Israel considers supporting Palestinian state under right conditions

[News_Editor]

Israel considers supporting Palestinian state under right conditions

2011-05-06 05:50:10 GMT+7 (ICT)

PARIS (BNO NEWS) -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday said that his government could consider supporting a Palestinian state before September under the right conditions.

According to the Haaretz newspaper, Netanyahu said that before any other state or international body, a future Palestinian state must be approved by Israel in order to avoid a conflict.

"The leading countries, like the U.S., and now Britain and France, all say they expect those who want peace with Israel need to recognize Israel. This is elementary," said the PM.

Netanyahu, who is in Paris meeting with French president Nicolas Sarkozy, referred to the reported intentions of Palestine to bring the issue of an independent state to the United Nations General assembly in September.

"The idea is not to establish a Palestinian state to continue the conflict as Hamas wants, but to establish state so as to end conflict. What they want now is to form a state so as to continue trying to destroy us and pursuing the war on terror," added Netanyahu.

The Israeli government has openly opposed to the Hamas group, which took control of the Gaza Strip in 2007 after ousting the Fatah party. On Tuesday, Hamas, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and other factions signed an historic unity deal.

The two main factions, Hamas and Fatah, will begin talks to form the technocrat government, which will take responsibility to prepare for new parliamentary and presidential elections.

Netanyahu urged Fatah's leader Abbas to call of the deal before it was signed without success. The Israeli PM added that President Abbas had to choose either peace with Israel or peace with Hamas as there "is no possibility for peace with both."

Israel and the Palestinian Authority engaged in the last year's unsuccessful peace talks amidst Hamas rejection. The negotiations were stalled after Israel refused to extend a moratorium on settlement building in occupied Palestinian territory in September. In response, Abbas broke off direct talks after as recommended by Hamas.

"The expectation we have, and any fair minded person would have, is that we ask of anyone who says they want peace with Israel to abandon the goal of destroying Israel. We can make peace with an enemy but only an enemy who wants peace," concluded Netanyahu.

Israel holds the Hamas terrorist organization solely responsible for any terrorist activity and emanating from the Gaza Strip. In March, the Iron Dome missile defense system was deployed to protect Israel's southern communities from rocket threats coming from the Gaza Strip.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-05-06

[Steely Dan]

Recognise our right to exist and we will recognise you as a state, the logic is clear as day, but it has eluded the Palestinians ever since the birth of Israel and even prior to that if you consider the alliance between Hitler and the antisemitic mufti of Jerusalem. I'm glad Netanyahu is reiterating this simple fact as many will try to gloss over it through naive wishful thinking or malevolent design in the run up to the U.N meeting in September.

[coma]

He may just get what he asks for.

[kuffki]

Going by what has happened and has been reported, Fatah is nothing but a puppet of Hamas. The "new" government may end up being Hamas dominated, something like Hizbollah in Lebanon.

Hamas has never kept it end of the bargain and has always broken the truce, you then also must consider all the factions which are more Islamist then Hamas and Hamas can not control them.

If for 1 second someone thinks that recognizing Palestine will bring peace, those are wishful and delusional. The region never lived in peace. one problem or another.

Hamas changing it's policy's is wishful thinking, because they never will. People just do not convert, because others said they should.

[Jingthing]

I say Israel should give peace a chance, but don't let down defenses, which I'm sure they won't. Sooner or later if there ever is to be peace, there needs to be a political compromise of some sort (on both sides). In the long run it is in the best interest of Israelis as well to have peace but the price can't be the end of Israel as a Jewish state as Israel's enemies still clearly want.

[mickscottatlanta]

I say Israel should give peace a chance, but don't let down defenses, which I'm sure they won't. Sooner or later if there ever is to be peace, there needs to be a political compromise of some sort (on both sides). In the long run it is in the best interest of Israelis as well to have peace but the price can't be the end of Israel as a Jewish state as Israel's enemies still clearly want.

Wow I actually agree with some of what you say

[kuffki]

I am sure your approval is very important on this matter.

I say Israel should give peace a chance, but don't let down defenses, which I'm sure they won't. Sooner or later if there ever is to be peace, there needs to be a political compromise of some sort (on both sides). In the long run it is in the best interest of Israelis as well to have peace but the price can't be the end of Israel as a Jewish state as Israel's enemies still clearly want.

Wow I actually agree with some of what you say

[Steely Dan]

He may just get what he asks for.

There is an Islamic word 'Taqqiya' which is the act of lying to an infidel in order to obtain some advantage, which is perfectly permissable in Islam. I suspect you may be right and Hamas may be able to recognise Israel's right to exist, with fingers crossed behind it's back.

To follow such a scenario what would actually happen? Perhaps Israel would gradually move back to compromise border based on 1967. The logistics for doing so would be complicated in the extreme, who knows just how many people would need re-settling?

Then comes the thorny question of Jerusalem; who has any idea whatsoever of the logistics involved in demarkating a city down the middle with population groups scattered across it, road by road street by street. Checkpoints would be a nightmare to manage in such a situation, and the only other option would be open borders.

Leaving the logistics aside what does anyone think would happen if there was a phased move to the 1967 borders? Extremists would almost certainly try to scupper such an arrangement, remember the suicide bombs in Israel before the security fence was built? Violence would no doubt weigh on public oppinion making such a transition nigh on impossible.

I'm not against a Palestinian state but time has moved on from 1967 and there would need to be some horse trading to give Israel security otherwise it would be de-railed by those who will only settle for the whole cake. Take close look at the 1967 map and try to imagine how you would manage security for either side based on it.

[kuffki]

I think you yourself have answered questions you raised. It's simply impossible and Palestine is well aware of that and hence the reason why they keep pushing it, because they know it will not solve the problem.

As we have discussed on other thread " as long as people realize comedy is not suppose to have an end"

What chances of success does one have when he open computer shop but does not know anything about computers? Not very high .

However changing product to bread makers while the shop is promoted as computer store, still will not bring the profits

He may just get what he asks for.

There is an Islamic word 'Taqqiya' which is the act of lying to an infidel in order to obtain some advantage, which is perfectly permissable in Islam. I suspect you may be right and Hamas may be able to recognise Israel's right to exist, with fingers crossed behind it's back.

To follow such a scenario what would actually happen? Perhaps Israel would gradually move back to compromise border based on 1967. The logistics for doing so would be complicated in the extreme, who knows just how many people would need re-settling?

Then comes the thorny question of Jerusalem; who has any idea whatsoever of the logistics involved in demarkating a city down the middle with population groups scattered across it, road by road street by street. Checkpoints would be a nightmare to manage in such a situation, and the only other option would be open borders.

Leaving the logistics aside what does anyone think would happen if there was a phased move to the 1967 borders? Extremists would almost certainly try to scupper such an arrangement, remember the suicide bombs in Israel before the security fence was built? Violence would no doubt weigh on public oppinion making such a transition nigh on impossible.

I'm not against a Palestinian state but time has moved on from 1967 and there would need to be some horse trading to give Israel security otherwise it would be de-railed by those who will only settle for the whole cake. Take close look at the 1967 map and try to imagine how you would manage security for either side based on it.

[Steely Dan]

I think you yourself have answered questions you raised. It's simply impossible and Palestine is well aware of that and hence the reason why they keep pushing it, because they know it will not solve the problem.

As we have discussed on other thread " as long as people realize comedy is not suppose to have an end"

What chances of success does one have when he open computer shop but does not know anything about computers? Not very high .

However changing product to bread makers while the shop is promoted as computer store, still will not bring the profits

He may just get what he asks for.

There is an Islamic word 'Taqqiya' which is the act of lying to an infidel in order to obtain some advantage, which is perfectly permissable in Islam. I suspect you may be right and Hamas may be able to recognise Israel's right to exist, with fingers crossed behind it's back.

To follow such a scenario what would actually happen? Perhaps Israel would gradually move back to compromise border based on 1967. The logistics for doing so would be complicated in the extreme, who knows just how many people would need re-settling?

Then comes the thorny question of Jerusalem; who has any idea whatsoever of the logistics involved in demarkating a city down the middle with population groups scattered across it, road by road street by street. Checkpoints would be a nightmare to manage in such a situation, and the only other option would be open borders.

Leaving the logistics aside what does anyone think would happen if there was a phased move to the 1967 borders? Extremists would almost certainly try to scupper such an arrangement, remember the suicide bombs in Israel before the security fence was built? Violence would no doubt weigh on public oppinion making such a transition nigh on impossible.

I'm not against a Palestinian state but time has moved on from 1967 and there would need to be some horse trading to give Israel security otherwise it would be de-railed by those who will only settle for the whole cake. Take close look at the 1967 map and try to imagine how you would manage security for either side based on it.

Exactly, impossible until... Well until Islam grows up and sheds it's fundamentalist/supremacist clothes. Some naive souls think by pandering to the feelings of outraged fanatics will result in them becoming moderate, but this is supreme folly - it's like asking a boa-constrictor to loosen it's grip if you breath out.

[coma]

I think the Palestinian people may surprise a few people. When the normal Palestinians [majority] have thier own homeland they will be happy. Anybody who attempts to go against that or jeopadize it will be the enemy.[ Hamas included]. Just like what is happening around the Arab world. The people of Palestine will deal with Hamas soon enough.

[Ulysses G.]

That would be nice, but sometimes it seems like ...

[kuffki]

Seems all the wishful thinkers spoke to earlier

Fatah-Hamas tensions return despite fresh unity deal

Hamas says PA is arresting more of its followers in the West Bank; Islamists accused of preventing Gaza-based Fatah leaders from leaving.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=219363

[kuffki]

Zahar: Hamas will never recognize Israel

Hamas official says Palestinians will not recognize the rule of "Poles and Ethiopians," Shaath: Quartet conditions are irrelevant.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=219119

[kuffki]

Here is just another proof of neither parties not being interested in having the state but rather to continue with "stupidity"

Shaath: Stop asking Hamas to recognize Israel

Hours before unity agreement ceremony, Fatah official says Quartet conditions irrelevant; Hamas official says "occupation the problem."

Hamas Deputy Foreign Minister in Gaza Razi Hamed said that Hamas wants peace, but that "the occupation is the root of all [the Palestinians'] problems." He added that Hamas is willing to accept a Palestinian state within pre-1967 lines with Jerusalem as its capital.

However, he said, in order for peace to take place, Palestinian refugees must be allowed to "return to their homes" in Israel.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=219103

So not only now they want pre 1967 but instead of East Jerusalem they now want the entire city.

[kuffki]

For those who were not aware but the Quartet conditions are to recognize Israel right to exist and renounce violence.

The US won’t deal with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas unless the Islamist group reforms, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared on Thursday.

In the wake of the unity deal signed between Hamas and Fatah on Wednesday, Clinton said Hamas must adopt the Quartet principles of recognizing Israel’s right to exist, renouncing violence and respecting treaties previously signed by the Palestinians.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=219455

But as we can see from responses earlier neither party has any interest in honoring any of the deals previously signed.

[Steely Dan]

Hmmm, The Israelis have a saying - 'The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity'. Fatah are corrupt and secular, Hamas are Islamist, it's like mixing oil an water you may be able to mix them for a bit by shaking, but they'll separate soon enough.

[kuffki]

Hmmm, The Israelis have a saying - 'The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity'. Fatah are corrupt and secular, Hamas are Islamist, it's like mixing oil an water you may be able to mix them for a bit by shaking, but they'll separate soon enough.

sADLY true.

Also note that PA is seeking recognition within 1967 borders, Hamas official position is PRE-1967.

So even if the world recognize Palestine with 1967 borders, Hamas will continue with its attacks.

The only option i see is the uprising in the country, but then who is there that can lead?

Also any uprising in Gaza may end up being something of Libya situation, as i am sure Hamas will have no hesitations in shooting protesters.

But then again, even if Hamas is outlawed, then all the more reasons for them to keep terrorist attacks on Israel

If anything, i think current situation is more like a ticking time bomb

Edited May 6, 2011 by kuffki

[Wallaby]

Why should Palestine have to gain Israeli approval for how it wants to be governed. Would Isreal accept being told how to govern itself?

I would think Palestine would be more interested in self determination and acknowledgement by the UN.

[kuffki]

Why should Palestine have to gain Israeli approval for how it wants to be governed. Would Isreal accept being told how to govern itself?

I would think Palestine would be more interested in self determination and acknowledgement by the UN.

Because

1. Israel is allegedly occupying Palestinian land

2. Peace Agreement is with Israel NOT another nation

3. Governance of Palestine has a direct effect on Israel and its people

4. Palestine does not have even a half decent track record of sticking to agreements

5. Terrorist from Palestine(ie Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah El Brigades) constantly attack Israeli civilians and if Palestinian government unable to deal with them, someone has to.

6. Because 1/2 of the government wants borders of 1967 and East Jerusalem, while the other one wants Pre-1967 and all of Jerusalem

7. Because if the government does not recognize its neighbor, why would Israel sign any peace treaty or give any allowance.

8. Because Palestine gets money from Israel(taxes collected from Israeli Arabs)

Edited May 6, 2011 by kuffki

[JUDAS]

Explain #8 for me kuffti please. Israeli Arabs are Israelis? living and working in Israel yet the Palestinian Authority gets the tax revenue collect by the Israelis? Confusing indeed...

[Wallaby]

Why should Palestine have to gain Israeli approval for how it wants to be governed. Would Isreal accept being told how to govern itself?

I would think Palestine would be more interested in self determination and acknowledgement by the UN.

Because

1. Israel is allegedly occupying Palestinian land

2. Peace Agreement is with Israel NOT another nation

3. Governance of Palestine has a direct effect on Israel and its people

4. Palestine does not have even a half decent track record of sticking to agreements

5. Terrorist from Palestine(ie Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah El Brigades) constantly attack Israeli civilians and if Palestinian government unable to deal with them, someone has to.

6. Because 1/2 of the government wants borders of 1967 and East Jerusalem, while the other one wants Pre-1967 and all of Jerusalem

7. Because if the government does not recognize its neighbor, why would Israel sign any peace treaty or give any allowance.

8. Because Palestine gets money from Israel(taxes collected from Israeli Arabs)

But you only responded to half the question. Would Israel accept being told how to govern itself. They don't even follow UN resolutions.

A shame this is all about Israel getting what it wants but never about Palestine getting what it needs.

[Ulysses G.]

Huh? There is no "Palestine" yet, but there could be if they finally agree to sign a peace agreement.

[kuffki]

Explain #8 for me kuffti please. Israeli Arabs are Israelis? living and working in Israel yet the Palestinian Authority gets the tax revenue collect by the Israelis? Confusing indeed...

As you know there are over 1 million Arabs who live in Israel. Many of them have Israeli passport and are Israeli citizens, which makes them Israeli's i guess.

All the taxes paid by the Arabs living or working in Israel is given to PA. Yes the tax revenue from the Arab population in Israel paid to Israeli tax office Is then given to PA.

[kuffki]

Why should Palestine have to gain Israeli approval for how it wants to be governed. Would Isreal accept being told how to govern itself?

I would think Palestine would be more interested in self determination and acknowledgement by the UN.

Because

1. Israel is allegedly occupying Palestinian land

2. Peace Agreement is with Israel NOT another nation

3. Governance of Palestine has a direct effect on Israel and its people

4. Palestine does not have even a half decent track record of sticking to agreements

5. Terrorist from Palestine(ie Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah El Brigades) constantly attack Israeli civilians and if Palestinian government unable to deal with them, someone has to.

6. Because 1/2 of the government wants borders of 1967 and East Jerusalem, while the other one wants Pre-1967 and all of Jerusalem

7. Because if the government does not recognize its neighbor, why would Israel sign any peace treaty or give any allowance.

8. Because Palestine gets money from Israel(taxes collected from Israeli Arabs)

But you only responded to half the question. Would Israel accept being told how to govern itself. They don't even follow UN resolutions.

A shame this is all about Israel getting what it wants but never about Palestine getting what it needs.

Israel is not the one with a charter which seeks destruction of another state. While you may not like how Israel responds to terror attacks, Israel certainly does not seek to push all the arabs and palestinians into the sea(unlike Hamas)

You also need to keep in mind, that UN resolutions are never ever followed by Hamas and PA, just like all the agreements are broken. I can understand that you want Israel to be above that, but being rational does not always work in that part of the world.

As you can see, israel has very very simple demands-stop the violence and attacks and but even something as simple as that can not be followed.

Palestine will get what they want once they stop the violence and recognize Israel, but then again what is it that they want? 1967 borders? or pre 1967 borders? East Jerusalem or all of Jerusalem?

What is their plan of action on how to implement the borders and patrol it.

[Wallaby]

Huh? There is no "Palestine" yet, but there could be if they finally agree to sign a peace agreement.

In effect what you are saying is that Israel must agree to the peace agreement before Palestine will be recognized by the UN. So as long as Israel hold out then there will be no Palestine. I don't agree with that. The UN can, and may well. recognise Palestine despite what Israel says.

If that happens we may well see a very different way of dealing with the situation and I don't think Israel will like it.

[Ulysses G.]

You might have been right before Hamas and the PLO joined forces, but now the US will veto any UN Bill to mandate a Palestinian state as long as the Hamas terrorists refuse to make peace.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Wallaby]

You could well be right though if I were the Israeli govt I'd start to wonder how long it could rely on the US for the veto. I'd be wanting a backup plan.

[Ulysses G.]

Most likely, they just need to hold out until Barrack Hussain Obama is out of office and they will be home free on the veto front.

[kuffki]

You could well be right though if I were the Israeli govt I'd start to wonder how long it could rely on the US for the veto. I'd be wanting a backup plan.

This is why Israeli PM is doing Earopean tour to explain the obvious and Israel's' position.