Sarkozy: Failed peace talks leading to intifada

Here is SDHD-logic at work: A) Arafat rejected the Camp David offer. B) Arafat was offered East Jerusalem at Taba. C) THEREFORE Arafat rejected an offer that included East Jerusalem. Anyone with a brain would recognize that SDHD-logic is flawed i.e. (A) + (B) does not get you to (C). For SDHD to demonstrate that (C) is true he would have to show that either/or (i) East Jerusalem was offered to Arafat at Camp David (it was not). (ii) Arafat rejected the offer that was put to him at Taba (he did not). SDHD:"Miguel Moratinos says Johnboy is dishonest" Moratinos does not say that Arafat REJECTED the Taba offer. Arafat didn't, precisely because the Taba "offer" was withdrawn by Barak as soon as it looked like Arafat was going to accept it.

JB: "There was no map, SDHD" SDHD: "http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm" This is the map that Ross drew long after Camp David, and which includes within it this: "While no map was presented during the final rounds at Camp David, this map illustrates the parameters of what President Clinton proposed and Arafat rejected" SDHD: "Moron." How odd: SDHD has shown me a map that SAYS WITHIN IT that no map was actually show to Arafat, and yet SDHD is not only stupid enough to claim that this is the map that was shown to Arafat, but he has the unmitigated gall to then call me the moron! Very odd indeed....

Moratinos directly refutes your claim that East Jerusalem wasn't offered, or any of that balderdash about bantustans. And where does Malley claim otherwise? Dropping a name doesn't cut it. I provided you with a direct refutation from a first-person, neutral party. What did you provide? A mindless restatement of your premise.

So say you without any substantiation, par for the course. I suggest you read Dennis Ross's support, along with Martin Indyk and others of Robert malley and his views on the Camp David summit. They came to his defense when he was slandered by the zionist right wingers. As fopr the "generous offer" theory, I suggest you go to the Gush Shalom website and read what that offer consisted of and then get back to us. But of course one suspects that your ilk will simply retort that that organisation is not trustworthy because you cannot refute their facts. Good luck on your mission. As for the whole enchillada, it clearly is Israel that is working toward that goal.

As I said, you are wrong. Not surprising. They were not offered East Jerusalem. Barak was talking about communities like abu dis, neighbourhoods, not the East Jerusalemas the Capital of Palestine. The palestinians justly were seeking all of the WB, not 94%. As for the portion of land Israel was proposing, I suggest you see what that land was. Like I said, go back and read Robert Malley's account.

SDHD: "Miguel Moratinos says Johnboy is dishonest" Be truthful, SDHD: you don't know your "Taba" from your "Camp David", do you? Moratinos was reporting on the TABA negotiations, not the CAMP DAVID negotiations. NO MAP WAS OFFERED AT CAMP DAVID, and so Arafat could not accept an "offer" that he could not actually measure up. A MAP WAS OFFERED AT TABA, and Arafat was willing to stay at Taba until a deal was done. Of course, the moment that Barak saw that a deal was going to be done he got up and ran away as fast as his little legs could take him.....

After all, a fourteen justice panel at the International Court in the Hague said they must be dismantled and void and since Israel hasn't done neither the Palestinians are justified in their action. Then let's watch those illegal settlers tell the world about the right to exist in Palestine in this hostile immigrant world and watch how Israel will be boycotted bang on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dutch

http://prrn.mcgill.ca/research/papers/moratinos.htm For example: "The Israeli side sketched a map presenting a 6 percent annexation, the outer limit of the Clinton proposal....The Israeli side adhered to a maximum 3 percent land swap as per Clinton proposal." That equals 97% equivalent of the West Bank. Then read the part about Jerusalem too, uninformed idiot.

SDHD: "He rejected 97% of the territories," JB: "The map, please, SDHD....." It's in Dennis Ross' book, imbecile. You need a map to know that 97% was very clearly offered by the Israeli cabinet? Moratinos also made notes that it was 97%, blithering boob. "The map that shows how contigous that state would be......?" Too bad you think only a map which you don't believe exists prove the case. That's because you're a halfwit. " There was no map, SDHD" http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm Moron. "As for East Jerusalem, that we know: Israel would have sovereignty over ALL the old city, and the Pals would share "custodianship"" WE know no such thing, numbskull. That fallacy resides in your fevered imagination. "What Barak offered as a CAPITAL was merely the dusty old village of Abu Dis within the "municipal boundaries of Jerusalem"." The sticking point was over the Temple Mount, dolt. Arafat wanted the Western Wall.

SDHD: "He rejected 97% of the territories," The map, please, SDHD..... SDHD: "CONTIGUOUS, no bantustans," The map that shows how contigous that state would be......? SDHD: "and E. Jerusalem as a capital." Annnnnnnnd, the map....? There was no map, SDHD, and so there was no way of working out how Barak calculated his "3%" (e.g. did he exclude Jerusalem? What about the Latrun salient?), nor how "contiguous" his concept of "contiguous" was. As for East Jerusalem, that we know: Israel would have sovereignty over ALL the old city, and the Pals would share "custodianship" (what the hell is that?) of the Muslim Quarter with Morocco. I kid you not, SDHD: M.o.r.o.c.c.o. What Barak offered as a CAPITAL was merely the dusty old village of Abu Dis within the "municipal boundaries of Jerusalem". Barak was insisting that the Pals could rename Abu Dis to "Quds", and then Arafat could say that this village was "East Jerusalem" i.e. Barak was insisting upon a farce.

You've refuted nothing by name dropping. It's very well recorded that 97% of the territories, contiguous, were offered to the Palestinians with a capitol in E. Jerusalem.

thats where you are wrong jon. isrl broke the oslo accord the very first day, by building on more arab lands. the world knows this the arabs reacted, and you want to blame them for it? just like a jew to blame the others for something isrl broke. sheesh.

you said palestine must be aviable and modern state like the other Moslem countries. Palestine is not a Muslim country. its a country that practiced Judaism and Christianity, and Islam. the Muslims believe in the Torah and they believe in the Bible and they believe in the Koran. the Muslims believe that God sent down the Torah first, than sent Jesus to correct the ways of those who went astray, which is when Christianity was born. then God sent the Koran, because many people swayed from the teaching of the Bible, so in reality all three religions r an extension of each other. But to hear the teaching of the evangalists and the jews, you would think the Muslims were nothing but terrorists. living in a backwards world. everyone preaches tolerance but do not take their own words to heart. we do not give them the chance to act on their own, we just keep invading them. this is their reality, and they are sick of it.

Malley's boss provides the exact parameters. Can you post something by Malley which directly refutes the 97% of the territories, contiguous and E. Jerusalem as a capitol assertion? I doubt it, because that's exactly what was offered.

The terms of the offer were very clear. Even Agha and Malley acknowledged the 97% of the territories deal. You can try to prove me wrong by indicating where Malley states that the territories weren't contiguous... Good luck!

Sarkozy, in typical French fashion, gets it wrong again.

Lincoln, genius, how can Bibi "Savage" the West Bank with 500,000 Israelis living there. Clearly, you have never been to the West Bank. I bet you haven't even been to Israel. Sittin' in Houston, writing jibberish from your armchair doesn't qualify you to offer your ramblings as fact.

Malley is a fantasy revisionist. I'd much prefer the account of Dennis Ross or Clinton himself. It was not two states he wanted, but one. The whole enchilada. Who can forget Aratfat exclaiming, I'm not asking for the moon.

Once the Israeli right has forced another infitada, as Sharon did the last one, they will be 'shocked, shocked,' that Palestinians will fight back. They will be glad to point out how the resistance of the Palestinians 'proves' there can never be peace. And they will blame the Palestinians for causing the whole problem. They will forget, and hope the world forgets, that the Palestinian Authority has done a very good job of keeping things quiet in the West Bank as the Netanyahu government has systematically cause an ever worsening series of provocations leading to the crisis. There is nothing in peace that would help the Israeli right retain control of the nation. Thus the Israeli right does everything it can to create havoc. When the Netanyahu campaign to create an new infitada succeeds, the Israeli right will, with glee, point to that fact as proof peace is impossible. Peace is impossible. The people who rule Israel would lose if peace happened.

"He rejected 97% of the territories, CONTIGUOUS, no bantustans, and E. Jerusalem as a capital. He accepted that offer a year or so later." - SDHD Where did you get that Idea? East Jerusalem was not on the table, much less to be given to Palestine. And how can one subtract the settlements from the area of the West Bank and have 97% left?

Agha and Malley even support the 97% of the territories statements. Where does Malley state that the territories were bantustans? Hmmm?

How come that everybody forget that, ISRAEL is Gods, land. And He has spoken that he have given it to The Jews. And that the Arab and anybody else, have no heritage in Jerusalem. God bless Israel and the Jews.

Sarkozy, the Palestinians and even the US are offering to recognize Israel's conquests from its creation to May 1967, despite the ban Israel agreed to on acquiring land by conquest. That is a HUGE CONCESSION that Israel is not offering to reciprocate in any way. The Palestinians have even said they'd recognize Israel as a Jewish state and welcome Jewish people to be Palestinian citizens after a settlement is achieved. But that would require that Israel allow a sovereign Palestinian state that is independent. Bibi is demanding everything Hamas demands.

"I suggest you read Robert Malley`s account of the talks and see the role played by Barak in making sure the talks would not advance. Your account is incorrect." I suggest you read Malley yourself, among several other people with first-hand accounts. The Palestinians were offered all of gaza, 94% of the West Bank, a 3% equivalent swap from Israel proper, and a capital in E. Jerusalem. The territory was contiguous. No bantustans.

Jerusalem will always be united and will continue to belong to the Jewish people. If arabs want to live there they will have to accept the Jewish State's rules. It's easy to accept it if they want real peace.

SDHD: "Is that why Israel is recognized within the green line by everyone save the Arab and Muslim countries?" cummings was taking about DE JURE recognition. You are talking about DE FACTO recognition. They are two different things. SDHD: "When you`re talking about removin every single Jew from lands which have had a Jewish presence for over 3000 years, it`s the Palestinians who are demanding the "free land," ignoramus." A "Jewish presence" is not "sovereignty". That *was* granted to the Arabs in 1947, and that can not be usurped by any neighbouring state. SDHD: "Occupying the land is not illegal." If you maintain an occupation so that you can colonize then, yes, the occupation has become illegal. SDHD: "Jews reclaiming their properties is not illegal." They are also "Israelis", and so FOR AS LONG AS ISRAEL IS THE OCCUPIER those Jews can not "reclaim" their property i.e. they have to wait until the occupation ends. That's what the law says, SDHD.

They all speak of the same parameters that are needed to reingnite negotiations: shared capital in Jerusalem, return to 1967 borders or equitable and agreed upon land exchange, cessation of all settlement activity, and a settlement of the refugeee question. Yet on every single one of these agreed upon goals, Israel is in violation. It continues to build, its settlements make a viable state impossible, it is by its building expansionism cutting off Jerusalem from the WB, it is dispossessing families in East Jerusalem and stating emphatically that Jerusalem is not on the agenda. Israel continues to raise tensions by this "Heritage site" nonsense and building of a "Museum of Tolerance" over a Muslim cemetery. A record of nothing but recalcitrance and defiance. Doesnt Sarkozy see that and how such unilateral and illegal actions make a viable Palestinian state an impossibility?

Israeli settlers, Hamas, IDF, Fatah,and Israel ..... It would be good if all violence stopped. Violence is nothing more than an ever intensifying cycle which began with land being taken from Palestinians. Gaza was not vacated by the IDF because of any good intentions. Israel vacated Gaza because it determined it was more cost-effective to withdraw the military than to sustain such a large presence for those few settlers. Since then Gaza has been treated by Israel like a ghetto similar to the Warsaw Ghetto. Maybe Israel should be satisfied with the country it was originally given by the UN rather than continued expansionism. Maybe it should consider paying Palestinians fair value for all the land it has taken over the years or allow the right of return. Maybe it should consider treating Palestinians as equal human beings. Those are the steps towards peace.

No crusade, no war, only Jews in exile under foreign rule. Sounds nice to you, doesn't it? A sweet dream, unfortunately, because we're here for good, dear hostile.

I suggest you read Robert Malley's account of the talks and see the role played by Barak in making sure the talks would not advance. Your account is incorrect.

Netanyahu not only wants to block peace, he wants a reason to Savage the West Bank as Israel savaged Gaza. Sarkozy might as well shut up.

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." (Patton) You mean the Germans are calculable while the French are not. Maybe. The French remain my personal deception whereas my fellow countrymen in Germany are a reliable harshness. You're right. I don't like fear mongering either. It's no better than asking the Pals to put up with bullying occupiers and land grabbing settlers. My preferred solution would surely still lie in bilateral judiciousness of Israelis and Palestinians.

Sarkozy should shut up and stay out of fueling the Middle East conflict. All he does is feed in the Taqiyya (deceit) of the Islamist-Jihadists to be fooled and manipulated by them to do their dirty work of crusading their Jihadism on Israel with this kind of crap. His alarmist cry is nothing but helping the dark forces advance their usurpation ambition.

Pretty much everything John said was incorrect. Both Camp David 2000 and Olmert's plan had defined borders, Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, and the overwhelming majority of Palestinian requested land to be given to them. Your ad hominem attack against Israeli leadership is stupid. All troubles with politicians surface after election or appointment so your point is moot. Go jump off a bridge.

the other 22 Moslem states?

Hi Hemingway, I'd love to read that link can you check the address given though it doesn't come up when I google it, all i see is post that have this address listed but not website comes up. Can you advise the address and the name of the site thanks Eli alwayslearning@live.ca

"If there are no talks .... we take the risk, the international community, of a third intifada." If we do nothing it will be a catastrophe," he added. You are wrong, Mr President, israel will be the one who takes the risk, there will be no suicide bombers on your buses, at your cafes, bars, clubs etc... Your life and the lives of the French people will continue with no fear of being blown up, maimed or killed for just going about your daily business. Well luckily for Israeli's the chances of this are reduced as there is a fence in the way of would be terrorists. And its done a better job of keeping physical peace ( a limited definition, i.e. no actual attacks) than you and your quartet have ever done. Amazing, EU is not as functional to the security of Israeli as a big fence, even if they'd like to empathize

you say that the military conquest of East Jerusalem in 1948 by Jordan was legal but the conquest of East Jerusalem in 1967 by Israel is not... So which is it? Jerusalem the international city as per the UN? Or a partitioned city pre-1967? I say the spoils of war should go to the victor...

sc "Is that why Israel is recognized within the green line by everyone save the Arab/Muslim countries?" Wrong! NO country recognises the Green Line as Israel?s border as it has not been ratified by the two parties. *When you`re talking about removin every single Jew from lands which have had a Jewish presence for over 3000 years, it`s the Pals who are demanding the "free land," ignoramus.? Wrong again! The UN drew the boundary, not Palestine. Israel is on the 'free land' side of it, not Palestine. Land thieves! Incidentally, there were virtually no Jews in the West Bank in 1947 outside of Jerusalem, hadn?t been for some 3,000 years. ?.. you can`t "give back" land which never belonged to the other party in the first place, sock-puppet.? Mmm, 3 in a row. On my UN map, it definitely shows the WB as ARAB, not Israeli territory. PS I am working on modern law post 1945, if you?re relying on ancient fables, they don?t count in court today I'm afraid. Less bile, more brain needed.

but this is 2010... and Israel took Jerusalem via Military conquest in 1967... Just like in 1949 when the Arabs took the East part of the city and the Jews had to accept this (it did not inhibit the establishment of Israel)... So to should the Arabs of today Accept that Jerusalem is no longer under their jurisdiction... The sooner they accept this the sooner there will be peace in the mid east.

The French, the US, the Brits all say the same thing and give the same criteria for the formation of a Palestinian state: 1967 borders, shared Jerusalem, settlement of the refugee question. To all of these Israel has said: NO, NO, NO. It continues its policy of displacement and dispossesion. It continues to expand its eastern and southern flank colonies that will cut off EJ from the WB, amking a viable state concept a fiction. Then we have the recent statement on "World Heritage sites", targeted assasinations, building a "Museum of Tolerance" over a Muslim cemetery. And France, the US and UK actually think that Israel is working toward what they envision as the permanent solution of the conflict? Israelis doing nothing of the kind but exacerbating the already volatile situation.

Funny how one day "we offer contiguous territories, no bantustans and East-Jerusalem as capital" and the next day "we will keep building on our historical land" and "Jerusalem will never ever be divided". Can't wait !!!! otherwise it's just chit-chat.

made by a poster yesterday. "Even if the plan was implemented, there would be more Jews than there are Arabs in the designated areas that were suppose to form an Arab state according to the Partition. This would mean that the Palestinian State would be predominantly Jewish according to the UN Partition and the residents in these areas today, Again, your plan is not what the Palestinians need, nor is it in their interests unless of course Israelis in these areas were to be expelled, creating a bigger refugee problem not only amongst Israeli Jews, but also Israeli Arabs. The idea is as stupid as it gets. Only a person who has no understanding of Israeli and Palestinians affairs would advocate or promote such a ridiculous idea today."

As Avi rightly implies,democracy isn't just elections,in fact it doesn't really have much to do with elections.The essence of democracy is that the people's affairs should be ordered according to the popular will of the people.That's not how Hamas does it,nor Fatah,for that matter. I have a feeling that David must be an Obama supporter. THREE CHEERS FOR ISRAEL!!!

You should read "Murder In The Name Of God"written by 2 israelis about the murder of Rabin.They describe the hate and the killing of arabs and in fact all gentiles should be honored is taught in the right wing yeshivs.

Yesterday, you were endorsing the plan of the French Foreign Minister. Sarkozy has now come out against such an initiative, and here you are endorsing Sarkozy's position as well. I am now confused! The position of the State of Israel and the EU are identical with the exception of Jerusalem. The EU holds no position on which lands are to be designated for a Palestinian State, preferring that the parties determine this on their own through negotiations.(What Sarkozy has basically called for today). Israel has been allowed to appropriate land simply because it had legitimate reasons to do so. This scheme is now running low and Israel is now faced with the reality of a two state solution. The problem now is getting the parties to the negotiating table.

You claim that 'Territory taken in Self-defence from a Defeated Aggressor can be retained.' There is no such law. It does not exist. It is just an old, contrived Zio claim. The modern rules of law are contained in the Geneva Conventions. They do not mention ANY rule about keeping territory taken in self defence. It does not exist. If you can find it in the GCs, please let us have the chapter and paragraph number. I'll wager you won't be able to come up with anything to offer us. (I'd ignore that web site of yours if I was you, if you're hunting for accuracy).

talk with whom? the arabs? why? the arabs have rejected a jewish presence in israel even before 1948 when they rejected the U.N. partition plan. remember the hevron massacre of aug. 1929? what was the arabs 'reason' for murdering 67 jews? this was before their ( the arabs ) excuse of 'settlements' or 'occupation'. face facts. the arabs will always try to prevent any type of jewish state anywhere in the m.e. those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it

Abbas will never unilaterally declare a state. If he did,violence directed at Israel from that state wouldn't just be terrorism,it would be an act of war and Abbas knows what Israel can do if it's forced into a war. THREE CHEERS FOR ISRAEL!!!

"You need to brush up on what Arafat refused.No map,nothing in writing,and a series of non contiguous bantustans." He rejected 97% of the territories, CONTIGUOUS, no bantustans, and E. Jerusalem as a capital. He accepted that offer a year or so later.

2/3000 years when Judea was the name of today's Palestine and Homeland of the Jewish people and 'The Original Arab The Bedouin' was in his homeland in the desert. Can anyone dare argue the fact when thousands of years later that viscose liquid surged through the sands and made the Arab one of the most powerful in the World.

Is it only about elections? I don`t think so.

It also goes both ways, Israel also does not NEED Jerusalem to be its capital but its a wish just like Pals wish the same - the reality is that the city should be shared - if both sides cannot share and avarice for more and more land takes hold, then yes, I agree, there will never be peace.

I concur. Where are the Arab moderates?

The EU has the right to tell israel what jerusalem should become? I dont think so... maybe israel should tell the EU what it's capital or seat of government should be...or maybe israel should tell the EU that it wants ALL of it's rightful jewish property, art, businesses, etc back..including from spain when they pushed out the jews in the 1400's, including poland, germany, france, austria, Romania, Yugoslavia, russia, lithuania, estonia, latvia, italy, etc..etc...and with interest too please! hahahaha I mean, how far back does the EU's take on history go? only to 1967? what about european reparations for the slaughter they conducted in africa? you know, the "savages"...or the plunder of their natural resources.... maybe EVERYTHING should be on the table.... what do you say cummings?

And pray tell what are israels borders and what does it's invisible constitution say about same?

Territory taken in Self-defence from a Defeated Aggressor can be retained. On : http:/xrl/us/osyi8.

The likud party's charter is every bit as bad as is that of Hamas.You need to brush up on what Arafat refused.No map,nothing in writing,and a series of non contiguous bantustans.Olmert's offer no map,no details ,and the inability to make any such offer since he was in legal trouble and on his way out.Legal trouble seems to be a prerequisite to be P.M.or President of israel

"The only legal, defined border is that drawn by the UN in 1947" and rejected by ALL the Arabs. In fact, the Arabs then rejected any notion of "border" with a Jewish state. And now, Mr. cummings insists that this is the border the Palestinian Arabs must demand. In your dreams.

"The only legal, defined border is that drawn by the UN in 1947." Is that why Israel is recognized within the green line by everyone save the Arab and Muslim countries? " Why the Palestinians aren`t pressing for that is beyond me, they are mugs." Probably because they know they won't get that chopped-up, Swiss cheese border they fought against in the first place. "But even then, Israel still demands more FREE LAND" When you're talking about removin every single Jew from lands which have had a Jewish presence for over 3000 years, it's the Palestinians who are demanding the "free land," ignoramus. "How can anyone deal with a state that illegally seizes land, unlawfully refuses to give it back and demands that the thief deserves even more spoils?" Occupying the land is not illegal. Jews reclaiming their properties is not illegal. And you can't "give back" land which never belonged to the other party in the first place, sock-puppet.

(The Pals) would like (Jerusalem) as theirs but it?s not a requirement for peace...But they don?t need Jerusalem as its capital... On what basis do you make that odd claim? Israel occupied the municipality of E J'sem in 1967. Its status is that of territory held by an army under belligerent occupation. Upon cessation of hostilities, the army must withdraw. The sovereignty of the land does not change. That is the law. Israel cannot say, we defy all international law, we refuse to leave and what's more we covet and demand this neighbour's land. If they got away with it, then the whole legal raison d'etre for kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, Milosevic out of Kosovo or Galtieri out of the Falklands would end.. After the 1936-45 examples, there are not many countries prepared to rewrite the land seizure laws to favour rogue states. E J'sem WILL be the capital of Palestine, whatever Israel says. Time to dry eyes and accept the real world, leave the pretendy Zio wish-dream one behind.

I am suggesting that you are oversimplifying what is a complex mess. I disagree with other statements you have made like unconditional support for Israel. For example how can you explain Israel giving up land for peace while expelling its own (Gaza) if it were not for external pressure from Israel`s Western allies?

Remember Yasir Arafat and Ehud Barak? I know politicians tell it like it isn`t with a specific goal (or target audience) in mind. There could be peace tomorrow if it were not for the institutionalization of extreme hate material that is used to educate the young. Too bad decent people don`t protest against the way some folks are raising their kids.

"All serious political figures in Europe are with Israel. Only some light weight clowns are against Israel." - CM Discuss. Gordon Brown is certainly exasperated with Israeli intransigence, hence his shouting match with Bibi on the phone. Several others are equally fed-up with the Zionist state. Merkel the moderate favours a 2-state solution with the Green Line as the border, as does Sarkozy and Spain and most EU members. There are a few lightweights who have bowed down to pressure/advantage from the US and purport to take Israel's side, a la clown Berlusconi. But any EU position will reflect the overwhelming consensus, which is about what Sarkozy expressed, with quite a few pressing for harder measures against Israel. There are certainly NO EU members in favour of the Eretz Israel settlement policy or Israel getting E J'sem.

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." (Patton)

I agree the pals do need a state.... But they don?t need Jerusalem as its capital... They would like it as theirs but it?s not a requirement for peace... And if they feel their entitlement to that piece of real estate trumps their aspirations for an independent state then i fear this conflict will never end...

The only legal, defined border is that drawn by the UN in 1947. Why the Palestinians aren't pressing for that is beyond me, they are mugs. They have been pressured into accepting the Green Line by the USA and its Zio lobby, now enshrined in UN resolution 242. That increases Israel's territory considerably. Even the Arab League and Hamas will accept that, as long as all other issues are resolved satisfactorily. But even then, Israel still demands more FREE LAND. Now they want everything up to the Security barrier, including long 14-mile fingers into Palestine at Kedumim and Ariel, corridors to Givat Ze'ev and Neve Ya'akov, a corridor to Ma'ale Adumin that splits Palestine in two, Gush Etzion, E J'sem, the Jordan Valley and G_d knows what else. How can anyone deal with a state that illegally seizes land, unlawfully refuses to give it back and demands that the thief deserves even more spoils? Israel's bare-faced cheek and overweening arrogance reflects so poorly on the Jewish people.

Have YOU been to the Middle East or just to Israel. The Middle East is huge, with Arab construction booming in many of their nations. Arab settlement construction in Judea and Samaria (the oldest continually settled Jewish communities in the world are in Judea, by the way) is also booming, for decades growing at a far quicker pace with far more construction than any and all Jewish settlement. Gotta love when foreigners visit here and then think they really know something about "the Middle East". Also by the way, most of the apartment blocs in the Arab construction boom in the WB remain empty.

Sarkozy never said that Intifada was a result of failed peace talks in the past, and definetly NEVER accused Israel. Niether Kushner said that EU should eclare a PA state dismissing Israel. Both are real gentlemen, real friends of Israel and no enemies to Arabs. All serious political figures in Europe are with Israel. Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Angela Merkel, Gordon Brawn,Czecks, Poles,Slovaks. Even Zapatero sees some ligh sometimes. Only some light weight clowns are against Israel.

There weren't Internationally-recognized Borders in 1967. There were military cease-fire lines, set according to the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Agreements. Those Agreements specifically indicate that the demarcations ARE NOT borders. If anyone wants to read what the 1949 Agreements actually say, they are easily googled. The Palestinians have NO CLAIM to the 1949 Lines as being "Borders" -- at all.

Nothing to show for it? Have you been to the middle east? construction everywhere, and they are called Jewish settlements.

It is 2010 not 1967 and the geography of Israel has changed, the security issues are more difficult and dangerous. Plus the palestinians have never agreed to any of the peace plans that would have given them control over most of the west bank. The palestinians have never proven that they can govern one inch of land without killing the next clan or the next fundamental islamic terror organization or each other. Every "so called palestinian leader" has been corrupt and even with the billions that the world has given the palestinians they have NOTHING to show nor have they ever given back to the world community anything. How about the palestinians just start the peace process by laying down their weapons and accepting the state of Israel and the Jews.

Hamas also won democratic elections in the West Bank, The people voted, You cant cry Democracy and then when the people choose someone you dont agree with you Leave abbas in. Its very sad.

Hamas says in its charter it wants the complete eradication of Israel. It was voted in as the government of Gaza. Meanwhile Abbas holds power illegally as the head of the PA, after refusing to hold elections after his term of office expired. He refused peace under terms offered by Ohlmert, just as his buddy Arafat refused peace terms offered at Camp David. So where are the moderate Arab peace lovers Sarkozy wants Israel to meet with?

Didnt they already have democratic elections? And Hamas won in the West Bank and Gaza? You cant choose when you want democracy when the people spoke and choose Hamas.

How all the above zionists come here and spout their rubbish. It's quite clear the israelis above do not want peace as that means a stop to the ladngrab of palestinians. Here's a tip god didn't give you palestine! FACT! No matter how much you want to believe the torah this is the 21 century you backwards mongrels need to learn how society is these days and treat people the same way you would want to be treated. I feel sorry for you as i don't think you will ever want peace until it is forced upon you.

Sarkozy is trying to quench the starting moslim explosion in France and to win, if possible, the voices of moslim Africaners. Unfortunately he has lost a common sense.

I thought that Sarkozy is the president of FRANCE. Stupid me. He behaves like HE has something to give. The ONLY thing he has to give is Corsica back to the Corsicans.

67 borders, Jerusalem, but he will not say that the "refugees" will not return to Israel. The pressure is always only in one direction.

Even fast food-chain Quick has now been compelled for marketing purposes to convert its French eateries into hallal places. France should not ask others to imitate it in its islamisation downfall.

With the aid of the European Union, Russia and such leaders as Sarkozy, there is potential for reasonable negotiations. Israel will not treat Palestinians with justice unless there are powerful nations that support Palestine much like the USA blindly supports Israel. The Saudi 2002 plan is a starting point for a just peace. However much like Hamas violence must be contained, Israeli Jewish settler and IDF violence must be contained.

I agree with minifrog that at some juncture, it will be, but it will be anything but "modern, viable, democratic".