Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'No temporary Palestinian state'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 'No temporary Palestinian state'

    'No temporary Palestinian state'
    By ASSOCIATED PRESS AND JPOST.COM STAFF
    24/04/2010 13:14

    Abbas reportedly turns down Netanyahu's offer of 60% of W. Bank.

    Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has officially rejected an offer by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to demarcate temporary borders for a sovereign Palestinian state on more than 60 percent of the West Bank, Al-Hayat reported on Saturday, citing Palestinian sources.

    According to the report, Abbas said Netanyahu's overture was aimed at jump-starting negotiations by agreeing to the creation of a Palestinian while blurring the specifications of the future state's borders. The offer, the sources told the UK-based Arab paper, was a “trap” which would “drag” Abbas into negotiations that delved deep into controversial regional issues without compromising Netanyahu's insistence on continuing Jewish construction in east Jerusalem. For that reason, the sources reportedly said, Abbas would not accept this latest Israeli offer.

    The paper further reported that President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Ehud Barak had phoned Abbas to try and convince him to accept the proposal.

    Abbas, however, told leaders of the Fatah movement on Saturday that he rejects the establishment of a Palestinian state in temporary borders, in an apparent response to media reports that Israel was trying to revive the proposal.

    Instead, Abbas suggested that Israel and the Palestinians resume serious negotiations on the terms of full Palestinian statehood, adding that such talks should wrap up within two years.

    Israel and the Palestinians remain far apart on the framework for such talks, and US Mideast envoy George Mitchell returned to the region on Thursday for a new push to narrow the differences.

    The US has proposed indirect talks in which Mitchell would shuttle between Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

    However, the Palestinians say they won't engage unless Israel agrees not to start new housing projects for Jews in traditionally Arab east Jerusalem and surrounding areas to the north and south of the city, claimed by the Palestinians as a capital.

    Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has repeatedly rejected a building freeze in east Jerusalem, a stance he reiterated in an interview with Channel 2 on Thursday evening.

    Earlier this week, an Israeli daily reported that Netanyahu has floated the idea of a temporary state as a way of breaking the impasse.

    Such a proposal is also part of the US-backed Road Map peace plan as an interim step toward full independence. The temporary state would only be established on parts of the territory the Palestinians want for their state. However, the Road Map never got off the ground and the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected provisional statehood, fearing the temporary borders would become the final ones.

    "We won't accept a state with temporary borders," Abbas told the leaders.

    US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also brushed aside the notion when asked about it Friday. "So there's a lot of ideas that have been floated around, but at the end of the day it's only the Israelis and Palestinians who can make decisions for themselves," she said.
    Firstly, Bibi must be insane to offer them 60% of Judea and Samaria to form a temporary state., in order to get them to start negotiating

    Secondly, Abbas says that this is a "trap" to get them to start negotiating, and thus rejects it. That is complete and utter stupidity. Here they have a state, they can prove themselves, and they weren't asked to do anything except start negotiations. How does that make sense to reject? Clearly, as I have stated before, the Arabs do not want a state, but the destruction of Israel. Yet another unilateral move by Israel towards peace and the Palestinians to nothing.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  • #2
    Abbas: Forget temporary state, begin final-status talks

    During Fatah Revolutionary Council meeting, Palestinian president says Israel must choose between peace, settlements; compares 'occupation' to apartheid

    Ali Waked
    Published: 04.24.10, 19:02 / Israel News

    While special US Mideast envoy George Mitchell tours the region in hopes of jumpstarting the peace process, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas reiterated his objection to Israel's purported offer to establish a Palestinian state with temporary borders on 60% of the West Bank.

    "I hope the Israelis forget about the whole temporary state issue," he said Saturday during a meeting of Fatah's Revolutionary Council."

    "I call on the Israeli government to make a responsible decision and halt its settlement activities entirely – in Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied territories - so that we may begin substantial negotiations on a final-status agreement according to a clear timetable; (the talks) should not exceed two years," he said.

    Abbas also called on Israel to "invest in peace, because it will yield political and security-relate results that are much more certain than the real estate investment in settlements that were confiscated from Palestinians."

    During the meeting, the Palestinian leader compared the Israeli "occupation" to the apartheid regime in South Africa and said a "bold" Israeli leadership was needed to bring it down.

    "The interesting thing is that the international community refers to apartheid as (something that has passed from the world), while this regime is being bolstered daily by the Israeli occupation," Abbas told the Fatah meeting.

    He rejected Israel's claim that the Palestinian Authority (PA) had set new conditions for the resumption of peace talks. "The interim agreement we signed with Israel in September 1995 forbids any unilateral action that may hinder the permanent agreement," Abbas said, while stressing that the PA "has lived up to its obligations as specified by the (US-backed) Roadmap for peace initiative, while Israel has not lived up to its obligations."

    'Peace or settlements'

    Abbas called for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and said there was no alternative to the two-state solution. "We and the Israelis must decide on a path – peace or settlements. I call on the Israelis to agree to the choice made by the Palestinian nation and the entire world – because we, as Palestinians, want independence," he said.

    Alluding to Syria and Iran, Abbas said some regional forces were obstructing efforts to reconcile Fatah and Hamas.

    On Friday, Mitchell met Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after talks with Abbas in Ramallah. Netanyahu and the American envoy agreed to meet once again on Sunday.

    Speaking to reporters on Friday, US State Department Spokesman Philip Crowley said, "Are we expecting a breakthrough result of this visit? Probably not."

    "The immediate objective is to bring (the Israelis and Palestinians) to a formal indirect dialogue, during which they will address the substance of things, and we hope to announce this in the near future
    Where is the condemnation by America? Where is the condemnation by the international community? They reject their chance to have a state, and nothing. Surely this should show the world their real intentions. Surely this shows that Israel, stupidly, has made moves towards peace, only to be slapped in the face once again.

    "The interim agreement we signed with Israel in September 1995 forbids any unilateral action that may hinder the permanent agreement,"
    How about suicide bombing and launching rockets? Is that okay with the 1995 agreement? There is only one side here making any sort of unilateral actions, and that side is making them in order to bring about a peace between Israel and Palestinians. The side that in 2005 withdrew from the Gaza Strip and dismantled 25 settlements. The side that twice offered over 90% of their negotiating partners' demands only to be shot down. Just in case you're wondering, it's not the Palestinians...
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

    Comment


    • #3
      As I've said elswhere, why should the Palestinians aquiesce to anything when the US places all the pressure on Israel?
      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

      Leibniz

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
        Secondly, Abbas says that this is a "trap" to get them to start negotiating, and thus rejects it. That is complete and utter stupidity. Here they have a state, they can prove themselves, and they weren't asked to do anything except start negotiations. How does that make sense to reject? Clearly, as I have stated before, the Arabs do not want a state, but the destruction of Israel. Yet another unilateral move by Israel towards peace and the Palestinians to nothing.
        It is a trap. To paraphrase the article, Israel offers some undefined territory for state to be created in some undefind future (both subject to continued Israeli colonisation and changed conditions on the ground as result of it).

        It's an old Israeli trick, offer negotiations without addressing 3 main sticking points. If negotiations proceed Israel shows itself as willing to negotiate while not giving in on anything that really matters. If they fail they can blame Palestinians for it, saying they are the unreasonable party.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
          Where is the condemnation by America? Where is the condemnation by the international community? They reject their chance to have a state, and nothing. Surely this should show the world their real intentions. Surely this shows that Israel, stupidly, has made moves towards peace, only to be slapped in the face once again.
          How can you have a state without defined borders? And I guess 60% means several spots separated by either Israeli colonies or roads under Israeli control and as such unconnected. This is what such offers ment in the past


          Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
          How about suicide bombing and launching rockets? Is that okay with the 1995 agreement? There is only one side here making any sort of unilateral actions, and that side is making them in order to bring about a peace between Israel and Palestinians. The side that in 2005 withdrew from the Gaza Strip and dismantled 25 settlements. The side that twice offered over 90% of their negotiating partners' demands only to be shot down. Just in case you're wondering, it's not the Palestinians...
          And those two offers also included Israeli control of outer borders, airspace, roads running through palestinian areas and Jordan river. Indeed, how could Palestinians refuse Israeli offer for bantustans?

