To protest at the words "Jewish" and "Israeli" being used interchangeabley.

Where is this counter-offer? Which year? I've never seen it. Which settlements are you talking about? In both Camp David and Annapolis, the agreed principles for the negotiations were annexation of large settlement blocs and land swaps. Did this offer suddenly deviate from the agreed principles?

No land has been annexed. It was a proposal. But, yes, I've been to the areas which were proposed to be annexed. It's not farmland.

What land has been 'raped and pillaged'? Here we go with the hyperbole again.

I don't think the settlements should have been built but the vast majority are settlement blocs close to the green line (not because of farmland or water) and the Palestinians accepted the principle that a successful peace deal would involve having to move as few people as possible.

Israel carried on building settlements and Palestine carried on allowing terror attacks against Israel. Not a reason to call off talks. And a sad excuse for not providing a counter-offer.

This was never about how much land or water. It's all about the refugees and their right of return to Israel which the Palestinians understandably find hard to give up but will have to if they want to reach a peace deal since Israel could never agree to it.

palistine did offer a counter offer it was summily rejected by isreal because it forced them to concided 2 of their larger stolen settlements but you are making out that they did not take part when it was in fact isreal that caused all the talks to fail

Why doesnt isreal concide some of its stolen land with settlements on it?

YANBU. I have met many Jewish people who are staunchly anti-Zionist.

Zionists are like any other extremists = defensive, utterly warped and impervious to reason. Funny that a people who suffered the utter horror of the Holocaust at the hands of the Nazis would go on to essentially turn Gaza into the largest concentration camp in the world.

Supporting Zionism is not atonement for the Holocaust, but its continuation in spirit.

have you been to the annxed land? have you seen how different it is to what is offered and the boon of their econemony of having their god damn land raped and pilliaged does not in fact make up for losing vast swaths of their land

Which also makes it near impossible to sercue / maintain sercuirty for the palastine state because of all the mini islands packets of land where they would need isreals co-opreation to access.....

you bloody well dont reward a sucessful theif by allowing them to keep the best parts of what they stole by only offering shitty scraps after.

because isreal has acted illigally and contines to build MORE settlements and so claiming even more land so palistine should negoiate with someone whom treats the peace process in such disadian that they will not even stop settlement building when it contines (they broken down the last 2 attempts because isreal intestified settlement builidng but you skim over that dont you? it was in fact isreal that caused the talks to break down

Look at the map I uploaded of the 2008 peace deal. Why couldn't they build a country there? The bits of blue that Israel would annex wouldn't stop them building a country, especially with the red land swaps.

And where is their counter-offer?

And if the WB and Gaza aren't enough - where are they going to build their country exactly?

I was thinking the same Sam. Worriedmum is making the WB out to be Minnesota with lakes and vast water sources!

Actually, there is a precedent of offering water under peace deals such as that with Jordan where Israel is committed to transferring water. The Palestinians could easily have built such a clause in to a peace deal if it really had ever been about control of water - but it never was.

because you cannot start a nation from scarps of land Ireail would actully have to give palistine useable and valueable land and less of the bullshit about losing wars so isreail gets to claim and illigeally annex land..... (you are ignoring the fact that the UN HAS RULED WHAT ISREAL HAS DONE AS ILLIGEAL)

Its like saying to someone thats just stolen your house and kicked you out of it for several years but after benifeting greatly from your house and so you are now rich you deem they can now move back into your house but must only live in the basement and under the stairs cupboard.

As you are gaining so much as you now have a roof over your head and the theves are losing space in "their" house to accomidate you.

and to say lakes I meant aquafiers, widia's and all the rest of the water sources and their are lakes sorry resivours now because they are man made (water sources was on tablelet and could

Worridmum

Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. Have you ever been to the West Bank and seen the land?

Maale Adumim, one of the largest settlement blocs near Jerusalem which would have been annexed, is in the Judean Desert. That's pretty shit land there. Nothing to do with farmland. No one does any farming there.

This is not about water or farmland or land quality.

Even if there were differences in land quality or water

a) You're not talking about a lot of land

b) a peace deal would have been such a boon to the Palestinian economy that it would have more than made up for it

c) where is the Palestinian counter-offer outlining these issues?

It was never about the land quality or water. It was always about the right of return of refugees to Israel and full control of Jerusalem.

Worridmum - what vast reservoirs are you taking about? have you ever visited the area? Israel does have an arrangement to provide water to Jordan, and there's no reason why they shouldn't offer a similar arrangement to the Palestinians. It's in Israel's interest to have an economically successful state next door, rather than a radical Islamist basket case which spends all it (donated) money on missiles and tunneling equipment.

because the land they were offering in return what in fact worthless and WATER was in fact an issue because under the deal the palstine state would have to rely on irseal to provide its water as alot of the annaxed land was a mixture of urban, farmland and the water sources

(you could not build towns or villages on the land offered in exchange because of how shit it was no chance of farming no supplies of water to make settlements their viable)

But there was settlements in the land isreal wanted for the bloody fact that it was useable land with surronding farmland and water sources... look at the actual land being offered again.

The deal would of left isreal far better off holding all the cards in regaurds to water and if they are running a surplus why not actully offer the palastine state control of some of the vast water resviours in land it wanted to annex???

And what lakes are there in the West Bank?! Last time I looked there weren't any. I suspect someone has been telling you porkies!

No, Israel won't be going back to 1947 borders! Don't forget that the Arabs started the war then and lost. It's the 1948 borders which count. And that's the principle behind the two state solution and the land swaps which were offered.

Don't forget that it's the Palestinians who would have gained the most from any peace deal, far more than the Israelis. The Israelis already have a fully functioning country. The Israeli economy is doing surprisingly well. The Palestinians are the ones who have far more to gain and are the ones who have lost out so much from having rejected the two state solution - in 1947, in 2000 and 2008. The Palestinains legitimately have plenty of grievances against Israel but if I were Palestinian, I'd have lots of questions to my own leadership as well.

Worridmum - the ideal swaps would of course be some of the Arab towns near the border, but the inhabitants are adamant that they want to stay in Israel rather than be part of the Palestinian state. Oddly, they seem to be more pro-Israel than most of the posters on MN, but of course they are living on the ground rather than Westerners trying to assuage their consciences....

That's not true about the farmland. Who told you that?

Very little, if any, of the annexed land would have been farmland. The principle was to annex the large, urban settlement blocs close to the green line.

And you're talking very little land as well.But even if it were true, where is the Palestinian counter-offer?

The water issue isn't true either. Israel now has a water surplus due to the use of desalination plants. And it wasn't water which caused the Palestinians to reject the peace deal. If it were, why didn't they give a counter-offer?

Why is it SO difficult to give Israel even a bit of credit?!

it would of been a fair deal if isreal had offered farmland and control of some of the large permentant water sources other than desert which made up the vast bulk of what was being offered

(isreal would of gotten far more land the vast majority of it being good farm land and in exchange palastine would of gotten 100kmsq of the judanean desert....... (oh and under that plan iseral would maintain control of 90% of the permentent water sources aka rivers and lakes so all the best land)

but its a fair deal right?

So please people actully research what the land was like before saying it was a fair trade just on the amount km offered in exchange

why yes palistine should of traded rich and valuable farmland for poor quailty semi desert land that is nearly worthless (hence why i said its very similear to how the Americains treated the natives trading the rich good quailty land for shitty near worthless land aka woodland / rich grass lands for marshes and desert )

ok how about I come move in next door to your home / land claim vast swaths of it (some of it being really good growing ground) and say hey lets trade land this trash dump (or rubbish land) but in return I get to keep the best parts of your land.....

Another sticking point is the elephant in the room the huge number of illigal settlements (on the best quailty land btw) hey but the two state solution should basically be the palastine state being gratful for what ever dregs irslail happens to be willing to give

just research the land irseal was trading for the land it wanted to keep its not just about square km as 1kmsq of desert is NOT worth 1kmsq of arable farmland.

BTW I am not bashing jews and I belive that both states have the right to exist but I do not belive Irseal has the right to pick and choose what land it gives back and keeps it should all be based on the orignal 1947 boarders that were first given to it before the massive land grabs.....

PP said I used jewish for israeli. not the case, these particular children are jewish and they live in israel.

Carry on.

That's true Sam. What Hamas did in Gaza, by setting up a terror state, hardly bodes well for support for a Palestinian state in the WB as well. I know there are many reasons behind the motivations for Hamas and what they did but it certainly did nothing to advance a Palestinian state being achieved.

But why is this peace deal unsatisfactory? It's the two state solution.

(I can tell you why the Palestinians rejected it: the right of return. They want to have a Palestinian state AND for all Palestinian refugees to have the right of return to Israel itself. That won't happen because it'd be suicidal for Israel.)

Patapouf - if the Palestinians thought it was a rubbish deal they could have made a counter-offer. Why didn't they, if they were interested in reaching an agreement? And if they have to compromise, it's because their demands are so outlandish (eg the "return" of 11m refugees to Israel and the clearing out of all Jews from the West Bank) that they could only have been dreamt up for the purposes of torpedoing any peace deal.

Whenever the Israelis pull out of somewhere, they find that, instead of getting on with their lives, the residents devote them to setting up missile batteries? Why would it be any different on the West Bank?

It's called negotiations.

Why should those areas be ceded to Israel? Why does Israel decide what the Palestinians can and can't have?

A map of the 2008 peace deal.

Why is this shitty or unsatisfactory? Do the Palestinians think they'll get more? On what basis?

Of course you can assign blame. Israel has to take responsibility for its own actions and can't use that as an excuse for settlements etc. Palestinians also need to take responsibility.

Why were they shitty deals? If the Palestinians would have accepted the 1947 partition plan, there would be a 63 year old Palestinian state, bigger than the WB and Gaza now, next to Israel and not one Palestinian refugee.

What was wrong with the 2000 and 2008 peace deals? Why were they shitty? And why were they rejected?

Shakshuka you cannot assign blame to Palestine for the ongoing problems because they refused to accept the shitty deals they have been offered. Why should they be the ones to back down and compromise? Israel doesn't get to claim superiority for offering something that was unsatisfactory, purely because that means they tried.