Palestine has been upgraded to non-member state

[Samonaemia]

Why will we want to exterminate them if they did not kill our brothers and sisters, steal their land, demolish their homes, and frequently terrorizing its neighbors, to the extent of threatening a country like Iran that is 20 times its size, and occupying Syrian, Egyptian, and palestinian territories, being the only country in the region that possesses nuclear weapons, yet not inspected nor questioned by international organizations in the time North Korea is blockaded from all sides for having them, and Iran even when it is not proven that it possesses nuclear weapons is sanctioned and on the brink of being attacked, and in 2008, more than 2000 Palestinians mostly women and children were killed by Israeli airforce, while Hamas's rockets barely claim any human lives, even though it is a legitimate act of resistance. If only... If only the Jews came to our lands seeking refuge from the German nazis, we would have accepted them, but actually taking over our lands, threatening our countries, and plunging this once relitavely peaceful region into chaos, will not be tolerated anymore. PERIOD.

Can you define "our lands" please?
Also, I've heard the "if only they came as guests we would have welcomed them" many times and its rubbish. There were too many who needed to come to be absorbed without a war (or the surrender of half of Mandatory Palestine in 1948).
Are you living in the territories now?

"Our lands" in terms of our Arab lands
It is true, and not rubbish as you said, I also mentioned earlier that Jews served as ministers in the courts of Muslim Caliphs and sultans, and Palestine already had a thriving Jewish quarters as well as many other Arab countries, If Cairo had and still has 5 Jewish synagogues that were built by Jews (and they are pretty lavish ones compared to a minority) suggests that they were thriving. Many Jews were very wealthy, I would even dare to say that Jews were never poor in the Arab world before they occupied Palestine.
And no, I do not live there, however, I have several friends who are Palestinians, and yes, they are highly educated and respectable people, including my Arabic teacher, who is a Palestinian born in Jerusalem, but is forced till this day to bear the status of a refugee.

[Evraim]

Fatah was pretty much the leading faction of the PLO until Hamas was funded by Israel to undermine them. Like I've always said, Hamas is Israel's blowback. In an indirect way, Israel brought those rockets onto themselves.

I concur mostly, though I wouldn't say that Israel brought the rockets onto themselves. If Hamas had not been formed as a counter-weight to the PLO, it is conceivable that the latter would have received increased support, presenting a unified front against Israel. I'll now earnestly give the obligatory speculation disclaimer...

Made to feel differently? As in re-education? Because the only way most people want to re-educate Hamas is with a bullet in the head.

A relatively sizeable portion of the Gaza's population supports Hamas. Murdering thousands of civilians affiliated with the organization when other options might be available is callous and a contravention of established moral principles and international laws.

This is why Hamas/Fatah and Gaza/West Bank need to be unified. Palestinians HIGHLY value education. The West Bank has good universities (and easy access to universities in the Middle East and Beyond). Educated kids tend to be less fundamentalist than their less-educated parents.

Is giving Hamas increased responsibilities really a good idea? They aren't really doing a wonderful job managing Gaza as it is, and they're violently fundamentalist in their political proclivities. It would be rather like letting Meir Kahane's partisans into the Knesset.

[Souseiseki]

All my thoughts in one Herkanstad. I would like to add some additional notes on this.

1.Since 1964, Arab countries were trying to divert the headwaters of the Jordan river to deprive Israel of water resources, provoking tensions with Syria and Lebanon. Arab nationalists led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser refused to recognize Israel, and called for its destruction. By 1966, Israeli-Arab relations had deteriorated to the point of actual battles taking place between Israeli and Arab forces. In 1967, Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers, stationed in the Sinai Peninsula since 1957, and announced a partial blockade of Israel's access to the Red Sea.
2.Following the war, Israel faced much internal resistance from the Arab Palestinians and Egyptian hostilities in the Sinai. Most important among the various Palestinian and Arab groups was the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), established in 1964, which initially committed itself to "armed struggle as the only way to liberate the homeland". In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Palestinian groups launched a wave of attacks against Israeli and Jewish targets around the world, including a massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich.
3.In July 1976 Israeli commandos carried out a rescue mission which succeeded in rescuing 102 hostages who were being held by Palestinian guerillas at Entebbe International Airport close to Kampala, Uganda.
4.On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured. Israel responded by launching an invasion of southern Lebanon to destroy the PLO bases south of the Litani River. Most PLO fighters withdrew, but Israel was able to secure southern Lebanon until a UN force and the Lebanese army could take over. However, the PLO soon resumed its policy of attacks against Israel. In the next few years the PLO infiltrated back south and kept up a sporadic shelling across the border.
5.In 1992, Yitzhak Rabin became Prime Minister following an election in which his party called for compromise with Israel's neighbors. The following year, Shimon Peres on behalf of Israel, and Mahmoud Abbas for the PLO, signed the Oslo Accords, which gave the Palestinian National Authority the right to govern parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The PLO also recognized Israel's right to exist and pledged an end to terrorism.
6. And currently in 2012....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2012

