The West Bank and the Gaza Strip, captured in 1967, comprise 22% of pre-1948 Palestine. When the Palestinians signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993 they agreed to accept only these 22% and recognize Israel within the Green Line borders.

Conceding 78% of the land was a historical Palestinian compromise.

But this compromise was not enough for Barak. In his offer to the Palestinians, Barak demanded the following:

69 settlements are included in this area, where 85% of the settlers live. It is clearly visible that The blocs create impossible borders, which severely disrupt Palestinian life in the West Bank.


In addition to the settlement blocs, Barak came up with another demand;

Territories that will be under "Temporary Israeli Control".

The "Temporary Control" concept is unique. It refers to sovereign Palestinian land that will remain under Israeli military and civil control for an indefinite time.

The remains are "The Generous Offers of Barak?"




What appears to be territorial continuity is actually split up by settlement blocs, bypass roads and roadblocks. The Palestinians have to relinquish land reserves essential for their development and absorption of refugees. They also have to accept Israeli supervision of borders crossings together with many other restrictions.



This is no generous offer.

It is a humiliating demand for surrender!

Data in this document are based on the maps Barak showed Arafat in December 2000 and generally termed "Barak?s Generous Offers".

The Israeli public, media and academics use this description unwittingly. This document sheds light on the offer and exposes the truth by examining the details ? the offer is a pretense of generosity for the benefit of the media!

Barak?s offer gives Israel control over all the border crossings of the Palestinian State. No country in the world would accept that. The words "territorial continuity" are deceptive. No Israeli would agree to travel 50 miles from one town to another, if the real distance between them is only 5 miles.

This impossible offer, Barak?s imperious attitude, the ongoing massive construction in the settlements and Sharon?s provocation ? all these contributed to the inevitable explosion.

The "generous offer" is a fig leaf that conceals the intentions of those who justify this war against the Palestinians.

In December, no maps of the Gaza Strip were shown, so we cannot illustrate Baraks intentions there. At Taba, Barak presented a much-improved map. The Palestinians consider it a basis for negotiation. But Barak repudiated it after his election defeat so there is no point in bringing it up.

Any future negotiation must be based on the same historical compromise- 78% for Israel, 22% for Palestine

the settlements are imo a bad idea. the continued construction of them prevented a deal that was to be reached long ago. even sharon has ordered them to be abandoned. it is only fair that settlements be disbanded then it seems all other obstacles can be overcome.

___________________________________________
incredible gift giving people operate this charity: http://www.gktw.org/

click on the link below to add content to the website that promotes this forum
http://global-military.com/index.php

It is common mistake to think that the problem is territorial one.

No Virgins - No Terror !©

^^You are correct.

It is a jewish problem, caused by Jews.

Hi, this is the first time I am posting here. I've been browsing this forum a while. Not really an active member even in other forum.

Anyway, go to this webpage and look for yourself. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/662181/posts

There are several maps. These are the clearer maps of what the Israeli has offered to the Palestinian from 1995 to 2000. Even the final 2000 map still looks like maximum security prison to me with all those polka dots..

Abdullah, live today, fight tomorrow, accept whatever the Israelis give you, and try to get away with the best you possibly can. You are in no position to dictate the terms, you saw what happened in the last 2 wars.



"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all,"..........Thomas Jefferson, commenting on factionalism in the world.

lets see,

1982 invasion of lebanon, syrian forces lose control of the air and on the ground inflict equal amonts of casualties on the israelis
650 Syrian dead vs 580 Israeli (source weitzman history of israel)


1982-1998 occupation of lebanon, and liberation of south lebanon

500 hibzollah and othergroups wage a sucessfull guerilla war against the zionist occupation that reaches a creshendo when the Israelis are forced to leave with their tail between their legs, the south lebanese army colapses in 18 minutes.

Yes I can see clearly now.


and of corse before this was 1973 war when the army of Egypt STOOD on the other bank of the canal, destroyed the invinsible Bar Lev Line, The Egyptians did so well the Israelis informed the americans they were going to do a nuclear release, teh United states 7th fleet then began doing combat missions in the east med as well as fly overs.


1973 was NOT an Arab defeat.

Remember how King Hussien begged his Syrian enemy to allow the war to continue as 2 syrian 2 jordanian and 1 iraqi fresh division were sped to start posistions and opposite them the Israeli Northern Corps was Completely exhausted, Had this happened the war as we know it would have ended with a decisiove arab victory, an israeli Nuclear strike, and an Arab Chemical strike, while other muslim nations and the remnants of egypt mnoved into "israel" and made it free of jews.

If the combined Arab armies could have simply finished off the Israelis in 1973 then why didn't they?  They had the full backing of the USSR, and Moscow was even prepared to launch a nuclear strike against Tel Aviv.

why?
Because the Soviets did not trust Sadat

The Soviets wanted a puppet like Assad

The Soviets refused to send the mig-23 and the mig-21's the egyptians paid for.

Egypt was more inclined to support the Non alligned movement and even supported Mao over krushchev, This in the eyes of the politboru was a serious sin.


Furthermore after the american bombing runs on the behalf of Israel, Egypt was not willing to bring in more forces to the sanai and was hesitant to extend the AAA umbrella, They felt that the israelis woild fight an attrition struggle in the sanai, the israeli crossing into africa was merely a feint one which accomplished nothing in terms of the tactical or strategic situation, as the Israeli forces that crossed the other bank of the canal were without supply, and were in just as bad a situation as the 20th field army.

But then again, if the Arab armies had overrun the Israeli defences then wouldn't those MiG-23s have been a moot point?  As for the Sino-Soviet split and the ramifications, keep in mind that Beijing and Moscow put aside their differences in order to help the Vietnamese against the US. 

It is common mistake to think that the problem is territorial one.

But didn't you say that Israel also has the right to modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and half of Iraq?  If these claims are what drive the Likud party (or even Zionism) then surely the problem is not only territory but also ideology.

Furthermore after the american bombing runs on the behalf of Israel,

haha,
Such statements R the reason Y people do not take the Arabs seriously.

the israeli crossing into africa was merely a feint one which accomplished nothing in terms of the tactical or strategic situation, as the Israeli forces that crossed the other bank of the canal were without supply, and were in just as bad a situation as the 20th field army.


Crossing to Africa made 3 army to be isolated from supply, Israel could
destroyed them (~20,000) with no problem.

Crossing to Africa was the reason Y Saadat was ready to cease fire.


No Virgins - No Terror !©

Diunei

The Jewish people have historic relation to "The Land Of Israel", this will
not change no matter what will be the borders of the state of Israel.

I am not saying that Israel will go tomorrow and occupy that land, but
i have no doubt that the arabs will give us the opportunity to occupy that
land in the future, like they done in 1967.

No Virgins - No Terror !©

@ Dan: "It is common mistake to think that the problem is territorial one."

We'll never know until you give back the land you stole. Right? Israelis are liars and the whole world knows thats a fact.


E Tan, E Epi Tas!

Israeli activist: Arafat wanted peace

Saturday 13 November 2004, 2:06 Makka Time, 23:06 GMT


A veteran Israeli peace campaigner and former MP has paid tribute to Yasir Arafat, describing him as a man who wanted and could have delivered peace in the Middle East.


Uri Avnery was one of the few Israelis to attend Arafat's burial in Ram Allah on Friday.

"Contrary to the demonisation of Yasir Arafat by the Israeli government, we believe that he was the man who wanted to make peace," Avnery, who is a senior member of the Israeli Gush Shalom peace movement, said.

"More importantly he was the man that was able to make peace and what is even more important, he was the man that was able to get his people to accept the peace. In this respect Arafat was unique, and I think we shall long for him," he added.

Arafat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 along with the late Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and then foreign minister Shimon Peres for agreeing to the Oslo peace accords.

However, current Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon viewed him differently and effectively confined the Palestinian leader to house arrest in his Muqata headquarters for the last three years of his life.

Frequently visited Arafat

Avnery, who was a regular visitor to the compound where Arafat was laid to rest, feared that the new generation of Palestinian leaders would lack the same clout needed to bring about permanent peace.

"I am worried about the future. There are good decent people who are trying to fill a huge vacuum but I am not sure they will be able to get Israel to accept what Arafat laid down."

Leadership responsibilities of key Palestinian institutions, which had all been headed by Arafat, have been divided among his most senior lieutenants.

Former prime minister Mahmud Abbas has become the effective supreme leader after being installed as Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) chairman.

While Arafat was shunned by Sharon and US President George Bush, Abbas was a guest of both men during his brief premiership last year.



AFP