          Comment


          • #6
            It is a trap. To paraphrase the article, Israel offers some undefined territory for state to be created in some undefind future (both subject to continued Israeli colonisation and changed conditions on the ground as result of it).
            60% of something is more than 100% of nothing, wouldn't you say? I don't know if you're aware of this, but Israel has been under a building freeze imposed by Netanyahu last winter, and aside from that, isn't building new settlements. They are expanding existing settlements as babies are born and families grow. That is only natural, or would you like them to just keep living cramped up?

            It's an old Israeli trick, offer negotiations without addressing 3 main sticking points. If negotiations proceed Israel shows itself as willing to negotiate while not giving in on anything that really matters. If they fail they can blame Palestinians for it, saying they are the unreasonable party.
            That's because Israel is willing to negotiate, and the Palestinians are the unreasonable party. If you look at any other negotiation in the history of negotiations, whether it be a business deal, land brokering, buying a house or diplomatic negotiations, you'll see just how unreasonable the Palestinians are being, and in any other case, negotiations would have broken off because the Palestinians are acting in bad faith. How is it that Israel was able to broker lasting peace agreements with both Egypt and Jordan over 30 and 15 years ago, respectively? When someone is interested in peace, Israel is always willing to accommodate, and a peace treaty will be signed. If someone is nothing but a lying, thieving scoundrel who is more interested in shifting the blame instead of taking responsibility for their own shortcoming, a peace treaty will not be forthcoming.

            How can you have a state without defined borders? And I guess 60% means several spots separated by either Israeli colonies or roads under Israeli control and as such unconnected. This is what such offers ment in the past
            Being that we have no idea what the body of the offer is, it is stupid to comment on it at the moment, but I repeat my earlier claim: 60% of something is better than 100% of nothing, wouldn't you say?

            And those two offers also included Israeli control of outer borders, airspace, roads running through palestinian areas and Jordan river. Indeed, how could Palestinians refuse Israeli offer for bantustans?
            As in any negotiations, one must be willing to sacrifice some things in order to reach an agreement. Israel has shown it's willingness time and again, the Palestinians do nothing but argue that the Israeli are doing nothing towards gaining peace. But hypocrisy has become the status quo when dealing with the Palestinians. They are the best magicians in the world, showing the world one thing while doing something completely different and managing to fool 6+ billion people. David Blaine would be proud, if he wasn't Jewish and therefore scum and unworthy of breathing oxygen.

            The Palestinians showed after the Oslo Accords in 1994 that they cannot be trusted with responsibility over their own people, whether it be basic welfare, military and police authority, or even housing. Of the millions and millions of dollars that are given in aid and donations, how much of that actually filters down to the people? In December 2007, $7.7 Billion was promised for 2008-2010. In 2009 an international conference was held in Sharm El-Sheikh where another $4.5 Billion were promised. over $12 Billion. Where has it all gone? There are approximately 3.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza strip. Care to do the math with me? That comes out to almost $3,500 for every single Palestinian man, woman and child alive today. Where is all that money?

            For the average family of four (even though most families have much more than 2 children) that's $14,000. Hamas gives $100 every month to the families of suicide bombers. With $14,000 a family can get the equivalent of 11 years of Hamas "stipends" and still keep a son alive. But where is all the money?

            More importantly, why give the people the money if you know that International Aid will always send more money if you keep the people in wretched conditions and line your own pockets and then blame Israel. It's worked for the past 40 years...
            Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

            Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
              60% of something is more than 100% of nothing, wouldn't you say?
              Unless is some undefined 60% subject to future changes

              Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
              I don't know if you're aware of this, but Israel has been under a building freeze imposed by Netanyahu last winter, and aside from that, isn't building new settlements. They are expanding existing settlements as babies are born and families grow. That is only natural, or would you like them to just keep living cramped up?
              So the colonies will grow. Same thing as creating new ones

              Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
              That's because Israel is willing to negotiate, and the Palestinians are the unreasonable party. If you look at any other negotiation in the history of negotiations, whether it be a business deal, land brokering, buying a house or diplomatic negotiations, you'll see just how unreasonable the Palestinians are being, and in any other case, negotiations would have broken off because the Palestinians are acting in bad faith.
              as I said, Israel is willing to negotiate except for those three sticky points. Even your article shows this. 2 points are not mentioned and borders will not be adressed in details. Since Israel can give concessions elsewhere without really sacrificing anything it's no wonder they offer those talks

              Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
              How is it that Israel was able to broker lasting peace agreements with both Egypt and Jordan over 30 and 15 years ago, respectively? When someone is interested in peace, Israel is always willing to accommodate, and a peace treaty will be signed. If someone is nothing but a lying, thieving scoundrel who is more interested in shifting the blame instead of taking responsibility for their own shortcoming, a peace treaty will not be forthcoming.
              Egypt proved itself as serious military threat and in 1973 came close to victory. Israeli gov't figured outthat next time they might do even better and win hence the peace treaty (plus they needed gypt removed from equation to have free hand in Lebanon). UntilEgyptproved to be that srael wasn't interested in peace (see Sadat's 1971 peace offer). Jordan capitulated. since Palestinians are not willing to either capitulate or pose a serios threat Israel is not interested in lasting peace with them.

              Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
              Being that we have no idea what the body of the offer is, it is stupid to comment on it at the moment, but I repeat my earlier claim: 60% of something is better than 100% of nothing, wouldn't you say?
              Unless 60% is 60% with undefied borders, subject to further revisions as caused by new conditions. Or if those 60% is, as in the past, severa unconnected areas.

              Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
              As in any negotiations, one must be willing to sacrifice some things in order to reach an agreement. Israel has shown it's willingness time and again, the Palestinians do nothing but argue that the Israeli are doing nothing towards gaining peace. But hypocrisy has become the status quo when dealing with the Palestinians. They are the best magicians in the world, showing the world one thing while doing something completely different and managing to fool 6+ billion people. David Blaine would be proud, if he wasn't Jewish and therefore scum and unworthy of breathing oxygen.
              Israel has shown willingness to sacrifice on things that don't really amtter. But not on things that do, like land, water rights and so on. Sure, they are willing to relax import uties or create some tax free zones, but not dismantle colonies. As I said, old trick, talk about trivial things so it looks like you are talking. If talks go on claim the credit, if they fail other side looks unreasonable

              Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
              The Palestinians showed after the Oslo Accords in 1994 that they cannot be trusted with responsibility over their own people, whether it be basic welfare, military and police authority, or even housing. Of the millions and millions of dollars that are given in aid and donations, how much of that actually filters down to the people? In December 2007, $7.7 Billion was promised for 2008-2010. In 2009 an international conference was held in Sharm El-Sheikh where another $4.5 Billion were promised. over $12 Billion. Where has it all gone? There are approximately 3.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza strip. Care to do the math with me? That comes out to almost $3,500 for every single Palestinian man, woman and child alive today. Where is all that money?

              For the average family of four (even though most families have much more than 2 children) that's $14,000. Hamas gives $100 every month to the families of suicide bombers. With $14,000 a family can get the equivalent of 11 years of Hamas "stipends" and still keep a son alive. But where is all the money?

              More importantly, why give the people the money if you know that International Aid will always send more money if you keep the people in wretched conditions and line your own pockets and then blame Israel. It's worked for the past 40 years...
              Even more reason for Israel to keep a guiding hand over them, eh? seeing how they are just to primitive to take care of themselves somebody has to do it for them, right?

              Comment


              • #8
                The Israeli offer wasn't real- it didn't call to remove settlements and the roads that link them and thereby carve up Palestinian land. It didn;t offer water sharing on an equal per capita basis. 60% of the least desirable left overs is worth than 100% of nothing. However since 60% of something is seen by the Jewish state as a starting point. Then vis a vis the Palestinians a return to the 1967 borders is not unreasonable, Israel's refusal to entertain the idea is.



                As for population issues, the current reality is the Palestinians are the ones who are over crowded, the least Israel can do is build up instead of building out.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I can't help but draw an anology here, and I will rankle a few feathers, and it is NOT intended to piss people off.

                  But "Natural Growth" Seems to me to sounds terribly similar to "Living Space" Theories dominant & promoted in a particular European country which threw the world through two world wars.

                  Where do you define Natural Growth where it is in violation of internationally recognised boundaries in the first place.

                  Look at the news, Palestine is an godforsaken over crowded hell hole that no one in their right mind would want to live in, whether by it's own fault or not.

                  If you can't take it legitimately is one going to foster a spirit of breed them out? We've had this discussion before. Lower Socio - economic groups breed more than others classes higher up. It actually means that the Palestinians have more pressing need for the land itself than citizens of a foreign country.

                  I can't buy it. Israel has plenty of vacant land, why go settle on land thats not even recognised as being yours? Infact, actually move into hostile territory and put yourself and your families lives at perpetual risk for some religeous sentiment/zeal/feeling.

                  Sounds pretty outright crazy to me.
                  Ego Numquam

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Where do you define Natural Growth where it is in violation of internationally recognised boundaries in the first place.
                    The fact that they settled the land might not have been the smartest thing, but after 1967 the government felt it would be wise to "lay facts on the land", start settlements in order to say "we're here, we're not going anywhere".

                    Starting new settlements is something that hasn't been going on for a while now, and like I said before, Israel has already torn 25 settlements and made other unilateral steps towards peace while the PA has made absolutely no steps towards peace and has even regressed. Settlements used to never be a requisite for negotiations until Obama decided it needed to be. Since the US thought so, the PA figured they could go for it as well.

                    But "Natural Growth" Seems to me to sounds terribly similar to "Living Space" Theories dominant & promoted in a particular European country which threw the world through two world wars.
                    As for the Israel/German comparison, I'm not offended at all. It's a valid historical argument. The main difference, however, is first of all, the size. 90 million Germans vs 7 million Israelis, with only about 280,000 settlers among them, living in 121 officially recognized settlements in the West Bank. Even given the size difference between Germany and Israel, the numbers still don't quite match up, IMO.

                    Look at the news, Palestine is an godforsaken over crowded hell hole that no one in their right mind would want to live in, whether by it's own fault or not.
                    Not only that, but their Egyptian brethren who stared 3 wars with Israel refused to take control over the Gaza Strip. The Gaza Strip was pretty much a deal breaker in the peace process in 1979. The Egyptians wanted nothing to do with them. Slightly hypocritical, or self fulfilling prophecy? The Egyptians knew the Palestinians, knew they were nothing but trouble.

                    If you can't take it legitimately is one going to foster a spirit of breed them out?
                    No one is trying to breed anyone out. Israel is no longer building new settlements. Not only that, the main worry wrt demographics is that the Palestinians are breeding much faster than the Israeli are at the moment.

                    I can't buy it. Israel has plenty of vacant land, why go settle on land thats not even recognised as being yours? Infact, actually move into hostile territory and put yourself and your families lives at perpetual risk for some religeous sentiment/zeal/feeling.
                    See above. It's not religious, sentimental or zealotry of any sort. It started out as mainly political. There is no holiness to the land, other than that supposedly ascribed to the entire land of Israel by god. Though the large part of settlers do happen to be religious, settlements are not based in religion. My personal read on the topic is that the people living in settlements look at it as patriotic more than anything else.

                    Sounds pretty outright crazy to me.
                    And I agree with you completely. The whole Middle East is crazy. But that's how the game is played here...
                    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      The Israeli offer wasn't real- it didn't call to remove settlements and the roads that link them and thereby carve up Palestinian land. It didn;t offer water sharing on an equal per capita basis. 60% of the least desirable left overs is worth than 100% of nothing. However since 60% of something is seen by the Jewish state as a starting point. Then vis a vis the Palestinians a return to the 1967 borders is not unreasonable, Israel's refusal to entertain the idea is.



                      As for population issues, the current reality is the Palestinians are the ones who are over crowded, the least Israel can do is build up instead of building out.
                      The Israeli offer is exactly that. An offer. Not a final decision. Not a take it or leave it. An opening offer. Israel has more than once offered different land in exchange of land that settlements were on, so they wouldn't have to uproot the settlements. All the terms you speak of, water sharing, removing settlements, a continuous Palestinians state, all that would have been settled (or at least attempted to have been settled) at the negotiation table. But negotiating with yourself is another way of saying jacking off, pardon my French.

                      One thing the Palestinians need to realize is that a return to 1967 borders is not going to happen. Israel currently has the upper hand in negotiations, so it can make certain demands. Israel is also willing to compromise on many details, unlike their negotiating "partners".

                      The whole flap a couple months ago about the building approval was for 1600 apartments. Not houses, not villas, not farmland. Apartments. That could easily fit into 20 buildings. Not much building out, plenty building up
                      Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                      Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                        The Israeli offer is exactly that. An offer. Not a final decision. Not a take it or leave it. An opening offer.
                        The Arab states have had an offer on the table for years- return to the 1967 borders in trade for peace and legitimacy. I bet they'd even let you keep the Golan since no one likes Syria. Israel hasn't even entertained the idea.

                        hence in your own words,

                        {quote] But negotiating with yourself is another way of saying jacking off, pardon my French.[/quote]

                        One thing the Palestinians need to realize is that a return to 1967 borders is not going to happen. Israel currently has the upper hand in negotiations, so it can make certain demands. Israel is also willing to compromise on many details, unlike their negotiating "partners".
                        A return to the 1967 borders is going to happen, or Israel will die. The Palestinians are out breeding you, its taking more and more force, more and more drastic measures to keep them down. Someday soon there will be an event that will turn the world against you as public opinion in Western Europe and the US turns hostile and you get cut off. Not just from aid dollars, but from markets. Your country will be the new South Africa. Thing is I don't see the PA creating a MLK/Gandhi type figure, or even a Mandela who will actually renounce violence for peace in practice as well as word.

                        The whole flap a couple months ago about the building approval was for 1600 apartments. Not houses, not villas, not farmland. Apartments. That could easily fit into 20 buildings. Not much building out, plenty building up
                        Its still land taken from the Palestinians, in an area they have deep historic, religious and emotional ties to. 1 acre or 1 million, its theft.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by aktarian View Post
                          Unless is some undefined 60% subject to future changes
                          Read my reply to Zraver. An opening offer. Not a final offer. Negotiations are about giving and taking. I start from A, you start from E. We meet in the middle at point C. Rational negotiations with a rational partner. If you can find Israel one of those, this will be over a lot quicker

                          So the colonies will grow. Same thing as creating new ones
                          Creating new ones takes up much more land than expanding existing ones, and causes less disruption of Palestinian land. Think about it: What will take up more room: A puddle slowly spreading across the floor, or the slowly spreading puddle PLUS a brand new puddle 20 feet away?

                          as I said, Israel is willing to negotiate except for those three sticky points. Even your article shows this. 2 points are not mentioned and borders will not be adressed in details. Since Israel can give concessions elsewhere without really sacrificing anything it's no wonder they offer those talks
                          1967 is never going to happen, at least not according to the current political, security and social state of things. That doesn't mean Israel won't negotiate borders, it does mean that return to 1967 is not going to happen. Remember the explanation about negotiations from before? Compromising and meeting in the middle

                          Egypt proved itself as serious military threat and in 1973 came close to victory. Israeli gov't figured outthat next time they might do even better and win hence the peace treaty (plus they needed gypt removed from equation to have free hand in Lebanon). UntilEgyptproved to be that srael wasn't interested in peace (see Sadat's 1971 peace offer). Jordan capitulated. since Palestinians are not willing to either capitulate or pose a serios threat Israel is not interested in lasting peace with them.
                          That's one way to look at it. Another way is to realize that in both wars prior to the peace agreement, Israel took land from Egypt and now had massive amounts more of land. The situation was bad, but Egypt was nowhere near winning in 1973. All they had done was retaken parts of the Sinai desert. They were still quite a goodly distance away from the borders of Israel, proper. You also forget that in 1973 Egypt nearly had 2 armies surrounded and annihilated by the IDF.

