Abbas sets conditions for direct talks with Israel

[Tashah]

Generally unconditional surrender is expected from the aggressor and in this case that is Israel.

Sorry. You're sophomoric revisionism won't fly here....

After the Arab rejection of the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (UN General Assembly Resolution 181) that would have created an Arab state and a Jewish state side by side, five Arab states invaded the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine.

On the eve of the war the number of Arab troops likely to be committed to the war was about 23,000 (10,000 Egyptians, 4,500 Jordanians, 3,000 Iraqis, 3,000 Syrians, 2,000 ALA volunteers, 1,000 Lebanese and some Saudi Arabians), in addition to the irregular Palestinians already present.

1948 Arab-Israeli War

 

[Tashah]

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.

A pre-condition is exactly what it sounds like... a demanded concession that exists outside of the negotiation framework. Basically, it amounts to extortion due to a lack of statesmanship.

As far as reaching a final settlement, what seems fair to a Belgian or to a Japanese is immaterial. It boils down to the fairest agreement that can be concluded by the negotiating parties. Each side will have to disburse concessions in order to obtain concessions. Neither side will enjoy maximum fulfillment.

I do agree though that a final agreement should be not be onerous like the Versailles Treaty. It must be an agreement that both nations consider fair and doable.

 

[Degreez]

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.

Again, your reasoning is flawed. At this point in time, the West Bank was controlled by Jordan and the Gaza Strip by Egypt. The Palestinians did not have a political institution to collectively take action for the events that transpired. You stated that they did not intend or attempt to repel the invading Arab forces. In what way was that their duty at the time? First they were not consented about their future. Then civil war breaks out when the Partition is forced on them without their consent. Now you want them to die for something that was thrust upon them without their consent and they don't even agree with it? They weren't even pawns in this chess game. They were more like the middle rows of a chess board.

 

[Degreez]

Sorry. You're sophomoric revisionism won't fly here....


1948 Arab-Israeli War

It may have helped if you read past the first sentence:

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.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It may have helped if you read past the first sentence:

He'd be wrong on that account, too. It's another example of historical revisionism.

 

[Tashah]

In what way was that their duty at the time? First they were not consented about their future.

Consultations concerning Mandate disposition were attempted numerous times by UNSCOM representatives. Palestinians continually refused to participate in any such discussions. On reflection, a terrible positional decision and shortsighted in the extremis.

 

[Tashah]

It may have helped if you read past the first sentence:

Originally Posted by Demon of Light
Israel is and always has been the aggressor in this conflict.

From your provided snippet above. Perhaps you should have read it yourself.

 

[Demon of Light]

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.

I am sorry my friend, but my position is rooted in objective history and includes statements from high-level officials in Israel who were directly involved in these wars. Israeli leaders at the time, by their own admission, knew the Six Day War was a war of choice, that the Arab armies were taking defensive positions, and that most of the escalation was deliberately instigated by Israel.

Sorry. You're sophomoric revisionism won't fly here....


1948 Arab-Israeli War

If you bothered to look you would see I was not starting with Israeli independence. The very foundation of Israel is built on aggression against the local Arab population. It goes back to the Yishuv and the Zionist-orchestrated Aliyahs. From the beginning Zionism was focused on creation of a Jewish state by taking Arab land and expelling the Arab population.

 

[Apocalypse]

I am sorry my friend, but my position is rooted in objective history and includes statements from high-level officials in Israel who were directly involved in these wars. Israeli leaders at the time, by their own admission, knew the Six Day War was a war of choice, that the Arab armies were taking defensive positions, and that most of the escalation was deliberately instigated by Israel.

I am sorry Demon but objective history is actually saying the exact opposite of the fictions you were promoting in your previous post, the six-day war was an Israeli defensive war, where Israel has engaged in a pre-emptive strike.
It was actually not a war of choice, Israel was economically strangled by an Egyptian blockade which was by the way an Israeli casus beli and Egypt has massed its forces along the Israeli border getting ready for a war and making constant statements about Israel's coming annihilation.

So again, I know it's not really relevant since you reject any historical facts, but any connection between your post and the objective history is completely coincidental.

If you bothered to look you would see I was not starting with Israeli independence. The very foundation of Israel is built on aggression against the local Arab population. It goes back to the Yishuv and the Zionist-orchestrated Aliyahs. From the beginning Zionism was focused on creation of a Jewish state by taking Arab land and expelling the Arab population.

That's just another example of how irrelevant your comments truly are. They do not depend on reality and history and hence have no true meaning.
Israel was on the defensive, the 48' war was not justified and it was an act of Palestinian-Arab aggression.

 

[Gardener]

I am sorry my friend, but my position is rooted in objective history .

I suppose the rejection of objective history can be said to be rooted in it in some perverse way, but all I am seeing is blatant propaganda that has nothing to do with reality.

 

[justabubba]

A pre-condition is exactly what it sounds like... a demanded concession that exists outside of the negotiation framework.

a prenegotiation condition is just another level of negotiation, precedent to the formal negotiations
if the parties are unable to agree on the preconditions, then it may be a waste of time to proceed to the formal negotiations themselves
please note that israel has imposed its own unilateral terms - "preconditions"
israel refuses to negotiate with hamas
i don't see you ranting about that precondition

Basically, it amounts to extortion due to a lack of statesmanship.

i see it as an indication of how much the parties want to actually reach agreement
imposing a precondition the other side is unwilling - or unable - to concede is a very simple way to scuttle the prospect of formal negotiations
that is usually the tactic of the party with the most leverage and the most to lose by proceeding to formal negotiations. to me, that describes the position of israel more than that of the Palestinians

As far as reaching a final settlement, what seems fair to a Belgian or to a Japanese is immaterial. It boils down to the fairest agreement that can be concluded by the negotiating parties.

i am delighted you note that outside parties should not be engaged in the formal negotiations. but i still notice that israel and the USA insist that abbas be the representative of the Palestinian people's interests. yet, no where have i seen an indication that abbas is in any way the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. he has had to extend his term in office on multiple occassions because he recognizes that if he allows elections - of the Palestinian people - to go forward, he will lose
so, i would agree that the Japanese and Belgians should not get to dictate the terms of negotiations - and neither should the israelis and the USA choose who represents the interests of the Palestinian people at formal negotiations

Each side will have to disburse concessions in order to obtain concessions. Neither side will enjoy maximum fulfillment.

and water is wet. thank you for the insight into negotiations

I do agree though that a final agreement should be not be onerous like the Versailles Treaty. It must be an agreement that both nations consider fair and doable.

and the way to ensure that a fair outcome emerges from the negotiations is to conduct legitimate negotiations, with the legitimate representatives of the parties sitting down to hammer out an agreement acceptable to both parties
that has little chance of being the result if the israeli/USA are able to select the (illegitimate) individual(s)who will be expected to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people

 

[Demon of Light]

I am sorry Demon but objective history is actually saying the exact opposite of the fictions you were promoting in your previous post, the six-day war was an Israeli defensive war, where Israel has engaged in a pre-emptive strike.

"In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

- Menahem Begin, Israeli Minister without Portfolio in 1967

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."

- Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967

"After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was."

- Moshe Dayan, Israel's Defense Minister in 1967

It was generally agreed in every country, including Israel, that Egypt would have to be insane to initiate a war, because it would definitely lose, and that Nasser had no desire for war. If you look at those statements portrayed as statements of aggression they are actually threatening a strong response to aggression, not threatening to initiate it.

Israel was on the defensive, the 48' war was not justified and it was an act of Palestinian-Arab aggression.

What part of "I was not starting with Israeli independence" did you not understand?

 

[Degreez]

Consultations concerning Mandate disposition were attempted numerous times by UNSCOM representatives.

Source? Otherwise you are merely posting unsubstantiated claims. PS - UNSCOM was created to inspect Iraq.