So tell me again how Israel is a warmonger and evil? TELL ME HOW, WHAT EXCUSE DO YOU HAVE.

I hear you, man. It's infuriating to see the world defending these murdering psychopaths and condemn a legitimate nation, such as Israel.

now i'm not saying it'd be a good thing were israel soldiers to kick down your door, destroy your house with landmines after using it as a snipers nest for a good while and bomb your school with white phosphorous or were pakistani jets to take our your block in retaliation for bombing weddings, god no

but, that said,

[The Republic of Lanos]

I'd rather give more responsibilities to Hamas if they went the way of the PLO and disarmed and recognized Israel. I'd like to see how the indirect talks using Egypt go.

[Gauthier]

I'd rather give more responsibilities to Hamas if they went the way of the PLO and disarmed and recognized Israel. I'd like to see how the indirect talks using Egypt go.

Hamas was funded by Israel to undermine Fatah, the part of the PLO more willing to disarm and recognize Israel. Israel shot itself in the foot.

[The Republic of Lanos]

I'd rather give more responsibilities to Hamas if they went the way of the PLO and disarmed and recognized Israel. I'd like to see how the indirect talks using Egypt go.

Hamas was funded by Israel to undermine Fatah, the part of the PLO more willing to disarm and recognize Israel. Israel shot itself in the foot.

At least now Hamas, Fatah, Israel, and PLO recognize the bigger threat to them is Islamic Jihad. They can deal with Israel the devil than rather face increased Islamic Jihad and, to an extent, Iranian control of Gaza.

[Evraim]

I'd rather give more responsibilities to Hamas if they went the way of the PLO and disarmed and recognized Israel. I'd like to see how the indirect talks using Egypt go.

That plan failed with Gaza.

[The Republic of Lanos]

I'd rather give more responsibilities to Hamas if they went the way of the PLO and disarmed and recognized Israel. I'd like to see how the indirect talks using Egypt go.

That plan failed with Gaza.

Even more now after Pillar of Defense. You can wipe out Hamas by storming all of Gaza but Islamic Jihad will take its place and fuck things up worse than when Israel left in 2005. Hamas is better than those guys and Israel knows it.

[Tmutarakhan]

This is the kind of crap that drives me nuts here. Exactly how are you defining "ethnic cleansing" that it applies remotely to a case where the ethnic group is still staying there and expanding more rapidly than any other ethnic group in the world? Certainly many of the things that happened in 1948 would fit "ethnic cleansing", but using it for anything happening lately makes the words lose any meaning. Rhetorical usage of highly exaggerated terms is a major obstacle to any rational discussion.

You know, trying to make an area majority Jewish through application of repression and the use of settlers with the goal of making the land ultimately Israeli when the Palestinians inevitably break free of Israel is ethnic cleansing at the expense of the Palestinians. It's just less blunt than the Serbian method.

Or are you confusing ethnic cleansing with genocide?

No, "ethnic cleansing" would be forcing them out. For example, in the North American the various "Indian removals" were ethnic cleansing, but the simple fact that white people moved in did not, by itself, constitute "cleansing".

I'm so glad that you read my statement thoroughly and didn't make wild and stupid assumptions based on your own preconceptions!

Happy to oblige.

After all, it's not like one's environment shapes a person, especially not one's political views

Not in this case. You were claiming that the exterminationist views were shaped by Israeli behavior, when the history reveals that they formed without any such behavior.

They may not be friendly towards Israel, but most have accepted that they can no longer destroy it, or that it's not right to do so.

Source?

If I get you a source, promise to eat your words?[/quote]
Depends on what your source says. Poll results depend on how the question is asked, and of course attitudes vary from place to place within the Muslim world, and have been subject to fluctuations over time. Within Palestine, war-weariness and a greater realism do appear to have become the majority within the West Bank, but not in Gaza; in other countries, however, it has been easy for those with no skin in the game to play let's-you-and-them-fight.

Palestine already had a thriving Jewish quarters as well as many other Arab countries

The Palestinians announced a policy of exterminating all those Jewish quarters in 1920, and by the end of the decade had succeeded in wiping out some very ancient communities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Araqeeb
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/bedouin-face-displacement-in-west-bank-corridor-regardless-of-israel-s-constructions-plans.premium-1.482595

There have been precisely 0 new Arab settlements in Israel since 1948. Israel has been decreasing the surface area Arabs live on. Seems like Israel is scrubbing pretty hard.

Is the UK guilty of "ethnic cleansing" whenever a caravan of "Travellers" is told to move on? The Bedouin traditionally had no fixed abodes, but squatted on lands for a while until the neighbors chased them; sedentary Arabs despised them, and in the Sinai the Bedouin distinctly preferred the Israeli occupation to the Egyptian, as the Egyptian government always harrassed them-- of course, that was only because few Jewish settlers ever wanted to move in there, quite the opposite of the experience in the Negev. In the al-Araqeeb case, there was documentation of them being fined under the Ottomans when they overstayed their welcome, and they tried to argue that these payments were in the nature of "rent" or "property tax" and conferred some kind of "title", but the Ottomans never viewed it that way and neither did the Israeli courts; they had been offered the lands on terms that they begin paying such "rent" but they would not accept. In E1, similarly, Bedouins have found the vacancy of the land convenient; I would think it more sensible to let the Bedouins have the land and leave it as a largely open corridor, but it can hardly be claimed that the Bedouins "own" that land.

[Conserative Morality]

No, "ethnic cleansing" would be forcing them out. For example, in the North American the various "Indian removals" were ethnic cleansing, but the simple fact that white people moved in did not, by itself, constitute "cleansing".

"rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group."

There has been widespread use of coercion in Palestine to intimidate and remove the Palestinians.

Not in this case. You were claiming that the exterminationist views were shaped by Israeli behavior, when the history reveals that they formed without any such behavior.

I claim the current exterminationist views are shaped and given appeal by Israeli behavior; not that all such views were created by Israeli behavior.

In case you've forgotten, Muslims and Jews got together reasonably well for centuries before.

Depends on what your source says. Poll results depend on how the question is asked, and of course attitudes vary from place to place within the Muslim world, and have been subject to fluctuations over time. Within Palestine, war-weariness and a greater realism do appear to have become the majority within the West Bank, but not in Gaza; in other countries, however, it has been easy for those with no skin in the game to play let's-you-and-them-fight.

Have fun.

[Polinikia]

It's about time. The Palestinians are just as entitled to self determination as any other people seeking their own. Why Israel should make that determination for the Palestinians is beyond me.

[Tmutarakhan]

No, "ethnic cleansing" would be forcing them out. For example, in the North American the various "Indian removals" were ethnic cleansing, but the simple fact that white people moved in did not, by itself, constitute "cleansing".

"rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group."

There has been widespread use of coercion in Palestine to intimidate and remove the Palestinians.

If you claim so, then you need to actually cite such cases. Certainly there have been times in the past which can only be characterized as "cleansing" but I do not see that as remotely accurate concerning the present situation.

Not in this case. You were claiming that the exterminationist views were shaped by Israeli behavior, when the history reveals that they formed without any such behavior.

I claim the current exterminationist views are shaped and given appeal by Israeli behavior; not that all such views were created by Israeli behavior.

Cultures which do not foster such views already seldom develop them, even during extreme conflicts. You are erasing the history, and downplaying the extent to which the attitudes will be passed along regardless of whether there are or are not any current "excuses".

In case you've forgotten, Muslims and Jews got together reasonably well for centuries before.

In case you've forgotten, Muslim treatment of non-Muslims was always rather abysmal; it is only that until recently, Christians used to be even worse.

Depends on what your source says. Poll results depend on how the question is asked, and of course attitudes vary from place to place within the Muslim world, and have been subject to fluctuations over time. Within Palestine, war-weariness and a greater realism do appear to have become the majority within the West Bank, but not in Gaza; in other countries, however, it has been easy for those with no skin in the game to play let's-you-and-them-fight.

Have fun.

I don't see much hopeful in that poll. The only context in which the "peace" question was even raised was a hypothetical about absolute restoration of the unstable 1967 lines, which is totally not going to happen. More revealing are the questions about attitudes toward civilian casualties: Israeli casualties are overwhelming viewed as "revenge by the Palestinians" and "the Israelis brought it on themselves", while Palestinian casualties are hardly ever seen in such a light; and the strong majorities for resenting any depiction of the Holocaust because it might lead to sympathy for Jews is particularly sad.

[Conserative Morality]

If you claim so, then you need to actually cite such cases. Certainly there have been times in the past which can only be characterized as "cleansing" but I do not see that as remotely accurate concerning the present situation.

Amnesty International is a well-known RACIST, ANTI-ZIONIST organization

Cultures which do not foster such views already seldom develop them, even during extreme conflicts. You are erasing the history, and downplaying the extent to which the attitudes will be passed along regardless of whether there are or are not any current "excuses".

Really? So, I take it that means that the extremist positions seen by Israelis are coming from a culture that has fostered such views?

Good to know that you hold Jewish culture in such low esteem.

In case you've forgotten, Muslim treatment of non-Muslims was always rather abysmal; it is only that until recently, Christians used to be even worse.

So, what you're saying is that you're completely ignorant about the historical treatment of the dhimmi by Muslims?

Unsurprising.

I don't see much hopeful in that poll. The only context in which the "peace" question was even raised was a hypothetical about absolute restoration of the unstable 1967 lines, which is totally not going to happen. More revealing are the questions about attitudes toward civilian casualties: Israeli casualties are overwhelming viewed as "revenge by the Palestinians" and "the Israelis brought it on themselves", while Palestinian casualties are hardly ever seen in such a light; and the strong majorities for resenting any depiction of the Holocaust because it might lead to sympathy for Jews is particularly sad.

"Prepared for peace if Israel returns to 1967 lines" contradicts your position that Arabs take a majority position that they're looking to destroy Israel. Especially since it's such a vast majority.

But since the peace discussed is not FAVORABLE to Israel, it doesn't count. Peace is only peace if it's a peace in Israel's favor, I see.

I've made my point. If you choose to continue to support Israel unconditionally and refuse to acknowledge Muslims, Arabs, and anti-Israeli individuals as anything more than untermensch, we're done here, or, at least, I am.

[Tmutarakhan]

If you claim so, then you need to actually cite such cases. Certainly there have been times in the past which can only be characterized as "cleansing" but I do not see that as remotely accurate concerning the present situation.

Amnesty International is a well-known RACIST, ANTI-ZIONIST organization

Yes, AI is well known to be strongly biased against Israel, has been for many years. Your point?

Cultures which do not foster such views already seldom develop them, even during extreme conflicts. You are erasing the history, and downplaying the extent to which the attitudes will be passed along regardless of whether there are or are not any current "excuses".

Really? So, I take it that means that the extremist positions seen by Israelis are coming from a culture that has fostered such views?

Yes, that is also true.

Good to know that you hold Jewish culture in such low esteem.

The medievalist varieties of ultra-Orthodox Judaism which generate extremist views? Yes, indeed I hold them in low esteem. I am not a fan of Abrahamic religion in general, all of which lend themselves to the view (and are arguably originally intended to support the view) that non-believers do not "count" as people for moral purposes; the religions vary in the extent to which they have outgrown that tendency. Islam is by far the most immature religion in this respect: note in your poll how many people think the primary purpose of government is to advance "what is best for Muslims" as explicitly opposed to "what is best for all people in the country" or "for all people in the world". Judaism includes globally humanitarian views more often than Islam (or Christianity, but especially more than Islam), but don't think I have any fondness for primitive-tribalist variants of Judaism.

In case you've forgotten, Muslim treatment of non-Muslims was always rather abysmal; it is only that until recently, Christians used to be even worse.

So, what you're saying is that you're completely ignorant about the historical treatment of the dhimmi by Muslims?

Unsurprising.

I have given extensive write-ups on the historical treatment of the dhimmi by Muslims, on multiple threads. They were subjected to various ritual acts of subordination and humiliation, to make it plain at all times that Muslims were the overlords (must never ride a horse; if riding a donkey, must dismount in the presence of any Muslim lest the head be higher; must take off hats and bow; must not step on a board sidewalk when a Muslim is walking on it; etc.) The "jizya" tax took various forms, seldom resembling the idealized version sometimes described: lining up before the qadi with the payment to be ritually punched in the face was a common and relatively mild form; the early Ottoman regime imposed payments on non-Muslim villages well above their capacity to pay, but "allowed" them to make up the difference by surrendering male children, for castration as household servants or impressment into the army (never allowed to see their parents again in either case); after jizya was formally abolished, informally in places like Palestine especially the local shaykh would descend upon non-Muslim villages once a year to allow his men to plunder the houses of whatever they felt like taking, up to certain customary limits, while the town was expected to deplete its food supplies with lavish banquets for their occupiers. The extent to which such discriminations were encountered varied widely from one time and place to another; by the 19th century these kinds of things were rare-- except in backwaters like Palestine and Arabia.

But since the peace discussed is not FAVORABLE to Israel, it doesn't count.

It wouldn't count because it wouldn't be peace at all. Possibly a very solid wall with barbed-wire and landmines on both sides might make those borders stable, except for the disconnected exclaves, but they never did work from 1949-67 and there is no good reason to expect them to. What is commonly meant by offering "peace" in exchange for returning to the 1967 lines is the hudna offer of a 10-year truce, a breathing space to be followed by the fight to the death; it is hardly clear from the poll you cite how many respondents are willing to consider a permanent peace under any circumstances.

[Madda]

What did Japan vote for?

[Zeraxia]

What did Japan vote for?

I believe they voted for the resolution.

[Potlimitomaha]

It's about time. The Palestinians are just as entitled to self determination as any other people seeking their own. Why Israel should make that determination for the Palestinians is beyond me.

In July 2000, US President Bill Clinton convened a peace summit between Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak put forward the following via the U.S. to the Palestinian leader; 92% of the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip,as well as a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, to Palestine, and 69 Jewish settlements (which comprise 85% of the West Bank's Jewish settlers) would be ceded to Israel.
Arafat rejected this offer. How much more land are Palestrinians entitled to again?

[Potlimitomaha]

What did Japan vote for?

I believe they voted for the resolution.

Unfortunitly.

[Kummen]

There is nothing worth a nuclear war, save the survival of the human race, and Israel *can* be pressured, if only the US would lessen its unconditional support. The issue is that Israel thinks it can get away with anything; take away their position of absolute power, and they will act as reasonably as any other nation.

The issue is that many on the Muslim side, like the person you are responding to, still make no bones about their exterminationist intentions. Until that changes, the unconditional support by the US is never going to change.

Finally, it's about time someone said something about that

[Knask]

It's about time. The Palestinians are just as entitled to self determination as any other people seeking their own. Why Israel should make that determination for the Palestinians is beyond me.

In July 2000, US President Bill Clinton convened a peace summit between Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak put forward the following via the U.S. to the Palestinian leader; 92% of the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip,as well as a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, to Palestine, and 69 Jewish settlements (which comprise 85% of the West Bank's Jewish settlers) would be ceded to Israel.
Arafat rejected this offer. How much more land are Palestrinians entitled to again?

Not a 100% of their land, that's for sure.

But you're wrong, and besmirching Barak. He would never have allowed a Palestinian capital i East Jerusalem.

[Tmutarakhan]

It's about time. The Palestinians are just as entitled to self determination as any other people seeking their own. Why Israel should make that determination for the Palestinians is beyond me.

