Arab leaders rule out amending Saudi proposal

"brief". That'd be a nice change, but when will he learn 3 posts to respond to 1 doesn't fit the definition? "Jordan was empowered", supporting my point "exchange of letters" Not addressing need for legislative approval. "sole representative" still not addressing that the UN also stated that but is holding the PA responsible for implementing int'l agreements. Gee, times change, but JB's hate doesn't. "treaty" now JB's confused about "letter" and "treaty." The puppy can't get that it's not a treaty unless accepted as such by a legislature. "Mass ejection" Notice he never addresses: 1) 18% Arab population 2) Complete ethnic cleansing of Jews 3) Arabs declared the war w/o which there'd be no refugees 4) the 50M refugees, '45-50, all absorbed 5) UNRWA defines refugee differently than everywhere else in the world And more. If JB dealt w/context, he couldn't rationalize.

"Israel can no more claim..." Agreed, since they both are. Again, the undereducated puppy's problem with being "a" representative versus "the sole" representative. Israel is a State with multiple religions as members, and doesn't claim to be the representative on non-Israeli Jews. The PA is a representative of the Pals, having some authority while the PLO has others. Gosh, there's that nasty "world" intruding on fantasy again. HW1: Read A1, in it's 11 word entirety. Address it. HW2: Read A2, p1a and study "ratification" HW3: Was the US in the LON because Wilson said so? HW4: Go to www.dictionary.com and look up "treaty" and then "letter". Describe the differences. HW5: Study difference between "a" & "sole" HW6: Explain how a body being held responsible by the UN, EU, Russia and the US to do certain things isn't a representative of the Pals.

DT: "The int`l community recognizes the PA to do many of the things a "soverign" power would do, and to enforce int`l agreements" 1947-49, 67: Mass ejection of Pals from ex-Mandate territory. Olso, 1993: PLO recognized as "sole representative of the Palestinian people" Olso 1993: PA recognized as the representative of the occupied people in Gaza/WB Road Map 2002: PA recognized as the body responsible for reaching performance-based benchmarks in the occupied territory Conclusion: The RM does not extend any extra authority to the PA beyond representing the occupied people in Gaza/WB, therefore its authority remains unchanged from Olso. Inter alia, the PLO status also remains unchanged as the "sole representative of the Palestinian people" Score: David gets an "F" Homework: Write a 1,000 word essay: "Israel can no more claim to be the representative of the Jewish people than the PA can claim to be the representative of the Palestinian people"

DT: "Presidential letters don`t matter unless backed up by legislative bodies" EVADING INT'L OBLIGATIONS Vienna Convention, 1969 Article 27: "A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46." Article 46: "1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance." "2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith." Conclusion: Israel can not avoid the binding nature of the letters by pointing to domestic legislative norms. Score: David gets an "F" Homework: Memorize the Vienna Convention, 1969.

Comments will have to be brief, but I will try to set homework for David: DT: "Presidential letters don`t matter unless backed up by legislative bodies" THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE EXCHANGE Madrid, 1991, Israel refused to accept that (a) there is a "Palestinian people" or (b) the PLO represents anyone. End result: Pals included in Jordanian delegation, and Jordan was empowered to sign on their behalf Exchange of Letters, 1993: Israel recognizes both (a) there is a "Palestinian people" and (b) the PLO is their sole representative Oslo, 1993: Israel and the PLO sign accord. Conclusion: The letters were binding on both parties, removing Jordan's legal authority and vesting it in the PLO. Score: David gets an "F" Homework: write a 1,000 word essay on the topic: "How recognition of the PLO was a prerequisite to making the PLO signature on the Olso Accords legally binding upon the Palestinians."

JB agrees that the PA has int'l authority and power to enforce those agreements, yet continues to claim the PLO's the "sole" group. He claims that even though the PLO clearly isn't, that doesn't matter because the PAs not mentioned in Final status talks. Of course, neither is the PLO, but that doesn't matter. "YOU are claiming that Israel gets to choose." Show me where I said that. Quote me, puppy. All I've said is that the PA is recognized by the int'l community, so that the PLO is no longer the sole representative. "O-S-L-O. 1993." You've said Oslo's dead, as you've avoided me talking about Pal obligations under it. The RM supersedes Oslo. In addition, you're still avoiding that Presidential letters don't matter unless backed up by legislative bodies. "That Is Not The Same Thing" ROTFL. The int'l community recognizes the PA to do many of the things a "soverign" power would do, and to enforce int'l agreements, but "it's not the same thing. You're never a bummer, you're too funny..

DT: "Note he claims the RM Phase III doesn`t mention the PA so it doesn`t matter, but claims the PLO does even though it too is not mentioned." I didn't say is didn't matter; I said it doesn't name who the Pal negotiating partner is. You have to look elsewhere to see who is named as the representative of the Palestinian people. O-S-L-O. 1993. Exchange of letters. Arafat and Rabin. How quickly David forgets "prior agreements" when they become oh-so inconvenient to his argument. So tell me, David, where is the agreement saying that the PA is signing anything "as the representative of the Palestinian people"? I see lots of Int'l agreements where the PA signs as the legitimate civilian administration of the occupied territories, sure, but That Is Not The Same Thing. Such a bummer, hey?

DT: "The PA is signing Int`l agreements binding on the Pal people." No, David, it signs Intl agreements as the interim authority responsible for the internal civil administration of the occupied territories. Things like the border crossing agreements for Rafah, or the steps it needs to undertake under the Road Map. That sort of thing. It can not sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement between the palestinian people and the Israelis, because it does not represent the palestinian people; it represents the voters in the Gaza Strip and the West bank. The two are not the same thing; those voters represent only half of the total Palestinian population. David, this has been made very clear in the Mecca Agreement and the terms of the Unity Govt; the PA government does NOT seek a seat at final status negotiations. YOU are claiming that Israel gets to choose who its "peace partner" is, not the Pals. So sorry puppy, but no, it doesn't. Neither do you. Such a bummer, hey?

The PA is signing Int'l agreements binding on the Pal people. The PA is being armed and trained in order to have better control over the Pal people. The PA is the one saying it will never agree to a final peace w/o a RoR, which addressing "all" the invented Pal people. Note he claims the RM Phase III doesn't mention the PA so it doesn't matter, but claims the PLO does even though it too is not mentioned. Typical hypocrisy. Yet JB keeps claiming that the PLO is the "sole representative of the Palestinian people" (since he thinks truncating for space changes something) even though they obviously aren't. JB's fantasies about what "final status agreements" are bound to in no way change the fact that the PLO are no longer the "sole" anything. While they still have some authority, the PA has others. Speaking of English problems, he really does need to study the meaning of "sole", not "people".

DT: "The head of the PA was recognized by the UN, the US, EU and Russia (That`s the Quartet, if you`re confused) as the person representing the Palestinian people in an int`l agreement, showing the PLO is no longer the "sole representative." " "sole representative"?? Put it in full, David; the PLO is the "sole representative of the Palestinian people". The PA only has authority (and it is an "authority", remember) over the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. About half of the total, David. Abbas can sign any Int'l Agreements he likes as the head of the PA, where that agreement deals with responsibilities that the PA is obliged to carry out IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES. He can't sign as the head of the PA in FINAL STATUS AGREEMENTS, because the PA does not represent all the Palestinians, only those in the occupied territories. It's mandate isn't wide enough, David. It DOESN'T have that right. The PLO has to sign a final status agreement.

What might happen in the future in the RM isn't relevant, not the least reason because you claim the RM is dead and the AI should replace it. What you've done, though, is admitted that Abbas signed the RM, an int'l agreement, as the head of the PA. The head of the PA was recognized by the UN, the US, EU and Russia (That's the Quartet, if you're confused) as the person representing the Palestinian people in an int'l agreement, showing the PLO is no longer the "sole representative." You've agreed to my point but just can't make yourself say "yes, I know I'm an ignorant antisemite. Thanx for helping my eyes begin to open." Funny, funny, puppy.

DT: "Abbas represented the PA in official int`l talks" Of course, David is talking about the Road Map. Or, to use it's full title: "A Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" Note the "performance-based" part of the title, David? The PLO can not contribute to that "performance" because the interim PA has responsibility over the infrastucture within the occupied territories. That was why it was set up at Olso. THAT's why Abbas had to sign as the head of the PA, because the *tasks* that the Palestinians had to "perform" under Phase I are properly addressed to the PA. But get to Phase III, David, when the Permanent Status Agreement gets carried out and - GOSH! - no word about who sits at THAT table. Indeed, look at Phase II, and you'll see the "independent Palestinian state with provisional borders" gets launched at an "international conference" and - GOSH! - it is completely open-ended who sits at THAT table.

Yet wonders why I laugh at him. Truly precious. We're not talking about "Abbas` statement", but his signature and title on an int'l agreement. Yet JB still avoids that he did so as head of the PA, not head of the PLO. "THAT STATEMENT", if you didn't object to it then you admit that Abbas represented the PA in official int'l talks, contradicting yourself about the PLO being the "sole" representative. "PLO, Hamas and other orgs make up the PLC." The PLO is controlled by Fatah, there is no difference and hasn't been for decades. JB, you claim I'm in a fantasy world yet refuse to admit Abbas has signed int'l agreements as the head of the PA, not Fatah or the PLO. You talk about a future with a "reformed" PLO without the document having any specifics and ignore the present. You do have a backwards version of the word "fantasy."

1) Listen, David, Abbas' statement said plainly and simply that the new unity government needed to be tested by a vote of confidence on the floor of the legislature, as all new democratic govt's must. YOU thought it meant the UG was being given authority by Abbas because, basically, you are clueless. 2) Wait, I DIDN'T OBJECT TO *THAT* STATEMENT. I objected to the *OTHER* statement of yours: DT: "The PLO, Hamas and other orgs make up the PLC" 3) Nope, you can read, but you can not understand. A statement pledging the "reform" of the PLO can mean only one thing in the *context* of the statement in which it was made; Hamas will join a "reformed" PLO. That you are too unsublte to understand is sad, but hardly my problem.

Wow, something "LEGITIMIZES the government, not provide it with any specifically defined AUTHORITY." A legitimate govt w/o authority. Now that's something new. "You are talking about FATAH, not the PLO." Wait, my quote was "why Abbas signed the RM as head of the PA, not the PLO." In addition, Fatah is the largest party in the PLO and Abbas is head of both. Most importantly, neither tangent changes that he's still running from address that Abbas signed as head of the PA. "DT: 'mentions nothing about the two organizations.'" My bad, the ADD had me dropping the "having any authority." Also, note that the Third mentions only reforming the PLO, the Fourth mentions "effective laws in the PNA", giving the PNA (usually shorted to PA) the authority. Again, while pointing out a typing error on my part, you still can't get it right. So sad. Again, need a topping for those waffles?

The Mecca Accord PLC = PA legislature. DT: ""Palestinian Legislative Council for a vote of confidence" as having authority." WRONG. The vote LEGITIMIZES the government, not provide it with any specifically defined AUTHORITY. In a parliamentary democracy a new government must survive a vote of confidence from its legislature. That's all that sentence says. DT: "The PLO, Hamas and other orgs make up the PLC" - Rubbish. You are talking about FATAH, not the PLO. The Mecca Agreement DT: "mentions nothing about the two organizations." Let me enlighten you: "Third: to move ahead in measures to activate and reform the PLO and accelerate the work of the preparatory committee based on the Cairo and Damascus Understandings." "It has been agreed also on detailed steps between both sides on this issue." It's subtle, which is why David doesn't see it. David doesn't do subtlety.

You're an ignorant, antisemitic liar. It's sad, but very understandable. He gets both "Mecca" docs wrong. The Mecca Accord (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/823792.html) mentions the "Palestinian Legislative Council for a vote of confidence" as having authority. The PLO, Hamas and other orgs make up the PLC. The Mecca Agreement (http://www.jmcc.org/new/07/feb/meccaagree.htm) mentions nothing about the two organizations. Saudi Initiative (first announced from Mecca) http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm In addition, he fails to address why Abbas signed the RM as head of the PA, not the PLO.

"the simple fact that if the UN and the Quartet deal solely with the PA for both money and enforcing peace agreements" - Yes, David, the PA is responsible for infrastructure and internal security. It was from the moment it was mooted in the Olso agreement. Your point being??? The Mecca agreement determines who negotiates on behalf of the Pals at final status talks David. It is the Pals perogative to decide that - not the Quartet, not the USA, and certainly not zionist nitwit like you or Olmert. "Even ignoring the fact that the agreement specifies how the PLO/Hamas split the running of the PA" - IT DOES NOT SUCH THING. Strictly a matter between Fatah and Hamas. "the agreement specifies how the PLO/Hamas split the running of the PA, not in Hamas falling under the PLO`s auspices" Hahahah! You Have No Idea What You Are Talking About. Read It Again. It's flown right over your head, hasn't it?

Still not addressing the simple fact that if the UN and the Quartet deal solely with the PA for both money and enforcing peace agreements, then it is the main organization recognized by those int'l organizations and nations, not the PLO. "Hamas comes under the PLO umbrella." The funniest thing yet. First you argue against the facts about the PLO not changing it's charter. Then you claim an organization that openly calls for Israel's destruction and will never accept Israel's existence falls under "the PLO umbrella." Dude, that's hilariously contradictory! Meanwhile, puppy, you talk about how important the UN is, yet it openly states that the Mecca Agreement does not meet Quartet requirements but you claim the MA somehow proves your point. Even ignoring the fact that the agreement specifies how the PLO/Hamas split the running of the PA, not in Hamas falling under the PLO's auspices, rather appoints a committee to reform the PLO before Hamas joins -- ROTFL!

"He also fails to respond to my earlier question as to why the Quartet didn`t just give the PA money to the PLO." THEY CAN'T, ya nitwit. PA money is for the PA. That's what the agreements - from Oslo onwards - say. The Quartet can WITHHOLD it, but they can't just give it to the PLO. Or are you saying only ONE side has to abide by prior agreements, and the Quartet can just change it willy-nilly? As for the other crap from David - astonishing! He insists (how VERY zionist) that Israel and the USA gets to choose who represents the Pals, and whenever Isreal changes its mind the Pals HAVE to agree. They did that once - when Arafat was sidelined - and never again. Read the Mecca accord, David. Read the Unity Govt deal. Hamas comes under the PLO umbrella, with Abbas as the SOLE negotiator. The next time anyone complains about Hamas being a barrier to talks Haniyeh can just point upstairs and say "Talk to the PLO, buddy, nothin to do with us or the PA".

"hamas." Now that's interesting. We were talking about the PLO V PA and suddenly the puppy's talking about Hamas. Everyone watch the tangent machine try to avoid reality again. He still ignores that, though Abbas is the Chairman of the PLO, all RM discussions from the Quartet openly address and deal with him as the PM of the PA. He avoids that when Abbas accepted the Road Map, he did so as the Prime Minister Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, not as the head of the PLO. Most importantly, oops, he runs away from the fact that Arafat was still head of the PLO, but the Quartet wanted the PA to sign. He also fails to respond to my earlier question as to why the Quartet didn't just give the PA money to the PLO. Lots and lots of avoidance. It's the only way he can rationalize his fantasies. Still a funny puppy, amusing many. Again, JB, thanx for educating the lurkers; you're always helpful.

Rubbish like this: "the simple facts of actions from the UN and Quartet that are based on PA decisions and not the PLO`s." What does that sort of twaddle *mean*, David? Are you saying that the Quartet have sanctioned the PA because they don't like Hamas? That they demand that Hamas accept their conditions before there is a removal of said sanctions? No contest, and no relevence. Because, of course, what *are* the sanctions? Why, it is the withholding of financial aid to the PA. It is not withdrawal of recognition of Hamas' right to negotiate final status. Hamas do not even *seek* a seat at *that* table, David. AFAIK it never has, so it is a nonsense to claim - as you APPEAR to be doing - that the Quartet are sanctioning against any such aims. Go read the Mecca agreement. Hamas now comes under the umbrella of the PLO, and Abbas is the only person in the PA who is authorised to speak on behalf of the Pals. And he can because he is also the chairman of the PLO.

Still running away from facts to stick with hate. He's unable to address the UNSC and UNSG facts I posted, and incapable of addressing the simple facts of actions from the UN and Quartet that are based on PA decisions and not the PLO's. He thinks that repeating his own opinions makes them true. Sad but par for the course.

Ted, Your no student of history. A portion of the remnants of over six million of Europes Jews murdered during the holocaust joined thier Zionist brethern in what became the State of Isreal. The displacement of the Palestinians, came at the behest of likes of the grand mufti of Jerusalem and his ilk. The Palestinians were urged to remain, but those who left were promised a share of what the Zioinists and the survivors had built and were continuing to build.Greed, not need motivated the so called "displaced"; and oh yes hatered of "The Jews". Had it not been for Hitler, the forming of the State of Israel, might not have taken place when it did. May all antisemites meet the the same end as Adolph, and may all people of good will, Jews,Moslems,and Christians one day reside in peace, in Israel.

Ted,

Even though it's inside this sort of tripe: "UN SG and SC referring to the PA as the people responsible for the Road Map," WTF!! BUSH is *responsible* for the Road Map, David! You mean the PA are responsible for carrying out the Pals obligations. SO WHY NOT SAY THAT? Their obligations being, of course: 1) Beef up security and go gunning for Hamas (!!) and IJ 2) Roll over and let Israel scrath their tummy And in return, what is their reward? Why, this is where David nails it: " that they demand the PA recognize Israel in order for the govt to receive funding" So, their reward is recognition from Israel that they have supplanted the PLO at the negotiating table? Right? Well, NO, actually, says David - even though he has been loudly insisting that the answer is YES. Their REWARD is to keep getting the money they need to build infrastructure. BUT THAT'S MY ARGUMENT! You are now so confused you are arguing against yourself!!! Thick As A Brick.

David can not produce a well formed sentence if his life depended on it. "They have clearly stated that the PA is the official face of the Pals" ...the official face of the Pals..!!!! Hahahaha! Diplomacy as a marketing exercise, with Haniyeh as the product spokesmodel!!! Is it any wonder that I find it very difficult to take David's drivel seriously when he constructs meaningless sentences like THAT. "both internally and for external communications" - hahah! Another one! Plllllloppppp! Communications about WHAT, dimwit? Talk to the PA about WHAT? The dimwit doesn't say - sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. Plop! Plop! Plop! It's not talk about final status negotiations, stupid, but the reestablishment of aid. They aren't talking to the PLO, because they aren't talking about final settlement negotiations. Thick as a Brick.

Wow, he ignores the facts of the UN SG and SC referring to the PA as the people responsible for the Road Map, that they demand the PA recognize Israel in order for the govt to receive funding, and don't, even for a split second, claim "if you don't do that, we'll only talk to the PLO." They have clearly stated that the PA is the official face of the Pals, both internally and for external communications (as govt's are now deciding whether or not to talk to the PA, not if they should talk to the PLO). Yet, poor little puppy enters the fairy tale land of the Three Little Pigs, building a straw house that even an asthmatic wolf can sneeze down...

He quotes this: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10434.doc.htm as evidence that the UN sees the PA as the voice of the Pal people IN FINAL STATUS TALKS!! No. It shows the PA is building up the basic infrastructure of government. ALL NATIONS MUST HAVE THAT, David, and that is what the PA is for. "all concerned must understand that the Palestinian Authority provides the bulk of the irreplaceable basic services" - i.e. it is responsible for local government sevices. "These institutions, moreover, are the blocks on which we hope to build a Palestinian State" i.e. it is a local government authority building up the necessary infrastructure to support statehood. The PA *is* crucial to the viability of the future state, but it does not have the authority to steer the Pals to that final status agreement. Yet I have presented you with UN GA Resolutions that state the PLO does, and you just wave them away. Astonishing arrogance!

His ravings are getting longer but not getting any wiser. How sad. Unsurprising, but sad. Wow, the PA has the authority to control terror, the UN, as part of the RM4 says that the PA has to recognize Israel or the UN won't give it the money it needs for PA governmental authority, and it never once mentions the PLO in the RM. Gosh, you're so right, the UN making funding to the Pals dependent on the PA and not the PLO surely means the PLO is the body the UN recognizes. Or wait, are you saying that http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10434.doc.htm just isn't evidence? Oh, wait, I get it. Puppy thinks that non-binding UNGA resolutions trump the UNSC and the SG, the folks who decide when & if the Pals get money. Man, up the dosage, the current amount's just not cutting it. All those posts, and still not truth.

It's gone all hard and nuggetty, sure, but it's still a turd. "It admits that Hamas is the major party in the PA and the PLO is a not" No kidding, hey puppy? There was an election, and the UN oversaw that election - as did observers from any number of countries - and the UN admitted that Hamas won! Even Israel admitted Hamas *won*, ya' nitwit. Hamas formed the local government within the Occupied Territory, coz that's what the PA is. That's exactly what it was set up to be, and that's exactly that it continues to be. You posted sanctimonious, pompous claptrap in #168, puppy, and on my counting it consisted of no less than 5 big, steaming piles of BS, with not a glimmer of truth any of them. I've replied to them all, but I'm not sure how many will get past the censors. Coz I am sick to f**king death of your insistance on prancing around in a fantasy world of your own construction, forever muttering "my, my, just how I always imagined it would look!".

This one, of course: "Notice how the UN isn`t saying "we`ll talk to the PLO instead" " Notice how the puppy pushes two smelly piles into one great big smear? Pile (1): The UN can't talk to the PLO regarding final status, puppy, because that requires direct, bilateral talks between ISRAEL and the PLO. The UN can only provide the framework; Res 242, 194, etc. Pile (2): The UN can't talk to the PLO regarding the renewal of foreign aid because Fatah were voted out of the local government. It would be like the puppy insisting that the US negotiate military aid with Likud, not Kadima. Great Big Smear: roll these two issues together and pretent that they are one. But let's be fair to the puppy - he is Yap! Yap! Yapping! so loudly that he probably doesn't even know what he's barking about. He certainly doesn't know that he's barking-mad.

"Notice how the UN isn`t saying "we`ll talk to the PLO instead." " Yaps the Yapster. NOTE: it isn't the *UN* that is supposed to talk to the Palestinians regarding final status; those talks are supposed to be BILATERAL talks between ISRAEL and the PALESTINIANS. Which means, of course, Israel and the PLO. NOTE also how the UN can't talk to the PLO instead of the PA regarding the distribution of aid money inside the Gaza Strip and the WB because, of course, that has nothing to do with the PLO once Fatah got voted out of office. Be like the USA talking only to Likud begarding all that military aid, PUPPY. NOTICE AS WELL that these are two different issue that the puppy attempts to confuse into one; hypothetical final status agreements are quite different to the contemporary issue of supplying relief aid to a people inside occupied territory. Don't blame the puppy tho'; he's Yap! Yap! Yapping so loud *he* simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

This one's even steaming! "It continues to legitimize the PA by saying that it won`t deal with the PA while Hamas won`t accept the key points demanded." Notice the word-games being yapped out: "legitimize" - what, the PA was ever an ILLEGITIMATE authority? When did that happen, puppy? Coz the PA was "legitimized" when the Olso Accords were signed in '93 Here's another little yappy-trick: "it won`t deal with the PA" - and what is the nature of the "dealings" between the PA and the UN? Why, the puppy doesn't say. So let me tell you: since '93 the PA has been provided local security, social welfare and infrastructure, and the UN has been providing aid money to enable it to carry out those responsibilites. When Hamas got voted in the UN cut off that aid. That's it, puppy. That's the extent of "the deal" the UN had with the PA. So sad, of course, but the Yapster never lets facts get in the way of a good, hard, YAP! YAP! Coz, of course, he's a pompous nitwit.

Gosh, this one stinks even more! "UN originally said the PLO was the sole legitimate representative but that times change" Or so grunted the puppy. Times have changed? The UN has changed its mind? Note how the yappy little puppy does not provide any evidence for this little brown nugget. Coz, of course, if the UN *had* changed its mind then it would no longer say this: "Recalling the mutual recognition between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people..." Gosh! SOMEONE still says the PLO is the representative of the Palestinian people! Wonder who? Why, I found THAT sentence here: UNGA Resolution 58/21 January 22, 2004 UNGA Resolution 60/39 February 16, 2006 UNGA Resolution 61/22 24 January 2007 UNGA Resolution 61/24 24 January 2007 UNGA Resolution 61/25 2 March 2007 It's called EVIDENCE, puppy, and it stands in contrast to the BULLSHIT you grunt out.

More pompous, sanctimonious BS from David Teich, who believes that he only needs to state his opinions as "fact" in order to prove that "fact". No, PUPPY, it means you spend your life yap, yap, yapping around the talkback, and when you are asked for evidence you rush to the corner, grunt out a stoole sample and start pawing at it. You think that is evidence? No, PUPPY, it's a *turd", and one all of you own making. As evidence, let's look at this very smelly one from the puppy: "The UN has recognized the PA in such items as the Road Map" Completely content-free. I'll be charitable and assume he means: "The UN has recognized the PA as a representative of the Palestinian people in such items as the Road Map" No EVIDENCE presented, of course. Coz there is none. The Road Map mentions the PA exactly ONCE, and that is to "refocus" its security forces (to fight Hamas, of course!). No additional AUTHORITY for the PA is to be found anywhere in that document.

"Only the PLO can do that." He still can't get it through his pin head that the UN originally said the PLO was the sole legitimate representative but that times change. The UN has recognized the PA in such items as the Road Map and other documents. It continues to legitimize the PA by saying that it won't deal with the PA while Hamas won't accept the key points demanded. Notice how the UN isn't saying "we'll talk to the PLO instead." It admits that Hamas is the major party in the PA and the PLO is a not. JB sadly picks and choses which "ancient history" he thinks matters and which should be ignored. It's weird watching Cipora and JB out foolish each other.

"the only document that recognizes Gaza and the West Bank as one legal entity is the Oslo accords." May I suggest you go to the UN site, look at the UN GA section, go to documents, look for 1947 and READ UN RESOLUTION 181!!! There's also the Road Map. Please, I hate ignorance when it agrees with me almost as much as I hate ignorance such as JB's with whom I almost always disagree.

"Claiming that Hamas is local government is totally ridiculous. They have been received as representatives of the Palesttinian people by no lesser powers than Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc...." Who sends the observer to the UN, Cipora? Not the PA. The PLO does. Who was recognized as the sole representative of the Palestinian people by Rabin? Not the PA. The PLO was. That recognition is still in force, Cipora. Why DO you think that Abbas is the only person who can sign an "end of conflict" agreement with Israel? It ain't because he is President of the PA. It's because he is the head of Fatah, and Fatah controls the PLO. You can regurgitate your zionist propaganda as much as you like, but it does not alter the fact that the PA was set up as a local government AUTHORITY, and its authority still does not extend an inch beyond the boundaries of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Only the PLO has authority to speak for ALL the Pals on ALL matters of foregin policy.

First, the PA has a fully formed govenment, including the prime minister and the foreign minister. The PA has representatives in most foreign capitals. The PLO is of the past. I know what it is that you are trying to do, but you will not succeed. Claiming that Hamas is local government is totally ridiculous. They have been received as representatives of the Palesttinian people by no lesser powers than Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc....

"Hamas is the elected government" The elected government of WHAT, Cipora? The PA is an AUTHORITY. It is responsible for LOCAL GOVERNMENT within the occupied territory; garbage-collection, planning/zoning, law enforcement. It can't even collect its own taxes, fer crying out loud! It has ZERO authority beyond those limited responsibilities. The PA does *not* send the observer at the UN. The PA can *not* sign final status agreements - or *any* int'l agreements. Only the PLO can. Only the PLO does. Go read the Olso Accords, Cipora. Go read the exchange of letters between Arafat and Rabin at Olso. You'll see that I am correct and you are talking ill-informed nonsense like this: "Any negotiations will have to bind the PA as the elected government." Which is as pointless as insisting that any negotiations must bind the Mayor of Jerusalem. Final status agreement will lead immediately to the dissolving of the PA, because it is an INTERIM AUTHORITY under Olso.

Sheer nonsense. Hamas is the elected government. Hanyiah is the Prime Minister of the PA, just as Abbas is the President. Any negotiations will have to bind the PA as the elected government. If Hamas will not accept Oslo, the matters agreed to might not be agreed to in the future. Israel can play hardball, too.

I want to ask: How many of you have been to the Jewish State, breathed the air of Jerusalem or Haifa or Kiriyat Shmona, seen the beautiful, prosperous country Israelis have built for themselves out of nothing in the midst of a region that's only known misery, ignorance, oppression and hopelessness. Get off the couch, Go to Israel and see for themselves, shed the blinders and open your hearts to the State of Israel. It's there to protect you.

Because their ONLY reason for coming back is to destroy Israel from within. Is there anyone who doesn't know it yet?

"the only document that recognizes Gaza and the West Bank as one legal entity is the Oslo accords." - irrelevent, since that issue can be put on the agenda of ANY talks. "it is difficult to conceive of any potential negotiations not based on Oslo" - the PLO is bound by its agreements at Olso, so this is a given. "If Hamas refuses, it has no legal standing for a state." - a nonsense. Hamas has said that it does not seek a seat at negotiations; that is the PLO's job. And Hamas is right. It is a political party that is in control of a local government entity - the PA. It (and the PA) does not speak for the Palestinian people, and does not pretend to. You may as well insist that the Mayor of Jerusalem's political opinion be taken into account. His opinion doesn't matter at all, since he can't sign any agreement with the Pals - any more than Hamas or the PA can sign any agreement with the Israelis. Only the PLO can do that.

I am a propagandist? No, I have a different opinion to nitwit zionists like you. I am entitled to express that opinion, and I attempt to back it up with facts. I have posted a lot in this talkback because I see incorrect facts being repeated, and fallacious arguments being put forward based on those incorrect facts. And in reply I get your ad hominem attack on my motives; an attempt at character assassination, with absolutely no attempt to argue to the points that I have raised. So if you want to dish it out, fine, I'm happy to dish it back. Coz I get weary of reading bigoted, narrow-minded polemicists like yourself, who so confuse opinion with facts that they are either incurably stupid or incredibly badly-educated. So, which one are you, Brant?

The Road Map had the sides nibbling their way towards the End Game and it never, ever got past Stage 1. The Saudi Plan is an attempt to do the opposite; to say, basically, we go straight to the End Game i.e. agree on what are the goals of the negotiations, and then negotiate towards those goals. Otherwise you simply get endless squabbling, with all sides trying to head the negotiations in different directions. So the *strict* answer to your question is that it is the latter, and that is the only way you are going to get ANYWHERE - as the Road Map demonstrated. But NOTE: the more contentious the issue, the more vague is the wording. The most contentious of all - refugees - is so vague that it amounts to the Saudis simply insisting that the issue be on the agenda. So the *practical* answer to your question is that it is more the former than the latter. That's diplomacy for you; it ain't easy, and it ain't straightforward. And that's why it is unclear to you.

"According to article, Israel didn`t refuse negotiations or require any conditions before talking" Israel is insisting that the other side do something BEFORE Israel agrees to talk. It is insisting that the other side remove all references to refugees BEFORE Israel says wether or not it will enter into negotiations based on the Saudi plan. That is insisting on a precondition, Shen, and you are fooling yourself if you pretend otherwise. The Saudis are having none of it. They are saying that the Israelis either accept the plan IN FULL or it rejects the plan IN FULL. The Saudis are making no preconditions at all; they are saying "This is what we want to discuss; do you want to talk, or don't you?". They are not asking Israel to do anything before the negotiations. They are simply saying "This is what we want to discuss; do you want to talk, or don't you?". The Saudis know how to negotiate, and the Israelis know how to prevaricate. It really is As Simple As That.

I realize that the entire region was part of the Ottoman Empire, just as there was a time when India was part of the British Empire. The relevant question, and from a very practical viewpoint, is how can Gaza and the West Bank be made into one state today. My question is addressed to those who want a Palestinian state. It must be emphasised that the only document that recognizes Gaza and the West Bank as one legal entity is the Oslo accords. Therefore, it is difficult to conceive of any potential negotiations not based on Oslo, and as such, recognition of Israel's sovereignty and an end to terror. If Hamas refuses, it has no legal standing for a state. The other Arab states should recognize this fact also.

Mike, Hamas has already accepted to talk. It's Israel thats making excuses. lets all stop beating around the bush.. get to the obvious truth that Israel is not ready to make peace. until their settlement plan is complete. also make they're all encircling Jerusalem.

If you want Galilee back, then you are saying you are insisting on no more Israel as it is. So according to you, Israeli leaders should go with your plan to eliminate Israel as it currently is, or they are "choosing to live by the sword". You've made clear the crux of the problem... It's YOUR sword the Israeli leaders are living by. When you are ready to put it down, let us know... because "we are ready & waiting." (a line from a famous prayer.) Please present a peace plan that meets our needs too. Or is thinking of others not a requirement in Islam. I find it impossible to believe a religion adhered to by so many is the lacking in basics, so please along with your demands, meet us half-way.

"Jews have strong hierarchical structure where one never or very seldom meets on the same level." That's the opposite of Jewish culture where everyone has substantial standing, a right to opinions that are heard, & encouragement from childhood to QUESTION everything & speak up. There are many jokes about it including "2 jews equals 3 opinions" & the lack of formality even in a normally formal place, the Israel army. Please maybe you can loose some of your anger by understanding Jews better. I've been told in Muslim culture is there are three people one must be choosen leader (by Muslim Imams). By contrast if there are three jews, they all have equal rights. Even 2000 year old ancient jewish law of Sanhedrid is based on that concept.

According to article, Israel didn't refuse negotiations or require any conditions before talking. Saying what they object to in the offer is NOT a refusal to sit at a table. Their only precondition is that THEY NOT BE FORCED TO ACCEPT SOMEONE ELSE'S PRECONDITIONS (ACTUALLY A FINAL SOLUTION) before sitting at the table. The talkbacks here really show me how intense anti-israel policiers are ignoring the actual words in front of them in order to insist on their point of view. I certainly can't take seriously now or in the future on any topic, the words of anyone who's posted today about "Israel's preconditions". If you can't read what's written, you can't think logically enough to understand the situation of any problem, no matter what your leaning.

was taught on 9/11.

The Arab peace initiative is a plan to denude Israel of its strategic position, its moral position, its religioius heritage, and to make Judaism and Christianity peripheral to the world and to Jerusalem. The ultimate result sought by the Arabs is the destruction of Israel and the annhilation of 5,000,000 Jews. Because it could not be done militarily alone, the Arab Muslim governments will accomplish the genocide by a combination of Munich style concessions and military aggression. We must wage a relentles campaign of information and education of the world public to this truth.

Johnboy, don't you know that suggesting that Israel obey international law makes you a virulent anti-Israeli propagandist in the eyes of the Israeli right wing? I fear that the more I read of these talkbacks the more convinced I become that Israel cannot have peace - perhaps does not deserve peace - until it faces up to its own fanatics. Of course the Palestinians not merely aren't facing up to theirs, but are even electing them to power - but then since Israel created Hamas they can hardly object to that! And it's hard not to sympathise with those on both sides who won't tackle their own fanatics until they see some evidence that the ones on the other side will be faced down. Question: are the Saudis saying "accept the initiative as a starting point, perhaps with some reservations, and come and negotiate" - which seems reasonable - or "accept the proposal before negotiating" - which is nonsense? It's not clear to me.

146 total posts so far and over 10% of them to one virulently anti-Israel propagandist, in this case a "johnboy" from Australia. A question for this Johnboy. Ever read about all the Arabs who didn't leave in 1948? Ever read about the efforts of many Israelis (Mottele Shakevitz being the principle one) who worked to keep Arab families from running away? Ever study and learn and listen to the incitement of Haj Amin Al Husseini in 1948? No, probably not at all. Rather, you spout and regurgitate the double-speak of the anti-Israel blogs. You add to the mass of the myth that you and your ilk promote about"zionist" this and that; all in the belief. it seems, that if you write enough of this garbage it will somehow be seen as truth. The land wasn't all Palestinian one day and then stolen the next. The land was Israel before it was Palestine. History is complex.It doesn't begin on the day you choose and it needs better eyes and clearer thought than you seem to possess. Hate blinds,"johnboy".

If the arabs were serious the would not be presenting a plan that they know Israel CANNOT accept.The arabs are putting themselves above the UN when it does not suit them.For years they bleated on about security council resolutions 242 and 338.These called for peace for land,but not all land,and a resolution to the refugee problem,but not a return of refugees. Final status requires sensible negotiations without preconditions.the Saudi plan does not provide for this and should be binned.

"Where is Israel going to put the 5 million Palestinian refugees?" It won't put them ANYWHERE, Daniel, because nobody - nobody, not the Saudis, not the Palestinians - are suggesting that all 5 million Arabs should go back to Israel, or would ever WANT to go back to Israel. They WANT Israel to admit that those refugees were ejected from their land, and they WANT Israel to say they were responsible, and they WANT Israel to say, well, yes, we are culpable and we will pay restititution. The number of Arabs who WANT to return are going to be laughably small - if you were a muslim arab would *you* want to live in a rascist country like Israel? - but it is an important PRINCIPLE, and one the Pals will not let go.

These political discussions often miss an incredibly important point: The size of Israel. Where is Israel going to put the 5 million Palestinian refugees? For a geographical perpective to suit you Johnboy: Tasmania fits about 150 times into mainland Australia. Israel fits three times into Tasmania, and unlike Tasmania is mostly desert. Do the maths. Now how is Israel going to support 5 million non-hostile inhabitants if a peace deal were concluded tomorrow. With quoted birth rates amongst the highest in the world, how is Israel going to deal with 20 million Palestinian neighbors in a few decades time? Now imagine that for some unearthly reason, what will happen when these non-hostile inhabitants may just decide to become hostile?

"Nobody can `cede land back to the Pals` because it never belonged to them." Israel can cede sovereignty to anyone it likes. The majority of the land in question was designated for the Palestinian state under the Partition Plan, until the state of Israel established sovereignty over it by claiming it was seized as part of a civil war. So it is perfectly acceptable to suggest that Israel could cede it *back* to the state that was *supposed* to have that land under the terms of UNGA resolution 181. That the state of Palestine may come about 60 years after the state of Israel does not affect that equation; it is internally consistent and quite arguable. Unlike your argument: "If they aren`t prepared to live under new management they should find another landlord." which is laughable - the entire POINT of right of return is that the refugees are *quite* prepared to live under Israeli "management", so long as they get to return to their land.

Dear Johnboy, 1. If the right of return of Palestinian refugees will result in the ending of Israel, why on earth should Israel even accept this as an agenda for negotiation? 2. If the previous Palestinian authority made bilateral agreements with Israel conceding that not all lands within the pre-67 border will constitute a new Palestinian state, then why should Israel back-step and re-negotiate this point with the Saudis? 3. That the Palestinians are in a total mess regarding their factional infighting, countless militias and a large percentage of their military power-brokers bent on destroying Israel, as an Israeli at least, I would suggest that, no matter how interested I am in having peace with our Palestinian neighbors, entering negotiation with them today can only result in disaster (for them and for us). The Palestinians need to get their camp in order before we can proceed to have serious discussions with them.

"Gaza and the West Bank are not, nor have ever been, part of a contiguous legal and geographic entity." Of course they have. They were part of the Syrian district of the Ottoman Empire. That's why Arabs demanded that all of British Mandate Palestine should become part of Greater Syria. It's why Arabs here weren't called "Palestinians" until '65.

Nobody can 'cede land back to the Pals' because it never belonged to them. Your concept is a revisionist fabrication. The land belongs to its owners. If you buy property and someone is renting it you don't buy the people with the property. If they aren't prepared to live under new management they should find another landlord.

"If you want a Palestinian state where both Gaza and the West Bank form a united state, you would have to request that Israel grant right of passage through her sovereign territory" Gaza becomes an enclave, Cipora. There is no necessity for an umbilical cord between the two. "Such right of passage is quite unprecedented." Well, now you are stretching it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_enclaves_and_exclaves Heaps of enclaves listed there, Cipora. The surrounding country invariably allows movement through their sovereign territory. It's no biggie, unless that country is one mean S.O.B. Ahem. Free passage through a designated land corridor would be nice, but the Pals could live without it - Gaza shares a border with Egypt, and WB with Jordan, so they can always go the long way around. Heck, some Aussies commute further than that to get to work.

I'm sure the thought of 5 million Arabs all trying to cram themselves into Israel has you quaking in your shoes. Don't know why, because Paragraph 11 has a perfectly adequate prevarication at the beginning: "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours..." Note the rider in that statement? Well, how *do* you determine that a willing returnee also agrees to "live at peace with their neighbours"? Why, agree on a test, of course. Negotiate with the Saudis on an mutually acceptible - but very, very stringent - test that the applicant must pass before EVERYONE agrees this person wishes to "live at peace with their neighbours". Coz that is exactly the sort of "out" the Saudis are offering when they talk about a "just solution" to the refugee problem. If they all - Arab and Jew alike - agree that this solution is "just" then P11 of Resl 194 is met, and you can go back to sleeping soundly at night.

"The only thing the Arabs have to offer Israel is diplomatic recognition." No, Cipora. They can offer PEACE. A chance for Israel to live without worrying about the next "existential threat" lurking just around the corner. But I gather from your tone that you simply don't care for such namby-pamby; Might makes right, and the rest of the world can go kiss my ass, I imagine. But you really can't feel the wind changing, can you? Don't know why, coz even dim ol' GWB can feel it on the back of his neck. The USA is swinging towards the Arabs, and it ain't because they suddenly LIKE them, but because they suddenly NEED them. So what happens when a Prez decides he needs the Arab's influence in the region more than he needs the Jewish vote back home, Cipora? He'll throw Israel to the dogs. And the current Saudi dog is a poodle compared to what's out there, so I suggest you start patting.

Gaza and the West Bank are not, nor have ever been, part of a contiguous legal and geographic entity. If you want a Palestinian state where both Gaza and the West Bank form a united state, you would have to request that Israel grant right of passage through her sovereign territory for people wanting to go from one part to the other. Such right of passage is quite unprecedented. Therefore the Arab states should lower their expectations and demands with regard to other issues.

"The Jews have a right to return to Isreal, not Palestine." No. I disagree with this, and it is the core of the difference between the two of us. If a Jew was ejected from land in the WB or Gaza between 46-49 then they have a perfectly legitimate right to seek a return to that land, or to seek a just compensation for their loss, and they could attempt to realise that right in any negotiated settlement between Israel and the Pals. But that right has nothing to do with their religion, nor their ethnicity, but everything to do with their residency/ownership of that land prior to the civil war. But note also this very important point: they can not seek a right of return and also remain as an Israeli citizen, any more than one of the Palestinian refugees can seek a right of return to their land inside Israel without also agreeing to become an Israeli citizen. That is, they get back their land, but they have to accept the sovereignty of the country that rules over that land.

The only thing the Arabs have to offer Israel is diplomatic recognition. That is neither ere nor there, since Israel has managed to live without recognition for sixty years. What they want in return is everything they can think of. At the same time, both Syria and Hamas are preparing for war.

Sharonelle: Here's a good compromise then. Israel agrees it's willing to discuss all points at the table, including the right of all Palestinian refugees AND their fourth-generation decendents to relocate to Israel. However in return, Saudi Arabia is also willing to discuss all related points such as compensation for Mohammed's complete expulsion of the majority Jewish population from Medina in 600's CE, with the right any Jewish decendents to resettle in Medina, even if it means restoring a Jewish majority to the city. Is that better now for you? Think the Saudis will be as open-minded as you demand Israel to be? JW New York City

No, that much is obvious, because you don't accept that the right to residency is unaffected by a change of sovereignty i.e. your right to live on the land doesn't change; all that changes is your nationality. "When the war broke out both people were living on the land." - Yes, very good. "The Palestinans have a right to return to the Palestinian state; not to Israel." - I'd grant this *if* the land they were on prewar is inside "Palestinian", not inside "Israel". But, so sorry, it isn't. Israel claims sovereignty over the land in question. It's not a complicated concept, Tom. The land was not "terra nullis", so Israel gaining sovereignty over the land also obliges them to extend Israeli soverignty over the PEOPLE who lived on that land. Israel can't take the land and expel the people, any more than it can take the land and kill all the people. If Israel doesn't like that then it should cede the land back to the Pals and withdraw back to the Partition Lines.

The actual text of the Saudi proposal says the following: ""I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon. II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194."" Now please read UN General Assembly Resolution 194: http://www.jerusalemites.org/facts_documents/un/res194.htm which calls for the "right" or "permission" to return of the refugees and compensation IF they chose not to return without any qualification. Reality check for you Johnboy.

Clarify. Is it Arab leaders don't want to change the proposal but will negotiate the items in the proposal or do the Arab leaders demand the proposal be accepted as is and just want to discuss the details of its implementation. If it's the first, there is something to discuss. If it's the latter, everyone can stay at home.

These Arabs were living on that land. The Jews were not living on that particular land. Fighting. Killing. People running this way and that. I don't know what you're talking about. When the war broke out both people were living on the land. The Palestinans have a right to return to the Palestinian state; not to Israel. The Jews have a right to return to Isreal, not Palestine. That's a two state solution. It's not complicated.

Saudis dont want peace. They just want to maintain power. Pathetic. Who is worse, corrupt Sauds or Imans preaching hate and incitement?

"You`re basically saying that because Jews were expelled from their land for 2,000 years and Arabs have since conquered and settled on that land that those Jews have no right to return?" And the Jews who are squatting on that land NOW can prove that they are the direct descendents of those Jews who were ejected 2,000 years ago? Or are they simply unrelated people who happen to share the same religion as the people who were living there 2,000 years ago? Over to you, Steven, because you do appear to be the mouthpiece for a particularly virulent form of colonial expansionism disguised as religious fervour.

An oil well for every Jew! A Mercedes! A private jet! And one of those pyramids I built too! Those are my preconditions!

You say this proposal is a very bad deal for Israel which - of course - is not at all the same thing as saying that this is not a fair deal. So, Kipperaes, what's your idea of a fair agreement between Israel and the Pals? Is it this: 1) The Arabs recognize Israel 2) The Arabs normalize relations with Israel And in return: 3) Israel graciously agrees to annex everything behind the separation barrier. 4) Israel graciously agrees that it is keeping all of Jerusalem and therefore, so sorry, the pals have to look elsewhere for their capital. 5) Israel graciously agrees that the refugees all have to go away because, so sorry, they are getting nothing from Israel. 6) Israel graciously agrees that it will let the palestinians live on the bits of land that Israel doesn't want because, hey!, where else is Lieberman going to transfer all the Arab-Israelis? Something like that, maybe? Though I'm sure you'll tart it up with higher-sounding phrases.

And it's a whopper! Huge! Which is why it makes such a load THUMP! when Daniel knocks it over. "The Saudi so called initiative wants Israel to withdraw behind the pre-1967 cease fire" - ARMISTICE line, Daniel, but that's a minor nit. "AND apply the UN resolution 194" - nope, don't see Res 194 mentioned, just a determination in principle for a "just solution" to the refugee problem. "which means in no uncertain terms that ALL refugees and their families have the right to return to Israel." - whoah! Who put THAT there? Oh, yeah, that's right - Daniel did. Looking again at the Saudi plan...nope, it doesn't say that at all. It says a "just solution" to the refugee problem. The Saudi's neither insist nor expect that 5 million Arabs will flood into israel. But they expect the issue to be put on the table - both because it is only proper that the refugees be compensated, and because it is a very good bargaining chip to play at the right time.

You're basically saying that because Jews were expelled from their land for 2,000 years and Arabs have since conquered and settled on that land that those Jews have no right to return? You sound a mouthpiece for Islamic Jihad. The land is currently in the hands of its rightful owners, and should remain so.

Poor poor tiny Saudi Arabia demands large giant Israel give half it's land for a 24th Arab/Moslem country. (ps - look at a map) I think in Saudi Arabia we have plenty of room for Palestine. (problem solved) It seems the Arabs hate Israel more than they care about the daily murders of Moslems by Moslems going on in Iraq. hmm

..a set of principles that define the parameters of a negotiation, and the negotiations themselves. "So perfect there is no need to amend it, change it or alter it in any way, simply sign on the dotted line." No, read the Saudi proposal. It is a set of broad principles which all sides entering into negotiation agree is the eventual goal. It is not a peace treaty, with all the "t"'s crossed and the "i"'s dotted. And the Saudi's are right - unless you agree to a set of principles beforehand then the negotiations will simply meander all over the place and never - ever - reach any conclusion. I mean, without such a set of principles who is going to agree that the negotiations have even *reached* a conclusion? But, hey, you guys don't really want negotiations at all, do you? Your legal position is much too weak to allow you to get to keep all that you want, so you much prefer the status quo.

During the first Intifada, an important Jerusalem Arab newspaper editor (also a member of the PLO and the PNC) told a group of North American visitors to whom he spoke in East Jerusalem, that the largest problem his people faced was not Israel but (and I quote him verbatim) "My Arab brothers continue to be willing to fight to the last Palestinian". That is how it has been since they attacked reborn Israel in 1948; how it has been in all the wars they've lost since and they still have the nerve and the gall to demand that everything be restored to exactly the way it was before June of 1967 when they messed up big time and lost so much. It is amazing that more Palestinian intellectuals (and there are many) cannot see the angusihing failure of the Arab League on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. For nearly 60 years now, the Arab nations have maintained a steadfast refusal to do anything but settle for everything. Hence, not surprising they've achieved nothing.Perhaps they will never learn

Yes, BEN, you are right. But you do not understand the implications, do you? The strategic position for Israel has deteriorated so much since 2002 that the Arabs can now play Good Cop/Bad Cop on Olmert. The Saudi's do the tough-guy growl "Take it or leave it, Buddy", while the Jordanian's attempt the conciliatory "Give me something, please, coz we can't hold back the fanatics much longer". And you blithly think that Israel can simply dismiss all this diplomacy? Olmert tries the old "preconditions" trick to avoid committing to negotiation, and the Arabs simply brush it aside, quite contemptuously. Why? Because Israel's position is steadily growing weaker, and that of the Arab states is strengthening, as their relative influence over US policy changes. Olmert is gonna be dragged - kicking and screaming - by the Yanks into these negotiations, and the Saudi's know it. So they are in no mood to play Israel's silly word games.

When the UN makes Russia give back the northernly Islands to Japan and Borders in Europe go back to pre WW 1 borders Then we should talk about Israel giving their land won in war back.To many good Israeli fighting men lost their lives in 1967 and 1973 to the Arab nations nonsense. It will be a crime to give that land back and those familys that lost loved ones in that war should PROTEST LOUD AND DEMAND THAT THIS LAND IS NEVER GIVEN BACK.Olmert needs to step down A.S.A.P. he is the worst PM Israel ever had. The way it looks is he will make any deal so he has a way to stay in power. It's time to call for a no Confidence vote and throw this criminal out. He will bury Israel by himself

"Refugees or displaced persons might have a right (although in practice rarely if ever enforced) to return to a homeland or a place where their people are sovereign,..." "where their people are sovereign", you say. "Their people". Hmmm. Worth examining, that phrase... These Arabs were living on that land. The Jews were not living on that particular land. Fighting. Killing. People running this way and that. And when the smoke clears the Jews are sitting on that land, and the Arabs were Elsewhere. You are discriminating against them not because of their legal status, but because of their ethnicity, yet Israel is most definitely not supposed to be an apartheid state. These refugees want to come back to their land. They want to come back and be Israeli citizens, and nobody - but nobody - is claiming otherwise. That is, they want to be part of "their people" - the people of Israel. But you say NO, coz they are the wrong religion. Yet that's not apartheid, right?

Israel needs to tell the Arabs not interested. There are easier ways to commit suicide. This is a bad deal for Israel and one that underf no conditions with OLMERT making the deal in his position of being on his way out he will make a bad deal that Israel will regret later. Israel wake up you gave land back to the Palestians and all you have is armed terrorist on your border. What ever you do this is a very bad deal for Israel.

Israeli politicians hate their own people the way arabs do

""You are either serious about peace, or you are not. Israel is not. It will not even say wether it will negotiate based in the Saudi initiative. It will not put forward its own initiative in reply. It is not serious about peace."" The Saudi so called initiative wants Israel to withdraw behind the pre-1967 cease fire AND apply the UN resolution 194 which means in no uncertain terms that ALL refugees and their families have the right to return to Israel. Let's look at this proposal shall we? So 5 mil Arabs can come back to Israel a country with a Jewish population of...5 mil. Where are they going to settle?Who's going to provide jobs,education,infrastructure,health and age care for them?Unless...of course:get rid of the Jews and you solved the problem.Solve the Palestinian refugee problem by creating a Jewish refugee problem.Only 10 times bigger...That's what you call a serious peace proposal.War and the status-quo seem a lot better than such "peace" for Israel Johnboy

Kiwi do you make it a point to come here everyday with the same old yammering on and on with the typical leftie BS crap that all of you leftie parrots seem to screech over and over and over. Did anyone ever tell you that no matter how loud and ho many times you say these things still won't make them any less a lie then they already are. Some of your yammering includes "First steal the land" Yawn ... lie "ethnically cleanse' Yawn . . . lie "Steal their water" Yawn ... lie "oppress them like Jews in Germany" ... like you have any idea whatsoever what this even means? Not likely hon ... And then you go on and on and on with the most ridiculous exaggerations. I think you need to go out and pet a sheep and leave the ME to those who at least now and then read a book about it.

There will be an opening for Israel soon to conclude a warm peace Saudies, UAE, and other Sunni states -- as soon Iran performs its first test of a nuclear device. This test would change the thinking patterns of everybody in the Middle East, the Jews and the Arabs.

The King just called for a "halt to all forms of intervention in Iraq." That said comment was aimed more at the US than anyone did not go unnoticed. It came on the heels of rumors that the US understood the 'surge' had failed and the next move would be a coup to instal Alawi back in power. My point in bringing this up is that the House of Saud is sick and tired of chaos and disorder in the region. It wants the situation cooled down, not heated up. It understands the crucial facts that Iraq and the Israeli/Palestine war are the major sources of instability. Israel might well start thinking about how to make the best of the current Saudi peace initiative instead of trying to make the least of it. The "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques" could be a powerful and persuasive ally for Israel IF Israel understands the opportunity. The United States is finding out it can be a major power opponent if it's desire for peace and prosperity in the region is thwarted.

"Arabs VOLUNTARILY displaced themselves" And, therefore? A person is a refugee because he is unable or unwilling to return to his land because of the nature of the regime ruling over it, not because of the manner of his leaving. Or didn't zionist propaganda teach you that?

The issues of "refugees" of Jerusalem are not up for negotiation, especially not the former. The Arab countries have plenty of room to absorb those people and their descendents, Israel isn't doing it that's for sure. Israel is a JEWISH state, and should remain so, and any Jews who don't believe that can go and live in Ramallah with Amira Hass.

no other displaced persons in history have gotten. Refugees or displaced persons might have a right (although in practice rarely if ever enforced) to return to a homeland or a place where their people are sovereign, not to a specific territory, or to specific properties. As part of a two state solution the Palestinians need to be repatrated to Palestine and the Jews can "return" to Israel. If I were the Israeli's I wouldn't accept one Palestinian refugee back to Israel - they are not solely responsible so the burden shouldn't fall on them.