In the Balfour Declaration there is no suggestion that the Jews should be accorded a special or favoured position in Palestine as compared with the Arab inhabitants of the country, or that the claims of Palestinians to enjoy self-government (subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory as foreshadowed in Article XXII of the Covenant) should be curtailed in order to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people." ... Zionist leaders have not concealed and do not conceal their opposition to the grant of any measure of self-government to the people of Palestine either now or for many years to come. Some of them even go so far as to claim that that provision of Article 2 of the Mandate constitutes a bar to compliance with the demand of the Arabs for any measure of self-government. In view of the provisions of Article XXII of the Covenant and of the promises made to the Arabs on several occasions that claim is inadmissible.

Palestinians continually refused to participate in any such discussions. On reflection, a terrible positional decision and shortsighted in the extremis.

No proper self-governing political institutions were set up to even facilitate Palestinian participation.

 

[Degreez]

"In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

- Menahem Begin, Israeli Minister without Portfolio in 1967

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."

- Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967

"After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was."

- Moshe Dayan, Israel's Defense Minister in 1967

It was generally agreed in every country, including Israel, that Egypt would have to be insane to initiate a war, because it would definitely lose, and that Nasser had no desire for war. If you look at those statements portrayed as statements of aggression they are actually threatening a strong response to aggression, not threatening to initiate it.



What part of "I was not starting with Israeli independence" did you not understand?

Even better:

Plan Dalet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a) The objective of this plan is to gain control of the areas of the Hebrew state and defend its borders. It also aims at gaining control of the areas of Jewish settlements and concentrations which are located outside the borders (of the Hebrew state) against regular, semi-regular, and small forces operating from bases outside or inside the state.


3b4)
Mounting operations against enemy population centers located inside or near our defensive system in order to prevent them from being used as bases by an active armed force. These operations can be divided into the following categories:

Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.
Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state.

The villages which are emptied in the manner described above must be included in the fixed defensive system and must be fortified as necessary.
In the absence of resistance, garrison troops will enter the village and take up positions in it or in locations which enable complete tactical control. The officer in command of the unit will confiscate all weapons, wireless devices, and motor vehicles in the village. In addition, he will detain all politically suspect individuals.

 

[Degreez]

He'd be wrong on that account, too. It's another example of historical revisionism.

Actually you and Tashah are both wrong. It is a historic fact that the leaders of the new Israeli state had no intent of staying within the proposed borders of the Partition Plan.

British Mandate for Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Benny Morris said that both Chaim Weizmann and David Ben Gurion saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine. Former Israeli Foreign Minister and historian Schlomo Ben Ami writes that 1937 was the same year that the "Field Battalions" under Yitzhak Sadeh wrote the "Avner Plan", which anticipated and laid the groundwork for what would become in 1948, Plan D. It envisioned going far beyond any boundaries contained in the existing partition proposals and planned the conquest of the Galilee, the West Bank, and Jerusalem.

 

[donsutherland1]

Source? Otherwise you are merely posting unsubstantiated claims. PS - UNSCOM was created to inspect Iraq.



No proper self-governing political institutions were set up to even facilitate Palestinian participation.

Moderator's Warning:

You have been thread banned for trolling: 1. Any reasonable person recognizes that Tashah had a typo: she meant to refer to UNSCOP not UNSCOM 2. The issue about the Arabs' refusal to cooperate with UNSCOP has been posted ad nauseum. The UN's Special Rapporteur Thor Thors of Iceland informed the General Assembly, "The Arab Higher Committee was approached by UNSCOP on more than one occasion and was invited to assist in the work of UNSCOP, but it refused." Do not post again in this thread. All subsequent posts will receive a DBAJ infraction.

 

[donsutherland1]

President Abbas's choice to find yet another opportunity to avoid direct negotiations is not surprising. So long as he expects to get rewarded for holding out, he will do so.

Israel would be wise to refrain from renewing the settlement freeze when it expires. Whether or not it is renewed should be an item for negotiations. At the same time, the U.S. should make clear that it wants the Palestinians to enter direct negotiations and that failure to do so would result in adverse consequences.

 

[24107]

I don't think he is holding out, I just think he wants to go into direct talks, with a very basic/general idea where a rational starting point concerning universal knowledge of what the palestinians would deem as being fair in terms of the land division. Nothing drastically different or more than previously discussed.Isn't that better than going to direct talks with both sides scratching their head where to begin?

With all due respect.

 

[Demon of Light]

The issue about the Arabs' refusal to cooperate with UNSCOP has been posted ad nauseum. The UN's Special Rapporteur Thor Thors of Iceland informed the General Assembly, "The Arab Higher Committee was approached by UNSCOP on more than one occasion and was invited to assist in the work of UNSCOP, but it refused."

Here are the parts you left out:

In the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, the representative of the Arab Higher Committee stated that he was prepared to take part in the discussions only with respect to that item of the agenda dealing with the establishment of an independent unitary state, but not with respect to the UNSCOP reports; either the majority or the minority report.

Again, in Sub-Committee 1 of the Ad Hoc Committee, the Arab Higher Committee was invited to assist the Sub-Committee on the question of boundaries, and again the reply was that it was prepared to assist only in connexion with the discussion of the establishment of an independent unitary state

Source: United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine

In essence the UN would only consider discussion on partition and the Arabs would only consider discussion on a single unitary state, meaning not divided into two ethnically-based autonomous regions. The fact is every major power supported complete partition, which meant it was going to happen regardless of whether the Arabs participated or not. They were not given a choice on whether there would be a partition, but only the manner of partition.

All Arab participation would have done is given the major powers a retort to Arab leaders objecting to the plan afterward claiming they agreed to take part in the discussion and so they shouldn't complain about the result. There was no discussion of whether Germans in European countries should be allowed a part of those countries or even allowed to stay, they were expelled post-haste regardless of when or how they arrived there. Indeed many had been living in those countries longer than nearly all the Jews living in Palestine.

 

[washunut]

President Abbas's choice to find yet another opportunity to avoid direct negotiations is not surprising. So long as he expects to get rewarded for holding out, he will do so.

Israel would be wise to refrain from renewing the settlement freeze when it expires. Whether or not it is renewed should be an item for negotiations. At the same time, the U.S. should make clear that it wants the Palestinians to enter direct negotiations and that failure to do so would result in adverse consequences.

Abbas seems to have no interest in negotiations. He seems to have a game plan that is working. Bob and weave and let the Americans do his dirty work.

 

[jmh423]

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.

Perhaps it is you who has been "fed up with lies". A well reknowned Jewish Israeli Historian who actually LIVED through much of the era being discussed here has a completely different take on the situation:

The Unmentionable Source of Terrorism - by John Pilger

"In recent years, the truth has come from Israel's own "new historians," who have revealed that the Zionist "idealists" of 1948 had no intention of treating justly or even humanely the Palestinians, who instead were systematically and often murderously driven from their homes. The most courageous of these historians is Ilan Pappe, an Israeli-born professor at Haifa University, who, with the publication of each of his ground-breaking books, has been both acclaimed and smeared. The latest is A History of Modern Palestine, in which he documents the expulsion of Palestinians as an orchestrated crime of ethnic cleansing that tore apart Jews and Arabs coexisting peacefully. As for the modern "peace process," he describes the Oslo Accords of 1993 as a plan by liberal Zionists in the Israeli Labour Party to corral Palestinians in South African-style bantustans. That they were aided by a desperate Palestinian leadership made the "peace" and its "failure" (blamed on the Palestinians) no less counterfeit. During the years of negotiation and raised hopes, governments in Tel Aviv secretly doubled the number of illegal Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, intensified the military occupation and completed the fragmentation of the 22 per cent of historic Palestine that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had agreed to accept in return for recognising the state of Israel."

 

[Demon of Light]

"In recent years, the truth has come from Israel's own "new historians," who have revealed that the Zionist "idealists" of 1948 had no intention of treating justly or even humanely the Palestinians, who instead were systematically and often murderously driven from their homes. The most courageous of these historians is Ilan Pappe, an Israeli-born professor at Haifa University, who, with the publication of each of his ground-breaking books, has been both acclaimed and smeared. The latest is A History of Modern Palestine, in which he documents the expulsion of Palestinians as an orchestrated crime of ethnic cleansing that tore apart Jews and Arabs coexisting peacefully.

What is interesting is that even the supposedly non-Zionist, it is probably more appropriate to describe him as a very moderate Zionist, Felix Warburg advocated for the ethnic cleansing of Arabs. He just advocated peaceful population transfer with compensation. When the Peel Commission suggested partition and included population transfer (i.e. ethnic cleansing) David Ben-Gurion spoke glowingly of the plan, especially the part regarding population transfer.

 

[jmh423]

Abbas seems to have no interest in negotiations. He seems to have a game plan that is working. Bob and weave and let the Americans do his dirty work.

FAT CHANCE!!! With the son of Irgun terrorist as WH Chief of Staff and the full spectrum dominance of AIPAC over both houses of the US Congress and both US political parties, Abbas will be waiting for a long time for "the Americans to do his dirty work"....Out of the 535 members of congress, name 10 who aren't pro-Israeli...Anyone who publically declares support for the Palistinian cause has more of a chance of being elected to the Knesset than the US Senate or House....LOL

 

[ido_]

I am sorry my friend, but my position is rooted in objective history and includes statements from high-level officials in Israel who were directly involved in these wars. Israeli leaders at the time, by their own admission, knew the Six Day War was a war of choice, that the Arab armies were taking defensive positions, and that most of the escalation was deliberately instigated by Israel.

You said that Israel has always been the agressor, if we'll put the Six Days war aside which have already been discussed on numerous threads in this forum so all the arguments were said and everyone's position is known. The war in 1948, first war ever between Israel and Arab was started by Arabs on the same day Israel was founded, between 1949 and 1967 Israel suffered numerous terrorist attacks by fedayeen from Egypt and Jordan, Syria was shelling villages around the sea of Gallilee on regular bases, and if we expand it to the Pre-Israel era the pogroms in the late 1920s and in the 1930s. It is absolutly clear that Israel (and the Jewish population) wasn't always the agressor

 

[ido_]

Perhaps it is you who has been "fed up with lies". A well reknowned Jewish Israeli Historian who actually LIVED through much of the era being discussed here has a completely different take on the situation:

The Unmentionable Source of Terrorism - by John Pilger

"In recent years, the truth has come from Israel's own "new historians," who have revealed that the Zionist "idealists" of 1948 had no intention of treating justly or even humanely the Palestinians, who instead were systematically and often murderously driven from their homes. The most courageous of these historians is Ilan Pappe, an Israeli-born professor at Haifa University, who, with the publication of each of his ground-breaking books, has been both acclaimed and smeared. The latest is A History of Modern Palestine, in which he documents the expulsion of Palestinians as an orchestrated crime of ethnic cleansing that tore apart Jews and Arabs coexisting peacefully. As for the modern "peace process," he describes the Oslo Accords of 1993 as a plan by liberal Zionists in the Israeli Labour Party to corral Palestinians in South African-style bantustans. That they were aided by a desperate Palestinian leadership made the "peace" and its "failure" (blamed on the Palestinians) no less counterfeit. During the years of negotiation and raised hopes, governments in Tel Aviv secretly doubled the number of illegal Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, intensified the military occupation and completed the fragmentation of the 22 per cent of historic Palestine that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had agreed to accept in return for recognising the state of Israel."

All of this is known, and was even tought in Israeli schools, the question is the magnitude, and read my comment above, What about the pogroms in the 1920s, did Jews murder Arabs before this? Did Israel have any chance to live in peace with the Arabs inside its borders when it was invaded in the same day of its decleration of independence?