Netanyahu rejects peace talks based on 1967 borders
Prime ministers rebuffs Palestinian 'precondition' as talks with U.S. envoy George Mitchell end in failure.
By Avi Issacharoff and Barak RavidPrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday rejected a Palestinian demand that direct negotiations be based on a statement by the Quartet confirming its position that the future Palestinian state will be based on the 1967 borders.
Meeting in Jerusalem with U.S. envoy George Mitchell, Netanyahu repeated his demand for the renewal of direct talks without preconditions. Mitchell briefed Netanyahu on his meeting on Tuesday with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and gave the prime minister the Palestinian proposal.
 |
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu |
| Photo by: Reuters |
According to Palestinian sources, Mitchell did not dismiss Abbas' proposal. Abbas is demanding a clear framework for the direct talks and an Israeli commitment to cease construction activity in the settlement during the negotiations.
The Quartet - the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia - issued the statement after a meeting in Moscow on March 19. It calls for 24 months of talks between Israel and the PA that would result in an agreement on the establishment of a Palestinian state.
The statement said that the founding of the Palestinian state would end the occupation that began in 1967. It also called on Israel to institute a total freeze of construction in West Bank settlements and to refrain from home demolitions in East Jerusalem. The declaration even went so far as to mention that the international community does not recognize Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem.
Senior officials in Jerusalem who are involved in the efforts to renew direct peace talks said yesterday that Abbas' latest formula was unacceptable to Netanyahu because it sought to impose preconditions that the Israeli public would oppose.
Mitchell told Netanyahu that Washington has not taken a position on the proposal yet, noting that his job was simply to present Abbas' offer to Israeli. The U.S. envoy told Netanyahu that Abbas indicated to him that if Israel were to accept the offer, he would be ready to enter direct talks immediately.
After Netanyahu's rejection, it appears that Mitchell's latest visit to the region has ended in failure.
According to Palestinian sources, the United States rejected two earlier proposals put forth by Abbas to jump-start direct talks. One called for U.S., Israeli and Palestinian officials to meet in order to reach agreement on a framework for direct talks. The other called for U.S. President Barack Obama to issue a statement spelling out the terms of the framework.
Palestinian journalists who met with Abbas this week said they came away with the impression that he is determined to move forward in negotiations with Israel but will not back down on long-established Palestinian positions. Despite international criticism of his refusal to begin negotiations, Abbas is insistent on an agreed framework for discussions prior to the start of direct talks.
An editorial in yesterday's New York Times urged Abbas to renew talks with Israel, warning him to avoid a clash with Obama, who is keen to see the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
In his meeting with Palestinian journalists Abbas urged them to meet with their Israeli colleagues, after the main journalists' union in the West Bank failed in its campaign to boycott all contacts with Israeli reporters. Abbas told the Palestinian reporters it was important for them to continue their dialogue with Israeli journalists.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
a lot like George W. Bush. Now half the country's lunch is ruined.
With such refusal it is time for a compulsary UN-SC Resolution. Israel will have to face "serious consequences" if not withdrawn before a certain date.
again preconditions!!! the Palestinniens shoudl accept FIRST ISRAEL as a JEWISH STATE!!!!!
Abbas has wasted another two years.
Peace is not possible with the Arab Palestinians. And who represents the people in Gaza. The Europeans and the US should realise that they are wasting time and money in this endevour and divert most of the aid given to the palestinians to more needy countries in Africa. They help the palestinians who hate them.
Palestinian lands are being occupied illegally. The rest of the world needs to declare war on Israel.
Abbas will antagonize those looking for a quick fix based on more Palestinian submission. He has had enough of talks that went nowhere and obviously feels that if Bibi can't even agree on an elementary condition there is no point to discussions. Palestinians should not be forced by anybody to accept less than the meagre 22percent of their country, half of the amount given by UN at partition.
Why pre-67 borders, not pre-56, or pre- 48??? In 1967 Israel won and occupied land, now everybody is dictating the winner to enter into the negotiations based on the looser's condition???? Stupid... Bibi is right - no pre-conditions in peace talks
There will NEVER be peace until there is a JUST peace, and this will not happen until there is a one state solution. This is the inevitable outcome of everything that is happening, the two nations are far too intertwined to create to independent states, and all the right wingers on both sides that asks the other side to leave or go to Jordan, Europe, etc is just blowing hot air as that will never happen and this new reality will become THE reality - and when in 20 years we are celebrating the first Palestinian PM of Israel then there will be peace - demographics will change EVERYTHING and the reality is that jews in Israel and the US for that matter are like most white Europeans or Americans, we are reproducing less and getting older, while these other "tribes" are young and growing exponentially - this is the future - we, unfortunately are the past, in America, in Europe, and indeed, in Israel.
The tow-state solution is collapsing, and we are approching to the one state-solution, a democratic and binational state for palestinians and israelis. That's the truth
What most people tend to overlook in the debate is that these are not talks between two equal parties. Israel is not only an international recognised, full fledged state, but also the strongest military power in the Middle East. Whereas Abbas only represents a weakened political organisation fighting for survival. The Palestinians have no tanks, no jetfighters, no missiles, let alone atomic bombs. Nor do they enjoy the massive political, financial and military backing like Israel has in the West. Not to mention the full and unconditional support of the worlds only remaining superpower; the US. Only after the Palestinians realised that their struggle to reclaim their original homeland could not be won, were they prepared to accept their loss. Now they only want to create a Palestinian state in what is left of the original Mandate of Palestine; i.e. the West bank and the Gaza strip. So in essence we have not two equals facing each other, but a conqueror vis-à-vis an opponent who has already admitted he is defeated and has accepted his loss. A conqueror who in the mean time has taken out the heart of a possible Palestinian state, by annexing East Jerusalem. And by means of state subsidised settlement building and the creation of military no go zones, Israel is continually eating away from what is left of the territory of a future Palestinian state. So in these unequal circumstances it entirely understandable that Abbas doesn’t want to start negotiations all over again. It is not only a waste of time, but he runs the risk of ending up with less than the latest offer of Olmert. That would certainly mean the political end of Abbas and of the entire peace process. Abbas knows the Palestinians will never agree on something that looks like an archipelago of autonomous districts, while Israel keeps the overall control. By refusing these ‘preconditions’ Bibi effectively sabotages the start of the negotiations. And what if the negotiation do not get off the ground ? Annexing more land on the west Bank and after a third Intifada deporting Palestinians to Jordan? Or maybe another invasion of Lebanon or an another Cast Lead? Also possible is a bombing raid on Iran and dragging the US into a third war in the Middle East? Where will this all end? If Israel chooses these policies over the possibility of peace with the Palestinians, Israel could end up in the same international league as present day North Korea. Not an inviting prospect
...if he continues behaving like that.
On Thursday, Haaretz gave the Talkback participants the famed moderator known as "The Abominable Slowman". Thursday involves much translation for the large weekend edition. Result: No Talkback comments were actually published. Must be seen as an inspired move by Haaretz. On Friday, Haaretz gave us a new moderator, a major incompetent, who could only add posts to the Top Article, nothing else. I tried to explain the need to him, but failed, and most posts were not published. Obviously, he doesn't know how to operate the system and too lacking in intelligence to figure it out himself. But Saturday was the bad day for Haaretz when the Triple Crown slipped away from their hands. Apparently, they ran out of "talent" so they had to use an ordinary Moderator. Can't Haaretz come up with a third invalid having some unusual capability? How about an imbecile who does not understand "high" English words? Or just pick a typical Mizrahi Israeli. Where is the big problem?
The true intent of Israel is clear. That is to continue to keep Palestine cut-up into Arab ghettos so that Jewish settlers can terrorixze Palestinians. Abbas knows the true character of the Israelis.
When is Israel going to propose a peace intative Unfortunately we only hear from Palestinians and maybe it is time for Israel to set terms.
Demography will decie the final outcome. It is only a matter of time.
You are from UK and thus you should understand the meaning of two words which you ADD to 242 text: "ALL THE" does not belong to 242, but 242 leaves it open from which territories Closely connected to this is the following sentence describing "secure borders" Further 242 talks about states in the conflict and peace agreement with Jordan has been made and in that agreement Jordan lost WB and they accepted it. The only open question which remained is what to do with arabs living in the WB. They are not a state and thus not participants of negotiations. The only basis for the talks could be how much Israeli land would be given to refugees. Security is Israels #1 concern and Pentagon prepared in 1967 a map of minimum secure borders for Israel which covers maybe 80 % of WB. Israel's border today is the river Jordan based on 242
242 emphasized (!) the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and affirms (!) the necessity "for guaranteeing the territorial inviolability". no side is innocent and the only one to blame. both sides HAVE commited crimes. fact IS that israel IS occupying and oppressing a people. israel is a fragile country which probably will fall into a civil war if there is peace, but peace is the only way to show you HUMANITY. so vote bibi out of office and elect somebody who is not blinded by hatred, intolerance and fear
By continuing this defiance from announcing that this Netanyahu led coalition will indeed base a peace agreement on the 1967 borders, as the Quartet and majority of Israelis know, this clearly indicates why former PM Ariel Sharon split from the Likud and formulated the centrist Kadima. Ariel Sharon, a former celebrated Israeli General, had the foresight to courageously alter his ideological and security-based background, to genuinely move towards a peace process with the Palestinians because he knew the endgame of a fair Middle East agreement surpasses all other shenanigans.
These will enable the true Palestine formerly called Greater Israel which extends into Souther Lebanon and part of the French Levant...why arbitrarily choose an Israeli reclamations where you give back something the "67" borders are the 48 Armistice lines of when the Arab states all atatacked Israel....the 67 borders are recognized as an occupation legally but the 48 borders are just a line drawn when the Arab armies said "uncle" for the first time.
... but he has to do it in a more measured way. From being tough with Netanyahu, the US turned around and started a charm offensive towards Israel aimed, I suppose, at Jewish American contributors in the coming Congressional elections. Abbas does not have such a strong influential ally as AIPAC and has to stand up for himself. This is a correct policy in principle. Abbas initially demanded freezing ALL construction in West Bank and Jerusalem as condition for talks with Netanyahu, who does not appear ready for peace. That was a reasonable demand, supported by International law. The US prevailed upon Abbas to start indirect talks instead, which he agreed to. Now that Abbas gained Arab League backing, he can soften his stance without losing face with his own Palestinian public. Netanyahu the Weak wants to pass all political daring and risks to Abbas, but this also means that chances are Netanyahu will never agree to a reasonable peace agreement. The question is, what conditions should be set for direct talks. Abbas tends to exaggerate here; he should come up with something hard, but not impossible for Netanyahu to give. Example: Evacuating illegal settlements built on private Arab land. This is politically hard for a weakling like netanyahu, but Netanyahu will have no excuse for not doing it, other than exposing his real face of the empty talker.
1967 are armisitice lines from the 1948_49 war the 7 arab armies launched against the renewed independant state of Israel and not borders agreed internationally
The 67-"borders" are in fact armistice line - to set this line as precondition for peace talks shows once again the bad faith of the Palestinian Authority, not interested in a negotiated but only in an imposed "peace" unfavourable to Israel and the Jews. This untrustworthy Palestinian attitude is also reflected by the willingness to preserve the right of return of the refugees to Israel, in order to deal the final blow to the Jewish and democratic character of the country. On the other hand, it appears clear that Jews are not permitted to stay in a future Muslim Palestinian state. Playing persistently in this way, the Palestinians shoot theirselves in the foot.
yes the ones that will be agreed AFTER the Negotiations!!
242 "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" A key part of 242 which effectively destroys all the attempts by Israel and its fans to claim that 242 does not call for the withdrawal of Israel from all the territories in took in 1967. You can probably argue that 242 allows for mutually agreed 1 for 1 land swaps, but what you can't argue is that 242 supports Bibi's position of saying the 1967 lines are irrelevant. 242 explicitly backs Abbas's apprroach and rejects Bibi's position.
... from other states - as only the states are the subjects of international law. Israel is currently in peace with Egypt and Jordan
UN resolution 242 actually calls for Israel to withdraw to SECURE BOUNDARIES. It specifically fails to note the pre-war boundaries. This was no accident. Those who wrote it, on the US and UK side, specifically noted that SIMILAR RESOLUTIONS which demanded a full withdrawal were rejected and that this one, which called for secure boundaries was the one adopted. Again, this was not by accident, but after much negotiations! So you cannot say "it's simply a different use of words". If it was, the other version of the resolution which were explicit and implicit would have been accepted. Instead this one, calling only for 'secure boundaries' was adopted. To further prove the point, read the commentary by those who wrote the resolution... Let me give you one quote: Ambassador Arthur Goldberg explained: "The notable omissions — which were not accidental — in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'....the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal." He further quantified this with (and I quote): "territorial adjustments in their peace settlement encompassing less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure.". The basis of a future border is to be determined by agreed security needs, not by returning us back in time as if that is a solution by itself.
Now they want to set the clock back. There will never be a Pal state on Israeli soil.If the quartet does not like that then, they can find a suitable area somewhere for the Pals. The Pals will reject such a proposal just as they rejected 242. The Pals have no future.
as manifested by the British and American ambassadors was exactly not to force Israel to withdraw to 67 borders. That is the reasons why the Soviet Union rejected the declaration. The meaning of the inadmissibility of acquiring territories by war at that time was "aggressive war" . Israel efended itself and the territories acquired are negotiable.
"ALL" is neither ststed on implied, the opposite is the case. The UN explicitly rejected wording for withdrawal from "the" occupied territories, and voted for language stating withdrawal from "occupied territories...to secure and recognized borders free from threats and acts of force". There was unamimous recognition that Israel's vulnerability to attacks across the armistice lines needed to be corrected in Israel's favor, clearly stating that the degree of any withdrawal had to be commensurate with the quality and reliability of the guarantees of the peace for Israel - not just a worthless piece of paper.
A meeting without an agenda is a waste of everyone's time... and wasting time at meetings is Israel's agenda and to it's benefit in creating a greater Israel.
... the three state solution 1. Israel is Israel 2. Gaza to Egypt 3. West Bank to Jordan Borders: today,
...would then live in peace and security, recognized by its neighboring Muslim-Arab states. It is high time to accept the fact that the Oslo experimentation failed us, all, and we must simply go back and implement 242 as is, now!
Even the USA didnt object in the quartet against selling out our rights regarding Greater Israel and Jerusalem. We should follow the example of Senator Joseph Lieberman's old buddy General Michel Aoun, drop the USA as an ally and gang up against them with Iran, who will be more than happy to refresh old ties with us.
If a country respresses about half the population in the area it controlls, should the world remain silent?
They are all against us by dint of sheer math odds: For millennia, the huge (and I mean huge) # of followers of Christianity and Islam have had no theological choice other than to say that Jews are wrong in order to say that their faiths are right. Thus anti-Jewish thought and action are more ingrained in the collective psyche of multitudes than any other hatred toward a people. Think of these simple crushing odds and it's no wonder that, combined with modern petrodollar influence to boot, so much of the world hates Jews/Israel and champions "poor Palestinians" having never seen the true luxus they live in in the "WB" and forgetting that by far most "Palestinians" also consider themselves both Arab (21 states) and Muslim (57 states). The influence of Jew-hate (I don't call it "anti-semitism", a stupid misnomer coined by an anti-Jew, no less) is spread so deep, far and wide that most secular anti-Israel people have no idea that they are also stuck deep in the anti-Jewish hate fest. Seeing the extremely tiny size of Israel compared to huge Arab states and their far more vast potential for enacting real solutions to their "refuge problem", (some Arab staes still keep other Arabs in refugee camps and Egypt still keeps Gazans basically locked out of giant Egypt) is enough to make any objective observer sick. Anti-Israel thought and action is but the latest anti-Jew fashion statement.
do you blame us where are sick of this isreal is cosing altos of money and we are sick of giving out our money and the only reason isreal donut want peace so they can keep getting our money Palestinian are humans too isreal should give them there country back isreal cant keep saying that its our country its not isreal occupied that land in 1967 you need just to get out of there so the whole world can live in peace much better for occupation cant and will not lase for ever
I couldn't agree with you more about USA trying to split Israel. I'm a USA citizen and a Christian and I support Israel. US needs to leave your borders alone and stand with Israel as a true ally. I disagree with you on partnering up with Iran to take on US. TTThe
You are so blind its not even funny anymore
What a pity... the Israel yearning for peace of the 1990s seems to have vanished into thin air since Bibi came in power.
...was always a myth...a mirage...a deception...war has always been israel's raison d'etre
100% of countries in the world, but Israel, consider all Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to be illegal. Bibi can either get real, or sentence the country to war forever.
International borders are the borders countries agree on between them self, for example Egypt and Israel has an agreement about the border between these two countries and that border is an international border.
If Israel wants anything beyond the 1967 lines it needs that to be agreed. It is not Israels to have without agreement. Obama will say which bits you want? Netanyahu will say "everything except that bit of sand and that other bit" Obama will then ask Abbas will you give him all that? When the answer is "NO" the issue of borders will have been concluded and they will proceed to the next item on the agenda - the timetable for withdrawal from the State of Palestine.
He said so during a recent video posted on You Tube. Besides, Bibi and company are focused on war with Iran like a laser beam. Peace talks are boring to the ears of the warmongers running his government.
Abbas will probably quit his job, he is the most moderate Palestinian that ever can be found, and he gets zero result. Radicals will take it over, West Bank will become Hamas area too.
So long as you have your current government, it probably is a lost cause. But Mitchell is a tough old bird and thinks he's making progress. When he gives up, the US should pull all support for the PA and embargo it too like Bush did, get the EU and Arab countries to embargo aid, too, even UNRWA. Let Israel pay for its own occupation, the full cost. The Air Force has a C-130 that can accommodate a house trailer, if he gets tired.
are we,the citizens of israel,not entitled to be informed,,not of what israeli governments have rejected,but of their own projects and design.i,for one,would like my country to be forthright.if you fault abbas,you must know the alternative.it may be top secret,or improvised as they go along-which i doubt.
when on these jaunts briefing the Quartet. Although it is probably a waste of time with the whackjobs currently in charge of Israel, hopefully after the mid terms in the States Mitchell will be authorised to break out the baseball bat.
Our right to this land is historical, and is not based on any UN resolution. By this fact, the UN cannot restrict the historical rights of the Jewish people to the land of Israel. The Arab people living here have a humanitarian right to normal life. Whence the need of some compromise. Compromises are, by nature, dependent on the demographics of Palestinians and Israelis at the time of the compromise, and these demographics are changing with time. Since Palestinians are tied with international Islam movement, and supported by antisemitic European organizations, such a compromise is difficult to achieve these days.
Your 'historical' right is worth as much as the palestinians. There is no such thing as 'historical right' on a land, nor 'biblical right'. This, you should bear in mind. Now you're giving that good old excuse of 'palestinian links with islamism and antisemitism' !! this is called manipulation and stupidity. Of course, as always, Israel is not responsible of anything. Keep it that way, you might regret it one day...
So a Moldovan club bouncer has more rights than a Palestinian family living in Palestine for over a thousand years. What happens when Europe and USA run out of money? Their economies are sinking like a stone. Do you think, maybe, you might need more friends closer to home ? Talking like that is not gonna win you any friends. You have to make a deal with the Palestinians, you simply can't ignore them any more.
You would think us Jews just all showed up one day and took over. Face it Jews do have a histric right to the land. And have had a presence in israel for may thousands of years. Yes even the Moldovan Jew working as a boncer... We were 12 tribes and all look differently. cheers, Wierdos.
No body has the "right" to land based on "history"!! If that were the case, millions, in fact billions of people can "claim" rights to land all round the world!! This just a pathetic nonsensical argument that you Israelis have been clinging on to for all these years! The simple fact of the matter is, YOU WERE "GIVEN" this land, but being the arrogant self righteous people you are, you want go and steal more and more!! A bizarre twist is, your own religion clearly states that the Jews should not have their own state in the first place!!
Your reasoning is clouded by racism and arrogance. Such a state based on biblical "historical rights", racial exclusivity and arrogance where the concerns of one tribe are inherently higher than those of others is not sustainable and will collapse in on itself. This has been the history of all colonialist movements and you are certainly a spokesperson for that view.
you people don't understand or simply do not want to understand. When palestinians rightly claim their right on their land, you answer "we jews have historical rights". Who's denying that right ? Israel is a State, jews have their State. What's the problem ? you deny palestinians their rights. Get your head out of the hole !!!
Native american has historical right in USA.lol.
This man never really wanted any negotiation. He put impossible demands on the PA, which would make any agreement a farce, and Abbas a traitor in the eyes of his own people. This is the man who always covered up the insolence of the settlers, many among whom are religious fanatics of jewish coinage. And now he has found an excuse.
(1) Jerusalem, as part of a peace agreement, will remain united under Israel's sovereignty and will also include Giv'at Zeev and Ma'aleh Adumim. (2) The major settlement blocs, e.g. Ariel, Gush Etzion, will become, as part of a peace agreement, part of the sovereign state of Israel. (3) The Jordan Valley must be viewed in the widest definition of the word, will remain under Israel's control. (4) A future Palestinian state will be demilitarized and its air space and border passes will be controlled by Israel's Defense Forces (IDF).
It is the inalienable capital of the future Palestinian state under International law. Get real!
Go take a visit. You'd never know you were in East Jerusalem.
..."cleansed" of its previous Jewish residents and totally ruled by the Muslim-Arabs of the Land, neither the West Bank and Gaza were set up as an independent state and eastern Jerusalem as its capital. And still, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was set up in 1964, three full years before Israel captured these territories in a defensive war. Which part of "Palestine" was the PLO to "liberate"...?? Some intellectual honesty is due, don't you think...??!!
When was the last time you were in Jebel Mukhaber, Zur Baher, Shuafat, or Qalandia? East Jerusalem is not limited to Silwan (the City of David).
It looks and feels like an Arab Christian/Muslim city with a nasty occupation force attempting to Judaize it.... West Jerusalem feels like a newly built Israeli city.... Most Israeli Jews from the coastal plains rarely if ever, even care to visit Jerusalem. The idea that Jerusalem belongs only to Jews is possibly the most pathetic idea of the millenium.
thumbs down represent a disagreement with the FACT that Rabin said what he said, something that can easily be verified? Or rather, the thumbs are down because the readers don't agree with the CONTENT of his observation? If it is the second, I wish to tell the readers, Rabin was considered by many as the Prince of Peace, yet he was not willing to take any security risks with the tiny nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel, nor was he ready to give up on some of the most important national/heritage aspects of the Jewish people in his ancestral homeland. Rabin represented main stream Jewish thinking and Netanjahu today, although he comes from a different spot on the political map, represent main stream of Jewish thinking today. If Rabin were alive today he would probably be part of Netanjahu's political movement. This is what the Muslim-Arabs must face - and together with them the President of the US, Mr. B.H.Obama!!!
and this is despite the fact that I reside in the northern part of the country, yet I see Eretz Israel (Land of Israel), all of it, as part of my Jewish people's ancestral homeland and Jerusalem as its capital city since more than 3,000 years ago.
but that does not mean it cannot be and will be reversed.
I visited the Golan a couple of years ago, and watched a movie prepared by the settlers. In it, they showed Rabin declaring that the Golan must be kept by Israel. Well, this promise was made BEFORE PM Rabin guaranteed to Hafez Assad that Israel will return the Golan to Syria in return for a peace agreement, but the settlers neglected to mention it. Here we see another "overly clever" settler (Qatzrin/Golan) who is trying to rely on Rabin's old promises. Rabin was learning as he proceeded as PM. In the old days he hated Arafat, but then shook his hand in Washinghton after he agreed to Oslo. When you search for peace, the mission is more important than the promises you made to the people, whose mind will also change when the new possibilities are presented.
I always thought it was Labour's position, that the Palestinian state should be in the borders of Rhodus agreeement of 1947 (pre-1967 line). Barak always said that Netanyahoo is serious about negotiations and that he is going to surprise his critics with his generosity. Now, it comes out, he rules out that negotiations would be based on 1947 lines out of concern that the Israeli public would oppose it. But those who vote for Labour surely support this idea and I wonder what does Labour in this coalition.
and "likud"="herut" and "labour"="mapai" both joyfully did their part,clear sighted,not without outside help,to create,or concoct,this crazy situation.
Israel is not interested in peace. It never was.
There is a difference between putting an agenda for negotiations and imposing preconditions. The whole world recognizes Israel as an occupying power in Palestine and there international resolutions that Israel must retreat into the 1967 borders. However, you find Bibi refusing a fair agenda for negotiations simply because he is unwilling to negotiate and make peace. What he's good at is building settlements. The irony shows its ugly face when you find the world, particularly the US, pressuring President Abbas to direct negotiates with someone who doesn't even recognize international laws, peace, or anything. He wants Pals to negotiate with him for "pieces of land that will be called a state" (Noam Chomsky) and by that strip Pals from their very rights. Why wouldn't the world pressure Bibi and Israel to respect the international community and to show delicacy towards the peace process? Big questions that need answers!
Is this the first step in the "Trojan horse" which past "moderate" Palestinians called negotiations.? Then millions of Arabs born everywhere to demand to move Israel's side of whatever is left. Some peace! The vast majority of mandate Palestine of course does not need "liberation" its Arab already.
Maybe you should learn to read what he actually said instead of what you want him to have said. See post 65.
Borders have to be negotiated,not just to Abbas' satisfation but taking into account amongst other things how Arabs refused to allow Jews into the Jewish areas after THEIR conquest,the massacres of Jews by Arabs ,in areas where Jews were vulnerable,something that started long before the" zionist,,zionist " catch all slogan. In play for decades now,has been about 10% of the West Bank for which equal land swaps have been offered by Israel and they have been rejected repeatedly and answered with suicide bombers and official Palestinian published incitement to reject ANY peace So it's time to give up dreams of taking it all one way or another and get serious about final bordersand the end of further claims,Conditions & borders that are mutually agreed upon by negotiations,not by up front demand through intermediaries.
Abbas had his chance to get pre 67 borders with Olmert. He rejected the offer. He had his chance ot get direct negotiations with Netanyahu based on cessation of construction -- yet he refused to come to the table. It would be ludicrous to reward such recalcitrance. Now his only option is to enter direct negotiations without preconditions. To reward his chutzpah would be inexcusable.
Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 The Security Council, Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East, Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security, Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter, 1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; 2. Affirms further the necessity (a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; (b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; (c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones; 3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle Home || Permalink || About UNISPAL Situation au Moyen-Orient - Acquisition de territoire par la guerre/Retrait d'Israël/Problème des réfugiés/Représentant spécial - Résolution du Conseil de sécurité See also: voting records (via UNBISNET) Security Council resolution 242 Meeting record: S/PV.1382 Photo. UNISPAL user survey Follow us on: Twitter RSS Share This UNITED NATIONS S Security Council S/RES/242 (1967) 22 November 1967 S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 Page 1 of 2 http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/7d35e1f729df... 24.05.2010 East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution; 4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible. Adopted unanimously at the 1382nd meeting. S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 Page 2 of 2 http://
...withdraw its armed forces to "secure and recognized boundaries" - to be determined in negotiations - but not to the June 1967 line (the 1949 armistice "Green" line). It is high time UN Security Council Resolution 242, as is, is implemented in resolving the Muslim-Arab conflict with the nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel.
when Israel was created by the United Nations it didn't include Gaza and the West Bank, regardless of who ran them at the time.
America and the quartet persuaded the Pals to give up violence, promising that if they did so, America and the quartet would deliver them a Palestinian state. Unfortunately for the Pals, a cessation of violence was the only thing Israel wanted from the Pals. Israel has the land and the reources of the West Bank, and the Pals have given up fighting them. The current situation is just perfect from Israel's point of view. So now it's goverment it has ordered its tame US lawmakers to prevent Obama helping the Pals in any way, and the quartet showing its usual lameness is incapable of doing anything much but follow America's lead. So that's probably pretty much the end of the peace process, which means it's back to violence again eventually. This ultimately is fairly dumb from Israel's point of view because it can't go on fighting its neighbours forever, because eventually it will either lose control of the US government or lose on the battlefield.
you are right Michael but you know what we are getting sick of that in the usa and we just start doing some thing about there is altos of us out there starting writing our senates and congress that people are getting sick of apace and wasting our tax payers money all the time for nothing and we have much better use for it in the states
Israeli cabinet minister Beni Begin discusses Israeli Palestinian negotiations. “The PLO platform, as reaffirmed in the Fatah Congress in August 2009, states that their struggle will not stop until the Zionist entity is eliminated and Palestine is liberated,” he says. Click the link to view his entire article: http://tinyurl.com/2wqafqd -Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Abbas does not want to negotiate. If he wants a state he has to negotiate. If he does not want one, so he can keep sitting and waiting. If he enters into negotiations he will have the support of Obama to his position. He wont have a better deal for years to cone
Past experience has shown us that the Israelis are not interested in peace so we have every reason to insist on knowing the outcome before we start the negotiations. Israelis are past masters at creating diversions and wasting time to avoid pulling their army and illegal settlements from the occupied territories. Abbas must be commended for his steadfastness and resolute decision to pursue real peace while Bibi is only interested in gimmicks
if the Muslim-Arab world wish to be part of the the norms in human society and form of discourse, this world must accept its conventions: You negotiate, agree with your counterparts, sign an agreement and apply it: An accommodation of peaceful coexistence between Arab and Jew, between the Muslim-Arab world and the nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel. It appears this outcome is not to your liking, isn't it...?? I wonder, why...??
Equal citizenship for all now.
If 2000 years didn't make the land Palestine, then 62 years ain't going to make it Israeli.
There were never "1967 borders". At the time there were only "armisticelines", were UN-observers - I was one of them - saw the provocations, mostly by Israel. {See the offical UN-documents.}
the Quartet and PA have a consistent position that the conquest of 67 should not enlarge Israel. That what was not Israeli before the 67 Conquest should not be credited to the Israeli account. Trade 1:1, dunam for dunam. That is not 67 Borders or Auschwitz borders or whatever you want to call it. It is a statement of principle that the right of conquest no longer exists and it didn't in 1967. Insisting on the right of conquest is a direct violation of treaties Israel signed and ratified in the past, specifically Geneva IV.
These means that the borders, and how much Israel is to give back are matter of negation between the parties, Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Syria. But, booth Egypt and Jordan has withdrawn their claim and sign peace treaty whit Israel, Israel and Syria is still talking.
It means that acquiring land by war is indefensible. Israel agreed to that in writing in the 50s. But is now reneging because Bibi wants to keep land conquered in 67.
Not conquest, but agreement between parties.
this man doesnt want peace, in fact he represent the people, so israel doesnt want peace.
No to 1967 borders, not to withdraw from East Jerusalem, no to dismantle colonies, no to "cede" the Jordan valley, no to the return of the indigenous people to their homes and fields, and no to free access and travel? What else does Net-N-Yahoooooo exactly wants to get via such direct talks? Is it to look into & get off on Abbas' crossed and aging eyes? Or he is playing a charade game? and the US is playing along such colonialist tunes. what a sham (not shame though)
That is a principle he's after. It is included in every concept he has ever stated or acted on.He wants a big exclusive Israeli exclusion in the Geneva IV so he can then insist on it with Syria. That and he's devoted his life to preventing peace with the Palestinians.
much to your disappointment. Jews were ethnically "cleansed" more than any other people yet kept coming back to Israel, with Jewish communities like those of Hebron, Safed, Tiberias and Jerusalem remaining continually in Israel since long before the advent of Christianity, Islam or the Arab conquest of 635 CE, the first conquest to end Jewish majority in Israel. Talk of indigenous right? Arabs are indigenous to Arabia. Local farm right? Get Yemen government to compensate my family and thousands more for the farms stolen fr
much to your disappointment. Jews were ethnically "cleansed" more than any other people yet kept coming back to Israel, with Jewish communities like those of Hebron, Safed, Tiberias and Jerusalem remaining continually in Israel since long before the advent of Christianity, Islam or the Arab conquest of 635 CE, the first conquest to end Jewish majority in Israel. Talk of indigenous right? Arabs are indigenous to Arabia. Local farm right? Get Yemen government to compensate my family and thousands more for the farms stolen from us Jews who were in Yemen, as they killed kicked us out after living there as second class citizens for centuries, not decades. Hebrew is related to Arabic, a newer Middle East language. By far most Euro and US Jews also have Middle East origin, proven genetically, linguistically, culturally... so wake up from your deep wish and twisted lie that we are "foreign colonists" in Israel, when the truth is that we are indigenous here.
What Bibi has rejected is pre conditions. Abbas is setting demands in advance and Bibi wants to start with a clean slate not committing Israel to anything in advance or committing the palestinians to anything in advance. So far mainly because of Obama & Abbas failed attempt to overthrow Bibi from the start and Obamas basically telling Abbas he just needs to write a list of demands and Obama will get it for him so Abbas is now trying to play hardball something he would have never done if Clinton or Bush had been president. If Abbas wants something he needs to start TALKING NOT DEMANDING. If he sits down for UNCONDITIONAL talks and is willing to NEGOTIATE that means that BOTH sides give as well as take its not a 1 way street where Israel gives everything gets nothing in return. If Abbas can do that there will be progress. As long as he continues the Arafat attitudes of demands and no compromises then we are never going to get anywhere and will just run round and round in circles. Come on Abbas lets see how serious you are sit down UNCONDITIONALLY and talk don't play games and say unless you agree to all my demands in advance I won't honor you with my presence.
Funny how he points out that he wants Abbas to wipe the slate clean in order to wipe all of the previous requests made by the UN, Europe and the Quartet. If I remember correctly, Netanyahu won't negotiate with Hamas untill they recognize Israel either... Can't have it all your way.. What hypocricy!
one could wonder if asking to stop stealing their land, give back what's theirs and respecting them as human being can be called 'setting preconditions for peacetalks' ? put very simple : you don't go stealing with one hand when making good with the other.
According to polls, the majority of Israelis oppose withdrawal to 1967 as a precondition. Netanyahu can't defy his own people, especially without offering anything in return. Abbas knows this perfectly well. The international community also called for the Palestinians (including Hamas) to recognize Israel. Is that a precondition too?
Anyone who knows the situation on the ground knows that Bibi is not seriouos - Sheikh Jarrah Silwan Walajah B1 visas being denied to NGOs He's trying to buy two years to complete his colonisation project. Let's go OSS and end this charade.
That is where 70% of "Palestine" is and where 85% of "Palestinians" live. Muslim Arabs control 21 Arab states comprising over 99% of the Middle East, yet want another one. What they truly and clearly want is for the one tiny state of their Jewish cousins to be wiped out - at once or in stages. This giant greed of the huge Muslim/Arab world, this arrogance and pure sadism is unparalleled. Of course they are far more popular than the few million Jews and our 1 state - they have the land, oil and conviction of billions who must say Jews are wrong in order to say their faiths are right. Where is the fabled MidEastern hospitality of the huge Arab world who can't even welcome its own cousins home to our one tiny slice? The bloody hands displayed out the window sum it up: monstrously disgusting greed and arrogance, and most of the world of course sucks it up.
Netanyahu should request his own preconditions:Palestinians must renounce the so called "right of return" within Israel before direct negotiations begin.After all what is the point of negotiating the borders if this issue is not resolved.
1. Israel must be allowed to continue to build on the land it occupies while discussions take place. 2. Discussions must not be based on the borders of 1967. 3. What is going to be discussed must not be announced. etc. etc. You are deluding yourself if you think that Israel doesn't set any preconditions.
The so-called Palestinians dream is to restore the former mandate of Palestine. So offer PA a deal on annexation a then PA will sign on the spot.
In 67 Israel conquered the west bank from Jordan (not the pals). In 48 the Jordanians conquered Jerusalem which was supposed to be an international city but was occupied by the British since 1918. Before that it was occupied by the otoman empire for about 600 years. I cannot recall who the occupier was before hand, may be the alternatively the crusaders, and the Arabs who were expanding at the time. Bottom line it was never Palestinian. STILL I do think that the pals should have a state. I just disagree that it's borders should be defined as a precondition to negotiations when the border is actually one of the goals of the negotiation. That is akin to putting the cart before the horse. I think all sides should get off their high horses and start talking face to face. Basing the Palestinian state on historical borders would give the Palestinians nothing since there is not historic Palestine. The state of Israel is by no means even close to the biblical Israel ( otherwise there would be no Jordan) . Still it will be better than anything they have ever had throughout history.
As any student of history would know that it was the Canaanites who settled the land first not the Jews who came much later from Egypt. Moreover, Arab/Islamic rule had persisted in the land which is known as Palestine for 1500 which is far longer than any supposed Jewish rule in parts of Palestine. It makes it pretty clear that Palestine has been Arab for much longer than you claim
No historic Palestine? Do you know what the Jerusalem Post was named when it was founded in 1932..? The Palestine Post..
Palestine is the name of the landscape and the former Home ruled mandate of Palestine 1922 - 1948, not a state. The landscape Palestine, former mandate of Palestine, Palestinian territory, must not be confused whit the illusion of the proposed state of Palestine.
And who was printing it? Right, Palestinian Jews. Before establishment of Israel every Jew living here called himself Palestinian. Because this territory was called Palestine, not country, not state, not ethnic group, but territory. Arabs in West Bank started to call themselves Palestinians after 1967. Before 1967 they called themselves Jordanians (they all had Jordanian citizenship).
It was the romans who named the land Palestine, after the philistines. The Romans were not Arabs. Neither did arabs rule the land for 1500 years... as the Ottomans were not Arabs. so lets keep fact straight mate. Jewish rule of the land of Israel was almost continuous as of the return from Egypt to the Roman exile (except for the short babilinian excile). I beleive we are talking of a period of about 2000 years. History helps us not though since the both nations live there now. and back to my point. the borders should not be a precondition to peace negotiations but rather the goal of peaces negotiations.
not that it matters since there is a Palestinian nation now. They should come to the negotiation table.
Bibi is in this respect an honest man. No PM of Israel is credible with a 67 solution. But where is the map ? The security fence lines and the Jordan valley are the idea of the IDF general staff. Let the Palestinians 51 % of the WB. On this particular base you can negotiate from here to eternity.
Someone tell me why the Jewish Quarter (and the rest of East Jerusalem) should not be in Israel proper? What guarantees would be made and enforced that would ensure freedom of religion for the Christians and Jews in the old city and beyond? How about a commitment to a Jewish presence in PA controlled areas that is not dependant on IDF protection? Let's not forget that the "occupation" exists because Arabs did not accept the presence of Jews, not the other way around. The Arabs must earn peace and security, not demand it.
The Jews are welcome to the Jewish Qharter but why should they have the rest of Arab East Jerusalem, unless we are talking sheer greed here!
Jerusalem then was of no interest to jews then or it would have included in their declaration of 'Jewish State'.c1948
Israel did not declare its borders the UN did. the borders expanded as a result of Arab aggresion, and their losing the wars. If the Arabs would not have attacked in 48 the day after Israel was offcially established then Israel would have been a tiny place and we would not be having this discussion.
With all good intent, I'm not sure that any Pal gov't wouuld give up an inch of the Old City. It is of course, the gateway to the historic Temple Mount, or the Bigger Newer Mosque, whichever you prefer.
He was seen on channel 10 bragging about how he destroy Oslo treat.He is a con who think on itself that he's a savior of Israel but in reality all what he and his lieberman are doing sink Israel more and more in muddle.His empty drivels alike those of a soviet propaganda komisar (and indeed they are Jews in majority) may convince only brainwashed Israeli educated by deranged rabbis and deranged educator .So declare Palestine independence in all territories beyond 67 Israel's borders.
should be 1948 borders.
.... It's all the same since 1967 : Jerusalem... return of refugees... borders.... everything. Nothing changed except that.the occupation increased manifold since then. Every terror attack brought with it another settlement in the West Bank! Obviously, the position of Arafat, and now Abbas, became worse all the time. Yet, although they saw it coming to them, they were unable to adapt their demands to reality. The same now.......Over 90 % is not good? NO !
The man has the guts to stand up and say - far enough! Good for him. What has Israel EVER received for giving up and giving in, time, after time, after time? Babkes!
The Palestinians are incapable and unwilling to EVER settle with Israel, because of a few obvious facts that the media fails to fully understand or acknowledge. 1) Palestinians are not suffering from the so-called occupation, only their leaders are horny for power and therefore control their masses by utilizing age-old 'Islamic brainwashing tactics' and manipulating global Jew-hatred. 2) Palestine is and has always been a part of the greater generational goal of world domination. 3) Palestine is a code-word for Jihad to inspire the discontented masses. 4) The social disease of the West is socialism or unattainable pure democracy, the social disease of the East is perverted religion ideology and hatred. This all being true, Arabs will not, cannot accept a sovereign Jewish entity, in any form.
for nearly 2 years, all that we've seen is Abbas demands this, Abbas threatens that, Ereket demands, the Pal arabs demand...demand, demand, demand that seems to be the only thing the pal arabs have been doing. claiming they want to negotiate, but at the end of the day they refuse to. they had no problem negotiating before, wouldn't really call it negotiating though. Israel would only give and make concessions and the pal arabs would just sit there and demand more and reject offers of a state. they never seem to miss an opportunity to miss and opportunity. for months they had obama and his crew publicly condemning Israel. for months they had Netanyahu offering more and more and what do the pal arabs do, miss another opportunity. sit your ass down and talk to israel already! unless as Israel and the world already knows, the pal arabs have no interest in making peace, they are incapable of making it. all they do is demand and make threats. before Netanyahu created his government, the pal arabs demanded that Netanyahu clearly state that he agrees to a pal arab state before talks, so he did - but they refused to talk just made another demand. pal arabs demanded more movement and more businesses in the west bank, so they economy could grow so road blocks were removed cell phone carriers brought in etc, so again more demands were made. the pal arabs demanded a halt to jewish home construction in the west bank, so Netanyahu agreed, so then there were more demands. illegal arab homes in Jerusalem were no longer destroyed so then more demands. jewish home creation was put on hold in east Jerusalem, so then there were more demands and threats of declaring a unilateral state, threats of another intifada, threats of boycotts, threats of flotillas. Threats, pre-conditions and demands apparently is the pal arab way of negotiation. now what do they demand, that Israel agree to go back to the 1967 Auschwitz border and then what, demand that israel agree to bring in 4 mil arab terrorists and their families, before he'll sit down? Thank goodness for Netanyahu, while I don’t agree with the many concessions he made to date atleast he’s not like Olmert or Livni, whole sell their people and land for a handshake and photo-op.
for nearly 2 years, all that we've seen is Abbas demands this, Abbas threatens that, Ereket demands, the Pal arabs demand...demand, demand, demand that seems to be the only thing the pal arabs. They have been demands have been crazy... belive it or not they want Isreal to Stop building Settlments on there land to have free axcess to roads.. fewer check points. the list goes on and on the Pal's have a lot of nerve demanding to be treated as human. Every one with a family wants a good life for the childern
The occupation ended in 1993/4 when PA got Home Rule. Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. In this case aprox. 35 % of the W.B. Art. 49 Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant,(…) (Government, paralament) PA has the Government of W.B.
The Israeli border police and IDF were in Jericho yesterday to prevent a takeover of buildings by right wing settlers. Why wasn't the Jericho police and PA Security allowed to handle it? Jericho is still occupied territory.
Standing at the top of the mountain in Beit Jala is a huge ugly observation tower which keeps us all well iwithing observation of the occupying powers. The |Wall, situated on Palestinian, not Israeli land, is also part of the occupation. Look at the facts on the ground, and take no notice of Israeli propaganda.
you live in a hallucination created by your distorted sensibilities. Who controls the borders of the WB? Who controls the check points? When a Palestinian wants to leave, is it up to them, or the IDF? Who controls their ability (or lack thereof) to build?
Could it be the home rule agreement?
Israel, supported by AIPAC major force in USA, wii never accept palestinian right for their own democratic free state in the occupied territories. Only all forms of resistance on the long run will force this expansionist state to go back into reason.
If Netanyahu says the govt will collapse just by continuing the settlement freeze, imaging what would happen if he makes a single move towards the peace effort.
I have nothing to say. God Bless us ALL
So, retreat to the 49 "green line". It's very kind from the international community to allow Israel to negotiate. You should simply obey and retreat. Period
International community?? Top heavy with Moslem states with petrodollars to throw around.
This huge courtesy the international community is doing for Israel is far beyond the courtesy it gives other countries. Israel should be grateful for this, but instead it says the world is against it.
Still unresolved, but Israel was supposed to obey it long ago. The UN violations are far too many to list here. SC 467 is another quite important one. As well as the ICJ 2004 decision.
Arabs should have done that. They were claiming that Arabs were trying to avoid the direct talks. It can't be Bibi... Israel always seeked solution and it's always Arabs who reject.... Isn't it? It isn't.
Arabs should have done that. They were claiming that Arabs were trying to avoid the direct talks. It can't be Bibi... Israel always seeked solution and it's always Arabs who reject.... Isn't it? It isn't.
...now, without even being asked to do so, state to the whole world, in Arabic, Hebrew and English that: Yes, we accept Israel's RIGHT to be and not only the fact that it is, to continue to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people; and we guarantee that whatever peace treaty we arrive at and sign will be considered by the parties the "end of the conflict" between the Muslim-Arab world and the nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel. But not only don't the Muslim-Arab leadership ready to make such a simple statement of good will, it resists its content time and again, as if the content contradicts the thrust of the Muslim-Arab political/military activity since 1920...!!
Are you truly so ignorant about the history, recent history might i add, of this conflict that haven't heard if the Arab 2002 peace initiative that remained on the table for 7 years, always rejected and ignored by Israel?? Or did you know about it, but are just ranting typical israeli hasbara?? Well, it called for Israel to return to it's pre-1967 borders and negotiate a fair agreement with the refugees. In exchange, every Arab and Muslim state would sign peace treaties with Israel and normalize relations.. Care to explain why "peace loving" Israel rejected and ignored that offer? And might I suggest that you do not talk crap before actually reading up on the conflict? It's just insulting to our intelligence that you would think we would believe what you just said!
such a statement from the occupied to their occupiers while they remain occupied is ridiculous. Do you Israelis recognize their rights? obviously not while you occupy them and deny them basic human rights like freedom of movement.
the Muslim-Arabs according to this "peace proposal" will only be granted a recognition that it exists - not its right to do so - if Israel accept the "proposal" an bloc, as is. Furthermore, the "proposal" is an attempt to flood the nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel, with Arabs, Muslim-Arabs for the most part, thus eliminating this UN member state through demographic means, and this will not pass. Never, Never Again!!! P.S. The way out: United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, as is, which has been accepted by ALL relevant parties to the conflict.
CUM Chávez isn't at the inauguration of Bouterse, Bouta, in Surinam? Well, didn't Bouterse threaten also my Mother? Now not even Chávez can go for an inauguration 2 Surinam! ASS Chávez 2 knows she is also Venezuelan besides being Dutch too.
67 Borders? you must be joking. Israel must be forced back to its original 1947 borders that were set up by the UN. No less and nothing more.
Netanyahu has removed his mask. The face of Mr. NO-PEACE, NEVER is again revealed.
your mask is removed as well mark. we know who you are. you ignore the facts and only read what fuels you anti semitism and ant israel rants
Netanyahu is sticking to a principled stand: negotiations should be direct and at this time, the demand that Israel agree to the 1949 armistice lines as the future border is not acceptable. This is not at all a "no-peace" stand. This is Israel's position. Netanyahu has stated before that he is willing to compromise, and he has offered tangible concessions. No reasonable unbiased observer can call him "no-peace" in light of these facts.
there can be no negotiation when probably the most important topic to be negotiated is agreed upon before the negotiations even started
there can be no negotiation when probably the most important topic to be negotiated is agreed upon before the negotiations even started
What "tangible concessions" has he offered???
Netanyahu wants the PA to give him a precedent setting Israeli-exclusive Right of Conquest for the 67 Conquest lands. And he wants to prevent a contiguous and viable Palestine. He has devoted his life to that and making Israelis scared of everything he says to fear.
you must mean the Palestinians consistently getting screwed. Are the Palestinians supposed to return to talks while Israelis continue building more settlements and unilaterally drawing the lines on the ground? Because that is what you have historically done.
(This is not at all a "no-peace" stand. This is Israel's position) !! Refusing UN resolutions and refusing to turn down the occupied lands to their owners.. this should not be called peace refusal, and may be just called Israel's position. Even if Israel came one day saying (I am overtly against peace) we are still required to call it "opsition". What a laughing stock is it!!
I think Abbas is smart to require some rules to the road before meeting with Bibi.
His platform from the get go was to never allow a Palestinian state. When he was PM in the 90's even Bill Clinton said Netanyahu was not a partner for peace. Bring on the one state solution!
How can you even bring Bill Clinton into anything? The things he did behind closed doors... Netanyahu had every right to come back against the preconditions that was stated. If the Palestinians really wanted peace talks they never would placed in preconditions on the table.
those 80% were moved out from Palestine by the terrorists IDF, and they shall return to their land, the land of their ancestors PALESTINE
Arabs have the option of claiming their national rights in Jordan, the larger territorial part of Mandatory Palestine since 1922.
It is in the Likud's interest to play at negotiations, knowing that they will never agree to the necessary conditions for a viable Palestinian state. Abbas should not give Netanyahu the fig leave of participating in sham negotiations.
there can be no negotiation when probably the most important topic to be negotiated is agreed upon before the negotiations even started
How about 1948 borders then?
there can be no negotiation when probably the most important topic to be negotiated is agreed upon before the negotiations even started. btw, in 1948 there was no Palestine either. the farther back in history you go the weaker the Pal claim...
The Arabs never accepted deals, but chose war. Now you want to turn the clocks back 50 years? Typical.
Why are U.S. so eager to start peace talks between Israel and Palestinians? Aren't they blind to the fact that until Abbas-ruled West Bank and Hamas-ruled Gaza are united as a single entity and with one voice there can't be any negotiations? Palestinians have to get their acts together before there can be any talks of peace talks! Abbas has no authority to demand anything right now!
Looks like "The-emperor-is-not-wearing-any-clothes" time approaching for "Mr Netanyahu the peace-seeker" .
how dare they make ANY DEMANDS, how dare they expect israel to forfiet any of their land, and how dare they even think about coming back home, keep blaming the pals and their right of return and you have a garaunteed world war coming your way, long live palestine, never again.
"To us, the refugees issue is the winning card which means the end of the Israeli state." from the official Fateh website. Not gonna happen.
With your posterior. Long live Palestine, In Jordan.
to live in Jordan?? This is not 1948 or 1967 where the world gave you a free pass to do what you wanted. Those days are over. If you want to permently be a pariah state for the unknown future then do what you propose. We Americans can take our money and finally get your proxies in our congress from blackmailing our congressmen and senators from being elected if they don't toe the Israeli line.
You may ask the same question for those jews (Zioists) who dare to implant themself in the middle of historically a melting crucible.
reading this anti israel biased story... we israel are at sole fault? haaretz wake up! you are an israeli paper who needs US in israel to but your rag... being anti israel only makes the piles of your paper hight and higher every day... shame on your anti israel views and incitement on this board.
Wake up to reality Read the reply from Esther, below. That is well thought out
If Bibi really wanted the talks to go ahead, he could have framed his ultimatum differently... What the Pals mean is not that they expect to get every centimeter back, but that at least compensation should be on the table for what they have lost. When there-is-a-will-there-is-a-way, but with Bibi's septet & the settlments there is no will...
diplomacy is not done through reading minds. whatever the palestinians want, they should present to netanyahu in direct negotiations. if they want a state, they need to enter direct negotiations. israel, too, has demands, but israel is willing to sit down for direct negotiations.
And say a precondition is for Palestinians to recognize Israel. Do you think Hamas would agree? It is very easy to bury the talks.
even before they sit down for any negotiations at all, no matter what you call them... it's just the Pals who aren't allowed to have anything, including the most basic conditions...
israel, as a sovereign state, cannot accept any pre-conditions from the palestinians to start direct negotiations. furthermore, no israeli prime minister, would agree to start negotiations based on what are in effect cease fire lines. borders between israel and any future palestinian state is one of the core issues to be determined during direct negotiations. none of the core issues can be pre-determined prior to direct negotiations.
That is what seems. Mr. No Peace, Never is back.
"The right of every State in the area to exist..." "...withdrawal from territories occupied (not "the" territories" wording which UNSC considered and rejected) to secure and recognized borders free from threats and acts of force". The Quartet" has no force of law and is not binding on anybody. Abbas continues to reject recognizing the Jewish State of Israel (UN wording of 1947 Partition resolution). There is nothing in UNSC242 that states or implies that a settlement has to be based on the 1967 "borders" which were armistice lines and never recognized as "borders". Had Abbas demanded "the 1967 borders" and a Jewish building halt at Oslo, it would have been rejected, and he would still be in Tunis with the rest of the PLO. Rewarding "Intifada" terrorism by giving Abbas more than the 2000 Clinton deal Arafat torpedoed deal puts every American at risk. Less is all they deserve and are going to get. Or they can roll the terrorism dice again and lose even more land.
Palestine...therefore it is incumbant upon Israel to be minimally forthcoming in its dealings with the disenfranchized Pals... as said for the umpteenth time: Israel can't hog it all...
it is the palestinians who want a state. israel is a sovereign state. the new york times, a mouth piece for the obama administration, made it clear that obama is losing patience with abbas. furthermore, you need to keep in mind that the palestinians are totally disunited. hence, netanyahu would take a major risk by agreeing to any negotiations.
NOTHING, NOT a sliver of land outside the borers of the unilaterally declared Jewish State belongs to Israel.And until and unless Israel honors its self imposed obligations 242 the Arabs/UN will not recognize Israel illegal annexation of their land.
there was never a state of palestine.
UN res. 181 is a non binding recommendation, jus a proposal. All land Israel gained in the war 1948 – 1949 is recognized as Israeli land, and Arabs in this area is Israeli citizen. Remember, Arabs rejected their own state in 1947. Arabs even went to war to prevent two state solutions in 1948.
Read Israel declaration of Independence where Israel Declared its Sovereignty over the borders of Res181. 250 UN violations against Israel illegal annexation says the Member Nations are not in agreement with your interpretation of what constitutes the Jewish State
Israel sovereignty over the territories acquired in 1948. The only debate is post 1967 territories. Not a single piece of land more. Not even the palestinians claim Ashkelon or parts of the Negev .And if they do...who cares?
if that freeze goes and building start . so does the quite
When Israel responds. No quiet= A ton of pain. No more Leftist appeaser Govt.
and gaza free from israel . peace will come if we get that .if not whats he point of peace
no thanks i rather have war
You should see Coeur d'Alene or the casinos in Connecticut or even the Spokanes.
not that i don't want peace i just don't want it the israeli way by us being managed and told what we can have or what we can or can't do.
Why can't we have multilateral swaps between Israel, Palestine, and Egypt? If we make Gaza double or triple its current size by adding additional territory from Egyptian Sinai -- say another 600 sq. km. -- this could give Gaza the space it needs. Suddenly Gaza would have the space to build a new city of a million people, along with a real seaport and airport, and to create the conditions that would make economic expansion possible. At the same time, Israel needs 600 sq. km. in the West Bank because the 1967 line is unacceptable from Israel's point of view [since it is not a defensible border]. In return, Israel could give to Egypt 600 sq. km. in the Negev in southern Israel. At the end of the day no one loses land, while multilateral swaps enable us to solve the currently intractable problem of Gaza and solve Israeli needs in the West Bank. . . . With this plan, not only does Egypt lose nothing, but at the end of the day Egypt can gain significant benefits from this arrangement. The new seaport and airport next to Egypt can become major economic connections between the Gulf and Europe. . . . In this proposal no one loses anything -- neither Egypt, nor the Palestinians, nor Israel. This doesn't solve all of the problems, but it does solve at least one significant problem - the territorial dimension.
Why would Egypt give up something for nothing. What is Israel willing to offer Egypt for giving up part of Egypt?
The territory in question isn't Israel's to "give away" and Egypt recognize that fact even if you do not. For Egypt to "accept" your offer is tantamount to them agreeing to be the go-between in an Israeli money-laundering scheme, only in this case it is "stolen territory" that is being laundered, rather than "stolen cash".
So you'd be happy if you could just help yourself to 600 sq Km of the West Bank? How jolly convenient for Israel. This Israeli 'security' story gets waring, because it is entirely artificial. You have your security barrier, that was meant to solve everything, and you took a large part of Palestinian land in order to create it. But no, Israel now wants natural defensive borders miles from Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. So would most countries, but they jave to live with the sovereign territory they have, c'est la vie. I'm sure Belgium would like to hexpand its territory to the Rhine to have a defensive border, while Germany would like Poland up to the Prypet Marshes and so on. Unfortunately for Israel, the days of reckless seizure of others' land for supposedly 'strategical' purposes are long since over. Ypu've got what you were given in 1948. If you are lucky enough to get the additional land up to the Green Line, Israel is very fortunate and favoured, bacuase no other country would be allowed to take territory from another like this. You 600 km of the West Bank is completely farcial and unachievable, it ain't ever going to happen. On that basis, Canada should demand New York State as a buffer zone to defend its southeren approaches. Equally stupid and inconceivable, isn't it?
is quite logical and if there would be "good will" in the region, that would be the real solution to the whole problem. By the way that is a plan crafted by several IDF former officials and has been dealt at different political and strategic forums. The only reason we cannot proceed, is becuase the palestinians do not want " end of conflict. Such a solution would represent an "end of conflict" in which all regional parts would participate in it.
The arrow points to Jordan. They can join the millions of others. NOT in Israel.
What are you going to do?? Ethnically cleanse them into Jordan?? Those days are gone for a free pass for Israel. The role of the victim does not go to you anymore. Want to be a pariah state forever.......well try to push the Palestinains into Jordan and we will have wars forever....We amerians are fed up with your spoiled mentality.
Ubtil you recognize the Jewish state of Israel there won't be peace
had no alternative and he is demanding to the quartet to reiterate what they already said in March. well done. It is now Bibi who refuse direct talk negotiation. We must see if the quartet has a gatz to deny what they said before.
The 67 lines were roughly the point where the shooting stopped and Jordan went home after killing or driving out all Jews. Israel was fighting for her life, not fighting for the local Arabs. These Arabs did not even help, to put it mildly. So how could it be possible to assume the land now belongs to the local Arabs, (now rebranded as "Palestinians"). If there is to be a 2 state, it will be based on the situation of 2010, not 1967. You snooze, you lose.
but you look to millenia-old biblical grounds for the jews' claims to the land of israel
They have been called Palestinians for over 2,000 years now. The inhabitants of Palestine have formally been called Palestinians since the 1922 mandate. In fact modern Palestine predates modern Israel by quarter of a century. This is an age-old Jewish tactic to try to delegitimise Palestine, the better to advance Israeli and Jewish claims to being the Chosen Ones. It is a sillly stance, most countries in the world have existed for under 200 yyears, with a large number only becoming nations in the last 60 years.
just noise, plain and simple, a steady drone of BS which never lets up.
"Despite international criticism of his refusal to begin negotiations, Abbas is insistent on an agreed framework for discussions prior to the start of direct talks" And he is right to do so: it is a ludicrous proposition that he *must* enter talks when the topic that those talks are to cover has not been agreed upon. After all, without that there is nothing to stop Netanyahu from droning on and on and on about the chance of rain, and how well his favourite football team is going.....
It is you who is droning on. You're killing us. Your foolish pontifications are meaningless and wrong. Yikes already.
Still working out your frustrations over the Turkel commission, heh?
Because that's what Abbas wants i.e. he wants the agenda for the talks, and he wants it IN WRITING before he can decide wether or not he is interested in talking. It is an eminently reasonable request, Cipora, but he's still waiting..... ABBAS has said what he wants the agenda to be, and while BIBI has said what he DOESN'T want the agenda to be he still hasn't said what he DOES want the agenda to be. What's keeping him, Cipora?
The framework must recognize both sides legitimate and vital interests but you only recognize one side's interests.It should be the 67's borders against Palestinians renouncing the right to return to Israel within those borders.You can't have your cake and eat it too Johnboy
Unfortunately, so is Israel's list of impossible preconditions: Must gain 40% of Palestine; Must get E Jerusalem, even though the world says no go; Must keep Jordan Valley; Must keep seam zone settlements; Must keep nearly all of Area C; Must divide Palestine into more than 100 separate, non-contiguous areas; Must have a Jewish triangle from Modin Elite to Maale Adumim and back to Gush Etzion, thereby splitting Judea and Samaria into two separate regions; No freeze on settlement building; No vacating of settlements, even those deemed 'illegal' under Israeli law; Must have control of strategic roads; Must keep early warning stations in the hills, access to them and many military bases; Must have all land seized by the security barrier; No right of return for Pal refugees to Israel; No compensation for Pal refugees; Small number of refugees, half a per cent of the total, maybe allowed to return to somewhere; Must have control of Pal airspace; Independent, sovereign, Palestine not allowed to have military forces; No revision of allocation of Palestinian water, largely taken by Israel; Pals must recognise Israel as 'the Jewish state of' Israel - even though no one else does because that's not it's legal name; and so on. It seems that the mindset of the Israeli Jews in general and Bibi and his motley crew in particular is back in the 1930s or earlier, where malign dictators thought they could seize their neighbours' land by force in order to expand their ethnic/ideological footprint. Israel's are impossible demands in the 21st Century. All that permits this Israeli arrogance, its refusal to abide by UN resolutions and international law, is the USA's slavish indulgence of all things Jewish. Obama is proving a completely busted flush in this respect.
....is Israel asked to retreat its troops to the 1967 lines (the 1949 armistice "Green Line"). Also, no where does 242 calls for the setting up of an additional state in the region, not even once. And of course, no where in 242 is there reference to concepts such as "Palestine", "Palestinian people" or a "Palestinian state". Israel has gone out of the way and agreed to place on the table of discussion and negotiations all issues. Demanding more than that is pathetic and an indication that the party is not interested in reaching an accommodation of peaceful coexistence between Arab and Jew, between the Muslim-Arab world and the nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel.
The resolution does not say what you think, either you are lying or you are very unfit for interpretating legal texts. What it actually says is that all parties are to withdraw to their own borders and that they have the right to security within these borders. Israel has obviously not complied with this resolution, saying anything else is an outright lie.
"The Resolution calls upon Israel to withdraw its armed forces to 'secure and recognized boundaries'." No, it says absolutely nothing about the IDF "withdrawing to secure and recognized boundaries". It says that (a) the IDF needs to withdraw from "territory occupied in the recent conflict" and (b) every country needs to recognize everyone else's "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" i.e. you are conflating *TWO* *SEPARATE* *PRINCIPLES* in order to make Res 242 say something that it does not say.
Obviously nuance isn't your thing.
Israel ALREADY DID "withdraw from territories occupied."
"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday rejected a Palestinian demand that direct negotiations be based on a statement by the Quartet confirming its position that the future Palestinian state will be based on the 1967 borders." Note that Bibi can't actually prevent the Quartet from making that statement i.e. all he CAN do (and, apparently, HAS just done) is say that *if* the Quartet makes that statement *then* he will refuse to enter into direct negotiations. A moments thought will tell you that Bibi's rejectionism is therefore as much to "blame" as is Abbas', because their rejectionist positions are merely the mirror image of each other's.
at least he's saying what the goverments thinking
like the other israeli politicans and former presidents look a olmert and perez they say peace but do they really want the arabs or give up the occupation. bibi at least says what they israeli goverment wants and thats everything and that they don't care
Eventually the US will turn its back on Israel and then all the foot dragging will have been in vain. It might take a long time but then again no one ever thought the US would elect a black president. Unexpected things happen over time. That's the risk for Israel.
It is very simple. Abbas only wants everything he demands to be granted, and then he will consider making peace. That is a deal? Behind this farce is the fact that Abbas is seeking every way possible to avoid peace negotiations -- this time by rejecting negotiations. Final borders between two states can only be settled by direct negotiations. No country would agree to give in to such demands with nothing more than a vague promise to perhaps seek peace.
It's " BASED" on 1967 borders. He didn't say that it will be the future borders but the negotiations should be "BASED" on them.
The Arabs have always been deathly afraid of going any further back before 1967, because they know how much it proves the ridiculousness of their claims to anything at all at this point. People are afraid to read the FULL history, because they'll see just how much Israel has already had land taken from it pre-1948.
If not even the Jewish State is legitimate all you have left is a bunch of illegals stuck in Palestine. Turf Israel out of the UN if it refuses to honor its membership obligation, rescind all US support and leave the fake jews to the Arabs/Muslims to sort them
And there it is. Isn’t this the exact type of dialogue that Israel wishes to take part in: rejection of peace talks, no deadline and no specific end, while it persists in building its illegal settlements in flagrant violation of international law, unabated? Bibi was a mess the first time around and he is a mess the second time around. Rather than joining the international consensus and leading Israel to peace, Bibi chooses to stay trapped in his old ideology.He is a coward unable to make or take any concrete steps or acts of peace.
yo ucannot enter negotiations by agreeing in advance on the most important topic on the table. Is that a joke? who does that? anywise it is not the border of Israel that are being determined it is the Pal's borders. based on history of Pal statehood it should be nothing. however the future should not be termined by history. they should have a state
Bibi says he knows the people won't accept talks to start on the BASIS of 1967 borders. Has he checked? He would have room for manoeuvre. He's asked to accept the principle of a viable Palestinian state. Check that out with the people you purport to represent, Bibi. You might be surprised.
The legitimacy of Israel's 1967 borders is no 'topic on the table'. They are recognized by all involved, except Bibi. Is Israel putting a precondition on the table here - implying that Abbas is doing just that?
The legitimacy of Israel's 1967 borders is no 'topic on the table'. They are recognized by all involved, except Bibi. Is Israel putting a precondition on the table here - implying that Abbas is doing just that?
Psst... the pre-67 borders are your country's actual borders. You're lucky that "giving up land" that isn't even yours is the most that Abbas is asking of you, yet you refuse the deal anyway.
Psst... Where did you get this "information"?
Annexation of land by defensive or offensive actions without the explicit recognition of the stakeholders is illegal. The Arabs/UN have no intention of recognizing Israel illegal annexation of Palestinian land, ie1967 borders, until Israel complies with ALL the provisos of their own self imposed obligations ieUN242.
Except, the 181 lines were rejected and war ensued. Now, the final borders are to be negotiated.
Okay? Now we can talk.
There is no Palestinian refuge, only Arabs refuge and their right to return has expired long time ago. And what palestine?
who cares if they oppose it or not? the 1967 borders ARE israel's borders--that is, they're israel's LEGAL and internationally RECOGNIZED borders. this isn't up for dispute. i mean, what the hell? where else are you going to put a palestinian state--for a population that will soon reach over 10 million--if not there? these "talks" are a joke, israel wants to have its cake (appear to want peace) and eat it too (do everything in its power to prevent it).
It really has to be considered whether Israel wants peace or not. They give every indication that they don't but are working towards a strategy that see the settlers occupying most of the West Bank and then arguing that it is a fait accompli.
The 1967 lines are NOT Israel's legal and internationally recognized borders since final borders have never been agreed upon and set between adjacent parties, dimwit.
It has been made amply clear by all parties, except Israel, that the basis for negotiations are the 1967 borders. Netanyahu's formula of peace for peace is a non-starter. Unless the US sticks to the land for peace formula, the 'direct' negotiations will not get of the ground.
The pre-67 borders would include giving up most of Jerusalem, including the holiest sites in Judiasm. Both Jews and Christians were banned from the old city under Jordanian rule. In the 30s, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem even put together his own SS squad to hunt down the Jews in Jerusalem. Today, is free movement within Jerusalem for Jews, Christians, and Muslims (and everyone else). The Grand Mufti still has final say on all maintenance and construction on all Muslim sites. Starting with the '67 borders means that the first step of negotiations would include giving up Jerusalem, the Old City, and many of Judiasms holiest sites. And that would be the first step, before Abbas started with whatever demands he had.
Direct talks ,in the absense of a clear framework, will get nowhere. The sad truth is that Bibi is unwilling to agree to the creation of a viable Palestinian state. All he will offer is some type of ersatz state that will be totally dependent on Israel. And if Abbas rejects this he will be viewed asthe bad guy...just as Arafat was when he rejected Barak's "wonderfull" offer.
If the Palestinian "people" really really wanted a Palestinian "state," they should take what they can and run! Run and make it thrive. Now, they are just picky.
...was "wonderful" for the Palestinians. The Pal propoganda after Arafat's rejection is 95% lies. There are always people like you who have their minds made up already and will believe any garbage. The tables have turned though. Before it was Arafat who had absolutely no interest in peace. Now it is Netahyahu. By the way, any Palestinian state under any scenario will be dependent on Israel. Israel is far stronger miltarliy, economically. That's life. They better start co-operating with each other.
Do you mean that occupied countries should start co-operating with their occupiers, because their occupiers are - and will be - stronger, militarily and economically? I am glad that my country - The Netherlands - did not 'co-operate' with its occupying power 70 years ago. Nor that we gave in to a 'peace for land' proposition. And that the international community - called 'Allies' - were right behind us.
According to international law people are obligated to co-operate whit the occupying power.
This is not personal M.B. Do you have confirmed facts to confirm your claims. I actually live in this region and do not know all the questions, let alone the answers. What is your background regarding this region? This applies to many of these posts. What are your qualifications? Facts only!!! The purpose of direct negotiations is to see who means what and how they will act. I can not read the mind of either Abbas or Bibi. I call on both of them to meet and then we will see who is sincere. Earl in Israel
Were it not for the corrupt pal leadership that has been abusing its own society, were it not for the misguided leaders who feel, that by buying time, Israel will capitulate to the point of strangling itself and bring back leftist traitors, were it not for the arab 'friends' of the pals who fund their economy in terrorism and bribe the leaders to never make peace with Israel, there might be some semblance of peace. It is so obviously clear that those against Israel are so full brainwashed and full of misinformation and hatred toward Israel, they actually give the pals hope that Israel will succumb against its own interests. The pals on both sides of our border have no peace in mind and never will. Blame Israel all you want, but to date, it is only Israel that put its cards on the table and got only murder and destruction from the concept of fair play. It is so hard to create an impossible pal state simply because everyone really knows in the current state of chaos, a normal, healthy, friendly state will never arise. Israel is finished being the fool after seeing for years, it is negotiating with no one of substance. Blame the right, Blame Bibi, blame the religious, and might as well Blame G-d- you propals are totally delusional of reality.