What Kind of State in Israel?

[RoccoR]

irosie91, et al,

I think nearly everyone sees through this. If the "Dead Sea Scrolls" are a fraud, then it was a fraud perpetrated by the Arab on the world. It was the Bedouin's that originally found the jars and sold them for money.

But the scrolls mean nothing relative to the Arab/Israeli dispute.

hoss islamic revisionists have decided that the DEAD SEA SCROLLS are a forgery-----uhm..... the "zionists" did it ask sherri-----she should know the party-line

(COMMENT)

It is all about dialog. While there is a system by which the Israelis can select formal negotiators on their side, their is no such system for the Palestinians (whether we speak of Gaza or the West Bank) to select a negotiation team that speaks with authority.

Thus, the Palestinian, as a people, have not demonstrated that they want peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[docmauser1]

The establishment of Israeli settlements inside the "Occupied Territories" (beyond the '67 borders) are a fundamental problem.

For those smuggling and marketing occupational, of course.
Hoda Tawfik of the Al Ahram asked James Baker in the Mideast Insight symposium, that took place in Washington on May 4, 1998,
"What do you think is right? That these are occupied Arab territories and not disputed territories?"
James Baker replied:
"They're clearly disputed territories. That's what Resolutions 242 and 338 are all about. They are clearly disputed territories."
"'67 borders" was a good joke too, bth..

 

[RoccoR]

docmauser1, et al,

I don't think that anyone wants to challenge the integrity of James Baker, for his efforts over a decade ago. But none-the-less, he was furthering a failed diplomatic approach. And this posture (more than a decade old), demonstrated that the US was not an honest broker for peace or seeking an "equitable" settlement.

The establishment of Israeli settlements inside the "Occupied Territories" (beyond the '67 borders) are a fundamental problem.

For those smuggling and marketing occupational, of course.
Hoda Tawfik of the Al Ahram asked James Baker in the Mideast Insight symposium, that took place in Washington on May 4, 1998,
"What do you think is right? That these are occupied Arab territories and not disputed territories?"
James Baker replied:
"They're clearly disputed territories. That's what Resolutions 242 and 338 are all about. They are clearly disputed territories."
"'67 borders" was a good joke too, bth..

(COMMENT)

I think nearly everyone that understands anything about the dispute between the Israelis and the various opposing factions on the side of the Palestinians, knows that - "in part" - the territorial rule is a integral component in the equation. Now it is not the only key issue, but certainly a major area for discussion.

Probably another major competing component - is the internal struggle for power and influence between the various opposing factions that claim to be on the side of the Palestinians and represent them. Answering the question as to who speaks for the Palestinians is a difficult proposition. One cannot expect to gain an equitable payout if there is no one to speak for them.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[docmauser1]

The establishment of Israeli settlements inside the "Occupied Territories" (beyond the '67 borders) are a fundamental problem.

For those smuggling and marketing occupational, of course.
Hoda Tawfik of the Al Ahram asked James Baker in the Mideast Insight symposium, that took place in Washington on May 4, 1998,
"What do you think is right? That these are occupied Arab territories and not disputed territories?"
James Baker replied:
"They're clearly disputed territories. That's what Resolutions 242 and 338 are all about. They are clearly disputed territories."
"'67 borders" was a good joke too, bth..

I don't think that anyone wants to challenge the integrity of James Baker, for his efforts over a decade ago. But none-the-less, he was furthering a failed diplomatic approach. And this posture (more than a decade old), demonstrated that the US was not an honest broker for peace or seeking an "equitable" settlement.

Cool, a failed diplomatic approach, the US was not an honest broker for peace or seeking an "equitable" settlement, we've read this drivel before, of course.

 

[P F Tinmore]

docmauser1, et al,

I don't think that anyone wants to challenge the integrity of James Baker, for his efforts over a decade ago. But none-the-less, he was furthering a failed diplomatic approach. And this posture (more than a decade old), demonstrated that the US was not an honest broker for peace or seeking an "equitable" settlement.

The establishment of Israeli settlements inside the "Occupied Territories" (beyond the '67 borders) are a fundamental problem.

For those smuggling and marketing occupational, of course.
Hoda Tawfik of the Al Ahram asked James Baker in the Mideast Insight symposium, that took place in Washington on May 4, 1998,
"What do you think is right? That these are occupied Arab territories and not disputed territories?"
James Baker replied:
"They're clearly disputed territories. That's what Resolutions 242 and 338 are all about. They are clearly disputed territories."
"'67 borders" was a good joke too, bth..

(COMMENT)

I think nearly everyone that understands anything about the dispute between the Israelis and the various opposing factions on the side of the Palestinians, knows that - "in part" - the territorial rule is a integral component in the equation. Now it is not the only key issue, but certainly a major area for discussion.

Probably another major competing component - is the internal struggle for power and influence between the various opposing factions that claim to be on the side of the Palestinians and represent them. Answering the question as to who speaks for the Palestinians is a difficult proposition. One cannot expect to gain an equitable payout if there is no one to speak for them.

Most Respectfully,
R

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72ai-Udti1M]On The Map with Avi Lewis: Gaza Coup d'Etat? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[proudveteran06]

I'm not talking about the arabs, I'm saying that Israel, before the arabs get nukes, should make a meaningful offer of peace, which they've never done. They just keep taking more land.

Another lie Pro- Palestinians tell. Israel grabs " more land?" It seems she " forgot" that Rocket attacks actually increased after Israel left Gaza. " Meaningul offer?" 67 Borders that were never recognized or respected plus " Right of Return?' lol Only in your dreams. Ask what proposals Abbas has put forth and there will be no response. VERY VERY SLOWLY read the Websters definition of " Negotiations" .

I guess you just can't understand simple things, can you even tell me what I was trying to say? hint: it has nothing to do with the arabs or Abbas. And I'm not pro-Palestinian, I'm pro peace, I want israel to make a peace offer so it doesn't get nuked.

PS the Israelis just built more settlements in the WB, that's called taking more land. Get it?

Still waiting to hear about Abbas proposals which do NOT incluse the 67 Borders, " Right of Return" , the compromises he has made. No answer because there is nobody home. Get it?

 

[ima]

Another lie Pro- Palestinians tell. Israel grabs " more land?" It seems she " forgot" that Rocket attacks actually increased after Israel left Gaza. " Meaningul offer?" 67 Borders that were never recognized or respected plus " Right of Return?' lol Only in your dreams. Ask what proposals Abbas has put forth and there will be no response. VERY VERY SLOWLY read the Websters definition of " Negotiations" .

I guess you just can't understand simple things, can you even tell me what I was trying to say? hint: it has nothing to do with the arabs or Abbas. And I'm not pro-Palestinian, I'm pro peace, I want israel to make a peace offer so it doesn't get nuked.

PS the Israelis just built more settlements in the WB, that's called taking more land. Get it?

Still waiting to hear about Abbas proposals which do NOT incluse the 67 Borders, " Right of Return" , the compromises he has made. No answer because there is nobody home. Get it?

MASSIVE DEFLECTION ALERT!!!! You don't want peace, show me where Israel ever made a proper offer. If you were in the IDF, then no wonder they can't beat Hamas.

 

[irosie91]

I guess you just can't understand simple things, can you even tell me what I was trying to say? hint: it has nothing to do with the arabs or Abbas. And I'm not pro-Palestinian, I'm pro peace, I want israel to make a peace offer so it doesn't get nuked.

PS the Israelis just built more settlements in the WB, that's called taking more land. Get it?

Still waiting to hear about Abbas proposals which do NOT incluse the 67 Borders, " Right of Return" , the compromises he has made. No answer because there is nobody home. Get it?

MASSIVE DEFLECTION ALERT!!!! You don't want peace, show me where Israel ever made a proper offer. If you were in the IDF, then no wonder they can't beat Hamas.

Ima----the only offer that could be remotely acceptable to the UMMAH----would be
if Israel agreed to be pillaged and raped ----with lots of murders thrown in---and
enslavments and then SIGNED THE PACT OF OMAR for some strange reason
Israeli leaders have refused

 

[ima]

Still waiting to hear about Abbas proposals which do NOT incluse the 67 Borders, " Right of Return" , the compromises he has made. No answer because there is nobody home. Get it?

MASSIVE DEFLECTION ALERT!!!! You don't want peace, show me where Israel ever made a proper offer. If you were in the IDF, then no wonder they can't beat Hamas.

Ima----the only offer that could be remotely acceptable to the UMMAH----would be
if Israel agreed to be pillaged and raped ----with lots of murders thrown in---and
enslavments and then SIGNED THE PACT OF OMAR for some strange reason
Israeli leaders have refused

So basically Israel doesn't even want peace, is that what you're saying?

 

[irosie91]

MASSIVE DEFLECTION ALERT!!!! You don't want peace, show me where Israel ever made a proper offer. If you were in the IDF, then no wonder they can't beat Hamas.

Ima----the only offer that could be remotely acceptable to the UMMAH----would be
if Israel agreed to be pillaged and raped ----with lots of murders thrown in---and
enslavments and then SIGNED THE PACT OF OMAR for some strange reason
Israeli leaders have refused

So basically Israel doesn't even want peace, is that what you're saying?

well>>>>



Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field!



Israel did not want PAX ROMANA -----
or even PAX PERSIA

and certainly does not want DAR AL ISLAM

 

[proudveteran06]

I guess you just can't understand simple things, can you even tell me what I was trying to say? hint: it has nothing to do with the arabs or Abbas. And I'm not pro-Palestinian, I'm pro peace, I want israel to make a peace offer so it doesn't get nuked.

PS the Israelis just built more settlements in the WB, that's called taking more land. Get it?

Still waiting to hear about Abbas proposals which do NOT incluse the 67 Borders, " Right of Return" , the compromises he has made. No answer because there is nobody home. Get it?

MASSIVE DEFLECTION ALERT!!!! You don't want peace, show me where Israel ever made a proper offer. If you were in the IDF, then no wonder they can't beat Hamas.

MASSIVE DEFLECTION ALERT!!!!! Being the Pro- Palestinian that you are you choose to " forget" that Israel left Gaza and was immediately " rewarded" with more Rockets. After Israel withdrew what did Abbas do? The answer is " nothing". Show me where Abbas ever made a proper " Counter- offer". Google your " proof" You can't.

Not my fault you have a problem with reading comphrension. Abbas has made it very clear he will NOT accept anything short of 67 Borders which were NEVER recognized and " Right of Return".


We cannot recognize Israel’s legitimacy,” the Hamas leader added. ”From the sea to the river, from north to south, we will not give up any part of Palestine — it is our country, our right and our homeland.”

This is a recent statement . In your Pro- Palestinian mindset this is " negotiation ". To the Israelis it is not.

 

[proudveteran06]

Still waiting to hear about Abbas proposals which do NOT incluse the 67 Borders, " Right of Return" , the compromises he has made. No answer because there is nobody home. Get it?

MASSIVE DEFLECTION ALERT!!!! You don't want peace, show me where Israel ever made a proper offer. If you were in the IDF, then no wonder they can't beat Hamas.

MASSIVE DEFLECTION ALERT!!!!! Being the Pro- Palestinian that you are you choose to " forget" that Israel left Gaza and was immediately " rewarded" with more Rockets. After Israel withdrew what did Abbas do? The answer is " nothing". Show me where Abbas ever made a proper " Counter- offer". Google your " proof" You can't.

Not my fault you have a problem with reading comphrension. Abbas has made it very clear he will NOT accept anything short of 67 Borders which were NEVER recognized and " Right of Return".


We cannot recognize Israel’s legitimacy,” the Hamas leader added. ”From the sea to the river, from north to south, we will not give up any part of Palestine — it is our country, our right and our homeland.”

This is a recent statement . In your Pro- Palestinian mindset this is " negotiation ". To the Israelis it is not.

The Pro- Palestinian wants to know what Israel has offered.


Fact Sheet:

Abbas is the Obstacle to Peace

(Updated February 2012)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read All Fact Sheets | Abbas: Table of Contents

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israel, the United States and most of the international community were pleased when Mahmoud Abbas was elected in 2005 as President of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Expectations were high that Abbas would radically alter the policies of his predecessor, consolidate his power, reform the PA, and put an end to years of senseless violence that had claimed many innocent lives on both sides and had left Palestinians with a feeling of hopelessness.

Abbas, however, has done little since then to deserve the faith the international community placed in him.

Rather than taking tangible steps toward peace, Abbas has done nothing but bypass and evade bilateral negotiations with Israel while incessantly repeating the longstanding irredentist demands of the PLO. Moreover, Abbas' insistence that Israeli intransigence - not Palestinian - has stalled the peace process, displays an incredibly narrow and hazy grasp on recent history. Abbas's power, prestige and popularity have dramatically weakened over the years, both internationally and amongst the Palestinian people, and the evidence is overwhelming that he is the biggest obstacle to making peace with Israel.

Abbas's refusal in both January 2012 and October 2011 to discuss tangible peace initiatives with Israel through talks facilitated by Jordanian King Abdullah and the Mideast Quartet - a grouping of Russia, the EU, US and UN - barely made news headlines. Likewise, his requirement that Israel meet a set of strict preconditions before negotiations - including a settlement construction freeze, acceptance of a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 lines, and the release of Palestinian prisoners not included in the Gilad Shalit exchange deal - was also mostly excused by an international media all too quick to make excuses for the Palestinian leader.

These recent refusals are far from the first times that the Abbas government has responded to Israeli peace initiatives with blank stares and impossible demands. In fact, they reflect a longstanding trend of evading negotiations that Abbas has maintained from his predecessor Yasser Arafat. Despite at least three successive Israeli administrations voicing support for compromise, Abbas has shown no willingness to meet Israel halfway.

In 2005, when Israeli PM Ariel Sharon ordered the evacuation of all Israeli civilian and military personnel from the Gaza Strip, Abbas had an opportunity to announce that he would support the “end of occupation” and would begin to build the infrastructure of a state. Instead, he emphatically opposed the withdrawal, preferring “occupation” to a position where Palestinians could actually enjoy independence. Abbas, however, was given the benefit of the doubt by external analysts because of his relatively moderate tone.

Abbas wasted yet another golden opportunity for peace in 2008. That year, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert made an offer for peace so overt that US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice called it "amazing" and warned that "Yitzhak Rabin had been killed for offering far less." Olmert's offer called for Israeli withdrawal from approximately 94% of the West Bank, the creation of a pasasge from the West Bank to Gaza, and the equal "swapping" of land so that Israel could annex its major settlement blocs. Olmert even proposed to divide Jerusalem and absorb a few thousand Palestinian refugees. Abbas, though, refused to consummate the deal. As Israeli daily Haaretz noted, "aficionados of the Palestinians again found a million and one reasons why the peace-loving Palestinian leader had refused the offer."

In 2009, Abbas again refused to negotiate, this time with new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and rejected the Israeli leader's offer to immediately resume talks without preconditions. Perfidiously playing the game of diplomacy, Abbas's chief negotiator Saeb Erekat called on the Arab countries to suspend the Arab peace initiative and called on the international community to isolate Netanyahu for “sabotaging” the peace process. Abbas, meanwhile, said he hoped the Obama Administration would force Netanyahu out of office and declared his willingness to wait years until that happened.

In 2010, Abbas made clear that he refused to even sit in the same room with the Israelis and the Obama administration had to levy all of its political power just to pressure the Palestinians into "proximity talks" with U.S. special envoy George Mitchell. Not surprisingly, these talks yielded little progress. Abbas's senior aide, Tayeb Abdel Rahim, said that Israel's request to launch direct negotiations was “unacceptable.” Even after Israel placed a ten-month moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank, Abbas refused to sit with the Israeli leaders.

In 2011, Abbas finally took tangible steps in the peace process - only in the wrong direction. His political party, Fatah, declared war on normalization with Israel and discounted peace talks as useless. Later, Abbas agreed to a reconciliation agreement with Hamas despite the fact that it is an internationally recognized terrorist organization and vows to never negotiate with Israel. And, in September, Abbas tried to completely bypass negotiations once and for all, with the tacit support of the international community, by officially requesting that the United Nations recognize the independence of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state.

Mahmoud Abbas has consistently refused to negotiate a deal now with three different Israeli prime ministers and there is no reason to expect that a change in Israeli leadership would make him any less intransigent. Abbas has proven time and again that he is either incapable or unwilling to deliver on any agreement, yet despite this fact, Israel has repeatedly been asked by external actors to make gestures to the Palestinians.

Not surprisingly, no offer has ever been sufficient. If Israel releases prisoners, it is not enough; if Israel agrees to withdraw troops or dismantle checkpoints, it makes no impression on Abbas.

The United States and the international community continue to place all their faith in a man whose track record suggests that he will remain the principal obstacle to any progress in the peace process. Rather than continuing to pressure Israel to make concessions, it is past time to look and work for a Palestinian leader who will respect not only the hopes of Israel but the wishes of his own people, the majority of whom would prefer to live in peace rather than continue to pursue a futile and endless strategy of "resistance."


The " Arab Peace Initiative" that is spoken about has to do with the 67 Lines that were never recognized or respected plus " Right of Return". Someone please explain this to the Pro- Palestinian who has a problem with reading comphrension

 

[proudveteran06]

Ima----the only offer that could be remotely acceptable to the UMMAH----would be
if Israel agreed to be pillaged and raped ----with lots of murders thrown in---and
enslavments and then SIGNED THE PACT OF OMAR for some strange reason
Israeli leaders have refused

So basically Israel doesn't even want peace, is that what you're saying?

well>>>>



Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field!



Rose,

Ask her what " peace offerings" Abbas has made and there will be no answer. Ask her what " compromises or concessions" he has made the " response" will be the same. Consider the source

 

[P F Tinmore]

MASSIVE DEFLECTION ALERT!!!! You don't want peace, show me where Israel ever made a proper offer. If you were in the IDF, then no wonder they can't beat Hamas.

MASSIVE DEFLECTION ALERT!!!!! Being the Pro- Palestinian that you are you choose to " forget" that Israel left Gaza and was immediately " rewarded" with more Rockets. After Israel withdrew what did Abbas do? The answer is " nothing". Show me where Abbas ever made a proper " Counter- offer". Google your " proof" You can't.

Not my fault you have a problem with reading comphrension. Abbas has made it very clear he will NOT accept anything short of 67 Borders which were NEVER recognized and " Right of Return".


We cannot recognize Israel’s legitimacy,” the Hamas leader added. ”From the sea to the river, from north to south, we will not give up any part of Palestine — it is our country, our right and our homeland.”

This is a recent statement . In your Pro- Palestinian mindset this is " negotiation ". To the Israelis it is not.

The Pro- Palestinian wants to know what Israel has offered.


Fact Sheet:

Abbas is the Obstacle to Peace

(Updated February 2012)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read All Fact Sheets | Abbas: Table of Contents

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israel, the United States and most of the international community were pleased when Mahmoud Abbas was elected in 2005 as President of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Expectations were high that Abbas would radically alter the policies of his predecessor, consolidate his power, reform the PA, and put an end to years of senseless violence that had claimed many innocent lives on both sides and had left Palestinians with a feeling of hopelessness.

Abbas, however, has done little since then to deserve the faith the international community placed in him.

Rather than taking tangible steps toward peace, Abbas has done nothing but bypass and evade bilateral negotiations with Israel while incessantly repeating the longstanding irredentist demands of the PLO. Moreover, Abbas' insistence that Israeli intransigence - not Palestinian - has stalled the peace process, displays an incredibly narrow and hazy grasp on recent history. Abbas's power, prestige and popularity have dramatically weakened over the years, both internationally and amongst the Palestinian people, and the evidence is overwhelming that he is the biggest obstacle to making peace with Israel.

Abbas's refusal in both January 2012 and October 2011 to discuss tangible peace initiatives with Israel through talks facilitated by Jordanian King Abdullah and the Mideast Quartet - a grouping of Russia, the EU, US and UN - barely made news headlines. Likewise, his requirement that Israel meet a set of strict preconditions before negotiations - including a settlement construction freeze, acceptance of a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 lines, and the release of Palestinian prisoners not included in the Gilad Shalit exchange deal - was also mostly excused by an international media all too quick to make excuses for the Palestinian leader.

These recent refusals are far from the first times that the Abbas government has responded to Israeli peace initiatives with blank stares and impossible demands. In fact, they reflect a longstanding trend of evading negotiations that Abbas has maintained from his predecessor Yasser Arafat. Despite at least three successive Israeli administrations voicing support for compromise, Abbas has shown no willingness to meet Israel halfway.

In 2005, when Israeli PM Ariel Sharon ordered the evacuation of all Israeli civilian and military personnel from the Gaza Strip, Abbas had an opportunity to announce that he would support the “end of occupation” and would begin to build the infrastructure of a state. Instead, he emphatically opposed the withdrawal, preferring “occupation” to a position where Palestinians could actually enjoy independence. Abbas, however, was given the benefit of the doubt by external analysts because of his relatively moderate tone.

Abbas wasted yet another golden opportunity for peace in 2008. That year, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert made an offer for peace so overt that US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice called it "amazing" and warned that "Yitzhak Rabin had been killed for offering far less." Olmert's offer called for Israeli withdrawal from approximately 94% of the West Bank, the creation of a pasasge from the West Bank to Gaza, and the equal "swapping" of land so that Israel could annex its major settlement blocs. Olmert even proposed to divide Jerusalem and absorb a few thousand Palestinian refugees. Abbas, though, refused to consummate the deal. As Israeli daily Haaretz noted, "aficionados of the Palestinians again found a million and one reasons why the peace-loving Palestinian leader had refused the offer."

In 2009, Abbas again refused to negotiate, this time with new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and rejected the Israeli leader's offer to immediately resume talks without preconditions. Perfidiously playing the game of diplomacy, Abbas's chief negotiator Saeb Erekat called on the Arab countries to suspend the Arab peace initiative and called on the international community to isolate Netanyahu for “sabotaging” the peace process. Abbas, meanwhile, said he hoped the Obama Administration would force Netanyahu out of office and declared his willingness to wait years until that happened.

In 2010, Abbas made clear that he refused to even sit in the same room with the Israelis and the Obama administration had to levy all of its political power just to pressure the Palestinians into "proximity talks" with U.S. special envoy George Mitchell. Not surprisingly, these talks yielded little progress. Abbas's senior aide, Tayeb Abdel Rahim, said that Israel's request to launch direct negotiations was “unacceptable.” Even after Israel placed a ten-month moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank, Abbas refused to sit with the Israeli leaders.

In 2011, Abbas finally took tangible steps in the peace process - only in the wrong direction. His political party, Fatah, declared war on normalization with Israel and discounted peace talks as useless. Later, Abbas agreed to a reconciliation agreement with Hamas despite the fact that it is an internationally recognized terrorist organization and vows to never negotiate with Israel. And, in September, Abbas tried to completely bypass negotiations once and for all, with the tacit support of the international community, by officially requesting that the United Nations recognize the independence of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state.

Mahmoud Abbas has consistently refused to negotiate a deal now with three different Israeli prime ministers and there is no reason to expect that a change in Israeli leadership would make him any less intransigent. Abbas has proven time and again that he is either incapable or unwilling to deliver on any agreement, yet despite this fact, Israel has repeatedly been asked by external actors to make gestures to the Palestinians.

Not surprisingly, no offer has ever been sufficient. If Israel releases prisoners, it is not enough; if Israel agrees to withdraw troops or dismantle checkpoints, it makes no impression on Abbas.

The United States and the international community continue to place all their faith in a man whose track record suggests that he will remain the principal obstacle to any progress in the peace process. Rather than continuing to pressure Israel to make concessions, it is past time to look and work for a Palestinian leader who will respect not only the hopes of Israel but the wishes of his own people, the majority of whom would prefer to live in peace rather than continue to pursue a futile and endless strategy of "resistance."


The " Arab Peace Initiative" that is spoken about has to do with the 67 Lines that were never recognized or respected plus " Right of Return". Someone please explain this to the Pro- Palestinian who has a problem with reading comphrension

No link, but it reads like an Israeli propaganda site.

 

[RoccoR]

docmauser1, et al,

Suggesting that the US diplomatic intervention was less than successful has often placed me at odds with the pro-US discussion group members.

Cool, a failed diplomatic approach, the US was not an honest broker for peace or seeking an "equitable" settlement, we've read this drivel before, of course.[/font]

(COMMENT)

So I take it - that it is your position that the US diplomatic effort has been successful; and that, US is perceived to be an honest broker and has offered mediated settlements which would have prevented Israeli expansion.

If this was the case, how come the dispute is still ongoing?

How do you define success?

• If the effort does not have an outcome of peace, is it successful?
• It the effort doesn't end in an equitable settlement, then is it successful?

It has been more than half a century that the US has engaged in the process. In that time, has the US strengthened it ties in the Middle East? Does any nation in the Middle East, Persian Gulf, or North Africa consider the US a positive force for peace in the region?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

docmauser1, et al,

Suggesting that the US diplomatic intervention was less than successful has often placed me at odds with the pro-US discussion group members.

Cool, a failed diplomatic approach, the US was not an honest broker for peace or seeking an "equitable" settlement, we've read this drivel before, of course.[/font]

(COMMENT)

So I take it - that it is your position that the US diplomatic effort has been successful; and that, US is perceived to be an honest broker and has offered mediated settlements which would have prevented Israeli expansion.

If this was the case, how come the dispute is still ongoing?

How do you define success?

• If the effort does not have an outcome of peace, is it successful?
• It the effort doesn't end in an equitable settlement, then is it successful?

It has been more than half a century that the US has engaged in the process. In that time, has the US strengthened it ties in the Middle East? Does any nation in the Middle East, Persian Gulf, or North Africa consider the US a positive force for peace in the region?

Most Respectfully,
R

The preconditions set by Israel and the US make negotiations useless.

 

[ima]

Hey vet, what moronic army would let you in? Probably one that can't win a war, like the US army or the IDF. Which is it?

 

[proudveteran06]

MASSIVE DEFLECTION ALERT!!!!! Being the Pro- Palestinian that you are you choose to " forget" that Israel left Gaza and was immediately " rewarded" with more Rockets. After Israel withdrew what did Abbas do? The answer is " nothing". Show me where Abbas ever made a proper " Counter- offer". Google your " proof" You can't.

Not my fault you have a problem with reading comphrension. Abbas has made it very clear he will NOT accept anything short of 67 Borders which were NEVER recognized and " Right of Return".


We cannot recognize Israel’s legitimacy,” the Hamas leader added. ”From the sea to the river, from north to south, we will not give up any part of Palestine — it is our country, our right and our homeland.”

This is a recent statement . In your Pro- Palestinian mindset this is " negotiation ". To the Israelis it is not.

The Pro- Palestinian wants to know what Israel has offered.


Fact Sheet:

Abbas is the Obstacle to Peace

(Updated February 2012)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read All Fact Sheets | Abbas: Table of Contents

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israel, the United States and most of the international community were pleased when Mahmoud Abbas was elected in 2005 as President of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Expectations were high that Abbas would radically alter the policies of his predecessor, consolidate his power, reform the PA, and put an end to years of senseless violence that had claimed many innocent lives on both sides and had left Palestinians with a feeling of hopelessness.

Abbas, however, has done little since then to deserve the faith the international community placed in him.

Rather than taking tangible steps toward peace, Abbas has done nothing but bypass and evade bilateral negotiations with Israel while incessantly repeating the longstanding irredentist demands of the PLO. Moreover, Abbas' insistence that Israeli intransigence - not Palestinian - has stalled the peace process, displays an incredibly narrow and hazy grasp on recent history. Abbas's power, prestige and popularity have dramatically weakened over the years, both internationally and amongst the Palestinian people, and the evidence is overwhelming that he is the biggest obstacle to making peace with Israel.

Abbas's refusal in both January 2012 and October 2011 to discuss tangible peace initiatives with Israel through talks facilitated by Jordanian King Abdullah and the Mideast Quartet - a grouping of Russia, the EU, US and UN - barely made news headlines. Likewise, his requirement that Israel meet a set of strict preconditions before negotiations - including a settlement construction freeze, acceptance of a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 lines, and the release of Palestinian prisoners not included in the Gilad Shalit exchange deal - was also mostly excused by an international media all too quick to make excuses for the Palestinian leader.

These recent refusals are far from the first times that the Abbas government has responded to Israeli peace initiatives with blank stares and impossible demands. In fact, they reflect a longstanding trend of evading negotiations that Abbas has maintained from his predecessor Yasser Arafat. Despite at least three successive Israeli administrations voicing support for compromise, Abbas has shown no willingness to meet Israel halfway.

In 2005, when Israeli PM Ariel Sharon ordered the evacuation of all Israeli civilian and military personnel from the Gaza Strip, Abbas had an opportunity to announce that he would support the “end of occupation” and would begin to build the infrastructure of a state. Instead, he emphatically opposed the withdrawal, preferring “occupation” to a position where Palestinians could actually enjoy independence. Abbas, however, was given the benefit of the doubt by external analysts because of his relatively moderate tone.

Abbas wasted yet another golden opportunity for peace in 2008. That year, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert made an offer for peace so overt that US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice called it "amazing" and warned that "Yitzhak Rabin had been killed for offering far less." Olmert's offer called for Israeli withdrawal from approximately 94% of the West Bank, the creation of a pasasge from the West Bank to Gaza, and the equal "swapping" of land so that Israel could annex its major settlement blocs. Olmert even proposed to divide Jerusalem and absorb a few thousand Palestinian refugees. Abbas, though, refused to consummate the deal. As Israeli daily Haaretz noted, "aficionados of the Palestinians again found a million and one reasons why the peace-loving Palestinian leader had refused the offer."

In 2009, Abbas again refused to negotiate, this time with new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and rejected the Israeli leader's offer to immediately resume talks without preconditions. Perfidiously playing the game of diplomacy, Abbas's chief negotiator Saeb Erekat called on the Arab countries to suspend the Arab peace initiative and called on the international community to isolate Netanyahu for “sabotaging” the peace process. Abbas, meanwhile, said he hoped the Obama Administration would force Netanyahu out of office and declared his willingness to wait years until that happened.

In 2010, Abbas made clear that he refused to even sit in the same room with the Israelis and the Obama administration had to levy all of its political power just to pressure the Palestinians into "proximity talks" with U.S. special envoy George Mitchell. Not surprisingly, these talks yielded little progress. Abbas's senior aide, Tayeb Abdel Rahim, said that Israel's request to launch direct negotiations was “unacceptable.” Even after Israel placed a ten-month moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank, Abbas refused to sit with the Israeli leaders.

In 2011, Abbas finally took tangible steps in the peace process - only in the wrong direction. His political party, Fatah, declared war on normalization with Israel and discounted peace talks as useless. Later, Abbas agreed to a reconciliation agreement with Hamas despite the fact that it is an internationally recognized terrorist organization and vows to never negotiate with Israel. And, in September, Abbas tried to completely bypass negotiations once and for all, with the tacit support of the international community, by officially requesting that the United Nations recognize the independence of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state.

Mahmoud Abbas has consistently refused to negotiate a deal now with three different Israeli prime ministers and there is no reason to expect that a change in Israeli leadership would make him any less intransigent. Abbas has proven time and again that he is either incapable or unwilling to deliver on any agreement, yet despite this fact, Israel has repeatedly been asked by external actors to make gestures to the Palestinians.

Not surprisingly, no offer has ever been sufficient. If Israel releases prisoners, it is not enough; if Israel agrees to withdraw troops or dismantle checkpoints, it makes no impression on Abbas.

The United States and the international community continue to place all their faith in a man whose track record suggests that he will remain the principal obstacle to any progress in the peace process. Rather than continuing to pressure Israel to make concessions, it is past time to look and work for a Palestinian leader who will respect not only the hopes of Israel but the wishes of his own people, the majority of whom would prefer to live in peace rather than continue to pursue a futile and endless strategy of "resistance."


The " Arab Peace Initiative" that is spoken about has to do with the 67 Lines that were never recognized or respected plus " Right of Return". Someone please explain this to the Pro- Palestinian who has a problem with reading comphrension

No link, but it reads like an Israeli propaganda site.

Anytime I post something you post the above. Anytime I supply the link there is no response. Perfect example; You wanted the link where Abbas stated No Jews in " Palestine" and I gave it to you As usual there was no response. Don't believe the above? Google it yourself then. You won't because you don't have the Guts.

 

[proudveteran06]

Hey vet, what moronic army would let you in? Probably one that can't win a war, like the US army or the IDF. Which is it?

Hey, you asshole; Still waiting for you to tell us what compromises and concessions Abbas has made. Give them the proof they ask for and they ignore it. All Pro- Palestinians have are Big Mouths.

 

[georgephillip]

"The Armistice Demarcation Lines, as set by the agreements, saw the territory under Israeli control encompassing approximately three-quarters of the prior British administered Mandate as it stood after Transjordan's independence in 1946.

In other words 75% of the original mandate had been allocated for arab grab, but arabs and their drivel distributors bitch about 3/4 of what remained. Mucho greedy.

1948 Mandate Palestine.
650,000 Jews.
1.2 MILLION Arabs.
Jewish State?
Suicide!