Posted by CecilVanPercywinks on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 23:16:58

I am Van Percywinks,

East Jerusalem is the thorny issue. Barak offered a suburb during the 2000 peace negotiations that then President Clinton brokered. Yasser Arafat said he couldn't accept the offer (despite it offering the West Bank and the Gaza strip) because Hamas would assasinate him (for they want the whole of East Jerusalem).

East Jerusalem is thorny because it has significant religious importance to both Jews and Muslims (oh and Christians too). Splitting a city like that between Israel and Palestine would be extremely tricky. I can't help but ponder a third way (if you excuse the New Labour pun) of making it an international city, like the Vatican city in Rome; that's my 2 cents.

\\\\\\ Van Percywinks strikes again ///////

 

Comment edited by CecilVanPercywinks on Monday, 05 March 2007 23:34:57

Posted by canvas on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 23:23:20

You'll be glad to hear that Clarke and Milburn have launched a lemon of a website. LoL :)
It's lame. I would like David Miliband to be the leader of the Labour Party. Then you might have a serious contender to deal with. But the motto of the day seems to be 'Anybody but Brown'.

Please bring your daughter back lots of lovely jewels. :)

Posted by Tizzy on Thursday, 01 March 2007 00:57:29

I just can't imagine Gordon writing with such a human approach. Great stuff, and wow! you've already got a hotel named after you! :-))

The pundits didn't like your 2nd set of questions at PMQs. Personally, I think you do better with 6 on one subject, mainly because it leaves the PM having to fill in 5 replies before his final 'killer' reply. Also, you seem to get under his skin when you direct the questions towards Gordon, underscoring Tony's apparent irrelevance.

Posted by PoliticalJunkie on Thursday, 01 March 2007 01:23:58

Given that the PM has not resigned as Labour leader yet is there any actual point any candidate declaring for the leadership i.e a Milburn, Clarke or a Cabinet Minister? Given the events of today and recent surveys by the Times and Guardian it's probably more likely there will be a contest.

Also perhaps the former minister's do have the courage to stand against Brown but simply do'nt have the Parliamentary support in the Labour party yet.

Either way whoever is the next Labour PM I hope they give you a hell of a kicking.

Posted by canvas on Thursday, 01 March 2007 07:01:40

PoliticalJunkie -
Are you feeling insecure about Labour possibly losing the next general election? Don't worry, the country should be safe in the hands of DC.

 

Comment edited by canvas on Thursday, 01 March 2007 10:32:46

Posted by PeteX on Thursday, 01 March 2007 12:10:03

Cecil,

East Jerusalem is *a* thorny issue, but not the only one. The issue of the settlements is probably the biggest one; they have gone from Gaza but still exist in the West Bank. I doubt whether a Palestinian state would be viable if the settlements and their associated roads remained; they would split the territory up into lots of small neighbourhoods, with travel between them being difficult.

The other issue is the right of return for Palestinian refugees. When the British Mandate expired in the '50s, most of the Arab population fled. They did so because they were afraid of being massacred. It remains controversial whether this fear was well founded, but what is beyond doubt is that they were not allowed to return to their homes and were not compensated.

Towards the end of the Clinton presidency, Arafat was given a final offer, and told in effect that this was the best he was getting. This offer, however, gave little on these three difficult issues. Israel would give up some parts of East Jerusalem, but most of the Arab quarter would remain under Israeli control. Only about 20% of the settlements would be dismantled, probably making a Palestinian state inviable even if Arafat had accepted the terms. Israel would allow about 1% of the refugees to return to Israel, which would be symbolic at best.

Personally I think the Palestinians are going to have to give up on the right to return, since the numbers that are involved would make them close to a majority in Israel. Realistically Israel's Jewish population are not going to accept that, since in effect it would turn Israel into Palestine. On the other hand, I think Israel will have to give up on the other two claims. They will have to remove all the settlements from the West Bank as well as from Gaza. (What purpose do they serve anyway?) East Jerusalem is mainly Arab so there is no reason not to hand it over.

Posted by ReverendJasonGraves on Thursday, 01 March 2007 12:24:17

...and all they want is 'peace'.


King David hotel eh... well it's no secret that King David was anointed (as all of the israelite Kings where), annointed with Kaneh-Bosem oil.

If the hotel had a bible in the bedside cabinet, then you would have found this interesting:

"
At Revelation 5:5


5 But one of the elders says to me: "Stop weeping. Look! The Lion that is of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has conquered so as to open the scroll and its seven seals."


Coincidently;

5th book of the bible (Deuteronomy)

5th chapter

5th verse

5th word = Jehovah


Deuteronomy 5:5


5 I was standing between Jehovah and YOU at that particular time to tell YOU the word of Jehovah, (for YOU were afraid because of the fire and did not go up into the mountain,) saying,...


Deuteronomy 5:1-33 deal with the 10 commandments and Moses.

No coindence that King David rule the 10 tribe kingdom for 33 years
"

hmmm eh? :)

One-love & Peace

Rev. J

Posted by Adamush on Thursday, 01 March 2007 13:16:01

Israel should most certainly not compromise with anyone who wants to wipe it off the map, and neither should the international community expect them to.

Posted by Jerome on Thursday, 01 March 2007 15:54:58

PMQ'S and then straight into the Middle Eastern cauldron in one day!! There's no doubt you've got the stamina a PM needs, David! While you're there, though, are you going to talk to Yossi Beilin? He's a bit Left, but he's been brave enough to tell the Israeli public what real peace might cost in terms of territory, but while Israel still really needs it if it's to have a hope of a better future. There are many irreconcilables in Hamas, it's true, but not all Hamasniks are that extreme. Might a future Conservative Government not try, once it's extracted itself from the Iraqi thicket Brown will almost certainly leave it stuck in, to reinvent Britain's role in the Middle East as one of an impartial mediator, as Sweden and Norway were during the Oslo Process between Israel and the PLO? Mightn't we then try to help bring the Moderates on both sides together again, as Beilin himself has often tried to do? Good Luck in Israel, David and do speak up for peace. After all the damage this Government has done to Britain's standing in the Middle East, surely it's time a senior British political figure did. J.

Posted by srfielding on Thursday, 01 March 2007 18:00:51

Keep up the good work, all your hard work is starting to pay off. But don't forget your family, they need your time too!

Posted by PeteX on Friday, 02 March 2007 19:53:09

Adamush,

Why don't you think Israel should compromise with such a group? Presumably this compromise would involve agreement that Israel would not, in fact, be wiped off the map. Anything else wouldn't be a compromise!

I also think it's important not to let extremists hold up progress. No one listens to zealots and tub-thumpers during peaceful times, so they actually have a vested interest in the conflict carrying on. If we refuse to negotiate with them, then, we are actually playing into their hands.

Pete

 

Comment edited by PeteX on Friday, 02 March 2007 19:53:52

Posted by Adamush on Saturday, 03 March 2007 11:25:35

Nonsense. Any "compromise" would be just a temporary or semi-permanent truce. Any peace accord signed would be a peace accord with whatever corrupt dictatorship happens to brutally suppress popular feeling at the time, which will expire on it's eventual overthrow. It certainly won't stop them dreaming of Israel's eventual destruction. Arab society is a tribal, war-based society and if Israel isn't very picky about the timing and terms of a compromise it will be viewed as a surrender on their part. As happened when Israel upped-sticks from Gaza.