Israel raids ships carrying aid to Gaza, killings civilians

[Kilmer17]

One of us is proposing ways to get there.

BOTH of us are offering solutions.

You want Israel to give more than they have offered. I want Palestinians to accept less.

[Larry]

Some other observations on things I've noticed about this issue, but haven't really seen a place to inject them into the thread:

We keep arguing about which map supposedly was or wasn't offered for how to divide up the West Bank.

The blockade which is the subject of this thread (Remember Alice? This is a song about Alice.) is a blockade of Gaza.

At least if I'm reading the Wiki on "Israeli Settlements", Israel gave up all of their settlements in Gaza, when they agreed to the Oslo accords. (The agreement which led to the PLO recognizing Israel, and Israel recognizing the PLO, and the election of a Palestinian government, and so forth.)

They still have settlements all over the West Bank, but not in Gaza.

But it's Gaza that voted to elect Hamas, not the West Bank. And the blockade is about Gaza, not the West Bank.

In short, it seems to me that the Palestenians who are voting for Hamas, and being blockaded, and so forth, are the ones who live where Israel gave up all of their settlements.

Gee. Who'd have thought that politics could be illogical.

[Larry]

BOTH of us are offering solutions.

You want Israel to give more than they have offered. I want Palestinians to accept less.

Nope. One of us is saying that what you claim Israel already offered looks like a really reasonable position to me. And pointing out a simple and obvious way to remove the spin and the questions about whether that really was ever offered in the first place.

One of us is pointing out why an offer which supposedly has already been made, cannot possibly be even considered, and is now completely unacceptable to Israel.

And claiming that it's the Palestinian's fault that Israel is moving the goalposts.

[Larry]

Could you hypothetically agree that if side A says that their offer is "square" and wont budge from it and side B says it's not square and wont budge until it is, that there can never be any movement?

That's really all Im saying. Israel made the best offer they are ever going to make. If that wasnt good enough, then we'll never see a solution.

But that's not what you're saying.

You're saying that Side A claims that they made a square offer, years ago, and therefore a square offer cannot possibly considered, ever again.

(And I'm saying that I certainly don't know if the Palestinians would reject that offer if it were made, but there's a simple, cheap, way to find out.)

[Kilmer17]

Nope. One of us is saying that what you claim Israel already offered looks like a really reasonable position to me. And pointing out a simple and obvious way to remove the spin and the questions about whether that really was ever offered in the first place.

One of us is pointing out why an offer which supposedly has already been made, cannot possibly be even considered, and is now completely unacceptable to Israel.

And claiming that it's the Palestinian's fault that Israel is moving the goalposts.

So the PA turns down an offer, but it's Israels fault that they wont make that same offer again? Also noting that the Palestinians have not said they would accept the same offer even if it was presented.

If Israel is offering X and that's the most they will accept. And the Palestinians want X plus Y and wont accept anything less, then we are where I said we are. A never ending situation.

[Kilmer17]

But that's not what you're saying.

You're saying that Side A claims that they made a square offer, years ago, and therefore a square offer cannot possibly considered, ever again.

(And I'm saying that I certainly don't know if the Palestinians would reject that offer if it were made, but there's a simple, cheap, way to find out.)

Forget about what WAS offered. The circumstances have now changed.

Focus on the now. And NOW, what the Israelis are offering isnt acceptable to the Palaestinains and what the Palestinians want is unacceptable to the Israelis.

[Thiebear]

Forget about what WAS offered. The circumstances have now changed.

Focus on the now. And NOW, what the Israelis are offering isnt acceptable to the Palaestinains and what the Palestinians want is unacceptable to the Israelis.

Which sounds exactly the same as what was and will EVER be offered.

Israel offers 1966 lands = I'm insulted zionist / die

Israel offers 1946 lands = its a start. and Israel would get what for this? shorter timeframes between the whistle and the boom?

[Larry]

So the PA turns down an offer, but it's Israels fault that they wont make that same offer again?

I don't know if such an offer was ever made in the first place. (And neither do you.)

But I also know that if the offer is made publicly, then Israel looks like the Good Guy, merely for making the offer, and it eliminates all possible doubt about whether the offer was ever made.

It's not like if Israel makes the offer, and it gets rejected, then it cost Israel something. Quite the opposite.

Also noting that the Palestinians have not said they would accept the same offer even if it was presented.

In which case, if Israel makes the offer, publicly, and it gets rejected, then it'll be the cheapest PR victory in Israel's history.

(At a time when Israel really needs one.)

[Madison Redskin]

Forget about what WAS offered. The circumstances have now changed.

Focus on the now. And NOW, what the Israelis are offering isnt acceptable to the Palaestinains and what the Palestinians want is unacceptable to the Israelis.

You're changing your claims. You originally used the word "never," which means ... never. You're now saying, "not now." There's a big difference.

In any case, to answer your question, No. Side B could change its position. So, even if Side B said it wouldn't budge, that doesn't mean it won't budge.

[Kilmer17]

You're changing your claims. You originally used the word "never," which means ... never. You're now saying, "not now." There's a big difference.

???

Not following you.

What context?

[JMS]

They still have settlements all over the West Bank, but not in Gaza.

But it's Gaza that voted to elect Hamas, not the West Bank. And the blockade is about Gaza, not the West Bank.

In short, it seems to me that the Palestenians who are voting for Hamas, and being blockaded, and so forth, are the ones who live where Israel gave up all of their settlements.

Gee. Who'd have thought that politics could be illogical.

Here is the deal on that.

Gaza is one of the most densly populated areas of the world. Israel never had significant settlements there. A few thousand people, compared to the hundreds of thousands in the West bank....

Gaza 360 sq km, roughly twice the size of DC... 1.5 million live there.

West Bank 5,860 sq km, slightly smaller than Deleware..... 2.5 million people live there.

The west bank is what about 20x the size of Gaza and has just about twice as many people.

Israel doesn't even want Gaza. Israel has tried to give it back to Egypt on numeous occassions including during the camp david settlement with Sadat. Egypts position like all the Arab states position, Israel displaced all those folks into Gaza, It's Israel's problem to deal with them.

There isn't enough unpopulated land or development potential in Gaza to interest the Israeli's. Those things exist in the West Bank.

Having said all that, Israel did not give up their settlments in Gaza as part of the Oslo accords. Oslo accords were in 1993. Israel gave up their Gaza settlements in 2005. Not as part as any agreement with the Palistinians. They did so because it was not economically practical to secure and provide infrastructure for, 7000 people in the middle of 1.5 million people you were trying to ignore. Israel didn't negotiate it, they didn't have an agreement with the PA on it... They just vacated Gaza, cut it off from their infrastructure, and yet continued to control the boarders and what was allowed in or out. Israel basically withdrew to more defensible positions and resettled the Gazain settlers on more attractive defensible Palistinian lands in the West Bank.

Most of the 7000 lived in outposts of just a few hundred.

Israeli gaza settlement stats..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_statistics_for_Israeli_Gaza_Strip_settlements

[Ryman of the North]

http://www.mideastweb.org/palestine_partition_detail_map1947.jpg

A UN map of this land that didn't exist...lol (look at the details on the map at the bottom)

Did you go to school with Gibbs4Life?

How did i miss that? Hey genius look at the date on the map, then apologise.

I am going to make a post about this and the so called neutral british member of parliament who was on the ships, ive been doing some serious reading about this.