In July 2000, US President Bill Clinton convened a peace summit between Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak put forward the following via the U.S. to the Palestinian leader; 92% of the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip,as well as a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, to Palestine, and 69 Jewish settlements (which comprise 85% of the West Bank's Jewish settlers) would be ceded to Israel.
Arafat rejected this offer. How much more land are Palestrinians entitled to again?

Clinton's position (which remains the official American position, by the way, one thing that neither Dubya nor Obama had any wish to change) is that any annexation by Israel of land east of the old Green Line (the "8%" of the West Bank, principally in the Jerusalem Zone, where Israel did not wish to dislodge their settlers) must be compensated for by a cession by Israel of land in the opposite direction. Barak proposed adding an equal amount of land to the Gaza Strip from the Negev desert: the problem is that this land was obviously worth much less than what Israel was taking. It has since been suggested that a more appropriate swap would be some part of southern Galilee, an area with largely Arab population-- all those Arabs are citizens of Israel, and some might well wish to stay in Israel, but some scheme for buying those people out might work; this idea originally came up in the "Geneva" effort by Israeli leftists and peace-minded Palestinians, and has been endorsed by Avigdor Lieberman, the very rightist Foreign Minister for the Netanyahu government; but there have been no negotiations lately because the Netanyahu regime, unlike Barak, is unwilling to concede even a token amount of Jerusalem to the Palestinian side, and has been rushing to construct new "suburbs" for Jerusalem (or "settlements", as everyone else calls them) to make it difficult ever to separate out a Palestinian part of East Jerusalem.

A further difficulty in the Barak plan was that Barak was still insisting on a right of unilateral intervention by Israel, which could send troops back in to the West Bank whenever it felt its security threatened, without consulting the US or any other third-party arbiter; this would have made Palestinian "sovereignty" somewhat fictitious, if it could be overridden at any time. However, it is widely believed that the reason Arafat walked out, without the courtesy of making any kind of counter-offer or even any specification of objections, was that he did not want to have to admit to his people that the "right of return" was being given up (payments for property lost in 1948 were discussed, and perhaps letting a few of the elderly survivors from the original naqba go home for sentiment's sake). Of course, the "right of return" among the Palestinians is code-language for "fighting forever until every inch of the original Palestine is liberated"; so if a Palestinian leader is not willing to say, publicly, that the "right of return" is dead (some have been willing to say it privately, but they have to pretend that they were misquoted or that the documents were totally forged, any time that leaks) then what that means is that they cannot actually deliver the agreement of their people to end the fight.

[Potlimitomaha]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recog ... Israel.svg





THis will explain why there will not be peace.

[Potlimitomaha]

But you're wrong, and besmirching Barak. He would never have allowed a Palestinian capital i East Jerusalem.

I'm not wrong. He was willing to give a 4th of East Jerusalem. What's a 100% of Palestine. Because Palestine in 1947 streched from the Mediteranian sea to Iraq.

[Tmutarakhan]

In July 2000, US President Bill Clinton convened a peace summit between Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak put forward the following via the U.S. to the Palestinian leader; 92% of the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip,as well as a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, to Palestine, and 69 Jewish settlements (which comprise 85% of the West Bank's Jewish settlers) would be ceded to Israel.
Arafat rejected this offer. How much more land are Palestrinians entitled to again?

Not a 100% of their land, that's for sure.

But you're wrong, and besmirching Barak. He would never have allowed a Palestinian capital i East Jerusalem.

Potlimitomaha is correct: Barak's proposed map of "Jerusalem" and "al-Quds" (the Arabic name of the city).

[DogDoo 7]

Not a 100% of their land, that's for sure.

But you're wrong, and besmirching Barak. He would never have allowed a Palestinian capital i East Jerusalem.

Potlimitomaha is correct: Barak's proposed map of "Jerusalem" and "al-Quds" (the Arabic name of the city).

I already posted the maps last page. I think the offer was smaller. And regarding ethnic cleansing, fine. Leave aside the bedouin. But half the population of Umm al-Fahm and Nazareth used to live in villages along the Lebanese border until 1948. (The story of Iqrit is particularly horrible).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassibiya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafr_Bir%27im
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqrit

Now the only villages there are populated by the Jewish underclass (originally designed to serve as meat shields in the event of invasion from Lebanon).