Abbas: 'Not a single Israeli' in future Palestinian state [W:60]

[ido_]

There has been a lessening of terrorist attacks aimed at Israel recently. Israel must surly view that as a concession from the Palestinians.

Paul

Actually there has been an increase in attacks since the talks of return to negotiations began.

 

[quantumechanic]

in your previous post you called me a dick. So stop playing the victim card

I said you were behaving like a dick because I thought you were behaving like a dick (as in "to be brash and insensitive to another... to act like a penis.". See here) , I wasn't trying to insult you because I disagreed with you. I hardly think that earned me the childish reply you gave.
Also, I wasn't playing a victim card, I was just stating my unwillingness to participate in discourse on that level.

 

[quantumechanic]

So what do you think of Kerry bringing on board a Special Envoy to take the matter into hands?

If both call Jerusalem the final line in the sand. Then what will the Israelis get for releasing of Palestinian Prisoners? Shouldn't the Palestinians be bending in that wind?

"Palestinians bending"...
So many puns to choose from.... arghh, can't decide...

 

[calm]

These negotiations is all about stalling until after the U.N. meeting scheduled for September.

The question of "67 borders" and "Illegal Occupation" and Palestine approaching the ICC was to be discussed in September.

"There is an agreement not to take unilateral actions in the UN. Observer entities and non-member states cannot introduce resolutions in the General Assembly requesting an Advisory Opinion from the ICJ. That has always been done on behalf of Palestine by the members of the OIC or League of Arab States on a multilateral basis. Palestine has a guaranteed majority in the General Assembly, not Obama or Netanyahu.

The Security Council and the Quartet had just published the Road Map when the General Assembly went into emergency session to request the last advisory opinion. The written statement of the USA was largely devoted to the argument that the Court should have refused to hear the case, because it might disrupt the US brokered peace talks."

That is why the U.S. bribed the Palestinians with a couple of billion dollars and had a few prisoners released (which Israel will simply re-arrest later on) .... the Palestinians had to agree not to walk away from the talks for at least 9 months. The US-Israel gotta bury this ICC application for membership.

While these negotiations are ongoing, the European Union will not begin the boycott of goods and impose actual sanctions on Israel for continuing to colonize Palestinian land as was agreed to 3 weeks ago.

"Remember George Bush Sr, attended the Madrid Conference which came just months after the coalition invaded Iraq in 1991. George W. Bush took it one step further, telling Palestinian ministers that God himself had told him first to invade Afghanistan in 2001, then “go end the tyranny in Iraq” (2003) and then, “Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East”.

It may be a logical to conclude that Kerry’s intensive diplomacy is intended to counteract preparations for a war in Syria, or Iran, or both."


Don't forget why Israel pulled out of Gaza.

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process"
"And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."
"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde." "It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."
--Ariel Sharon, 2004---

It is all about the Gaza Marine Natural Gas Deposits
In order to claim offshore gas reserves you need to have a coastline.
Only Gaza has a coastline.

Americans are hypocrites
By Charley Reese
March 15, 2006
[SNIP]
Let’s suppose that in a mythical state, a governor announced a campaign to punish blacks for alleged violence.
Step one is to confiscate the land owned by blacks, evict them from it and use the land to build massive new subdivisions. Only white Protestant Christians may live in these subdivisions.
Step two is to connect these all-white Protestant Christian settlements to each other by a highway on which blacks are forbidden to drive. To facilitate control, the automobile tags for blacks will be a different color from the tags issued to white motorists. Checkpoints would be set up all around the state capitol to search and harass blacks trying to enter.
Would you support such a plan? Would you hail that mythical governor as a man of peace? Would you go to your church congregation and ask the members to send money to the occupants of these white settlements? Would you lobby the federal government to subsidize this new apartheid state in our midst?
I don’t think so. I think most Americans would consider such acts an abomination, un-American and a mockery of everything both Christianity and the United States stand for.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2006/Mar/20060315Comm002.asp


Calm

 

[gunner]

You actually think that to try a little less harder to kill innocent civilians is a "concession"?!?

Considering the facts, and the history of the conflict, any lessening of attacks can only be viewed positively. Unless you have another agenda to peace?

