Abbas abandons "Right of Return"

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Anything or anyone that doesn't agree with your vantage point, you call "irrelevant."

Explain to me who is relevant and who speaks for the State of Palestine?

Abbas is not Palestine. He is irrelevant.

(OBSERVATIONS - WHAT DOES PALESTINE SAY?)

Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR)

Poll #48: While less than a third of the public views the Palestinian Authority as an accomplishment, and while half describes their leadership as a failed one, and while 80% thinks the West Bank-Gaza Strip split is permanent or long term, support for a confederation with Jordan rises; and while the public rejects Kerry’s ideas for return to negotiations without pre-conditions, a large majority supports going to the International Criminal Court in order to stop settlement expansion even if such a step leads to PA collapse 13-15 June 2013

• Press Release

Poll #49: Palestinian public is spilt regarding the resumption of direct negotiations with Israel and pessimistic regarding the chances for success, but if the talks do lead to a peace agreement, the public believes that a majority of the Palestinians will approve it in a referendum 19-21 September 2013

• Poll In PDF Format. Pdf format

Poll #50:While half of the public favors negotiations with Israel, three quarters reject a permanent settlement if it includes a 10-year transitional phase during which the Israeli army remains deployed in the Jordan Valley; and while fewer people believe that Hamas’ way is the best way to end occupation and build a state, satisfaction with the performance of Abbas and Hamdallah increases and more people believe that Abbas’ is the best way - 19-22 December 2013

• Press Release
  
• Poll In PDF Format. Pdf format

(COMMENT)

Many outside observers believe that the Palestinians will shoot themselves in the foot by setting the conditions that will cause the State of Palestine to collapse. Even a few Palestinians believe that the excessive delay in achieving a negotiated settlement, and the unreasonable expectations of the Palestinians, will gradually trigger the fall of the Palestinian Governments (both Gaza and West Bank).

Main Findings in PSR Polls:

• Moreover, less than a third believes that a Palestinian state will be established in the next five years. In fact, a majority, while continuing to support the two-state solution, believes that it has become impractical due to settlement expansion. Perhaps for these reasons half of the public believes that its leadership from the beginnings has been a failed one.
  
• The public is also opposed to several alternatives to negotiations such as return to an armed intifada, dissolution of the PA, and abandonment of the two-state solution in favor of one-state solution. But the public supports going to international organizations, especially to the International Criminal Court (ICC), despite its fears that such a step would bring about financial sanctions and the perhaps the collapse of the PA.
  
  • • Only 17% believe that unity between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will soon be restored.
  • • 47% say that ending the split requires the downfall of the regime in the two areas of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip or at least in one of the two areas.
  • • 74% believe that reconciliation will not succeed as long as restrictions are imposed on Hamas members in the West Bank and Fatah members in the Gaza Strip.
  • • 28% believe that the re-elections of Khalid Mishaal as head of Hamas will speed up the process of reconciliation and 22% believe it will have the opposite effect.
  • • 72% support and 24% oppose going to the ICC despite fears that the step will lead to imposition of financial sanctions and PA collapse.

I'm not sure that the Palestinians have all that much more confidence in either HAMAS or Fatah as to leadership.

Findings show that the Palestinian public is divided almost equally over President’s Abbas’ decision to resume direct bilateral negotiations with Israel. Moreover, despite the vital importance attached by the public to the issue of prisoners’ release, a larger percentage gives greater priority to the two combined issues of the 1967 borders and settlement freeze. Furthermore, the lack of enthusiasm for return to negotiations seems to be driven by the belief of a large majority that the current round of talks will fail just like previous rounds. But if negotiations do succeed and an agreement is reached, the public believes that a majority of the Palestinians will approve it in a referendum.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestinian leadership no longer sit in government offices. They have been replaced.

 

[proudveteran06]

proudveteran06, et al,

It is a matter of both reasonableness and practicality.

Remembering, that with peace comes at a cost associated with the inevitable compromise that accompanies a negotiation.

Seriously, what is there to " negotiate" over? In addition to boundaries that were never recognized before plus " Right of Return " they are demanding land within the 67 Borders connecting Gaza and the W. Bank with full control over it . Is Israel legally obligated to actually decrease their size. The answer is " no " . Just one more reason why there will never be a " Palestinian state".

(COMMENT)

These are three separate and distinct issues:

• Boundaries,
• Sovereign Easement/Corridor between Gaza and West Bank,
• Right of Return (RoR).

The question: Is Israel legally obligated to actually decrease their size?

This is a subject for a negotiated outcome. Obligation is not the right word to use.

As far as the "Easement/Corridor" is concerned, there are a number of options that could be used to achieve the desired effect. There were air, rail and ground Corridors into Berlin during the Cold War. It is not like it hasn't been done before.

Most Respectfully,
R

I honestly can't think of one compromise the Palestinians are willing to make. Last I read, they do want control over the Gaza , W. Bank connection . If I am wrong, Anyone supply the thread and I will stand corrected.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm confused.

Palestinian leadership no longer sit in government offices. They have been replaced.

(COMMENT)

Who replaced who?

Or is this one of your anti-Fatah, pro-Hamas insinuations?

Findings also indicate a continued decline in the positive evaluation of conditions in the Gaza Strip, presumably as a result of the continued political conflict between Egypt and the Hamas government and the continued closure of tunnels and the Rafah crossing. This decline, which we first noticed in our September poll, is now affecting Hamas’ popularity in the Gaza Strip where it dropped significantly. It is worth mentioning however that Hamas’ popularity in the West Bank has not changed. Similarly, despite the continuation of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, positive evaluation of conditions in the West Bank remained unchanged compared to the findings of September 2013.

By contrast, satisfaction with the performance of Abbas in the Gaza Strip has significantly increased and positive evaluation of the performance of Prime Minister Al Hamdallah increased in both areas, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. More importantly, it seems that these changes have affected attitudes regarding whose way is the best to end occupation and build a Palestinian state. Current findings show a significant decrease in the percentage of those who believe that Hamas’ way is the best way and a significant increase in the percentage of those who believe that Abbas’ way is the best way. It should be noted however that the percentage of those who believe that Hamas’ way is the best way remains higher than the percentage of those who believe that Abbas’ is the best.

SOURCE: Survey Research Unit - Poll # 50

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

Abbas: If Kerry's framework not satisfactory, PA will end talks, seek unilateral recognition | JPost | Israel News

The PA president said claims that he wanted the right of return for five million Palestinians were "a joke."

"I do not want to destroy Israel and no refugee will return to Israel without Israel's consent," he stated, adding that "I expect Israel to set quotas of the numbers of refugees it will absorb each year."


and there you have it. Palestine is not demanding the Right of Retun for millions of Arab refugees to Israel.

Abbas is not Palestine. He is irrelevant.

born in Safed and raised in syria camp after 1948

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm confused.

Palestinian leadership no longer sit in government offices. They have been replaced.

(COMMENT)

Who replaced who?

Or is this one of your anti-Fatah, pro-Hamas insinuations?

Findings also indicate a continued decline in the positive evaluation of conditions in the Gaza Strip, presumably as a result of the continued political conflict between Egypt and the Hamas government and the continued closure of tunnels and the Rafah crossing. This decline, which we first noticed in our September poll, is now affecting Hamas’ popularity in the Gaza Strip where it dropped significantly. It is worth mentioning however that Hamas’ popularity in the West Bank has not changed. Similarly, despite the continuation of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, positive evaluation of conditions in the West Bank remained unchanged compared to the findings of September 2013.

By contrast, satisfaction with the performance of Abbas in the Gaza Strip has significantly increased and positive evaluation of the performance of Prime Minister Al Hamdallah increased in both areas, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. More importantly, it seems that these changes have affected attitudes regarding whose way is the best to end occupation and build a Palestinian state. Current findings show a significant decrease in the percentage of those who believe that Hamas’ way is the best way and a significant increase in the percentage of those who believe that Abbas’ way is the best way. It should be noted however that the percentage of those who believe that Hamas’ way is the best way remains higher than the percentage of those who believe that Abbas’ is the best.

SOURCE: Survey Research Unit - Poll # 50

Most Respectfully,
R

The "leadership" in Palestine has been going backwards in the peace process for decades. This has been taken over by Palestinians inside and outside of Palestine.

They are taking the so called peace process away from those losers.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShHtHaQXmU0]Palestinian Politics: Representation and Accountability with Ms. Noura Erakat - YouTube[/ame]

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I've seen many of these talks by Ms Noura Erakat; including this October 2013 presentation on Representation and Accountability. She is quite elegant and organized. Many of the points she makes are very important; yet the overall implications are flawed.

The "leadership" in Palestine has been going backwards in the peace process for decades. This has been taken over by Palestinians inside and outside of Palestine.

They are taking the so called peace process away from those losers.

(COMMENT)

Ms Erakat is entitled to her opinion, and to present her views, but she did not them and has not now made a compelling case for her "necessary and sufficient" conditions.

Ms Erakat spoke of the need to complete the intermediate steps between the Declarations of Independence and those steps preparatory to Statehood, almost disavowing the fact that Palestine is already a "State" - albeit crippled (over the last 2 decades +) in its ability to establish peace through negotiations, and build a nation that is self-sufficient and prosperous.

Ms Erakat does acknowledge that the PLO is the sole representative of the Palestinian People, and that Mahmoud Abbas is the Chairman of the PLO, yet quibbles over the "compression" between the PLO and the PA.

While Ms Erakat is probably right that the PLO/PA government in place today needs to be more responsive to the needs of the Palestinian People, she really offers nothing new in terms of a solution.

Nearly half of the Palestinian People (45%) "believe that the first most vital Palestinian goal should be to end Israeli occupation in the areas occupied in 1967 and build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital;" while less than a third (29%) "believe the first most vital goal should be to obtain the right of return of refugees to their 1948 towns and villages." (PSR Poll # 49 - September 2013: Bottom of Page 3)

We asked the public about its views regarding the most important condition for return to negotiations: 31% selected the release of prisoners, 28% selected an Israeli acceptance of the 1967 lines as a basis for negotiations, and 14% selected an Israeli settlement freeze. 24% said they oppose resumption of any negotiations.

SOURCE: Poll # (49)- September 2013

Oddly enough, the settlement expansion issue is of less importance to the Palestinian People than it is to the Political Activist like Ms Erakat, and Mahmoud Abbas.

The most startling thing about the Palestinians is that nearly a quarter of them oppose negotiations while the other two-thirds (67%) "say they want the PA to go now to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to stop settlements." Which is, BTW, the position I've been promoting.

Ms Erakat just uses her platform to promote the ideas that Israel is engaged in massive Human Rights violations and Apartheid; allegations without substantiation or debate. So, while I listen to her, to keep appraised of the litany of complaints the virtual victim make, I'm not sure that the Palestinian People actually want to establish peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I've seen many of these talks by Ms Noura Erakat; including this October 2013 presentation on Representation and Accountability. She is quite elegant and organized. Many of the points she makes are very important; yet the overall implications are flawed.

The "leadership" in Palestine has been going backwards in the peace process for decades. This has been taken over by Palestinians inside and outside of Palestine.

They are taking the so called peace process away from those losers.

(COMMENT)

Ms Erakat is entitled to her opinion, and to present her views, but she did not them and has not now made a compelling case for her "necessary and sufficient" conditions.

Ms Erakat spoke of the need to complete the intermediate steps between the Declarations of Independence and those steps preparatory to Statehood, almost disavowing the fact that Palestine is already a "State" - albeit crippled (over the last 2 decades +) in its ability to establish peace through negotiations, and build a nation that is self-sufficient and prosperous.

Ms Erakat does acknowledge that the PLO is the sole representative of the Palestinian People, and that Mahmoud Abbas is the Chairman of the PLO, yet quibbles over the "compression" between the PLO and the PA.

While Ms Erakat is probably right that the PLO/PA government in place today needs to be more responsive to the needs of the Palestinian People, she really offers nothing new in terms of a solution.

Nearly half of the Palestinian People (45%) "believe that the first most vital Palestinian goal should be to end Israeli occupation in the areas occupied in 1967 and build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital;" while less than a third (29%) "believe the first most vital goal should be to obtain the right of return of refugees to their 1948 towns and villages." (PSR Poll # 49 - September 2013: Bottom of Page 3)

We asked the public about its views regarding the most important condition for return to negotiations: 31% selected the release of prisoners, 28% selected an Israeli acceptance of the 1967 lines as a basis for negotiations, and 14% selected an Israeli settlement freeze. 24% said they oppose resumption of any negotiations.

SOURCE: Poll # (49)- September 2013

Oddly enough, the settlement expansion issue is of less importance to the Palestinian People than it is to the Political Activist like Ms Erakat, and Mahmoud Abbas.

The most startling thing about the Palestinians is that nearly a quarter of them oppose negotiations while the other two-thirds (67%) "say they want the PA to go now to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to stop settlements." Which is, BTW, the position I've been promoting.

Ms Erakat just uses her platform to promote the ideas that Israel is engaged in massive Human Rights violations and Apartheid; allegations without substantiation or debate. So, while I listen to her, to keep appraised of the litany of complaints the virtual victim make, I'm not sure that the Palestinian People actually want to establish peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

You want the Palestinians to take Israel to the ICC?

 

[aris2chat]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I've seen many of these talks by Ms Noura Erakat; including this October 2013 presentation on Representation and Accountability. She is quite elegant and organized. Many of the points she makes are very important; yet the overall implications are flawed.

The "leadership" in Palestine has been going backwards in the peace process for decades. This has been taken over by Palestinians inside and outside of Palestine.

They are taking the so called peace process away from those losers.

(COMMENT)

Ms Erakat is entitled to her opinion, and to present her views, but she did not them and has not now made a compelling case for her "necessary and sufficient" conditions.

Ms Erakat spoke of the need to complete the intermediate steps between the Declarations of Independence and those steps preparatory to Statehood, almost disavowing the fact that Palestine is already a "State" - albeit crippled (over the last 2 decades +) in its ability to establish peace through negotiations, and build a nation that is self-sufficient and prosperous.

Ms Erakat does acknowledge that the PLO is the sole representative of the Palestinian People, and that Mahmoud Abbas is the Chairman of the PLO, yet quibbles over the "compression" between the PLO and the PA.

While Ms Erakat is probably right that the PLO/PA government in place today needs to be more responsive to the needs of the Palestinian People, she really offers nothing new in terms of a solution.

Nearly half of the Palestinian People (45%) "believe that the first most vital Palestinian goal should be to end Israeli occupation in the areas occupied in 1967 and build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital;" while less than a third (29%) "believe the first most vital goal should be to obtain the right of return of refugees to their 1948 towns and villages." (PSR Poll # 49 - September 2013: Bottom of Page 3)

We asked the public about its views regarding the most important condition for return to negotiations: 31% selected the release of prisoners, 28% selected an Israeli acceptance of the 1967 lines as a basis for negotiations, and 14% selected an Israeli settlement freeze. 24% said they oppose resumption of any negotiations.

SOURCE: Poll # (49)- September 2013

Oddly enough, the settlement expansion issue is of less importance to the Palestinian People than it is to the Political Activist like Ms Erakat, and Mahmoud Abbas.

The most startling thing about the Palestinians is that nearly a quarter of them oppose negotiations while the other two-thirds (67%) "say they want the PA to go now to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to stop settlements." Which is, BTW, the position I've been promoting.

Ms Erakat just uses her platform to promote the ideas that Israel is engaged in massive Human Rights violations and Apartheid; allegations without substantiation or debate. So, while I listen to her, to keep appraised of the litany of complaints the virtual victim make, I'm not sure that the Palestinian People actually want to establish peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

You want the Palestinians to take Israel to the ICC?

They want to take Kerry and the US to ICC as well, but Israel and the US are not signatories.

 

[High_Gravity]

Abbas is not Palestine. He is irrelevant.

That's like saying Obama is not America or Merkel is not Germany. Leaders speak on behalf of the nations they represent.

Does Obama represent you? He does not represent me.

Yes he does, whether you like it or not. You supposedly were in the Military so you should already know that.

 

[SAYIT]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Anything or anyone that doesn't agree with your vantage point, you call "irrelevant."

Explain to me who is relevant and who speaks for the State of Palestine?

Abbas is not Palestine. He is irrelevant.

(OBSERVATIONS - WHAT DOES PALESTINE SAY?)

Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR)

Poll #48: While less than a third of the public views the Palestinian Authority as an accomplishment, and while half describes their leadership as a failed one, and while 80% thinks the West Bank-Gaza Strip split is permanent or long term, support for a confederation with Jordan rises; and while the public rejects Kerry’s ideas for return to negotiations without pre-conditions, a large majority supports going to the International Criminal Court in order to stop settlement expansion even if such a step leads to PA collapse 13-15 June 2013

• Press Release

Poll #49: Palestinian public is spilt regarding the resumption of direct negotiations with Israel and pessimistic regarding the chances for success, but if the talks do lead to a peace agreement, the public believes that a majority of the Palestinians will approve it in a referendum 19-21 September 2013

• Poll In PDF Format. Pdf format

Poll #50:While half of the public favors negotiations with Israel, three quarters reject a permanent settlement if it includes a 10-year transitional phase during which the Israeli army remains deployed in the Jordan Valley; and while fewer people believe that Hamas’ way is the best way to end occupation and build a state, satisfaction with the performance of Abbas and Hamdallah increases and more people believe that Abbas’ is the best way - 19-22 December 2013

• Press Release
  
• Poll In PDF Format. Pdf format

(COMMENT)

Many outside observers believe that the Palestinians will shoot themselves in the foot by setting the conditions that will cause the State of Palestine to collapse. Even a few Palestinians believe that the excessive delay in achieving a negotiated settlement, and the unreasonable expectations of the Palestinians, will gradually trigger the fall of the Palestinian Governments (both Gaza and West Bank).

Main Findings in PSR Polls:

• Moreover, less than a third believes that a Palestinian state will be established in the next five years. In fact, a majority, while continuing to support the two-state solution, believes that it has become impractical due to settlement expansion. Perhaps for these reasons half of the public believes that its leadership from the beginnings has been a failed one.
  
• The public is also opposed to several alternatives to negotiations such as return to an armed intifada, dissolution of the PA, and abandonment of the two-state solution in favor of one-state solution. But the public supports going to international organizations, especially to the International Criminal Court (ICC), despite its fears that such a step would bring about financial sanctions and the perhaps the collapse of the PA.
  
  • • Only 17% believe that unity between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will soon be restored.
  • • 47% say that ending the split requires the downfall of the regime in the two areas of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip or at least in one of the two areas.
  • • 74% believe that reconciliation will not succeed as long as restrictions are imposed on Hamas members in the West Bank and Fatah members in the Gaza Strip.
  • • 28% believe that the re-elections of Khalid Mishaal as head of Hamas will speed up the process of reconciliation and 22% believe it will have the opposite effect.
  • • 72% support and 24% oppose going to the ICC despite fears that the step will lead to imposition of financial sanctions and PA collapse.

I'm not sure that the Palestinians have all that much more confidence in either HAMAS or Fatah as to leadership.

