• Advertise here

Blog Awards

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogrunnerupgroup

  • Sablogrunneruppost

  • JIB


« Muslim Response to BMCC Ruling Against Islamic Radio Station | Main | ANC WP Chief Whip Takes a Whipping »

January 24, 2006



Interesting reading...
I see you fail to counter argue any of the salient points made by just highlight them and hope we all believe that they are lies?

Perhaps its because you cant counter them because they are true???


Interesting reading...
I see you fail to counter argue any of the salient points made by just highlight them and hope we all believe that they are lies?

Perhaps its because you cant counter them because they are true???


I am happy to rebut some of the argument made by Ozinsky.

Ozinsky claims that the ‘The biggest obstacle to negotiations has been the intransigence of the Israeli government’. I would like to remind Mr Ozinsky that since capturing the West bank, Gaza and Sinai in 1967 Israel has consistently called on Arabs states to enter negotiation with it on the future of these territories. Unfortunately for the most part the official Arab response has been one of rejectionism. This was best represented by the famous 3 no’s at the Khartoum summit. Similarly while Israel has always accepted UN 242 and later 338 as the basis for solving the conflict, the PLO only recognised it in 1988.

When Arab states have indicated that they are willing no engage in peace negotiations, Israel has been willing to make significant concession. Take the case of Egypt. After Sadat’s historic visit to Jerusalem, a Menachim Begin (right-wing Israeli leader) agreed to return the entire Sinai peninsular. Similarly after the PLO agreed to recognise Israel, Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo accords. Prior to the outbreak of the Intifada 98% of Palestinian had been given autonomy and were under PA rule.

Mr Ozinsky also forgets that in 2001, it was Israel that made the generous final status offer at Camp David and Arafat who responded with violence. Subsequent to the outbreak of the Intifada Israel continued to promote negotiations. It was the Palestinian leadership, who could not or would not stop the violence, which is responsible for the lack of progress.

And today again, we are waiting for the PA to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in terms of phase 1 of the road map in order for final status negotiations to resume. With Hamas’ predicted strong showing in the polls this seems extremely unlikely. Now the PA will become the terrorist infrastructure.

The South African government would do well to explain to their Palestinian brothers that their rejectionism is the root cause of their current woes. They have been given another chance with Israel recent announcement to resume negotiations after the election. This could be their last.


The 3 noes at khartoum were by Arabs who have used the Palestinians - they werent by the Palestinians and we talking about negotiations between Israel and Palestine.

As for the so called "generous final offer" - people that were there have said that no real offer was made and that if it was no reasonable Palestinian leadership could have accepted it. Read Noam Chomsky and see what he has to say about this. He quotes people who were there.

SuperLiars more than SuperNatural Id say.


Btw, your commenst section doesnt seem to be wroking proply....i dont even know if my last response got rhrough


Just to refresh your memory, the West Bank was captured from Jordan. So Jordan was the appropriate country to engage in negotiations with over its future. It was only in the late 80’s that Jordan relinquished its claim to that territory. And Jordan was certainly a party to the 3 no’s. Furthermore, the Palestinian’s in form of the PLO rejected the notion of territorial compromise with Israel until 1988. So they too supported the 3 no’s.
Now lets deal with Camp David. I hardly think Noam Chomsky is a credible source. His extreme anti-Israel bias is well documented. Perhaps you should rather look at comments by Dennis Ross, the US’s chief Middle Eastern negotiator. He was intimately involved in the process. He would know what took place.
According to him and much of the mainstream Western media Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.
Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount.
Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference.
“[Prime Minister Barak] was prepared to make decisions; Arafat was not. I believe he is capable of launching the process, but he is not capable of concluding it.”
— U.S. mediator Dennis Ross on the failure of the Camp David Summit (Jerusalem Post, (August 9, 2001))

The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.
Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory.
Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," said Ross (Ma'ariv, (April 6, 2001); Interview with Dennis Ross, Fox News Sunday, (April 21, 2002); President Clinton, Press Conference, (July 25, 2000); "Camp David: An Exchange." The New York Review of Books, (September 20, 2001); Fred Barnes, "Myths of the Intifada," The Daily Standard, (April 25, 2002)).
I find it sad that you have to resort to childish accusations such as labelling us superliars to make your point. This site promotes open and honest intellectual debate—not name calling.


Thanks Mike.

Err peaceGuy, i have basically dealt with all of Ozinskis claims many many times in this blog - do some searches on the blog and you will see that all his claims have been thoroughly refuted.

Just to add to what Mike said about Ross and Camp David - see here


Jislaaik - i cant believe what Ozinski wrote - "thrown Zionists into confusion."

He uses Zionists as though its a swear word.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this Blog

Contact Us

  • Email_1

Events & Lectures

  • Advertise your event or lecture here

News Feed

Comments Disclaimer

  • Comments on this site are the views and opinions of the persons who write the comments and do not reflect the views of the authors of this blog. Comments are often left unmoderated. Should you feel that you have been personally slandered in the comments, please let us know and we will remove the offensive comment.