Israeli Rules Out Palestinian State by 2012

[Apocalypse]

the point is that you should stop the lying ... quit insisting that israel imposes no pre-conditions to formal negotiations while simultaneously acknowledging israel refuses to sit at the negotiations with hamas as the Palestinian representative

You've still failed to explain how the refusal to talk with the terrorist organization of Hamas is a precondition to the peace talks with the Palestinian Authority.

You should note that in the past Israel has held peace talks with the Palestinian Authority all the while refusing to hold talks with Hamas.

This pretty much says, in other words, that: "The Israeli refusal to talk with the terrorist organization of Hamas is not a precondition to the peace talks with the PA".
Or that: "justabubba's words in the thread "Israeli Rules Out Palestinian State by 2012" are torn-off and have no connection to reality".

Take your pick.

 

[justabubba]

You've still failed to explain how the refusal to talk with the terrorist organization of Hamas is a precondition to the peace talks with the Palestinian Authority.

You should note that in the past Israel has held peace talks with the Palestinian Authority all the while refusing to hold talks with Hamas.

This pretty much says, in other words, that: "The Israeli refusal to talk with the terrorist organization of Hamas is not a precondition to the peace talks with the PA".
Or that: "justabubba's words in the thread "Israeli Rules Out Palestinian State by 2012" are torn-off and have no connection to reality".

Take your pick.

so, now that you are busted, when it is proven that israel does impose preconditions to negotiations by insisting hamas cannot sit at the table, you choose to reframe the question
no longer is it that the Palestinians refuse to engage in peace talks but it is the Palestinian Authority - the west bank government - which refuses to participate in formal negotiations

and why would the Palestinian people feel compelled to subscribe to a peace settlement negotiated by a Palestinian Authority they do not recognize as representing their interests
that would be as worthless and unenforceable as one you and i would negotiate on their behalf

so, if you continue to frame your commentary such that you differentiate and state that the Palestinian Authority refuses to engage in peace talks no clarification will be needed. but, if your side resumes asserting that the Palestinians are refusing to engage in formal peace negotiations, while pretending that israel imposes no preconditions - while refusing to negotiate with hamas as the Palestinian representative - then i will be compelled to enter the discussion to refute that propaganda

 

[Apocalypse]

so, now that you are busted

Buddy, I don't know what reality you live in, but the only one who was caught at a lie is you.
I shall repeat myself:

Israel has held talks with the Palestinians in the past while refusing to talk to the terrorist organization of Hamas.

Since a precondition is a condition that until its fulfillment the talks would not go on, you were just caught on a lie when you've declared the refusal to talk with Hamas as a "precondition" and it was found out that it doesn't fit the definition.

Simply denying the above without offering any backing or basis is and will be considered trolling.

 

[justabubba]

Buddy, I don't know what reality you live in, but the only one who was caught at a lie is you.
I shall repeat myself:

Israel has held talks with the Palestinians in the past while refusing to talk to the terrorist organization of Hamas.

Since a precondition is a condition that until its fulfillment the talks would not go on, you were just caught on a lie when you've declared the refusal to talk with Hamas as a "precondition" and it was found out that it doesn't fit the definition.

Simply denying the above without offering any backing or basis is and will be considered trolling.

by insisting it will not participate in formal peace negotiations if hamas is the Palestinian representative, israel does thereby impose pre-conditions to negotiations

and be assured, i am not your buddy

 

[Apocalypse]

by insisting it will not participate in formal peace negotiations if hamas is the Palestinian representative, israel does thereby impose pre-conditions to negotiations

Ah, yes, but you're forgetting the most important detail here:
The talks are between Israel and the PLO. The PLO, headed by Mahmoud Abbas (Abu-Mazen) is the one that is recognized by the international community and Israel as the representive of the Palestinians, not Hamas.
Do you want me to quote from Wikipedia? Because I certainly can:

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (Arabic: منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية‎; About this sound Munaẓẓamat al-Taḥrīr al-Filasṭīniyyat (help·info)) is a political and paramilitary organization founded in 1964.[1] It is recognized as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," by over 100 states with which it holds diplomatic relations, and has enjoyed observer status at the United Nations since 1974.[2][3] The PLO was considered by the United States and Israel to be a terrorist organization until the Madrid Conference in 1991. In 1993 PLO recognized Israel's right to exist in peace, accepted UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and rejected "violence and terrorism"; in response Israel officially recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people.[4].

Palestine Liberation Organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There ya go, now you can stop mumbling about the refusal to talk with Hamas being a precondition to anything.

and be assured, i am not your buddy

Oh, but I'm sure that under the skin of the evil propagandist lies the soul of an innocent child, who just wants to be hugged by someone.

 

[Winston Smith]

What nonsense are you spouting? As long as hamas conducts terrorism, there is nothing to discuss. That is not a "pre-condition," it is a fact. You cannot negotiate with another party that does not accept your right to live, period.

And I laughed at your hilarious line "but the fact remains." "Oh, they just blew your family up but but but that's just such a side-issue..." Just freaking hilarious, typical leftist drivel - just pick and choose which facts are relevent, and the rest ignored or excused away...

And BTW friend, if hamas is as you claim, the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT of Gaza, then they are War Criminals for firing rockets into civilian areas and should be hanged at the Hague for Crimes Against Humanity for the suicide bombings they've conducted.

It goes without saying that there are war criminals on both sides. No one should excuse that, but it's not necessarily a reason for refusing to talk. If the purpose of negotiation is to end terrorism, it's difficult to see how you are going to do that by excluding terrorists from the negotiation. As long as the conflict continues, it would seem that there's everything to discuss. Of course Israel is free to refuse, but they can't very well complain about the failure of negotiations if they do. It just means they've chosen to seek military victory instead, and it's up to them to succeed or fail in that endeavor.

 

[washunut]

It goes without saying that there are war criminals on both sides. No one should excuse that, but it's not necessarily a reason for refusing to talk. If the purpose of negotiation is to end terrorism, it's difficult to see how you are going to do that by excluding terrorists from the negotiation. As long as the conflict continues, it would seem that there's everything to discuss. Of course Israel is free to refuse, but they can't very well complain about the failure of negotiations if they do. It just means they've chosen to seek military victory instead, and it's up to them to succeed or fail in that endeavor.

Am I missing something here. Has anyone heard that Hamas WANTS to come into the peace talks.

If not this back and forth seems like a waste of time with a bunch of you folks seeming to enjoy screaming past each other. To what point???

 

[joergan]

by insisting it will not participate in formal peace negotiations if hamas is the Palestinian representative, israel does thereby impose pre-conditions to negotiations

Are you trolling? You have 5 posters here explaining the same exact point, but you keep repeating the same sentence.

Refusing to negotiate is not a "pre-condition", it is a CHOICE.

Since hamas refuses to accept the existence of israel, explain from what point at which negotiatiations could commence.

If you are unwilling to answer this question in good faith with ANYTHING but a sensible answer, I will report you as a troll.

 

[joergan]

It goes without saying that there are war criminals on both sides.

What you fail to see by making such absurd statements is that the POLICY of israel is not to commit crimes, unlike its enemies who target civilians.

No one should excuse that, but it's not necessarily a reason for refusing to talk. If the purpose of negotiation is to end terrorism, it's difficult to see how you are going to do that by excluding terrorists from the negotiation.

There are methods to eliminate terrorism, and it usually has nothing to do with negotiation, particularly with terrorists who do not recognize the existence of the opposing party.

 

[justabubba]

Are you trolling? You have 5 posters here explaining the same exact point, but you keep repeating the same sentence.

those five posters continue to post the propaganda that israel imposes no preconditions before it is willing to engage in formal peace negotiations when in fact israel's pre-condition is that it refuses to sit in negotiations if hamas is at the table
that israeli lie deserves to be exposed

Refusing to negotiate is not a "pre-condition", it is a CHOICE.

israel refuses to participate in formal peace negotiations if hamas is at the table
israel has thereby chosen to establish a pre-condition for its participation in peace talks

Since hamas refuses to accept the existence of israel, explain from what point at which negotiatiations could commence.

so, you have added yet another pre-condition israel has imposed as its price to participate in formal peace negotiations. not only can the other party in those peace talks NOT be hamas, the other party MUST also be willing to recognize the existence of israel as the price of admission to such peace talks
so now we have TWO israeli pre-conditions which must be met before an israeli delegation would be willing to engage in peace negotiations
thanks for recognizing the second one

If you are unwilling to answer this question in good faith with ANYTHING but a sensible answer, I will report you as a troll.

i can only surmise that to you a 'sensible answer' must be one with which you agree. you, like the israelis, want to impose pre-conditions about who is eligible to engage in discussion and what those who debate you are allowed to say
and please, report away. i speak the truth, which appears to be a distasteful experience for you

 

[Winston Smith]

Am I missing something here. Has anyone heard that Hamas WANTS to come into the peace talks.

If not this back and forth seems like a waste of time with a bunch of you folks seeming to enjoy screaming past each other. To what point???

Yes, Hamas has indicated that they're willing to talk. They reached a truce with Israel in 2009 and offered to extend it if Israel would open Gaza to commerce and stop attacks there. They've also said they'll accept an Israeli state within the 1967 borders.

 

[joergan]

those five posters continue to post the propaganda that israel imposes no preconditions before it is willing to engage in formal peace negotiations when in fact israel's pre-condition is that it refuses to sit in negotiations if hamas is at the table that israeli lie deserves to be exposed

What you call "propaganda" is fact, no rational entity, person, nation, government, corporation, etc, will sit down and negotiate with another party who refuses to even recognize their right to exist, period. If the other party refuses to accept the right of israel to exist, then there is no point at which to initiate discussions. Not sure why you are continuing to debate this obvious point, and that is why you are appearing as a troll.

israel refuses to participate in formal peace negotiations if hamas is at the table israel has thereby chosen to establish a pre-condition for its participation in peace talks

WTF? Read above... and as I said, no rational actor will enter negotiations while the other side continues to commit attacks and refuses to accept their existence. You argue about this all day, but it is destroying any credibility you are seeking.

so, you have added yet another pre-condition israel has imposed as its price to participate in formal peace negotiations. not only can the other party in those peace talks NOT be hamas, the other party MUST also be willing to recognize the existence of israel as the price of admission to such peace talks

I will ask again, if the other party refuses to accept the EXISTENCE of israel, what is the point at which to begin discussions?

In all other conflicts, such as with the NRA, they were not seeking to eliminate England as a nation. Had that been the case, England would never have opened discussions via George Mitchell, as obviously there would have been nothing to discuss.

so now we have TWO israeli pre-conditions which must be met before an israeli delegation would be willing to engage in peace negotiations
thanks for recognizing the second one

As all adults here can attest, and most of the world does as well, the 3 fundamental requirements stand as noted above. You can call them pre-conditions, danishes with cream filling, I really do not give a crap.

It is obvious by your abysmal attempts to make the lack of negotiations with hamas to be the fault of israel is a sign of either an imbalanced mind, or an imbalanced objective where the jews and israel is always at fault. This is nonsense.

i can only surmise that to you a 'sensible answer' must be one with which you agree. you, like the israelis, want to impose pre-conditions about who is eligible to engage in discussion and what those who debate you are allowed to say

Unlike on the arab side, there seem to be many shades of grey on the israeli. I wonder why....

 

[joergan]

Yes, Hamas has indicated that they're willing to talk. They reached a truce with Israel in 2009 and offered to extend it if Israel would open Gaza to commerce and stop attacks there. They've also said they'll accept an Israeli state within the 1967 borders.

"Indicated"? Why don't they just come and say it? Hamas has yet to cease the violence, and no one is going to negotiate under fire.

BTW, they offered a TEMPORARY truce, which means that they are merely trying to buy time to re-arm before they initiate hostilities again. Only a permanent, steadfast agreement made in good faith - which is impossible with hamas since they refuse to end the violence - would be acceptable.

 

[Winston Smith]

What you fail to see by making such absurd statements is that the POLICY of israel is not to commit crimes, unlike its enemies who target civilians.



There are methods to eliminate terrorism, and it usually has nothing to do with negotiation, particularly with terrorists who do not recognize the existence of the opposing party.

War crimes are indeed part of Israeli policy. As just one example, they have a policy of collective punishment against civilians in Gaza by means of the blockade. They also had a policy of bombing civilian aid workers in Lebanon in 2006.

"Terrorist," as it's being used here, is just another word for an insurgent. Israel itself was founded by men who were terrorists until they won recognition and joined the community of nations. There's no reason why the same can't happen with the Palestinians.

 

[joergan]

War crimes are indeed part of Israeli policy. As just one example, they have a policy of collective punishment against civilians in Gaza by means of the blockade. They also had a policy of bombing civilian aid workers in Lebanon in 2006.

"Terrorist," as it's being used here, is just another word for an insurgent. Israel itself was founded by men who were terrorists until they won recognition and joined the community of nations. There's no reason why the same can't happen with the Palestinians.

Sorry charlie, we're not playing that game. Hamas is the focus, no thread derailments. Israel will not allow weapons or missiles into gaza, and since you also appear to be a jew hater like the other poster, unless your posts begin to achieve some semblance of balance, you will be ignored.

 

[Winston Smith]

"Indicated"? Why don't they just come and say it? Hamas has yet to cease the violence, and no one is going to negotiate under fire.

BTW, they offered a TEMPORARY truce, which means that they are merely trying to buy time before they initiate hostilities again. Only a permanent, steadfast agreement made in good faith - which is impossible with hamas since they refuse to end the violence - would be acceptable.

They did say it. They also proposed the truce simply as an immediate fix in the context of broader negotiations to reach a long-term solution.

 

[Winston Smith]

Sorry charlie, we're not playing that game. Hamas is the focus, no thread derailments. Israel will not allow weapons or missiles into gaza, and since you also appear to be a jew hater like the other poster, unless your posts begin to achieve some semblance of balance, you will be ignored.

Israel won't allow much of anything into Gaza, including the materials needed to rebuild civilian infrastructure. I understand that you want Hamas to be the focus, but you were the one who said they couldn't be included in negotiations because they commit war crimes. If that's the standard, then a balanced view would exclude Israel as well, since they do commit war crimes as a matter of policy.

 

[mbig]

They did say it. They also proposed the truce simply as an immediate fix in the context of broader negotiations to reach a long-term solution.

No this is a reiterated falsehood.
They propose truce ONLY as both an 'immediate fix' for the reason of the context of that word in Arabic and Palestinian lore. 'Hudna' was oft referred to by Arafat as well in the same Duplicitous way. Mohammed making truce only to attack when strong enough. All the arabs know what 'Hudna' truly means and so do you.

 

[Winston Smith]

No this is a reiterated falsehood.
They propose truce ONLY as both an 'immediate fix' for the reason of the context of that word in Arabic and Palestinian lore. 'Hudna' was oft referred to by Arafat as well in the same Duplicitous way. Mohammed making truce only to attack when strong enough. All the arabs know what 'Hudna' truly means and so do you.

Hamas themselves compare the proposed arrangement to the relationship between China and Taiwan--no recognition, but also no conflict. They also say they're willing to live in peace with the Jews as they did before the state of Israel was established.

 

[joergan]

Hamas themselves compare the proposed arrangement to the relationship between China and Taiwan--no recognition, but also no conflict. They also say they're willing to live in peace with the Jews as they did before the state of Israel was established.

Except there is conflict, hamas fires rockets and mortars into israel, suicide bombs its citizens, and fires rockets at all of the crossings as soon as they open. None of this has occurred between china and taiwan. Try again, sweetie...

 

[donsutherland1]

They've also said they'll accept an Israeli state within the 1967 borders.

But only in exchange for a 10-year truce. After that, Hamas would be free to resume its quest to eliminate Israel.

 

[donsutherland1]

They also say they're willing to live in peace with the Jews as they did before the state of Israel was established.

In other words, living in "peace" with the Jewish people would be possible once Israel no longer existed. No sovereign state can reasonably be expected to accept its own suicide as the price for peace.

 

[Winston Smith]

Except there is conflict, hamas fires rockets and mortars into israel, suicide bombs its citizens, and fires rockets at all of the crossings as soon as they open. None of this has occurred between china and taiwan. Try again, sweetie...

Thus the need for negotiation.

 

[Winston Smith]

In other words, living in "peace" with the Jewish people would be possible once Israel no longer existed. No sovereign state can reasonably be expected to accept its own suicide as the price for peace.

Again, they've said they will accept Israel within its 1967 borders. The point about living in peace before 1948 is that it's been done before and can be done again.

 

[joergan]

Again, they've said they will accept Israel within its 1967 borders. The point about living in peace before 1948 is that it's been done before and can be done again.

Do you think people are 4 years old like the dimwits who buy into your leftist BS? When existed from 1948-1967 in the greenline, there were as many if not more terrorist attacks than now. Are you actually so clueless as to think people have no knowledge of the history of the conflict?

Either that, or you have no facts. Go read a book. There was massive terrorism and violence in those 19 years...