                          Don't forget that Egypt's economy was in a shambles, and being on a permanent war footing wasn't helping them at all. AFAIK, the 1971 peace offer was perceived by both Israel AND the US as unrealistic.

                          And if you want to draw analogies, how's this? Israel refusing to accept Egypt's unacceptable offer means they aren't interested in peace. The PA's refusing to accept Egypt's unacceptable offer means they are interested in peace and that Israel isn't.

                          Where's the logic here, exactly?

                          Unless 60% is 60% with undefied borders, subject to further revisions as caused by new conditions. Or if those 60% is, as in the past, severa unconnected areas.
                          I feel like a broken record. Opening offer

                          Israel has shown willingness to sacrifice on things that don't really amtter. But not on things that do, like land, water rights and so on. Sure, they are willing to relax import uties or create some tax free zones, but not dismantle colonies. As I said, old trick, talk about trivial things so it looks like you are talking. If talks go on claim the credit, if they fail other side looks unreasonable
                          And when Israel tore down 25 settlements (a full one sixth) in 2005?

                          Even more reason for Israel to keep a guiding hand over them, eh? seeing how they are just to primitive to take care of themselves somebody has to do it for them, right?
                          No. you are choosing to be infantile. What I am saying is that the PA is rife with corruption. If you want to fix something, first look at yourself before blaming others. If the money actually got to where it was meant to go, conditions would be infinitely better in the PA. Terrorism and terrorist groups like Hamas would have less hold. Better living conditions would equal less fanaticism and more willingness to negotiate, which would actually bring about peace
                          Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                          Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            The Arab states have had an offer on the table for years- return to the 1967 borders in trade for peace and legitimacy. I bet they'd even let you keep the Golan since no one likes Syria. Israel hasn't even entertained the idea.
                            Why should Israel give up 100% of it's opening position? Looking historically, the Green Line option wasn't seriously raised as an offer until it was hinted at in 1988, and raised during the 1993 Oslo Accords. Based on the results of the Oslo Accords, do you honestly think Israel is going to be stupid enough to fall for the same mistake twice? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

                            Peace was guaranteed after the Oslo Accords, which is why Arafat won the Nobel PEACE prize. Where is that peace, exactly? I seem to have misplaced it between bus bombings that happened 7 months after the Accords were signed. My bad...

                            A return to the 1967 borders is going to happen, or Israel will die. The Palestinians are out breeding you, its taking more and more force, more and more drastic measures to keep them down. Someday soon there will be an event that will turn the world against you as public opinion in Western Europe and the US turns hostile and you get cut off. Not just from aid dollars, but from markets. Your country will be the new South Africa. Thing is I don't see the PA creating a MLK/Gandhi type figure, or even a Mandela who will actually renounce violence for peace in practice as well as word.
                            The demographic issue is a problem, but not that much of a problem. There's still some time before it becomes a major issue, and I fervently hope and believe that we will have peace before it becomes a major issue.

                            I want to make one point very clear here: I am not against peace with the Palestinians. Especially as a soldier who was there, I want nothing more than peace, but it has to be an acceptable peace with a partner who is willing to be a true partner in peace. The Palestinians have not stood up to their side of the bargain, yet we still try, and will keep on trying.

                            Its still land taken from the Palestinians, in an area they have deep historic, religious and emotional ties to. 1 acre or 1 million, its theft.
                            And the Jews were there before the Palestinians were. The Palestinians can live on land that used to belong to Jews, but not the other way around. Got it. Just because the Jews were not strong enough to defend their land in the past doesn't stand true today.
                            Last edited by bigross86; 26 Apr 10,, 15:44.
                            Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                            Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by zraver View Post
                              This chart unsurprisingly seems to gloss over the fact that the Palestinian arabs had already been given 77% of the land in Palestine in 1922, in the form of the Emirate of Trans-Jordan.
                              "Nature abhors a moron." - H.L. Mencken

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X