• 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!

Israeli presence on Palestinian land 'irreversible'

Degreez

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
BBC News - Israeli presence on Palestinian land 'irreversible'

A UN human rights rapporteur has said continued settlement construction will probably make Israel's occupation of Palestinian land irreversible.

Richard Falk said the peace process aimed at creating an independent, sovereign Palestinian state therefore appeared to be based on an illusion.

He said the UN, the US and Israel had failed to uphold Palestinians' rights.

...

In a report for the UN General Assembly, Mr Falk said Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem had become so extensive it amounted to de-facto annexation of Palestinian land.

He said this undercut assumptions behind UN Security Council resolutions which said Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory in 1967 was temporary and reversible.

Such assumptions are the basis for the current peace process aimed at creating an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.

The best part is when Israel accuses Mr. Falk of being biased, like they do with anything that puts Israel in a negative light:

Israel said the report was utterly biased and served a political agenda, criticising its author for making no mention of what it called Palestinian terrorist attacks.

Mr Falk told journalists that his mandate was to report on the Israeli occupation, not on the rights and wrongs of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.



Here's some summarized information of Israeli settlements on occupied land:
- ~500,000 Israelis live in these settlements
- Settlements take up roughly 40% of the West Bank.
- Over a hundred settlements "not authorized" by Israel (although Israel funded them up until 2008)
- Continued construction is a direct violation of Article 31, Clause 7 of the Oslo Accords (Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations)
- Many settlements were created through the confiscation of private Palestinian property
- Many of the settlers have hard-right ideologies and believe attacking Palestinians is acceptable.
 

24107

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
824
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
BBC News - Israeli presence on Palestinian land 'irreversible'



The best part is when Israel accuses Mr. Falk of being biased, like they do with anything that puts Israel in a negative light:

Israel said the report was utterly biased and served a political agenda, criticising its author for making no mention of what it called Palestinian terrorist attacks.

Mr Falk told journalists that his mandate was to report on the Israeli occupation, not on the rights and wrongs of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.



Here's some summarized information of Israeli settlements on occupied land:
- ~500,000 Israelis live in these settlements
- Settlements take up roughly 40% of the West Bank.
- Over a hundred settlements "not authorized" by Israel (although Israel funded them up until 2008)
- Continued construction is a direct violation of Article 31, Clause 7 of the Oslo Accords (Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations)
- Many settlements were created through the confiscation of private Palestinian property
- Many of the settlers have hard-right ideologies and believe attacking Palestinians is acceptable.

Very sad, but true it was all a lie. I don't think there will ever be peace.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Very sad, but true it was all a lie. I don't think there will ever be peace.

It is not a lie. The Israelis do want peace, but they just demand terms that are completely unreasonable. Such demands are the result of Israel seeing itself as an innocent victim of a barbaric and violent people thus entitling Israel to the land it takes from them as well as justifying any measures that weaken the Palestinian capacity for self-defense. Until Israel breaks out of this topsy-turvy view there probably will not be peace.
 

William Rea

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
8,949
Reaction score
2,231
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
BBC News - Israeli presence on Palestinian land 'irreversible'

The best part is when Israel accuses Mr. Falk of being biased, like they do with anything that puts Israel in a negative light:

Israel said the report was utterly biased and served a political agenda, criticising its author for making no mention of what it called Palestinian terrorist attacks.

Mr Falk told journalists that his mandate was to report on the Israeli occupation, not on the rights and wrongs of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.



Here's some summarized information of Israeli settlements on occupied land:
- ~500,000 Israelis live in these settlements
- Settlements take up roughly 40% of the West Bank.
- Over a hundred settlements "not authorized" by Israel (although Israel funded them up until 2008)
- Continued construction is a direct violation of Article 31, Clause 7 of the Oslo Accords (Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations)
- Many settlements were created through the confiscation of private Palestinian property
- Many of the settlers have hard-right ideologies and believe attacking Palestinians is acceptable.

Even when we are told the bare truth the Israelis try to obfuscate us away from it by "criticising its author for making no mention of what it called Palestinian terrorist attacks.". I am intruiged to see what the pro-Israeli propoganda machine will spin this one out with.

Aside from that, this article is just one of may confirmations of what many of us have been saying for some time now. A two state solution has been systematically undermined by the Israeli state. I strongly doubt that talks for a a two state solution were ever sincerely entered into by Israel.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,853
Reaction score
10,278
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The best part is when Israel accuses Mr. Falk of being biased...

He is exceptionally biased. If one reads the actual document, Mr. Falk accuses Israel of Apartheid, colonization, ethnic cleansing, etc., none of which is accurate if the terms are used properly. This last swipe at Israel, as his tenure will be ending, is par for the course for an individual who once even had the temerity to accuse Israel of practices consistent with the Warsaw Ghetto.

To be sure, there are legitimate needs/issues. However, Mr. Falk's extreme bias and his using his position almost exclusively to peddle cheap anti-Israel propaganda masks areas where genuine improvements could be made.

Finally, and not surprisingly at all, he uses his last report as yet another opportunity to try to bury the two-state solution. After all, the quest for a sovereign Palestinian state is subordinated by his effort to demonize Israel. Not surprisingly, he omitted vital context (terrorism, Palestinian intransigence, etc.) and offered a flippant excuse for doing so.

In the end, his legacy at the UN will be one of politicizing his position to an extent that is unsurpassed to date. His contributions to human rights and peace will have been non-existent, as he used his position to sacrifice those possibilities at the altar of his extreme anti-Israel political agenda.

Israel should completely ignore Mr. Falk's sweeping political screed.
 
Last edited:

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
33,703
Reaction score
22,497
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Even when we are told the bare truth the Israelis try to obfuscate us away from it by "criticising its author for making no mention of what it called Palestinian terrorist attacks.". I am intruiged to see what the pro-Israeli propoganda machine will spin this one out with.

Aside from that, this article is just one of may confirmations of what many of us have been saying for some time now. A two state solution has been systematically undermined by the Israeli state. I strongly doubt that talks for a a two state solution were ever sincerely entered into by Israel.

Those apologists who would have us believe that the Palestinians are negotiating in bad faith are simply projecting.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
He is exceptionally biased. If one reads the actual document, Mr. Falk accuses Israel of Apartheid, colonization, ethnic cleansing, etc., none of which is accurate if the terms are used properly. This last swipe at Israel, as his tenure will be ending, is par for the course for an individual who once even had the temerity to accuse Israel of practices consistent with the Warsaw Ghetto.

Eventually people like you will have to come to terms with the fact that such accusations are not only objective criticisms, but entirely accurate as well. When one side tries to deny a history of abuse it rarely makes peace appetizing to those who have suffered from those abuses.
 

Degreez

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
He is exceptionally biased. If one reads the actual document, Mr. Falk accuses Israel of Apartheid, colonization, ethnic cleansing, etc., none of which is accurate if the terms are used properly. This last swipe at Israel, as his tenure will be ending, is par for the course for an individual who once even had the temerity to accuse Israel of practices consistent with the Warsaw Ghetto.
I've read the entire report already. Apartheid, which may be banned here because of moderator bias, is not banned in the free world where free speech is tolerated. Jew only roads are evidence of Israeli discrimination and segregation. Colonization? What the hell do you call the settlements? Let me guess, you believe the settlements are actually there to help protect Israel. :roll: The settlements are pure Israeli colonization of occupied territory. Suggesting otherwise is mere propaganda. Ethnic cleansing? What do you call the constant eviction of Palestinians in East Jerusalem? "They don't have a permit". Israel has no right under international law to change the status quo of occupied territories. You constantly ignore this bit of international law, despite Israel constantly violating it.
To be sure, there are legitimate needs/issues. However, Mr. Falk's extreme bias and his using his position almost exclusively to peddle cheap anti-Israel propaganda masks areas where genuine improvements could be made.
You have not even given evidence of his bias. He was asked to make a report on Israel's settlement policy and he did. That is not bias, that is him fulfilling his obligations as Special Rapporteur to the Palestinian territories.
Finally, and not surprisingly at all, he uses his last report as yet another opportunity to try to bury the two-state solution. After all, the quest for a sovereign Palestinian state is subordinated by his effort to demonize Israel. Not surprisingly, he omitted vital context (terrorism, Palestinian intransigence, etc.) and offered a flippant excuse for doing so.
I'm sorry, but you are horrendously wrong here. Mr. Falk had absolutely no obligations to comment on Palestinian activities in his report. It was not part of his mandate and it would be moronic to assume that Mr. Falk is biased because he did not have to comment on what Palestinians do/did.
In the end, his legacy at the UN will be one of politicizing his position to an extent that is unsurpassed to date. His contributions to human rights and peace will have been non-existent, as he used his position to sacrifice those possibilities at the altar of his extreme anti-Israel political agenda.

Israel should completely ignore Mr. Falk's sweeping political screed.
Israel ignores anything that puts it in a negative light. His contributions to human rights and peace far outweighs Israel's commitments to those same values.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,638
Reaction score
51,505
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
...Apartheid, which may be banned here because of moderator bias...

Moderator's Warning:
Comments like this are not allowed upstairs, period. If you have comments about moderator actions or bias, this is not the appropriate way to handle it. PM a mod or Vauge, use the "contact us" link at the bottom of the page, create a Binky, but do not make comments like this in threads.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,853
Reaction score
10,278
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I'm sorry, but you are horrendously wrong here. Mr. Falk had absolutely no obligations to comment on Palestinian activities in his report. It was not part of his mandate and it would be moronic to assume that Mr. Falk is biased because he did not have to comment on what Palestinians do/did.

Although he had no "obligations" to do so, the office of the Special Rapporteur is responsible for the human rights situation. The human rights of Israelis were, in fact, violated by various Palestinian acts. He deliberately chose to omit material information and avoid providing a full context. If he wanted to do separate reports, he could have done so, as well. His flippant excuse for ignoring Israel's needs holds no water. He was merely serving a political agenda. Nothing more.
 
Last edited:

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Although he had no "obligations" to do so, the office of the Special Rapporteur is responsible for the human rights situation. The human rights of Israelis were, in fact, violated by various Palestinian acts. He deliberately chose to omit material information and avoid providing a full context. His flippant excuse holds no water.

Not looking to exceed the legal parameters of your office is a "flippant excuse"? Since when?
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,853
Reaction score
10,278
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Not looking to exceed the legal parameters of your office is a "flippant excuse"? Since when?

He wasn't. His office is responsible for reporting on the general human rights in the region, not just for the Palestinians.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
He wasn't. His office is responsible for reporting on the general human rights in the region, not just for the Palestinians.

He is responsible for reporting on the human rights situation in the Palestinian Territories under occupation, which is seen as including Gaza. The Israelis in those territories are either in the military or live in the settlements and as such are far more often responsible for violations rather than victims of them.

I am curious, though, does he discuss violations of the rights of Palestinians by Palestinians? I cannot find the report, so I do not know. That would be a legitimate point to bring up, though I guess it depends on exactly what the mandate of the office is under the UN.
 

Mika-El

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
1,730
Reaction score
619
Location
quantum paradox
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It is not a lie. The Israelis do want peace, but they just demand terms that are completely unreasonable. Such demands are the result of Israel seeing itself as an innocent victim of a barbaric and violent people thus entitling Israel to the land it takes from them as well as justifying any measures that weaken the Palestinian capacity for self-defense. Until Israel breaks out of this topsy-turvy view there probably will not be peace.

This notion you can speak on behalf of all Israelis and neatly lump what they all think into these stereptypical assumptions is absurd. Israelis are not borgs from Star Trek who all think the identical way. Your continued generalizations of what they all think are illogical. You haven't spoke to all Israelis.

You do not know what terms Israel would settle for. You haven't a clue. You think you know what they are but that is based on your subjective preconceived assumptions you project on the state of Israel and all ISraelis.

