In this interview Jimmy Carter quickly summarised the three possible future`s for Palestine. I would be interested to see if members here envision any other alternatives to the ones he puts forward.

...First one has been discussed quite extensively and most persistently by the present prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, who presented this thesis quite early in his career as a young member of the Israeli parliament -- he's now the prime minister -- a forceful annexation of Palestine and its legal absorption into Israel, which would give large numbers of non-Jewish citizens the right to vote and live as equals under the law. So, a large sectarian nation involving both Israelis and Palestinians is this option.

This would directly violate international standards and the Camp David Accords, which are the basis for peace with Egypt. At the same time, non-Jewish citizens would immediately make up a powerful swing vote if other Israelis were divided. In other words, if Israelis, who now have a majority, were divided 60-40 or 50-50, as you could see, then if the Palestinians voted as a bloc, they would prevail in establishing the basic policies of Israel, if other Israelis were divided.

It would also maybe constitute an outright majority in the new greater Israel. This is because of demographic trends. The Palestinians have a much higher birthrate than do the Israelis, the Israeli Jews. In fact, in Gaza, which I describe, the Palestinian birthrate is 4.7% annually, which is the highest in the world. And that means that in Gaza at this time, half their citizens are 15 years old or less. Israel would be further isolated and condemned by the international community. So I think within 20 years or less, in a combined Israel and Palestinian land, the Arabs would actually have a majority, more than the Jews.

Second, a system of apartheid -- this is, remember, in Palestine -- with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights. ...

An unacceptable modification of this choice now being proposed is the taking of substantial portions of the occupied territory with the remaining Palestinians completely surrounded by walls, fences and Israeli checkpoints, living as prisoners within the small portion of land left to them. I think you can quickly see the unacceptability of both of those options.

There's only one option left, and that is withdrawal to the 1967 border, as specified in UN Resolution 242 and as promised legally by the Israeli government in the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Agreement and prescribed in the Road Map of the International Quartet. You remember, the Quartet consists of the United States and Russia and the United Nations and the European Union. Those four comprise a Quartet. And they have devised the latest proposal, known as the Road Map for Peace, which has been enthusiastically endorsed by President Bush, as you know. This is the most attractive option and the only one that can ultimately be acceptable as a basis for peace. Good faith negotiations can lead to mutually agreeable exchanges of land, perhaps permitting a number of Israeli settlers to remain in their present homes near Jerusalem inside Palestinian territory.
http://www.democracynow.org/article..../11/30/1452225

If members cannot suggest alternatives to those above then do all agree that the Road Map or similar is the only sensible option?

__________________
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Marx (G.)

First: this post belongs in the Middle East Section.
Perhaps you wanted to avoid knowledgable responses and try and foist Carter's well known biased opinion on us.

One state works for neither people.
The only real advocates of it want the end of Israel.
An Arab Majority basically means the end of any minority- ask the Copts or Sudanese for just 2 examples of many.

The only state where original Palestinian refugees are given citizenship. (beside Jordan) is Israel. 20% fully enfranchised Arab; not apartheid in any way.
If you want to talk about the ongoing conflict (Palestinian Started Intifada) and it's incumbent restrictions .. that's a War, not 'apartheid.
The Palestinians have been offered a state about seven times between 1948 and 2000. Palestinians even without a state were given sovereignty over their Territories (Oslo), resulting in a disaster for Arabs, Christians, And Jews. They can't even get their act together now. Fatah and hamas.

If you had bothered to put this string in the correct section, you'd have noticed there's a discussion of Resolution 242 at the Top of it. (perhaps that's precisely why you didn't)

Resolution 242 does NOT call for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders. Not at all. Recognizing Israel's 1967 war was defensive, if pre-emptive, it calls for NEW "Secure and Recognized Borders", Recognizing the old ones.. were not.

Please read the string and come back educated.

ergo, the other Possible solution (3B) is that we really do abide by 242, and Israel get's the Buffers foreseen by that resolution, The Golan and a few small percent of the WB, and the Arabs stop crying about losing that small buffer after trying to wipe out the Jews 3 times from those borders.

Sorry boys, War is for keeps, .. you can't lose and say "Do over".
You can't have it both ways.. you can't keep trying to wipe out Israel entirely and then fail and then invoke 'territorial sovereignty'.. and keep starting from the same spot.
.

So remind me who is it that you claim is always ducking peace proposals?

http://www.historycentral.com/Israel/Daily.html

Yep, there is a string on Middle east thread about 242 and Abu lost that as well, see Klipkaps postings for full clarification.

Not only did I not "lose".. klipklap is gone, replaced by your OFF TOPIC posts which don't rebut my Unequivocal case on what 242 means.

We had to converse there over your Bizarro off-topic nonsense.. as It's apparent we will in this string also.

Crawl back under your rock.

Er...no. The upper section of the forum seems to receive the most traffic. I daresay a moderator may move the thread in due course but, in the meanwhile, I was hoping to elict responses from those members who rarely post in the regional sections. Since the quoted article is an opinion piece I felt that "Political Opinions and Beliefs" wasn`t too inappropriate. But feel free to ascribe whatever motives you fancy...

Abu, Mr. Carter makes plain (more than once) that he is not refering to Israel. So I`m afraid this is irrelevent.


This seems to bother you, Abu, but I`m afraid there isn`t any hard and fast rules about sections. I`m sure you`ve noticed that there is a section for every region in the world (and another for globe-encompassing issues). If everyone posted into the regional sections then sections like this would be pretty empty. It`s an opinion - It`s in the `opinion` section - sorry if that troubles you.

Yeah, that`s right. I`m hiding

Yes, you`re quite right, Abu. Res. 242 does not call for a withdrawal to the `67 border. It calls for withdrawal from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". Okay, Israel should do that. Either way works fine.


Leaving aside your interpretation of what 242 foresaw your `3B` is just a re-wording of Carter`s `2B`. Let me remind you:

An unacceptable modification of this choice now being proposed is the taking of substantial portions of the occupied territory with the remaining Palestinians completely surrounded by walls, fences and Israeli checkpoints, living as prisoners within the small portion of land left to them. I think you can quickly see the unacceptability of both of those options.

The only difference is that you have included a hope that the Palestinians will "stop crying" about it and Mr. Carter, more realistically, believes that they wont.


That is my fear. Do you wish to stay in a perpetual state of conflict (Carter`s option 2) or would you prefer to seek a peaceful resolution?

__________________
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Marx (G.)

Because the upper section gets the most traffic has nothing to do with where your post belongs, but to do with your Ego.
LOL!
That's pretty cruddy logic dude and would put Every string in this section.

I ALSO addressed the WAR in the territories being mistaken for 'apartheid' (Checkpoints etc)
You Dishonetly left that out. Nasty.


True, Just COMMON SENSE.


Close. but no Cigar.
It specifically did NOT say "all' or 'the' territories for a reason. In fact, it voted down the language that would return 'all' or 'the' territories Explicitly. See the string... the same reason it called for NEW "Secure and recognized Borders".

I'm not expecting. Just pointing out what Justice IS and what Resolution 242 DOES say.



I would expect as just as in 1945 and many other conflicts the Agressor will accept that he risks losing territory. Especially a three time loser; Unprecedented really, it usually only takes one loss.
Check a political map in 1900 and again in 2000.
Ahh Reality.

Option 4: Build a god(*)(*)(*)(*) fence, and ignore as best you can what's on the opposite side of it.

Any peace agreement signed by Palestinians isn't worth the paper it is written on. And the only reason anyone wants Israel to give back the golan heights, etc, is so that hizbollah can fire rockets from higher ground.

The palestinians and the arabs in general need to understand that israel and the jews are not going anywhere. Until this happens no progress can be made.

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984

So, okay, you've framed the problem reasonably well -

So, what's your solution?

"Repression by force"?

Or, do you think there might be a better way?

Hmm??? Hmm.....

Abu, you can't tell people where to put there topics, this thread is fine where it is thanks. Why is everything a confrontation with you? Can't you debate without coming across as overpowering? As for the topic, i'm not a middle east expert SO I DON'T KNOW, but I just hope the violence flares down and the isrealis and Palestinions live side by side peacefully,.. boring I know but whatever brings that about is the best option.

...who dont want perpetual warfare, unceasing, or dont want to subjugate others to their dominance (which assures same), Carter's third option is the only sane one. Most reasonable people (on all sides) recognise this - the difficulty seems to be in how to get there (and that the reasonable ones are seldom in a position to effect the required changes).

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."