Israel should hold peace talks. Okay... with whom?

[HistoryBefore67]

People like to talk about how Israel should go to the negotiating table and hold peace talks with the "Palestinians."

Okay... who will be at that table?

If you've ever been in a negotiation of a civil matter, you'd know that the first thing that has to happen is the facilitator must establish and ensure that there are people with final decisionmaking authority on both sides of the table. Otherwise, what guarantee could there be that any deal reached would actually be implemented?

In Israel's case, this is a simple matter. Israel has elected leaders and designated officials who can speak on behalf of the country and execute a binding treaty, if one is reached.

Who can do the same for the "Palestinians"?

The PA?

They clearly do not speak for the "Palestinians" of Gaza, who have elected Hamas as their leadership.

Hamas?

Obviously not.

The point here is, those calling for peace talks are putting the cart before the horse. The first step is that the "Palestinians" must establish a unified leadership that adopts the cause of peace (meaning that Hamas cannot be part of it until they denounce the principles set forth in their Charter).

Otherwise, there are no peace talks.

There's just talk.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

People like to talk about how Israel should go to the negotiating table and hold peace talks with the "Palestinians."

Okay... who will be at that table?

If you've ever been in a negotiation of a civil matter, you'd know that the first thing that has to happen is the facilitator must establish and ensure that there are people with final decisionmaking authority on both sides of the table. Otherwise, what guarantee could there be that any deal reached would actually be implemented?

In Israel's case, this is a simple matter. Israel has elected leaders and designated officials who can speak on behalf of the country and execute a binding treaty, if one is reached.

Who can do the same for the "Palestinians"?

The PA?

They clearly do not speak for the "Palestinians" of Gaza, who have elected Hamas as their leadership.

Hamas?

Obviously not.

The point here is, those calling for peace talks are putting the cart before the horse. The first step is that the "Palestinians" must establish a unified leadership that adopts the cause of peace (meaning that Hamas cannot be part of it until they denounce the principles set forth in their Charter).

Otherwise, there are no peace talks.

There's just talk.

Love your avatar. Recently the Women of the Wall enlisted those three awe-struck soldiers to promote their own twisted agenda. Of course, they're a lot older now.

 

[toastman]

People like to talk about how Israel should go to the negotiating table and hold peace talks with the "Palestinians."

Okay... who will be at that table?

If you've ever been in a negotiation of a civil matter, you'd know that the first thing that has to happen is the facilitator must establish and ensure that there are people with final decisionmaking authority on both sides of the table. Otherwise, what guarantee could there be that any deal reached would actually be implemented?

In Israel's case, this is a simple matter. Israel has elected leaders and designated officials who can speak on behalf of the country and execute a binding treaty, if one is reached.

Who can do the same for the "Palestinians"?

The PA?

They clearly do not speak for the "Palestinians" of Gaza, who have elected Hamas as their leadership.

Hamas?

Obviously not.

The point here is, those calling for peace talks are putting the cart before the horse. The first step is that the "Palestinians" must establish a unified leadership that adopts the cause of peace (meaning that Hamas cannot be part of it until they denounce the principles set forth in their Charter).

Otherwise, there are no peace talks.

There's just talk.

Love your avatar. Recently the Women of the Wall enlisted those three awe-struck soldiers to promote their own twisted agenda. Of course, they're a lot older now.

I'm confused, can you elaborate please

 

[ForeverYoung436]

People like to talk about how Israel should go to the negotiating table and hold peace talks with the "Palestinians."

Okay... who will be at that table?

If you've ever been in a negotiation of a civil matter, you'd know that the first thing that has to happen is the facilitator must establish and ensure that there are people with final decisionmaking authority on both sides of the table. Otherwise, what guarantee could there be that any deal reached would actually be implemented?

In Israel's case, this is a simple matter. Israel has elected leaders and designated officials who can speak on behalf of the country and execute a binding treaty, if one is reached.

Who can do the same for the "Palestinians"?

The PA?

They clearly do not speak for the "Palestinians" of Gaza, who have elected Hamas as their leadership.

Hamas?

Obviously not.

The point here is, those calling for peace talks are putting the cart before the horse. The first step is that the "Palestinians" must establish a unified leadership that adopts the cause of peace (meaning that Hamas cannot be part of it until they denounce the principles set forth in their Charter).

Otherwise, there are no peace talks.

There's just talk.

Love your avatar. Recently the Women of the Wall enlisted those three awe-struck soldiers to promote their own twisted agenda. Of course, they're a lot older now.

I'm confused, can you elaborate please

The Women of the Wall complained that they had no rights at the Wall. They got those 3 soldiers to pose for a photo-op only a couple of months ago. The soldiers, who are a lot older now, said that they liberated the Wall and Jerusalem so ALL Jews could pray there as they see fit.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

And I think they have a point, though I don't necessarily agree with their methods.

Now can we return to the topic?

 

[toastman]

Love your avatar. Recently the Women of the Wall enlisted those three awe-struck soldiers to promote their own twisted agenda. Of course, they're a lot older now.

I'm confused, can you elaborate please

The Women of the Wall complained that they had no rights at the Wall. They got those 3 soldiers to pose for a photo-op only a couple of months ago. The soldiers, who are a lot older now, said that they liberated the Wall and Jerusalem so ALL Jews could pray there as they see fit.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

Peace Talks: Sustainable Agreements for Peace and Reconciliation

There is a common belief that "Peace Talks" are a necessary first step to "conflict resolution." And while this sound so seriously correct, it is not. The first step is that both sides believe in truth, reality and compromise.

• When Henry Stanley reported to the Royal Society on the findings that Dr David Livingston made, the Royal Society treated him very badly, and essentially called him a liar. It wasn't until Dr Livingston died, and his papers were taken to the British Embassy, that the Royal Society was forced to accept Henry Stanley's story. The Royal Society, all self proclaimed experts, did not want to accept Stanley's story and evidence because it didn't fit their own theory of reality. But they didn't want to launch their own expedition to find out either.

The key to the conflict resolution is essentially that both sides (Israeli and Palestinian) must believe it is critical to each community they represent.

That time has not come yet. There are simply too many Israelis that believe there are show stopping issues like the East Jerusalem (merely and example) point that will prevent successful talks. And just as damaging is the point the Palestinians hold, that they rightfully own all of Palestine (just as an example) and that Israel has no right to exist.

Nether side has reached a point where today's SECSTATE Kerry hoop jumping is going to be any more successful than any other peace effort going back to President Carter. There hasn't been enough pain to reach a Sustainable Agreement for Peace and Reconciliation of the territory. Neither side will compromise.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[HistoryBefore67]

et al,

That time has not come yet. There are simply too many Israelis that believe there are show stopping issues like the East Jerusalem (merely and example) point that will prevent successful talks. And just as damaging is the point the Palestinians hold, that they rightfully own all of Palestine (just as an example) and that Israel has no right to exist.

You can't equate these two issues.

"Palestine" could certainly be established without "East Jerusalem" as its capital. Therefore, the goal of a "Palestinian" state and Israel's goal of maintaining Jerusalem as its undivided capital are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

The State of Israel and the "Palestinian" desire to "liberate Palestine from river to sea," on the other hand, are obviously mutually exclusive.

 

[MJB12741]

If I were prime minister of Israel I would deal directly with Hamas. It is they who are the duly elected government of the Palestinian people.

I would first contact all leaders of Hamas & invite them for peace talks. Pay for their arrivals to Tel Aviv. Upon arrival I would personally wine & dine them with Israel's finest of room accommodations, food, beverages & entertainment.

The day of the scheduled meeting I would first sincerely thank the Hamas leaders for being present & apologise to them for Israel's past & present treatment of the Palestinians. Then I would make the following announcement:

From now on, each time you kill an Israeli, Israel will retaliate by killing 10,000 Palestinians. Is there anything else you would like to discuss for a lasting peace?

People like to talk about how Israel should go to the negotiating table and hold peace talks with the "Palestinians."

Okay... who will be at that table?

If you've ever been in a negotiation of a civil matter, you'd know that the first thing that has to happen is the facilitator must establish and ensure that there are people with final decisionmaking authority on both sides of the table. Otherwise, what guarantee could there be that any deal reached would actually be implemented?

In Israel's case, this is a simple matter. Israel has elected leaders and designated officials who can speak on behalf of the country and execute a binding treaty, if one is reached.

Who can do the same for the "Palestinians"?

The PA?

They clearly do not speak for the "Palestinians" of Gaza, who have elected Hamas as their leadership.

Hamas?

Obviously not.

The point here is, those calling for peace talks are putting the cart before the horse. The first step is that the "Palestinians" must establish a unified leadership that adopts the cause of peace (meaning that Hamas cannot be part of it until they denounce the principles set forth in their Charter).

Otherwise, there are no peace talks.

There's just talk.