Comment by ars

2 years ago

This is getting quite offtopic, but if Palestinians weren't going to accept the Olmert Peace plan (map visible here: http://www.passia.org/maps/view/78 ) then there's nothing they would accept.

9 comments

ars

Reply
karmakurtisaani  2 years ago

I'm sure it's a bit more complicated than that. But hey, let's geek out a bit more on the surveillance/civilian murdering technology!

Edit: just read the Wikipedia article about the plan. It, indeed, is more complicated than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realignment_plan

  • ars  2 years ago

    Wrong plan.

    Olmert made multiple peace offer, historic ones. I linked to the one I meant. Wikipedia does not have an individual article on the one I linked, instead it's just summarized in the page on Olmert.

    And there have been many other plans proposed by Israel - around 20 or so.

    Palestinians rejected every single plan.

    The Olmert one and the one Arafat rejected are especially notable because they gave Palestinians virtually everything they wanted. They still rejected them.

    There's a reason Israel gave up on ever achieving peace - if they were going to reject those plans, there's nothing left to offer.

    • karmakurtisaani  2 years ago

      I mean clearly it did not give Palestinians everything they wanted if they rejected it. Indeed,

      > This was unacceptable to Abbas, who had made it clear that he could allow over 60% of the settlers to remain in place, as long as the Ariel settlement, which formed a significant obstacle to Palestinian development, was removed.

      I'm no expert on the situation in Israel/Palestine, and I doubt few of us here are. But for sure these proposals are extremely complicated and you have to be aware of a lot more than how the map looks like in order to fully judge the implications of a proposed peace plan.

      Furthermore, it's very likely that actors like Iran were influencing Palestinian decisions, and if the proposal was not in their favor, they would go against it.

      In any case, I find the view of outright dismissing Palestinians as not willing to take the best possible offer and only wanting war rather naive. The whole conversation around the topic, including people salivating over how to imprison people better with better technology, is so damn toxic.

      2 replies →

  • hackerlight  2 years ago

    > But hey, let's geek out a bit more on the surveillance/civilian murdering technology!

    You realize if they had better border monitoring technology, Hamas would never have succeeded in their terrorist attack, and then the retaliation we're seeing would never have occurred, right? It literally would have saved the lives of thousands of civilians on both sides.

    • karmakurtisaani  2 years ago

      Yes, I also realize that if all Palestinians were kept in chains, monitored and force fed, we could certainly save all the lives. This realization, however, doesn't get me excited on how to best execute it, nor does it feel like it's a lasting solution.

raxxorraxor  2 years ago

Not trying to find an excuse here, but most plans for peace were suggested at inopportune times and there always were factions that tried to inflame violence to make people discard the suggestions. A leader cannot just accept it with a broad backing, he might be inhibited politically.

That is why it is of utmost importance that peace processes are repeated until successful.