• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abbas sets conditions for direct talks with Israel

Status
Not open for further replies.

24107

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
824
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Palestinian president demands complete halt to settlement building in exchange for return to face-to-face peace negotiations.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he was ready for direct negotiations with Israel, provided key condition are met, including a total halt to settlement building in the West Bank, according to statements released Thursday.

After months of US-brokered indirect meetings, or proximity talks, Abbas said he would negotiate directly with the Israel if the goal was to establish an independent Palestinian state on the territory occupied in the 1967 war.
Abbas sets conditions for direct talks with Israel - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,222
Reaction score
14,219
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Abas has no right to hold negotiations and peace talks hostage. Israel has done many of their "demands" like pulling completely out of Gaza, freezing settlement, and giving land up for peace treaties. Abas needs to enter unconditional peace talks, where he can discuss settlements during those talks.
 

24107

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
824
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Abas has no right to hold negotiations and peace talks hostage. Israel has done many of their "demands" like pulling completely out of Gaza, freezing settlement, and giving land up for peace treaties. Abas needs to enter unconditional peace talks, where he can discuss settlements during those talks.
He's not holding peace talks "hostage'', he is communicating to his counterparts, a just deal his people will accept. Pulling out of that miniscule piece of land gaza is not enough. Unconditional peace talks are useless and waste of time if a fair deal is most likely not going to be offered, it's better to make your position on general issue's clear from the get go.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,222
Reaction score
14,219
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
He's not holding peace talks "hostage'', he is communicating to his counterparts, a just deal his people will accept. Pulling out of that miniscule piece of land gaza is not enough. Unconditional peace talks are useless and waste of time if a fair deal is most likely not going to be offered, it's better to make your position on general issue's clear from the get go.
Only in Abbas mind is it a "fair" deal though. He wants no settlements, and he refuses to negotiate until Israel bows to his whim. He is absolutely holding peace talks hostage in order to ensure something he wants to happen to happen. He can't simply go to negotiations and peace talks and express his views there. What if Israel said they won't have peace talks until Hamas no longer rules Gaza?
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Palestinian president demands complete halt to settlement building in exchange for return to face-to-face peace negotiations.

Abbas sets conditions for direct talks with Israel - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
of course he does. That is how he hopes to avoid having to actually enter into discussions.

At what point do we get to call the Palestinians on this charade that they actually want to move to final status negotiations? Seriously?

The palestinains have had the opportunity to have a fully independent state for 10 years now. In that time, they have rejected countless offers, launched a pre-planned terrroist war against Israel's civilian population, and consistently played the victim while refusing to concede anything while always demanding more.

Am I missing something, or is there just a refusal by many to see reality as it exists and call a spade a spade?
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He's not holding peace talks "hostage'', he is communicating to his counterparts, a just deal his people will accept. Pulling out of that miniscule piece of land gaza is not enough. Unconditional peace talks are useless and waste of time if a fair deal is most likely not going to be offered, it's better to make your position on general issue's clear from the get go.
EXCELLENT. So you are ok with a permanent suspension of any negotiations until the Palestinians publically concede that there is no right of return and that they have no claims to return to Israel, and they publicly aknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state and that the Palestinaisn have no claims, and will never have claims, to sovereignty over any part of it.

Cause "it's better to make your position on general issue's clear from the get go."

And everyone knows that the right of return (which is total BS, incidentally) will never happen, and that Isarel is the Jewish state.

And that doesn't even touch on Jerusalem, where, of course, there is no point entering discussions until the Palestinians aknowledge that Jerusalem is the heart of ancient Jewish civilization and that the Jews will retain all non-Arab portions of it.

Because, again, "it's better to make your position on general issue's clear from the get go."

or am I missing something?
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Only in Abbas mind is it a "fair" deal though. He wants no settlements, and he refuses to negotiate until Israel bows to his whim. He is absolutely holding peace talks hostage in order to ensure something he wants to happen to happen. He can't simply go to negotiations and peace talks and express his views there. What if Israel said they won't have peace talks until Hamas no longer rules Gaza?
ok. Seriously, though, this is not really what he is after. Like this entire process all along, Abbas is trying to use political realities to his advantage. In particular, Abbas knows that a settlment freeze, particularly an open ended one, would play havok with Netanyahu's coalition, and Abbas hopes to force it into a position where it is forced to either concede and have its government fall (which Abbas knows it is unlikely to do) or refuse.

Abbas wants refusal, but not for refusal's sake. Following Arafat before him, the objective is to get Israel to do something that OBAMA does not want it to do. If Abbas can bring Obama on board and Israel refuses, Abbas can put some daylight between the US and Israel, while at the same time using the Palestinian propaganda machine (with a decent representation on this forum, of course), to continue to paint Israel as the rejectionist.

And this all goes towards the overall Palestinian goal, which has not changed and has not really been relinquished - the total desctruction of Israel and its replacement with a single Palestinian state. As silly as this is, and as remote a chance as they have, the Palestinians cling to it because it is the essence of Palestinian identity. the Palestinians are very much an "anti-people", with a national and political identity borne not out of common history but in response to the history of another. Borne not to create something better but to deny the rights claimed by others. And the denial of Jewish claims to Israel, and Jewish normalcy in Israsel, is and always has been the core of the Palestinia political identity.

So the Palestinians, while they will engage in talks and bank concessions and sign agreements, will never do anything that they view to permanently diminish their ability to continue pursuing their desrructionist goal. Sure they will enter negotiations. Up until recently they utterly refused to move "refugees" into newly built communities, because that would undermine the "right of return" BS line they used so effectively to refuse any settlement (now they feel that demonstrating their capacity to giovenr is more important, now that they feel they are closer to being able to manipulate the west into forcing "peace" on Israel). The Palestinians have never conceded anything, never given up anything, never aknowledged anything that is against their interests. They have continuously worked to instill the basic core of the Palestinian identity (rejectionism of Israel) into the next generation, at the direct expense of this population, because the Goal is more important than anything else, including the well being of the people.

Now all this is a bit of a digression. Abbas does not want to hold talks hostage. He wants Israel to tell him off, and he wants for this to cause friction between Israel and the rest of the world. Because his goal is to weaken Israsel to the point where no one will come to Israel's defence the next time it is attacked by Arab armies. I think his ultimate goal is a "peace" imposed from the outside that will give the Palestinians territory and independence, but will not force an end of conflict or require the Palestinians to relinquish the goal that is the core of their collective identity.
 
Last edited:

24107

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
824
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
EXCELLENT. So you are ok with a permanent suspension of any negotiations until the Palestinians publically concede that there is no right of return and that they have no claims to return to Israel, and they publicly aknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state and that the Palestinaisn have no claims, and will never have claims, to sovereignty over any part of it.

Cause "it's better to make your position on general issue's clear from the get go."

And everyone knows that the right of return (which is total BS, incidentally) will never happen, and that Isarel is the Jewish state.

And that doesn't even touch on Jerusalem, where, of course, there is no point entering discussions until the Palestinians aknowledge that Jerusalem is the heart of ancient Jewish civilization and that the Jews will retain all non-Arab portions of it.

Because, again, "it's better to make your position on general issue's clear from the get go."

or am I missing something?
Your definetly missing something, I stated it is better to make your position on general issue's pertaining to the division of land, which pertain to the 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state, which is common knowledge to people who are aware of what will be acceptable to Palestinians for a lasting just peace. I was not speaking about other issue's which could be hashed out after an agreement on the land division. This heart of ancient blah blah talk, can go nowhere as Palestinians also claim to be there since ancient times.
 

Degreez

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
EXCELLENT. So you are ok with a permanent suspension of any negotiations until the Palestinians publically concede that there is no right of return and that they have no claims to return to Israel, and they publicly aknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state and that the Palestinaisn have no claims, and will never have claims, to sovereignty over any part of it.
Well right of return is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. You are asking the Palestinians to concede an inalienable human right, whereas the Palestinians are demanding that Israel oblige by international humanitarian law (Israel's current settlement policy).

Second, why is it up to the Palestinians to define Israel's "Jewishness"? If Israel defines itself as a Jewish state, then that is precisely what it is.

Lastly, you cannot throw out Palestinian claims to East Jerusalem merely because Israel illegally annexed it. The Palestinian Occupied Territories includes East Jerusalem, no matter what propagandists here may say.

Which Israel do you want the Palestinians to recognize? The illegal borders of the 2010 Israel, or the legal 1967 borders of Israel?
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Your definetly missing something, I stated it is better to make your position on general issue's pertaining to the division of land, which pertain to the 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state, which is common knowledge to people who are aware of what will be acceptable to Palestinians for a lasting just peace. I was not speaking about other issue's which could be hashed out after an agreement on the land division. This heart of ancient blah blah talk, can go nowhere as Palestinians also claim to be there since ancient times.
It is also common knowledge that most Israelies will not give up the western wall and the Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem, should Israel provide a condition that it will not enter negotiations until the PA is stating it will give up demands for Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem? It is also common knowledge that Israel will never allow right of return for children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of actual refugies from 48, do you think we should demand the PA will lose this idea before entering negotiations?

What will we have left to negotiate about after all of this was decided ?
 

Vader

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Your definetly missing something, I stated it is better to make your position on general issue's pertaining to the division of land, which pertain to the 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state, which is common knowledge to people who are aware of what will be acceptable to Palestinians for a lasting just peace. I was not speaking about other issue's which could be hashed out after an agreement on the land division. This heart of ancient blah blah talk, can go nowhere as Palestinians also claim to be there since ancient times.
Both have ties to the land; however, only the Israeli side is willing to negotiate. This is because the Palestinians do not want peace; the palestinians want the final solution.
 

Vader

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Well right of return is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. You are asking the Palestinians to concede an inalienable human right, whereas the Palestinians are demanding that Israel oblige by international humanitarian law (Israel's current settlement policy).

Second, why is it up to the Palestinians to define Israel's "Jewishness"? If Israel defines itself as a Jewish state, then that is precisely what it is.

Lastly, you cannot throw out Palestinian claims to East Jerusalem merely because Israel illegally annexed it. The Palestinian Occupied Territories includes East Jerusalem, no matter what propagandists here may say.

Which Israel do you want the Palestinians to recognize? The illegal borders of the 2010 Israel, or the legal 1967 borders of Israel?
There was NOTHING illegal about Isreal's anexation of East Jerusalem. This was taken in a war that THE ARABS STARTED. The plight of the Palestinians falls squarely on Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Those powers caused the 67 war. Now the people the left behind (now called Palestinians) think they are entitled to land that was lost in a war. Moreover, the jews, who were in Jerusalem before the birth of christ, have EVERY RIGHT to remain in Jerusalem.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Well right of return is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. You are asking the Palestinians to concede an inalienable human right, whereas the Palestinians are demanding that Israel oblige by international humanitarian law (Israel's current settlement policy).

Second, why is it up to the Palestinians to define Israel's "Jewishness"? If Israel defines itself as a Jewish state, then that is precisely what it is.

Lastly, you cannot throw out Palestinian claims to East Jerusalem merely because Israel illegally annexed it. The Palestinian Occupied Territories includes East Jerusalem, no matter what propagandists here may say.

Which Israel do you want the Palestinians to recognize? The illegal borders of the 2010 Israel, or the legal 1967 borders of Israel?
Excellent post
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Which Israel do you want the Palestinians to recognize? The illegal borders of the 2010 Israel, or the legal 1967 borders of Israel?
Whichever borders Israel/Palestine can successfully negotiate. That is what successful negotiations are... a convergence of mutual agreements. Pre-conditions? From a historical point of view, can you direct me to a situation in which the losing side set pre-conditions for peace negotiations? I can't think of any offhand.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Whichever borders Israel/Palestine can successfully negotiate. That is what successful negotiations are... a convergence of mutual agreements. Pre-conditions? From a historical point of view, can you direct me to a situation in which the losing side set pre-conditions for peace negotiations? I can't think of any offhand.
Tashah, I cannot realy respond to your comment unless you agree ahead of time that my point of view is the only one acceptable.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
49,718
Reaction score
31,540
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Tashah, I cannot realy respond to your comment unless you agree ahead of time that my point of view is the only one acceptable.
it's good to know the right of return is acceptable to be placed on the negotiations table, as is whether israel is to be recognized as a jewish state, and whether there will be a two-state solution or a disproportionally muslim one state resolution; certainly address the future of jerusalem and whether nuclear weapons are permitted within what was known as the Palestinian mandate
delighting to now know that israel has agreed to place everything on the table for negotiations
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Whichever borders Israel/Palestine can successfully negotiate. That is what successful negotiations are... a convergence of mutual agreements. Pre-conditions? From a historical point of view, can you direct me to a situation in which the losing side set pre-conditions for peace negotiations? I can't think of any offhand.
I don't really see the problem with the "pre-condition": anyways, the only acceptable, fair solution will be a Palestinian and an Israeli state with roughly the 1967 borders and East-Jerusalem being given back to Palestinians.

They may be the "losing side" because they don't have the military power of Israel, or because at some point in the past Arabs have made some mistakes (trying to invade Israel and get defeated) but that doesn't make the slow annexion of West-Bank and East Jerusalem acceptable.

In every history course, the main point about the first world war is that the treaty of Versailles was totally unfair and is one of the immediate causes of the second world war. Israel may have the power to impose its will upon Palestinians, there won't be peace in the M/E as long as a fair solution isn't found, and that fair solution includes the respect of the 1967 borders.
 

24107

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
824
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't really see the problem with the "pre-condition": anyways, the only acceptable, fair solution will be a Palestinian and an Israeli state with roughly the 1967 borders and East-Jerusalem being given back to Palestinians.
Thank you, that was all i was trying to say.
 

Degreez

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
There was NOTHING illegal about Isreal's anexation of East Jerusalem. This was taken in a war that THE ARABS STARTED. The plight of the Palestinians falls squarely on Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Those powers caused the 67 war. Now the people the left behind (now called Palestinians) think they are entitled to land that was lost in a war. Moreover, the jews, who were in Jerusalem before the birth of christ, have EVERY RIGHT to remain in Jerusalem.
I suggest reading UNSCR 242, so you know that there is no such thing as the acquisition of territory by force. Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is flat out illegal and is not recognized by any country in the world.
 

Degreez

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Whichever borders Israel/Palestine can successfully negotiate. That is what successful negotiations are... a convergence of mutual agreements. Pre-conditions? From a historical point of view, can you direct me to a situation in which the losing side set pre-conditions for peace negotiations? I can't think of any offhand.
Do you see where your flawed argument is weak? Exactly how are the Palestinians the losing side? The losers of the war in question were Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. The Palestinians were the victims of that war. Warfare was thrust upon them with no consent or care for their well-being, and once that was over they were living in occupation.

Were the Polish people "losers" when Nazi Germany occupied Poland?
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Generally unconditional surrender is expected from the aggressor and in this case that is Israel. Israel is and always has been the aggressor in this conflict. These territories were seized in a conflict Israel set in motion, including provoking its enemies into a defensive posture misrepresented by Israel as offensive maneuvers. The Six Day War was not a war of defense or pre-emption, but a war of aggressive expansion nothing more and nothing less. Israel has followed that up with a deliberate policy of colonization directed at annexing at least part of these territories.

Israel tries to use the backlash against its aggression to paint its victims as the aggressors when the truth is that Israel was founded by a foreign people who flood the territory of Palestine in order to claim it for themselves. From the very conception of a Jewish state in Palestine there has only been one aggressor.

Everything after that is just reactionary. Under these circumstances refusing to accept conditions such as these can only be interpreted as a desire by the aggressor to maintain its aggression or be rewarded for it.
 

24107

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
824
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
These territories were seized in a conflict Israel set in motion, including provoking its enemies into a defensive posture misrepresented by Israel as offensive maneuvers. The Six Day War was not a war of defense or pre-emption, but a war of aggressive expansion nothing more and nothing less. Israel has followed that up with a deliberate policy of colonization directed at annexing at least part of these territories.
Thank you ,for speaking the truth.
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't really see the problem with the "pre-condition": anyways, the only acceptable, fair solution will be a Palestinian and an Israeli state with roughly the 1967 borders and East-Jerusalem being given back to Palestinians.

They may be the "losing side" because they don't have the military power of Israel, or because at some point in the past Arabs have made some mistakes (trying to invade Israel and get defeated) but that doesn't make the slow annexion of West-Bank and East Jerusalem acceptable.

In every history course, the main point about the first world war is that the treaty of Versailles was totally unfair and is one of the immediate causes of the second world war. Israel may have the power to impose its will upon Palestinians, there won't be peace in the M/E as long as a fair solution isn't found, and that fair solution includes the respect of the 1967 borders.
Ok but why can't you just sit and talk about it, Israel's offers to the Palestinians till now always talked about a Palestinian state in the west bank with roughly the 67 borders, why does Abbas need Netanyahu to publicly declear the borders of the future Palestinian state, what will Israel have left to negotiate with?
I suspect its just another Palestinian trick to sabotage the start of negotiations.
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Thank you ,for speaking the truth.
It seems like you hardly know any of the facts of this conflict. Your "truth" is the lies you were fed up with when you grew up.
Murder and terrorisem was the Arabs way to combat Israel and the Jewish population of Palestine long before the 67 war and even before the decleration of indepandence of Israel, saying that Israel always has been the agressor is just aligning with the brain wash you grew up into.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Do you see where your flawed argument is weak? Exactly how are the Palestinians the losing side? The losers of the war in question were Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. The Palestinians were the victims of that war. Warfare was thrust upon them with no consent or care for their well-being, and once that was over they were living in occupation.
You're "victimization argument" is severely flawed. At no time did Palestinians either intend or attempt to repel invading Arab forces. On the contrary, their armed brigades fought in tandem with Arab forces against Israel. They knowingly and willfully allied themselves with the soon to be defeated Arab aggressors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom