Fayyad left the Ad-Hoc Liaison Committee meeting furious due to an argument he had with Ayalon, who refused to agree to a version of the meeting's summary because it included the words "two states."
Ayalon told Ynet that he suggested instead that it read "two states for two peoples - Jewish and Palestinian," and demanded guarantees that committee donations don't go towards incitement or boycotting of Israeli goods.
The Quartet of Mideast peacemakers shepherding newly started direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations abruptly canceled a planned a news conference at the United Nations, after failing to reach agreement on who would appear on behalf of the group.
Call me clueless, doesn't a statement like that -- either "two states" or "two states for two peoples" -- help the Palestinians?
I would've thought it would be the Israelis who would object to such language.
Could someone straighten me out on this?
Well, I could see that as being an issue (I guess), but it didn't even get a mention in this article.
"What I say is that if the Palestinians are not willing to talk about two states for two peoples, let alone a Jewish state for Israel, then there's nothing to talk about," Ayalon told the Post in a telephone interview. "And also, I said if the Palestinians mean, at the end of the process, to have one Palestinian state and one bi-national state, this will not happen."
Call me clueless, doesn't a statement like that -- either "two states" or "two states for two peoples" -- help the Palestinians?
I would've thought it would be the Israelis who would object to such language.
Could someone straighten me out on this?
I think it has something to do with Israeli Arabs having to swear an oath of loyalty to Israel as a Jewish State or possibly lose their citizenship and also possibly that Israeli Arabs will need to give up their citizenship anyway.
It is a very serious issue.
It is also totally convoluted and made up.
Both because none of it is true with respect to Israel, and because the Palestinianleadership doesn't actually give a rats ass about the well being of Israeli Arabs. They don't even care about the well being of those under their sovereignty.
Avigdor Lieberman is at it again. The right-wing Israeli foreign minister wants the Palestinian Authority (PA) to effectively accept the expulsion of Palestinian-Israelis (or Israeli-Arabs as they are known inside Israel) as part of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.
Speaking to a government committee on Sunday, Lieberman said that the guiding principle of the current Palestinian-Israeli negotiations should be the exchange of land and populations and not land for peace. In other words a peace treaty should involve the Israeli annexation of heavily populated Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the PA taking the Palestinian population of Israel into territories under its jurisdiction.
According to Palestinian officials, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, rejected that demand during the first round of direct talks in Washington earlier this month on two grounds. The first being that it would be a betrayal of the rights of Palestinian-Israelis to stay in their homeland and to fight for equal civil rights and the second that it would amount to forfeiting the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
But these two reasons are exactly why Israel is pushing for Arab recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. It wants the Palestinian leadership in one swift move to legitimise the expulsion of Palestinian-Israelis and to end any discussion of the right of return.
I am not sure how much to ignore you. What are you trying to say. What is convoluted. You do not know that Lieberman was elected on the promise of trying to get Loyalty oaths from Israeli Arabs, that is loyalty oaths to a Jewish State when they are not even Jewish. Most States make a point of including their minorities but Israel is doing the opposite. It is his intention to remove the citizenship of all who will not take this oath. That means Israeli Arabs must take an oath to be second Class citizens.
This is just pure emotion, like throwing eggs. In Post 5 I have given a quote from the Jewish Post that Ayalon is saying there will not be a bi-national state. This is indeed going even further than the 'Loyalty Oath'. That sounds pretty clear to me that he is wanting the Arabs out of Israel.
I am not prepared to continue discussing with you if you do not start talking properly.
I think it has something to do with Israeli Arabs having to swear an oath of loyalty to Israel as a Jewish State or possibly lose their citizenship and also possibly that Israeli Arabs will need to give up their citizenship anyway.
It is a very serious issue.
Nope, it has to do with the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
They do not wish to use statements like "two states for two peoples" as two peoples means Jewish and Palestinian.
At this point, I say screw them. Talks should be done.
They can get back to us when they're serious (likely never).
In the meantime, pick borders, disengage, maintain control over borders, and wait.
If one takes a careful look at the verbiage with respect to the phrase "two states for two peoples," that phrase rules out solutions that would alter Israel's demographics. It is clear that the Palestinian state that would be established would include Palestinians. There's no dispute on that issue.
With respect to Israel, the Palestinian leadership and Israeli government have dramatically different positions. Israel is currently a Jewish majority state and, consistent with the 1947 partition plan, serves as the homeland for the Jewish people (a second people). "Two states for two peoples" would recognize that reality.
As such, it would rule out the notion of a so-called "right" of Palestinian refugees to relocate to Israel (a situation that would transform Israel's demographics and risk converting Israel into a Jewish minority state). Hence, as the Palestinians have been unwilling to date to compromise on the refugee issue, it comes as no surprise that the Palestinian Prime Minister would reject language that would represent compromise.
Ultimately, though compromise will be key to reaching an agreement. The Palestinian maximum position on refugees poses an existential threat to Israel. As a result, Israel cannot reasonably be expected to agree to that position, as it would negate the original intent of its re-establishment under the partition plan.
I am not sure how much to ignore you. What are you trying to say. What is convoluted. You do not know that Lieberman was elected on the promise of trying to get Loyalty oaths from Israeli Arabs, that is loyalty oaths to a Jewish State when they are not even Jewish. Most States make a point of including their minorities but Israel is doing the opposite. It is his intention to remove the citizenship of all who will not take this oath. That means Israeli Arabs must take an oath to be second Class citizens.
If one takes a careful look at the verbiage with respect to the phrase "two states for two peoples," that phrase rules out solutions that would alter Israel's demographics. It is clear that the Palestinian state that would be established would include Palestinians. There's no dispute on that issue.
With respect to Israel, the Palestinian leadership and Israeli government have dramatically different positions. Israel is currently a Jewish majority state and, consistent with the 1947 partition plan, serves as the homeland for the Jewish people (a second people). "Two states for two peoples" would recognize that reality.
As such, it would rule out the notion of a so-called "right" of Palestinian refugees to relocate to Israel (a situation that would transform Israel's demographics and risk converting Israel into a Jewish minority state). Hence, as the Palestinians have been unwilling to date to compromise on the refugee issue, it comes as no surprise that the Palestinian Prime Minister would reject language that would represent compromise.
Ultimately, though compromise will be key to reaching an agreement. The Palestinian maximum position on refugees poses an existential threat to Israel. As a result, Israel cannot reasonably be expected to agree to that position, as it would negate the original intent of its re-establishment under the partition plan.
This of course begs the question - why?
Why would the Palestinians cling to what they know is a completely unacceptable condition, particularly as the self-cast "weak" party in negotiations? Falls in line with similar questions about why the Palestinians have never been willing to compromise on anything, why they would reject independence to wage terror wars, and why they continue to lionize murders and inculcate rejectionism.
The answer is rather obvious, but people seem utterly afraid to recognize it - the Palestinians were not interested in peace, are not interested in peace, and are working to ensure that they will not in the future be interested in peace. The Palestinians will never agree to or accept anything that erodes their ability to continue the struggle against Israel's existence - something for free, sure. Something for a "price that does not involve giving up a claim to or an ability to fight Israel, fine. But productive steps, like recognizing Israel as a non-Palestinian state, "relinquishing" the nonsense right of return, resettling nth generation "refugees" in newly built communities, stop inculcating maximalist demands and expectations in the population, never. Cause that would harm the struggle. And we can't have that.
This is the perfect illustration of why it is the Palestinians who are to blame for their situation.
There is little doubt that it will take great political courage for a Palestinian leader to accept a position that shatters the myth that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a "right" to move to Israel. Instead, the Palestinian leadership will need to make clear that Palestinian refugees and their descendants can only expect to be able to move to the new Palestinian state, not Israel.
Given how past generations of Palestinian leaders have continually and loudly proclaimed a so-called "right of return" to Israel, the belief in such a "right" among Palestinian refugees and their descendants was cultivated and reinforced. That belief remains very strong today. As a result, a political decision that would acknowledge that such an unlimited "right" did not and does not exist would be deeply unpopular among many in the Palestinian diaspora. Hence, courageous, even heroic, leadership will be required from the Palestinians on that issue. Nonetheless, difficult as it might be for the Palestinian leadership to do so, compromise that falls short of the Palestinian maximum demand on refugees is exactly what will be needed if a peace agreement is to be reached. No sovereign state can reasonably be expected to accept a position that poses an existential threat.
Weird, this "mythical" right somehow exists in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
don, what is so "mythical" about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
don, what is so "mythical" about Israel's right of return?
One more thing you never answered:
Right of return for Palestinians to Israel is a "demographic threat". Continued settler expanision and construction is a "demographic threat" to Palestine. When the Partition was announced, the newly State of Israel would have a 45% population that was non-Jewish. Within a decade, non-Jews would have been the majority of the new State of Israel. Therefore, time was the demographic threat to Israel.
Are ethnic population transfers somehow "right" because they solved the "demographic threat" that the new Israel faced?
The Universal Declaration of Rights was adopted in December 1948. The rise of the refugee situation predated it.
There is little doubt that it will take great political courage for a Palestinian leader to accept a position that shatters the myth that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a "right" to move to Israel. Instead, the Palestinian leadership will need to make clear that Palestinian refugees and their descendants can only expect to be able to move to the new Palestinian state, not Israel.
So? What exactly are you trying to imply? That the Declaration does not apply to Palestinians from that time? I think you will find that opinion is incorrect; the relevant laws mention nothing about a starting date. Not only that, but the Palestinians have been supported on numerous occasions by resolutions so your point is quite invalid indeed.
Please stop referring to the right of return as 'mythical'. It is shameful to hear someone debating the Israeli side try to go down this road when Israel themselves have their own, truly mythical right of return based on no more than a 2000 year old claim to the land and religious texts.
And the right of return supersedes any national laws of immigration.
This is irrelevant anyway because the Palestinians themselves have more or less accepted that they won't actually return themselves, most of them at least. Instead, they will be offered some form of compensation - similar to what the Jews received, and some still do receive, from Germany.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?