User:Sm8900/mike
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] tell mike to go jump in the lake!!!!
Various mediators and various proposed final settlements have shown some degree of openness to Israel retaining some fraction of the settlements which currently exist in the West Bank; this openness is based on a variety of considerations, such as: the desire to find real compromise between Israeli and Palestinian territorial claims, [1] Israel's position that it needs to retain some West Bank land and settlements as a buffer in case of future aggression, [2] and Israel's position that some settlements are legitimate, as they took shape when there was no operative diplomatic arrangement, and thus they did not violate any agreement. [3] [4]
President George Bush has stated that he does not expect Israel to return entirely to pre-1967 borders, due to "new realities on the ground. [5] One of the main compromise plans put forth by the Clinton Administration would have allowed Israel to keep some settlements in the West Bank, especially those which were in large blocs near the pre-1967 borders of Israel. in return, Palestinians would have received some concessions of land in other parts of the country. [6] that's my suggestion. this reflects most of the countervailing points which i wanted to mention. thanks. --Sm8900 16:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Endnotes
- ^ Remarks by Pres. Clinton, 1/7/01.
- ^ What Happened to Secure Borders for Israel?, by Dore Gold, jcpa.org
- ^ Israeli Settlements and International Law, Israel Foreign Ministry website, 5/4/01, accessed 7/11/07.
- ^ Diplomatic and Legal Aspects of the Settlement Issue, by Jeffrey Helmreich, Institute for Contemporary Affairs, jcpa.org, accessed 7/11/07.
- ^ Israel 'to keep some settlements', BBC, 4/12/05.
- ^ Review of Dennis Ross book, BY RAY HANANIA, hanania.com, 8/16/04, accessed 7/11/07.