Asking the palestinians to stop the violence is putting the cart before the horse. The palestinians are using violence to try to rid themselves of a brutal occupier - Israel. You have it backwards. Israel needs to withdraw from the territories - THEN the palestinians will stop the violence.

This back and forth about who's demanding preconditions and who wants peace more than the other is pointless. Logically, the Saudis want a peace deal, if only to save their skins from the fanatics (many of whom the Saudis recklessly spawned). They're hemmed in by the radical demands of decades of propaganda, particularly on the so-called "right of return" issue. It's possible Israel could accept the plan and then the Arabs would negotiate a solution that doesn't involve a return of refugees to Israel proper. But the talkback readers have to understand that once Israel concedes the point, it's toast. If the Saudi's fall tomorrow, Israel has opened a Pandora's box that many others will use to force suicidal terms on it. Progress will require that this issue is finessed. But there's no way any of you should expect the Israelis to concede this principle and then "trust" that the other side will relinquish the implementation in later negotiations. That's asking an awful lot.

Your refference to Saudi Arabia as ( just another mandated territory, like Jordan, Saudi Arabia was created by outsiders.)is ill informed You are not expected to have a deep historical knowledge of every corner of the world, but if you want to use disparaging remarks about Saudi Arabia as a diversionary tactic from addressing the issue at hand , I am sure you can find plenty of material to do so but may I suggest You steer away from remarks which exhibit an embarrassingly obvious degree of ignorance. Saudi Arabia is the creation of King Abdul Azziz who united the tribes of the Arabian peninsula In a united kingdom under his rule much in the same way as Bismark united Germany.

Dear Editor: I just want to note that the Arab League is being disingenuous. UN RES. 242 (338) provide a clear frame work for negotiation. The Saudi Peace Initiative which is a positive step-is not a take it or leave it proposal. Israel, in the context of the Roadmap (US, UN, EU,and Russia-the Quartet):which is related to the Palestinians-is still in the overall fabric of the Middle East-the Arab nations must recognize Israel's sovereignty. They cannot set preconditions. This is a clear case in a long history of their stubborn refusal to recognize Israel. A refusal which has brought down on them a lot of destruction. Israel should challenge their so called intent. Their negativism is the problem. Moses Mordecai Twersky

Yaakov Sullivan has it absolutely right. Israel needs this peace deal not only to redeem itself, but to save itself. (Just take out the one clause about repatriation of refugees to Israel proper, which would be impossible to cope with).

can live with it.

Saudi's won't accept any pre-conditions to their pre-conditions. Great reason for not starting any sort of negotiations.

what is the 22% of arab land they will be getting in a state?? I assume you call it 22% because you think they should have all of israel despite the fact that they NEVER under any version of history had that. It was never their land to get back. Granted, neither is the west bank, but even more so the rest of israel. It was never even part of Jordan. Where do you get your historical ignorance from? As for a time when israel offered peace...how bout when Barak offered 98% of the west bank and was met with terrroism?? Boy do you have a short memory....historical ignorance is a funny thing.

Some morals you got there. You basically want freedom of movement for arabs even it garauntees the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of jews. Lets not forget which came first...."occupation" (1967) as you so incoreectly call it, or arab terrorism and refusal to accept anything israeli or jewish living near them (hebron riots in 1929).

The moral standards throughout the world is to kick out squatters, not reward them for their ill gotten time on the land.

And then they can negotiate the terms. No wonder they don't have many Nobel Prize winners.

TELL US HOW ITS DONE WINKIE ?? TELL US ALL CAN YOU MAKE YOURSELF ACUP OF COFFEE IF YOUR WIFE IS OUT ? IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN SHOULD TELL YOU ,YOU CANT FORCE PEACE ON ANY COUNTRY. IF YOU SEEE ASPARE BRAIN GO OUT AND CAPTURE IT !!

So perfect there is no need to amend it, change it or alter it in any way, simply sign on the dotted line. Especially no Jewish ideas/discussions are necessary as it is already a Perfect-praise-allah-document. After Jews accept it, discussions can be had under the one rule that no photographs are allowed of any Jew touching or shaking hands with a member of the Royal Family. Better you just keep your distance and agree to everything we say.

Sir, swallow your nonsense and read one day the fascinating story of the coming in existance of Saudi Arabia by two extroadinary men, the American adventurer Henry Detering and the formidable clanleader Ibn Abdl Al-Aziz Al Saud. The latter saw the importance of oil, sold it (propably the first Arab that sold oil) to Henry, bought weapons and men from it. Henry started a company called Shell, together they created Saudi Arabia by conquering all other clans and (oil)land, thus the House of Saud was created. Great stuff, like from a Spielberg movie. Too bad good old Ibn was a religious puritein regarding the Islamic scriptures. History took a bad turn.

"Two parties in a negotiation, both make preconditions and Haaretz slams the Israelis." The entire thrust of this article this that there is *no* negotiation. Israel refuses to commit to negotiation. Israel is insisting - as it always does - that preconditions be met before it will agree to negotiations. The Other Side is saying NO, you either accept or reject this initiative as a basis for negotions; you do not get to fiddle around the edges, kick the tires, and all the while mutter "Hmmmmm, hmmmm, hmmmmm, maybe, maybe...". If you want to haggle over the price then you gotta actually sit down across the table. The Other Side is sick to death of this prevarication. The Other Side saying No More Pussy-footing Around. You are either serious about peace, or you are not. Israel is not. It will not even say wether it will negotiate based in the Saudi initiative. It will not put forward its own initiative in reply. It is not serious about peace.

When will these arabs realise that Jews dont commit national suicide. The arabs from 1948 are displaced persons NOT refugees. There is NO WAY that jews will allow their enemies to take over by weight of numbers; NO WAY!!!!

..are not on it!! And ask if Saudi Arabia feels as Moslems and Saudis have the 2 main Moslem holy sites why Jews can't have their one holiest site in their hands.

Sullivan's streak continues. Certain bet, cash on the barrelhead, if it ever comes to a question of who Yaacov is going to back, and who he's going to bash, Yaacov will always back someone else and always bash the Jews. And reading his comments, its very clear to see that he agrees with the idea that Israel should kow-tow to an agreement that it held no part in designing and maybe kiss both cheeks of the Saud's for coming up with such a plan. That's how Yaacov, stands by the Jews. Yay Team!

In every other conflict throughout history people have moved. No one ever moves back. Certainly not until long after peace has been made. Israel wont the war and Jews moved back home to Israel and are still moving home. Some never left. Some have been home for centuries. Others for less than 100 years.

They are all of bunch of morons. The so-called peace plan is anything but. The very best news is that the Arabs still refuse to compromise in any manner. This was a stupid plan and the very idea that it could form anything more than war is just wrong. Even when our leaders are stupid enough to give into the Arabs the Arabs prove that they still can be even more inane than our leaders.

Nothing will ever be resolved by the Quartet, "Road Map", or any of the so called arab nations. The only way peace will come is when the pals stop being such babies who want all the toys.

Do you have an idea how much arabs left their homes in Palestine 1948. just because governments of arab states told them to do so, before attack on Israel? Why those governments doesn't want to offer sitizenships to them? Why insist to take them back in Israel?

If Saudis want peace..MAKE peace. They are the biggest hypocrites and largest danger to world peace. They speak different things out of each hole. If Arabs want peace..MAKE it! Israel has offered for decades. End this experiment in creating ANOTHER Arab Palestinian state. The only peaceful solution is to rename Jordan Jordan Palestine and make the border through Judea and Samaria with all Jewish holy sites including Temple Mount, the Holy of Holies, as part of Israel. Nothing else is reasonable. If Arabs cannot accept the fact that Jews were there first and Temple Mount is our holiest site there really is no point in talking to them anymore. Its a fact and predates anything Muslim and Arab.

most of the Arabs left because their leaders convinced them that they would return as conquerors to looted Jewish land and possessions. Arabs decided early in the 20th Century that they couldn't & wouldn't get along with the Jews.

I RECOGNIZE EVERY ARAB IN THE WORLD FOR WHO HE IS AND WHAT HE DOES AND THANK GOD I DO, OTHERWISE MY DEFENSIVE SATUS WOULD DETERIORATE

Ted, Could you answer this simple questions. Do you allow to your country to imigrate muslim people that would doubled the population of your country? Do you allow to be a minority within your country wiht the people that is already %20 of your population. There is 2 million Arabs and 4 million Jews Israelis now in Israel. If 4 Million Pals return to Israel could you imagine what would happened. Now I'm asking the same question to you. Is it fare to return this 4 million Pals to Israel. There is only one solution. The right to return for Pals to Palestine not to Israel. Aby

.... just another mandated territory, like Jordan, Saudi Arabia was created by outsiders. They should sit aside and shut up. They haven't done doodleysquat for the Palestinians for 60 years, and are actually wealthy enough to make Gaza and the West Bank the best commercial enteties in Middle East, so the only thing that remains very outstanding is their inflaming retoric so as to keep the flames outside of their borders and the perception as to who they really are fogged by the focus of hate pointed at Irael.

THe only language zionism understands is force?? you truly are a historically ignorant moron. Ask Egypt and Jordan if Israel understands the language of peace? considering they've been at peace for over 20 years, i'd say its an unqualified yes. What the Palestinians never understand is that Israel will meet force with overwhelming force...and the Palestinians continue to be the victim of that. History has proved that the Palestinians have gotten far more out of Israel with negotiation than with violence. In fact, they've lost so much as a result of the violence since 2000 (ironically whent the Palestinians were closest to a state of their own). What the Palestinians fail to understand is that they cannot build a state for themselves simply by destroying Israel. The only thing that accomplishes is total anarchy in the region, which serves nobody. I certainly hope you dont represent the views of the majority of Palestinians, otherwise there is no solution other than destroying you

To every offer of peace negotiations, Israel replies with some precondition(s). Good technique to say yes, but, and then not negotiate. Here is some list. PALESTINIANS: 1. Israel demands the Quartet's preconditions. By now, the Quartet does not demand that they be fulfilled explicitly, just that the government's policy should "reflect" them. Israel insists on explicit fulfillment. 2. Shalit has to be released before peace talks. (Nice way to avoid talks. Israel doesn't pay the price for Shalit and then no talks.) 3. Cease fire in Gaza and no suicide bombers. Of course, Israel reserves the right to attack Pals in the West Bank, and they respond from Gaza. Let them not response. SYRIA: 1. Syria has to stop supporting Hizballah and other terrorists first. (Syria is first supposed to give up its best means of pressuring Israel, then we will talk.) Some cease fire agreement would be better. DAUDI PLAN: 1. First remove the refugee clause. This is impossible for the Palestinians. They are willing to negotiate it away, but in return for something.

It's one thing to say that Israel should attend talks. It's another to demand that Israel accept Saudi preconditions for peace up front. That they insist on right of return and abandonment of holy places in Jerusalem indeed hint at the lack of peace to follow this acceptance.

Ane the Arabs, palestinian and other who fought in the Arab units with the British? Were they Nazis? As for youjr demographic figures from 1947, how can you say there were 300,000 when the zionists drove out over 600,000?

"Why do you assume that if the Jews living in Arab countries for millenia were so eagre to leave " They were de facto ethnically cleansed. Israel is not responsible for both set of refugees.

for next 500 years, we accept this.

israel did accept it decades ago, problam is with saudis and other primitive arabs.

The thieves want preconditions to the plan, how insulting. First steal the land, ethnically cleanse it of its native inhabitants, put them all in open air prisons and mock them because you have closed the borders to allowing an economy to develop. Steal their water, resources, olive trees and farms, oppress them like Jews were in Germany, use their children as shields, empty your entire cartridge of bullets into young girls, bomb them on the beach and the list goes on...the Arabs will sort out their own democracy in time with trade and western influence....but you zionists have not the right to precondition anything. Most peoples of the world don't believe in your book of God so that cannot come into the arguement. Just give back what you have stolen and live in a true democracy...one state for all is the only way. And pull down your offensive wall before we all boycott Israel and let her peoples starve behind it. One only needs read the posts here to see why Israel is condemned.

Just like having them blindly accept a overly flawed "peace" agreement that goes against every logical idea and every bit of history showing the arabs

and arafat did recognize each other in 1993, now new pal government took out this recognition, that is the problem.

The Saudi recocgnise that any binding and enduring agreement has to adhere to the basic principles of international law dealing with occupation of land by force and the issue of refugees. They are asking Israel for confirmation that negotiations will not veer away from Israel acceptance of security council resolutions 442 and 338 which are the relevant legal reference points for the Saudi peace plan.

The Saudi Foreign Minister is 1/2 correct. Preconditions over borders does meet the criteria over trying to have your way before negoiations even begin. The extent, if any, of border modifications from 1967 is not a pre-requisite for Israel's continued existence and any demand of what will be negotiated does smack of trying to fix the end result before the process has begun. On the other hand, no one willingly enters negotiations if the desired stated intention of the other side is to destroy your very basis of existence. The number of refugees accepted back maybe, but anything that threatens two states for two peoples is a non-starter. Israel has the right, and even the responsiblity, to request that this initiative pull back from its stated demand of an unlimited right of return. Something more like seeking justice for the refugees including reviewing posible compensation, resettlement in other countries, and the extent of the right of return is far more reasonable.

To every offer of peace negotiations, Israel replies with some precondition(s). Good technique to say yes, but, and then not negotiate. Here is some list. PALESTINIANS: 1. Israel demands the Quartet's preconditions. By now, the Quartet does not demand that they be fulfilled explicitly, just that the government's policy should "reflect" them. Israel insists on explicit fulfillment. 2. Shalit has to be released before peace talks. (Nice way to avoid talks. Israel doesn't pay the price for Shalit and then no talks.) 3. Cease fire in Gaza and no suicide bombers. Of course, Israel reserves the right to attack Pals in the West Bank, and they respond from Gaza. Let them not response. SYRIA: 1. Syria has to stop supporting Hizballah and other terrorists first. (Syria is first supposed to give up its best means of pressuring Israel, then we will talk.) Some cease fire agreement would be better. DAUDI PLAN: 1. First remove the refugee clause. This is impossible for the Palestinians. They are willing to negotiate it away, but in return for something.

doing nothing but continue the occupation which keeps anohteer people caged in like animals, deprived of their rights and whose every motion and movement is control by a foreign hostile military force. That too is a form of terrorism and it is forcing the occupied population to become more radicalised and less hopeful of the future. And it is taking its toll on Israeli society which has become used to this role as occupier. They have internalised what they are doing to others and have, as a result, become an increasingly violent and aggressive society with rising incidents of crime and corruptiom. There is a causal connexion between the two.

"Arabs always avoiding peace" - Shimon please tell me when the Arabs ever avoided a worthwhile peace with Israel, when did Israel ever offer the Arab world a sovereign and independent Palestinian state under which all Palestinians can live? Well the answer is it never has. "Saying Israel must do everything" - Well I think a solution under which the Palestinians retain only 22 per cent of their former territory is compromise enough. The proposal clearly states peace in return for a full withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories, it seems as though you're getting a pretty good deal in return? Do you want something more than peace? Quite clearly its Palestinian land you want.

The REALITY OF THE SITUATION - If Israel makes one mistake in settling this issue, Israel will become extinct. This has been the hope of its neighbors since day 1 - well before the creation Israel. In World War 2, the arab regimes backed Hitler. The Mufti of Jerusalem tried to have all Jews slaughtered. The Ba'ath party is modeled after the Nazi's. Lets call this what it is - pure and simple - HATE. In 1947 over 850K jews lived in so-called Palestine, with 300K palestinians. Jordan abandoned the Palestinians, Egypt did too. They both gave up land that was theirs, leaving it as Israel's problem. They could have established a palestinian state, but instead, they ran. If people could just respect each other, live in peace, enjoy our holy places, we would be at peace. I am sad for Israeli's and Palestinian's, I bet there are wonderful people in both cultures, but humans like to kill each other - get rid of religion, there's the answer.

Esther, these are staring, opening positions. As I have said before, both the Taba agreements and even the Saudi plan itself are not explicitly saying every single refugee must be returned to pre 1948 Israel. Let Israel meet the Saudis with their own proposal: admit Israel's complicit role in creating the paletinian catastrophe,2. an expressed willingness to pay compendation 3. Askkng the various Arab countries to investigate the loss of Jewish property and pay compensation 4. Discuss a compromise on the return of refugees where and how many. The Saudis are fully aware that Israel will not agree to the return of every single refugee whose families were expelled in 1948-49.

How can you have peace without recognition? Please answer that someone, anyone? If Palestinian people (Hamas) and other Arab countries (Saudi Arabia) want peace they would make sure Israel right to exist by Hamas. Than everyone talk til the cows come home about land, refugees, who has better hummus, whatever. As long as they both recognize each other first. Fromwhat I understand Israel wants a seperate, independent Palestinian state. Until than I don't see how any negotiations can take place.

Ted certainly ted. And the Germans should be invited back into Poland and east Europe? The Hindus and Pakistanis should trade people again? Why only Israel? Israel took in 600,000 refugees, raised the money and settled them. Israel is 2% of the Arab world. Take in 5 million refugees (that is what they are claiming are the descendents, and no more Israel, which is what they want.

Hardly enlightening us with your ad hominem attacks and drivel. Go post on JP or Arutz Sheva. Your attmpts to take over this site will not prove successful.

The ILGWU a union established by Jewish immigrants, that fought segregation and racism, could send an ignorant letter like this is unbelievably sad. The Saudi offer was and is a take it or leave it offer, not something to negotiate. The Arab side would flood Israel with 5 million Arabs who claim to be descendents from Arab refugees. Israel would cllapse. the 67 lines, which were cease fire lines, not negotiated lines, leaves Israel with a narrow middle, that could be easily cut. Israel has offered compensation from Israel land for realistic lines. The Saudi proposal rejects this. Israel the rejectionist party? The land give backs in Gaza and Sinai the withcrawals over and over again, the Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel AND ALL JEWS (read their charter) mean nothing to, of all people, the ILGWU house! too sad, when a building we built, and died for, falls into the hands of the ignorant, who call for our vdesteruction.

Two parties in a negotiation, both make preconditions and Haaretz slams the Israelis. Where else but Israel?

How is israel supposed to make peace and expect peace with terrorists who have no care what any arab governmet says?? Fatah, eventhough they are lying through their teeth, claims they want peace. And if, by impossible chances, they DO, what aboue hamas? jihad? all the others?? They dont all listen to eachother. Giving up land that you own fr a temporary fake peace with liar terrorists with blood on their hands that doesnt even include half of the population is sad and pathetic.

They have never done anything for any peace agreement...only demand that israel give up everything and get nothing in return. That is not peace....its diplomatic terrorism

What will be there to discussif Israel accepts those terms. Also,withwhom does Israel discuss terms with. The Arabs always have to have someone as a go between. When one really wants peace, they will sit down with the opposite party and discuss the problem. When a third party is involved,one party isn't going to be honest.

Jews didnt willfully leave all arab countries...they were kicked out and murdered. Where is their compensation?? Or do you have such an intense hatred for jews that its ok to kick them out and not pay them, but when arabs willfully leave their homes, the whole world must be turned upside down until israel suffers more?

The only point that is totally unacceptable in the Saudi proposal is return of refugees to Istael proper. The rest is negotiable.

NOTHING. They havent done anything except incite hatred and terrorism. They havent done anything excpet ask insane demands of israel for nothing in return. ARABS MUST FIRST PROVE THEY ARE CAPABLE OF PEACE....SOMETHING THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO PROVE BEFORE (like starting every war against israel, just as one example)

They want israel to do everything and MAYBE they will be able to stop some terrorism?!?! That isnt peace...thats suicide!! The arabs have never come through once for peace....why on earth should israel give up everything on the false assumption they will start now?!

Saying that israel must do everything and only then will we be peaceful, maybe, despite the fact we have never come through on anything.....not really a peace agreement. Not a negotiation.....a command by arab thug terrorisms.

Its the arabs way of avoiding peace!!! All they have to do is say something psychotic, like israel has to give them a country, and then let all their citizens come to israel leaving the arab country empty, and When israel rightfully calls them crazy, they blame israel?

If arabs cant even stop terrorism, which is the ENTIRE point of peace, to stop violence, WHY SHOULD ISRAEL EVEN BOTHER!?! Arabas have lied about doing things time and time again, and when israel followed their part (like giving weapoins at oslo) arabs didnt do theirs (used the weapons against israeli innocent civilians)

Israel has preconditions because they know the arabs too well and know they have never come through on ANYTHING!! The arabs must prove themselves, not the other way around. Its the arabs who have avoided every peace deal in history dating back to the 1930s, not israel. Israel asks only reasonable requests...like recognizing them. HOW IS THAT TOO HARD FOR THE ARABS?!

Everyday, every article, you make the same point: you hate Israel. We don't need you to post endlessly for us to understand your very simple line of thinking. Just assume we've gotten the point already and get a hobby.

Thw whole idea of even entertaining the Saudi liquidation plan is insane. By the way, the Saudis have not given proper credit to Arafat - they stole his intellectual property.

Yes, I agree with your post. We have seen Israel do this time and time again. These are nothing but ruses to prevent real negotiations, but to demand what they want before negotiations. This is not real

under pressure from Arafat the Egyptian amongst others.

To find out if there is wiggle room in the Saudi plan.

yes, accept the plan in concept, then negotiate the details. preconditions mean that the Israelis want the Arabs to give up their points before Israelis negotiate.

You seem to have your mouth connected to your brain through your behind. Talk some sense not rubbish.I hope you're not talking on behalf of the Israeli people.

Or perhaps the Palestinians have an attachment to their land that is as strong as the Jews and they simply did not want to give up their right to return or be compensated for what was taken from them. Why do you assume that if the Jews living in Arab countries for millenia were so eagre to leave and go settle in Israel, that the palestinians who were driven out would not desire to go back to their homes?

The short-sighted Israeli leaders had rather live by the sword. We all know where this mentality leads, and I hope it happens sooner rather than later, because we want our Galilee homes back.

We Saudis could have paid for all the refugees to be relocated anytime in the last fifty years without even noticing the cost. But no, we wanted to use the Palestinians as a weapon against Israel. Nothing has changed.

...will we be willing to talk about them" say the Saudis. No negotiations take place based on non-negotiations, and the Saudis know it!!!

The Saudis know Israel will not accept certain positions. They expect to haggle with Israel and reach a deal. Have you never bargained in the Old City shuk?

PEACE!!!!!! You want Peace with THEM!!!!!!! You want to COMPROMISE with THEM!!!!!!!!!!! Are you meshuggah? No way! No to peace, no to negotiations, no to compromise. What Israel has to do is build higher walls, erect more electrified fences with moats, tear down more houses and fileds to do it. Enter their towns and destroy and kill to teach them a lesson that our livesd are sacred and their are worth less than an old donkey. Kill 10 of every one of ours! Thats what Israel must do, says this poster from plano, out on the texas plain.

This "plan" goes back more than 20 years! It is the same of the ages--get rid of the Jews! This attempt from al-Faisal is just like a used car salesman--rolling out another car--the same one repainted. PLEASE, do your homework. This is NOT a "way of doing business." This is about politicized Arabs and militant Muslims preparing to destroy Israel. READ PSALM 83 and WEEP! Or prepare to do REAL "business" and remove your enemies' threat!

As usual, attack me and not what I stated. Or disprove it. Go back to Barak and look closely at the so called 'generous offer" Uri Avnery cleared up that myth for us. As for the truth of the matter, all I have to say to you is: wait, wait, miss kohen, and prepare your response, because as sure as we are posting here, Israel will preset conditions before it will discuss anything. Refer back to my posting which you attack and see if I am not at least 80% correct, at least on the question of refugees (no counter Israeli proposal) and a comittment to immediately begin dismantling the colonies as was promised to the US. Wait and see. The get back to us with your twisting rationalisations and playing the victim card.

Let me see if I'm getting Saudi Arabia's position straight -- first Israel agrees, then negotiates???!!! JW New York City

"The Saudis urged Israelto accept an Arab initiative first proposed in 2002 and discuss details later" Didn't these people heard about the saying that "the devil is in the details". How are you going to accept a propossal without knowing the details? Why are we always running after these people and begging for peace and legitimacy? We should not even address these outlandish proposal.

You are nothing but an agent provocateur. I am certain that even the kingdom knows that what you are saying is absolutely untrue. They are sophisticated people.

Israel can offer a return to discussing issues for the first time since Taba 2001, using the Saudi Initiative as the basis for negotiations, if the following happens: Shalit released, Total ceasefire and total freeze on arms smuggling, Palestinian acceptance of the Saudi Plan (a two state plan) as the basis. If met, in negotiation, Israel should seek mutual recognition, to draw an agreed border that approximates the Green Line but with some land swaps, aid for and symbolic recognition of refugee rights without a literal return to Israel, a demilitarized Palestinian state, a shared (administratively divided) Jerusalem, prisoner releases. And a deal that is held up by completion of Step 1- full disarmament of militants. In return, Palestinians get an end to occupation, robust economic aid, geographic viability, independence and recognition. Knowing what they'll get, Palestinians are likely to support such a compromise making Hamas rejection politically unsustainable.

Interesting that Israel needs to set up preconditions to talks - preconditions are nothing but an underhanded way of refusing talks without saying it outright.

Israel knows how to do two things well when it comes to negotiations. To say no,is one, and the other is to preset so many conditions on its partner that it becomes a non-starter. An example,Israel will say you must stop all attacks on Israel, collect every gun and pistol in Palestine,round up all"terrorists" ans shut down their parties after the members are imprisioned,recognise Israel as it is presently configured and then and only then will be discuss the possibility of discussions and after that we might consider taking down an outpost that consists of an outhouse and a trailer and you better be damn glad of our generosity and risk taking for the sake of peace which is our supreme concern. Oh, an by the way we demand that you eliminate the word "refugee" from all proposals and accept our definition of giving you control over the Temple Mount with us on the ground and you in control of the air above. That's how Israel negotiates. The Saudi prince is correct. Lets see what condy does

when will israel stop coddling itself like a victim? more important, when will the international community make them stop thinking of themselves as the victim?

Saud al-Faisal? Ne plus ultra. Timeo quoque condoleeztas solanasque et dona ferentes.

"You cannot have negotiations like that, you ACCEPT the proposals then you talk about this" Maybe this explains why peace agreements with Arab States are meaningless - they think ACCEPTING an agreement means that you then get to NEGOTIATE.

isnt it obvious that the israeli government does not want peace? peace would bring in more palestinians (as refugees) would raise the ridiculously low wages of the palestinians (if they're able to work in israel at all) and would prevent israel from stealing resources and destabilizing palestinian infrastructure (for example, the mass amounts of water being siphoned from qalqilya). israel has no desire for peace, so why would it compromise?

I think you are wrong. The way things are going, it is obvious that Londonistan, and much of the rest of Western Europe, will be taken over long before the U.S.A.

Why not call their bluff and accept the proposal "IN PRINCIPLE" and then ask for direct negotiations?

A proposal, containing very specific conditions, is put forward. That is totally acceptable. However, when the other side states its objection to some of the specific conditions laid out in the original proposal, and proposes its conditions, that is totally unacceptable. The person who made the original offer then says, "This seems a ludicrous way of doing business." Well. I've been to the Suq, and it sounds exactly the way business is done there. I know that bargaining for a rug is often, in some ways, similar to what goes on in international negotiations, but in this case, it strikes me that al-Faisal's manner of undertaking diplomacy is ludicrous. Am I missing something?

the world knows zionism cannot settle with peace. like satan it loves fire, so it is a waste of time for palestinians doing any thing other than preparing for liberation through force, the only language zionism understands

Israel continues to prove it does not now nor ever has really wanted peace, but the land and water resources of the Palestinians. The world must force Israel to accept peace by simply enforcing UNSCR 242 and other UN resolutions already on the book rather than allow Israel to once again construct roadblocks at every turn

If the Jews are allowed to come back after 2,000 years of being away, then why are the Palestinians not allowed to come back after 50?

Let us define what conditions for talks are. Israel and the Quartet insist that the PA government, which includes Hamas, recognize Israel's sovereignty and renounce terror. These are conditions that make it possible for the parties to sit at the same table and negotiate about issues such as borders. You, on the other hand, have decided already what the outcome of those negotiations ought to be. That is not how one approaches negotiations.

Muslim way is mostly negotiation and listen even one dislike or disagree. You even you hold so high position listen all I have to tell even you could experience me as boring, unpleasant or opposite. It is cultural pattern. Jews have strong hierarchical structure where one never or very seldom meets on the same level. Similar is with Western structure. It can irritate us, make very angry. If I were you, I would take a break in negotiations with Israel for month or two to see how it will go.

the saudis want israel to accept a deal it was not part of during developing the deal? how about israel come up with a deal whereby the saudis must give israel 10% of oil rev. the saudis will have to accept it and then we'll talk about the details,,, how would you like that deal?? you cant push a deal on someone else.

get to deal. until then lots of noise, faded being offended, in this case saudi pre-conditions are a no deal. so they have to come back. they have to show better cards first.

Israel should reject the Saudi Crap that is made in hell at the detriment of Israel. The fact is the Saudis are the Chief Sponsor of Islamist-Jihadist terrorisms and the Chief Exporter of Hate Preachers preaching hate against Jews and Christians around the world. The Saudis are also the Chief Crusader of fundamentalist-Wahhabi-Islamist-Jihadism around the world. No one should forget that Saudi-Wahhabist savages attacked America on 9/11. Read "Secrets of the Kingdom" [2005] by Gerald Posner, "Preachers of Hate" [2004] by Kenneth R. Timmerman, and "Hatred's Kingdom" [2003] by Dore Gold PhD.

that the entire arab world want to eradicate Israel first, then the USA and then us in London.

The Arabs by now know that they would be attending useless peace talks if at some point in the conference (the beginning, middle, end)they didn't recognize Israel's existence. So, if they still insist on continuing, what's Israel got to lose by attending? If the Arabs just use the conference to harangue Israel, Israel can always walk out. Incidentally, I love mideast food, I accept an invitation to the conference.

Israel is a dictator always telling people and setting preconditions bt never accepting any. Israel doesn't want peace never has, every attepmt towards peace is sunk by israel and blamed on everyone but itself. It is a disgrace that people go along with this. Leadership involves leading and negotiating and not dictating terms. Peres who is regarded as a hawk in terms of peace is a dictator and has never wanted peace. Recognition is a two way process if Israel wants it then it needs to recognise a Palestinian state back. It is askign for recognition first for itself and not the other way. Why not mutual recognition? Strange how no one ever questions this. Look at the atacks launched by Pipes and co on those Jews who question Israeli policy. Such disgusting attacks and everyone accepts it. Melanie Phillips is another one. Recognition is a two way thing, Israel wants to stop Palestinians coming back but wants to neotiate settlements.

Israel needs a leader who must respond to these Saudis, whenever they decide to slam Israel. It is important not to allow these multi-faced fundamentalists to patronize Israel nor give Her a lecture on how to fend off ongoing waves of Hate Propaganda. The Saudis so called kings and princes should look over their shoulders, Al Quaida is watching, waiting for the right moment to cut them down. I suggest they make it a priority to normalize relations with Israel quickly and without any preconditions, so that theses oppressing dictators could be provided of much needed Israeli protection.

The Saudi precondition for peace is Israel's suicide. Racist Arab Muslim bigots never have accepted Israel as a Jewish state. The Saudi plan is nothing but the plan for Israel's suicide: 1)Israel abandon the Golan, E. Jerusalem, Judea & Samaria. Like the GAZA MODEL, Jews will be ethnically cleansed from these areas. Missiles and terrorist armies will be moved in for attacks on Israel. 2) Israel must allow millions of Arab Muslims to fraudulently "return" and flood Israel with a Muslim army that will destroy us from within. 3) Arab Muslim armies and terrorist groups will make a mass attack on an Israel too small to defend herself. 4)Israel will be destroyed and replaced with an Islamic state that will become the 23rd member of the Arab League, 58th member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

You rarely see anything in the mainstream that discusses the fact that Israel instantly rejected the road map with U.S. support. They formally accepted it but added 14 reservations that totally eviscerated it. It was done instantly. It is the same with this Saudi proposal. It's a good proposal and the entire Arab League has agreed to it but Israel is once again the rejectionist party.

Saudi Arabia should be enemy number one in the region for the US, above Iran. We have never been attacked by Iran but we have by Saudis....the only time america was attacked indirectly by Iran was when the US went to Lebanon, a place it had no business being and tried to enforce its will...and supported the Christian minority. Imagine Iran making deals and stationing troops in Guatemala or Mexico? The US would go nuts! Well, that is their sphere of influence.

Saudi Arabia should drop the conditions about returning to pre 1967 borders and the so called right of return and say to Israel,"lets sit down and talk about peace". Israel will be a willing partner. If Israel gives away everything before talks, what is there to talk about?

the saudi's say "We only hear of conditions from Israel about everything, but no acceptance". what about hamas' acceptance of israel? why should israel negotiate with an entity that refuse to acknowledge them? like he himself says, "you accept the proposals then you talk about this". so, hamas, do it and israel will talk. it's only fair, no?

SAUDI HAS MADE PRECONDITIONS!! DO THESE IDIOTS HAVE THEIR MOUTHS CONNECTED TO THEIR BRAINS