Netanyahu seeks to foil Palestinian declaration of statehood, again

Please take off your hat, you're talking through it Fact is, and easily verified, five Arab Armies in CONJUNCTION with Palestinian Irregulars, who were a Palestinian fighting force, operating under the directrions of the Grand Mufti, Haj Amin El Hussein, attacked Israel on 5/14/48 Surely, you've heard of Abd al-Qadir al-Hsaynii, if not, heres so info Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni عبد القادر الحسيني 1907 (1907) ? 1948 (1949) Portrait Place of birth Jerusalem Place of death Al-Qastal Allegiance Palestine's Arab irregular forces Service/branch Army of the Holy War Years of service 1936-1948 Battles/wars 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni (Arabic: عبد القادر الحسيني?, also spelled Abd al-Qader al-Hussein

Ben Jabo, shame on you. If you care enough to write about ME issues, you must know that what you wrote is nothing more than an attempt to deceive. Palestinians had nothing to do with Arab rejection of the opportunity to declare statehood under UN resolution 181 as Israel did in 1948. There was no Palestinian governing entity at that moment. Jordan immediately moved in and occupied the West Bank. Palestinians did not attack Israel. Israel was attacked by Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt. The Palestinians had no army. The spilt milk to cry over is the Israeli 42 year brutal, humiliating occupation of Palestinians on Palestinian territory, in violation of international law.

Mr Netanyahu should be arrested for blackmail.

Palestinian's had a stated, as provided by the UN Partition Plan They rejected their state, attacking Israel instead You're crying over milk that the Palestinian's themselves spilled Hamas and Fatah can't get along with each other, how do you expect them to get along with Jews?

I don't know for sure whom will the world recognize. But the Palestinians are badly affected and they are badly in need of an independant state. Without Jews can get reconciled to Gentiles leaving away their ethnocentricism, a single state solution in which Jews and Palestinians will share equality can be a good dream, in a notoriously evil sitz im leben, where the fulfillment of the dream is just impossible.

Analogy isn't a very fun or productive game. But if you want to look further at ideas. Take conquered East Jerusalem. Israel claims it by right of conquest. Ironic since that is how Ancient Israel claimed it too. They also claim and plan to annex large sections of the West Bank by right of conquest. And they will allow the Palestinians to negotiate for some scrapings or the privately owned land not already seized. Israel is unwilling even to follow its own law and pay rent past due for privately owned land it had confiscated in the past. Privately owned according Israeli records and according to the records Israel seized from Ramallah several years ago. But if you want to play analogy. Lets talk about the Hamptons on Long Island. Why can't the Nez Perce and the Shinecock and Shawnee and Oglala and Pawnee simply go and seize the Hamptons and tell the residents that they'll negotiate for the Golf Course and country club, if the residents are peaceful about it.

Usually when a new state is declared, it meets with immediate resistance from those who rule the country. A revolutionary war is the typical result. If the revolution is successful, then the former power relinquises its control Else, the revolution is not successfull You ask for an example. The Amaerican revolutionary war followed from the colonies' Declaration of Indepenance. The hostilities were concluded when the British Parliament aknowledged the validity of the American revolutionaries' position and relinquished control over the former colonies. Ok. To some extent I am beiong cynical. I simply cannot see the Israeli government agreeing to the independence of an autonomous and sovereign State of Palestine. They will, perhaps, agree to a Palestinian state provided the current status quo is maintained, i.e. Israel in forceful control. In such a case, however, only the terminology is twisted a bit to consdole the Palestinians, but current conditions remain unchanged

Eli, what do you wish Hamdi to explain? You should ask him to start with Khartoum, because you are totally confused about Khartoum and the three no answers. There were no Israeli offers to Palestinians, or anybody else, at Khartoum as you seem to imply. The Khartoum summit took place from 29 August to 1 September 1967, not 1978. The summit was a conference by the Arab League and was attended by eight Arab heads of state. There was no Palestinian participation. The Khartoum Resolution produced three no answers having to do with Arab dealings with Israel. You should apologize for your snide remarks about Mr. Hamdi?s intellect, and submit your own intellect for scrutiny.

In 2004 the High court of Israel stipulated that the legal boundary bwtween Israel and the West Bank is the line defined by the Arnistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan at the close of hostilities of the 1967 war, i.e, the Green Line If you wish to argue this point, take it up with the High Court of Israel. The high court also stipulated that Israel is the "belligerent occupier" of Palestine and emphasized that the occupied territory IS Palestine and is NOT Israel The only way Israel can acquire this territory legally is by inducing the Palestinians to convey ownership of their land to Israel. But this will work only if Palestinains CHOOSE to sell. Why else do you suppose Netanyahu wants so desparately to negotiate? The government of Israel will not acknow;edge this ruling of her High Court. Instead it conntinues a military occupation of Palestinian, while flooding Palestine with civilian settlers, an act which itself stands in violation of international law.

Israelis and Palestinians are as far aprt as ever and this is why nothing has been resolved. Millions of refugees, Jerusallem status, incimpatible cultures, distrust, security concerns etc.etc. The answer? I dont know

All, The Other Threat - PA dissolves itself and demands annexation by Israel as a One State Solution. Israel calls their bluff. They have already annexed East Jerusalem and they extend annexation to the entire West Bank. Full citizenship benefits to the present inhabitants of the WB. No annexation of Gaza. After all, no Jews live there and it is a hostile entity. Israel changes its basic law to elect the Knesset by district. Some US style gerrymandering results in 80 Jewish majority districts and 20 Pal majority districts. German style 5% minimum w/i a district for party participation. The WB Pal population is overstated with overseas Pals, triple count of EJ Pals (already part of the 1.2M Israeli Arabs). The probable result - 1M non-Jerusalem Israeli Arabs, 200 K EJ Arabs, 2.3 M West Bank Arabs totaling 3.5 M Arabs, 5.8 M Jews plus an additional voting 500 K overseas Israeli Jews. Results: 3.5 M Arab votes - 6.3 M Jewish votes. Jewish PM, Jewish Army.

All, The Unilateral Declaration - again. Palestine declares itself a state which is accepted by the UN which brings it in as a full member. Israel withdraws to its desired boundaries. The difference between the de facto narrow Palestinian boundaries and the 'de jure' 67 boundaries becomes officially 'disputed territories' between recognized states. We're back to a negotiated settlement under UN SCR 242, the Road Map and Annapolis. Israel has lost nothing. If the UN does nothing about forcing a further Israeli withdrawal, then Israel wins. Palestine may end up with the 'de facto' boundaries. This, of course, has always been Palestine's nightmare and is why they haven't declared independence yet. Of course, there is no case of long term occupation of 'disputed territories' except: Morroco's occupation of Spanish Sahara, Armenia of Nagorno-Karabakh Russia's occupation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Taiwan's de facto independence w/i UN recognized China

"Expulsion of the Palestinians" I can't imagine any Zionist said "a country without people". I have most of the volumes of "The letters and papers of Chaim Weizmann" in front of me.. No where " a country without people " is being mentioned ! I can see many pages where Weizmann talking with Emir Faisal about close collaboration between Jews & Arabs. I can also see that Amir Faisal saying to Weisman that the Amir don't recognize the Palestinians as Arabs. See also page 155 Volume XI,where Weizmann wrote a letter dated july 20th,1922: to :Menahem Daniel Basra:(a wealthy man in Iraq ): "As you are doubtless aware, Dr Alfonso Besion (zionist) is at present in Iraq with the approval of His Majesty King Faisal and his Excellency the High Commissioner, as the accredited representative of the Keren Hayesod ...to help the Jewish community of Baghdad etc.." Try to find better sources with some truth in them to prove you points. Zionism was never against any people anywhere in the World

There are three ways to solve the problem: A) Either you accept international law for your Palestinian neighbour to live in a state and you withdraw all jewish settlers from all illegal settlements ? what means international recognition but might also mean national trouble, even civil war (300.000 hostile settlers at your doorstep?). Or B) You try to escape those problems by doing nothing but keeping the status quo: Keeping millions of Palestinans in a prison, deprive them from water and goods, humiliating them every day, destroying their crop - and getting cheered by an incredible number of Jews, who enjoy that humiliation of non-jews (just study Ha aretz talkback). Or C) You start negotiating immediately: You are looking for friends, you tell them about your intentions. Finally you will succeed. Israel must find out NOW: 60 years should be enough.

It is time for you to realize that Palestinians can't go back to their ancestors: they are among their ancestors. They must demand their rights in Palestine. That's where they originated and where they belong. Palestinian people predate Israelites in Canaan, When Israelite tribes crossed into Canaan, Canaan, also know as Palestine, was occupied by semite tribes, Amorites, Hittites and Jebusites. The words Jews and Arabs weren?t known yet.The Jebusites built Jerusalem and occupied it for 100 years after the Israelites arrived in Canaan. The New York University School of Medicine, and the National Academy of Sciences have discovered that Middle East Jewish men have common genetic signature with Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese men, and not with any other non-Jews in the world. Many noted historians maintain the Jebusites are forebears of the Palestinians. If that is true, the Palestinian forebears built Jerusalem. If so, they deserve a state.

Sorry John, Marcus Goldstein is correct. You are not. The US and other nations did not declare Israel to be a state for the Jewish people. On 14 May 1948, under UN resolution 181, Israel declared itself the State of Israel. The US and other nations then recognized the State of Israel, and subsequently so did the UN. But you are right that ignorance is sometime(sic) overwhelming on this talkback.

It is amazing that in this day and age there is a Jew that doesnt know that when Israel declared statehood under UN resolution 181 in 1948, there was no Palestinian governing entity. Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt controlled Gaza.The Palestinians did not attack Israel in 1948, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt attacked Israel. The Palestinians didnt have an army. Did you really not know this, or are you trying out for a position as an Israeli propagandist? You aren't going to make it.

Right here: "3) Jim...neither Israel nor the world are stupid enough to get rid of territories first in order to start negotiating a peace treaty." The weasel-words: "get rid of territories". Arik, Israel OCCUPIES those territories, it does not OWN them. The territory is therefore not Israel's to "get rid of", nor to "put out in the trash", nor to "give away", nor any other variation on that theme. Israel merely has CONTROL over that territory, and the only question is when - and under what conditions - it is willing to relinguish that control and withdraw its army. The arrogance and the ignorance of your statement is staggering, because it signals that you believe these settlements are ALREADY on Israeli territory, and Israel is being pressured to "give that territory away". That is simply untrue: the settlements are on PALESTINIAN territory, and Israel is being pressured to withdraw from that territory.

SDHD: "The Palestinians can get a state out of the deal -- something they`ve NEVER had." That would be true if Israel were the sovereign in the West Bank, because a sovereign can always "give" its sovereignty away to someone else. But Israel is not the sovereign in the West Bank, and so a sovereign state isn't something that Israel can "give" to the Pals. But r cummings is incorrect: Israel can "give" the Pals something i.e. it can "give up" the occupation. Think of it this way: If Israel did *NOTHING* *ELSE* but agree to end the occupation then: (a) Abbas would declare his state the day after that and (b) every country on Earth would immediately recognize that state. You and I both know that is true, and yet nowhere in that sequence of events can you point to Israel "giving its permission" for a Palestinian state i.e. it merely removed the one and only impediment to that statehood, and the Pals then did the rest.

"To pose a question, what if Mexico, made a unilateral declaration of statehood for California and Texas? Would the USA not consider this an act of war?"eli Eli in case it slipped your notice--California and texas are the sovereign territory of the USA. The West Bank is not sovereign Israeli territory. "If Palestinians declare statehood, a precursor to which is declartion of soveriegnty over said land. that would mean, if this land conflicted with what Israel considers its land would give rise to a war."eli And building illegal settlements housing 500,000 illegal settlers is not supposed to cause war. You are living in la la land Eli---really you are.

-----"example, Jerusalem, Palestnians claiming that this is their land and their capital will cause a war. The final status of this is to be determined from negotiations not unilateral declaration of statehood in an area where they have no military power enforcing thier sovereignty."----- Of course, Israel unilaterally annexing East Jerusalem as its territory likewise constitutes an act of war, right Eli? Perhaps even moreso since international law recognizes East Jerusalem as Palestinian--not Israeli--territory.

a unilateral Palestinian declaration of State. News today, America is against such a move by the Palestinians. No surprise, US has been playing the Devil's advocate all along!

Palestinian's will stop the state all by their lonesome, infighting, as demonstated by Fatah v Hamas They all be jockeying for loot and power Palestinian's have the corrupt American Congress as an example to go by Or they can also model themselves on the going on's in Iraq & Afghanistan, two more examples of Muslim corruptness I'll bet you can't name a single Arab government that isn't corrupt and dishonest

More countries will recognize Palestine and then continue to ignore it just as they have in the past Almost all of them would rather keep their men & money at home, rather than waste it on the Palestinian cesspool

I have a great idea! Israel should be like Dubai. There arabs can't vote but are permited to live and work. In Israel there should be 100 million arab workers to build up the State, it's factories, farms and to take care of it's construction all working for very very cheap. Like in Dubai. And these arabs should not be given the right to vote or be a citezen like in Dubai where the arabs cannot vote or be a citezen. The arabs would of course be making more in Israel than they currently are making in their own countries. No one is forcing them.

joop did you ever learn any history of the mid east start with the ottoman empire !! there never has been a palestine land !!

"Anyone who has any doubt about your very accurate assessment of Israel`s intentions should read the book "Expulsion of the Palestinians:" Anyone who has a basic clue should reflect on the Arab massacres of Jews in 1920-21, 1929, and 1936-39. It wasn't until the mid-1930s that Jewish population started fighting back against the hostile Arab population. The Arabs launched a civil war.

"The other sheet says: What we are ready to give Palestine in return. It is blank because Israel has nothing it can offer." The blank space is between your ears. The Palestinians can get a state out of the deal -- something they've NEVER had.

Anyone who has any doubt about your very accurate assessment of Israel's intentions should read the book "Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of 'Transfer' in Zionist Political Thought". Very enlightening expose on the reality of what the Zionist movement intended to do from the very beginning of their invasion of Palestinian land in the early 1900s. Everything is documented from Zionist and declassified Israeli plans and communications, not from accusations made by Palestinians.

Any comparisons with Mexico show lack of understanding how world works. West Bank territories, settlements , even Jerusalem are not recognized as Israeli territories. Even Israelis call them occupied territories. The rest of the world does not recognize Israel's rights there either. Now, the border with Mexico is absolutely recognized, treaties were signed - it makes no sense to compare the two. What does make sense to compare is hystorical right of... American Indians. Based on Israeli argument, they should be able to walk into any house and declare it being theirs because they were here first - this is the only argument that Israel seem to have for settlements. Even strategic excuse makes no sense now. So if you want agree that Indians can declare Canada their land and you would be OK with that - then let's compare.

If Palestinians declare statehood, a precursor to which is declartion of soveriegnty over said land. that would mean, if this land conflicted with what Israel considers its land would give rise to a war. For example, Jerusalem, Palestnians claiming that this is their land and their capital will cause a war. The final status of this is to be determined from negotiations not unilateral declaration of statehood in an area where they have no military power enforcing thier sovereignty. To pose a question, what if Mexico, made a unilateral declaration of statehood for California and Texas? Would the USA not consider this an act of war? Or is it only an act of war should USA residents in California and Texas not wish to leave their union and join the 3rd world in Mexico?

"Which parts of Israel`s actual Sovereign territories were attacked?" I cannot really grasp if CJ is tizzing or talking seriously. Lets put some things in clear 1) The palestinians did not accept the partition because they did not want any jewish state in that region. period 2) They launched a war against the Jewish community which was responded by the plan Dalet, and not the other way around 3) The arab armies came to exterminate the Jewish state. Therefore it was logical, courageous and totally rightfull to attack them. A defensive war of a tiny community against military vandalism. 4) The result was the naqbah and the armistice borders. 5) The result is that no palestinian state was created and will no be created without direct negotiations between the parts on borders,refugees and Jerusalem. Nothing belongs to the palestinians, and without negotiations I am afraid that the status quo will prevail.

Simply wrong "The world is waiting for Israel to abide by that agreement, move its settlers back into legal Israeli territory, end the occupation, and begin negotiations for a legitimate peace accord." WRONG 1)The world is waiting for peace negotiations that will end with Israel occupation in most of thE territories. 2)A palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state will be created. 3) Jim...neither Israel nor the world are stupid enough to get rid of territories first in order to start negotiating a peace treaty. If the palestinians want a state..they will have to work for it, and do what they do not want to do 1) Recognize the jewish state 2) Accept the refugees into the Palestinian state territory

1978. I believe there was something called the 3 no's from Khartoum. In exchange for more land than you'd get today, and a commitment to a two state solution, open borders and recognition. What was the answer: No Peace with Israel No Recognition of Israel No Negotiations with Israel So, I don't know how you've been negotiating since 1967, when this happened in 1978, its ok Hamdi, maybe simple chronology just is above your intellectual means, maybe you've never heard the truth before. who knows. Or maybe, what you mean by negotating just translates differently into english. In Canadian English, negotiating would mean "General: Bargaining process between two or more parties (each with its own aims, needs, and viewpoints) seeking to discover a common ground and reach an agreement to settle a matter of mutual concern or resolve a conflict" But I guess since Israel would have still existed at the end of the Khartoum agreement it was an unfair offer. So Please explain

Reciprocity/Economic independence, two to tango from Barack, No Partner from Ariel,and from Ehud...Cannot remember. Now that the world has witness the wars on Lebanon, and Gaza, they are therefore prepare to sign on the U D I of the State of Palestine. Bibi should be wise to do same for all Israelis too, to avoid war with the settlers.

what can we show for our long NEGOCIATIONS. Zils Israel in the meantime build MORE settlements, WALLS on the West Bank instead of Israel, More checkpoints,more Settlers only Roads, confiscating more lands , Demolishing more Arab Houses, settlers vandalized Arabs agricultural lands, just a few of many many things we lost.

PM Nethanyahu, and Pres. Obama, and PA Chairman Abbas and Pres.Assad Jr. Netanyahu will not have to move the settlers back to Israel, The job will be left over to the PA Security or the settlers will become de facto Jewish Palestinians. Obama, will not have to worry about the Jewish Lobby AIPAC, thus his next term assured. Since the security of Israel will not be threatened thus Americans Military aid will no longer required. Abbass will be popular and Hamas unpopular, Gaza will be back under PA.State of Palestine will sign Peace Treaty with Israel, and all 57 Islamic countries will open their borders with the Israelis. Assad, will be happy to get back his lost Territory, stop his friendship with Iran, HEZB,Hamas. The best thing for the region is The UDI by Abbass & Company. Sallaam

will agree to be controlled by the Baddwin state of Jordan or Egypt you solution is outdated no one will buy it, the same thing I don't thing Jordan or Egypt will help you solve the problem by exporting it to them, Israel occupied the territories it is your problem now deal with it.

'negotiations' to begin as if that's a whizzo new solution. He has two sheets of paper. One says: What we want from Palestine and it lists 10 things. - 9 settlement blocs minimum and probably 12 - Your capital - the Jordan Valley - the other 100 settlements being allowed to remain and expand - continuing lion's share of the water - control of Pal airspace and airwaves - No ROR and no compensation for the refugees - Total control of any Pal insurgent actions - ... but no army with which to do so - recognition of Israel as an ethno-religious state The other sheet says: What we are ready to give Palestine in return. It is blank because Israel has nothing it can offer. That is not a negotiation, it is a set of unconditional and unacceptable terms. Why would anyone bother participating in Netanyahu's latest lcharade exactly, as it's a complete waste of time?

If Abbu Mazan declares a palestinian state, and Jews are left in that territory. What is the difference if they fight back than the people that the world is calling Palestinians, that stayed behind when Jordan pulled out.

CJ, first you have to be a people. the deal with the UN was with Israel, and Jordan working out borders. Jordan plainly gave up any right to that land in 67 when they pulled out. There was no Palestinians.

Why exactly is mr Netanyahu opposed to such a declaration? Hasn't he publicly declared his support for the creation of such a state. Is he really in favor of the one-state solution perhaps? Oh well, one more reason for Israel to cry wolf!

The US doesn't need to veto it unless its a very last resort. If this is going to the Security Council all the US needs to do is recomend against it and say they insist on a negotiated settlemtns ( in practicallity is the only thing that can work anyway ) and he will get the Europeans will vote against backing the palestinian demand. The General Assembly might be waighted in the palestinians favour but the Security Council where the US is king most of them would take Israels side on this issue and also insist they will only vote to support a state in borders that have been agreed on with Israel through negotiation. Palestinians would be doing themselves more harm than good if they asked the Security Council to vote on a non negotiated solution. Israel has nothing to worry about.

The zionist did not act unilaterally when they took power in 1947, they asked permission from the populations!!!!

including IPI and other institions are not even thinking on an UN Force in the WB or Gaza. The UN do not always know what to do, but in this case maybe FIJI islands is a lonsome Troop- contributor. Do not forget the complex situation of NATO, EU and UN and OSCE. This story is total wasting of time of somer clueless protagonists.

The Palestinians and Israel will gain nothing by a unilateral declaration.The situation on the ground would still be the same.The problem with settlement and east Jerusalem would be unsolved.A de-facto state,would follow by a de-facto occupation,and that would mean a de-facto war.Are we so stupid?!

As you say, once a palestinian state declares independence, the pa has the obligation to control its territory. I assume you agree that with this obligation comes the necessity of disciplining anyone within the new state who refuses to accept its legal authority.

Fatah option is State Dept fiction and doesn`t exist in the real world. Only power keeping Fatah alive and preventing West Bank from turning into another Gaza under Hamas is Israeli army. Solutions: (a) Gaza: Under linkage to Egypt, turned into Dubai-like indl/comml hub on East Med; (b) West Bank: Parts federated with Jordan; safeguarding security & settlements for Israel, demographics for Arabs, holy sites for both. 2-State Plan doesn't make sense only if you think its aim is Peace; it makes a lot of sense if you realize its aim is further progress in the staged plan to destroy Israel.

Since the Westbank is so carved up by settlements, walls, razorbarbed wire and bypassroads, a Palestinian State is no longer viable. The borders of 1967 are so violated by Israel, that a solution has to be found within the borders of the old land Palestine, the Palestine from before the state of Isreal. "One man-one vote" or the model of Bosnia, or a situation of eternal conflict and war.

"there would still be israeli jews living in the west bank. they will never, under any conditions, agree to become part of a palestinian state. they will rise up for sure." You may be right. However, that means that no 'Palestine' will ever be allowed by them, no matter what the route, negotiated or otherwise. All 'peace' talks are thus a waste of time. What is your solution? Mine is a single secular state for all.

good faith treaty negotiations do not depend on the status of parties. such good faith depends on the parties' willingness and ability to honor any obligations and responsibilities that are agreed upon in the treaty.

a declaration of "independence" is not a declaration of war. however, if the declaration is made without an explicit agreement between the parties, it will undoubtedly lead to war. the historical record is clear on this point. if the palestinians declare independence, they become a sovereign state. israel would have no obligation to control anyone in that state. the pa is bound by the oslo accords to control certain of its territory. this control, which is not exercised in gaza, is a treaty obligation under the oslo accords. once a pal state declares independence, the pa will have the obligation to control its territory. on the other hand, israel will no longer have any of the obligations of oslo or of the geneva convention. such declaration would supercede oslo and would make geneva conventions, as it applies to humanitarian aid, inapplicable.

"Palestinian`s already had a state, under the UN Partition Plan" No they didn't. The partition plan was a suggestion which only the Jewish Peoples Council could take up, because the Jewish Agency was in control of territories slated for the new Arab State at the time the British Mandate ended. An entity must have complete control of it's territories in order to declare Sovereignty. " which they promptly tossed on to the scrap heap when they attacked Israel in 1948" Which parts of Israel's actual Sovereign territories were attacked?

"First the declaraion of a state. Then we must wait till another revolutionary war is fought and the Knesset agrees to the independence of Palestine" Please explain and show an example ...

Israel refuses and continues to honor its Roadmap obligations. Why would the Palestinians expect Israel to negotiate in good faith before they declare independence? Netanyahu never has.

You seem to see a Palestinian declaration of Independence as a declaration of war. It would not be unless Israel made it so. Israel has a responsibility to control it citizens when they engage in illegal activities, something it rarely does in the Palestinian territories. If the Palestinians declare independence, I would expect Israel to control any Israelis who object violently. Just like you expect the PA to control Hamas. There is NO Difference whatsoever.

With Israeli leaders running from war crime charges and Israel's worldwide popularity at its all time low, Israel would find itself in some very tough times if it were to try to deny the Palestinian statehood under the framework of existing UN resolutions and long standing international laws. The Internet also prevents Israel from effectively feeding its pro-Israel 'woe is me' propaganda to western news media outlets, because while it may have worked in the past, today the traditional news agencies are competing for their very lives and cannot risk being exposed as mere propaganda tools while internet news agencies publish the truth. Should Israel refuse to end its occupation and deny the right of the Palestinian people to exist, Israel would paint itself as the bad guys and expose what most educated people already know, that Israel's diabolical plan all along has been to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians and steal their land.

Efrat's in occupied Palestine, isn't it. Congratualtions on your new nationality.

Perhaps you should read your history books again, mine says that Ben Gurion and his friends issued a declaration of independence before the state of Israel was ratified by the UN!

you always seem to be arguing the wrwong historical analogies. israel is a single state, not a collection of like-minded states. israel has no intention of waging war on the pals with the aim of destroying them and pushing them into the desert. israel only wants to negotiate for a small piece of land. if the pals continue to resist such negotiations, and continue their resistance policies, israel and her people will have no choice but to fight whatever war is thrust upon them. not every israeli might agree, but most will. once those who disagreed in the beginning, will join forces. israeli jews do not like to see their fellow citizens slaughtered. so, mark, don't even dream of your scenario.

Israel in not willing to currently give up more than 60% of W. Bank or deal with refugees. The PA is boxed in with no good options. The US would be in bad position to either veto out right or try to delay it for 2yrs to get peace talks one last chance. A veto would cause US alot of problems with troops in 2 Muslim countries and need to control Iran's nukes.

Dump the ghetto mentality! We wanted and got our state, they want a state, and should get it. Will I eat less bread, will I feel pain, will I feel endangered, will I feel threatened in my manhood, no?! So git it done with, and move on! Bibi and his guys are outdated and will be outmaneuvered in the end. Why does US Jewry lose enthusiasm for Israel? They get tired of this mess, a mess that is unnecessary!

You seem to be arguing that the settlers and Israeli government will take on the role of Jordan Syria and Egypt ala 1948. If this happened, it would be truly ironic. But I don't think the Israeli people are ready to let the Israeli government take on that role. I don't think even most right wing Israelis are ready to assume that label.

Arabs lost several wars of aggression that they initiated and now they want to seize land from Israel while Israel stands idly by? I think not.

....a future Palestine only in the West Bank or in the whole of Israel, unfortunately there is no alternative, if the Israeli people wanna avoid to get the "South-Africa" treatment. A smart people surely wouldn't have to think twice, the question is: Are the Israeli people a smart people...???

What does Israel want? No independent Palestinian state, no a one-state solution. no freedom of movement to the Palestinians living in Gaza and west bank. I know many Israelis love to see Palestinians leaving the territories and move to Jordan but that won't happen. can you please spell out what exactly do you want so negotiations can go a head with some goals.

it can be assumed with certainty that there would be war on all fronts if the pa were to declare a state unilaterally. i would not be surprised one bit if undeclared goal of abbas were this kind of war. war coming from gaza and lebanon will most likely happen regardless. there is absolutely no doubt that civilians would suffer terribly, and in particular in israel. the other side does not respect any of the laws of war. bothe hamas and hezbollah have stated clearly that they do not recognise international laws or agreements. they will fire missiles into population centers indiscriminately. shavua tov, cipora

the answer is that NO amount of bibis can. all he can do is threaten and condemn, cajole and convince, and wheedle and worry. but he really can't "stop" it.

D: "If they really wanted a state they would return to the negotiation table immediately and put the onus on Bibi." And Bibi would respond to that "onus" by sitting at the negotiating table with his arms crossed and a smirk on his face, and all the while muttering "No, try again" to ever bridging proposal, non-paper, position-paper, policy-paper, etc., that is placed before him by either the Palestinians or the Americans. Because while he certainly has a vested interest in STARTING negotiations, he has no interest in seeing them CONCLUDE. Quite the reverse; he has arranged things so that settlement expansion will continue for as long as those negotiations drag on. Therefore the only sensible strategy for him to follow is to drag out those negotiations until the End Of Days. Which is exactly what he will do, because that is exactly what he did last time he was PM.

CJK: "there would still be israeli jews living in the west bank." They would be dual-citizens i.e. "Palestinian Jew" and "Israeli Jew" and as such would be entitled to two passports. CJK: "they will never, under any conditions, agree to become part of a palestinian state." Then they would be "permanent residents" living in a foreign state, rather than "citizens" of that state. So? CJK: "they will rise up for sure" Then they will be "terrorists", Cipora, and "foreign terrorists" at that. I thought you took a dim view of such scum? CJK: "such an uprising would lead to horrific bloodshed on both sides." No, it wouldn't: the slaughter would be quite one-sided because the IDF would rush to the aid of any "settler uprising". In short: you are claiming a settler power of veto over the Pals BECAUSE of fear those settlers will turn to terrorism. As arguments go it doesn't sit well with your previously-expressed views on never "surrendering to terrorism".

As we say around here: "You can put your boots in the oven but that don't make 'em biscuits." All the declarations in the world won't give the Palies a state. They were supposed to negotiate for one and they didn't. They were supposed to do it in a peaceful manner and they didn't. And that's all she wrote. Their warlike party is over.

"they (the settlers) will rise up for sure (in case of declaration of statehood). Such an uprising would lead to horrific bloodshed on both sides." (Cipora) Not only... The bloodshed (of mostly civilians on both sides) would encompass all of Israel plus Gaza and most probably Lebanon too. The soldiers would be the safest...

once the idf is obliged to leave the west bank, whether by negotiated agreement or u.n. recognition of a palestinian state, most of the settlers will leave with it, some will remain to become citizens, and those who choose violent resistance will deserve what they get in return. however, if you stop and think about, those who might do so are very same who are now hiding behind idf protection to carry out their aggressive agenda of harrassment and violence against the palestinians...and its very unlikely that they would remain and do so without that idf protection. that sort is quick to lose their bravado when left to fend for themselves.

Best wishes, Palestinians. The people in the World supports you!

Palestinian's already had a state, under the UN Partition Plan, which they promptly tossed on to the scrap heap when they attacked Israel in 1948 and in subsequent wars

...but they an stay if they would like. Fayad said that they will be treated as well as Arab-Israelis or Palestinians in Israel. See, everything works out just fine. No need for bloodshed, stay or leave. They'll have to get used to having the same amount of water as Palestinians though, and of course those private roads won't exist anymore. If colonists decide to take up arms against the new government well it will be their prerogative to restore order. One could hardly call that "slaughter[ing] Jews" - it would simply be self-defense and enforcing public order in the nascent state. You believe in a state being able to defend its people and keep public order don't you?

Marcus the examples of states unilateraly declaring indepence both led to protracted and bloody wars. Tis time it will no doubt be more horrendous than Gaza. So don't talk it up. It will not do either Israel or the nacent Palestinian state any good.

Proposing the One state solution is much more efective for getting the Palestinians their own country.. it transforms their struggle from a conflict between peoples to one of civil rights, and world public opinion can identify with that much better. I done correctly it would shift away from the useless scourge of terrorism and into far more effective techniques of peaceful protest, civil disobedience ala King and Ghandi and Rosa Parks. Plus it threatens Israel with the Pal's most effective weapon of mass destruction: the demographics timebomb.. Watch how fast Israel will pull out and let them have a country if they do it!

If the Palestinians really wanted a state of their own, they would have had it long ago. There were many ocasions of negotiated peace in a two state solution. However, they dont' want a two state solution, they want one state from the Mediterranean to Jordan. Moreover, they prefer to be victims financed by the whole world. Billions of dollars pour into the PLO leaders pockets, not into infrastructure, hospitals, education.... When the Palestinians are ready to take on the responsabilities of running their own state, there will be peace. Meanwhile, it's all just propaganda. Let them declare unilaterally a Palestinian state and see what they can do with it. Israel would finally be rid of this huge responsability. They just wont' do it.

"Negotiated Settlement" is the joke Quite right! No independence was ever freely granted at the negotiating table. By proposing a negotiated settlement to this conflict, Netanyahu is playing games with Palestinians and with world leaders. And he knows it.

Don't get so angry girl. Look on the plus side - the illegal settlers will have the option to be legitimate citizens in the 'Peoples Republic of Palestine' or move into Israel proper, and Israel won't get any more stick for it's violation of article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention with it's illegal settlements in occupied territory !

UN Peacekeepers were in place, Nasser told them to bug off, they packed and left as fast as their little feet could carry them Anymore great ideas??

What if Palestinians do in 2011 or 2012 what Israelis did in 1948? Some here think Israelis living in the new Palestine will rise like the Arabs did in 1948. That prospect didn't stop the Israelis in 1948. Did it? The real question is what will the government of Israel do? Will it act like Egypt and Jordan did in 1948? Or will it come to the table and negotiate the border dispute in good faith? Will it give up the fiction that because they are not yet a state, that no occupation exists? Or will Bibi play George III?

"Both the US and Israel were established by unilateral declarations of independence, so what`s the problem with the Palestinians following their example?" No problem at all! First the declaraion of a state. Then we must wait till another revolutionary war is fought and the Knesset agrees to the independence of Palestine.

"the un might send a few thousand troops, who would stand by doing nothing, or actually helping the palestinians." probably.

some land swaps and be done with them.

"Netanyahu threatened that Israel would annex portions of the West Bank." If it does so, it will be in violation of the armistice agreemnent signed by Israel and Jordan at the close of the 1967 hostilities - the agreement which which estabished the Green Line as a border between Israel and the West Bank. The world is waiting for Israel to abide by that agreement, move its settlers back into legal Israeli territory, end the occupation, and begin negotiations for a legitimate peace accord.

Palestine will raise with or without.

Please Watch and distribute this free movie about how to make the world a better place. Both "Zeitgeist" and its "Addendum" are available to watch at google video and it is freely downloadable. Join the movement that is really bringing change to "OUR WORLD"

Neither the US nor Israel declared its independence with borders that included other nations' territory. Palestine is declaring with 1967 borders. However, Palestinian declaration of statehood would be beneficial to Israel. As an independent state, Palestine would be owed nothing by Israel. Any cross-border movement (people or materials) would require agreement (Palestine would be forced to negotiate directly). If Palestine pursued their territorial claims militarily.....the Palestinian government/state would not be able to claim that it was uncontrollable rogue elements among them that were responsible. War could be fought to completion --- unconditional surrender. If Palestine pursed their territorial claims peacefully....Israel could prohibit any cross-border movement of people and material. Can Israel live without Palestinians?

Israel has been "negotiating" for 15 plus years. There really is nothing to negotiate. The world consensus with the exception of of course Israel and the US is a two state solution created with the FULL Israeli withdrawal of the territories occupied in 1967. It is actually not that complicated and barring a few publicity seeking rejectionists, ie Ahmadinejad and for that matter Israeli politicians, practically everyone, even now Hamas more or less agrees with it.

there would still be israeli jews living in the west bank. they will never, under any conditions, agree to become part of a palestinian state. they will rise up for sure. such an uprising would lead to horrific bloodshed on both sides. if the palestinians decide to slaughter jews, they would be doing so as a sovereign state. it is inconceivable that nato would send forces to stop the bloodshed. the un might send a few thousand troops, who would stand by doing nothing, or actually helping the palestinians.

Israel will negotiate and if the Palis do not accept that, then they will declare their statehood. Many will accept it many won't. There will be squirmish with Israel about the lands which Israel will no doubt annex. But Palis ought to realize that once they do that...Oslo is dead and so will be the donors who are facing financial hurdles of their own... It would be better to negotiate. PS- Leaving the conflict commentator blogs for good. Goodbye to all who love blogging here.

You need to have negotiations over the old city. The original plan was for jerusalem to be an international city. The plan wasn't for the whole old city including the jewish quarter which is outside the 67 borders to be palestinian. Who will control the armenian quarter. That is why a declaration makes no sense. You need to negotiate for final borders and you can't just declare. This is all a waste of time.

In 1947 the United State and many other countries declared Israel to be the State for the Jewish people. No country ever can just wake up in the morning and all of a sudden declares independence. Ignorance is sometime overwhelming on this talkback.

to realize that Arabs are better off going back to their ancestors Saudi Arabia or any of the 52 Arab rich countries and demand their rights - A 2 state solution is no solution. The sooner you realize it the better it is. If arabs want to improve themselves this is the road to take.

Considering that "foiling" unilateral declaration was followed by the Second Intifadah maybe Bibi should let a unilateral declaration play out. Even if misery and conflict follow it will be a relief to have a new variety of misery and conflict instead of the endless Groundhog Day that keeps playing out between Israel and the Palestinians over and over and over.

they would return to the negotiation table immediately and put the onus on Bibi. Instead this latest stunt shows that they have no interest of a negotiated settlement with Israel.

Palestinians need protection, indeed. From Hamas. Hamas has them in this pickle and until they're not defanged, there is no State. Both Israelis and Pals will benefit greatly from this circumcision of Hamas. Then, onward to Peace.

hussein obama will be the first one to recognize them

Why jump the gun, pause, reflect and perhaps let them go ahead. Did you see the democratic process taken by Abbas in the recent PLO conference? , Do you see how Democratic & tolerant is the Hamas Government in Gaza?. Let them - 2 choices - they will try and do something good for a change - then everyone wins (a solid, democratic country on the west bank is good for Israel), but the high probability is that they will do what all other Arab Regimes do - in which case, one day, Netanyahu or subsequent PM would be able to save them from themselves with the support of the population. Obviously they will try and attack Israel - but then at least Israel can respond against a state.

Both the US and Israel were established by unilateral declarations of independence, so what's the problem with the Palestinians following their example?

The world is fed up...its in all the papers even Haaretz..The difference this time is that the world will recognize Palestinian declaration but not Israeli

...from Israeli aggression yesterday. The faster a UN peacekeeping force can be deployed to protect the Palestinians the better.