Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 58
Like Tree14Likes

Thread: Israel-PA talks to resume in June

  1. #1
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    חיל האוויר
    Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,581

    Israel-PA talks to resume in June

    Officials: Israel-PA talks to resume in June
    Attila Somfalvi
    Published: 05.10.13

    The peace negations between Israel and the Palestinians are expected to resume in June, a senior Israeli official said Thursday amid US Secretary of State John Kerry's intensive efforts to jumpstart the stalled talks. "Israel has presented to the United States a list of measures it is willing to take, including freezing or slowing the pace of construction outside the settlement blocs," said the official, who is familiar with the talks between Jerusalem and Washington. "Now we are awaiting a response from the Palestinian side. They must express their opinion and willingness, but the overall direction is the resumption of talks in the near future." The Palestinians recently announced their willingness to resume economic negotiations with Israel, after refusing for years, since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began his second term, to conduct such talks for fear that "economic peace" would be an alternative to a "diplomatic peace" that would lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. On Wednesday Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and Attorney Yitzhak Molcho met with Kerry in Rome. Kerry and Livni, who is in charge of the negotiations with the Palestinians, said they were optimistic regarding the possibility that talks would resume soon.

    Speaking on behalf of an Arab League delegation to Washington last week, Qatari Prime Minister Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani called for an agreement between Israel and a future Palestine based on the Jewish state's border before the 1967 Six-Day War. But, unlike in previous such offers, he cited the possibility of "comparable," mutually agreed and "minor" land swaps between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Livni welcomed the statement, saying it opens the door for renewed peace talks. The Arab League's announcement is expected to make it easier for the Palestinian Authority to retract its demand for a complete halt to Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank.

    According to the official, Israel would apparently be willing to ease traffic restrictions on Palestinian residents of the West Bank and release a certain number of Palestinian prisoners. Other officials said Israel would not agree to any Palestinian preconditions, but it appears that Netanyahu is interested in resuming talks as soon as possible and take steps, at Washington's behest, that would persuade the Palestinians to return to the negotiation table. "Things will become clearer in the coming weeks," one official said. "In Israel there is a genuine interest to reach understandings that would facilitate peace talks. We won't see written agreements with the Americans, but we'll see the results on the ground."
    Source: Ynet News

    Although the stumbling points are legion, I am cautiously optimistic.

  2. #2
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,058
    Another load of crock. Israel freezes settlements building (something that was meant to be determined during negotiations, not as a prerequisite), is willing to reduce restrictions and release prisoners, and this is all before negotiations even start. The Palestinians do nothing.

    Why does it feel like something like this happened before? Oh, right, because it has! Israel froze building in the settlements, and the Palestinians refused to come to the table. When settlement building began again, the Palestinians cited that as an excuse to call off the negotiations.

    If the Palestinians can keep getting one-sided concessions BEFORE negotiations even start, there's no real reason for them to ever sit down at the table.
    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.

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    11,582
    How hard is this game, let me try.

    Israel starts building settlements where she shouldn't (occupied territories). Hopes it will be a bargain chip for later. Turns out it isn't.
    Pals are bad because they are not cool with all this. Hmm...
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  4. #4
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,058
    Okay, let's try and take this one step further: Who did Israel "occupy" these settlements from?
    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.

  5. #5
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    18 Feb 13
    Location
    India
    Posts
    724
    All the best Israel.

    You are a friend, and a ballsy one at that.

    Hope you guys win.

  6. #6
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,058
    This isn't about winning or losing. In a proper peace settlement, a proper compromise, both sides will end up losing something. That's what compromise is all about, and Israel has shown she is willing to compromise and make tough choices on big issues.

    The Palestinians, on the other hand, have an "all or nothing" attitude. They want 100% of their demands, and they don't care that it's as unfeasible as asking the sun to rise in the west.

    It's this more than anything else, more than the settlements, more than the right of return, more than East Jerusalem or any of the other issues at stake that stands in the way of real peace. If the Palestinians were able to compromise, we would have had peace over a decade ago, following the Camp David talks.
    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.

  7. #7
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    18 Feb 13
    Location
    India
    Posts
    724
    The right of return started with you guys in the truest sense of the phrase.

    From a historical standpoint, for well known and chronicled cases of violent displacement, I am a strong supporter of the right of return.

  8. #8
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    11,582
    Quote Originally Posted by bigross86 View Post
    Okay, let's try and take this one step further: Who did Israel "occupy" these settlements from?
    Egypt, Syria, Jordan, whoever controlled them before Israel took them...

    How you call these territories in Israel?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  9. #9
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    18 Feb 13
    Location
    India
    Posts
    724
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Egypt, Syria, Jordan, whoever controlled them before Israel took them...

    How you call these territories in Israel?
    Israel and the Jews did not take anything that was not already theirs to start with.

    Its not like they have taken over a continent or something. They have a small piece of land compared to the large arab states all around them.

    They number 25 million worldwide. And they have just enough land for that. If the Palestinians are racial brothers, then let them live together.

    The problem is - and this is a worldwide phenomenon - living together peacefully is really difficult for some mindsets.
    Last edited by doppelganger; 10 May 13, at 11:58.

  10. #10
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Egypt, Syria, Jordan, whoever controlled them before Israel took them...

    How you call these territories in Israel?
    Wrong. Quick history lesson:

    In 1947, the UN passed the partition plan, which gave the West Bank of the Jordan to the entity called "Transjordan" (later to becomes Jordan). While the Yishuv accepted this plan, all Arab countries (including Transjordan) rejected it. Following the 1948 War of Independence when multiple Arab armies tried and failed to exterminate the Jews, the West Bank was in an interesting sort of stasis. The UK, which had controlled the land under the UN Mandate given to it, had left the area, but no other country claimed it. In 1950, Jordan annexed the land, but this annexation was seen as illegal by everyone except the UK.

    Fast forward to 1967, the Jews capture the West Bank. Who did they capture it from, though? If they captured it from nobody, then how is it "occupied", if no one could claim ownership? If they captured it from Jordan, then you might have a case.

    The problem with that, however, is that if you argue the second case, that Jordan's annexation of the West Bank actually was legal, then you must then accept Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (which many also consider to be illegal).

    So once again, allow me to ask: Who did Israel "occupy" these settlements from? Granted, each of the above cases must be dealt with differently, but before we can begin to deal with the situation, don't you think we should first find out what the situation we're dealing with is?
    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.

  11. #11
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,058
    Quote Originally Posted by doppelganger View Post
    Israel and the Jews did not take anything that was not already theirs to start with.

    Its not like they have taken over a continent or something. They have a small piece of land compared to the large arab states all around them.

    They number 25 million worldwide. And they have just enough land for that. If the Palestinians are racial brothers, then let them live together.

    The problem is - and this is a worldwide phenomenon - living together peacefully is really difficult for some mindsets.
    Let's straighten some things up: It doesn't make a difference how big or small Israel is, it could be a continent or a town. The problem (at least according to our "partners in peace") is Israel's very existence.

    With regards to the number of Jews, there are approximately 13.5 million Jews, not 25 million. Israel currently holds 8 million people or so, 5.5 million or so are Jews. Nowhere near 25 million.

    And once again, it has nothing to do with living together peacefully. So long as our "partners in peace" call for the complete and total destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish race, I'd say that's a fairly decent-sized stumbling block, wouldn't you?
    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.

  12. #12
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    11,582
    Quote Originally Posted by bigross86 View Post
    Wrong. Quick history lesson:

    In 1947, the UN passed the partition plan, which gave the West Bank of the Jordan to the entity called "Transjordan" (later to becomes Jordan). While the Yishuv accepted this plan, all Arab countries (including Transjordan) rejected it. Following the 1948 War of Independence when multiple Arab armies tried and failed to exterminate the Jews, the West Bank was in an interesting sort of stasis. The UK, which had controlled the land under the UN Mandate given to it, had left the area, but no other country claimed it. In 1950, Jordan annexed the land, but this annexation was seen as illegal by everyone except the UK.

    Fast forward to 1967, the Jews capture the West Bank. Who did they capture it from, though? If they captured it from nobody, then how is it "occupied", if no one could claim ownership? If they captured it from Jordan, then you might have a case.

    The problem with that, however, is that if you argue the second case, that Jordan's annexation of the West Bank actually was legal, then you must then accept Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (which many also consider to be illegal).

    So once again, allow me to ask: Who did Israel "occupy" these settlements from? Granted, each of the above cases must be dealt with differently, but before we can begin to deal with the situation, don't you think we should first find out what the situation we're dealing with is?
    OK. Then how you call "occupied territories" in Israel?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  13. #13
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    18 Feb 13
    Location
    India
    Posts
    724
    Quote Originally Posted by bigross86 View Post
    And once again, it has nothing to do with living together peacefully. So long as our "partners in peace" call for the complete and total destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish race, I'd say that's a fairly decent-sized stumbling block, wouldn't you?
    But is there such a thing as the Jewish "race"?

  14. #14
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    11,016
    BR,

    If the Palestinians can keep getting one-sided concessions BEFORE negotiations even start, there's no real reason for them to ever sit down at the table.
    sure there is. none of the concessions actually get at the Palestinian bottom line, ie the creation of a reasonably continuous, Palestinian state.

    let's put it in a way you may better appreciate. let's say israel, or the US, was negotiating with a nuclear-armed iran for disarmament. iran's built 10 nukes, and in this case israel or the US gets iran to stop building nukes while the negotiations are on-going.

    does this nuke-building freeze represent a concession that is so good, there's no need for further negotiations? or does this freeze merely delineate the grounds by which both parties are negotiating?

    IE if iran keeps on building nukes while negotiations are happening, then obviously they improve their bargaining hand with every nuke they build-- they can demand more from the other side now.
    Pedicabby, Doktor and yogafrog like this.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."¯- Isaac Asimov

  15. #15
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    13,293
    Quote Originally Posted by bigross86 View Post
    Wrong. Quick history lesson:

    In 1947, the UN passed the partition plan, which gave the West Bank of the Jordan to the entity called "Transjordan" (later to becomes Jordan). While the Yishuv accepted this plan, all Arab countries (including Transjordan) rejected it. Following the 1948 War of Independence when multiple Arab armies tried and failed to exterminate the Jews, the West Bank was in an interesting sort of stasis. The UK, which had controlled the land under the UN Mandate given to it, had left the area, but no other country claimed it. In 1950, Jordan annexed the land, but this annexation was seen as illegal by everyone except the UK.

    Fast forward to 1967, the Jews capture the West Bank. Who did they capture it from, though? If they captured it from nobody, then how is it "occupied", if no one could claim ownership? If they captured it from Jordan, then you might have a case.

    The problem with that, however, is that if you argue the second case, that Jordan's annexation of the West Bank actually was legal, then you must then accept Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (which many also consider to be illegal).

    So once again, allow me to ask: Who did Israel "occupy" these settlements from? Granted, each of the above cases must be dealt with differently, but before we can begin to deal with the situation, don't you think we should first find out what the situation we're dealing with is?
    First, the Israeli annexation of the Golan is legal.

    Second, neither, Gaza the WB nor EJ* ever lost its status as territory reserved for a Palestinian state. Just because Jordan occupied the area did not make it Jordanian, that would require a pleblicite which was not held. Israel's invasion in 67, simply swapped the occupying power, not the status of the land or people.

    Israel has an interesting pickle, if the territory is occupied, Israel is in violation of international law regarding her duties as an occupying power and the thus illegal annexations, population transfers, exiling, extra-judical activities and socio-economic plundering.

    However, if we accept the Israel position that the areas were unclaimed and thus open to annexation, then the Palestinians are really Israeli citizens given second class status and Israel is in violation of other international laws and is an apartheid state.

    Cue Israel's defenders trying to change the subject and calling anyone who wont support them an anti-semite.

    * Jerusalem was supposed to be an open city at first.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What if 1973 Israel was dropped back to June 1940?
    By astralis in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 19 Oct 10,, 16:29
  2. Israel and the Palestinians to resume direct talks
    By MIKEMUN in forum International Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09 Oct 10,, 15:05
  3. U.S. and China Resume Space Cooperation Talks
    By xunil in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 14 Sep 08,, 09:57
  4. Israel in talks with USA over F-22 orders
    By Endangered in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 20 Jul 07,, 16:17

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •