Sticky

By the way, even though we are off the topic of the original thread, I like the way this discussion is going.
No name calling, we seem to be following a single train of thought without jumping around like crazy.
It seems like there is actually discussion going on.


This is the main problem for the Israeli Right.
The Centre and Left (I am talking about the population I amnnot talking about the governemnt) have time and time again shown that they are willing to take a chance in hope. They are willing to take the chance.

The Israel Right, however, wants to do it the other way - show me the guarantee of security and I will be willing to give.

The extreme right, of course, has no intrest of giving anything.

Hope is a hard thing to believe in with the history in the area.
It is easy for us on the outside to say that they should take a chance and hope for the best.


Yes, there are extremists on both sides.
Let's ignore the actual acts of the extremists on both side - even though I don't think we should.
Let's also ignore the extremists all together.

I think a more important discussion centres around the percentages of the general population that want peace, will recognize the other's right to existance, and will rather see negotiation than fighting.
This will give us an indication of how much faith to put in hope.



Since when? 1948 or 1967?
As we all know, Isreal was not in control of any of Golan Heights, Gaza, the West Bank, or the Old City of Jerusalem.
Settlements were not expanding since the begining.

What happend between 1948 and 1967?
Did the Arab world accept Israel's right to exist?
Did the Arab world accept the Palestinian people's right to exists?

The answer to both questions is No. The Palestinian people are the Arab world's pawn in the war against Israel.

What part of the compromise has never been realized?
Why was the PLO founded in 1964? To liberate Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem from the Israelis? No.
To Liberate Gaza from Egypt and the West Bank and East Jerusalme from Jordan? No

The PLO was founded to detroy Israel and liberate the Israeli held lands.

This is the history that is familiar to the Israelis, so if you ask someone on the right to take a chance and hope, is it wrong for them to be skeptical and want some assurances?

I agree that this should be the case but I don't believe it. Israel and the Jews are the scapegoat for the world and its problems.
I know, that is a pretty pessimistic outlook but the History of the world has shown me that.

Whether or not this was produced by an Israeli group does not really matter. As you know any society that allows for expression of ideas there are those on any side of an argument. There are Israelis on the extreme right, right, centre, left extrem left, up and down.

To illustrate my point about there being Israelis in every part of the spectrum:
There are Iraelis believe in the state of Israel who reject the goverments actions and there are Israelis who are against the state of Israel (I am not talking about arabs, but jews) and support the government actions.

With regards to the presentation. All the data is more than likely completely correct it is how it is presented that causes problems.
There is no shortage of propoganda in the Middle East, or the world for that matter. Call it propoganda, persuasion, or framing it does not matter.

The problem I have with this presentation is how it discusses the numbers.
Rigth away it talks about how in 1993 the Palestinians accepted 22% for a state and agreed to recognize Israel on the other 78%.
And then it states that conceding 78% was a huge Palestinian compromise.

While the numbers are all true framing is used to try to persuade acceptance of their arguments.
After reading this presentation an uninformed person will say:
- Wow Israel is getting 3 times as much as the Palestinians
- Ya, how could they call the offer generous it is only giving 22%
- The Palestinains gave up 78%, they made a huge consession. Isreal did not make any big concessions

What this framing does is distort our sense of the issue by playing with numbers that are correct.
- The 78% and 22% numbers are referring to the whole land mass contained betwen Egypt, the Meditaranean Sea, Lebanon, Syria, The Jordan River and Jordan. So yes, if you add up the territory in the offer 22% of that would go to the Palestinians and 78% would remain as part of Israel.
But that is not what the negotiations were about and that is not what the Issue is, in fact that is not even the complaint of any unsatifieds (is that a real word) other than the extreme arabs calling for the destruction of Israel.
What the land negotiations were about was the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Old City of Jerusalem.
Talking about 78% and 22% gives a false idea of the fairness of the deal and a false idea of the sacrifice the Palestinians made.
- It then pushes this distortion when it talkes about Barak's offer expecting the Palestinians to relinquish 10% of that 22%.

If you look at the territory in question Isreal proposed something over 90% (about 97%)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit#Summary.
- 100% of Gaza
- 94% of the West Bank keeping the 6% where some of the largest Israeli settlements were
- 3% of land adjacent to the West Bank to compensate for the 6%
- East Jerusalem
- There were discussions over giving the Palestinains most of the Old City as well including the Temple Mount.

Whether it was a good offer or not. Whether there wee territoial contignuity problems or not is not what I am trying to point out.
What I am trying to point out is that using the 78% and 22% figures is a distraction to try to gain acceptance of their agenda.
For this reason I have a problem with this presentation.
There are plenty of sites and articles out there that reject the offer on the details of the offer itself.

__________________
Sticky The Stickman