Abbas sets conditions for direct talks with Israel - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel NewsPalestinian 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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.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.
Tashah, I cannot realy respond to your comment unless you agree ahead of time that my point of view is the only one acceptable.
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.
Thank you, that was all i was trying to say.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.
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.
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.
Thank you ,for speaking the truth.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.
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.
Thank you ,for speaking the truth.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?