Actually there has been an increase in attacks since the talks of return to negotiations began.

Ok. I repeated verbatem what Kerry said in his speach, I don't know what purpose it serves by lying over the issue. Out of interest, have you got a link making such a claim?

Paul

 

[quantumechanic]

Considering the facts, and the history of the conflict, any lessening of attacks can only be viewed positively. Unless you have another agenda to peace?

Same question, try answering it this time: Yes or no, do you think that to try a little less harder to kill innocent civilians is a "concession"?

 

[gunner]

Same question, try answering it this time: Yes or no, do you think that to try a little less harder to kill innocent civilians is a "concession"?

Considering the facts, and the history of the conflict, any lessening of attacks can only be viewed positively. Unless you have a different agenda?

Paul

 

[quantumechanic]

Considering the facts, and the history of the conflict, any lessening of attacks can only be viewed positively. Unless you have a different agenda?

Paul

Forget it. If answering a simple yes\no question is beyond your capabilities, pursuing this conversation will lead nowhere.

 

[gunner]

Forget it. If answering a simple yes\no question is beyond your capabilities, pursuing this conversation will lead nowhere.

Perhaps the wording of your question was not conducive of a, yes/no answer. The conflict viewed in such dichotomous terms of you're right and I am wrong, has gotten the interested parties where exactly?

Paul

 

[Serenity]

in your previous post you called me a dick. So stop playing the victim card

I said you were behaving like a dick because I thought you were behaving like a dick (as in "to be brash and insensitive to another... to act like a penis.". See here) , I wasn't trying to insult you because I disagreed with you. I hardly think that earned me the childish reply you gave.
Also, I wasn't playing a victim card, I was just stating my unwillingness to participate in discourse on that level.

Moderator's Warning:

I really do understand that any discussions relating to borders, settlement concerns, plight of all the peoples involved whilst discussing the establishment of a Palestinian State, is one of the most sensitive and complex issues surrounding the I/P debate. Can you please remember that the ME Forum is moderated under a stricter ruleset and focus on the topic only and not each other. You are both excellent contributors to this particular forum and I would consider it our loss if i had to thread ban you. Just a friendly warning to all involved in the thread. Thanks

 

[MMC]

"Palestinians bending"...
So many puns to choose from.... arghh, can't decide...

Yeah.....I said bending. Myself.....I don't call talks, negotiations. Not when one is always setting Ultimatums.

 

[Serenity]

With the slight difference that they'd be lynched about 5 minutes after their settlements would be declared "Palestinian territory".

I think we could all agree that there would be concerns regarding the safety of many Jews living in a Palestinian state if their safety cannot be guaranteed, at least in the initial stages. I would hope that necessary measures were taken to ensure their protection.

Regarding Abbas.. He frustrates me and has his priorities wrong. I don't advocate for any preconditions for both parties to sit down at the negotiating table. I would prefer that both sides show good faith and show that they are indeed ready to commence talks and make compromises once they get to the table. I hate that one of the pre conditions was the release of the 104 Prisoners (which btw Israel has agreed to). Some of these prisoners are murderers and it's not right that they should be considered a top priority. These are not the people Abbas should be primarily concerned about and i dislike the message it sends.

I'm also pretty disappointed that he would come out on the eve of talks with such an inflammatory comment

"In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli - civilian or soldier - on our lands,"

So what's he saying? The PA won't acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state but on the other hand it's ok to envision an independent Palestinian State where Jewish communities would not be welcome and their inhabitants be evicted. :doh

Just incredibly frustrating and i'm sad to say i see no end in sight anytime soon.

 

[gunner]

I think we could all agree that there would be concerns regarding the safety of many Jews living in a Palestinian state if their safety cannot be guaranteed, at least in the initial stages. I would hope that necessary measures were taken to ensure their protection.

Regarding Abbas.. He frustrates me and has his priorities wrong. I don't advocate for any preconditions for both parties to sit down at the negotiating table. I would prefer that both sides show good faith and show that they are indeed ready to commence talks and make compromises once they get to the table. I hate that one of the pre conditions was the release of the 104 Prisoners (which btw Israel has agreed to). Some of these prisoners are murderers and it's not right that they should be considered a top priority. These are not the people Abbas should be primarily concerned about and i dislike the message it sends.

I'm also pretty disappointed that he would come out on the eve of talks with such an inflammatory comment So what's he saying? The PA won't acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state but on the other hand it's ok to envision an independent Palestinian State where Jewish communities would not be welcome and their inhabitants be evicted. :doh

Just incredibly frustrating and i'm sad to say i see no end in sight anytime soon.

I'm looking at the situation in a rather more optimistic fashion, Serenity. If we comment on what has been purported to have been said, and dig our heels in, how are we to move forward? Israel can be commended for releasing these prisoner's-some have served very long sentences-which makes it a little more palatable. The vote for their release was less than unaminous. But, look where it has got both sides, around the table with ALL issues up for grabs! There is no point in keep looking back.

Paul

 

[justabubba]

I think we could all agree that there would be concerns regarding the safety of many Jews living in a Palestinian state if their safety cannot be guaranteed, at least in the initial stages. I would hope that necessary measures were taken to ensure their protection.

Regarding Abbas.. He frustrates me and has his priorities wrong. I don't advocate for any preconditions for both parties to sit down at the negotiating table. I would prefer that both sides show good faith and show that they are indeed ready to commence talks and make compromises once they get to the table. I hate that one of the pre conditions was the release of the 104 Prisoners (which btw Israel has agreed to). Some of these prisoners are murderers and it's not right that they should be considered a top priority. These are not the people Abbas should be primarily concerned about and i dislike the message it sends.

I'm also pretty disappointed that he would come out on the eve of talks with such an inflammatory comment So what's he saying? The PA won't acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state but on the other hand it's ok to envision an independent Palestinian State where Jewish communities would not be welcome and their inhabitants be evicted. :doh

Just incredibly frustrating and i'm sad to say i see no end in sight anytime soon.

was the release of the prisoners (detained since '83 or earlier, based on my limited reading) a pre-condition imposed by the Palestinian contingent?
did the israelis not impose a pre-condition that no more rockets be fired into israel?
and what causes israel to NOW agree to come to the negotiation table? it controls the disputed territories. it has a dominant military. what does it gain from participation in the negotiations?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I said you were behaving like a dick because I thought you were behaving like a dick (as in "to be brash and insensitive to another... to act like a penis.". See here) , I wasn't trying to insult you because I disagreed with you. I hardly think that earned me the childish reply you gave.
Also, I wasn't playing a victim card, I was just stating my unwillingness to participate in discourse on that level.

Edit for Serenity's sake

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Same question, try answering it this time: Yes or no, do you think that to try a little less harder to kill innocent civilians is a "concession"?

It certainly represents a change in current policy. Also, most, if not all such attacks, occur outside the authority of the PNA, if I am not mistaken.

 

[American]

Seems many are forgetting that agreement probably won't occur until after Kerry promises truck-loads of money for each side.

 

[quantumechanic]

Am not sure what this has to do with anything? are you denying that after the majority of Palestinians were displaced Israel destroyed their homes and their villages and refused them entry? and if indeed no Arab had to move then why were people escaping warfare not allowed back?

Israel had no way to establish who actually lived in Israel beforehand. The Arab countries would have just swamped Israel with refugees, destroying it demographically.

in what world is a colonialist state allowing a token minority of indigenous people to stay commendable?

In what world is a state's willingness to allow a virtually hostile population to stay and afford them equal rights worthy of condemnation?

Moreover you are confusing multiple things here, most importantly though is the goal of the Zionists and their discourse and the Partition plan, the partition plan is not what the Zionists wanted but what they managed to get.

:roll:
You can always tell where a converation is headed when you hear the words "the zionists"...

Hundreds of thousands of refugees were created before 'much of the Arab world' set foot in Palestine,

The Palestinians were fighting a war with the Yishuv. If they were scared by the fact that we were winning, tough. You keep (conveniently) ignoring the fact the Palestinians were the ones who kept attacking Jewish settlements. The Yishuv was literally fighting for its peoples' lives.

in fact one of the reasons listed behind their involvement was to stop further displacement of Palestinian people.

What did you expect them to say? "we hate Jews and dislike the notion of them having a state alongside us so much that we're going in there in force to ethnically cleanse the area"?

By the time the Arab armies attacked Israel had occupied far more than what was allotted to it in the partition plan.

Hagana knew full well that the Arab countries were going to invade. In preperation for the invasion they secured territorial continuity and captured strategic locations. Look at the following map:





*dark blue denotes territories held by Israel before plan dalet, light blue denotes territories held by the Yishuv after the implementation of plan dalet*

It is clearly not a mindless land grab (and considering that virtually all of the territories captured were part of the land alloted to Jews under the partition plan calling it "far more than what was alloted to it" is quite the exaggeration), Its strategic value in determining territorial continuity should be quite clear even to those with no military background.

Also 'aggressive'? how are people defending themselves against a conquering militarily superior foreign colonial movement aggressive?

Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon were defending themselves against a conquering military superior foreign colonial (*sigh*) movement?

Their reaction hardly unique, as Walid Khalidi said
"The native people of Palestine, like the native people of every other country in the Arab world, Asia, Africa and Europe, refused to divide the land with a settler community."

In what sick, demented part of the world is "we don't want to share our toys with someone else" sufficient justification for acts of murder and terrorism?

Lets quote Ben Gurion again (in 1937):

Of course they have the moral and just position in as much other colonialists had morally justified their own movements.

What do you consider to be so morally reprehensible about landless Jews coming to mandatory Palestine whilst fleeing antisemitism?

Actually they wanted to create a Jewish state in all of Palestine regardless of the wishes of its native inhabitants who they didn't even bother with initially and were forced to acknowledge eventually, and long before they even made up the 32% they did on the eve of its creation, they of course weren't allowed to do that and had to compromise at least in public but never budged about the nature of their state. The only viable options left for them were the ones they went with, that is displacing the majority of Palestinians and not allowing them back in ever since while keeping a small minority so that their state could remain 'Jewish and Democratic'.

Yeah yeah, the evil Jews (sorry, "the zionists") wanted to kill everyone and take over everything, we've heard it all before, some of it in this very post.

Finally there's the issue of the Partition Plan, it being unjust notwithstanding, just a couple points:


1- It is not legally binding, its a mere recommendation that requires the agreement of both parties to be of any substance... *Israel is bad*...

I don't see how this makes the plan unjust.

2- Its is not the first one to suggest partition, there was another one in 1937 which Zionists refused because it didn't give them enough lands though they were ecstatic about the part that suggested forcible expulsion of Palestinians. So if Zionist colonialists are allowed to refuse partition (at a time when Jews were being persecuted in pogroms around Europe) because it doesn't give them enough territory how come Palestinians are blamed for refusing partition when the partition plan in 1948 gave the colonialists who made up a third of the population more than half of the same territory?

First time I've heard about it, could you please elaborate and provide sources.

3- The Arabs proposed creating a secular state with equal rights which was refused by Zionists, how come should their insistence on establishing an exclusivist Jewish state in other people's lands and refusing the Arab offer is not subjected to more criticism?, but the native majority refusing partition of its land is?

First time I've heard about it, could you please elaborate and provide sources.

4- The Arabs asked that the issue be referred to the International Court of justice multiple times, and they were turned down.

Sorry, but this doesn't make the partition plan itself unjust either, which is what you're purportedly arguing.

 

[quantumechanic]

No where in that definition does it say that colonialists have to be needed, also Google Settler Colonialism and the Jewish Colonial Trust.

According to that logic any extension of control from one group of people to another is "colonialism". Setting aside the sticky issue of definition, I think we all know what we're referring to when we say "colonialism", and that isn't it.
Also, to make your claim you'd have to completely ignore the issue of the Jewish people having returned to a land they were exiled from. The Palestinians, according to factual history and your own arguments, are the colonists, not the Jews.

 

[quantumechanic]

...
Don't forget why Israel pulled out of Gaza.

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process"
"And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."
"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde." "It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."
--Ariel Sharon, 2004---

I found your post distasteful so you'll have to forgive me for not addressing it, but one thing stood out and that was these quotes. They were not made by Ariel Sharon, they were made by Dov Weissglass, one of Sharon's advisors (link).
I know, I know, "it still shows how evil Israel is" and so on and so forth, but you still can't go around making fictitious claims about what Ariel Sharon said.

 

[quantumechanic]

Perhaps the wording of your question was not conducive of a, yes/no answer. The conflict viewed in such dichotomous terms of you're right and I am wrong, has gotten the interested parties where exactly?

Paul

That you're trying to ascribe your thoughtless remark to "wording" or to the "non dichotomic nature of the struggle" is nothing less than intellectual dishonesty. There is no "gray area" in this matter, wantonly killing innocent people is wrong and should be stopped because it is morally reprehensible, not as a "concession" for peace talks.

 

[quantumechanic]

Yeah.....I said bending. Myself.....I don't call talks, negotiations. Not when one is always setting Ultimatums.

Sorry, that was childish of me. I'll try again:

So what do you think of Kerry bringing on board a Special Envoy to take the matter into hands?

If both call Jerusalem the final line in the sand. Then what will the Israelis get for releasing of Palestinian Prisoners? Shouldn't the Palestinians be bending in that wind?

Yep, as I mentioned in a different thread, a demand to set free 100 convicted murderers is hardly a sign of Abbas's willingness to set his grievances aside and come to terms with living with a neighbouring Israel peacefully.
Frankly, I'm not sure what purpose this is supposed to serve other than political support for Abbas back home when these prisoners return as triumphant heroes back to their homes. If that's really the purpose, I'd hardly call it worthwhile.

 

[quantumechanic]

I think we could all agree that there would be concerns regarding the safety of many Jews living in a Palestinian state if their safety cannot be guaranteed, at least in the initial stages. I would hope that necessary measures were taken to ensure their protection.

Forgive the cynicism, but any Jewish settler who'd be dumb enough to stay in Palestinian controlled territories would deserve to get his head cut off, as it will.

Regarding Abbas.. He frustrates me and has his priorities wrong. I don't advocate for any preconditions for both parties to sit down at the negotiating table. I would prefer that both sides show good faith and show that they are indeed ready to commence talks and make compromises once they get to the table. I hate that one of the pre conditions was the release of the 104 Prisoners (which btw Israel has agreed to). Some of these prisoners are murderers and it's not right that they should be considered a top priority. These are not the people Abbas should be primarily concerned about and i dislike the message it sends.

I'm also pretty disappointed that he would come out on the eve of talks with such an inflammatory comment So what's he saying? The PA won't acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state but on the other hand it's ok to envision an independent Palestinian State where Jewish communities would not be welcome and their inhabitants be evicted. :doh

Just incredibly frustrating and i'm sad to say i see no end in sight anytime soon.

Amen.
Add Bibi to that mix, stir well and you get a sham that's hardly fooling anyone.

 

[quantumechanic]

was the release of the prisoners (detained since '83 or earlier, based on my limited reading) a pre-condition imposed by the Palestinian contingent?
did the israelis not impose a pre-condition that no more rockets be fired into israel?
and what causes israel to NOW agree to come to the negotiation table? it controls the disputed territories. it has a dominant military. what does it gain from participation in the negotiations?

See my reply above to Gunner.
Also, asking Israel to release convicted murders can't possibly be equated with Israel asking the PA to stop murdering innocent civilians.

 

[gunner]

That you're trying to ascribe your thoughtless remark to "wording" or to the "non dichotomic nature of the struggle" is nothing less than intellectual dishonesty. There is no "gray area" in this matter, wantonly killing innocent people is wrong and should be stopped because it is morally reprehensible, not as a "concession" for peace talks.

There are probably a multitude of objections that you could use for my comment(s) but "thoughtless" I would hope comes no where close. That you fail to realize, holding this notion that we cannot cede any quarter, is what has held both parties back countless times before. Look to other examples where prisoner release has happened prior, during and after negotiations (IRA prisoner release) CNN - 6 IRA prisoners freed under N.Irish peace deal - August 1, 1998 As you see, it's not an unusual course of action, and again, Israel has taken a brave decision in doing so. But then, it is all about 'brave' and often unpopular decisions, I'm sure there will be many-unless the negotiating parties fall at the first hurdle.

Paul