Well the peace talks are being over shadowed by the refusal of Netanyahu to extend the Moratorium on jewish settlements in the West Bank

If the Israelis REALLY wanted peace would it not be a normal action to extend this Moratorium during these important Talks especially when they are building settlements on land that is considered part of a proposed palestinian state.

It seems unfathomable that they would not continue this moratorium while trying to talk peace.

At the same time they are doing this they are encouraging the Palestinians to continue with the talks even while at the same time they are slapping them in the face and disrespecting them by not extending this Moratorium and expecting them to be ok with it.

They should back out of the talks and when they do they will be the ones blamed for not wanting peace

Pure Hypocricy and another example of Israels lack of commitment to peace

Here is another side of your thread, with LINK provided.

______________________________________________________

In blame game, arrow tilts to Abbas

Mahmoud Abbas is now feeling some of the heat reserved last year for Netanyahu.

By BEN SMITH | 9/27/10 6:55 PM EDT

Israelis and Palestinians have yet to achieve any substantive progress in the nascent peace talks that resulted from President Barack Obama’s high-profile push for negotiations, but a subtle shift in the political balance between the two antagonists seems clear: Israel is now winning the blame game.

The blame game always proceeds on a parallel, subterranean track to actual negotiations, the cynical mirror of the process’s insistent optimism. Some prominent figures on both sides barely disguise their assumption that peace talks will fail, as they almost always do.

Even those who are committed to the prospect of peace and publicly optimistic about it are cautious enough to keep an eye on the possibility of failure, ready with a pointed finger if talks collapse so that the other side is left with what former Secretary of State James Baker once referred to as the “dead cat” of prospective blame.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has “managed to leave the dead cat at the doorstep of both the Obama Administration and [Palestinian Authority President] Mahmoud Abbas,” said Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. peace negotiator who is a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Last summer, Israel owned the dead cat. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made plain their view that Netanyahu’s failure to stop all settlement construction on the West Bank was the obstacle to resumed talks, and after an ill-timed construction announcement, Clinton’s office released details of the unusual 43-minute tongue-lashing she delivered to the Israeli.

Obama then brought Netanyahu and Abbas to the White House early this month with the exhortation to begin direct talks. Looming over the celebratory announcement that they would was the impending expiration of Israel’s moratorium on new settlement construction.

Now that the moratorium has expired, the Obama administration has completed a subtle tilt toward Israel’s point of view. The problem is no longer Israel’s actions: It’s the Palestinian insistence that one issue – settlements – be resolved before talks can begin.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is now feeling some of the heat reserved last year for Netanyahu, and facing the prospect that if he fulfills his promise to withdraw from talks, he will bear the full blame for their collapse.

“The onus is on the Palestinians not to walk away. That’s not fair but it’s the way it is,” said Hussein Ibish, a fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, which backs the talks. “There are people on both sides who have no confidence [in the peace process] and so the name of the game is who gets blamed. Which is why the Palestinian can say a million times that they’ll walk out — but they can’t.”

The shift is the subject of quiet self-congratulations among hawkish Israelis and their American allies. After the difficult start of his relationship with Obama and his humiliation at the hands of Clinton’s, Netanyahu sought to give Obama one thing he wanted: An absolute promise to being peace talks.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42787.html

Here is another side of your thread, with LINK provided.

______________________________________________________

In blame game, arrow tilts to Abbas

Mahmoud Abbas is now feeling some of the heat reserved last year for Netanyahu.

By BEN SMITH | 9/27/10 6:55 PM EDT

Israelis and Palestinians have yet to achieve any substantive progress in the nascent peace talks that resulted from President Barack Obama's high-profile push for negotiations, but a subtle shift in the political balance between the two antagonists seems clear: Israel is now winning the blame game.

The blame game always proceeds on a parallel, subterranean track to actual negotiations, the cynical mirror of the process's insistent optimism. Some prominent figures on both sides barely disguise their assumption that peace talks will fail, as they almost always do.

Even those who are committed to the prospect of peace and publicly optimistic about it are cautious enough to keep an eye on the possibility of failure, ready with a pointed finger if talks collapse so that the other side is left with what former Secretary of State James Baker once referred to as the "dead cat" of prospective blame.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has "managed to leave the dead cat at the doorstep of both the Obama Administration and [Palestinian Authority President] Mahmoud Abbas," said Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. peace negotiator who is a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Last summer, Israel owned the dead cat. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made plain their view that Netanyahu's failure to stop all settlement construction on the West Bank was the obstacle to resumed talks, and after an ill-timed construction announcement, Clinton's office released details of the unusual 43-minute tongue-lashing she delivered to the Israeli.

Obama then brought Netanyahu and Abbas to the White House early this month with the exhortation to begin direct talks. Looming over the celebratory announcement that they would was the impending expiration of Israel's moratorium on new settlement construction.

Now that the moratorium has expired, the Obama administration has completed a subtle tilt toward Israel's point of view. The problem is no longer Israel's actions: It's the Palestinian insistence that one issue – settlements – be resolved before talks can begin.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is now feeling some of the heat reserved last year for Netanyahu, and facing the prospect that if he fulfills his promise to withdraw from talks, he will bear the full blame for their collapse.

"The onus is on the Palestinians not to walk away. That's not fair but it's the way it is," said Hussein Ibish, a fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, which backs the talks. "There are people on both sides who have no confidence [in the peace process] and so the name of the game is who gets blamed. Which is why the Palestinian can say a million times that they'll walk out — but they can't."

The shift is the subject of quiet self-congratulations among hawkish Israelis and their American allies. After the difficult start of his relationship with Obama and his humiliation at the hands of Clinton's, Netanyahu sought to give Obama one thing he wanted: An absolute promise to being peace talks.

http://www.politico....0910/42787.html

Not suprising

the TRUTH of the mater clear and simple is the talks are being overshadowed by the Israelis lack of commitment SIMPLE AS THAT and any attempt to distract from that is exactly that a Distraction away from the truth

the TRUTH of the mater clear and simple is the talks are being overshadowed by the Israelis lack of commitment SIMPLE AS THAT and any attempt to distract from that is exactly that a Distraction away from the truth

Do you have any outside data that will support your version of the 'TRUTH'? Making claims that you speak only the truth while not bothering to support it are questionable, to say the least.

While the problem may seem simple to you, it is far more complicated than you can imagine.

the TRUTH of the mater clear and simple is the talks are being overshadowed by the Israelis lack of commitment SIMPLE AS THAT and any attempt to distract from that is exactly that a Distraction away from the truth

Do you have any outside data that will support your version of the 'TRUTH'? Making claims that you speak only the truth while not bothering to support it are questionable, to say the least.

While the problem may seem simple to you, it is far more complicated than you can imagine.

I understand that however my point is clear the Israelis headed into Peace talks knowing that if they don't extend the moratorium its going to put a damper on the talks and decrase the likelyhood of any chance of success.

Are you supporting the continued building by jews on proposed Palestinian Land ????

the TRUTH of the mater clear and simple is the talks are being overshadowed by the Israelis lack of commitment SIMPLE AS THAT and any attempt to distract from that is exactly that a Distraction away from the truth

Do you have any outside data that will support your version of the 'TRUTH'? Making claims that you speak only the truth while not bothering to support it are questionable, to say the least.

While the problem may seem simple to you, it is far more complicated than you can imagine.

I understand that however my point is clear the Israelis headed into Peace talks knowing that if they don't extend the moratorium its going to put a damper on the talks and decrase the likelyhood of any chance of success.

Are you supporting the continued building by jews on proposed Palestinian Land ????

What I support or do not support has no bearing on the discussion.

Why not simply provide the source of your opening statement so we can find out exactly who is behind it?

the TRUTH of the mater clear and simple is the talks are being overshadowed by the Israelis lack of commitment SIMPLE AS THAT and any attempt to distract from that is exactly that a Distraction away from the truth

Do you have any outside data that will support your version of the 'TRUTH'? Making claims that you speak only the truth while not bothering to support it are questionable, to say the least.

While the problem may seem simple to you, it is far more complicated than you can imagine.

I understand that however my point is clear the Israelis headed into Peace talks knowing that if they don't extend the moratorium its going to put a damper on the talks and decrase the likelyhood of any chance of success.

Are you supporting the continued building by jews on proposed Palestinian Land ????

What I support or do not support has no bearing on the discussion.

Why not simply provide the source of your opening statement so we can find out exactly who is behind it?

Turn on any TV flip to ANY news channel and watch

Actually, I agree with chuckd here. Please provide a source for your truthful statement. If its everywhere, it won't be hard to come up with but its very poor netiquette to make blanket statements as fact and then refuse to back them up.

the TRUTH of the mater clear and simple is the talks are being overshadowed by the Israelis lack of commitment SIMPLE AS THAT and any attempt to distract from that is exactly that a Distraction away from the truth

Do you have any outside data that will support your version of the 'TRUTH'? Making claims that you speak only the truth while not bothering to support it are questionable, to say the least.

While the problem may seem simple to you, it is far more complicated than you can imagine.

I understand that however my point is clear the Israelis headed into Peace talks knowing that if they don't extend the moratorium its going to put a damper on the talks and decrase the likelyhood of any chance of success.

Are you supporting the continued building by jews on proposed Palestinian Land ????

What I support or do not support has no bearing on the discussion.

Why not simply provide the source of your opening statement so we can find out exactly who is behind it?

Absence of a source does not mean the argument is flawed. In this case, he doesn't need a source because it is plain for everyone to see; Abbas (perhaps foolishly, but understandably) made an ultimatum (to walk out) and Netanyahu has thrown down the gauntlet to provoke Abbas to leave the talks. This aspect of the talks which your article showed (about the dead cat, blame game) provides us with substantiation of that idea....so you might take your own source as sufficient.

That should not detract away from the point (in fact it supports the point of the op) that for peace to come about, Israel needs to stop it's illegal settlement building. While Israel continues to steal Palestinian lands, there can be no reasonable hope for peace....thus the question, ("does Israel really want peace?") is rhetorical; They don't want peace or else they would stop settlements.

Do you have any outside data that will support your version of the 'TRUTH'? Making claims that you speak only the truth while not bothering to support it are questionable, to say the least.

While the problem may seem simple to you, it is far more complicated than you can imagine.

I understand that however my point is clear the Israelis headed into Peace talks knowing that if they don't extend the moratorium its going to put a damper on the talks and decrase the likelyhood of any chance of success.

Are you supporting the continued building by jews on proposed Palestinian Land ????

What I support or do not support has no bearing on the discussion.

Why not simply provide the source of your opening statement so we can find out exactly who is behind it?

Absence of a source does not mean the argument is flawed. In this case, he doesn't need a source because it is plain for everyone to see; Abbas (perhaps foolishly, but understandably) made an ultimatum (to walk out) and Netanyahu has thrown down the gauntlet to provoke Abbas to leave the talks. This aspect of the talks which your article showed (about the dead cat, blame game) provides us with substantiation of that idea....so you might take your own source as sufficient.

That should not detract away from the point (in fact it supports the point of the op) that for peace to come about, Israel needs to stop it's illegal settlement building. While Israel continues to steal Palestinian lands, there can be no reasonable hope for peace....thus the question, ("does Israel really want peace?") is rhetorical; They don't want peace or else they would stop settlements.

I am simply asking for his source. With all due respect to FC, his writing style is hardly that which he appears to present in his opening post.

Why is it so difficult for him to provide it?

I will now bow out since FarangCravings seems to wish not to provide the answers.

Thank you Harcourt

My OP is my take on what I perceive to be happening in the current talks which i concluded from watching news reports on several news channels

I cant believe anyone would see anything different from this based on what is being reported.

During Peace talks you have the people of Israel tooting horns and pouring cement I think my OP of Do Israelis really want peace is a fair one based on these actions can you not understand the reaction of palestinians to actions such as this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68P1ZG20100926

I am simply asking for his source. With all due respect to FC, his writing style is hardly that which he appears to present in his opening post.

Why is it so difficult for him to provide it?

I will now bow out since FarangCravings seems to wish not to provide the answers.

If FC (or anyone else) made the statement that the sky is blue.....why would you ask for a source for his assertion?

I thought you were questioning the veracity or credibility of his post.

You are now (it seems) only questioning his writing style, and implying that he did not write it.

Bow out, by all means. We can do with less ad hominem arguments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11415719

I understand that however my point is clear the Israelis headed into Peace talks knowing that if they don't extend the moratorium its going to put a damper on the talks and decrase the likelyhood of any chance of success.

Why did the Palestinians even agree to talks in the first place when they knew the moratorium was set to expire?

I understand that however my point is clear the Israelis headed into Peace talks knowing that if they don't extend the moratorium its going to put a damper on the talks and decrase the likelyhood of any chance of success.

Why did the Palestinians even agree to talks in the first place when they knew the moratorium was set to expire?

Just maybe they gave Israel the credit that they would not be so stupid as not to extend the Moratorium which would of been the right thing to do.

I understand that however my point is clear the Israelis headed into Peace talks knowing that if they don't extend the moratorium its going to put a damper on the talks and decrase the likelyhood of any chance of success.

Why did the Palestinians even agree to talks in the first place when they knew the moratorium was set to expire?

Just maybe they gave Israel the credit that they would not be so stupid as not to extend the Moratorium which would of been the right thing to do.

It sounds to me like Israel is calling Abbas' bluff and putting him in a tight spot.

There seems to be some confusion here, as well as at the peace talks.

The current building exercise is on land that Israel will occupy when, and if, the current round of peace talks comes to the conclusion that Israel proposes. This is not Palestinian land according to Israel.

There is nothing simple about this problem - some people see it as black and white. It has a thousand shades of grey in it. You can go back to Abraham, or Moses. To the Pharaonic times when fighting the Hittites and other peoples. To the conquest by Nebuchadnezzar. To the dispersion by the Romans. At many points in history this land has changed hands and been used as a political pawn.

This is just another turn of the wheel.

There seems to be some confusion here, as well as at the peace talks.

The current building exercise is on land that Israel will occupy when, and if, the current round of peace talks comes to the conclusion that Israel proposes. This is not Palestinian land according to Israel.

There is nothing simple about this problem - some people see it as black and white. It has a thousand shades of grey in it. You can go back to Abraham, or Moses. To the Pharaonic times when fighting the Hittites and other peoples. To the conquest by Nebuchadnezzar. To the dispersion by the Romans. At many points in history this land has changed hands and been used as a political pawn.

This is just another turn of the wheel.

I believe that the first earth turning was in a settlement that is destined (for want of a better word...say "probably will be part of the Palestinian state if it ever comes to pass" instead).

But you mention something that is quite pertinant... "This is not Palestinian land according to Israel."

According to Israel.

Israel is settling ( and has been doing so since 1967 at least) occupied territory which is in direct contravention of international law.

For all practical and realistic purposes, one need only go back to 1914 and the British interferance in the local politics (in their battle against the Ottoman Empire which was the "colonial" power in the area at the time).

In another thread UG posted a lot of historical links to material dating back to the 1800's and very early 1900's that show there weren't any "Palestinians" in what is now modern day Israel either.

In another thread UG posted a lot of historical links to material dating back to the 1800's and very early 1900's that show there weren't any "Palestinians" in what is now modern day Israel either.

That's possibly a semantics thing around the word "Palestine". If we are to consider hereditary rights, lets consider how many Israeli Jews of voting age can trace their ancestry to Israel for more than 3 or 4 generations. My guess would be a single digit percentage.

In another thread UG posted a lot of historical links to material dating back to the 1800's and very early 1900's that show there weren't any "Palestinians" in what is now modern day Israel either.

That's possibly a semantics thing around the word "Palestine". If we are to consider hereditary rights, lets consider how many Israeli Jews of voting age can trace their ancestry to Israel for more than 3 or 4 generations. My guess would be a single digit percentage.

So all Israel has to do is wait another 30 or so years so that the majority of Palestinians living abroad can forget about their "Right to Return"?

?I reckon that the only way that peace will be achieved ion the Holy Land is if complete strangers world-wide resolve their differences on internet fora. The people that live there are just pawns in the greater racial, ideological, imperial and economic games of their juniors and betters, and should be happily sacrificed as the chosen ones in God's Great Game of Geopolitik

SC

When does JT come back?

In another thread UG posted a lot of historical links to material dating back to the 1800's and very early 1900's that show there weren't any "Palestinians" in what is now modern day Israel either.

a picture says more than ten-thousand words!

In another thread UG posted a lot of historical links to material dating back to the 1800's and very early 1900's that show there weren't any "Palestinians" in what is now modern day Israel either.

That's possibly a semantics thing around the word "Palestine". If we are to consider hereditary rights, lets consider how many Israeli Jews of voting age can trace their ancestry to Israel for more than 3 or 4 generations. My guess would be a single digit percentage.

If we apply that same criteria to the US, the UK, Germany, France, Belgium, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand etc etc there would be an awful lot of non-voting people we'd just have to kick out of the country.

Do you think the solution in Zimbabwe was the correct one?

Times have changed regarding this thinking. Perhaps its time for concrete thinking regarding who is what gets changed too.

In another thread UG posted a lot of historical links to material dating back to the 1800's and very early 1900's that show there weren't any "Palestinians" in what is now modern day Israel either.

That's possibly a semantics thing around the word "Palestine". If we are to consider hereditary rights, lets consider how many Israeli Jews of voting age can trace their ancestry to Israel for more than 3 or 4 generations. My guess would be a single digit percentage.

If we apply that same criteria to the US, the UK, Germany, France, Belgium, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand etc etc there would be an awful lot of non-voting people we'd just have to kick out of the country.

Do you think the solution in Zimbabwe was the correct one?

Times have changed regarding this thinking. Perhaps its time for concrete thinking regarding who is what gets changed too.

You're right although I mentioned voting age because it is the Israeli voters who determine policy.

I made the comment in response to another comment about Palestinians.....which is at the crux of the matter: A bunch of European Jews migrated to Palestine and their ancestors (and possibly some of the original migrants) now are trying to oust the indigenous Arabs, bit by bit, settlement by settlement, occupying land here and there, treating them as 2nd class citizens in their own cities,

I do not think the Zimbabwean solution was the correct one. If we just look at Peoples ABC vs Peoples XYZ in the Zimbabweam scenario (ie lets not consider race or hereditary rights), the Zimbabwean scenario is very simmilar to the Israel scenario; One group is actively ousting the other and claiming their lands.

As for how we think about people....yes, perhaps it's time for a change. That would not affect whose name is on the title deed.

The title of this thread is "Do the Israelis really want peace?"

And the simple answer must be yes.

The corollary is "Do the Palestinians and other Arabs really want peace?"

And I just do not know the answer.

Hamas - Peace only after all Israelis are dead or out of the country.

Syria - Peace only after we have the Golan Heights back and can mount our big guns to overshadow the Israeli North.

West Bank Arabs - Peace as long as we can eject the Israeli settlers. And have all the waters of the Jordan.

I am pleased to see that earlier this year the Palestinians in the Lebanese refugee camps were finally given a limited right to work in Lebanon. This may quieten the Israeli Lebanese border a little, but there is still the Beka'a Valley full of Hezbollah fighters supported by Iran.

One can desire peace, but not peace at any price. Peace must be a two-way thing - or in this case a several-way thing. And unless and until all concerned parties are prepared to sit round a table and have serious discussions, I cannot see anything better than Neville Chamberlain's bit of useless paper resulting from any talks.

I have met and worked with scores of Palestinians during the past thirty-odd years and none of them are quite sane when it comes to discussing Israel (something I seldom did, but friends were not so circumspect). The image of the Palestinian medical staff dancing in the NOC clinic in Tripoli (Libya) on 11th September 2001 will always remain with me. The fact that many openly state that 9/11 was a US/Zionist plot is monstrous. The 10% of earnings that went to PLO Arafat, whether you wanted or not, from all overseas Palestinians, was criminal. He was at that time labelled as a terrorist. That is not Zakat. Zakat is charity and that means doing good works in my book.

So - my response to the OP is "Yes - Israel wants peace". But I would follow this with "But within secure borders and with a right to defend the population against outside terror". Plus "Do all the Palestinian supporters want peace?"

In another thread UG posted a lot of historical links to material dating back to the 1800's and very early 1900's that show there weren't any "Palestinians" in what is now modern day Israel either.

That's possibly a semantics thing around the word "Palestine". If we are to consider hereditary rights, lets consider how many Israeli Jews of voting age can trace their ancestry to Israel for more than 3 or 4 generations. My guess would be a single digit percentage.

If we apply that same criteria to the US, the UK, Germany, France, Belgium, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand etc etc there would be an awful lot of non-voting people we'd just have to kick out of the country.

Do you think the solution in Zimbabwe was the correct one?

Times have changed regarding this thinking. Perhaps its time for concrete thinking regarding who is what gets changed too.

You're right although I mentioned voting age because it is the Israeli voters who determine policy.

I made the comment in response to another comment about Palestinians.....which is at the crux of the matter: A bunch of European Jews migrated to Palestine and their ancestors (and possibly some of the original migrants) now are trying to oust the indigenous Arabs, bit by bit, settlement by settlement, occupying land here and there, treating them as 2nd class citizens in their own cities,

I do not think the Zimbabwean solution was the correct one. If we just look at Peoples ABC vs Peoples XYZ in the Zimbabweam scenario (ie lets not consider race or hereditary rights), the Zimbabwean scenario is very simmilar to the Israel scenario; One group is actively ousting the other and claiming their lands.

As for how we think about people....yes, perhaps it's time for a change. That would not affect whose name is on the title deed.

You are a kiwi, yes? Are you a Maori? If so, then you would be in favor of repealing the right to vote of all 2nd and 3rd generation white New Zealanders since they are mere migrants?

Same thinking. Same attitude towards "outsiders" and same attitude that will never get the human race further beyond primitive tribal thinking, us vs them.