babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » EU: Refugees are on the 'Road Map'

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: EU: Refugees are on the 'Road Map'
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 24 May 2003 04:32 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll believe it when I see it but this is an incredible development - as incredible as Arik Sharon agreeing to the plan.

The Daily Star

quote:
According to a presidential press release, Lahoud expressed hope that the United States would continue supporting the Lebanese position already conveyed to Secretary of State Colin Powell during his recent visit to Beirut.
He said that this stance called for a fair settlement of the Palestinian problem, a solution that guarantees the resettlement of all Palestinians in their homeland and rejects their settlement in Lebanon, as well as the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the occupied territories of Lebanon and Syria to the internationally recognized 1967 borders.

Incredible.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 26 May 2003 11:18 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The speech marked the first time the veteran hawk, who had long argued that a Palestinian state would pose a mortal danger to Israel, publicly used the word "occupation" to refer to Israel's presence in West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The word is anathema to the Israeli right, which believes Israel has a legitimate claim to the West Bank and Gaza for religious and security reasons.


So now the rest of the Sharonist Zionists are allowed to say "occupation" too?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 26 May 2003 11:59 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1)Not many Zionist Israelis support staying in the west bank and Gaza. Sharon thinks perhaps he can claim part but he and most people understand they won't be able to control that land forever and insure Israel's security.

personally I don't care I'm sure many wouldn't mind 67 borders I'd even be satisfied with 48 borders as issued by the UN with a compromise on Jerusalem like splitting it or having it internationally controlled.


2)

quote:
a fair settlement of the Palestinian problem, a solution that guarantees the resettlement of all Palestinians in their homeland

Fine too that could mean the west bank and Gaza. I couldn't read the whole article the link doesn't come up. Could you please copy paste the whole thing? I wonder if it says it insures Israel's right to exist and security too??? The right of return is not a contradiction depends how it is implemented? I do admit a settlement has to be reached with the refugees one that insures their right and one that insures Israelis rights as well such as for the state of Israel to exist with it current identity and it's security? It is a problem but I'm sure through negotiation it can be solved.

Yossi Sarid like many of us is secpetic of sharon's actions however even he propably wouldn't agree to an unconditional right of return he like any logical and humane human being understand that the issue needs to be discussed and a settlement found don't forget Yossi Sarid is a Zionist.

The refugee issue has to be dealt with but and should even be on the road but nobody kid the selves you can't just drop 3.5million Palestinians in Israeli borders Just like that with out any preset conditions

quote:
So now the rest of the Sharonist Zionists are allowed to say "occupation" too?

I don't think I saw the word occupation mentioned in the article.

[ 27 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 27 May 2003 12:11 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Never mind got to it. thanks if you tried to to look and set it up.

sadly Mr Lahoud didn't respond to Israel's concerns on the bright side the EU said the issue would be on the road map and dealt with.

Mr Lahoud said

quote:
this stance called for a fair settlement of the Palestinian problem, a solution that guarantees the resettlement of all Palestinians in their homeland and rejects their settlement in Lebanon,

Mr Lahoud said this not the EU once again all they said is it would be on the road map and dealt with. quite ambiguous if you ask me at this moment and time. Which is fine once the other phase are dealt with then this phase can start being dealt nothing is final at the moment except that the first phase should be implemented before moving on and preferably for everyone's sake as soon as possible


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 27 May 2003 01:37 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From the Toronto Star article:
quote:
The speech marked the first time the veteran hawk, who had long argued that a Palestinian state would pose a mortal danger to Israel, publicly used the word "occupation" to refer to Israel's presence in West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Yes, you are correct, Mr. Lahoud made the comments mentioned in the Beirut paper, so they are conjecture.

I find it interesting that you would support the 1947 UN Partition Plan borders. They seemed terribly unfair to the Palestinians at the time, considering the relative poplulation sizes. They seem fair today, though, for the same reason.

If the two states were divided along the 1947 lines, the issue of the right to return of the refugees' families would disappear, I believe. The two states would be more equal geographically as well, and the Arab state wouldn't be chopped into bits as it would if it contained only the West Bank and Gaza strip.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 27 May 2003 02:02 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The 1947 solution is even more then just the west bank and Gaze strip. How is it unfair it was based around which group had it population centers before that time as well nobody was forced out or displaced. The Jews also brought certain pieces of land fair and square other places there was rapid Jewish growth but no one was kicked out.
But there lies the problem I can't deny the Jews took control by just sticking in shear numbers. This is not totally immorally wrong they needed some place to go and this is where there heart sadly someone suffered a little. Won't of been much different in Uganda just the Jewish will to fight to survive would have been much less since the feel no connection to Uganda. There was peace and happiness until 1948 when the Arabs attacked had we all had a little foresight back then this could have been prevented. The UN's 1947 proposal was reasonable there was. Only 2 other options make the Jews suffer more move them again deny them the right to come where they saw their home land (as if the holocaust wasn't enough even Canada didn't let Jews in where were they to go? Israel was where they felt their home was.) or option 2 leave the region in chaos.

The one of the UN's great reasonable decisions the UN made but as most decisions always leaves someone and unhappy and they end up using it as toilet paper.

quote:
The speech marked the first time the veteran hawk, who had long argued that a Palestinian state would pose a mortal danger to Israel, publicly used the word "occupation" to refer to Israel's presence in West Bank and Gaza Strip.

sorry must have over looked that. you know though the context and translation could be argued I would like to hear in Hebrew what he said but that would be tit for tat like I said don't want to be don't think Israel should be there anyways waste of time and lives for both sides.

How to deal with the refugees is an important issue and should be dealt with. How? I don't know but like said the one thing I do know just dropping 3.5 million Palestinians all at once inside Israel would cause a lot of problems it's not personal or racist it just a fact that is.

[ 27 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca