Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (16682)	1/17/2002 7:29:58 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Are you arguing that Israel has not agreed that the West Bank and Gaza belong to the Palestinians, with the details to be worked out in the future? Because that's completely contrary to my understanding of what the parties agreed to in 1993. Yes, that's what I am saying. If the West Bank and Gaza 'belonged' to the Palestinians, what would there be to negotiate? Israel would have already agreed to pull back to the June 4, 1967 borders. Israel did not agree to this, nor did UN 242 require it. As the principles state: Permanent status is to be determined through direct negotiations, which resumed in September 1999 after a three-year hiatus If those negotiations don't include final borders, what are they about? I think Maskoud's criticism laid out the ideological struggle pretty well, from the other side of course. Now, the PLO's public interpretation of UN242 and the Principles always said that it meant exact 1967 borders, with no changes. (During Camp David, they had actually worked out a compromise in private.) But this was never the position of Israel or the US. There's also an important distinction between willingness to give back land for peace, and acknowledging that territory 'belongs' to some one else. Ideologically speaking, if the Israelis say that the territories 'belong' to the Palestinians, they will not have a case to argue that the rest of Israel doesn't 'belong' to them too. There is no historical border in question; it's more a matter of where people wound up after each war. If the Palestinians can claim without opposition that the lost territory of 1967 'belongs' to them, what's the difference with the lost territory of 1948?