Israel launches air strikes on Gaza

Last Chance to Avoid War: Sadat's Peace Initiative of February 1973 and its Failure
Uri Bar-Joseph
International Relations Division, Haifa University

Most studies of the attempts to reach a political solution to the Egyptian–Israeli dispute between the wars of 1967 and 1973 focus predominantly on the Jarring mission (1968–71), the Rogers plan (1969–70) and Sadat's plan for a partial agreement in the Canal sector (early 1971). However, as this article shows on the basis of new archival documents, the most important diplomatic initiative during this period was Sadat's proposal for a comprehensive settlement of the Egyptian–Israeli dispute, which was secretly submitted to Kissinger in February 1973. Despite the fact that it met most of Israel's requirements regarding peace, Sadat's proposal was rejected by Golda Meir, who refused to return the territories occupied in 1967. Meir's stand did not change even when, in April 1973, Israel's leadership concluded that the only alternative to the diplomatic process was war — which would break out soon. By making this decision, Golda Meir and her colleagues opted for war rather than peace and turned the October 1973 Yom Kippur War into ‘a war of choice’.
 
holyland red said:
Wrong.
Sa'adat seeked negotiations with Israel before the 1973 war, and a deal could have been struck saving the lives of 1000's. Egypt never had any territorial claim other than getting Sinai back, while the Palestinians have never given up their dream to destroy the state of Israel.
Click to expand...

The peace deal will see Israel end its occupation, the Palestinians would recognize Israel and in doing that they will agree Israels borders so giving up their claim to the land Israel resides on, again you seek to force terms before negotiation.
 
holyland red said:
Last Chance to Avoid War: Sadat's Peace Initiative of February 1973 and its Failure
Uri Bar-Joseph
International Relations Division, Haifa University

Most studies of the attempts to reach a political solution to the Egyptian–Israeli dispute between the wars of 1967 and 1973 focus predominantly on the Jarring mission (1968–71), the Rogers plan (1969–70) and Sadat's plan for a partial agreement in the Canal sector (early 1971). However, as this article shows on the basis of new archival documents, the most important diplomatic initiative during this period was Sadat's proposal for a comprehensive settlement of the Egyptian–Israeli dispute, which was secretly submitted to Kissinger in February 1973. Despite the fact that it met most of Israel's requirements regarding peace, Sadat's proposal was rejected by Golda Meir, who refused to return the territories occupied in 1967. Meir's stand did not change even when, in April 1973, Israel's leadership concluded that the only alternative to the diplomatic process was war — which would break out soon. By making this decision, Golda Meir and her colleagues opted for war rather than peace and turned the October 1973 Yom Kippur War into ‘a war of choice’.
Click to expand...
I don't see where it says he recognized Israels right to exist before negotiation.
 
Mozza said:
I don't see where it says he recognized Israels right to exist before negotiation.
Click to expand...

That one would fall into the "Israel's requirements regarding peace" category. If you don't see that, I suggest we stop wasting each other's time.
 
Can I just say this is the most ithought provoking thread on this site right now.(not that impressive when you actually think about it)

My opinion tends to agree with Holyland Red. Even though my best mate is a palestinian who hates Israel and Jews I still think that if the Palestinians stop launching rockets etc. then Israel would have no reason to retaliate. Then with no violence going on negotiations can take place.
 
Israels' right to exist? without doubt, and in peace.

What about Palestinians right to exist?

Israel have been dismantling Palestine with it's people for decades - failing to recognise Palestinians are people with rights and aspirations. One side uses rhetoric, the other puts it in action.

Edit:
 
Sultan said:
What about Palestinians right to exist?

:
Click to expand...


As what - a genuine peoples or the Arabs / Islamists worlds leverage againsts Israel?.

The greatest enemy against Palestine has always been the Arab regimes (and mow Islamists) who continue to ensure the situation festers.
 
The Council of Foreign Relation reports on some of the reasons for the popularity of Hamas among the Palestinians:

Hamas devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network. It funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. "Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz. The Palestinian Authority often fails to provide such services; Hamas' efforts in this area—as well as a reputation for honesty, in contrast to the many Fatah officials accused of corruption—help to explain the broad popularity it summoned to defeat Fatah in the PA's recent elections.

Unfortunately all this good work goes against any efforts of establishing peace. Hamas combines Palestinian nationalism with Islamic fundamentalism. Its founding charter commits the group to the destruction of Israel, the replacement of the PA with an Islamist state on the West Bank and Gaza, and to raising "the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine." Its leaders have called suicide attacks the "F-16" of the Palestinian people. Hamas believes "peace talks will do no good," Rantisi said in April 2004. "We do not believe we can live with the enemy."
 
holyland red said:
That one would fall into the "Israel's requirements regarding peace" category. If you don't see that, I suggest we stop wasting each other's time.
Click to expand...

Thats great, Palestinians requirement for peace is prior knowledge of Israels borders before agreeing to its existence, you see both sides need to negotiate things together.
 
Mozza said:
Thats great, Palestinians requirement for peace is prior knowledge of Israels borders before agreeing to its existence, you see both sides need to negotiate things together.
Click to expand...

Now that Hamas are in power, and it would be considered a heresy to even recognize Israel, the whole bullshit peace process is doomed, as if it ever had a chance.

At least Hamas are honest about it, whereas Arafat, and his other Fatah hoodlums tried to play the world that they were serious about peace just so they could get the hands on the cash.
 
Is Israel occupying Palestinian land because it has to protect it's people, or Are Palestinians launching rockets to end the illegal occupation of their land?
 
Sultan said:
Israels' right to exist? without doubt, and in peace.

What about Palestinians right to exist?

Israel have been dismantling Palestine with it's people for decades - failing to recognise Palestinians are people with rights and aspirations. One side uses rhetoric, the other puts it in action.

Edit:
Click to expand...

Fearless said:
As what - a genuine peoples or the Arabs / Islamists worlds leverage againsts Israel?.

The greatest enemy against Palestine has always been the Arab regimes (and mow Islamists) who continue to ensure the situation festers.
Click to expand...

A viable state. The Palestinians must have a viable state of their own. A two state solution is the only option to this situation, and on this I feel everybody (bar Gaddafi) is in agreement.

The Palestinian people have been used as a pawn by the Islamists I agree. No doubt if there was a lasting peace tomorrow they would find another cause to rally for.

Both sides have done brutal acts to one another. Extremist groups like Hamas have a long documented history of targeting civilians.

Israeli government policies have all but destroyed the economies of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and have led to the deaths of thousands of Palestinians.

The trouble is that both sides, and their defenders, too often seem to focus on whose fault it is that we are in the current situation, and not what solutions can be found to end the suffering.

So, I will throw this out for you all to dissect.

A two-state solution. Palestine will consist of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, along the 1967 borders.

I can see the security case for Israel building 'The Wall', but can't it be built along the 1967 borders just as easily?

Then we come to the illegal settlements. In my opinion, the settlers shouldn't be there, as they have no right over the land, and so they should be removed. Fairly utopian ideal I will grant you, but I can see no reason why the settlers cannot move to Israel itself, instead of the West Bank.

Next, and in return for this, Palestinian refugees would give up their right of return.

Big sacrifices on both sides, but ones which I suggest to get to a peaceful situation.

Also, the states surrounding Israel must recognise its right to exist, and GUARANTEE its security from attack.

Next, when Israel pulls out of the West Bank, the Palestinian territories should be administered by the UN and its peacekeepers. We have seen from Iraq what creating a power vacuum can lead to. The UN should take control, and administer all of the governmental functions, until monitored elections can be held, and security can be stabilised. This may allay some of Israel's fears.

Perhaps even a permanent force could be kept on the West Bank's eastern borders, to monitor and stop any illegal arms trade.

Right, both sides, you may have at this proposal. What else would it take for a lasting peace?
 
Fearless said:
Now that Hamas are in power, and it would be considered a heresy to even recognize Israel, the whole bullshit peace process is doomed, as if it ever had a chance.

At least Hamas are honest about it, whereas Arafat, and his other Fatah hoodlums tried to play the world that they were serious about peace just so they could get the hands on the cash.
Click to expand...
From Wiki Hamas page - February 13, 2006, in an interview in Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta, the same Khaled Mashal declared that Hamas would stop armed struggle against Israel if it recognized the 1967 borders, withdrew itself from all Palestinian occupied territories (including the West Bank and East Jerusalem) and recognized Palestinian rights that would include the "right of return".

