• 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!

Eitan urges ‘partial territorial agreement’ to boost talks

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,801
Reaction score
10,152
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The September 24, 2010 edition of The Jerusalem Post reported that Likud Minister Michael Eitan is advocating an interim agreement that would entail a partial land transfer to the Palestinian Authority and renewed construction within the major settlement blocs (population areas that Israel would retain in any peace agreement). Construction would be halted in areas Israel intends to give to the Palestinians. The newspaper reported:

In a proposal aimed at giving positive momentum to Israeli- Palestinian direct talks following the imminent end of the 10-month settlement freeze, Likud Minister Michael Eitan is urging the two sides to try to reach a “partial territorial agreement” in the next few months, under which Israel would transfer authority and security responsibilities to the Palestinian Authority in the overwhelming proportion of the West Bank, while Israel would resume building in the major settlement blocs.

Eitan, a former Greater Israel ideologue and settlement founder, recently wrote to Likud members urging a halt to any further building in areas that the government intends transferring to Palestinian control.


Three quick thoughts:

1. This proposal provides another example of pragmatism in Israel's government. If progress can be locked in via a step-by-step approach, such progress should be secured.

2. It makes sense to allow construction in areas that Israel will retain.

3. IMO, any freeze in construction should only occur in areas Israel is actually offering the Palestinians, not areas that the government might agree to give the Palestinians. Otherwise, if there is a gap between what's on the table and the government's compromise position (larger area), the Palestinian leadership could immediately pocket the de facto offer of the larger area and either have an incentive to hold to its positions or toughen them.
 

William Rea

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
8,949
Reaction score
2,231
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
On the contrary, it shows how dishonest the Likud is and how the Israeli government has lost touch with reality by trying to appease Likud.

To say that this is a proposal to "boost" the talks is Ingsoc incarnate. Do you honestly consider this to be natural justice? Imagine the newspaper headline..."Theft victim told to relinquish ownership of a portion of his property before the thieves will discuss the other stolen properties".

"Construction would be halted in areas Israel intends to give to the Palestinians." NO, Israel does not GIVE any land back, it withdraws from it under international law so that the PA can govern it as it has been elected to do so.
 
Last edited:

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,580
Reaction score
3,324
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The September 24, 2010 edition of The Jerusalem Post reported that Likud Minister Michael Eitan is advocating an interim agreement that would entail a partial land transfer to the Palestinian Authority and renewed construction within the major settlement blocs (population areas that Israel would retain in any peace agreement). Construction would be halted in areas Israel intends to give to the Palestinians. The newspaper reported:

In a proposal aimed at giving positive momentum to Israeli- Palestinian direct talks following the imminent end of the 10-month settlement freeze, Likud Minister Michael Eitan is urging the two sides to try to reach a “partial territorial agreement” in the next few months, under which Israel would transfer authority and security responsibilities to the Palestinian Authority in the overwhelming proportion of the West Bank, while Israel would resume building in the major settlement blocs.

Eitan, a former Greater Israel ideologue and settlement founder, recently wrote to Likud members urging a halt to any further building in areas that the government intends transferring to Palestinian control.


Three quick thoughts:

1. This proposal provides another example of pragmatism in Israel's government. If progress can be locked in via a step-by-step approach, such progress should be secured.

2. It makes sense to allow construction in areas that Israel will retain.

3. IMO, any freeze in construction should only occur in areas Israel is actually offering the Palestinians, not areas that the government might agree to give the Palestinians. Otherwise, if there is a gap between what's on the table and the government's compromise position (larger area), the Palestinian leadership could immediately pocket the de facto offer of the larger area and either have an incentive to hold to its positions or toughen them.
Interesting idea. However, after giving back the land what motivation will the PA have to negotiate. What happens if the next West Bank elections winds up with another Gaza situation.

My sense is that the Palestinians will never allow a two state solution. They are willing to wait and try with the upcoming generation of Americans, who are less pro-Israel.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,801
Reaction score
10,152
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Interesting idea. However, after giving back the land what motivation will the PA have to negotiate. What happens if the next West Bank elections winds up with another Gaza situation.
That's a very real concern. IMO, any interim agreement needs to incorporate reciprocity to avoid such a situation. In other words, the Palestinians would need to give something to get something. Otherwise, incentives for rigidity would be increased. I don't believe any interim agreement should entail unilateral concessions. I believe the substance of what Mr. Eitam proposed should be granted only in return for some Palestinian concession(s), not unilaterally.
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,580
Reaction score
3,324
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
That's a very real concern. IMO, any interim agreement needs to incorporate reciprocity to avoid such a situation. In other words, the Palestinians would need to give something to get something. Otherwise, incentives for rigidity would be increased. I don't believe any interim agreement should entail unilateral concessions. I believe the substance of what Mr. Eitam proposed should be granted only in return for some Palestinian concession(s), not unilaterally.
That would make sense. Israel may want to wait until there are new West Bank elections to make sure they are talking to the right players.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The September 24, 2010 edition of The Jerusalem Post reported that Likud Minister Michael Eitan is advocating an interim agreement that would entail a partial land transfer to the Palestinian Authority and renewed construction within the major settlement blocs (population areas that Israel would retain in any peace agreement). Construction would be halted in areas Israel intends to give to the Palestinians. The newspaper reported:

In a proposal aimed at giving positive momentum to Israeli- Palestinian direct talks following the imminent end of the 10-month settlement freeze, Likud Minister Michael Eitan is urging the two sides to try to reach a “partial territorial agreement” in the next few months, under which Israel would transfer authority and security responsibilities to the Palestinian Authority in the overwhelming proportion of the West Bank, while Israel would resume building in the major settlement blocs.

Eitan, a former Greater Israel ideologue and settlement founder, recently wrote to Likud members urging a halt to any further building in areas that the government intends transferring to Palestinian control.


Three quick thoughts:

1. This proposal provides another example of pragmatism in Israel's government. If progress can be locked in via a step-by-step approach, such progress should be secured.
Pragmastism? Ban Ki Moon has repeated today that it was illegal to keep on colonizing in occupied territories and in Jerusalem; furthermore a total freeze of the colonization is an Israeli obligation according to the road map for peace. Even if what Eitan proposes is better than what happens today, it is still contrary to Israel's obligations. A total freeze of the colonization is not a "concession", it is obeying to international law.

2. It makes sense to allow construction in areas that Israel will retain.
So Israel unilaterally decides which areas it will annex? What's the point of negociating then?
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,755
Reaction score
6,217
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
furthermore a total freeze of the colonization is an Israeli obligation according to the road map for peace. Even if what Eitan proposes is better than what happens today, it is still contrary to Israel's obligations.
I do not think that the Road Map is a relevant document anymore as it was respected by neither the Israeli side nor the Palestinian side.

From the agreement:

Phase I (as early as May 2003): End to Palestinian violence; Palestinian political reform; Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian cities and freeze on settlement expansion; Palestinian elections.
While Israel did partially respect the document by constatly withdrawing from Palestinian cities (Making them A or B zones instead of C), the Palestinian violence has never ended.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1. This proposal provides another example of pragmatism in Israel's government. If progress can be locked in via a step-by-step approach, such progress should be secured.
The settlements were always about a land grab. There is nothing pragmatic about seeking an agreement to sanction part of the land grab.

2. It makes sense to allow construction in areas that Israel will retain.
Who decided Israel will retain these areas? Weren't these negotiations to be without preconditions or did that only apply to the Palestinians? Also does this mean they are going to stop construction in parts of East Jerusalem or are we to take from this that Israel has no intention of ceding even an inch of Jerusalem to the Palestinians?
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,801
Reaction score
10,152
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Pragmastism? Ban Ki Moon has repeated today that it was illegal to keep on colonizing in occupied territories and in Jerusalem; furthermore a total freeze of the colonization is an Israeli obligation according to the road map for peace. Even if what Eitan proposes is better than what happens today, it is still contrary to Israel's obligations. A total freeze of the colonization is not a "concession", it is obeying to international law.

So Israel unilaterally decides which areas it will annex? What's the point of negociating then?
In both prior rounds of negotiations (Oslo and Annapolis rounds), there was agreement that Israel would retain the major settlement blocs and land swaps would be offered. That's not a new development.

Moreover, Eitan was not calling for the construction of new settlements/settlement outposts. He was talking about construction within the boundaries of existing settlements. As noted on numerous occasions, natural population growth entails the need for infrastructure to accommodate that growth i.e., hospitals, schools, other basic services. No Israeli leader has accepted the idea of deliberately depriving people of basic services. The key is to limit that growth within the boundaries of the settlements, and Israel has committed to do so on numerous occasions. There is no indication that PM Netanyahu is going to support the construction of new settlements, settlement outposts, or settlements beyond the existing boundaries.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,801
Reaction score
10,152
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The settlements were always about a land grab. There is nothing pragmatic about seeking an agreement to sanction part of the land grab.
Using similar language, one could argue that the Palestinian position on refugees is "about a land grab," namely seeking to use demographic change to do what the Palestinians and other Arabs have not been able to do to date, namely conquer Israel. The reality is both sides will need to be pragmatic. Each will have to accept a solution that falls short of their maximum demands if an agreement is to be reached.

Who decided Israel will retain these areas?
The parties were in agreement on Israel's retention of settlement blocs and compensating land swaps during both the Oslo and Annapolis rounds of talks. To date, the Palestinian leadership has, on that front, not offered any indication of a change in policy.

Weren't these negotiations to be without preconditions or did that only apply to the Palestinians?
Preconditions are about conditions to enter talks, hence the prefix "pre." Erecting barriers to talks when one lacks the power to gain one's needs through alternative means is both short-sighted and counterproductive.

On the other hand, during negotiations, any party can and should raise the full range of its issues/concerns. If agreement is to be reached, each side's core needs will have to be accommodated. Raising needs and other conditions during negotiations does not amount to preconditions to negotiations. Doing so is part of a typical bargaining process.

Also does this mean they are going to stop construction in parts of East Jerusalem or are we to take from this that Israel has no intention of ceding even an inch of Jerusalem to the Palestinians?
Compromise formulas are possible including but not limited to joint sovereignty in East Jerusalem, Israel's ceding East Jerusalem's predominantly Arab neighborhoods, etc.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Using similar language, one could argue that the Palestinian position on refugees is "about a land grab," namely seeking to use demographic change to do what the Palestinians and other Arabs have not been able to do to date, namely conquer Israel.
There is no indication whatsoever that the Palestinians have any intention of using the right of return in such a matter. In fact, past negotiations showed they were more than willing to greatly diminish the right of return to where it would pose no risk of creating the situation you claim they seek.

The reality is both sides will need to be pragmatic. Each will have to accept a solution that falls short of their maximum demands if an agreement is to be reached.
The only maximum demand Israel's past proposals fall short of is the maximum demand for no technical independence. I mean they're willing to surrender a few small, indefensible, and unruly settlements deep inside Arab population centers, but is that really a concession? Honestly, they have more reasons to abandon those settlements as opposed to keeping them.

The parties were in agreement on Israel's retention of settlement blocs and compensating land swaps during both the Oslo and Annapolis rounds of talks. To date, the Palestinian leadership has, on that front, not offered any indication of a change in policy.
What of the legally-elected government led by Hamas? They are willing to accept a state within the 1967 borders and de-facto recognition of Israel but would they be interested in land swaps? Also, Abbas has made signals that they would prefer no change in borders though not demanding dismantlement of settlements. It was not an agreement that such retention should occur, only an attempted compromise. This is not something that goes without discussion like recognition of Israel or independence for a Palestinian state.

I should also note this interim agreement does not include land swaps. That creates a problematic situation where Israel gains legal cover for annexation of the settlement blocs without having to cede any bit of its own territory.

Preconditions are about conditions to enter talks, hence the prefix "pre." Erecting barriers to talks when one lacks the power to gain one's needs through alternative means is both short-sighted and counterproductive.

On the other hand, during negotiations, any party can and should raise the full range of its issues/concerns. If agreement is to be reached, each side's core needs will have to be accommodated. Raising needs and other conditions during negotiations does not amount to preconditions to negotiations. Doing so is part of a typical bargaining process.
Except what you were just saying is that major settlement blocs would go to Israel. That certainly sounds like a precondition.

Compromise formulas are possible including but not limited to joint sovereignty in East Jerusalem, Israel's ceding East Jerusalem's predominantly Arab neighborhoods, etc.
The problem with all of this is, like I said, with the settlement blocs around East Jerusalem and continued construction in East Jerusalem. If some form of joint sovereignty or land cession was in the cards than Israel should definitely be freezing construction there, rather than continuing to demolish Arab homes to replace them with Jewish ones. Also any cession of East Jerusalem territory would create a complicated problem with some of the settlements around it.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,801
Reaction score
10,152
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
There is no indication whatsoever that the Palestinians have any intention of using the right of return in such a matter. In fact, past negotiations showed they were more than willing to greatly diminish the right of return to where it would pose no risk of creating the situation you claim they seek.
The primary President Abbas gave for rejecting the Olmert initiative concerned the demand concerning refugees. More recently, Prime Minister Fayyad rejected a joint statement that referred to "two states for two peoples" precisely because such a statement would bar any prospect of a return of refugees (and their descendants to Israel).

The only maximum demand Israel's past proposals fall short of is the maximum demand for no technical independence. I mean they're willing to surrender a few small, indefensible, and unruly settlements deep inside Arab population centers, but is that really a concession? Honestly, they have more reasons to abandon those settlements as opposed to keeping them.
90%+ of the West Bank (and that's before land swaps) is anything but a granting of the Palestinians "small" parts of the West Bank. Israel does have security needs and those needs will have to be accommodated much as Palestinian needs for land for a state will have to be accommodated. Otherwise, there will be no agreement.

I should also note this interim agreement does not include land swaps. That creates a problematic situation where Israel gains legal cover for annexation of the settlement blocs without having to cede any bit of its own territory.
The key term is "interim." An interim agreement would not constitute a final settlement. It would constitute a step that is between the current situation and a final settlement. The idea behind such an agreement would be that it would allow the parties to lock in progress that is achieved in discussions. Of course, whether or not the parties choose to lock in progress at various stages is their choice. That process worked well in the nearly 6-year Egyptian-Israeli peace process.

Except what you were just saying is that major settlement blocs would go to Israel. That certainly sounds like a precondition.
It's not a precondition. It is not something that bars the start of negotiations. Instead, given past Palestinian and Israeli agreement on that issue, it is a very likely outcome. To date, the current Palestinian government has given no indication that it has changed its position on that issue.

The problem with all of this is, like I said, with the settlement blocs around East Jerusalem and continued construction in East Jerusalem. If some form of joint sovereignty or land cession was in the cards than Israel should definitely be freezing construction there, rather than continuing to demolish Arab homes to replace them with Jewish ones. Also any cession of East Jerusalem territory would create a complicated problem with some of the settlements around it.
Building within the boundaries of existing settlements is not the same thing as building new settlements/settlement outposts. A growing population (birth rate > mortality rate) has basic needs. No responsible government can or should deliberately ignore the basic needs of its constituents.

Also, Jerusalem is not the West Bank. Nonetheless, it remains more likely than not that a compromise (joint sovereignty, ceding of Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, among other possible options, etc.) on East Jerusalem will be agreed (and certainly a compromise will be required to reach agreement).

Ultimately, compromise from both parties will be needed if an agreement is to be reached. Neither party can expect that it is entitled to fulfillment of all of its demands. Tradeoffs will be required.
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is no indication whatsoever that the Palestinians have any intention of using the right of return in such a matter. In fact, past negotiations showed they were more than willing to greatly diminish the right of return to where it would pose no risk of creating the situation you claim they seek.
Earlier on Tuesday, Fatah official Marwan Barghouti said that "without requiring Israel to return Palestinian refugees, negotiations are worthless . In an interview with Al-Hayat, Barghouti said Israel's leadership is "not serious and not trying to achieve peace."
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=189518

These two sentences are beyond incoherent, but wholly expected given the shell game the Palestinians are playing here. This is the core of the issue. The Palestinians believe Israel is "not serious" and negotiations are "worthless" because Israel will not negotiate away its existence. It is an absurd position, which anyone genuinely interested in peace and Palestinian independence should both condemn and do everything they can to get the Palestinians to move away from, as it condemns any talks to utter failure and prevents the Palestinians from achieving the independence they purport to seek (and which anti-Israelers claim to support).

But of course what we get from the western "pro-Palestinian" (but really anti-Israel) crowd and how statements like this, which so clearly demonstrate that it is the Palestinians who are THE obsticle to peace and an independent state, is obfuscation and cherry picking appeasing phrases inconsistent with Palestinian actions to allow this rejectionism to continue.
 
Last edited:

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,801
Reaction score
10,152
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Earlier on Tuesday, Fatah official Marwan Barghouti said that "without requiring Israel to return Palestinian refugees, negotiations are worthless . In an interview with Al-Hayat, Barghouti said Israel's leadership is "not serious and not trying to achieve peace."
PA official gives Israel, US week to find freeze solution
On whole, the article's content suggests that the Palestinian leadership is likely looking for a way to blow up the talks. It also highlights continuing rigidity on the part of the Palestinians. For example, the idea that the U.S. should pressure Israel over boundaries when, in fact, both parties will need to negotiate agreed boundaries is just another hint that the Palestinian leadership retains rigid positions. UNSC 242 allows for adjustments. There is no Palestinian entitlement to exact 1967 boundaries, borders that were not secure. In the end, both sides will need to be sufficiently flexible to strike the compromises necessary to reach an agreement.

As the Palestinians will gain little from blowing up the talks and, over time could lose much if Israel ultimately is compelled to unilaterally disengage, one has to wonder whether the Palestinian leadership is merely seeking an excuse to end the talks and blame Israel doing so. After all, what had been a precondition for talks and is now being used as a condition for continuing negotiations had not been raised with any previous Israeli government.

Nevertheless, the Palestinian leadership may well have made a strategic choice to find a way to end talks while blaming Israel for the outcome in order to avoid difficult but necessary choices if an agreement is to be achieved. The Palestinian leadership knows that Israel cannot accept their demand for recognition of a "right" of return to Israel for Palestinian refugees and their descendants given the legal and demographic ramifications involved with any such recognition. Hence, Palestinian rigidity on that position would lead to failure of the negotiations and accountability for such failure would rest with the Palestinian leadership for its implacability. On the other hand, what is a weak Palestinian government appears to lack the courage and foresight to make what would be a deeply unpopular decision among Palestinians, namely to abandon the longstanding maximum demand of a "right" of return to Israel. Instead, Palestinian refugees and their descendants would only have a right to move to the new Palestinian state. But that's a decision that will need to be made if an agreement is to be reached. No sovereign state can reasonably be expected to accept terms that would underwrite its own demise. Israel is no exception.
 
Last edited:

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
On whole, the article's content suggests that the Palestinian leadership is likely looking for a way to blow up the talks.
which has precisely been their intent since the moment they were dragged into them. There is no evidence, direct or indirect, to suggest otherwise.

It also highlights continuing rigidity on the part of the Palestinians. For example, the idea that the U.S. should pressure Israel over boundaries when, in fact, both parties will need to negotiate agreed boundaries is just another hint that the Palestinian leadership retains rigid positions.
IMO, it does far more than that - it summarizes the inherent lie that the Palestinians are prepared to make peace with Israel under any terms short of victory. There can be no peace between nations with the right of return. It is a weapon of demographic subversion that is designed to allow the Palestinians to win through demogrpahicsd and the subversion of Israeli institutions what they cannot win through bullets and bombs.

That was the reason the right of return was inculcated in a perpetual refugee population unlike in any other conflict, and that is the reason why so much effort has been made by the Palestinians to inculcate this expectation of this as a "core demand" that must be met under any peace agreement rather than educating their population towards peace and compromise, as Israel did in the 90s.

The right of return as a core demand is a game breaker. And was designed as such. While it is interesting to watch anti-Israeliers try to deny this reality, it is really quite tragic, as those who bear the largest burden for this continued rejectionism are the Palestinian civilians in the territories and in refugee camps that suffer the most. All this talk of "justice" and "law", with absolutely no concern for those they purport to be advocating for.

UNSC 242 allows for adjustments. There is no Palestinian entitlement to exact 1967 boundaries, borders that were not secure. In the end, both sides will need to be sufficiently flexible to strike the compromises necessary to reach an agreement.
of course. We all know what an actual workable agreement would look like. Some territorial compromises to allow Israel tor etain settlment blocks that would be deal breakers if they tried to evacuate them (those on the seam line, plus possibly Arial) and which provide Israel with territorial depth necessary to establish more defensible lines. Shared control over Jeruslem, with Israel retaining Jewish neigbourhoods and some mechanism for archaeological preservation and maintenance of holy sites. No right of return but some mechanism for compensation for those whose property was lost due to the war. Agreements on water and shared resources. Potential customs and trade agreements. limitations on Palestinian offensive warfare capabilities, with likely transitional Israeli security presence in certain areas (e.g., Jordan Valley), potentially facilitated by an international presence) Etc.

While this does not meet Palestinian maximalist demands and may be "an injustice" "unfair" "illegal" or whatever, it would result in an independent viable Palestinian state, in which Palestinians can pursue their national aspirations. It would end the decades of conflict, and allow the nesxt generation of Palestinian children to grwo up in a more normal, more civil environment, where they can look forward to a better future.

But we all knwo this will never happen, and that every "pro-Palestinian" poster on this board (and elsewhere) opposes such an outcome, for reasons of "law", "justice" or other such equivocation.

As the Palestinians will gain little from blowing up the talks and, over time could lose much if Israel ultimately is compelled to unilaterally disengage, one has to wonder whether the Palestinian leadership is merely seeking an excuse to end the talks and blame Israel doing so.
what wonder? This is precisely what is going on. The Palestinians have always been willing tyo bank concessions, and even to offer those of their own, but only insofar as those concessions do not have any adverse impact on their continued efforts to destroy Israel. That is the Palestinians' core redline - anythign and everything that would make it more difficult to pursue Palestinian control over Israel is unacceptable, even though they pretend this isn't so for the wider international audience. Which is exactly how we can get such incoherent nonsense from Bhargouti with a straight face. Because to them, pursuit of the destruction of Israel above all else has been the never-chenged goal, and is self-evident.

The object here has always been to avoid talks, enter into them if dragged, but do everything possible to cause talks to fail while ensuring that Israel is blamed for the talks. If that could be manouvered into more concessions to keep talks going, fine. bank more concessions. But talk is just talk, and so long as the Palestinians do not have to give up anything of consequence or actually reach an agreement, they are happy to keep going while banking concessions.

Abbas is no moderate. He never was, even though we have tried to pretend that he is. We (and Israel) are doing the same thign with him as we did with Arafat. Ignoring reality in pursuit of an elusive peace in the hopes that by not speaking something it doesn't really exist.

It cannot work.

After all, what had been a precondition for talks and is now being used as a condition for continuing negotiations had not been raised with any previous Israeli government.
and if this is granted he next demand will be immediately forthcomming, with nothing ever offered in return, unless it is perceived to be in Palestinian interests in their larger strategic game of destroying Israel.

Nevertheless, the Palestinian leadership may well have made a strategic choice to find a way to end talks while blaming Israel for the outcome in order to avoid difficult but necessary choices if an agreement is to be achieved.
They have made that choice, but not for the reason you suggest. It is not that they want to avoid making difficult choices, it is that they have no interest in the outcome. It is not that Abbas doesn't want to expalin to Palestinians that their future is in an independent Palestinian state, it is that he does not believe that the state justifies relinquishing the struggle to "liberate historic Palestine". There is no evidence at all to the contrary in any action he or other Palestinian leaders have ever taken.

The Palestinian leadership knows that Israel cannot accept their demand for recognition of a "right" of return to Israel for Palestinian refugees and their descendants given the legal and demographic ramifications involved with any such recognition.
which is exaclty why it has always been a core demand. Because it allows for "talks" to continue ad nausium for tactical reasosn while ensuring that there will never be an agreement. Dressing it up in "law" and "right" and "justice" just provides them a cover for doing so without the blame being placed where it rightly belongs for the failure of any talks.

Hence, Palestinian rigidity on that position would lead to failure of the negotiations and accountability for such failure would rest with the Palestinian leadership for its implacability.
should rest. But it won't. It always rests with Israel. Just like camp david and taba and Olmert's proposals. Everything is always Israel's fault because the Palestinians just want independence and big bad Israel is denying that to them. Which of course just allows the Palestinian leadership to continue to sacrifice their people on this destructionist altar in myopic pursuit of the delusional utopian fantasy that is Israel's destruction.

And like every other time, the Palestinian leadership will face no consequences when it scuttles talks this time. Even if the world finally sees that the Palestinians are really the party to blame, they STLL will not do anything because Abbas is a "moderate" and the alternatives suck even more ass than he does.

On the other hand, what is a weak Palestinian government appears to lack the courage and foresight to make what would be a deeply unpopular decision among Palestinians, namely to abandon the longstanding maximum demand of a "right" of return to Israel. Instead, Palestinian refugees and their descendants would only have a right to move to the new Palestinian state. But that's a decision that will need to be made if an agreement is to be reached. No sovereign state can reasonably be expected to accept terms that would underwrite its own demise. Israel is no exception.
of course not. But re-examine what the Palestinians real objectives are, and honestly see whether any evidence at all exists that the Palestinians are even remotely interested in a state if that state involves relinquishng claims to Israel.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The primary President Abbas gave for rejecting the Olmert initiative concerned the demand concerning refugees.
You manufactured that notion out of your own butchered interpretation of what the author of an article paraphrased, not something you actually read and I demonstrated that the last time you made this ridiculous claim. No report I have read anywhere claims this was the primary reason for rejecting the plan and you have failed to provide one.

More recently, Prime Minister Fayyad rejected a joint statement that referred to "two states for two peoples" precisely because such a statement would bar any prospect of a return of refugees (and their descendants to Israel).
Where do you get that is why he rejected it? I have looked and no comments from him have been cited to that effect. Rather, the Palestinians have always insisted, rightly, that such a statement inherently discriminates against non-Jews in Israel by implying Israel is not a state for them. Of course, now you are going to claim, without providing evidence naturally, that this is just what they say publicly and privately they are just constantly scheming to end the Jewish state. Here is a challenge for you: prove the Palestinians are only giving lip service to the plight of the Israeli-Arab community and are really just concealing their true desire to end Israel as a Jewish state.

90%+ of the West Bank (and that's before land swaps) is anything but a granting of the Palestinians "small" parts of the West Bank. Israel does have security needs and those needs will have to be accommodated much as Palestinian needs for land for a state will have to be accommodated. Otherwise, there will be no agreement.
I was talking about the settlements specifically when I said that. Also, what of the security needs of Palestinians? Do the Palestinians not deserve security?

The key term is "interim." An interim agreement would not constitute a final settlement.
In situations like this can quickly become a semi-permanent status. The Palestinians granting Israel land before they even talk about what the Palestinians will get in exchange is demanding too much.

It's not a precondition. It is not something that bars the start of negotiations. Instead, given past Palestinian and Israeli agreement on that issue, it is a very likely outcome. To date, the current Palestinian government has given no indication that it has changed its position on that issue.
Actually, they have made several comments to the effect that it is not what they accept automatically. It is only a compromise that has often been put forward, primarily because Israel will not dismantle the settlements or allow them to be part of a Palestinian state.

Building within the boundaries of existing settlements is not the same thing as building new settlements/settlement outposts. A growing population (birth rate > mortality rate) has basic needs. No responsible government can or should deliberately ignore the basic needs of its constituents.

Also, Jerusalem is not the West Bank. Nonetheless, it remains more likely than not that a compromise (joint sovereignty, ceding of Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, among other possible options, etc.) on East Jerusalem will be agreed (and certainly a compromise will be required to reach agreement).
How can you not see the problem here? If ceding Arab neighborhoods is actually in the cards then the Israeli government actively continuing forced demolition of Arab neighborhoods to replace them with Jewish ones is deliberate sabotage of a final peace agreement.

Ultimately, compromise from both parties will be needed if an agreement is to be reached. Neither party can expect that it is entitled to fulfillment of all of its demands. Tradeoffs will be required.
So far Israel has not put forward a single plan that could even be generously called "compromise" and I have explained to you all the reasons this is the case before. In essence the Israeli plan is to create a Palestinian bantustan with the only difference being the international community may very well recognize their fake independence.

Earlier on Tuesday, Fatah official Marwan Barghouti said that "without requiring Israel to return Palestinian refugees, negotiations are worthless . In an interview with Al-Hayat, Barghouti said Israel's leadership is "not serious and not trying to achieve peace."
PA official gives Israel, US week to find freeze solution
Talk about cherry-picking. Could you not find a similar comment from Fayyad, Abbas, or someone else who is actually part of these negotiations? The sloppy wording also makes it hard to understand exactly what he is asking for here.
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Talk about cherry-picking. Could you not find a similar comment from Fayyad, Abbas, or someone else who is actually part of these negotiations? The sloppy wording also makes it hard to understand exactly what he is asking for here.
Too funny. Cherry picking? Seriously?

Abbas:
"Jerusalem and the right of return are inalienable Palestinian rights" (just as an FYI, inalienable means they cannot be given up, or substituted for in kind, but I'm sure you knew that) Abbas: Jerusalem, right of return are our inalienable rights - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
“We encountered, and will encounter in the future, fierce resistance on this subject from the Israeli government, because the bottom line is that [the return of refugees] means altering the demographic character [of Israel] that the Israelis hope to preserve ... It is noteworthy in this matter, and this is also what we clarified to the Israelis, that the Right of Return means a return to Israel and not to the Palestinian State… When we talk about the Right of Return, we talk about the return of refugees to Israel, because Israel was the one who deported them and it is in Israel that their property is found…” (in 2000);
“Peace will not be achieved without the refugees getting back their sacred rights, which cannot be touched… It is the individual right of every refugee, and no one can reach an agreement in this matter without his consent.” (in 2003);
“We promise you [Arafat] that our heart will not rest until we achieve the right of return for our people and end the tragic refugee issue.” (in 2004)
“…the right of return is a sacred right of the Palestinian refugees ... The national dialogue conference rejects all attempts that aim to cancel the right of return of refugees and that aims to disperse the refugees in the various countries of the world. The national dialogue conference affirms that the right of refugees is a sacred right in their homeland and it is a collective and individual right that no force in the world can cancel the right of our people and the right of our refugees in their homeland and in their lands and homes.” (from 2006)
“The issue of the refugees is non-negotiable… We… reject any attempt to resettle the refugees in other countries” (2007)
The Palestinian Authority Stand on the (this web page has a whole bunch of clarifying comments made by Fatah, which you may also find helpful).
"The issue of the refugees was at least as important as the Jerusalem issue, and judging by the results, maybe even more important and difficult. We encountered, and will encounter in the future, fierce resistance on this subject from the Israeli government, because the bottom line is that [the return of refugees] means altering the demographic character [of Israel] that the Israelis hope to preserve." Mahmoud Abbas on Palestinian Right of Return and Why Olso failed
"We already rejected such a proposal [that Israel is the Jewish state, implying that Arab refugees would 'return' instead to a future West Bank and Gaza Strip "Palestine"] at the Annapolis summit, last November in the U.S."






And you want to talk about how the Palestinians are rightly turning their backs on peace because of concern for minority rights in a demcratic country that treats minorities better than in any other country in the region (and whose minorities are significanrtly better off than they would be in "Palestine", which is why none of them would ever want to see their citizenship shifted). What a joke.

Oh, and his words are also completely clear. And entirely in-line with Palestinian goals and behaviour over the past 20 years.
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Talk about cherry-picking. Could you not find a similar comment from Fayyad, Abbas, or someone else who is actually part of these negotiations? The sloppy wording also makes it hard to understand exactly what he is asking for here.
Too funny. Cherry picking? Seriously?

Abbas:
"Jerusalem and the right of return are inalienable Palestinian rights" (just as an FYI, inalienable means they cannot be given up, or substituted for in kind, but I'm sure you knew that) Abbas: Jerusalem, right of return are our inalienable rights - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
“We encountered, and will encounter in the future, fierce resistance on this subject from the Israeli government, because the bottom line is that [the return of refugees] means altering the demographic character [of Israel] that the Israelis hope to preserve ... It is noteworthy in this matter, and this is also what we clarified to the Israelis, that the Right of Return means a return to Israel and not to the Palestinian State… When we talk about the Right of Return, we talk about the return of refugees to Israel, because Israel was the one who deported them and it is in Israel that their property is found…” (in 2000);
“Peace will not be achieved without the refugees getting back their sacred rights, which cannot be touched… It is the individual right of every refugee, and no one can reach an agreement in this matter without his consent.” (in 2003);
“We promise you [Arafat] that our heart will not rest until we achieve the right of return for our people and end the tragic refugee issue.” (in 2004)
“…the right of return is a sacred right of the Palestinian refugees ... The national dialogue conference rejects all attempts that aim to cancel the right of return of refugees and that aims to disperse the refugees in the various countries of the world. The national dialogue conference affirms that the right of refugees is a sacred right in their homeland and it is a collective and individual right that no force in the world can cancel the right of our people and the right of our refugees in their homeland and in their lands and homes.” (from 2006)
“The issue of the refugees is non-negotiable… We… reject any attempt to resettle the refugees in other countries” (2007)
The Palestinian Authority Stand on the (this web page has a whole bunch of clarifying comments made by Fatah, which you may also find helpful).
"The issue of the refugees was at least as important as the Jerusalem issue, and judging by the results, maybe even more important and difficult. We encountered, and will encounter in the future, fierce resistance on this subject from the Israeli government, because the bottom line is that [the return of refugees] means altering the demographic character [of Israel] that the Israelis hope to preserve." Mahmoud Abbas on Palestinian Right of Return and Why Olso failed
"We already rejected such a proposal [that Israel is the Jewish state, implying that Arab refugees would 'return' instead to a future West Bank and Gaza Strip "Palestine"] at the Annapolis summit, last November in the U.S."






And you want to talk about how the Palestinians are rightly turning their backs on peace because of concern for minority rights in a demcratic country that treats minorities better than in any other country in the region (and whose minorities are significanrtly better off than they would be in "Palestine", which is why none of them would ever want to see their citizenship shifted). What a joke.

Oh, and his words are also completely clear. And entirely in-line with Palestinian goals and behaviour over the past 20 years.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I do not automatically trust any source that regards MEMRI as reliable and objective, considering it has been shown to have clearly and deliberately mistranslated words to portray Palestinians as blood-thirty murderers. Never mind that it is run by an ex-spook. You are going to have to find something a hell of a lot better than that.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,801
Reaction score
10,152
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I do not automatically trust any source that regards MEMRI as reliable and objective, considering it has been shown to have clearly and deliberately mistranslated words to portray Palestinians as blood-thirty murderers. Never mind that it is run by an ex-spook. You are going to have to find something a hell of a lot better than that.
Haaretz is not affiliated with Memri.org. Moreover, one can imagine the international outcry that would result were an Israeli leader to declare "Eretz Israel" an "inalienable right" along the lines that Mr. Abbas framed his demand concerning Palestinian refugees and their descendants. Tragically, no such outcry results when Abbas articulates what is essentially a posture that is no less unreasonable.
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I do not automatically trust any source that regards MEMRI as reliable and objective, considering it has been shown to have clearly and deliberately mistranslated words to portray Palestinians as blood-thirty murderers. Never mind that it is run by an ex-spook. You are going to have to find something a hell of a lot better than that.
that's all you got? Lots and lots of quotes, all from different sources, and your response is that they are worthless because these sources trust MEMRI? I mean, aside from the fact that 90+% of MEMRI's stuff is not criticzed for its translation, and the vast majority of non-anti-Israel sites and commentators also trust MEMRI, how do you even hope to come off as not being completely unreasonable and unwilling to recognize the truth?
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Moderator's Warning:
Demon of Light has been thread banned.
 

Mira

DP Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
3,629
Reaction score
796
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Moderator's Warning:
Demon of Light has been thread banned.
:rofl:rofl:rofl::rofl

do you guys realise for only a moment that scores of people are reading this forum and realising that you are simply silencing those who have valid arguments against you by banning them from threads or temp banning them (expandmymind) ?


so ridiculous LOLOLOLOLOL poor simpletons :doh

so weak and so cheap

stand up for your ideas for once you cowards !!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bub
Top Bottom