to births, etc.).

What has been the policy of past Israeli governments regarding E-1?

Rabin Era: In 1994, Yitzhak Rabin expanded the borders of Ma'ale Adumim significantly to include the area known as E-1. Rabin refrained from implementing any construction in the E-1 area between Ma'ale Adumim and Jerusalem, in all likelihood due to a tacit understanding with the U.S. Administration that the fate of the E-1 area would be determined in the future within the framework of the peace process.

Netanyahu Era: During the Netanyahu government, the Prime Minister attempted to expedite the E-1 Master Plan (a first statutory step to implementation of the plan, which includes general land designations but is not specific enough to allow the issuance of building permits), along with establishing a Greater Jerusalem umbrella municipality which was to include Ma'ale Adumim. These efforts were limited to statutory planning and the Municipal Plan for E-1 was not formally approved. Netanyahu eventually scuttled the plan for a Greater Jerusalem municipality, accepting the U.S. claim that this would constitute de facto annexation, and he refrained from any construction in the E-1 area.

Barak Era: During the Barak government, the Prime Minister expressed support for E-1 but refrained from any construction in the E-1 area. Barak did place the issue of E-1 on the negotiating table at Taba and the matter remained unresolved when the Taba talks broke up. Barak refrained from any construction in the E-1 area.

Sharon Era: During 2002, Minister of Defense Ben Eliezer signed the Master Plan for E-1 (expedited but not approved under Netanyahu) into law. Ben Eliezer subsequently undertook to the U.S. Administration not to implement the E-1 plan and indeed no further statutory planning was carried out and there was no construction in E-1during his tenure in office. In mid-2004, construction commenced on infrastructure in E-1. The work was carried out by the Ministry of Construction and was illegal: in the absence of a Specific Town Plan no permits could be or were issued to allow for this work. The work included the clearing of roads for major highways leading to the planned residential areas and site preparation for the planned police station (so that the police station in Ras Al Amud may be transferred to the settlers there, tripling their presence in the heart of that Palestinian neighborhood of East Jerusalem).

What has been the policy of past U.S. governments regarding E-1?

The policy of all U.S. governments - past and present - has been to oppose settlement construction activity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. With respect to E-1, the U.S. has communicated to Israel its opposition to the plan, privately and publicly, on a number of occasions over the years. Successive Administrations, including the Bush Administration, appear to have understood that implementation of the plan would have a catastrophic effect on the prospects for Middle East peace.

What is Peace Now's position regarding E-1 and the future of Ma'ale Adumim?

Peace Now believes that Israel should halt all settlement activity in the occupied territories. This is especially important with respect to E-1, because of its sensitive location. The fate of E-1 should be determined through negotiations, rather than unilateral actions.


Source: APN Settlements in Focus: Vol. 1, Issue 1 - "E-1 & Ma'ale Adumim" - Americans for Peace Now
Americans for Peace Now (APN) is a nonprofit organization based in the United States whose stated aim is to help achieve a comprehensive political settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Founded in 1981 as the sister organization to Israel’s Shalom Achshav (Peace Now), APN describes itself as an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, pro-Israel, pro-peace, American Jewish organization. The current President and CEO of APN is Debra DeLee.

[zraver]

Z,

The land you talk about, Israel never took it from the Pals. Egypt, Syria and Jordan did. They don't ask it back.

The Pals are also not asking the land back trough proper channels. They don't recognize Israel, so who they ask this land from? Egypt and Syria?

Then you have Israel who holds the land, wants to trade it for peace, but has conditions. Surprised?

The PA does recognize Israel and has asked for the land back, Israel refuses.

[bigross86]

Israel is willing to give land back, in return for a lasting, comprehensive peace deal, and according to UN 242, which itself demands that the Palestinians will not get 100% of their land back, in order to create safe and secure borders for Israel.

The Palestinians refuse to back down from an all-or-nothing, "give me 100% of my demands or I walk" policy, which is as much an obstacle to a real peace than any and all settlements.

I've lined out my solution time and again for the problem in the West Bank: land swaps between Israel and the Palestinians, cm^2 for cm^2 so that the Palestinians get the equivalent of every single inch of land they had beforehand, which still guaranteeing Israel safe and secure borders and with the intent of uprooting as few people as possible on both sides, Israelis AND Palestinians. If you could guarantee me that tomorrow the Palestinians would sign a deal and would maintain that peace and wouldn't result in more Israeli dead, as did Oslo as well as the Disengagement, I'd be the first to sign.

But you can't, can you?

[Sparking Neuron]

Israel is willing to give land back, in return for a lasting, comprehensive peace deal, and according to UN 242, which itself demands that the Palestinians will not get 100% of their land back, in order to create safe and secure borders for Israel.

The Palestinians refuse to back down from an all-or-nothing, "give me 100% of my demands or I walk" policy, which is as much an obstacle to a real peace than any and all settlements.

I've lined out my solution time and again for the problem in the West Bank: land swaps between Israel and the Palestinians, cm^2 for cm^2 so that the Palestinians get the equivalent of every single inch of land they had beforehand, which still guaranteeing Israel safe and secure borders and with the intent of uprooting as few people as possible on both sides, Israelis AND Palestinians. If you could guarantee me that tomorrow the Palestinians would sign a deal and would maintain that peace and wouldn't result in more Israeli dead, as did Oslo as well as the Disengagement, I'd be the first to sign.

But you can't, can you?

Can i ask for a little enlightenment on the highlighted topics?

[zraver]

Israel is willing to give land back, in return for a lasting, comprehensive peace deal, and according to UN 242, which itself demands that the Palestinians will not get 100% of their land back, in order to create safe and secure borders for Israel.

lets look at UN 242 shall we since it says no such thing.

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
Adopted unanimously at the 1382nd meeting

The Palestinians refuse to back down from an all-or-nothing, "give me 100% of my demands or I walk" policy, which is as much an obstacle to a real peace than any and all settlements.

Who is expanding settlements, who is demanding that they get to keep land in defiance of UN resolutions, who illegally annexed East Jerusalem? Israel has taken an approach that among civilians is called extortion. It is Israel and her stubborn refusal to abide by international law that is the real barrier to peace. Real peace would weaken the Israeli right and so the right stirs the pot to keep tensions high.

I've lined out my solution time and again for the problem in the West Bank: land swaps between Israel and the Palestinians, cm^2 for cm^2 so that the Palestinians get the equivalent of every single inch of land they had beforehand, which still guaranteeing Israel safe and secure borders and with the intent of uprooting as few people as possible on both sides, Israelis AND Palestinians. If you could guarantee me that tomorrow the Palestinians would sign a deal and would maintain that peace and wouldn't result in more Israeli dead, as did Oslo as well as the Disengagement, I'd be the first to sign.

Who is killing who? In every category of civilian dead Israel is massively out killing the Palestinians. With laser guided munitions, drones etc to help target somehow Israel still manages to disproportionally hit civilians. Have you ever thought that maybe, if you want them to stop trying to kill you and yours, you should stop killing them and theirs?

Likewise we both know the only land swap you are really in favor of is the Palestinians swapping West Bank land and assets to Israel in trade for refugee status in Jordan which you've claimed over and over again is the real Palestinians state.

[bigross86]

lets look at UN 242 shall we since it says no such thing.

Let's look at UN shall we, which says exactly that:

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Which means the UN has declared that Israel should be guaranteed that Israel's borders should be safe and secure from any and all threats.

As to (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict:

Note the two bolded words. Negotiations in the UN went on for days and we're extremely heated, backed on one side by the USA and the other by the USSR over two tiny little words: "all", and "the". In the end, the realization was that if 242 went ahead with the language of "from all the territories", then there would be no meaning to "secure and recognized boundaries", since the 1967 borders were far from secure. Keeping out those two words means that Israel will give up land for peace, but not everything they captured. To do that would be utter stupidity on Israel's part.

Who is expanding settlements,

I already told you my opinion on that.

who is demanding that they get to keep land in defiance of UN resolutions,

Read the above paragraph.

who illegally annexed East Jerusalem?

How can Israel illegally annex something that belonged to nobody? East Jerusalem was under Mandate control, then annexed by Jordan,which wasn't recognized (aside from by the mandate), then captured from Jordan. If you can tell which which national entity from 1948 wants East Jerusalem, point them out, we'll talk. For the record, UNSC 478 is worthless, since the UN, and therefore UN resolutions, have no jurisdiction in Israel, they cannot declare whether something is illegal or not, nor can they declare that it is against international law, since international law itself is built on consensus. If there is no consensus, there is no law.

In other words: The statement "Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem is illegal" is not a statement of international law; it is an opinion on applying international law to a specific circumstance. By definition, "consensus" means that everyone agrees. (There are some specific exceptions, but the statement is generally accurate.)

Israel has taken an approach that among civilians is called extortion.

You call it extortion, I call it right to survival, to secure borders, to live in peace and to defend itself. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

Let's put it in real world situations: You're walking by your lonesome when you are accosted by three really big guys and one small guy, and they try and mug you. They don't know that you are a black belt in karate, so you kick their asses for them and mug them instead. Now, seeing as how you live in the neighborhood with them, you don't really want to cause any trouble, so you decide "you know what, I'll give back most of what I took, so you know, they can actually feed their family".

Now, this guy just lost 100% of their wallet. He can happily take back 80% of the contents, accepting that the 20% is a penalty for their attacking and move on. Or, as you suggest, he can stand there and keep whining to you that he wants all 100% of the contents of his wallet back, which means he ends up getting nothing.

Remember, one of the guys whose wallet we took was willing to talk honestly with us and got back the entire contents of his wallet, and a coupla extra bucks we threw in as well. So why should the little guy keep whining and demanding 100% when he knows he's not gonna get it, instead of settling for the 80%? Most rational people would realize that they are better off with 80% of something than crying for 100% of nothing.

Here's another example: You go to Vegas, go to the craps table and buy $1,000 in chips. You place half the money on red and half the money on black (you're a safe gambler, there for the free alcohol). The ball falls on green, on 00, and you've lost everything.

The casino appreciates your custom, so they're willing to refund you $500 of the money you just lost. Do you A) Take the $500, say thank you and shut up, or do you B) Keep demanding the entire $1,000 (which you lost fair and square) back, and wind up with nothing? Again, rational people realize that 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

It is Israel and her stubborn refusal to abide by international law that is the real barrier to peace.

Read the above on "International Law". And that's a nice way to pass the buck. Heaven forbid the Palestinians could actually be in the wrong, huh? I'm at least willing to place the blame on both sides, but for you the Palestinians are white as snow, aren't they?

Real peace would weaken the Israeli right and so the right stirs the pot to keep tensions high.

Yes, I know, I said the same thing. I'm so glad you can read.

Who is killing who?

Um, both sides are killing both sides? Isn't that kinda what war is all about?

In every category of civilian dead Israel is massively out killing the Palestinians.

Well, yeah, because A) we're better at keeping them out than they are at keeping us out, and B) they hide among civilians, don't wear uniforms, fire from civilian and residential areas and all around try and get as many of their civilians killed. Okay, fine,that last one isn't entirely accurate. They just "worship death", aspire to become martyrs and rejoice in large Palestinian civilian body counts, even if it means sometimes killing their own by mistake and then blaming Israel.

With laser guided munitions, drones etc to help target somehow Israel still manages to disproportionally hit civilians.

Hell, we'll kill the bad guys all by their lonesome, but every time we try, they surround themselves with innocent civilians. In every single armed conflict fought by any rational military in every single country in the world, if it means more of their dead or more of your dead, guess who dies first? That's right, them!

Have you ever thought that maybe, if you want them to stop trying to kill you and yours, you should stop killing them and theirs?

Have you ever thought that maybe, if you want us to stop killing them and theirs, they should stop killing us and ours?

It's the chicken and the egg. It doesn't make a difference anymore who fired the first shot, and why. The fact is that Israel and the Palestinians have been involved in bloody war for decades already. Israel has tried time and again to stop, and like I pointed out in one of the previous threads, the last time the IDF actually instigated armed conflict was nearly 60 years ago in 1956, every other action was in response to something else, to aggression from the Arab or Palestinian side.

So you can sit there and blame the Israelis and again, wipe the Palestinian hands and absolve them of all guilt, or you can accept that both sides are guilty and the only way this will actually ever end is if both sides try and stop at once. What I can tell you, though, is that as long as Hamas calls for Israel's destruction and keeps trying to bring that around, the IDF will be around to do their damnedest to make sure they don't.

Doesn't it really disappoint you, though, that your view of me as a rabid, extremist far-right rabble-rouser couldn't be farther from the truth? Doesn't it seem slightly surprising that between the two of us, I'm the one that's actually willing to take more steps towards peace, towards a real compromise that would bring about a lasting peace? Hell, I'm the one that's actually willing to compromise!!!

[bigross86]

Can i ask for a little enlightenment on the highlighted topics?

Sure!

Israel is willing to give land back: Israel gave back the entire Sinai for peace with Egypt, including some very advanced military and naval bases, uprooted settlements and gave back the oil discoveries that were finally making Israel energy independent from the Arab countries.

We also gave back the Gaza Strip in 2005, but Z will argue that wasn't for peaceful purposes, so I'll leave that up to you.

land swaps between Israel and the Palestinians, cm^2 for cm^2: Have you looked at a map of the West Bank recently? It's a hodgepodge of Israeli settlements and Arab villages. The plan is twofold: 1) Find out what are the safest borders Israel can live with that takes the absolute least amount of land possible. 2) swap tracts of land between the Israelis and Palestinians, creating two contiguous blocks of land, one for the Israelis and one for the Palestinians. The Israeli one should connect to Israel proper, and the Palestinian one should include land that was traded for the secure borders that Israel now enjoys. Cm for cm, the Palestinians still have the same exact amount of land they had on June 5, 1967, just in slightly different areas.

Of course, this is only the cure for the West Bank. There is no real cure for Gaza, and there is no real hope for a two-state solution, since there is no real and valid way to connect Gaza and the West Bank without bisecting Israeli in two.