Bob

Can you elaborate on that? Feel free to write more than fifteen words....

It's simple, really. You're making things up as you go along. You and I both know that you don't know the first thing about the negotiations that have taken place between Israel and the PA. You couldn't even name the the leader or negotiators involved, or the locations and dates, let alone the details of what was offered or what wasn't. All you do is make one-liner posts blaming Israel while using rhetoric such as "Apartheid" and "racism". Do you expect us to believe that you're knowledgeable enough about the history of the diplomatic process in order to be permitted to make simplistic summaries of the events you're pretending to be familiar with? Be honest with yourself, and stop acting like you're something you're not. You haven't done the research, so you don't have the knowledge to be levying decisions or valid opinions about the reasons for collapses in peace process. The most recent example of you pretending to know something is right here in this thread: the palestinians do not want to live in cantons with highways controlled by israel. that's the best israel (through barak) has offered. You just made this up on the spot. No research, no books, no lectures, no nothing. You and several others in this forum do this regularly, you make up garbage without knowing anything. Don't expect me to go the trouble to rebuff every lie in all of your posts. If someone comes in here and starts using rhetoric like "Holohoax", am I supposed to go to extreme lengths to prove him wrong? Like I said, if someone wants to have an inside-look into the peace talks over several decades, read Dennis Ross' book "The Missing Peace". There are maps in there illustrating Israeli offers, and people are free to make up their minds after seeing them - maybe Israel offered too much, maybe too little, maybe it was just right... or maybe something else. Aaron David Miller's book "The Much Too Promised Land" is also a good insider's account of a lead adviser to several American Administrations, although with less details about what was actually offered and focusing on all of Israel's diplomacy - not just with the Palestinians. If anyone is seriously interested in learning something about the peace process rather than just reading one-liner rhetoric on an internet discussion forum, I highly recommend those two books.

Why don't you elaborate on that? I'd like to hear why you think Israel has such a stake in these events. I'd also like for bud to answer jbg's question - why is this "Israel's problem"?

Nobody in this thread suggested such a thing. That's the point. You're attacking a position nobody in here advanced.

It depends what they want. I won't support a popular uprising against a dictator on ideological grounds (democracy yay!) without understanding its implications to me and my people.

That's not what was offered by Barak. For those that actually want to see what was offered, go read Dennis Ross' "The Missing Peace", which shows the maps that were proposed during the Taba negotiations in 2001. The maps may also be available online. Like several other posters in here who shall not be named, bud pretends to know things. If you haven't read the books or articles, seen or attended the lectures, then why are you speaking about the negotiations and what was or wasn't offered? You make up your arguments as you go along, it's so pathetic.

Oh, you mean the armistice lines of 1949 from which we were attacked from for twenty years. You mean the indefensible and wholly unworkable lines for municipal needs. You mean the lines that were rejected by the Arab world as they came together and tried to destroy us in three wars? Right... those borders. Otherwise known as the Auschwitz lines (credit to Abba Eban). A little too late for those. Don't cry over spilled milk when we accepted those lines originally. This isn't a game of Monopoly where to get to go back to GO after you mess up.

What are our legal borders?

It depends on many variables. A Palestinian state would be acceptable, and even desirable, with certain conditions adhered to. The devil is in the details. You may now continue with your simplistic anti-Israel rhetoric and absurd allusions to Apartheid.

That's true in some cases, but many Jewish immigrants who arrived where liabilities in the pragmatic sense. Many from the former Soviet Union, as well. We didn't pick and choose the educated and leave behind the simple. A more prominent example of this was the series of Ethiopian Aliyot. High numbers of them were, economically speaking, liabilities. The vision of Zionism sees past that, though, and although the stories of Ethiopian Aliyot (and those that survived walking here) are harrowing, there are many shining beams of hope that occurred through generational integration. This couldn't have happened without a sincere sense of Jewish solidarity. This isn't just a buzz-word, it's real and it needs to be preserved and enhanced. Jewish solidarity is all we've got, because we can never depend on the Goyim. We set the example in this case. The Arabs and Muslims would do well to take note.

In your world, where "fairness" and "justice" mean Jewish national suicide, I'm glad to oppose your concept of "peace". Rock on, bro. Take another haul on that spliff for me, while you're at it.

Well, at least you acknowledge that you're setting the standard pretty low. The PA has upgraded itself from demands that are absolutely impossible to demands that are just impossible. The result? The demands are still impossible. As far as neighbourhoods around Jerusalem, for the most part, those demands are impossible. Any serious settlement block like Ma'ale Adumim ain't up for negotiation. Moreover, the municipal needs of Jerusalem must be met as well as national security needs around our capital city. You know as well as I do that we're not going back to the Auschwitz-lines where Arabs can snipe into our apartments from their apartments. We can't have an enemy state RIGHT ON TOP OF Jerusalem. It will be opening up another front, something we'd do well to avoid.

Ya, it's a pretty messed up situation... in direct contrast with the massive efforts and outreach Israel takes upon herself to emancipate at-risk Jews. It's particularly strange considering that 85% of Jordanians identify themselves as "Palestinian". As far as I'm concerned, they already have their own country. Moreover, the world has no shortage of countries for Arabs/Muslims.

The EU, Russia, US, Canada, and other countries have been supporting the PA for decades. What's new? As far as them being "on track to achieving" an independent state, that statement of your illustrates yet again how little you know about this situation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The current obstacles before the Palestinians towards establishing an independent state are insurmountable in the short-term.

The leaks don't tell us anything we didn't already know. And, if accurate, they illustrate that the PA is still making impossible demands. None of this should come as any surprise. When you make an impossible demand and remain obstinate, the term "no partner for peace" is an accurate description. From their perspective, we also make impossible demands. It's an irreconcilable situation.

That's a pretty ridiculous interpretation of the leaks. What you're saying boils down to this - since Israel doesn't view the situation as the Palestinians, then Israel is to blame for the deadlock in negotiations. The truth is, you don't know what the core issues are, and don't know the layout of the land. Of course we refuse to relinquish Ma'ale Adumim. Of course we refuse to evacuate Gilo. These are two examples of absurd demands the PA is making that it knows will never be met. Of course we will ensure that we have access to our holy city of Hebron. We will not be complicit in helping the Arabs/Muslims make it Jew-free as was done in the past. Do we even need to get into the Temple Mount? Or demilitarization of a possible future Palestinian state? The gaps between us and them are still irreconcilable at this point.

You had one part right - we will continue to do what we must. We can't help it if people politicize terms such as "justice" and "rights" in attempts to delegitimize our national rights to independence and self-determination - which is what this struggle is all about.

I'm still totally confused. What has Black September to do with the fact that Palestinian statehood wasn't established during twenty years in which the West Bank was under Jordanian occupation? The point I was trying to make (and apparently didn't make very well...) was that between 1949 and 1967 there was no Israeli presence in the West Bank, yet hostility and violence continued from the Arabs. The armistice lines drawn in 1949 were still dangerous, with violence occurring every day for twenty years. Moreover, where were the moves towards Palestinian independence (trying to overthrow the Jordanian dictatorship notwithstanding....). You know what? Forget it, I feel like I'm about to spin off into a tangent...

It's not true. Most recently, Netanyahu has publicly stated his support for the establishment of a Palestinian state towards resolving this conflict, albeit begrudgingly - with conditions. Secondly, the peace process, as early as the 1991 Madrid Conference, was working towards a two-state solution - although the term "two-state solution" had not yet entered the lexicon of the mainstream media at this point. Rabin in 1993 was openly discussing withdrawal from most of the West Bank towards greater autonomy for the Palestinians, with the intention being Palestinian statehood. Basically, working towards Palestinian independence has been a focal point of negotiations for virtually two decades. You must bear in mind that given the nature of Israeli democracy, changing governments tend to have different approaches towards these issues. The million dollar question being - what is Palestinian statehood? Borders, conditions, and everything in between. Must've been a pretty poor quality radio show...

More importantly, how could I ever dispute quotes from Jim Baker or other prominent politicians? If Jim Baker says something, it must be true

Yes, "massive expansion". It's not massive enough - housing costs are still way too high in Jerusalem! These "settlements" are integral parts of Jerusalem, and do not belong to the Arabs simply because the Jordanians occupied it for about twenty years. Moreover, if you actually understood the geography of Jerusalem, you'd realize that Jerusalem would be suffocated if its developments were restricted to the cease-fire lines. Lastly, don't think that the 1949 armistice lines were determined in the best interests of Jerusalem - they're merely the truce lines drawn after the war. They're unworkable, indefensible, and unacceptable. You can sit behind your keyboard and complain until your fingers bleed, and we will keep building as is necessary in our capital, regardless of what anti-Semitic and ignorant bureaucrats say in order to pander to Arab and Muslim interests. "International law", eh? Sounds interesting. If Jerusalem doesn't belong to us, who does it belong to? You think we're gonna strangle our city in order to comply with "international law"? Think again. Yes, yes... how aggressive we are building apartments, homes, roads, schools, police stations, businesses, medical clinics in order to address our municipal and national needs. How aggressive we are building across ceasefire lines drawn in 1949. Let me guess, the Old City is also occupied territory? Perhaps you're right... the Palestinians should boycott negotiations on "principle". Oh wait, they have.

...?

It's offensive to people like wyly that Jewish people can go to Wikipedia and share our perspective that is exceedingly drowned out given our miniscule numbers. God forbid the propaganda is challenged with truth! Wikipedia is, and has been for many years, a political warzone with respect to the Israel-Arab conflict. I applaud these activists for spending their time to combat dishonest, anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist propaganda and historical revisionism that is becoming frighteningly common online. I tend to avoid Wikipedia on this issue given its not-so-subtle anti-Israel bias. The truly motivated person goes to the library and Amazon.com, not Wikipedia.

The American position on this issue has been, at times and to put it lightly, contradictory. Moreover, there are realities which are unaddressed by the rhetoric - such as the indefensible nature of the 1949 armistice lines (specifically around Jerusalem), and the needs of Jerusalem to expand naturally and not restricted to the impractical and unworkable 1949 armistice lines. The "settlements" around Jerusalem are inextricable, and integral parts of the city's social, economic, and spiritual fabric. Of course, you'd have to know a thing or two about Jerusalem to understand these things. These aren't the kinda facts that'll be understood or mentioned in a New York Times article written by some liberal arts graduate living in Manhattan.

He won't post any "snippets" from American leadership declaring Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capital.