DACH - jetzt auf feddit.org

"Es ist wie eine Copy Pasta"

Schickt dann eine Copy Pasta. lol (selbstreflektiert much?)

So, dann lass uns mal anfangen. Ich kann durch deine ganze Liste durchgehen wenn du willst.

So, die erste Liste ist was uns hier am meisten interessiert, denn sie ist die Liste der Verhandlungen zwischen Israelis und Palästinenser.

Die Peel commission wurde von den Palästinensern abgelehnt, da Israel erst mal nicht existierte und zweitens, da es um die Partition eines von den Engländer duch kolonialpolitik besetztes Landes ging. Die Palästinenser lebten in einer britischen Kolonie, gegen deren eigenen Willen. Natürlich wurde eine Partition abgelent, denn die Ureinwohner des Landes (hauptsachlich Palästinenser) es nicht eingesehen haben deren Land mit einem von den Engländern Kolonialprojekt zu teilen. Die Partition Resolution in 1947 war genau die gleiche Geschichte. Es gab kein Israel und die Ureinwohner haben es nicht eingesehen deren eigenes Land zu einfach so zu teilen, was auch Sinn ergibt. Kein Volk würde sein eigenes Land teilen.

Zwischen 1947 und 2000 gab es natürlich auch andere Dikussionen zwischen den Israelis (pre 67 und post 67). Die wichtigsten dazwischen waren die Oslo Accord (von dir gar nicht erwähnt for some reason?).

Weiter geht's.

2000 - Camp David, rejected

Dazu werde ich dir auch ein von mir geschriebenes "Copy Pasta" schicken, denn es handelt sich um eine komplexere Situation worüber ich schon geschrieben habe:

I am sorry to tell you this, but you definitely ought look deeper into the peace accords as they were discussed at the time. Especially the ones at Camp David which were supposed to be the most fruitious and the ones Palestinians "threw out the door". The Oslo accords were more of a guideline than a clear set of instructions. They were a very loose set of vague directions both sides were supposed to go down on. One would argue that the Camp David Summit was the closest both sides ever got to making a lasting peace. So let's take a look at that one and use it as a good compass in this discussion.

Palestinians were supposed to:

• be completely demilitarized
• give Israel the right to send troops to Palestine in case of any emergency (what constitutes as an emergency was never defined)
• ask Israel for approval for every diplomatic alliance Palestine would ever make with other countries
• have Israeli military bases installed in Palestinian territory
• give the Israeli military complete control of their airspace
• have israeli military outposts be installed on the border between Palestine and Jordan for a temporary amount of time
• give Israel temporary control over Palestinian border crossings (without having a specified timeframe)
• give up 10% of the West Bank, the most fertile land in the West Bank, for 1% territorial gains of desert land near the Gaza strip (the land that would be conceded included symbolic and cultural territories such as the Al-Aqsa Mosque, whereas the Israeli land conceded was unspecified)
• Israel would keep parts of the West Bank under temporary occupation, without a timespan being given
• What constitutes the West Bank was to be defined by Israel and not by international law. Israel defined West Bank as being the internationally recognized West Bank minus all the settlements they had at the time.

As you can see, all of these concessions would never amount to a completely sovereign Palestinian state (which funnily enough is in contradiction with the Oslo accords), and as a result of that, these talks failed in the end. To me, it looks like they were designed to fail from the get-go, but that's just a personal opinion. Nonetheless, they did spawn new discussions and as a result of said discussion the Taba negotiations were born. With that being said, these concessions were in no way, shape, or form popular in Israel (only 25% of the Israeli public thought the Israeli positions presented at Camp David were right, as opposed to 58% of the public that thought Ehud Barak - then prime minister - compromised too much). Barak, facing reelection, suspended the talks since it greatly affected his popularity in Israel (we all know how that ended for other Israeli prime ministers that tried to achieve peace - assassination). As a result of trying to broker a peace deal with Palestine, even a very bad one that was meant to fail as it was, he failed to get re-elected. The highly unbalanced concessions were already considered to be too much by Israelis.

Ehud Barak was from the Labour governments you were talking about, and this is the best Israel could ever come up with.

Trying to paint this situation as it being a level field where both sides did the same amount of wrongdoing is not a fair representation of the history of the peace process.

Since the most promising talks ever, the Camp David Summit, Israel has allowed over 750k settlers to move into the West Bank. A military regime has been installed and forced upon the occupied population contrary to international law. If getting the 30k settlers out of Gaza in 2005 was hard enough and almost caused an uproar inside the IDF, getting 750k settlers out of the West Bank will be straight up impossible without a major conflict.

We should talk a good look at all these facts when we start discussing this conflict and use them as a compass.

You can read more on that on Wikipedia if you're interested in all the details. If wikipedia isn't a good enough source, there is a great book on this subject by a german professor specializing on the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

The 2008 - secret - Realignment plan was a unilateral push by Israel to force a watered down version of the Camp David Accords, with most of the same Israeli military presence in Palestinian land, lack of control over air and land borders, and so on. Not only that, but it would've meant that the Palestinians were to lose even more cultural heritage sites to the Israelis, which to the average Palestinian, understandably, is unacceptable.

Wenn du wirklich über die Beziehungen Israels zu allen anderen Arabischen Staaten diskutieren möchtest, können wir dies auch tun. Ich kann dir hier ein ganzes Buch darüber schreiben.

Meiner Meinung nach, die Lösung liegt irgendwo dazwischen. Hätten die Palästinenser den Israelies mehr entgegenkommen können? Ja, natürlich. War Israel hier die Friedenstaube, wie man das in den Westen beschreibt? Definitiv nicht. Ich bin einer von denen die sich eine 1 Staat Lösung wünschen, obwohl das gerade sehr unrealistisch ist. Die überwiegende Mehrheit der Palästinenser hat die Grenzen nach 67 komplett akzeptiert. Die Realität ist so, dass zwei Völker für das gleiche Land konkurrieren, natürlich eine Seite mit mehrere historische Ansprüche, aber Revisionismus ist nicht und war nie eine Lösung. Gerade sieht das so aus, dass es entweder zu einer kompletten ethnischen Säuberung der Palästinensern kommt, oder man fängt an einer tatsächlichen Lösung an zu arbeitebn.