The fact is even the Israeli negotiagtors do not know what the State of Israeli will settle for and no one knows what the Palestinian Authority will ever settle for. The PA is a loose network of cells. Each has their own self-appointed leader with his own particular opinions and there are many cells within the PA that will never recognize any peace deal with Israel. Abbas hangs by a thin wire and may never be able to get any unanimity from the people he claims to represent.

As for Netanyahu his coalition could also come apart just as fast. He relies on some extremist supporters in other parties or supporters on the right side of his Likud who clearly do not want a Palestinian state. For Netanyahu to achieve a peace deal he would need support not from his own coalition where he probably won't get it but from Kadima and Labour and right now he does not have any consensus.

The fact is neither principle player for Israel or Palestinians has a consensus. So they bluster and make statements designed to sound like they are tough and no one will bully them. We have constant posturing through words and Abbas trying to appease his extremists with sound bites saying he will never give up a Palestinian right to return within Israel or recognize the state of Israel as Jewish while Netanyahu says he will not abandon on-gong settlements.

Here's the question. I am willing to bet in a heart beat Netanyahu would stop settlements and even consider dismantling some or all, if the Palestinians said they were disarming all terrorists, recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and in return for all of the West Bank they would give up alleged rights to land titles within Israel.

What both sides are willing to settle for they can not admit in public. You and I do not know what they are willing to negotiate and settle for behind closed doors. No one does.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
51,922
Reaction score
33,451
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This notion you can speak on behalf of all Israelis and neatly lump what they all think into these stereptypical assumptions is absurd. Israelis are not borgs from Star Trek who all think the identical way. Your continued generalizations of what they all think are illogical. You haven't spoke to all Israelis.

You do not know what terms Israel would settle for. You haven't a clue. You think you know what they are but that is based on your subjective preconceived assumptions you project on the state of Israel and all ISraelis.

The fact is even the Israeli negotiagtors do not know what the State of Israeli will settle for and no one knows what the Palestinian Authority will ever settle for. The PA is a loose network of cells. Each has their own self-appointed leader with his own particular opinions and there are many cells within the PA that will never recognize any peace deal with Israel. Abbas hangs by a thin wire and may never be able to get any unanimity from the people he claims to represent.

As for Netanyahu his coalition could also come apart just as fast. He relies on some extremist supporters in other parties or supporters on the right side of his Likud who clearly do not want a Palestinian state. For Netanyahu to achieve a peace deal he would need support not from his own coalition where he probably won't get it but from Kadima and Labour and right now he does not have any consensus.

The fact is neither principle player for Israel or Palestinians has a consensus. So they bluster and make statements designed to sound like they are tough and no one will bully them. We have constant posturing through words and Abbas trying to appease his extremists with sound bites saying he will never give up a Palestinian right to return within Israel or recognize the state of Israel as Jewish while Netanyahu says he will not abandon on-gong settlements.

Here's the question.
I am willing to bet in a heart beat Netanyahu would stop settlements and even consider dismantling some or all, if the Palestinians said they were disarming all terrorists, recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and in return for all of the West Bank they would give up alleged rights to land titles within Israel.

What both sides are willing to settle for they can not admit in public. You and I do not know what they are willing to negotiate and settle for behind closed doors. No one does.

nobody else knows, you insist ... before chiding the forum member for his speculation
and then begin pontificating what you believe to be the likely outcome
such an obvious double standard
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You do not know what terms Israel would settle for. You haven't a clue. You think you know what they are but that is based on your subjective preconceived assumptions you project on the state of Israel and all ISraelis.

It is based on the content of every past proposal whether it came from a government led by Labor, Kadima, or Likud, not to mention polling data of the general Israeli population.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,228
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Moderator's Warning:
justabubba... you are thread banned from this thread

SIMPLE SUMMARY OF TEMPORARY RULE CHANGES:
Thread Bans will be issued with a 0 point “Thread Ban Infraction” warning the poster that they are now thread banned and they should not post any further in the thread.
Staying banned from a thread is not hard coded
Any additional posts in a thread after a thread banning will result in a 5 point DBAJ infraction. All subsequent posts after will continue to have a similar infraction levied
Thread Bans will always be announced in thread to help with enforcement and notification
All are temporary measures until a hard coded “Thread Ban” system is able to be added to the forum.

 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,504
Reaction score
8,592
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
-- To be sure, there are legitimate needs/issues. However, Mr. Falk's extreme bias and his using his position almost exclusively to peddle cheap anti-Israel propaganda masks areas where genuine improvements could be made --

The UN missed an unprecedented opportunity by not investigating what Israel asked for i.e. atrocities committed against Israelis and their human rights by Palestinians.

If there had been a dual investigation and Israel's case was held up, that would help further the moves towards reconciliation as Palestinians and their supporters would have to address issues raised. Equally, any findings that showed that Israeli actions had treated Palestinian human rights badly would have had more weight. As it is, the UN asked only for investigations into Israel's actions which yet again put Israel on the defensive.

Israel plainly stated its objections 3-4 years ago when Falk was first appointed and the UN has had 3-4 years to address Israels concerns. Now however, the cause of treatment and collective punishment of Gazans during the first 3 years of the blockade can be whitewashed away by both sides whose main concerns are scoring points rather than reaching a solution.

Whoever put together the restricted mandate and then placed people into the post of Special Rapporteur who Israel saw as one sided and hostile (i.e. Falk and John Dugard before him) has done the two state solution or eventual peace no good whatsoever.
 

Mika-El

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
1,730
Reaction score
619
Location
quantum paradox
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
nobody else knows, you insist ... before chiding the forum member for his speculation
and then begin pontificating what you believe to be the likely outcome
such an obvious double standard

Unlike the person I challenged I I did not ask that only my speculation be considered as the valid one therefore your attempt to suggest I did and create a double standard is incorrect.

But I do concede lol, I ponitificate. Lol. I would have preferred you say blow hot air. Ponitifcate probably is the wrong religious reference given my well known preference for lox.
 
Last edited:

Mika-El

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
1,730
Reaction score
619
Location
quantum paradox
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It is based on the content of every past proposal whether it came from a government led by Labor, Kadima, or Likud, not to mention polling data of the general Israeli population.

With due respect is it based on the above?

The actual proposals by both sides are not just limited to what may have been passed between the two in the past both publically and in private.

You don't know the full context or content of the dialogue just the parts in the past released for public consumption which are the tip of the iceberg. That is my point.

My sole point is we should not underestimate either side's ability to achieve peace. There is a tendency in this dialogue to look for the worst case scenarios by some...could that reflect their own political bias and desire to have the talks fail or is it based on legitimate conclusions? It could of course be a little of both but all I am arguing with you right now is I do not think either side is that different.

They are both faced with extremists they have to calm down and placate as they manouver a delicate act of negotiations.

Neither of us know how flexible or intransigent either side really is. We just speculate and I would probably be able to take the same proposals you typecast for your subjective assumption to come to an other conclusion.
 
Last edited:

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
With due respect is it based on the above?

The actual proposals by both sides are not just limited to what may have been passed between the two in the past both publically and in private.

You don't know the full context or content of the dialogue just the parts in the past released for public consumption which are the tip of the iceberg. That is my point.

My sole point is we should not underestimate either side's ability to achieve peace. There is a tendency in this dialogue to look for the worst case scenarios by some...could that reflect their own political bias and desire to have the talks fail or is it based on legitimate conclusions? It could of course be a little of both but all I am arguing with you right now is I do not think either side is that different.

They are both faced with extremists they have to calm down and placate as they manouver a delicate act of negotiations.

Neither of us know how flexible or intransigent either side really is. We just speculate and I would probably be able to take the same proposals you typecast for your subjective assumption to come to an other conclusion.

The argument about extremists works more with Palestinians since he leadership seems to show a great willingness for compromise. However, every government has considered their proposals "generous" and blamed the Palestinians when it failed. Given the content of such proposals I cannot help but see a lack of will for real compromise on the part of Israel. I am not saying they cannot make such compromises, but it would require a major shift in the opinion of Israeli leaders as well as the opinion of Israelis in general.
 

Mika-El

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
1,730
Reaction score
619
Location
quantum paradox
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The argument about extremists works more with Palestinians since he leadership seems to show a great willingness for compromise. However, every government has considered their proposals "generous" and blamed the Palestinians when it failed. Given the content of such proposals I cannot help but see a lack of will for real compromise on the part of Israel. I am not saying they cannot make such compromises, but it would require a major shift in the opinion of Israeli leaders as well as the opinion of Israelis in general.

well you are expressing subjective opinions above but I am not clear what those subjective opinions are based on. I see reference to you concluding Mr. Abbas shows more willingness to compromise but no basis for that. I am not sure how his refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state or ridiculing the notion it is a Jewish state and why that would need to be recognized shows more willingness to compromise.

In fact I see no evidence that either Mr. Abbas or Mr. Netanyahu are different. They both at times have used references to flexability and at other times intransigence as to certain issues. Sorry but I see no basis for you concluding Mr. Abbas is more likely to compromise. If anything from what I have seen released to the public I see someone who has caught himself up in playing the role of inflexible dictator, i.e., throwing out ultimatums which is never a good idea when negotiating because a person who issues ultimatums necessarily paints themselves into a position they can not back down from for fear of losing face. All ultimatums do are to cause people to entrench. It is exactly the same principle as the Wind and the Sun in the Aesop's fable having a contest as to who could get the man's coat off first. The one who blows only caused the man to hold his coat tighter. All issuing an ultimatum does is cause the other side to become defensive and hold on tight.

In the cultural world of semites and negotiations, it is very common when bartering with an Arab in an open market to here them make ultimatums. Its all about trying to gain your respect and not lose face.

When negotiating and you are in the market and someone gives an ultimatum and you will not take it and you want to re-establish negotiations without having them lose face, you move on to another item and
then match the second item back to the first in the price and start all over again. In this way the person giving the ultimatum on the first price does not lose face and can start again with you.

You will also note in the markets, few Arab merchants back themselves into a corner while negotiating using ultimatums. It is a sign of a weak negotiator.

Now what I say may sound ridiculously quaint to you, but politics, and the posturing going on between Abbbas and Netanyahu is very much the same exercise as two people in a market bargaining. No they do not necessarily think or reason the way we do in the West. Face saving is far more important in transactions then it is in the West. There is a great deal of macho posturing connected to the communications that must be deferred to if anything is to get done.

I also think your sweeping generalizationt hat there needs to be a major shift in Israeli opinion and its leaders is just that a stereotype where you set up Israelis as unreasonable.

Its a meaningless statement. I could say the exact same thing about the Arab world in general and Palestinians specifically. Its one of those stereotypes designed to try label the debate as black and white with a reasonable and unreasonable person.

That is what I challenge. The reality is in any peace negotiations BOTH SIDES face the SAME need to shift in opinion and attitudes and that requires leaders able to enunciate positive visions that are to come from being willing to change.

You can toss out the aside that Israelis need a mahor shift in opinion but tell me are you planning to get Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah Hawks, Intifada and the other 300-500 terror cells to put down their weapons and denounce terrorism? You want to talk about that major shift? You think an Israeli is going to have a major shift when they saw the IDF pull out of Gaza and Lebanon only to see terrorists the day they left and the day after begin attacking Israel pre 1967?

Really? You want to make pronouncements about Israelis needing to shift their opinions when there is ZERO sign Palestinian terror groups including Hamas have any intention of disarming like the IRA did before true peace talks can commence?

You think an Israel should sit down at a table with a terrorist pointing a gun at their head?

The difficult and tedious talks in Northern Ireland came to pass precisely because unlike Hamas and the countless other terror cells some still within the PA network, The IRA did disarm first.

You want a profound shift? Disarm terrorists. Then and only then will true negotiations be able to take place.

What we have now is a Palestinian leader on the West Bank with no control over any terrorist groups including Hamas. He is at best a figure head the West props like it does Karzi in Afghanistan or any other puppet it chooses to do its bidding.

