• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Abbas nixes direct Israeli talks without Israeli concessions.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,008
14,176
136
if President Obama is willing to talk to Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba without preconditions, surely Abbas can do the same with Israel.

"The notion that not talking to countries is punishment... is ridiculous. We may not trust them, but we have the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward and it's a disgrace that we have not talked to them."
Oh, please. The Israelis have talked, talked, talked and talked some more off and on for over 30 years, nibbling on what little the pals have the whole time. They talk when pressured to do so, settle nothing, because they don't want to settle anything. What is it that the pals have gained from past talks? What have they lost as a consequence of talking, of legitimizing Israeli greed?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Oh, please. The Israelis have talked, talked, talked and talked some more off and on for over 30 years, nibbling on what little the pals have the whole time. They talk when pressured to do so, settle nothing, because they don't want to settle anything. What is it that the pals have gained from past talks? What have they lost as a consequence of talking, of legitimizing Israeli greed?
The North Koreans have talked, talked, talked and talked some more off and on for over 30 years. They talk when pressured to do so, settle nothing, because they don't want to settle anything. What is it that the West has gained from past talks? What have they lost as a consequence of talking, of legitimizing North Korean greed?

and yet, President Obama would still be willing to talk with North Korea without preconditions.
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,510
0
76
Of course they did. They attacked "pre-emptively" in 1967, remember? I'm not really sure that even they believed an attack on them was imminent, but they've since convinced a lot of people that it was...

If the Israelis can't find a way to accept the conditions that Abbas wants, what it means is that they're not done, not content with what they've taken, and intend to take more. Which means that Abbas shouldn't grant them any legitimacy, consent to more Israeli dodging and obfuscation... which is what they've done for over 30 years.

Only the most partisan Israeli fanbois and propagandists can fail to recognize that.

yea, egypt bringing troops up to the border AND blocking Eilat's trading routes doesnt constitute for war, or at least preparing for one
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
if President Obama is willing to talk to Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba without preconditions, surely Abbas can do the same with Israel.

"The notion that not talking to countries is punishment... is ridiculous. We may not trust them, but we have the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward and it's a disgrace that we have not talked to them."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Start out Loki, Israeli is not talking to Hamas, which is more in line with the USA not talking to Iran, Syria, the North Vietnamese, and Cuba. If the USA can talk to their avowed enemies, why can't Israel talk to Hamas?

Then you loki, go on to make two more big distortions. (1) Since we have a almost two decade plus track record of previous Israeli Fatah talks, the Netanyuhu statement of no preconditions is simply a code phrase for lets start out totally fresh and not build on the previous talks, many as recent as 2008. In short we already know what the issues are, now all that is lacking is for both sides to make the concessions to get a just peace. Starting out fresh is absurd, but as all can see, exactly what Israel wants. (2) For 37 years Israel has profited from its own refusal to come to any agreements, as it keeps settling on disputed land. Any real peace talks must break that cycle, making sure neither side profits from delay.
 
Last edited:

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Start out Loki, Israeli is not talking to Hamas, which is more in line with the USA not talking to Iran, Syria, the North Vietnamese, and Cuba. If the USA can talk to their avowed enemies, why can't Israel talk to Hamas?

Then you loki, go on to make two more big distortions. (1) Since we have a almost two decade plus track record of previous Israeli Fatah talks, the Netanyuhu statement of no preconditions is simply a code phrase for lets start out totally fresh and not build on the previous talks, many as recent as 2008. In short we already know what the issues are, now all that is lacking is for both sides to make the concessions to get a just peace. Starting out fresh is absurd, but as all can see, exactly what Israel wants. (2) For 37 years Israel has profited from its own refusal to come to any agreements, as it keeps settling on disputed land. Any real peace talks must break that cycle, making sure neither side profits from delay.
"We may not trust them, but we have the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward and it's a disgrace that we have not talked to them."
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
LOL Agree to what they want and what is Israels right or we won't talk?

This is like putting on your resume I want $550,000 a year or you can't interview me.

Who gives a fuck?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, FGD, you may miss the whole point, while Abbas is powerless to make any demands, Israel, has finally totally lost all the moral high ground.

And its now the entire world that has lost all faith in all the Israeli excuses used for the past 37 years, and if Israeli refuses to make a settlement freeze while TALKS on a Viable Palestinian State PROGRESS FORWARD, the same ole same ole Israeli stall tactic
are going to go over like a lead balloon. And Israel will not like the consequences.

Unless I am wrong, the rising tide of Israel receded years ago, and the Israeli falling tide is to the point where its apparently falling fast. Nor is the USA the mid-east decider, its mainly the entire rest of the world that is disgusted with Israeli present politics.

The point being, the world is behind the Abbas position because it makes logical historical sense, and the Israeli position will not fly.

To a certain extent A. Lieberman is about as credible as the Iraqi information minister. Another tough talking vainglorious clown who said Iraq would kick US butt, and the damn fool did not shut up until US tanks rolled into Baghdad, surrounding his radio station among other things, and he finally decided to STFU. He was such a damn clown, that the US did not even try to press criminal charges against him.
LOL You live in a alternate reality. No aid has been stopped from Europe (germany mainly), Israels economy is experiencing rapid growth, exports are way up, and when Obama leaves Israeli will get treatment again of any other Western Democracy.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,008
14,176
136
The North Koreans have talked, talked, talked and talked some more off and on for over 30 years. They talk when pressured to do so, settle nothing, because they don't want to settle anything. What is it that the West has gained from past talks? What have they lost as a consequence of talking, of legitimizing North Korean greed?

and yet, President Obama would still be willing to talk with North Korea without preconditions.
How lame. It's not like N Korea has anything to do with the subject at hand, or that they've been using talks as cover for dispossessing S Koreans the whole time...
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
If the Arabs presence in Jerusalem is a given, then why don't the Jews counter by asserting a claim to Medina where Jews were majority until Mohamed slaughtered them and ran them out? That would make for an interesting pre-condition.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Start out Loki, Israeli is not talking to Hamas, which is more in line with the USA not talking to Iran, Syria, the North Vietnamese, and Cuba. If the USA can talk to their avowed enemies, why can't Israel talk to Hamas?

Then you loki, go on to make two more big distortions. (1) Since we have a almost two decade plus track record of previous Israeli Fatah talks, the Netanyuhu statement of no preconditions is simply a code phrase for lets start out totally fresh and not build on the previous talks, many as recent as 2008. In short we already know what the issues are, now all that is lacking is for both sides to make the concessions to get a just peace. Starting out fresh is absurd, but as all can see, exactly what Israel wants. (2) For 37 years Israel has profited from its own refusal to come to any agreements, as it keeps settling on disputed land. Any real peace talks must break that cycle, making sure neither side profits from delay.
Does Hamas want to talk with Israel about peace? The last time that they did; they also created a PR escape hatch to disavow responsibility for incidents that they tolerated. Then they created the opportunity for Cast Lead. Is that trying for peace of conflict?

Precondition have also been created by the right of return that the Palestinians have required.

You can not have the Palestinians negotiate by being only represented by only one group. This has been demonstrated previously; other groups will destroy what is agreed to (possibly with the implicit blessing of the negotiating team).
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
EagleKeeper, all peace negotiations are complicated messy affairs. Some succeed because there enough people of good faith on both sides who want to end the state of conflict. And other do not succeed, often because one side finds a State of conflict far more advantageous than the painful concessions needed to reach a just peace. But the rhetorical questions dialog you spout, is just a smokescreen excuse to cover up the fact that Israeli wants to retain the land it cannot own.

Were it up to me at this point in time, I would have two peace talk negotiations going on at the same time. (1) An Israeli Palestinian set of talks, and if they can ink a deal acceptable to both by 12/31/2012, all well and fine. (2) A set of binding third party arbitration talks, charged with coming up with a fair and final settlement, ready to on 12/31/2012. And should the Palestinian Israeli talks fail, both sides follow the then unknown secret third party binding arbitration plan come 1/1/2013. Both sides can like it or lump it but they follow it anyway.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
EagleKeeper, all peace negotiations are complicated messy affairs. Some succeed because there enough people of good faith on both sides who want to end the state of conflict. And other do not succeed, often because one side finds a State of conflict far more advantageous than the painful concessions needed to reach a just peace. But the rhetorical questions dialog you spout, is just a smokescreen excuse to cover up the fact that Israeli wants to retain the land it cannot own.

Were it up to me at this point in time, I would have two peace talk negotiations going on at the same time. (1) An Israeli Palestinian set of talks, and if they can ink a deal acceptable to both by 12/31/2012, all well and fine. (2) A set of binding third party arbitration talks, charged with coming up with a fair and final settlement, ready to on 12/31/2012. And should the Palestinian Israeli talks fail, both sides follow the then unknown secret third party binding arbitration plan come 1/1/2013. Both sides can like it or lump it but they follow it anyway.
Binding arbitration will only work if all sides are willing to abide.
That also included the involvement of all parties impacted.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Binding arbitration will only work if all sides are willing to abide.
That also included the involvement of all parties impacted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In one word wrong, a world wide economic embargo is all that is needed to get Israel to abide.

But I will say, its preferable that both sides mutually agree, but we have been there done that and its clear that Israel refuses to make the needed concessions while extending control of disputed territories Israel cannot own.

The time has come to say to Israel, either make an just plan acceptable to both sides or the world will do it for you. 37 years and NO progress is not getting just old, it far beyond the point where it rotten and it reeks.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
You have multiple Palestinian parties that must agree plus their sponsors.
Not just Israel agreeing to put their head on the chopping block and giving the Palestinians and others a free pass.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Give the Palestinians what they have been trying to give the Isreal for the last 10 years.


Death!

Lob rockets on top of them every day for the next 10 years. Turnabout is fair play.
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,510
0
76
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In one word wrong, a world wide economic embargo is all that is needed to get Israel to abide.

But I will say, its preferable that both sides mutually agree, but we have been there done that and its clear that Israel refuses to make the needed concessions while extending control of disputed territories Israel cannot own.

The time has come to say to Israel, either make an just plan acceptable to both sides or the world will do it for you. 37 years and NO progress is not getting just old, it far beyond the point where it rotten and it reeks.

You keep on saying israel would be the one impeding in the peace.

As it stand right now. Israel needs to make peace in the West Bank. AND with Hamas in Gaza. Both groups have different agendas.

Even after all of this debate with the west bank, which should take around 1 year AFTER abbas comes to the table, what are they going to do with hamas?

Last I checked, Hamas, a mule of Iran, states in it's charter that it desires the destruction of the israeli state and replace it with an Islamic one.

Hamas isnt going to agree with any peace the west bank makes. Hamas isn't going to agree to a demilitarized state.


Hamas isnt the kind of group that takes opposition as constructive criticism. Last I checked the violently kicked out fatah from gaza
 
Last edited:

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Hamas simply will not get what they want in terms of their destroy Israel doctrine. But even Hamas knows they cannot effect their dream scenario.

But FGD, you may be confused here about the real identity of the Israeli people and the Palestinian people. Neither the Palestinian people or the Israeli people can be assumed to be an united single identity. Nor are we in the USA, or for that matter, everywhere else, a unified single mind entity.

In the US we are divided by political parties, we can be divided into Hawks and Doves, conservatives and liberals, or what ever criteria you can imagine. All vying to be in a position where some single criteria achieves a majority position in the government in question. And if the GOP screws up, the dems will win the next election, if the dems screw up, the GOP will win the next election.

Why should Hamas be any different? If the Palestinian people in Gaza, where Hamas is dominant, are offered a chance to form a viable Palestinian State, Hamas will either climb aboard, recognize Israel, or the people of Gaza will simply give Hamas the same ole heave ho the American people gave the GOP in 11/2008. Sadly for Israel and Fatah, its a two edged sword, if Fatah can't deliver a Palestinian State soon, the West Bank may vote out Fatah and replace it with Hamas.

As for Israel, maybe 40&#37; of the Israeli people have always opposed the 60% of the majority hardliners, and if Israeli hardliners refuse to wake up and smell the coffee, it may take some international economic embargoes of Israel to prod the Israeli people to change leadership. The second leading Israeli party Kadima, favors a Palestinian State, and if Netanyuhu stays stuck on stupid, he is likely to be replaced by Kadima.

Because the gauntlet is already thrown down by the bulk of the world, a viable Palestinian State by 2012. And the growing threat is, that Palestinian people will simply declare Statehood and sovereignty over all of East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank, and if and when the bulk of the UN recognizes the Palestinian state as the only legal entity, Israel as a lone ranger may find itself totally isolated. And the next day, Israel may be forced to withdraw all of its military from that territory or be confronted by the united military might of the entire world.

The old song that sings, "you can't always get what you want." applies especially to Hamas and Israeli hardliners. But it also applies to everyone.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Because the gauntlet is already thrown down by the bulk of the world, a viable Palestinian State by 2012
you've made this assertion a dozen times in this thread. where is it coming from?
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,510
0
76
Hamas simply will not get what they want in terms of their destroy Israel doctrine. But even Hamas knows they cannot effect their dream scenario.

But FGD, you may be confused here about the real identity of the Israeli people and the Palestinian people. Neither the Palestinian people or the Israeli people can be assumed to be an united single identity. Nor are we in the USA, or for that matter, everywhere else, a unified single mind entity.

In the US we are divided by political parties, we can be divided into Hawks and Doves, conservatives and liberals, or what ever criteria you can imagine. All vying to be in a position where some single criteria achieves a majority position in the government in question. And if the GOP screws up, the dems will win the next election, if the dems screw up, the GOP will win the next election.

Why should Hamas be any different? If the Palestinian people in Gaza, where Hamas is dominant, are offered a chance to form a viable Palestinian State, Hamas will either climb aboard, recognize Israel, or the people of Gaza will simply give Hamas the same ole heave ho the American people gave the GOP in 11/2008. Sadly for Israel and Fatah, its a two edged sword, if Fatah can't deliver a Palestinian State soon, the West Bank may vote out Fatah and replace it with Hamas.

As for Israel, maybe 40% of the Israeli people have always opposed the 60% of the majority hardliners, and if Israeli hardliners refuse to wake up and smell the coffee, it may take some international economic embargoes of Israel to prod the Israeli people to change leadership. The second leading Israeli party Kadima, favors a Palestinian State, and if Netanyuhu stays stuck on stupid, he is likely to be replaced by Kadima.

Because the gauntlet is already thrown down by the bulk of the world, a viable Palestinian State by 2012. And the growing threat is, that Palestinian people will simply declare Statehood and sovereignty over all of East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank, and if and when the bulk of the UN recognizes the Palestinian state as the only legal entity, Israel as a lone ranger may find itself totally isolated. And the next day, Israel may be forced to withdraw all of its military from that territory or be confronted by the united military might of the entire world.

The old song that sings, "you can't always get what you want." applies especially to Hamas and Israeli hardliners. But it also applies to everyone.

Umm, even if gaza wanted a new government, they wouldnt be able to. Hamas controls everything. there is no voting in there. it is a one sided system which guarantees hamas stays in power.


hamas has a charter which calls for the destruction of israel. That wont change after fatah, its enemy faction makes peace with israel. The gazan people will still be indoctrinated to hate israel.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
you've made this assertion a dozen times in this thread. where is it coming from?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loki asked where did my assertion of a Palestinian State by 2012 come from.

Partially Obama, but also from the member States of the UN, and the Israeli rape of Lebanon and Gaza, plus its flotilla action has done much to persuade the rest of the world that the continued Israeli occupation of disputed territories comes to the top of the world priority list.

Or you can also do what I have already did, search on google. And the only entity saying no no no is Israel. That and a few religious nuts predicting the rapture and the end of the world if a Palestinian State is formed.

But just wait and see Loki, and see what will now happens if Israel is not willing to extend its settlement freeze, and then build on prior peace talks.
 

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
The Joker in the deck may be Obama or George Mitchell who may sweeten the pot for Abbas with some unspecified concessions, but still, the major players may not be just the USA, Israel, and the PA, it may be more the international community that gives Israel until no later than 2012, to ink a deal or else regarding a viable Palestinian State.

Ever since the aid flotilla debacle you seem convinced that the "international community" has suddenly taken sides with the Palestinians and will somehow force their will on Isreal. This idea is quite delusional and wishful thinking on your part. Kind of reminds me of how all the rightwing Obama haters have themselves so worked up as to believe they represent the majority :rolleyes: The same groups back each side as they always have, absolutely nothing has changed other than Palistinian backers have worked themselves into a frenzy.

And you keep claiming the International community will force Isreal to change our else. Or else what? UN going to declare war on Isreal :D Arab countries going to unite in yet another war against Isreal while the US watches :D:D:D You crack me up sometimes


The bottom line is the surrounding Arab nations never accepted the creation of the state of Isreal in 1948 and have been at war(direct or proxy) for 62yrs trying to destroy Isreal and will except no comprimizes. And as long as this is true there will be no peace END OF STORY. It is the surrounding Arab countries that will never except a Palistinian state, because that would mean they would have to live in peace sided by side with Isreal.
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
LL believes that the UN will place/enforce an embargo on Israel because Israel will not give the Palestinians what they claim to want.

Israel has asked for peace from the Arab states and the Palestinians.
Only two have stepped up to the plate to guarantee peace via a peace treaty.

The Palestinians have not stepped forward in offering/guaranteeing peace, nor their sponsors.

When there are no attacks from Palestinian territory; then a embargo may become considered if Israel does not come to the table.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Or you can also do what I have already did, search on google.
the only thing google pulls up is saying Israel saying that it's not going to happen by 2012, no mass outcries from the "international community" (whatever the f that means) demanding a Palestinian state by 2012 or else.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY