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

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Ok, OK, many pro-Israeli fan clubbers think I am FOS on a new internal consensus demanding a viable Palestinian State by 2012, so as usual, I am outvoted on P&N.

But at the end of the say, I will let the rest of the world decide. If nothing else, its the only forum that matters, and if I prove to be right like I usually am, just remember, you heard it from me first.

No one can predict the exact sequence of events, but the end outcome is easier.

But for now, the test will be the intermediate outcome, can Israel get away with talks with no preconditions and no settlement freeze extension, or will that cause world wide outrage against Israel? That outcome definitive answer will come far sooner.

And by the way, a Libyan ship is now days away from running the Israeli blockade but may divert to an Egyptian port as an option.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Ok, OK, many pro-Israeli fan clubbers think I am FOS on a new internal consensus demanding a viable Palestinian State by 2012, so as usual, I am outvoted on P&N.
Well you don't actually have any evidence to support that claim, do you? I know the vast majority of the world supports a two-state solution on the basis of internal law, as do I. However, being pro-reality, I can't rightly believe your claim of a 2012 deadline unless you can prove it.
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,510
0
76
LL thinks Obama can impose peace in the middle east and that he is the mesiah.

2012 is the end of obama's office term.

Everyone needs to realize that you cant IMPOSE peace. it needs to be wanted on both sides.

Israel is trying for peace. they put a settlement freeze. abbas had 6 months to start talks. Talks which would have guaranteed a longer settlement freeze agreement.

Abbas is basically trying to get support from more people. He could have announced the same thing at the beginning of the settlement freeze
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
The FGD statement that "Israel is trying for peace", makes a far better Israeli propaganda line than anything that meets an evidential sniff test.

The Israeli rhetoric is unchanged for 43 years, but it gets much harder to sell after the Annapolis peace conference. Here Fatah has been the good non violent Palestinians, yet they can't get concession #1 from Israel at the Annapolis conference, while Israel profited by using the negotiating time to continue settlement on the West Bank.

That was the whole Condi Rice selling point for the Annapolis conference, if the conference just tabled the issue of continued Israeli settlement, Israel would come to the table and meet with a subset of Palestinians and all Arab States.

And now we can better understand why Abbas, again burned by Israeli duplicity, refuses to talk without an Israeli settlement freeze extension.

What is that old saying, fool me once or twice, shame on you, fool me again shame on me.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Well you don't actually have any evidence to support that claim, do you? I know the vast majority of the world supports a two-state solution on the basis of internal law, as do I. However, being pro-reality, I can't rightly believe your claim of a 2012 deadline unless you can prove it.
===============================================================
Ask and ye will receive Kyle.

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2010/07/03/obama-promises-saudi-king-that-israel-will-withdraw-by-2012/

Just one link, but its all part of the consistent Obama diplomacy, and what Obama diplomats have been saying to everyone.

But in terms of an absolute 2012 deadline, it could take longer, but the handwriting is on the wall already, Israel better be making some steady progress, because going in endless circles and getting no where, the current Israeli strategy, will no longer work.

Nor does Obama have to be the villain, all Obama has to do is not Veto every Israeli condemnation in the UN.
 

NoWhereM

Senior member
Oct 15, 2007
543
0
0
Yep. Just step out of the way...
Yep. Yep. Absolutley.

Just like the world only tolerated apartheid South Africa for so long and then enough was enough.

The palestinians have been through so much already, the persecution has to end.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Even taken at face value that article doesn't even come close to supporting your claim of "a new internal consensus", and the article is of such dubious origin that it can't rightly even be considered evidence of Obama's plans. So it seems the Israel fan-clubbers were right to think were FOS with your 2012 claim.

...all Obama has to do is not Veto every Israeli condemnation in the UN.
You're correct on that part, though while I hope he does stop giving veto cover to Israel at the UNSC, I doubt he will.
 
Last edited:

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Even taken at face value that article doesn't even come close to supporting your claim of "a new internal consensus", and the article is of such dubious origin that it can't rightly even be considered evidence of Obama's plans. So it seems the Israel fan-clubbers were right to think were FOS with your 2012 claim.


You're correct on that part, though while I hope he does stop giving veto cover to Israel at the UNSC, I doubt he will.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Kyle, you may or may not have a point, but we will soon find out if I am right or wrong. Events and not forum pissing contests will be the acid test here.

Nor do we know exactly what Obama told Netanyuhu in private, Netanyuhu declined to discuss it on Fox News yesterday.

Nor does it surprise me that Netanyuhu tried the same oh red herring of peace talks with the Palestinians with no preconditions, nor did it surprise me that Abbas promptly said no, because this time, nothing but an extended Israeli settlement freeze will suffice on the part of Israel.

Now the ball is right back on the Israeli side of the net, and we all await the next Israeli move, as the ring tightens. So far, its seems to me, Obama is winning, and if nothing else, Israel is taking a big PR hit while totally losing its last mid-east supporter in Turkey.
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,510
0
76
What is that old saying, fool me once or twice, shame on you, fool me again shame on me.

Lol by that logic, israel is the one that should be stepping back. withdrawl from lebanon??!!! from gaza????

what have those accomplished?

a crazy hamas teaching lies to its people while it keeps them starved because they want to use the little utilities left to make missles to launch at israel AND a southern lebanon with hizbollah with over 40,000 missiles.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
What's funny is LL ultimately agrees with might makes right... a general thesis I've been trying to explain to him for two years on this issue, which he denies...all the while he promotes the international community embargoing Israeli with might... Unfortunately for him and other terrorist supporters most people realize a) Israeli is right in their Palestinian mandate which not only includes Jerusalem but judea and Samaria b) slow Jihad is being perpetuated against them so no matter what they give untilmate goal is to wipe out the jew c) they have the might and international community won;'t get fucked up for a bunch of terrorists.

Jihadi Fail. Go crawl in your hole after "international community" does nothing mkay
 
Last edited:

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Well Kyle, you may or may not have a point...
Unless you can prove your claim of a 2012 deadline, you are FOS in claiming it; shit otherwise known as unfounded optimism, and optimism I'd like to share, but shit one can't rightly believe while respecting reality.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,631
3,126
126
Yep. Yep. Absolutley.

Just like the world only tolerated apartheid South Africa for so long and then enough was enough.

The palestinians have been through so much already, the persecution has to end.
My God another idiot!!
The persecution has to end???????????????????????????????????????????????

The Palestinians are their own freakin worse enema..oops enemy!!

The Palestinians can`t even elect a freaking government that cares about them!!

You have groups such as Hamas and other who cannot even agree to anything concerning an active peace!!

One groups says YES...the other group does everything in their power to undermine anything that has to do with peace with Israel!!

I totally agree the persecution has to stop!! It has to stop from within!!

Here is the absolute truth of the matter.....

If the Palestinians and the Arab world would leave Israel totally alone == Peace!!

I heard this said ages ago--
If israel dis-arms in 10 years or sooner there would be no Israel!!

If the Arab world were to dis-arm guess what?
1n 10, 20, 30 years there would still be an Arab world.....go figure....duh....
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,989
14,152
136
If the Palestinians and the Arab world would leave Israel totally alone == Peace!!
If that were true, then Israel would have no issues at all wrt a permanent settlement freeze, with actually disavowing the practice.

Or is the "leaving alone" a one way street, or just another Israeli propaganda ploy?
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,631
3,126
126
If that were true, then Israel would have no issues at all wrt a permanent settlement freeze, with actually disavowing the practice.

Or is the "leaving alone" a one way street, or just another Israeli propaganda ploy?
That`s just another knee jerk reaction...the israeli`s are entitled to their settlememnts!

I am sorry the Israeli`s were not the instigators.....

What`s interesting is you know what i said above is the absolute truth....

If Israel dis-arms in 10 years or sooner there would be no Israel!!

If the Arab world were to dis-arm guess what?
1n 10, 20, 30 years there would still be an Arab world.....go figure....duh....
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
That`s just another knee jerk reaction...the israeli`s are entitled to their settlememnts!
No nation has the right to colonize territory outside their internationally recognized borders, Israel or otherwise.

I am sorry the Israeli`s were not the instigators.....
They most certainly were, as Zionists are the ones who make the choice to come to Palestine and colonize the land out from under the people there. Palestinians did nothing to provoke that.
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,510
0
76
No nation has the right to colonize territory outside their internationally recognized borders, Israel or otherwise.


They most certainly were, as Zionists are the ones who make the choice to come to Palestine and colonize the land out from under the people there. Palestinians did nothing to provoke that.

jews bought the land legally from the british.

Palestinians were fine with it at first. they were only angry and jealous after the jews who lived on shitty lands were being sucessful.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Bullshit, which is why you can't cite any sources to substantiate your absurd claims.
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,510
0
76
Bullshit, which is why you can't cite any sources to substantiate your absurd claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab–Israeli_conflict

In the late 19th century, under Zionism, many European Jews purchased swamps and other desert land from the Ottoman sultan and his agents. At that time, Jerusalem did not extend beyond the walled area and had a population of only a few tens of thousands. Under the Zionists, collective farms, known as kibbutzim, were established, as was the first entirely Jewish city in modern times, Tel Aviv.
Before World War I, the Middle East, including Palestine, had been under the control of the Ottoman Empire for nearly 500 years. During the closing years of their empire the Ottomans began to espouse their Turkish ethnic identity, asserting the primacy of Turks within the empire, leading to discrimination against the Arabs.[10] The promise of liberation from the Ottomans led many Jews and Arabs to support the allied powers during World War I, leading to the emergence of widespread Arab nationalism.
In 1917, the British government issued the Balfour Declaration, which stated that the government viewed favourably "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" but "that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". The Declaration was issued as a result of the belief of key members of the government, including Prime Minister Lloyd George, that Jewish support was essential to winning the war; however, the declaration caused great disquiet in the Arab world.[11] After the war, the area came under British rule as the British Mandate of Palestine. The area mandated to the British included what is today Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza.
Jewish immigration to Palestine increased. By 1931, 17 percent of the population of Palestine were Jews, an increase of six percent since 1922.[12] Jewish immigration increased soon after the Nazis came to power in Germany, causing the Jewish population in Palestine to double.[13] Palestinian Arabs saw this rapid influx of Jewish immigrants as a threat to their homeland and their identity as a people. Moreover, Jewish policies of purchasing land and prohibiting the employment of Arabs in Jewish-owned industries and farms greatly angered the Palestinian Arab communities.[14] Demonstrations were held as early as 1920, protesting what the Arabs felt were unfair preferences for the Jewish immigrants set forth by the British mandate that governed Palestine at the time. This resentment led to outbreaks of violence. In March 1920, a first violent incident occurred in Tel Hai, later that year riots broke out in Jerusalem. Winston Churchill's 1922 White Paper tried to reassure the Arab population, denying that the creation of a Jewish state was the intention of the Balfour Declaration. In 1929, after a demonstration by Vladimir Jabotinsky's political group Betar at the Western Wall, riots started in Jerusalem and expanded throughout Palestine; Arabs murdered 67 Jews in the city of Hebron, in what became known as the Hebron Massacre.

A Jewish bus equipped with wire screens to protect against rock, glass, and grenade throwing, late 1930s





A headline from The Baltimore News following the 1929 Palestinian massacre of Jews in Hebron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936–1939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine

All of this.







Go read up on history you fucking moron.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
There's nothing to support your claim of "jews bought the land legally from the british" in anything you quoted, and what land Zionists did buy from the Ottomans and such was a small fraction compared to what they've stolen. Furthermore, contrary to your claim that "Palestinians... were only angry and jealous after the jews who lived on shitty lands were being sucessful", Wiki correctly points out the fact that "Palestinian Arabs saw this rapid influx of Jewish immigrants as a threat to their homeland and their identity as a people."

So as I sad; Zionists were the instgators, as they are the ones who made the choice to come to Palestine and colonize the land out from under the people there. Palestinians did nothing to provoke that.
 
Last edited:

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,510
0
76
There's nothing to support your claim of "jews bought the land legally from the british" in anything you quoted, and contrary to your claim that "Palestinians... were only angry and jealous after the jews who lived on shitty lands were being sucessful", Wiki correctly points out the fact that "Palestinian Arabs saw this rapid influx of Jewish immigrants as a threat to their homeland and their identity as a people."

So as I sad; Zionists were the instgators, as they are the ones who made the choice to come to Palestine and colonize the land out from under the people there. Palestinians did nothing to provoke that.

They bought the land from the ottoman and also from the british.


You said I didnt have any place to support the facts. I came up with facts. Just because this place doesnt say british, doesnt mean it didnt happen, which I know DID happen, but simply didnt post more detailed proof.


Palestinian Arabs saw this rapid influx of Jewish immigrants as a threat to their homeland
This could be interpreted in many ways. I presented a statement and backed it up with facts. You have no statements with facts to back up to prove me otherwise. Unless you do, your comments mean shit
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
They bought the land from the ottoman and also from the british.
They bought some lands from the Ottomans and others, but I've not seen any evidence to back your claim that they bought any from the British. If you have, present it, If not, I stand my conclusion that the claim is bullshit.

This could be interpreted in many ways.
It can only rightly be interpreted as contradicting your claim "Palestinians... were only angry and jealous after the jews who lived on shitty lands were being sucessful".

You have no statements with facts to back up to prove me otherwise.
Zionists were the instigators, as they are the ones who made the choice to come to Palestine and colonize the land out from under the people there. That's a fact, proven by the documentation of Zionists scheming up the plan on their own all the way back in the 1800s, the Blackstone Memorial being a notable example.
 
Last edited:

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,510
0
76
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine

First of all, 1920–1948 are the years the british mandate existed for. Any land purchases during this time were under the british.


Land Purchases

When purchasing land, Jewish migrants were concerned with the displacement of fellahin, agricultural labourers who cultivated the land. “In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as ‘the most important asset of the native population’. Ben-Gurion said ‘under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to the fellahs or worked by them’”[5]. Because of the desire to displace as little number of people as possible, large tracts of land were purchased in the coastal plain the valley areas since most of the area was uncultivated and swampy. There were two main reasons why these areas were sparsely populated. The first reason being when the Ottoman power in the rural areas began to diminish in the seventeenth century, many people moved to more centralized areas to secure protection against the lawless Bedouin tribes. This resulted in huge migration to the cities leaving the rural area drastically under populated. The second reason for the sparsely populated areas of the valleys and coastal plains was the soil type. The soil, covered in a layer of sand, made it impossible to grow the staple crop of Palestine, corn. As a result this area remained uncultivated and under populated [6]. “The sparse Arab population in the areas where the Jews usually bough their land enabled the Jews to carry out their purchase without engendering a massive displacement and eviction of Arab tenants” [7].
The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 “brought about the appropriation by the influential and rich families of Beirut, Damascus, and to a lesser extent Jerusalem and Jaffa and other sub-district capitals, of vast tracts of land in Syria and Palestine and their registration in the name of these families in the land registers” [8]. Many of the fellahin did not understand the importance of the registers and therefore the wealthy families took advantage of this. Jewish buyers who were looking for large tracts of land found it favourable to purchase from the wealthy owners. As well many small farmers became indebt to rich families which lead to the transfer of land to the new owners and then eventually to the Jewish buyers.


In the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, many land purchases were made through organizations such as the Palestinian Jewish Colonization Association (PICA), Palestine Land Development Co. and the Jewish National Fund. These organizations often offered to purchase the land from the wealthy owners for more than the actual value of the area. The Jewish land purchasers paid extraordinarily high prices for the uncultivated and marsh land. During a visit to Palestine in 1930, John Hope Simpson, a British politician, noticed: “They [Jews] paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay” [9]. It was believed that Jews were paying as much as $1,000 to $1,100 per acre in Palestine for non arable land in 1944. At that same time, one could buy rich arable land in Iowa for a mere $110 per acre [10].
Huge tracts of land were purchased by Jews in the 1920s but in the next decade large tracts of uncultivated land were simply not available. Therefore in the 1930s most of the land were bought from small landowners. Of the land that the Jews bought, “52.6% of the lands were bought from big non-Palestinian landowners, 24.6% from Palestinian-Arab landowners and only 9.4% from the Fellahin” [11]

Arab Reaction to Land Purchases

Over the years Arabs have argued that they have been displaced due to the increase in Jewish immigration to the area presently known as Israel. “In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness and eventually offered new plots to any Arabs who had been ‘dispossessed’. British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government’s legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer” [17]. French’s definition of a ‘landless’ Arab was often though as too uncertain for it did not include Arabs who sold their land willingly, people who owned land elsewhere and people who became tenants of land elsewhere. French’s describes landlessness Arabs as: “Those who can be shown to have been displaced from the lands which they occupied in consequence of the lands falling into Jewish hands, and who have not obtained other holdings on which they can establish themselves or other equally satisfactory occupation” [18].
Also over the time period between World War I and World War II, the Arab population has actually increased by 120 per cent. From 1922 and 1947, the non Jewish population increased dramatically in many cities over the region. In Haifa, Jerusalem and Jaffa the population increased by 290 per cent, 131 per cent and 158 per cent respectively.The reasons for this increase in Arab population in the area was due to the high number of migrants from neighbouring countries hoping to take advantage of the high standard of living which was a result of the increased Jewish influence on the area[19].

Not all Arabs believe the Jewish land purchases were harmful to the Arab culture and people. According to the editor of the Egyptian newspaper, Al-Ahram, “[it]is absolutely necessary that an entente be made between the Zionists and Arabs, because the war of words can only do evil. The Zionists are necessary for the country: The money which they will bring, their knowledge and intelligence, and the industriousness which characterized them will contribute without doubt to the regeneration of the country” [20].


Go suck on it kylebisme.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
There's nothing in what you quoted to support your claim of Zionists buying land from the British, and the fact that "Palestinian Arabs saw this rapid influx of Jewish immigrants as a threat to their homeland and their identity as a people" attest to the fact that Zionists were the instigated the conflict by scheming to colonize the region out from under the people living there.

Tell me, do you also claim that Native Americans instigated the conflict with European colonists, or do you simply hold different standards for Jewish colonists?
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,510
0
76
There's nothing in what you quoted to support your claim of Zionists buying land from the British, and the fact that "Palestinian Arabs saw this rapid influx of Jewish immigrants as a threat to their homeland and their identity as a people" attest to the fact that Zionists were the instigated the conflict by scheming to colonize the region out from under the people living there.

Tell me, do you also claim that Native Americans instigated the conflict with European colonists, or do you simply hold different standards for Jewish colonists?
Did you even read the quotes or are u that fucking dense?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY