Abbas signs international conventions; Kerry cancels visit

[donsutherland1]

From Reuters:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas signed more than a dozen international conventions on Tuesday, citing anger at Israel's delay of a prisoner release in a decision that jeopardized U.S. efforts to salvage fragile peace talks...

Abbas had pledged not to seek to join world bodies during the U.S.-brokered negotiations, which are scheduled to run until the end of April and have made little apparent headway so far.

Abbas signs international conventions; Kerry cancels visit | Reuters

That the current round of peace talks almost certainly will end without a meaningful agreement is not surprising. The Palestinians have refused to abandon their demand concerning a "right of return" of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel, a position that precludes the possibility of a peace agreement.

This latest action again illustrates the reality that the Palestinians calculate that they won't be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. That expectation has hindered prospects for a peace agreement. At the same time, the Palestinians expect, if not demand, that Israel put its life on hold for however long it takes before Israel capitulates to Palestinian demands e.g. that concerning a "right of return." The Palestinian side holds to such demands, which makes it impossible to conclude a peace agreement, as no rational nation can accept national suicide as the price for peace. At the same time, even as it maintains unreasonable positions and takes measures that contradict the terms to which it agreed, it expects that Israel be bound by terms it never accepted e.g., not expand settlements even as Israel disputes the Palestinian narrative.

As noted in the past, I believe the talks should have focused on reaching a narrower interim agreement in which each side yielded on some substance or gave "something for something." Palestinian agreement that the settlement of Palestinian refugees and their descendants in a new Palestinian state would satisfy their goal of a "right of return" in exchange for Israel agreeing on yielding a guaranteed share of the West Bank would have been reasonable. That formula could then have laid the ground work for laying out details of borders, land swaps, etc., for the next interim agreement. As each issue was resolved and the parties fulfilled the agreed terms, a new narrative of cooperation and trust could have evolved, making it possible to reach a final settlement, much as happened between Israel and Egypt.

Unfortunately, the focus of the talks was far too ambitious. At the same time, yet again the Palestinians decided to take a step that violated the terms that they had accepted. Going forward, if Israel decides to break ground on expansion beyond natural growth of existing settlements (approvals are theoretical and do not have to be implemented; breaking ground and launching construction is not theoretical), the Palestinians will complain, but given their own actions won't be in a strong position.

Hopefully, Israel will take a measured response and hold off on launching construction of new settlements, at least for a time. Construction in the boundaries of existing settlements would not be unreasonable and it would bring home the reality to a Palestinian leadership that seems detached from reality that actions have costs. In this case, the Palestinian failure to be flexible in the negotiations and its ignoring its own stated commitments results in developments that could make it more difficult for Israel to remove some of the settlements beyond the blocs envisioned to be retained in any peace agreement. Perhaps if the Palestinian leadership is not insulated from the costs of its bad decisions, it will begin to develop a capacity for take a more practical approach. That's still not a high probability given the current context, but that probability would be higher than would otherwise be the case were it again held largely immune from the consequences of its choices.

 

[tecoyah]

Wgaf........

 

[ecofarm]

Let Palestine become a full-fledged state. It will be declared a terrorist state and the West will invade and nation build.

 

[Ikari]

From Reuters:



Abbas signs international conventions; Kerry cancels visit | Reuters

That the current round of peace talks almost certainly will end without a meaningful agreement is not surprising. The Palestinians have refused to abandon their demand concerning a "right of return" of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel, a position that precludes the possibility of a peace agreement.

This latest action again illustrates the reality that the Palestinians calculate that they won't be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. That expectation has hindered prospects for a peace agreement. At the same time, the Palestinians expect, if not demand, that Israel put its life on hold for however long it takes before Israel capitulates to Palestinian demands e.g. that concerning a "right of return." The Palestinian side holds to such demands, which makes it impossible to conclude a peace agreement, as no rational nation can accept national suicide as the price for peace. At the same time, even as it maintains unreasonable positions and takes measures that contradict the terms to which it agreed, it expects that Israel be bound by terms it never accepted e.g., not expand settlements even as Israel disputes the Palestinian narrative.

As noted in the past, I believe the talks should have focused on reaching a narrower interim agreement in which each side yielded on some substance or gave "something for something." Palestinian agreement that the settlement of Palestinian refugees and their descendants in a new Palestinian state would satisfy their goal of a "right of return" in exchange for Israel agreeing on yielding a guaranteed share of the West Bank would have been reasonable. That formula could then have laid the ground work for laying out details of borders, land swaps, etc., for the next interim agreement. As each issue was resolved and the parties fulfilled the agreed terms, a new narrative of cooperation and trust could have evolved, making it possible to reach a final settlement, much as happened between Israel and Egypt.

Unfortunately, the focus of the talks was far too ambitious. At the same time, yet again the Palestinians decided to take a step that violated the terms that they had accepted. Going forward, if Israel decides to break ground on expansion beyond natural growth of existing settlements (approvals are theoretical and do not have to be implemented; breaking ground and launching construction is not theoretical), the Palestinians will complain, but given their own actions won't be in a strong position.

Hopefully, Israel will take a measured response and hold off on launching construction of new settlements, at least for a time. Construction in the boundaries of existing settlements would not be unreasonable and it would bring home the reality to a Palestinian leadership that seems detached from reality that actions have costs. In this case, the Palestinian failure to be flexible in the negotiations and its ignoring its own stated commitments results in developments that could make it more difficult for Israel to remove some of the settlements beyond the blocs envisioned to be retained in any peace agreement. Perhaps if the Palestinian leadership is not insulated from the costs of its bad decisions, it will begin to develop a capacity for take a more practical approach. That's still not a high probability given the current context, but that probability would be higher than would otherwise be the case were it again held largely immune from the consequences of its choices.

Who cares? None of the peace talks have every really worked, and both sides are just assholes not willing to do what's best for their People. We should wash our hands of it, we got other more important business to attend to than this 60+ year old temper tantrum.

 

[ecofarm]

Who cares? None of the peace talks have every really worked, and both sides are just assholes not willing to do what's best for their People. We should wash our hands of it, we got other more important business to attend to than this 60+ year old temper tantrum.

Equating Israel, a liberal western democracy, with a terrorist "state" is weak sauce.

 

[Ikari]

Equating Israel, a liberal western democracy, with a terrorist "state" is weak sauce.

Pathetic deflections that don't address actual content is weak sauce as well. So thanks for nothing.

Everything I wrote is true. Neither government is interested in resolution, this is obvious through observation of their official positions and actions. No peace talk has meted out anything lasting, that is fact as well. We have more important business to attend to than babysitting a 60+ year conflict. If they can't solve the problem in over 6 decades, we have little to no shot at being the one to do so. Ergo, we should invest our time and money into problems we can fix, particularly our own problems which are numerous.

 

[ecofarm]

Pathetic deflections that don't address actual content is weak sauce as well. So thanks for nothing.

You equated Israel with terrorists.

Everything I wrote is true.

Oh, great, a purveyor of the Truth.

 

[Ikari]

You equated Israel with terrorists.

No, I stated that neither country is interested in resolution. This can be seen in their measured actions, it's a measured system, this is known. Try to be a bit honest please.

 

[ecofarm]

No,

No, you equated the two. Try reading your own words again.

 

[Ikari]

No, you equated the two. Try reading your own words again.

I did not, those words don't say what you want them to say. Yet again, your arguments come down to dishonesty. Read what's there, try to understand. If you can't, keep it to yourself. It's OK to be flustered by simple concepts and words.

 

[ecofarm]

I did not,

Yes, you did:

both sides are just assholes

 

[Ikari]

Yes, you did:

Yes, they are assholes, the lot of them. That doesn't mean what you are trying to make it seem like. A "Western Style Democracy" is just as capable as a "Terrorist State" of being an asshole. Is that perhaps a concept above your abilities to consider?

 

[ecofarm]

Yes, they are assholes, the lot of them. That doesn't mean what you are trying to make it seem like. A "Western Style Democracy" is just as capable as a "Terrorist State" of being an asshole. Is that perhaps a concept above your abilities to consider?

So you're arguing degrees of 'asshole'? That's your backpedal?

 

[Ikari]

So you're arguing degrees of 'asshole'? That's your backpedal?

There's no backpedal. Assholes are assholes. One overlapping part of the Venn does not mean "=", which is what you are incorrectly contending.

 

[ecofarm]

There's no backpedal. Assholes are assholes. One overlapping part of the Venn does not mean "=", which is what you are incorrectly contending.

So they're not "just assholes", they're different types or degrees of assholes?

I suppose I'll accept that concession.

 

[Ikari]

So they're not "just assholes", they're different types or degrees of assholes?

I suppose I'll accept that concession.

They are both rather large assholes, it just doesn't mean that the two aggregate systems are exactly the same.

 

[ecofarm]

They are both rather large assholes, it just doesn't mean that the two aggregate systems are exactly the same.

Well, you did say "just assholes". We were not aware of your varied and diverse system of asshole categorization at that time.

 

[Ikari]

Well, you did say "just assholes". We were not aware of your varied and diverse system of asshole categorization at that time.

There's not too much too it, it's just your desire to twist words around and argue dishonestly. They are both just assholes. Huge, uncaring assholes pushing their little fight with little regard to their People and their People's future. On that front, they are similar. But it doesn't mean the aggregate system of Israel and Palestine are exactly the same.

 

[ecofarm]

There's not too much too it,

Please, do spare us.

 

[Slyhunter]

until Palestinians learn to accept Israel as a Jewish nation and stop trying to destroy it, via any means possible, there will be no peace.

 

[Ikari]

Please, do spare us.

Only should you respond in kind.

 

[ecofarm]

Only should you respond in kind.

I promise not to make fun of that false equivalence any more if you promise not to indulge us with your 'varieties of assholes' categorization and labeling system.

 

[donsutherland1]

Who cares? None of the peace talks have every really worked, and both sides are just assholes not willing to do what's best for their People. We should wash our hands of it, we got other more important business to attend to than this 60+ year old temper tantrum.

I woudn't frame it that way. As is the case with numerous ethnic conflicts, there is a zero sum mentality where a side believes that the other side can only gain at its loss. Israel has moved away from such a perspective, as is evidence in its compromising to reach peace agreements with Egypt, Jordan, and its accepting President Clinton's parameters for a Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement. The Palestinians have not yet demonstrated such a capacity, hence their inability to accept the notion that Israel is the legitimate state of the Jewish people (a people is broader than just describing those who are of the Jewish religion), which was recognized by the UN when devising the two-state approach in 1947. At the same time, the Palestinians insist on a "right of return" of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel, which would essentially transform Israel into a Palestinian majority state and undercut the two-state idea as there would be little basis for a Palestinian majority Israel to coexist with a Palestinian majority West Bank (and Gaza Strip, if the West Bank leadership can ever regain control there).

Finally, the U.S. has significant interests at stake. Israel is a highly reliable strategic ally. Trying to find a formula that would bring about an end to the historic Palestinian-Israeli dispute would have the potential to increase regional stability and prosperity, and those developments would be favorable for American interests.

 

[William Rea]

From Reuters:



Abbas signs international conventions; Kerry cancels visit | Reuters

That the current round of peace talks almost certainly will end without a meaningful agreement is not surprising. The Palestinians have refused to abandon their demand concerning a "right of return" of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel, a position that precludes the possibility of a peace agreement.

This latest action again illustrates the reality that the Palestinians calculate that they won't be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. That expectation has hindered prospects for a peace agreement. At the same time, the Palestinians expect, if not demand, that Israel put its life on hold for however long it takes before Israel capitulates to Palestinian demands e.g. that concerning a "right of return." The Palestinian side holds to such demands, which makes it impossible to conclude a peace agreement, as no rational nation can accept national suicide as the price for peace. At the same time, even as it maintains unreasonable positions and takes measures that contradict the terms to which it agreed, it expects that Israel be bound by terms it never accepted e.g., not expand settlements even as Israel disputes the Palestinian narrative.

As noted in the past, I believe the talks should have focused on reaching a narrower interim agreement in which each side yielded on some substance or gave "something for something." Palestinian agreement that the settlement of Palestinian refugees and their descendants in a new Palestinian state would satisfy their goal of a "right of return" in exchange for Israel agreeing on yielding a guaranteed share of the West Bank would have been reasonable. That formula could then have laid the ground work for laying out details of borders, land swaps, etc., for the next interim agreement. As each issue was resolved and the parties fulfilled the agreed terms, a new narrative of cooperation and trust could have evolved, making it possible to reach a final settlement, much as happened between Israel and Egypt.

Unfortunately, the focus of the talks was far too ambitious. At the same time, yet again the Palestinians decided to take a step that violated the terms that they had accepted. Going forward, if Israel decides to break ground on expansion beyond natural growth of existing settlements (approvals are theoretical and do not have to be implemented; breaking ground and launching construction is not theoretical), the Palestinians will complain, but given their own actions won't be in a strong position.

Hopefully, Israel will take a measured response and hold off on launching construction of new settlements, at least for a time. Construction in the boundaries of existing settlements would not be unreasonable and it would bring home the reality to a Palestinian leadership that seems detached from reality that actions have costs. In this case, the Palestinian failure to be flexible in the negotiations and its ignoring its own stated commitments results in developments that could make it more difficult for Israel to remove some of the settlements beyond the blocs envisioned to be retained in any peace agreement. Perhaps if the Palestinian leadership is not insulated from the costs of its bad decisions, it will begin to develop a capacity for take a more practical approach. That's still not a high probability given the current context, but that probability would be higher than would otherwise be the case were it again held largely immune from the consequences of its choices.

Israel expands, Palestinians get stuff signed.

Both as culpable as each other but, only one side culpable in the eyes of some.

 

[William Rea]

until Palestinians learn to accept Israel as a Jewish nation and stop trying to destroy it, via any means possible, there will be no peace.

Yup, the stinking sand niggers gotta learn how to accept crap.