The US plan B to mid-east peace talks.

[Lemon law]

As we already know, President Obama with drew his offer to bribe Israel into a 90 days settlement freeze. Then it was somewhat implied that Secretary of State Clinton might announce her own plan B by last Friday. But Friday came and went with only silence.
on any mid-east peace talks from Washington.

But today, without much fanfare, its looks like the bold new plan B is going to be the same oh same oh, let George Mitchell do it. As if the guy has not been workiung on the issue for years now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/world/middleeast/14mideast.html?ref=global-home

On one hand the new Mitchell plan on some steroids might make some sense IMHO, because
years of past Israeli Palestinian negotiations already has forged a large area of consensus on both sides. Maybe 95% of basic issuers are already decided, but the niggling 5% of various land swaps still remain. So if Mitchell can formalize such past agreements into a single complete plan, likely to meet initial disapproval from both sides, it still then somewhat focuses attention on how to resolve the remaining disagreements to a stage where maybe 97% of the issues are resolved and only 3% remain after stage one. Then stage 2, 3,.........can occur as the remaining issues to be resolved gets smaller and smaller.
To somewhat restate the hope.

On the other hand, without the use of some sticks in addition to carrots, its hard to see the New Washington Plan B going anywhere. There is no incentive for Israel finally giving back what they can't ever own, and their settler parties will go ballistic if Israeli does. Nor can we expect the Palestinians to accept any grossly unfair settlement that Israeli would be willing to accept. Nor will it be easily politically popular for the USA to broker a " just and fair mid-east" peace given the relative strengths of entrenched Pro-Israeli lobbying and public opinion inside the USA.

So there may be indeed more to the link to consider here, if plan B leads no where, it maybe the end of US credibility as a negotiating partner in the mid-east. And when and if a the UN or a major country other than the USA takes up the role of brokering a "just and fair" mid-east peace plan, they will have the huge advantage of being able to use the large sticks and small carrots needed to get such a plan through to finalization.

And one of those sticks maybe in getting a large majority of nations to sign off on unilaterally declaring a Palestinian State with 1967 borders. As for the USA, all they need do is abstain.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If the Palestinians feel that they can get more by not showing up (as presently doing); they will.

They may want to gamble that a loss of US prestige will force the US to abstain IF the issue of a true state shows up.

I would use the phrase "Are they willing to gamble"; but people like LL and others feel that such is a forgon conclusion.

Also, what troops will be deployed to the '67 borders to enforce a new Palestinian state if the Palestinians have not shown that they are willing to be neighbors but the world again excuses their behaivor?

Ramming a Palestinian state down Israel's throat will encourage all militant groups to start up with the inferred blessings of the UN and the knowledge that they can run and hide within the new state.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

If the Palestinians feel that they can get more by not showing up (as presently doing); they will.

They may want to gamble that a loss of US prestige will force the US to abstain IF the issue of a true state shows up.

I would use the phrase "Are they willing to gamble"; but people like LL and others feel that such is a forgon conclusion.

Also, what troops will be deployed to the '67 borders to enforce a new Palestinian state if the Palestinians have not shown that they are willing to be neighbors but the world again excuses their behaivor?

Ramming a Palestinian state down Israel's throat will encourage all militant groups to start up with the inferred blessings of the UN and the knowledge that they can run and hide within the new state.

Palestinians don't want peace, they want a complete destruction of Israel, they went to vote on the matter not all that long ago and decided that that was what they wanted.

So fuckem, kill the militants and let the rest live in the shit they created for themselves.

Action -> reaction, they can't really be surprised or they need to plead insanity which would make sense.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Palestinians don't want peace, they want a complete destruction of Israel, they went to vote on the matter not all that long ago and decided that that was what they wanted.

So fuckem, kill the militants and let the rest live in the shit they created for themselves.

Action -> reaction, they can't really be surprised or they need to plead insanity which would make sense.

we have experts here that believe otherwise.

The Palestinians want peace - it is the rabid Israeli settlers that want no peace.

Yet the settlers were dragged from their homes in Gaza in an attempt to swap land for peace. We see how well that worked out with the peace loving Palestinians in Gaza.

It peace is desired bad enough, one will go against the grain to get it. but peace requires two or more parties to want it and work toward it.

 

[Lemon law]

For Common Courtesy, three out of four correct answers is far better than average,
The sole wrong song statement regards Gaza, a piece of shit hole land not even the Palestinians want but are trapped in as a concentration camp.

But because Israel has an economic embargo on the West Bank and an even tighter one on Gaza, we can hardly talk as if the Israel ceded any land for peace.

But the entire world has taken at least 62 years to dig our self into a mid-east mess, many of the initial sins were Arab, but still the trend line, each and every year is to dig the hole a little deeper.

Which, IMHO, is why we need a Viable Palestinian State with a real economy, as the best way to defuse the appeal of terrorism everyone complains about in the mid-east.
When unemployment is 40%, what else do we expect.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

we have experts here that believe otherwise.

The Palestinians want peace - it is the rabid Israeli settlers that want no peace.

Yet the settlers were dragged from their homes in Gaza in an attempt to swap land for peace. We see how well that worked out with the peace loving Palestinians in Gaza.

It peace is desired bad enough, one will go against the grain to get it. but peace requires two or more parties to want it and work toward it.

You don't know what you stepped in with Israeli settlers, bomb them too.

Ask any Jew what they think of these ultra orthodox settlers and he'll tell you, kill them, no skin off of my back.

I'm going to have to agree with that too, if you are looking for a fight, expect a fight, don't come running to mum (Israel is a motherland for obvious reasons) for protection then.

I fucking hate the ultra orthodox Jews, the sooner we get rid of them, the better.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

For Common Courtesy, three out of four correct answers is far better than average,
The sole wrong song statement regards Gaza, a piece of shit hole land not even the Palestinians want but are trapped in as a concentration camp.

But because Israel has an economic embargo on the West Bank and an even tighter one on Gaza, we can hardly talk as if the Israel ceded any land for peace.

But the entire world has taken at least 62 years to dig our self into a mid-east mess, many of the initial sins were Arab, but still the trend line, each and every year is to dig the hole a little deeper.

Which, IMHO, is why we need a Viable Palestinian State with a real economy, as the best way to defuse the appeal of terrorism everyone complains about in the mid-east.
When unemployment is 40%, what else do we expect.

If Canada kept attacking the US, there would be no Canada, if Mexico kept attacking the US, there would be no Mexico but for SOME FUCKING REASON Israelis should be ok with attacks?

Fuck off.

 

[EagleKeeper]

For Common Courtesy, three out of four correct answers is far better than average,
The sole wrong song statement regards Gaza, a piece of shit hole land not even the Palestinians want but are trapped in as a concentration camp.

But because Israel has an economic embargo on the West Bank and an even tighter one on Gaza, we can hardly talk as if the Israel ceded any land for peace.

But the entire world has taken at least 62 years to dig our self into a mid-east mess, many of the initial sins were Arab, but still the trend line, each and every year is to dig the hole a little deeper.

Which, IMHO, is why we need a Viable Palestinian State with a real economy, as the best way to defuse the appeal of terrorism everyone complains about in the mid-east.
When unemployment is 40%, what else do we expect.

The Israeli pullout of Gaza without asking any concessions from the Palestinians demonstrated :

• That Israel could remove settlements
• The Palestinians still wanted conflict from Gaza - the pullback just made it easier for attacks against Israel proper.

Do you really think that if a Palestinian state were to magically appear, that all terrorism against Israel and the West would cease?
That the Muslims would stop attacking non-Muslims
That there would be no Muslim issues in Europe or Asia.

If you can honestly say yes - then that would indicate that there was no Muslim problems prior to '48. All is related to the Arab/Israel issue.

If you can not state yes, then the fault is not with Israel; that is just one additional justification/excuse for the Muslim supporters for not accepting that the religion has been hijacked by extremists and is being tolerated by the main stream and those that are anti-Israel and apologists to Muslims in general

 

[Lemon law]

To partially answer teh questions of JOS and Common Courtesy, the Canadians and the Mexicans are not constantly attacking the USA because the USA is not stealing their land
or telling the Canadians and Mexicans what they can do within their own Borders. At least in the last century and a half in which that has been true.

The problem with the analogies used by Common Courtesy is in the implicit assumption that Israel is 100% in the right and the Palestinians are 100% in the wrong, when Israel deserves and earns every attack by the Palestinians, but, because Israel is so strong, and the Palestinians are so weak, Israel is able to simply able to take candy from babies with total impunity.

If the totally unbiased person looks at the Israeli Palestinian conflict from a total perspective of what is right and wrong, the Palestinians may not come out without some blame, but the present Israeli position would be without an iota of moral correctness. Why can't just see total Israeli theft for what it is, and super sweetened by hereditary guilt passed onto totally innocent new born children who are punished for the possible sins of their parents.

Why are we wasting a millisecond of time considering the inconveniences of Israelis who stole something, and now claim they will be inconvenienced when they finally are forced to give back what they stole. And in the case of Israel, what they continue to steal.

Would we waste a millisecond of sympathy for bank Robbers who claim they stole the money fair and square? What an absurd argument to make on the part of bank Robbers.

Yet we accept the same Israeli argument because we can't see the simply right and wrong Issues required when super sized in added bullshit.

So simple question, given the UN doctrine of land by conquest is no longer legitimate, and given that Israel is and remains a UN member, then why do we allow Israel to remain and settle on the lands gains Israeli made in the 1967&73 wars?

Binary yes no question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[EagleKeeper]

why did the UN allow the Arabs to try to eliminate Israel multiple times.

Why does the UN tolerate the Palestinians continuing to kill Jewish civilians only because of the religion. Note, these civilians are not Israelis.

both sides are bad.

Until the Palestinians choose to want to be good, there is no chance for peace. the Palestinians have to decide amoung themselves first. Half a pie will not cut it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

And LL refused to address the questions previously posed where the Israelis are blamed for the problems of the world.

 

[Lemon law]

Why is Common Courtesy unable to see the total incpmpatabity in his statements of,

" both sides are bad.

Until the Palestinians choose to want to be good, there is no chance for peace. the Palestinians have to decide amoung themselves first. Half a pie will not cut it."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can maybe all agree both sides are bad.

But suddenly Common Courtesy demand only the Palestinians have to reform to become totally good before the maybe even more bad Israelis make any concessions.

Especially when Israel keeps taking and taking and taking ever more disputed land while Common Courtesy bullshit waits for the Palestinians to reach a state of total nirvana?

At exactly the same time Israel becomes the poster children of of only pigs?

Pardon me Common Courtesy, if you were not so pro-Israeli biased, you should be smart enough to see how absurd your arguments are.

As for me, I would rather have a Israeli State and a Palestinian State we can all endorse as shining examples of human redemption and progress.

That possibility is close if we can all realize our own biases are the biggest roadblock stopping common sense.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The Palestinians themselves have to decide if they actually want peace. How difficult is that to comprehend.

There are two or more Palestinian groups. Some are strong enough to deny implimentation of any accords.

If the Palestinians can not settle their differences amoung themselves to present an united front, they are going no where.

The world will not do anything because the Palestinians are not presenting a unified front to the world that they deserve a state and want peace with their neighbors.

That will encourage the status quo and that is not benefiting them.

 

[Lemon law]

The Palestinians themselves have to decide if they actually want peace. How difficult is that to comprehend.

There are two or more Palestinian groups. Some are strong enough to deny implimentation of any accords.

If the Palestinians can not settle their differences amoung themselves to present an united front, they are going no where.

The world will not do anything because the Palestinians are not presenting a unified front to the world that they deserve a state and want peace with their neighbors.

That will encourage the status quo and that is not benefiting them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
You are back with the same failed argument. It is basically the UN and not the Israelis who will be the deciders on which group of Palestinians to elevate to Palestinian leadership responsibility in any such a new Palestinian State. There is no chance that Hamas would be included, and besides, Hamas has already already stated that anything Abbas negotiates will get an up or down referendum by the people in Gaza.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, I wonder when George Mitchell will start implementing his parts of plan B.

 

[spacejamz]

Same shit...Different thread...move along...nothing to see here...

 

[Lemon law]

Same shit...Different thread...move along...nothing to see here...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To a large extent spacejamz is correct.

But the other side of the coin is that we, and we being the larger world, cannot find a peaceful solution, in the longer term, the issue can only be settled in a coming bloody conflict
the State of Israel cannot possibly survive.

Meanwhile, in the limbo we have to day, only terrorists are the big winners.

 

[EagleKeeper]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
You are back with the same failed argument. It is basically the UN and not the Israelis who will be the deciders on which group of Palestinians to elevate to Palestinian leadership responsibility in any such a new Palestinian State. There is no chance that Hamas would be included, and besides, Hamas has already already stated that anything Abbas negotiates will get an up or down referendum by the people in Gaza.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, I wonder when George Mitchell will start implementing his parts of plan B.

You feel the UN will state who will represent the Palestinians.
So the elections the Palestinians had are worth nothing. Excellent message to send out to people. The UN will dictate your lives; you do not have a say.

I can see the only thing the UN may say (in another 20+ years) is that whether there will be two Palestinian states, each run a a seperate government (similar to a EastWest Pakistan way back when).

The actions/attitude of the Gaza group is not going to earn them any brownie points on the world stage.

Whether the spoiled tantrum of the West Bank will have an impact; who Knows.

What country will allow its troops to enforce any Israeli border will be interesting to see. And what such troops will do when the first munition comes sailing across.


The US does not have any plan B or C.
Obama has wised up and realized that one side or the other will not accept public conditions to solve the problem.