Mr. Abbas at best is a temporary figure-head. Long term he has no stable base to run a government. He has too much bad blood within his own Palestinian community to ever achieve the kind of consensus or popular support he would need. The only way he will lead is if he is propped by a military force, i.e., becomes yet another military backed undemocratic leader. There's no shortage of those in the Middle East.
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,762
Reaction score
3,386
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Even when we are told the bare truth the Israelis try to obfuscate us away from it by "criticising its author for making no mention of what it called Palestinian terrorist attacks.". I am intruiged to see what the pro-Israeli propoganda machine will spin this one out with.

Aside from that, this article is just one of may confirmations of what many of us have been saying for some time now. A two state solution has been systematically undermined by the Israeli state. I strongly doubt that talks for a a two state solution were ever sincerely entered into by Israel.

But the PA was sincere??????
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
well you are expressing subjective opinions above but I am not clear what those subjective opinions are based on. I see reference to you concluding Mr. Abbas shows more willingness to compromise but no basis for that. I am not sure how his refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state or ridiculing the notion it is a Jewish state and why that would need to be recognized shows more willingness to compromise.

Not wanting to accept every demand is not the same as being unwilling to compromise. This is again something based on past proposals. Palestinians reasonably do not want to be a demilitarized state with a continuous Israeli military presence that controls its airspace. It essentially negates any notion of independence Israel might offer them. However, the Palestinian leaders have frequently offered allowance for Israeli concerns. On the right of return Arafat suggested there could be a quota with the vast majority of Palestinian refugees being discouraged from returning. The number of new Arab immigrants essentially matched what would have been Jewish population growth over the same period.

Demanding recognition of Israel as a state for Jews actually prejudices the outcome of talks whereas the demand for a construction freeze does not.

I also think your sweeping generalizationt hat there needs to be a major shift in Israeli opinion and its leaders is just that a stereotype where you set up Israelis as unreasonable.

They are being unreasonable. What has been demanded of the Palestinians is far beyond anything Israel has offered to concede. If the tables were turned Israel would never accept the terms being offered to the Palestinians.

You can toss out the aside that Israelis need a mahor shift in opinion but tell me are you planning to get Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah Hawks, Intifada and the other 300-500 terror cells to put down their weapons and denounce terrorism?

Demanding they disarm should not be a precondition for a settlement. An armistice is all that is really required.

The difficult and tedious talks in Northern Ireland came to pass precisely because unlike Hamas and the countless other terror cells some still within the PA network, The IRA did disarm first.

The situations are completely different. One involves resistance to an occupation force and the other concerns an internal irredentist struggle. It would be more comparable to the situation involving the original IRA.
 

Mika-El

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
1,730
Reaction score
619
Location
quantum paradox
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You stated:

"Demanding recognition of Israel as a state for Jews actually prejudices the outcome of talks.."

Please explain how.

You stated:

"What has been demanded of the Palestinians is far beyond anything Israel has offered to concede."

What are you referring to?

You stated:

"Demanding they disarm should not be a precondition for a settlement. An armistice is all that is really required."

It is illogical to think someone will sit and talk with a terrorist whose charter is to wipe them out. It is precisely why for example no peace talks could commence in Northern Ireland until the IRA disarmed.

If you can't understand the symbolic let alone practical issues of asking someone to sit with a person whose stated belief is to wipe them out, then maybe you should consider it.

Israel does not have a charter calling on the wiping out of Palestinians. Hamas and Intifada and Hezbollag and Fatah Hawks do. No this is not some kind of game where we pretend a terrorist is interested in discussing peace. If they are genuinely interested they will do what Mr. Abbas does, establish their legitimacy by stating armed violence is not acceptable and disarming. This then makes it possible for the IDF to be withdrawn and strengthens Palestinian arguments that Israel does not need additional post 1967 land as a terror buffer zone.

At least Mr. Abbas understand the symbolism if not the practicality as to why one can not talk peace while pointing a gun at Israel.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom