• 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!

Netanyahu's preconditions

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Bibi explained today his conditions for an agreement with the Palestinians (recognition of Israel etc...). While I understand what he claims, I don't really see the difference between what he said, and Abbas' so-called scandalous "pre-conditions" that made negociations "impossible", it is really hypocritical.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,657
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Bibi explained today his conditions for an agreement with the Palestinians (recognition of Israel etc...). While I understand what he claims, I don't really see the difference between what he said, and Abbas' so-called scandalous "pre-conditions" that made negociations "impossible", it is really hypocritical.

I think the nature of any potential hypocrisy has to do with the nature of the preconditions being set. If the assumption that discussing a Palestinian state is predicated upon the acknowledging of a Jewish state, I don't see any hypocrisy because you have to acknowledge one to acknowledge the other. You can't get too far when the establishment of one is predicated upon the destruction of the other. The very basis for any discussion of two states involves the recognition thereof.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I think the nature of any potential hypocrisy has to do with the nature of the preconditions being set. If the assumption that discussing a Palestinian state is predicated upon the acknowledging of a Jewish state, I don't see any hypocrisy because you have to acknowledge one to acknowledge the other. You can't get too far when the establishment of one is predicated upon the destruction of the other. The very basis for any discussion of two states involves the recognition thereof.

I don't really get what you're saying: I totally agree with Netanyahu's claim that Israel should be recognized, and it is also true that if a Palestinian state is established, then Israel would also be recognized, but I don't see the difference between Abbas saying that the colonization should stop, and Bibi saying that Israel should be recognized. Both are right, and in both cases it could be seen as a "precondition".

Why is it an "unacceptable precondition" in one case, and not in the other? These are similar claims IMO.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,657
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't really get what you're saying: I totally agree with Netanyahu's claim that Israel should be recognized, and it is also true that if a Palestinian state is established, then Israel would also be recognized, but I don't see the difference between Abbas saying that the colonization should stop, and Bibi saying that Israel should be recognized. Both are right, and in both cases it could be seen as a "precondition".

Why is it an "unacceptable precondition" in one case, and not in the other? These are similar claims IMO.

I'm not all that worked up over the settlement freeze issue, myself, and don't think its an outrageous request. I do see a difference, however, in what needs to be acknowledged ahead of time as there is a difference between acknowledging that there will be two states and establishing where those two states will be.

That being said, I do with Israel would grant such a request because it really doesn't work in the best interests of establishing boundaries when they are actively building in areas of dispute.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,789
Reaction score
6,223
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Bibi explained today his conditions for an agreement with the Palestinians (recognition of Israel etc...). While I understand what he claims, I don't really see the difference between what he said, and Abbas' so-called scandalous "pre-conditions" that made negociations "impossible", it is really hypocritical.

He didn't say "Until you'll recognize Israel as a Jewish state we won't take part in the peace talks", hence a claim for "precondition" is invalid.

That is unlike the Palestinians who were saying that until the building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem will stop they won't take part in the peace talks.

Precondition is the conditioning of the peace talks.
 
Last edited:

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
He didn't say "Until you'll recognize Israel as a Jewish state we won't take part in the peace talks", hence a claim for "precondition" is invalid.

That is unlike the Palestinians who were saying that until the building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem will stop they won't take part in the peace talks.

Precondition is the conditioning of the peace talks.

There is no real difference between the "preconditions" (before starting to negociate) and saying "we'll negociate but the only possible outcome is X and Y"
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
There is no real difference between the "preconditions" (before starting to negociate) and saying "we'll negociate but the only possible outcome is X and Y"

there is a big difference, because one is not willing to talk about it and the other is willing to talk about it.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
there is a big difference, because one is not willing to talk about it and the other is willing to talk about it.

What's the point of talking if the outcome is already defined?
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,789
Reaction score
6,223
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
There is no real difference between the "preconditions" (before starting to negociate) and saying "we'll negociate but the only possible outcome is X and Y"

First of all yes there is, secondly it is more than clear that they'd have to recognize Israel in a final peace agreement, it's like having a peace agreement without forming a Palestinian state, and thirdly he did not say that it is "the only possible outcome" (even though, again, it's an essential part of a peace agreement), he merely put it as one of his demands.
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
What's the point of talking if the outcome is already defined?

The point of talking is to find a settlement, the outcome isn't defined. Both parties come with their idea of a treaty, they will talk, they will settle and they will formulate something that will be accepted by both.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,789
Reaction score
6,223
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
What's the point of talking if the outcome is already defined?

A "condition" is a demand one side puts up for a final peace agreement.
"Negotiations" is where the two sides talk about each side's conditions and reach an agreement.
Conditioning negotiations, setting "preconditions", is demanding a condition of one's side to be fulfilled before the two sides enter the negotiations stage and talk about the conditions.
It pretty much means the unconditional fulfillment of one's demand for a peace agreement by the other side before that peace agreement is even negotiated on, before it's talked on.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The point of talking is to find a settlement, the outcome isn't defined. Both parties come with their idea of a treaty, they will talk, they will settle and they will formulate something that will be accepted by both.

No, the outcome is already defined: Netanyahu said there must be 3 principles in the agreement: recognition of Israel, end of war, and no right of return.

So, if the Palestinians don't agree on these 3 points, there won't be any agreement.

These are not the words he used, but in the end it is exactly as if he said "I don't want to talk unless you agree first that Israel should be recognized etc..."
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
there is a big difference, because one is not willing to talk about it and the other is willing to talk about it.

Oh please, they are not willing to talk about whether Israel will be recognized. The only point of discussion on that would be the manner and timing of such recognition. Just because Israel doesn't precondition talks doesn't mean they will not precondition an agreement. Indeed, countries typically enter negotiations with preconceived limits on what will be included in an agreement, things they will not deviate from in any substantive manner.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,789
Reaction score
6,223
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No, the outcome is already defined: Netanyahu said there must be 3 principles in the agreement: recognition of Israel, end of war, and no right of return.

So, if the Palestinians don't agree on these 3 points, there won't be any agreement.

These are not the words he used, but in the end it is exactly as if he said "I don't want to talk unless you agree first that Israel should be recognized etc..."

That's his version. There's no such thing as "the outcome is already defined" because such outcome would have to be defined through negotiations, that's the definition of negotiations.
I don't think you're backing your own viewpoint at this moment as you admit to deciding Netanyahu's words for him, so I guess I'll retire for now.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,789
Reaction score
6,223
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Oh please, they are not willing to talk about whether Israel will be recognized. The only point of discussion on that would be the manner and timing of such recognition. Just because Israel doesn't precondition talks doesn't mean they will not precondition an agreement. Indeed, countries typically enter negotiations with preconceived limits on what will be included in an agreement, things they will not deviate from in any substantive manner.

And the difference between that and precondition to talks is that you can't get anywhere without entering talks first.
Preconditioning talks is merely saying that you are not interested in negotiating for peace, but are interested in having your demands fulfilled unconditionally.

Preconditions in history can be seen when a victor of a war demands the surrendering loser to fulfill a list of conditions or else the war will go on. It is usually done from a position of power of one party over another.
In this case it could be said that the Palestinians believe they hold power over the state of Israel as they are automatically backed by a great part of the world in this conflict no matter what they do, and since they know that Israel desires peace more than they do and use it to blackmail it.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
That's his version. There's no such thing as "the outcome is already defined" because such outcome would have to be defined through negotiations, that's the definition of negotiations.
I don't think you're backing your own viewpoint at this moment as you admit to deciding Netanyahu's words for him, so I guess I'll retire for now.

Explain what is the difference then, between
- not entering negociations unless "condition X" is accepted
- saying that there are negociations but that "condition X" must be accepted to reach an agreement
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And the difference between that and precondition to talks is that you can't get anywhere without entering talks first.
Preconditioning talks is merely saying that you are not interested in negotiating for peace, but are interested in having your demands fulfilled unconditionally.

That is not what it is about at all. Preconditioning talks is about having one side show a good-faith measure so you can reasonably expect that they are committed to a resolution that can be favorable to both sides. It is about demonstrating the will to compromise.
 

gunner

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
6,548
Reaction score
2,875
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That is not what it is about at all. Preconditioning talks is about having one side show a good-faith measure so you can reasonably expect that they are committed to a resolution that can be favorable to both sides. It is about demonstrating the will to compromise.

I agree, and to expand the point. 'preconditioning talks' are a very good way to show the seriousness of your intent. Looking at the Northern Ireland [NI] peace talks weapons decommissioning was very much a prerequisite for talks proper to bare fruition. Although this was not shared by the Nationalists [sinn fein] who went on to say,

"Northern Ireland's political process is stalled over the issues of decommissioning, policing and demilitarisation".

BBC News | NORTHERN IRELAND | Parties grandstand before talks

So in turn highlighting their own list of prerequisites for negotiations to continue.

Paul
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,760
Reaction score
3,384
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Explain what is the difference then, between
- not entering negociations unless "condition X" is accepted
- saying that there are negociations but that "condition X" must be accepted to reach an agreement

If you have ever been in a real world negotiation the difference is material. In your first case we won't start until X is accepted, that is mandating a concession before you start talks. In the second, you are expressing a desired result. It could be you do not get that but something else that is as valuable to you so you make the deal.

Every negotition starts with both sides laying out conditions for acceptance of the deal are unacceptable to the other. That is why you need to negotiate to get to an answer that works for both sides. If that was not needed you could just sign the contract without negotiations.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,789
Reaction score
6,223
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
That is not what it is about at all. Preconditioning talks is about having one side show a good-faith measure so you can reasonably expect that they are committed to a resolution that can be favorable to both sides. It is about demonstrating the will to compromise.

It's about demanding one side to unconditionally fulfill the demands of another. If anything it's the show of bad faith and the opposition to peace through the rejection of talks.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,789
Reaction score
6,223
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Explain what is the difference then, between
- not entering negociations unless "condition X" is accepted
- saying that there are negociations but that "condition X" must be accepted to reach an agreement

I don't see how that's relevant as that is not what Netanyahu said, those are your words and not his.

Nevertheless, the difference is that not entering talks at all means there won't be any progress on any field and things will stay as they are (the status quo).
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Explain what is the difference then, between
- not entering negociations unless "condition X" is accepted
- saying that there are negociations but that "condition X" must be accepted to reach an agreement

Have you ever heard of negotiations in which the parties involve didn't come with conditions? Are they always fullfilled in the final agreement or does each side compromise on somthing in the end?
 
Top Bottom