For the first time, Netanyauhu endorses a palestinian State.

[Lemon law]

Netanyuhu in a complete reversal from a week ago, announced his support for a Palestinian State, but the terms are so one sided, the Palestinians could not and will not accept them.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin...l-Palestinians.html?hp

The facts are in the link, but its somewhat the question, is Netanyuhu hoping to horse trade down by initially asking for the moon and stars, and willing to settle for something more in the middle, or will this be what Israel demands and they will make no other concessions?

If it is the latter, I think its simply time for binding third party arbitration to solve the Israeli Palestinian conflict with the weight of the entire international community behind it. If the former is the case, it could be a start to a resolution of a 61 year festering wound conflict in the mid-east and a win win for everyone if it can be resolved peacefully and fairly.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It looks like everyone wants conditions before talking.

Israel has seen the consequences of having a militarize palestinians force on their borders.
Palestinians have the dream that they can take back Israel from land that they abandoned over the years due to the wars/conflicts.

Thread

"I call on you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority: Let us begin peace negotiations immediately, without preconditions,"

"Israel is committed to international agreements and expects all the other parties to fulfill their obligations as well."

yet

"In any peace agreement, the territory under Palestinian control must be disarmed, with solid security guarantees for Israel," he said.

"If we get this guarantee for demilitarization and necessary security arrangements for Israel, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, we will be willing in a real peace agreement to reach a solution of a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state,"

It will be interesting to hear the Palestinian response from the West Bank and Hamas.

From the OP link

The West Bank-based Palestinian government dismissed the proposal as an attempt to determine the outcome of negotiations while maintaining Israeli settlements, refusing compromise over Jerusalem and ignoring the issue of borders. They also said that demilitarization would solidify Israeli control over them.

''Netanyahu's speech closed the door to permanent status negotiations,'' senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat said. ''We ask the world not to be fooled by his use of the term Palestinian state because he qualified it. He declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, said refugees would not be negotiated and that settlements would remain.''

It looks that there will still be a status quo; exposing the West Bank to more turmoil.

Until the Palestinians are given control of the West Bank; Israel will still expand the settlements as desired by internal pressures/needs.

Israel at least has extended a hand which the US can not fault; will the Palestinians respond with one opened or closed?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
It looks like everyone wants conditions before talking.

Israel has seen the consequences of having a militarize palestinians force on their borders.
Palestinians have the dream that they can take back Israel from land that they abandoned over the years due to the wars/conflicts.

Thread

"I call on you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority: Let us begin peace negotiations immediately, without preconditions,"

"Israel is committed to international agreements and expects all the other parties to fulfill their obligations as well."

yet

"In any peace agreement, the territory under Palestinian control must be disarmed, with solid security guarantees for Israel," he said.

"If we get this guarantee for demilitarization and necessary security arrangements for Israel, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, we will be willing in a real peace agreement to reach a solution of a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state,"

It will be interesting to hear the Palestinian response from the West Bank and Hamas.

From the OP link

The West Bank-based Palestinian government dismissed the proposal as an attempt to determine the outcome of negotiations while maintaining Israeli settlements, refusing compromise over Jerusalem and ignoring the issue of borders. They also said that demilitarization would solidify Israeli control over them.

''Netanyahu's speech closed the door to permanent status negotiations,'' senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat said. ''We ask the world not to be fooled by his use of the term Palestinian state because he qualified it. He declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, said refugees would not be negotiated and that settlements would remain.''

It looks that there will still be a status quo; exposing the West Bank to more turmoil.

Until the Palestinians are given control of the West Bank; Israel will still expand the settlements as desired by internal pressures/needs.

Israel at least has extended a hand which the US can not fault; will the Palestinians respond with one opened or closed?

I wouldn't blame them if they rejected it. I honestly believe that if Israel integrated with Palestine economically, most of her security problems will disappear.

 

[Lemon law]

If Israel will not voluntarily end West bank settlements, Israelis going to have hell to pay. Condi Rice tried tabling the Israeli West Bank settlement issue, and her Annapolis peace conference went no where after a year. Israel can talk tough, but when the US starts cutting aid drastically, Israel will be between a rock and a hard place, and its something that I think is long overdue.

All the Arabs are asking is that the US be neutral rather than be Israeli enablers.

I think Dari is correct in saying, " I honestly believe that if Israel integrated with Palestine economically, most of her security problems will disappear."

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If Israel will not voluntarily end West bank settlements, Israelis going to have hell to pay. Condi Rice tried tabling the Israeli West Bank settlement issue, and her Annapolis peace conference went no where after a year. Israel can talk tough, but when the US starts cutting aid drastically, Israel will be between a rock and a hard place, and its something that I think is long overdue.

All the Arabs are asking is that the US be neutral rather than be Israeli enablers.

I think Dari is correct in saying, " I honestly believe that if Israel integrated with Palestine economically, most of her security problems will disappear."

For the past 30+ years; this has been going on. Israel has figured out two ways on this issue.

1 The Wall
2. Expand the settlements to create the buffer zone that she feels is needed from originally the other Arab countries and now the Palestinian militants.

There is a cause/effect catch 22 situation here.
From her point; history has shown that these steps have been effective.

From the Palestinian point; it is a land grab and they should resist and punative measures applied. Ego and grudges will prevent attempting a workable solution.

The Palestinians want it all back and on their own terms.
Israel is stating that lets get stability/safety first - build some trust

 

[Lemon law]

Common Courtesy may be saying, " Israel is stating that lets get stability/safety first - build some trust."

But it really means, we done stole it all and we don't want to give any of it back.

If Israel wants peace and Arab recognition of its right to exist, Israelis going to have to make some real major concessions including addressing the right to return. Israel as a Jewish religious state where only Jews are first class citizens may not survive the peace process. But given the ideals of the original 1948 UN mandate that established the State of Israel, the idea that only Jews would be first class citizens was never part of the original 1948 UN mandate.

 

[jpeyton]

Who's Benjamin Yahoo?

 

[smack Down]

That sounds like a 1 state with apartheid ghettos.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Who's Benjamin Yahoo?

"I'm a polisci major, i know my shit" :laugh:

 

[tvarad]

This just proves the age-old adage "Naitons have interests, not friends" applies even to the U.S.-Isreal relationship. This is nothing but good news for the U.S. in that it will reduce antagonism towards it in the Arab/Muslim world and perhaps dissuade a couple of nuts from postponing any planned terrorist attacks. The oil-supplies are secure, perhaps even more so. What does it lose? I can see nothing.

I say, if the Russians want to inherit the Middle-East headache, let them.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Expand the settlements to create the buffer zone that she feels is needed from originally the other Arab countries and now the Palestinian militants.

I find it distributing how you casually endorse such use of civilians as human shields.

 

[SickBeast]

There was so much vacant land in the world 1948; why they gave the Jews Israel in 1948 is beyond me. It's got to be one of the dumbest locations possible for them. Why not the western US or Canada? Why not Australia?

The situation today is a mess and is very similar to what has happened to the natives in North America. The land in Israel is technically owned by the Palestinians. I wonder if they could legitimately sue for it in some sort of international court.

 

[DarkThinker]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced he will back a Palestinian state - but only if it is completely demilitarised. He said a Palestinian state must have no army, no control of its air space and no way of smuggling in weapons.

Text

Wow.... such a lucrative offer....hey people, you can have a country...as long as we control it's land air and sea...oh and the economy too....and you can't have an army.....

ROFL

Do you guys understand why Arafat REFUSED Camp David offer?

These terms are essentially what he was offered at Camp David, NO ARMY, NO WEAPONS, NO INDEPENDENT ECONOMY, NO CONTROL OVER PORTS, NO CONTROL OVER AIRSPACE, BORDERS or ANYTHING ELSE......and the settlements remain...

WOW SUCH AN AMAZING OFFER

What kind of country would accept such offer and say that is independence?

Utter BS if you ask me.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
There was so much vacant land in the world 1948; why they gave the Jews Israel in 1948 is beyond me. It's got to be one of the dumbest locations possible for them. Why not the western US or Canada? Why not Australia?

Why not Germany?

 

[Red Irish]

Netanyuhu's offer needs to be improved if it is to be taken seriously.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
It looks like everyone wants conditions before talking.

Israel has seen the consequences of having a militarize palestinians force on their borders.
Palestinians have the dream that they can take back Israel from land that they abandoned over the years due to the wars/conflicts.

Thread

"I call on you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority: Let us begin peace negotiations immediately, without preconditions,"

"Israel is committed to international agreements and expects all the other parties to fulfill their obligations as well."

yet

"In any peace agreement, the territory under Palestinian control must be disarmed, with solid security guarantees for Israel," he said.

"If we get this guarantee for demilitarization and necessary security arrangements for Israel, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, we will be willing in a real peace agreement to reach a solution of a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state,"

It will be interesting to hear the Palestinian response from the West Bank and Hamas.

From the OP link

The West Bank-based Palestinian government dismissed the proposal as an attempt to determine the outcome of negotiations while maintaining Israeli settlements, refusing compromise over Jerusalem and ignoring the issue of borders. They also said that demilitarization would solidify Israeli control over them.

''Netanyahu's speech closed the door to permanent status negotiations,'' senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat said. ''We ask the world not to be fooled by his use of the term Palestinian state because he qualified it. He declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, said refugees would not be negotiated and that settlements would remain.''

It looks that there will still be a status quo; exposing the West Bank to more turmoil.

Until the Palestinians are given control of the West Bank; Israel will still expand the settlements as desired by internal pressures/needs.

Israel at least has extended a hand which the US can not fault; will the Palestinians respond with one opened or closed?

I wouldn't blame them if they rejected it. I honestly believe that if Israel integrated with Palestine economically, most of her security problems will disappear.

Dream on.....they would only get worse!!

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
There was so much vacant land in the world 1948; why they gave the Jews Israel in 1948 is beyond me. It's got to be one of the dumbest locations possible for them. Why not the western US or Canada? Why not Australia?

The situation today is a mess and is very similar to what has happened to the natives in North America. The land in Israel is technically owned by the Palestinians. I wonder if they could legitimately sue for it in some sort of international court.

The Jews wanted a homeland based on their history.
Israel was either going to be created by fiat or it was going to continue on since the WWI era. The existing land was not under control of any one country - they came and settled on land that was not used or purchased the land from the locals.

As more came in, friction developed between the locals; the administrators and troublemakers. This friction was nothing like was was done after Israel became a nation.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Netanyuhu's offer needs to be improved if it is to be taken seriously.

The offer was that lets talk without any preconditions.

Both sides want the preconditions before talking.
The only difference is that Israel made the statement first.

 

[Lemon law]

I don't think the Common Courtesy contention is correct, for an offer with no preconditions, the Netanyuhu offer is full of preconditions, like no Palestinian military, Israel gets all of Jerusalem, West bank settlements remain in place, and no right to return.

I still think this question will only be settled by binding third party arbitration, what we have now is grossly unfair, binding third party arbitration would still be unfair, but there have been so many wrongs on all sides, that totally fair is impossible.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I don't think the Common Courtesy contention is correct, for an offer with no preconditions, the Netanyuhu offer is full of preconditions, like no Palestinian military, Israel gets all of Jerusalem, West bank settlements remain in place, and no right to return.

I still think this question will only be settled by binding third party arbitration, what we have now is grossly unfair, binding third party arbitration would still be unfair, but there have been so many wrongs on all sides, that totally fair is impossible.

as ususal you are putting words into others mouths.

If we take what Netanyuhu said at face value without reading anything into it...Courtesy is correct. Netanyuhu was the first!!

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I don't think the Common Courtesy contention is correct, for an offer with no preconditions, the Netanyuhu offer is full of preconditions, like no Palestinian military, Israel gets all of Jerusalem, West bank settlements remain in place, and no right to return.

I still think this question will only be settled by binding third party arbitration, what we have now is grossly unfair, binding third party arbitration would still be unfair, but there have been so many wrongs on all sides, that totally fair is impossible.

If you read the quote on what Netanyuhu said; I will even bold it for you.

"I call on you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority: Let us begin peace negotiations immediately, without preconditions,"

How else can you take that statement.

There may be other verbage with changes the picture.
Many of the other preconditions might be able to be discussed or put off until a later date.

He did make the offer and from what is within the two articles; the PA has rejected it; requiring their own preconditions.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

"I call on you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority: Let us begin peace negotiations immediately, without preconditions,"

How else can you take that statement.

There may be other verbage with changes the picture.
Many of the other preconditions might be able to be discussed or put off until a later date.

So "the other preconditions" don't qualify as "preconditions" to you, eh? It takes some extreme cognitive dissonance to pull that off.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

"I call on you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority: Let us begin peace negotiations immediately, without preconditions,"

How else can you take that statement.

There may be other verbage with changes the picture.
Many of the other preconditions might be able to be discussed or put off until a later date.

So "the other preconditions" don't qualify as "preconditions" to you, eh? It takes some extreme cognitive dissonance to pull that off.

Both you and LL are putting words in my post and/or taking the words ouit of the context.

Typical

 

[kylebisme]

Actually I'm just hoping you might acknowledge the fact that Netanyahu's negotiation offer came with preconditions attached, as at this point you seem to be defending his doublespeak.

I am also curious to know; what preconditions are you are claiming the PA has demanded?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Actually I'm just hoping you might acknowledge the fact that Netanyahu's negotiation offer came with preconditions attached, as at this point you seem to be defending his doublespeak.

I am also curious to know; what preconditions are you are claiming the PA has demanded?

His offer talked about what would be preconditions.

I quoted is statement that stated no preconditions.

Comments regarding the PA within the article. Whether they will still standby previous statements, we will see.

Netanyahu also said the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinians have refused to do so, fearing it would amount to giving up the rights of millions of refugees and their descendants and discriminate against Israel's own Arab minority.

Although the Palestinians have agreed to demilitarization under past peace proposals, Erekat rejected it, saying it would cement Israeli rule over them.

Nabil Abu Rdeneh, another Palestinian official, called on the U.S. to challenge Netanyahu "to prevent more deterioration in the region."

"What he has said today is not enough to start a serious peace process," he added.

In Gaza, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri called the speech "racist" and called on Arab nations "form stronger opposition" toward Israel. Hamas ideology does not recognize a Jewish state in an Islamic Middle East and the group has sent dozens of suicide bombers into Israel.

From the Arab world from which I would expect the PA to look for guidance/support

Recognize Israel

?The call to recognize Israel as a Jewish state makes the situation more complicated and aborts the chances of peace,? Mubarak said today.
Nabil Abu Rudeina, a spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, said Netanyahu?s conditional acceptance of a state will ?not lead to a just and comprehensive peace.?

Saeb Erakat, a senior Palestinian negotiator, said the speech fell short ?in every single one of the benchmarks required of Israel in line with international law and existing agreements.?

Link - From Jordan

A spokesman for Palestinian President Mohmoud Abbas stated that Netanyahu had not gone far enough. Palestinians have long resisted calls to declare that Israel is a Jewish state


A spokesman for Palestinian President Mohmoud Abbas dismissed Netanyahu 's speech as "sabotaging" peace efforts.


A senior Palestinian negotiator called on Obama to intervene to force Israel to abide by previous interim agreements that include freezing settlement activity in the West Bank. The alternative, he said, was violence.

"The peace process has been moving at the speed of a tortoise," negotiator Saeb Erekat said. "Tonight, Netanyahu has flipped it over on its back.


...

Our demand is the end of the occupation and finding a fair solutions for Palestinian refugees and halting settlements", Abu Rudeina said. "Other details should be resolved in negotiations.

It sounds like both sides demand preconditions that the other will not accept as a precondition