Is it time for an Oilless in Gaza reference yet?
No? Pity.
And now for something completely different.
Has anything like that ever been tried before?
Was suggested and rejected pre 48. It would never work because all citizens in another sovereignty would fall under the law of that state. I understand the idea of a borderless state, but it would be a governmental nightmare. Who pays for infrastructure in Jaffa? Arabs or Jews? Whose airport do Palestinians fly out of?
Considering that each views the other as an enemy of the state, this isn’t even remotely viable. Palestinians want no Jews on their land.
The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it sounds. Of course anyones citizenship follows him wherever he goes, but territorial pissings are more complicated than that.
It’s his fault the talks failed when Israel didn’t even present him with a peace offer?
Yes, that’s what the occupying military power needs to do to get the confidence of the occupiees that they’re serious about peace. That’s what the brits needed to do in Northern Ireland and their occupation was a love-fest compared to the brutality of the israeli occupation. At the very least, the absolute least, israel need to stop building illegal settlements in illegally occupied Palestinian territory while they negotiate. And they refuse to do so. Whatever the situation is, israel use it as an excuse not to have peace talks while they continue their ethnic cleansing, dispossession and dessication of the West Bank.
You don’t get to dictate who you negotiate with no matter how powerful you are.
The brits and the Unionists sat down and negoptiated with people who had an entirely different goal to them and they managed a deal.
And Israel didn’t stop settlement building at all. Look :
Since yoiu’re not even aware of recent events over there I’ll leave it to others to decide which of us is clueless about Israeli history and foreign policy.
But unfortunately -
That’s not difficult to decide, unfortunately for you.
Regards,
Shodan
There wasn’t a peace offer?!
What are you talking about?
Well, actually, you do.
Newspaper says…drumroll
*
Israel didn’t stop building apartments Jerusalem.*
So what does the PA do? It walks off. Talk about being picky with whom you negotiate with. :dubious: The article you linked quotes Netanyahu quoting Benny Morris - a new historian and a Palestinian favorite.
Israel doesn’t consider Jerusalem to be a settlement. It hasn’t for decades. Jerusalem was not part of that agreement. And like many here have stated: Israel won’t give it up. Jerusalem has been annexed. The residents of Jerusalem, both east & west, Arab, Jew, Christian: they all get government benefits.
Apparently at least 30 per cent of the Muslim Arabs in Jerusalem would like to stay Israelis, according to Ha’aretz. Has Abbas talked with them yet?
Here’s the article that Netanyahu was referring to.
Abbas will negotiate with “Israel”. He will not accept that Israel is a Jewish state. Hamas will accept a temporary state [read: until they eradicate it later] but neither Hamas nor the PA will accept a Israel as a Jewish state.
Israel is a Jewish state. It was meant to be one. If you want to flaunt international law, go check out several U.N. resolutions stating the affirmative.
I’m not worried.
Israel didn’t stop building settlements in Jerusalem. The criterion set by the Palestinians and the US to restart peace talks was that israel freeze settlement building and Israel didn’t freeze settlement building, which is why the Palestinians refused to restart talks. What part of this don’t you understand?
Barak didn’t make a peace offer at camp David. He made no actual concrete offer.
If you’re serious about making peace you have no say over who you negotiate with. Britain refused for decades to negotiate with terrorists but when they had to start a peace process they sat down and negotiated with terrorists.
And israel didn’t stop building settlements. It doesn’t matter what Israel consider jerusalem to be or not to be. The rest of the world considers the settlemts in Jerusalem to be illegal and Israel refused to stop building illegal settlemts on illegally occupied land.
I understand it all perfectly.
You seem to believe that Israel is required to give the Palestinians whatever they want before any negotiations begin. That’s not negotiation.
This is very much like what Arafat rejected. He could have gotten 95+% of what he claimed to want. He refused it, apparently thinking he could get 100% thru terrorism and the intifada. And here we are.
The Palestinians are refusing to make any concessions. Their position seems to be “give me everything I want. We can decide later if you get anything at all.”
That is a pretty clear sign of who is willing to negotiate in good faith, and who is simply trying to get as much as they can at the bargaining table before trying to grab the rest by force.
Regards,
Shodan
But the U.S. was pleased at the settlment freeze until Abbas complained. Jerusalem was never part of the deal. If Jerusalem is part of “OT”, then those Israeli Arabs aren’t Israelis and they should leave. Stat. Except that’s not going to happen and those Israeli Arabs are Israelis and should remain under Israel’s jurisdiction. Just like Jerusalem.
Hardly right-wing:
Palestinians rebuff Barak’s latest peace offer
It’s not up to Abbas any more than it was up to Arafat. The Palestinians won’t have anything short of everything they want. Arafat lost control over his crowd a long time ago. Abbas barely has it. I said that several pages back.
Maybe Abbas doesn’t want Rabin’s fate.
Both Barak & Netanyahu have had experience with negotiations that spiked violence…I don’t think they’re going to be as casual about affairs this time.
Without a full-scale war, this isn’t gonna happen. I had the same thesis several years ago.
Wasn’t there some sort of treaty obligation? And like you said, Israel struck first by pre-emptively blowing up the Egyptian air force, it seemed like the events were being portrayed a bit differently than that.
When you said this
Well, when Egypt opens the border to Gaza and I realize that a Democratic Egypt might not be as friendly to Israel as the military dictatorship Israel…
Are you talking about when Israel continued with developments and settlement activity as a prelude to negotiations?
Ethnic cleansing is not the same as genocide. Ethnic cleansing as I understand it is not about killing people, its about kicking people out of an area so that only your kind remains. I don’t know if I would call it ethnic cleansing considering that there are Palestinians that live within Jewish communities. To me it simply looks like a land grab for all the usual reasons you have land grabs but with the added effect of hopefully setting the stage for future negotiations about the eventual border of the Palestinian state. It is THIS practice that we must not reward. That is why borders from a pre-settlement era is important as a starting point.
Wait, since when is stopping settlement activity everything the Palestinians want?
The Palestinians have to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist (there is simply no point in sitting down with someone who only want to help you plan your funeral), but not stopping the settlement activity was obnoxious and it changed a few minds here in the states about Israel’s ability to negotiate in good faith.
cite?
A new government is not going to go to war with Israel as it would just get kicked on its ass, just like other new governments have. Hey, maybe Israel can get more land if they do? Get the Sinai back? (See: The US-Mexican War.)
A new government may be rather stupid and break treaties with Israel and the U.S., but we’ll see. If Gazans start flooding Israel, Israel will see at as an act of war, and if Egypt is responsible for it, oh buddy.