• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Is Abbas Again Planning to Walk Away from Direct Negotiations?

I believe what they offered was to let Israel to keep 50 percent of the settlement blocs:



The book review quoted above gives a good picture of the significant flexibility Arafat brought to the negotiations. He did however reject Israel's offer of 50-60 percent of the territory. My mistake, there.

Thanks for the clarifications, Winston Smith. Errors can happen. It's not a big deal.

I am concerned about a Haaretz story indicating that the Palestinians may no longer be willing to accept land swaps (something that they had previously been willing to accept.). The newspaper reported:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Friday that under no circumstances would the PA sign an agreement with Israel which required the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state or a land swap.

IMO, there are substantive ways to get around the recognition issue to alleviate Israel's concerns on that issue. The latter matter is more treacherous, even if one sets aside the logistics involved with relocating settlement blocs (something that Israel almost certainly won't agree to), as historic experience from the numerous conflicts suggested that the exact 1967 boundaries were not secure. There needed to be some modifications and land swaps were a means of helping achieve those modifications.
 
Thanks for the clarifications, Winston Smith. Errors can happen. It's not a big deal.

I am concerned about a Haaretz story indicating that the Palestinians may no longer be willing to accept land swaps (something that they had previously been willing to accept.). The newspaper reported:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Friday that under no circumstances would the PA sign an agreement with Israel which required the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state or a land swap.

IMO, there are substantive ways to get around the recognition issue to alleviate Israel's concerns on that issue. The latter matter is more treacherous, even if one sets aside the logistics involved with relocating settlement blocs (something that Israel almost certainly won't agree to), as historic experience from the numerous conflicts suggested that the exact 1967 boundaries were not secure. There needed to be some modifications and land swaps were a means of helping achieve those modifications.

Abbas has actually not demanded the settlements be dismantled. As I recall he has talked about granting the settlers citizenship in a future Palestinian state. I think a land swap would be more trouble than its worth. The 1967 boundary is far more defensible than the ones that would likely be formed from a land swap. Of course, since Israel demands the Palestinians have no means to defend themselves from foreign powers, that Israel have a continuous military presence in a future Palestinian state, and control over their airspace it is hard to see how any arrangement will make it difficult for Israel to keep itself secure. The Palestinians have far more reason to be concerned for their security under such an arrangement.
 
Abbas has actually not demanded the settlements be dismantled. As I recall he has talked about granting the settlers citizenship in a future Palestinian state. I think a land swap would be more trouble than its worth. The 1967 boundary is far more defensible than the ones that would likely be formed from a land swap. Of course, since Israel demands the Palestinians have no means to defend themselves from foreign powers, that Israel have a continuous military presence in a future Palestinian state, and control over their airspace it is hard to see how any arrangement will make it difficult for Israel to keep itself secure. The Palestinians have far more reason to be concerned for their security under such an arrangement.

If we can be even a little honest in this pat of the forum. Abbas never had an intention of making these talks work and I am not sure Netenyahu wanted them to work either. Both are now trying to deflect the reason for failure on the other side.

It seems the split in this forum is between people who believe that the Jewish nation deserves a homeland as the UN said when establishing the State of Israel and those that do not believe that.

Wouldn't it be better to debate this through up front than have these endless tortured logic discussions which hint at what people are thinking but seem reluctant to say straight out?
 
No you did not.

Actually I did. However, don asked a deceitful question that allows him to claim he is right simply because I cannot answer it the way he phrased it. Naturally, he denied that it was deceitful or that he even phrased it the way he did. Still, I noted one specific incident and I actually mentioned several others to you. If similar incidents had occurred with Israel you can bet your ass the repercussions would have been much more severe.

Oh really? You mean if you acknowledge that this has been going on constantly for 60 years it becomes more serious? Well, we wouldn;t want to do that, would we?

It is about mentioning them all without clarifying when they happened, who committed the acts, whether such acts have continued, and what might have instigated these incidents. When one considers that the suicide bombings inside Israel only began after the largely peaceful First Intifada resulted in a brutal crackdown it creates a different impression. If one also notes that such bombings have essentially ceased a different impression is created. Just like your comment about the Munich Massacre that happened in 1972 and was carried out by Black September, a group which was shut down just a year later and all of its attacks took place far outside of Israel and many did not even involve targeting Israelis. Noting all of that does not create the impression you want.

When you balance all of this out by noting what Israel has done over that same time period you find the rhetoric about Israel as the innocent little victim falls apart. You call me anti-Israeli when all I am doing is saying that things are much less black-and-white as the pro-Israeli side likes to pretend.

I will state this again, just a few attacks across the American border or anybody else's border and "Palestine" would have ceased to be a dream a long time ago.

If that were true Mexico would have been destroyed a long time, as would Canada. Both included a history of cross-border incidents in many cases endorsed or allowed by those governments. You look at India-Pakistan, Korea, Nagorno-Karabakh, and many other conflict lines around the world and you see a lot of restraint even in the face of very serious provocation. What you are saying simply isn't true.

If we can be even a little honest in this pat of the forum.

Why is that people say something like that and proceed to give a bunch of baseless opinions?

Abbas never had an intention of making these talks work and I am not sure Netenyahu wanted them to work either. Both are now trying to deflect the reason for failure on the other side.

I do not think that is true for either of them. However, the gaps between these two are massive and ultimately guided by different perspectives on the conflict. Israel feels like it has little to no obligation towards the Palestinians and portrays itself as the victim. The Palestinians see Israel as an aggressor that they have no reason to accommodate. I would say the Palestinian view is closer to reality than the Israeli view and ultimately when it comes down to how that perspective impacts their plans the Israeli one essentially demands massive concessions from the Palestinians with Israel providing little in exchange and the Palestinian one really only demand a truly independent state on the 1967 borders with some means of military power.

Israel's consistent refusal to accept that as a possibility and continuing military action against Palestinians only strengthens hardliners who are not interested in diplomacy and equally uninterested in a two-state solution.

It seems the split in this forum is between people who believe that the Jewish nation deserves a homeland as the UN said when establishing the State of Israel and those that do not believe that.

I would not phrase it in that manner. Rather there is a difference between people who see the history of the modern state of Israel as one of general victimhood or general aggression.
 
I would not phrase it in that manner. Rather there is a difference between people who see the history of the modern state of Israel as one of general victimhood or general aggression.

This last sentence does a good job of making my point. You refuse to acknowledge that when the U.N. created Israel they said they were creating a Jewish state. Everything else is just trying to justify your nollifying of what the U.N. established.
 
This last sentence does a good job of making my point. You refuse to acknowledge that when the U.N. created Israel they said they were creating a Jewish state. Everything else is just trying to justify your nollifying of what the U.N. established.

I do object to the creations of Israel as a Jewish state, but that is an extension of the dispute I just noted. My issue is that the process that led to Israel being created was aggressive. Some want to make that process an issue of Jewish victimhood and argue that Jews deserved a state. However, I subscribe to the idea that two wrongs do not make a right.
 
I do object to the creations of Israel as a Jewish state, but that is an extension of the dispute I just noted. My issue is that the process that led to Israel being created was aggressive. Some want to make that process an issue of Jewish victimhood and argue that Jews deserved a state. However, I subscribe to the idea that two wrongs do not make a right.

That is fair enough. A reality though is that the state of Israel was created by the international community to be just that. A homeland for the Jewish people. Where that could or should have been located may have been a topic of valid debate in the 20th century. It is now a little late to say uups we goofed, lets just make believe we never established the homeland in what is now Israel.

I guess since there has not been a massive slaughter of Jews in other parts of the world ( in most places there are fews Jews left to kill) people tend to forget that what happened by the Nazis happened many times in history. I guess Christians said enough is enough. We can't control ourselves not to go on these types of slaughters every now and then and allowed for Israel to exist.

It is probably hard for a non-Jew to understand what this is all about. Since it's existence Israel has taken in Jews from all over the world that were in danger just becuase of their religion. It pains me that the people of Israel have to constantly fight to continue to survive.
 
as i have noted (too) many times, israel has no intention of negotiating a settlement
it will have to relinquish that which it now controls
here is further evidence that such a prediction was accurate:
Israeli politicians spar over new pullout referendum law
at least this principal got it right:
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Tuesday criticized the law, saying that it could harm Israel's image. "The law chains the hands of the government. I don't think it is urgent or pressing and might serve our opponents,"...
and these folks are exactly on point:
Arab parliamentarians were among the critics of the new law, saying the Israeli public has no business in deciding the fate of conquered Palestinian land.
clearly, by erecting such an obstruction, it is israel which has no intent to negotiate a settlement
 
as i have noted (too) many times, israel has no intention of negotiating a settlement
it will have to relinquish that which it now controls
here is further evidence that such a prediction was accurate:
Israeli politicians spar over new pullout referendum law
at least this principal got it right:
and these folks are exactly on point:
clearly, by erecting such an obstruction, it is israel which has no intent to negotiate a settlement

How is a referendum indicating Israel do not want peace? It only indicates we are a democratic society and such important decisions will have to get the citizens' approval. I stongly support this law, in the past the right wing always used the idea that there is no support for the goverment actions in the majority of the public. A referendum will shush their mouths. And if they are correct - well there should be no agreement because the majority of the citizens do not support it, in this case you will be correct to say Israelies do not want peace with the Palestinians.

Arab parliamentarians were among the critics of the new law, saying the Israeli public has no business in deciding the fate of conquered Palestinian land

The law speaks of land under Israeli sovereignty. As I understand it, even if a hypothetical peace agreement will keep all of Jerusalem under Israeli control but will include land swaps, Israelies will have to vote on the swaped land because its under Israeli sovereignty and thats not a "conquered Palestinian land". The Golan heights are also not "conqured Palestinian land" and this law will mostly affect a peace agreement with Syria as public opinion in Israel is less willing to withdraw from the Golan than from East Jerusalem as I see it.
 
Back
Top Bottom