You're talking cock
 
Mozza said:
From Wiki Hamas page - February 13, 2006, in an interview in Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta, the same Khaled Mashal declared that Hamas would stop armed struggle against Israel if it recognized the 1967 borders, withdrew itself from all Palestinian occupied territories (including the West Bank and East Jerusalem) and recognized Palestinian rights that would include the "right of return".

You're talking cock
Click to expand...

And they probably know Israel will do no such thing unilaterally, thus painting them as the 'good guys' who want peace and Israel as the ones who are holding up the peace process.
 
Frosty said:
And they probably know Israel will do no such thing unilaterally, thus painting them as the 'good guys' who want peace and Israel as the ones who are holding up the peace process.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why both sides need to be at a negotiating table so they can thrash things out, not putting prior demands on each other before talks can even begin.
 
Frosty said:
A viable state. The Palestinians must have a viable state of their own. A two state solution is the only option to this situation, and on this I feel everybody (bar Gaddafi) is in agreement.

The Palestinian people have been used as a pawn by the Islamists I agree. No doubt if there was a lasting peace tomorrow they would find another cause to rally for.

Both sides have done brutal acts to one another. Extremist groups like Hamas have a long documented history of targeting civilians.

Israeli government policies have all but destroyed the economies of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and have led to the deaths of thousands of Palestinians.

The trouble is that both sides, and their defenders, too often seem to focus on whose fault it is that we are in the current situation, and not what solutions can be found to end the suffering.

So, I will throw this out for you all to dissect.

A two-state solution. Palestine will consist of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, along the 1967 borders.

I can see the security case for Israel building 'The Wall', but can't it be built along the 1967 borders just as easily?

Then we come to the illegal settlements. In my opinion, the settlers shouldn't be there, as they have no right over the land, and so they should be removed. Fairly utopian ideal I will grant you, but I can see no reason why the settlers cannot move to Israel itself, instead of the West Bank.

Next, and in return for this, Palestinian refugees would give up their right of return.

Big sacrifices on both sides, but ones which I suggest to get to a peaceful situation.

Also, the states surrounding Israel must recognise its right to exist, and GUARANTEE its security from attack.

Next, when Israel pulls out of the West Bank, the Palestinian territories should be administered by the UN and its peacekeepers. We have seen from Iraq what creating a power vacuum can lead to. The UN should take control, and administer all of the governmental functions, until monitored elections can be held, and security can be stabilised. This may allay some of Israel's fears.

Perhaps even a permanent force could be kept on the West Bank's eastern borders, to monitor and stop any illegal arms trade.

Right, both sides, you may have at this proposal. What else would it take for a lasting peace?
Click to expand...

Can't really complain about the above proposition. Not perfect, but it's a start.
 
Mozza said:
Which is exactly why both sides need to be at a negotiating table so they can thrash things out, not putting prior demands on each other before talks can even begin.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree that is by far the most obvious and logical solution, is that really realistic?

Both sides will make demands PRIOR to negotiations taking place
 
Frosty said:
And they probably know Israel will do no such thing unilaterally, thus painting them as the 'good guys' who want peace and Israel as the ones who are holding up the peace process.
Click to expand...

Why will Israel not do such a thing?
 
Frosty said:
Whilst I agree that is by far the most obvious and logical solution, is that really realistic?

Both sides will make demands PRIOR to negotiations taking place
Click to expand...
Well both sides need to be kicked into place, at the moment the Palestinians are being starved of funds to force them to agree to Israels demands before negotiation, theres absolutely no pressure on Israel to negotiate.
 
Frosty said:
A viable state. The Palestinians must have a viable state of their own. A two state solution is the only option to this situation, and on this I feel everybody (bar Gaddafi) is in agreement.

The Palestinian people have been used as a pawn by the Islamists I agree. No doubt if there was a lasting peace tomorrow they would find another cause to rally for.

Both sides have done brutal acts to one another. Extremist groups like Hamas have a long documented history of targeting civilians.

Israeli government policies have all but destroyed the economies of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and have led to the deaths of thousands of Palestinians.

The trouble is that both sides, and their defenders, too often seem to focus on whose fault it is that we are in the current situation, and not what solutions can be found to end the suffering.

So, I will throw this out for you all to dissect.

A two-state solution. Palestine will consist of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, along the 1967 borders.

I can see the security case for Israel building 'The Wall', but can't it be built along the 1967 borders just as easily?