Findings show that the Palestinian public is divided almost equally over President’s Abbas’ decision to resume direct bilateral negotiations with Israel. Moreover, despite the vital importance attached by the public to the issue of prisoners’ release, a larger percentage gives greater priority to the two combined issues of the 1967 borders and settlement freeze. Furthermore, the lack of enthusiasm for return to negotiations seems to be driven by the belief of a large majority that the current round of talks will fail just like previous rounds. But if negotiations do succeed and an agreement is reached, the public believes that a majority of the Palestinians will approve it in a referendum.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for that, Rocco. What I draw from it is that while the polled Palestinians meander in and out of rational, productive thoughts their leadership seemingly never has had either.

 

[RoccoR]

toastman; et al,

Well, yes. It is about time that the Palestinians put-up or shut-up.

You want the Palestinians to take Israel to the ICC?

(COMMENT)

The current occupation has its roots in the 1967 War. Little do people remember that at the time, the West Bank remained Jordanian - until 31 July 1988, when Jordan ceded its claims to the West Bank. But prior to that, the West Bank had been Jordanian Territory having been annexed 24 April 1950. Similarly, the Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt, under the puppet administration of the All Palestine Government; until the 1967 War.

There is a case to be made that the 1967 UNSC Resolution 242 passed, calling for the withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict, was resolved by the associated treaty with Jordan and set an international recognized border between Israel and Jordan.

The previous ICJ Advisory Opinion did not take into account the Camp David Accords or the Oslo Accords.

Additionally, the issue of Apartheid [Article 7 - 1j, RS-ICC] needs to be put to rest in a way that cannot be disputed.

There is an argument to be made that the Article 49 Geneva Convention [Article 8 - 2b(VIII) RS-ICC].

There are extremely strong arguments that Israel can put in place, that can justify much of what the Palestinians call "crimes." Especially since the Palestinians declared a war of genocide, and attempted to carry out that threat on numerous occasions; thus a firm reason to put in place a firm defensive perimeter.

Remember, the Palestinian made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. “The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out – man women and child." Then they invaded.

The Palestinian declared Jihad and an armed struggle, with the objective of claiming "Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit." They declare the partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the State of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and its natural right in their homeland, and were inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination." And the Palestinian further declare that The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void."

The Jewish State was established pursuant to these very foundational documents which the Arab Palestinian renounced then and holds as improper now. There entire struggle is based upon this and the mistaken impression that they can pursue the struggle by any means necessary, as stated most recently by HAMAS.

Yes, it is time that some professional advocate put together a case and prefer charges that the Palestinians represent a rouge nation, that advocates Jihad and Armed Struggle to overturn the establishment of the Jewish State. The Palestinian has a well established history of criminal behaviors dating back before the Jewish State was even established. And when attacked, the UN (as an international body) did not come to the aid of the Jewish State; but instead, left them to defend themselves. The UN, having not defended Israel against the hostile invasion by 5 Arab Armies, relinquished control over the situation. It cannot come in after the fact and arbitrate on behalf of its own creation.

Finally, Israel has Treaties with Jordan and Egypt, settling their dispute, but the Arab-Palestinian owes war reparations, restitution for terrorism and claims for damages suffered in defense of its sovereignty which it openly operates against.

Yes, maybe Israel should take Palestine to the court.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

SAYIT, et al,

There is an argument to be made, that even though the PLO Declared Independence in 1988, whether it was ever an established nation.

Thanks for that, Rocco. What I draw from it is that while the polled Palestinians meander in and out of rational, productive thoughts their leadership seemingly never has had either.

(COMMENT)

There is a general belief that there must be a competent government and a capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Given the dispute between the HAMAS and Fatah, as well as, and the ability to sustain itself as a state --- there is a question as to whether it is now, or ever was, a valid State that ever exercised self-government.

That will be interesting if that issue goes before the court. If it never was a government, then what?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sally]

That's like saying Obama is not America or Merkel is not Germany. Leaders speak on behalf of the nations they represent.

Does Obama represent you? He does not represent me.

Then who does.................. as you are too small a fry to make treaties with other nations leaders. If Obama says you will pay this much in taxation then you pay that much. If Obama decides to stop all aid to Palestine you do not even get a chance to say no.

Phoenall, whether Americans like Obama or not, they still realize that he is the President of the U.S. at the present time. However, it could be that Mr. Tinmore, the representative of Hamas in the U.S., doesn't have U.S. citizenship so Obama actually doesn't represent him since he can't vote and feels that Hamas represents him. There are others here in the.U.S. who have never applied for citizenship.

 

[Victory67]

UN Res. 242 demands Israel's neighbors recognize her within safe and defensable borders.

It also demands a just solution to the refugee problem.

Not just a practical solution, but a just one.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

That's like saying Obama is not America or Merkel is not Germany. Leaders speak on behalf of the nations they represent.

Does Obama represent you? He does not represent me.

Well, I don't agree with alot of his policies, but he was duly elected by a majority of the people in this nation. Jewish tradition teaches that we should give honor and respect to the leaders and royals of nations, whoever is in charge at a given time.

Even Moses and Aaron gave respect to the wicked Pharaoh of Egypt.

That is right, ForeverYoung. You have alot of wisdom.

Joseph also grew a beard and changed his clothes to honor the Pharoah. ( the Pharoah who ruled prior to the one Moses and Aaron stood before) There is a very powerful lesson in the subject of honor. Who we honor determines our destiny. Who we fail to honor also determines our destiny.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Abbas: If Kerry's framework not satisfactory, PA will end talks, seek unilateral recognition | JPost | Israel News

The PA president said claims that he wanted the right of return for five million Palestinians were "a joke."

"I do not want to destroy Israel and no refugee will return to Israel without Israel's consent," he stated, adding that "I expect Israel to set quotas of the numbers of refugees it will absorb each year."





and there you have it. Palestine is not demanding the Right of Retun for millions of Arab refugees to Israel.

Ok but there will never be ANY sort of right of return for Palestinians. Abbas and the Palestinians need to except that

Exactly. There is no negotiating any sort of right of return. It's out of the question. So is returning to pre 67 borders.

 

[toastman]

UN Res. 242 demands Israel's neighbors recognize her within safe and defensable borders.

It also demands a just solution to the refugee problem.

Not just a practical solution, but a just one.

The problem is that both aides have a different definition of defensible borders AND what is a JUST solution to the refugee problem, since there is no universal definition for either

 

[P F Tinmore]

UN Res. 242 demands Israel's neighbors recognize her within safe and defensable borders.

It also demands a just solution to the refugee problem.

Not just a practical solution, but a just one.

The problem is that both aides have a different definition of defensible borders AND what is a JUST solution to the refugee problem, since there is no universal definition for either

They both want peace but they do not agree on what peace means.

The Palestinians want peace based on rights, justice and international law.

Israel avoids those issues at all cost.

 

[GHook93]

The PA president said claims that he wanted the right of return for five million Palestinians were "a joke."

"I do not want to destroy Israel and no refugee will return to Israel without Israel's consent," he stated, adding that "I expect Israel to set quotas of the numbers of refugees it will absorb each year."

Set the quota at negative 1.2 million. Meaning the Palestinian settlers currently in Israel must go to the future Palestinian state!

 

[toastman]

UN Res. 242 demands Israel's neighbors recognize her within safe and defensable borders.

It also demands a just solution to the refugee problem.

Not just a practical solution, but a just one.

The problem is that both aides have a different definition of defensible borders AND what is a JUST solution to the refugee problem, since there is no universal definition for either

They both want peace but they do not agree on what peace means.

The Palestinians want peace based on rights, justice and international law.

Israel avoids those issues at all cost.

The Palestinians want peace based on making Israel extremely hard or impossible to defend herself.
Then theres the other Palestinians who want to continue Jihad until they get it all ( which of course will never happen)

Its not Israels fault that they rejected the partition plan
Its not Israels fault that the Palestinians signed the Khartoum resolution on 1967
Its not Israels fault that Arafat refused that offer, which is an offer I doubt the Palestinians will ever get again
Its not Israels fault that Abbas rejected Olmerts offer as well as all the frameworks worked out by the US

How many more chances are they going to get?? The ball is not in their park