Then we come to the illegal settlements. In my opinion, the settlers shouldn't be there, as they have no right over the land, and so they should be removed. Fairly utopian ideal I will grant you, but I can see no reason why the settlers cannot move to Israel itself, instead of the West Bank.

Next, and in return for this, Palestinian refugees would give up their right of return.

Big sacrifices on both sides, but ones which I suggest to get to a peaceful situation.

Also, the states surrounding Israel must recognise its right to exist, and GUARANTEE its security from attack.

Next, when Israel pulls out of the West Bank, the Palestinian territories should be administered by the UN and its peacekeepers. We have seen from Iraq what creating a power vacuum can lead to. The UN should take control, and administer all of the governmental functions, until monitored elections can be held, and security can be stabilised. This may allay some of Israel's fears.

Perhaps even a permanent force could be kept on the West Bank's eastern borders, to monitor and stop any illegal arms trade.

Right, both sides, you may have at this proposal. What else would it take for a lasting peace?
Click to expand...


In your proposal I can only see sacrifices made by Israel.

"...the settlers shouldn't be there, as they have no right over the land..."

I`d say they have the right, the right over their land.
 
Frosty said:
Not unilaterally. I would imagine that at the very least they would want Hamas to guarantee their right of peaceful existence.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what Hamas have offered, right? The only reason why they won't recognize Israel is because they don't know WHICH Israel. They have said if they get out of the occupied lands, then they will recognize them. What's wrong with that?
 
Mihajlovic said:
In your proposal I can only see sacrifices made by Israel.

"...the settlers shouldn't be there, as they have no right over the land..."

I`d say they have the right, the right over their land.
Click to expand...

So all the occupied territories should remian Israel's because God has given them to Israel?
 
Mozza said:
Well both sides need to be kicked into place, at the moment the Palestinians are being starved of funds to force them to agree to Israels demands before negotiation, theres absolutely no pressure on Israel to negotiate.
Click to expand...

Not without some minimum guarantee of future borders/security by all of the main protagonists. That may be unfair on those Palestinian civilians who continue to suffer whilst no talks go on, but it is the reality

Mihajlovic said:
In your proposal I can only see sacrifices made by Israel.

"...the settlers shouldn't be there, as they have no right over the land..."

I`d say they have the right, the right over their land.
Click to expand...

Whilst I understand your point, the settlements, and the Palestinian right of return, are contentious, and I was trying to be fair, with each side giving up something it holds as precious.

I just can't see a lasting peace whilst the settlements are there.

Like I said, suggestions from both points of view are welcome. I am interested in finding out what Israel would find an acceptable solution.
 
reddevilcanada said:
That's exactly what Hamas have offered, right? The only reason why they won't recognize Israel is because they don't know WHICH Israel. They have said if they get out of the occupied lands, then they will recognize them. What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

I am honestly not sure on the terms of the deal. I don't know enough about it to make an informed comment.

What I do know is that this 'right of existence' debate is going to have to be resolved before any negotiations can take place.

If you are correct, Hamas is saying that Israel has to give the Palestinians everything they ask for and they will recognise Israel's existence.

Whilst israel says that Hamas et al. recognising Israel is an minimum requirement before negotiations, let alone a settlement, can take place.

So why don't Hamas et al. unilaterally recognise Israel's right to exist IN IT'S PRE-1967 BORDERS and guarantee it's security within those borders.

Israel gets recognised and Hamas et al. make it clear that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are not Israel's land and should make up the Palestinian state.
 
Frosty said:
I am honestly not sure on the terms of the deal. I don't know enough about it to make an informed comment.

What I do know is that this 'right of existence' debate is going to have to be resolved before any negotiations can take place.

If you are correct, Hamas is saying that Israel has to give the Palestinians everything they ask for and they will recognise Israel's existence.

Whilst israel says that Hamas et al. recognising Israel is an minimum requirement before negotiations, let alone a settlement, can take place.

So why don't Hamas et al. unilaterally recognise Israel's right to exist IN IT'S PRE-1967 BORDERS and guarantee it's security within those borders.

Israel gets recognised and Hamas et al. make it clear that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are not Israel's land and should make up the Palestinian state.
Click to expand...


That's exactly what Hamas had offered
 
Frosty said:
Before Israel withdraws? I didn't think Hamas had recognised Israel's right to exist?
Click to expand...

I remember reading this somewhere, here's what the BBC says on it:

Attitude to Israel:

Hamas's charter uncompromisingly seeks Israel's destruction. However, Hamas's Ismail Haniya, the Palestinian prime minister, has spoken of a long-term truce with Israel if Israel withdraws from territory occupied in 1967.


The Hamas armed wing, the Izzedine al-Qassam brigades, has participated in an informal ceasefire since 2005, but claims the right to retaliate against what it calls Israeli attacks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5016012.stm
 
There will never be any peace.

Eygpt, Syria, Jordan etc hold the key to the solution becuase it is their problem. Simple as that.

It's all arse upwards -

Never before has the aggressors of any war pressed those they attacked to sort out a refugee problem. Thats the power of oil.

The Arabs caused this entire mess and should absorb all the so called palestianian refugees who they promised a quick jew free victory too.

Especially Jordan, which as we speak, occupies 78% of 'Palestine' anyway and has an 80% 'palestinian population' (a palestinian with a passport that is) anyway.

.
 
reddevilcanada said:
I remember reading this somewhere, here's what the BBC says on it:

Attitude to Israel:

Hamas's charter uncompromisingly seeks Israel's destruction. However, Hamas's Ismail Haniya, the Palestinian prime minister, has spoken of a long-term truce with Israel if Israel withdraws from territory occupied in 1967.


The Hamas armed wing, the Izzedine al-Qassam brigades, has participated in an informal ceasefire since 2005, but claims the right to retaliate against what it calls Israeli attacks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5016012.stm
Click to expand...

If I'm being blunt, a truce will never be enough. Israel will want a guarantee of non-aggression, or something along those lines, I'm assuming

Their charter, I'm guessing, will also have to be changed before Israel comes to the negotiating table.

Giving up the completely impossible goal of destroying Israel in exchange for a chance of peace isn't too unreasonable, I'd say
 
Fearless said:
There will never be any peace.

Eygpt, Syria, Jordan etc hold the key to the solution becuase it is their problem. Simple as that.

It's all arse upwards -

Never before has the aggressors of any war pressed those they attacked to sort out a refugee problem. Thats the power of oil.

The Arabs caused this entire mess and should absorb all the so called palestianian refugees who they promised a quick jew free victory too.

Especially Jordan, which as we speak, occupies 78% of 'Palestine' anyway and has an 80% 'palestinian population' (a palestinian with a passport that is) anyway.

.
Click to expand...

How does this legitimizes Israel's illegal occupation?
 
Mihajlovic said:
"Who has controlled the Middle East over the course of history?"

Nice interactive map shows it http://mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html
Click to expand...

I like that map. Especially as they superimpose the historical empires onto the modern borders

Fearless said:
There will never be any peace.

Eygpt, Syria, Jordan etc hold the key to the solution becuase it is their problem. Simple as that.

It's all arse upwards -

Never before has the aggressors of any war pressed those they attacked to sort out a refugee problem. Thats the power of oil.

The Arabs caused this entire mess and should absorb all the so called palestianian refugees who they promised a quick jew free victory too.

Especially Jordan, which as we speak, occupies 78% of 'Palestine' anyway and has an 80% 'palestinian population' (a palestinian with a passport that is) anyway.

.
Click to expand...
That is very nihilistic
 
Frosty said:
If I'm being blunt, a truce will never be enough. Israel will want a guarantee of non-aggression, or something along those lines, I'm assuming

Their charter, I'm guessing, will also have to be changed before Israel comes to the negotiating table.

Giving up the completely impossible goal of destroying Israel in exchange for a chance of peace isn't too unreasonable, I'd say
Click to expand...

Hamas have offered a long-term truce, meaning no aggression, if Israel leaves the occupied territories. Israel on the other hand has not even responded to this. Don't you think this is a massive change of attitude by Hamas which surely deserves some sort of a positive response from Israel?
Israel flat out denies this and are adamant that Hamas will not recognize Israel at any condition.
 
reddevilcanada said:
Hamas have offered a long-term truce, meaning no aggression, if Israel leaves the occupied territories. Israel on the other hand has not even responded to this. Don't you think this is a massive change of attitude by Hamas which surely deserves some sort of a positive response from Israel?
Israel flat out denies this and are adamant that Hamas will not recognize Israel at any condition.
Click to expand...

Bollox

Clealry you haven't read the instruction manual that is Hamas's unchanged charter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.