Israel dismisses Palestinian peace deal plan as 'gimmick'

[webfact]

Israel dismisses Palestinian peace deal plan as 'gimmick'

(BBC) Israel says a Palestinian effort to set a three-year deadline for it to end its occupation of Palestinian territories is a "gimmick".

A draft resolution, submitted by Jordan to the UN Security Council, also calls for a peace accord within a year.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that without Israel's consent, nothing would change.

Jordan has indicated it will not seek a quick vote, opening the way for further discussion.

The US - which has vetoed previous resolutions it considers hostile to its ally Israel - said on Thursday it would not support the move.

US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said they would not support any action that would prejudge the outcome of negotiations.

"We have seen the draft, it is not something we would support and we think others feel the same and are calling for further consultations," she said.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30543138


-- BBC 2014-12-19

[dexterm]

Prejudge negotiations??? What negotiations?

Israel prejudges negotiations every day by building more colonies, and as if that wasn't enough then adds another precondition that Israel should be recognized as a Jewish only state..erasing the language of 20% of its population, and consigning them to second class citizenship.

[ezzra]

The Palestinians are not ready for statehood, as long as they're still at odds with the Hamas

and internal conflict among themselves, refusing to unreservedly recognize Israel as a state

and home for the Jews, and stop being supported by Iran, the arch enemy of Israel...

[dexterm]

The Palestinians are not ready for statehood, as long as they're still at odds with the Hamas

and internal conflict among themselves, refusing to unreservedly recognize Israel as a state

and home for the Jews, and stop being supported by Iran, the arch enemy of Israel...

They formed a unity government with Hamas in April much to the chagrin of Netanyahu who then set about trying to disrupt it....there was a danger of serious discussions for peace breaking out.

Why would Palestinians be mad enough to recognize a racist/religionist/Jewish supremacist state thus erasing the language of 20% of Israel's population condemning them to an apartheid of 2nd class citizenship? Which also begs the question why would Israel want to put religion ahead of democracy...keep faith and state separate.

I'm sure in any peace deal Jews would still be allowed a safe haven within Israel from any discrimination they may suffer in other countries.... Israel I'm sure would insist upon it. In fact a peace deal would motivate more Jews globally to migrate to Israel. Continued conflict and eventual economic stagnation of a pariah state may actually encourage Jewish Israelis to use their 2nd passports and seek a better future elsewhere.

Edited December 19, 2014 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

I'm sure in any peace deal Jews would still be allowed a safe haven within Israel from any discrimination they may suffer in other countries...

That is great that you are convinced, but since you are utterly hostile to Israel, I don't think that will convince anyone that they should follow your advice.

[Jean Pierre Jacquot]

Business as usual and the 'axis of evil' (Israel and the US) is against any peace deal as was always the case in the past. Seems both of them profit well from continuous war situations in this world. Apart of them they believe that they are the ones in the power situation and therefore just do whatever suits them. Good example for the rest of the world. Shame on them.

[dexterm]

I'm sure in any peace deal Jews would still be allowed a safe haven within Israel from any discrimination they may suffer in other countries...

That is great that you are convinced, but since you are utterly hostile to Israel, I don't think that will convince anyone that they should follow your advice.

err you missed the last part of my quote..again..

I'm sure in any peace deal Jews would still be allowed a safe haven within Israel from any discrimination they may suffer in other countries........Israel I'm sure would insist on it.

I don't think I have been invited to any peace conference, so I will leave that to the Israeli negotiators.

I am hostile only to Zionism..a Jewish supremacist ideology. I hate all bullies.

I am not hostile to the democratic secular state of Israel. I would like to see it prosper in peace alongside its neighbors. In fact it is people like me who are greater friends of Israel than redneck Zionist apologists. who if they get their way will one day witness Israel implode under a one state solution.

[Jean Pierre Jacquot]

US/Israel once more shows their true aspirations in refusing flattly any peace deal. End of the discussion.

[car720]

I still cannot understand how they can keep settling on other peoples land and say that it is the other people's fault.

[arjunadawn]

"Palestinian effort to set a three-year deadline for it to end its occupation of [Palestinian] territories..." seems like a good idea to me. It has been a long held position of mine that the Palestinians occupy West Bank land that is legally deeded to the Jews/Israel. Under the cover or Jordanian military aggression in 1948 the Palestinians entrenched and occupied this land; their land was deeded on the other side of the Jordan.

So, by all means, the Palestinians should start packing now!

[Morch]

Prejudge negotiations??? What negotiations?

Israel prejudges negotiations every day by building more colonies, and as if that wasn't enough then adds another precondition that Israel should be recognized as a Jewish only state..erasing the language of 20% of its population, and consigning them to second class citizenship.

You are mixing (deliberately or otherwise) between two issues.

The Israeli demand of the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state (not, by the way, as you posted "Jewish only state") was introduced by Netanyahu a while back as a way to wiggle out of negotiations. It was not, previously, demanded of Egypt or Jordan during peace negotiations. By itself, there is little argument that it was, at the time, an ad hoc condition aimed to derail talks.

This condition took even the Israeli political system by surprise, and like many of Netanyahu's on the spot moves had some far reaching consequences. For starters it became a household phrase with Israeli politicians, and not just right wing ones. Reason being that outright objection would be discredited as unpatriotic, self-hate, supportive of the other side, etc. The following harsh criticism by left wing politicians pointing out it was basically a hollow phrase, and Netanyahu's insistence on holding on to it (yet again, needlessly, as negotiation were already derailed) led to an effort by the right wing aimed at putting some content into it.

These attempts to support the slogan manifested as a series of proposed legislation by various right wing politicians, often with an evident flare of fascism and racism. These legislation motions were generally against Netanyahu's wishes - not because he is exactly against them as such, just that he is more aware of their domestic and international price. In most cases, he tried to do what he does best - saying no while meaning yes, actually coming out as maybe.

Short version is that most of the relevant legislation did not, to date, become law. The upcoming Israeli elections were, in part, a result stemming from certain coalition parties being against said legislation.

Netanyhu's negotiation-derailing stunt is one thing, Israel's right wing parties attempt at vile legislation is another. Not very likely that Netanyahu had Israel's Arab minority in mind when he coined the original slogan. He is not well known for considering the possible byproducts of his words.

As for Lieberman (Israel's foreign minister), apart from being a staunch right-wing politician, he's also the head of a party which seems to be struggling for voter support (according to polls) in the upcoming elections. Little doubt there would be more tough talk from this crowd as they vie for the right wing votes.

[Morch]

The Palestinians are not ready for statehood, as long as they're still at odds with the Hamas

and internal conflict among themselves, refusing to unreservedly recognize Israel as a state

and home for the Jews, and stop being supported by Iran, the arch enemy of Israel...

They formed a unity government with Hamas in April much to the chagrin of Netanyahu who then set about trying to disrupt it....there was a danger of serious discussions for peace breaking out.

Why would Palestinians be mad enough to recognize a racist/religionist/Jewish supremacist state thus erasing the language of 20% of Israel's population condemning them to an apartheid of 2nd class citizenship? Which also begs the question why would Israel want to put religion ahead of democracy...keep faith and state separate.

I'm sure in any peace deal Jews would still be allowed a safe haven within Israel from any discrimination they may suffer in other countries.... Israel I'm sure would insist upon it. In fact a peace deal would motivate more Jews globally to migrate to Israel. Continued conflict and eventual economic stagnation of a pariah state may actually encourage Jewish Israelis to use their 2nd passports and seek a better future elsewhere.

Again, the much touted Palestinian Unity government.

The Palestinian Unity government got nothing to do with peace negotiations. There was no "danger" of "serious discussions for peace breaking out". Pure invention. The sole (nominal) province of the Palestinian Unity government was to mend the rift between Fatah and Hamas, while paving the way to general elections (unless mistaken, the due date for this passed by now). The Palestinian Unity government was not charged with handling peace talks with Israel. Abbas firmly kept the reins on that one. The claim that by agreeing to the creation of the Palestinian Unity government the Hamas recognized Israel is simply untrue. There is no official Hamas statement that subscribes to this position.

Currently, things are not going very smoothly as far as unity goes - most key issues between Fatah and Hamas have not been resolved, Hamas still pretty much runs the Gaza Strip, elections not on the horizon. Hamas continues its efforts to re-build the tunnels and rocket stocks, while inciting terrorist attacks against Israel. Painting Hamas as something other than it is will not change reality.

Your second paragraph, a misleading mishmash that it is, was dealt with on previous post. Speaking of racist, supremacist, religionist etc.... How does this work out for the Palestinians, then? Are they willing to accept

a sizable minority of Jews living in their new state, or is this a big no-no? (or in other words, a condition). Will Hamas, being a religiously oriented organization treat Jews as equal to Muslims in the new paradise that is the future Palestine? Is there such a separation of faith and state as far as they are concerned? It can be safely said, that there are elements of racism etc on both sides of the fence, certainly not something unique to one.

[Jingthing]

Business as usual and the 'axis of evil' (Israel and the US) is against any peace deal as was always the case in the past. Seems both of them profit well from continuous war situations in this world. Apart of them they believe that they are the ones in the power situation and therefore just do whatever suits them. Good example for the rest of the world. Shame on them.

I don't know why you find this so difficult to understand. Everyone knows that the USA is owned by the Jews, well at least the hub of propoganda - hollywood is. Wherever there is war there is money to be made. Need I say any more.

Oh, great, yet another rabidly antisemitic post. Disgusting. At least this time not hiding beyond the usual cover of just being anti-Zionist.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Jingthing

[Morch]

"Palestinian effort to set a three-year deadline for it to end its occupation of [Palestinian] territories..." seems like a good idea to me. It has been a long held position of mine that the Palestinians occupy West Bank land that is legally deeded to the Jews/Israel. Under the cover or Jordanian military aggression in 1948 the Palestinians entrenched and occupied this land; their land was deeded on the other side of the Jordan.

So, by all means, the Palestinians should start packing now!

A position which is based on nothing much, and held by even fewer than that.

There are the usual nonsense and trolling posts endemic to topics dealing with these subjects, from the usual posters - why add to that?

Even Israel did not officially claim the West Bank, nor the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians obviously aren't going anywhere. How does this contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way?

[arjunadawn]

"Palestinian effort to set a three-year deadline for it to end its occupation of [Palestinian] territories..." seems like a good idea to me. It has been a long held position of mine that the Palestinians occupy West Bank land that is legally deeded to the Jews/Israel. Under the cover or Jordanian military aggression in 1948 the Palestinians entrenched and occupied this land; their land was deeded on the other side of the Jordan.

So, by all means, the Palestinians should start packing now!

A position which is based on nothing much, and held by even fewer than that.

There are the usual nonsense and trolling posts endemic to topics dealing with these subjects, from the usual posters - why

add to that?

Even Israel did not officially claim the West Bank, nor the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians obviously aren't going anywhere.

How does this contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way?

I do not troll. I consistently hold this point. - the West Bank does not belong to Palestinians. Otherwise, you remind me I have previously stated this point of original title matters little as facts have to be managed with how we now find facts on the ground- and on the ground is a Palestinian population. Your correction is taken. It does not contribute much other then rehashing a fairly minority position. noted.

[car720]

Business as usual and the 'axis of evil' (Israel and the US) is against any peace deal as was always the case in the past. Seems both of them profit well from continuous war situations in this world. Apart of them they believe that they are the ones in the power situation and therefore just do whatever suits them. Good example for the rest of the world. Shame on them.

I don't know why you find this so difficult to understand. Everyone knows that the USA is owned by the Jews, well at least the hub of propoganda - hollywood is. Wherever there is war there is money to be made. Need I say any more.

Oh, great, yet another rabidly antisemitic post. Disgusting. At least this time not hiding beyond the usual cover of just being anti-Zionist.

Welcome to my ignore list.

The difference is that I would defend to the death your right to say it....................would you do the same I wonder?

[jdinasia]

"Palestinian effort to set a three-year deadline for it to end its occupation of [Palestinian] territories..." seems like a good idea to me. It has been a long held position of mine that the Palestinians occupy West Bank land that is legally deeded to the Jews/Israel. Under the cover or Jordanian military aggression in 1948 the Palestinians entrenched and occupied this land; their land was deeded on the other side of the Jordan.

So, by all means, the Palestinians should start packing now!

A position which is based on nothing much, and held by even fewer than that.

There are the usual nonsense and trolling posts endemic to topics dealing with these subjects, from the usual posters - why

add to that?

Even Israel did not officially claim the West Bank, nor the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians obviously aren't going anywhere.

How does this contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way?

I do not troll. I consistently hold this point. - the West Bank does not belong to Palestinians. Otherwise, you remind me I have previously stated this point of original title matters little as facts have to be managed with how we now find facts on the ground- and on the ground is a Palestinian population. Your correction is taken. It does not contribute much other then rehashing a fairly minority position. noted.

According to the UN, the West Bank does belong to the Palestinians

This is not a minority opinion outside of Israel.

[arjunadawn]

"Palestinian effort to set a three-year deadline for it to end its occupation of [Palestinian] territories..." seems like a good idea to me. It has been a long held position of mine that the Palestinians occupy West Bank land that is legally deeded to the Jews/Israel. Under the cover or Jordanian military aggression in 1948 the Palestinians entrenched and occupied this land; their land was deeded on the other side of the Jordan.

So, by all means, the Palestinians should start packing now!

A position which is based on nothing much, and held by even fewer than that.

There are the usual nonsense and trolling posts endemic to topics dealing with these subjects, from the usual posters - why

add to that?

Even Israel did not officially claim the West Bank, nor the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians obviously aren't going anywhere.

How does this contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way?

I do not troll. I consistently hold this point. - the West Bank does not belong to Palestinians. Otherwise, you remind me I have previously stated this point of original title matters little as facts have to be managed with how we now find facts on the ground- and on the ground is a Palestinian population. Your correction is taken. It does not contribute much other then rehashing a fairly minority position. noted.

According to the UN, the West Bank does belong to the Palestinians

This is not a minority opinion outside of Israel.

Perhaps I was unclear, my opinion is a minority opinion and if it is only me in the world, it still applies. I realize this. I kindly ask- take your time (really)- to show me where the UN, in any controlling, binding, legitimate fashion, has overturned the Palestine Mandate and asserts "the West Bank does belong to the Palestinians." I am not sharpshooting you here. Perhaps this is my Waterloo where I am thumped and finally join the majority but I do not think you can produce this because it does not exist. If you can demonstrate to me how the Palestine Mandate does not apply then please contrast this with how the Mandate that created Lebanon and Syria, etc., continues to apply? Why only in relation to the Jews is it invalid?

The previous attempt at the UN to supersede and subsume the earlier legal provisions of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate into either a partition plan or new legal framework never passed, ultimately, into legal status! It was never formed into anything other than a very good effort. Laws have meaning and international law is governed both by the parties participating and precedent. It was the Arabs, in this case, who objected to the UN attempt at legitimizing the partition (I believe due to their wanting much more than the then current Armistice Line provided). This would make sense too because the Israeli/Jordanian Armistice Line (for which the UN effort would have sort to make legitimate and binding, even though this armistice line was secondary to an act of war by Jordan which invaded and occupied this area in 1948), was opposed by the Jordanians themselves. Indeed, the Arabs insisted the Armistice Line as existed in 1948, erroneously continually referred to as the 1967 borders, was protested by the Jordanians not to represent their satisfaction with this temporary line. Indeed, 1967 events certainly had that effort backfire on the Jordanians and only because of overwhelming social difficulties Israeli permitted continued Jordanian/Mufti involvement in local affairs after 1967.

Nevertheless, from my understanding of this contemporary history, the same mechanics that dissuaded the arabs from agreeing the Armistice Line had any longstanding legitimacy was finally what railroaded the implementation of any new governing UN authority which subsumed, update, incorporated, and changed the original legal provisions of the League of Nations Mandate to actually "West Bank [does] belong to the Palestinians."

Thus the West Bank is variously considered, ipso facto, Palestinian land by virtue only of possession (one of the governing landmarks of international law when deciding borders, agreed. But Israel retains control, which is the other significant governing factor in international law when arbitrating borders). No, it is certainly not clear that the West Bank belongs to Palestinians, but the argument could be made in international court. It has not, though.

[jdinasia]

Oh please.

The UN has made so many public statements regarding occupied Palestine.

Such as http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49594#.VJP5cTAJQ

[Steely Dan]

"Palestinian effort to set a three-year deadline for it to end its occupation of [Palestinian] territories..." seems like a good idea to me. It has been a long held position of mine that the Palestinians occupy West Bank land that is legally deeded to the Jews/Israel. Under the cover or Jordanian military aggression in 1948 the Palestinians entrenched and occupied this land; their land was deeded on the other side of the Jordan.

So, by all means, the Palestinians should start packing now!

A position which is based on nothing much, and held by even fewer than that.

There are the usual nonsense and trolling posts endemic to topics dealing with these subjects, from the usual posters - why
add to that?

Even Israel did not officially claim the West Bank, nor the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians obviously aren't going anywhere.
How does this contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way?

I do not troll. I consistently hold this point. - the West Bank does not belong to Palestinians. Otherwise, you remind me I have previously stated this point of original title matters little as facts have to be managed with how we now find facts on the ground- and on the ground is a Palestinian population. Your correction is taken. It does not contribute much other then rehashing a fairly minority position. noted.

According to the UN, the West Bank does belong to the Palestinians

This is not a minority opinion outside of Israel.

Perhaps I was unclear, my opinion is a minority opinion and if it is only me in the world, it still applies. I realize this. I kindly ask- take your time (really)- to show me where the UN, in any controlling, binding, legitimate fashion, has overturned the Palestine Mandate and asserts "the West Bank does belong to the Palestinians." I am not sharpshooting you here. Perhaps this is my Waterloo where I am thumped and finally join the majority but I do not think you can produce this because it does not exist. If you can demonstrate to me how the Palestine Mandate does not apply then please contrast this with how the Mandate that created Lebanon and Syria, etc., continues to apply? Why only in relation to the Jews is it invalid?

The previous attempt at the UN to supersede and subsume the earlier legal provisions of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate into either a partition plan or new legal framework never passed, ultimately, into legal status! It was never formed into anything other than a very good effort. Laws have meaning and international law is governed both by the parties participating and precedent. It was the Arabs, in this case, who objected to the UN attempt at legitimizing the partition (I believe due to their wanting much more than the then current Armistice Line provided). This would make sense too because the Israeli/Jordanian Armistice Line (for which the UN effort would have sort to make legitimate and binding, even though this armistice line was secondary to an act of war by Jordan which invaded and occupied this area in 1948), was opposed by the Jordanians themselves. Indeed, the Arabs insisted the Armistice Line as existed in 1948, erroneously continually referred to as the 1967 borders, was protested by the Jordanians not to represent their satisfaction with this temporary line. Indeed, 1967 events certainly had that effort backfire on the Jordanians and only because of overwhelming social difficulties Israeli permitted continued Jordanian/Mufti involvement in local affairs after 1967.

Nevertheless, from my understanding of this contemporary history, the same mechanics that dissuaded the arabs from agreeing the Armistice Line had any longstanding legitimacy was finally what railroaded the implementation of any new governing UN authority which subsumed, update, incorporated, and changed the original legal provisions of the League of Nations Mandate to actually "West Bank [does] belong to the Palestinians."

Thus the West Bank is variously considered, ipso facto, Palestinian land by virtue only of possession (one of the governing landmarks of international law when deciding borders, agreed. But Israel retains control, which is the other significant governing factor in international law when arbitrating borders). No, it is certainly not clear that the West Bank belongs to Palestinians, but the argument could be made in international court. It has not, though.

Actually, you do have a point. If facts on the ground are considered to confer legal validity then Israel has a good argument for continued settlement building. Of course facts on the ground are always viewed from a political perspective. If China annexes Tibet people complain, but continue to buy Chinese goods, the same applies to Turkey when it annexed Northern Cyprus.

But alas we are where we are, little does it matter that a Palestinian identity was conjured out of thin air and applied to a bunch of generic Arabs who happened to live in the area, and many of whom would rather live in a Caliphate anyway.

[arjunadawn]

Actually, you do have a point. If facts on the ground are considered to confer legal validity then Israel has a good argument for continued settlement building. Of course facts on the ground are always viewed from a political perspective. If China annexes Tibet people complain, but continue to buy Chinese goods, the same applies to Turkey when it annexed Northern Cyprus.

But alas we are where we are, little does it matter that a Palestinian identity was conjured out of thin air and applied to a bunch of generic Arabs who happened to live in the area, and many of whom would rather live in a Caliphate anyway.

Yes, we do have a point. I can only speak for myself when I note that while I find Israel's claim to the West Bank abundantly legal, this does not constitute either an easy solution nor a way out of the morass. So, while I insist their remains an unbroken "legal" thread constituting Israeli ownership of this land, it does not practically translate into a useful solution, that I can see.

JDINASIA, cites... well, he cites no authority, only further gas-lighting (by the source). The UN as well as the Islamic Conference, indeed, even the US administration "gaslights" through repetition the assertion that this is "Occupied Palestinian Land." However, the land was clearly deeded to the Jews for which it was then invaded and occupied by Jordanians. The Jordanians did not do this because of some perceived protection of a non existent people, they did this because once having entered into an agreement assigning them the Hashemite lands on the other side of the Mandate, they reneged and wanted all the land to the sea. Once they actually appreciated that not only the land would belong to Jews but that a massive influx of Jews would be on their border, they attacked and occupied Israeli lands. How people can overlook this is stunning? This was reversed in 1967 and the lines the Jordanians held at 1948 Armistice had zero gravity because it was the Jordanians who in 1948, prior to the signing, insisted that the Armistice lines be considered temporary, non binding.

The UN really wanted a Partition Plan for a number of reasons. Not only did the Mideast debacle represent something new for which the UN was formed to address, it represented something old for which they could right and improve the legally binding actions of their predecessor, the League of Nations. It was widely approved, this plan to subordinate the Palestine Mandate to new rules, but it simply never passed into ratification, that thorny requirement that renders ideas into laws! Thus no amount of repeating a partial truth or wishful thinking can change the fact that the legal framework of this West Bank issue only affords the Palestinians one primary piece of data for the legal definition of it being their land, possession. Israel controls it. Whereas, Jordan once possessed and controlled it, had they continued in this manner legally the land could have been effectively argued under international law as belonging to Jordan. But they attacked again and the issue over control clearly no longer exists for Jordan. Insofar as their really is no Palestine to speak of, an issue of control can only be appropriated to them as a people recently, PA, etc. So, they possess, and ostensibly seek to control, but effectively do not. Those they call occupiers have a first claim, and control, and while some argue settlements are illegal, they clearly are not.

Under international law "transfers" (G Convention Protocols that apply) are illegal and are in multiple places defined. Israel does not transfer its populations there, though it clearly finesses this point though. Building the roads and infrastructure for which Jews then migrate into these lands is on its face a seeming transfer, but it is not. The word "settlement" is not a sneaky approach to sidestep the transfer definition, it is the literal Hebrew translation of the movement of their peoples. Thus Israel has a real and valid claim to the land as disputed.

The Arabs transferred approximately one million Jews out of Arab lands and confiscated their property. Approximately 80% of local arabs fled voluntarily or were enticed to do so by invading armies, then sought to return. A percentage were clearly driven from the land by the Jews. The arguments against Israel are so flimsy, so one sided, so utterly devoid of context and precedent as to actually render the motivations against Israel suspect.

[Ulysses G.]

The arguments against Israel are so flimsy, so one sided, so utterly devoid of context and precedent as to actually render the motivations against Israel suspect.

Which is exactly why the obsessive Israel-bashers have to rely so much on dishonest arguments, spin and fabrications.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[7by7]

<snip>little does it matter that a Palestinian identity was conjured out of thin air and applied to a bunch of generic Arabs who happened to live in the area, and many of whom would rather live in a Caliphate anyway.

The state of Israel was 'conjured out of thin air' in 1948!

Prior to that the whole of geographical Palestine was part of the British empire under the British mandate; before that it was part of the Ottoman empire, before that it changed hands several times between various Islamic and Christian rulers, before that it was part of the Byzantine empire, before that the Roman empire, before that........!

During all that time, the ancestors of the 'bunch of generic Arabs who happen to live in the area' were living there; as were the ancestors of the Palestinian Jews.

This is not, before you accuse it of such, an argument against the existence of the modern state of Israel.

Rather it is an argument that a modern state of Palestine has as much right to exist as the modern state of Israel.

The Palestinians, even Hamas, now recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist; why wont Israel, and the USA come to that, recognise the right of the state of Palestine to exist?

Whatever political system the citizens of a free Palestine, when it eventually comes into existence, choose to live under is, of course, up to them.

Edited December 19, 2014 by 7by7

[Ulysses G.]

<snip>little does it matter that a Palestinian identity was conjured out of thin air and applied to a bunch of generic Arabs who happened to live in the area, and many of whom would rather live in a Caliphate anyway.

The state of Israel was 'conjured out of thin air' in 1948!

But no one is going around claiming that that modern state of Israel was there before 1948.

The Palestinians and their apologists like to claim that they they had an independent state called "Palestine" that the Jews showed up and stole. Neither people had an independent state before that time and neither side owned much land. The UN stepped in to settle the conflict and offered to give them each their own territory. The Jews accepted. The Arabs refused and declared war after war which they LOST. They made a lot of REALLY bad choices and still are, but want to blame everyone but themselves.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[7by7]

<snip>

The Palestinians and their apologists like to claim that they they had an independent state called "Palestine" that the Jews showed up and stole.

Really?

I know that many Arab landowners at the time, and since, have claimed, rightly or wrongly, that the land they owned was stolen by the new state of Israel, and even the British before that, and given to Jewish settlers.

I have never seen any claims such as that in the part of your post I have quoted; i.e. that prior to 1948 there was an independent state of Palestine which the Jews stole.

I'd be very interested in any links to substantiate your statement.

[Ulysses G.]

The Palestinians, even Hamas, now recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist

That is not true and you have been provided with evidence repeatedly. In fact, the group's founding charter still calls for the destruction of Israel and for recovering ALL mandate Palestine. Hamas spokesmen continue to deny that they will recognize Israel. .

Palestinian unity deal will not lead Islamist group Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist and will not result in any Gaza militants coming under President Mahmoud Abbas's control, a senior Hamas official said on Tuesday.

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Hamas-official-Palestinian-unity-deal-will-not-make-Hamas-change-350787

Edited December 19, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[7by7]

You have repeatedly been provided with evidence that Hamas, or at least the leaders of Hamas, have recognised the right of Israel to exist.

I will grant you, as I have done before, that some extremist elements in Hamas have not.

I see that you have, again, ignored the difficult question; when will Israel recognise the right of the state of Palestine to exist?

[Seastallion]

You have repeatedly been provided with evidence that Hamas, or at least the leaders of Hamas, have recognised the right of Israel to exist.

I will grant you, as I have done before, that some extremist elements in Hamas have not.

I see that you have, again, ignored the difficult question; when will Israel recognise the right of the state of Palestine to exist?

Never while Likud and other right-wing Zionist parties are in power. They want the lot, river to the sea. Greater Israel. This is why (obviously) Netanyahu will continue to put obstacles in the way of any peace. While "defence" remains an excuse, ethnic cleansing and settlement expansion can continue towards the final goal.

As an excersise, what would the Israeli peace plan look like? The ideal plan from Israel's point of view. Can any of the pro-Israelis suggest what it might look like?

Morch? JT? UG? It would really help the discussion to put down what you think the plan should be.

[Ulysses G.]

You have repeatedly been provided with evidence that Hamas, or at least the leaders of Hamas, have recognised the right of Israel to exist.

No I have not been provided any conclusive evidence of your claims. Don't be ridiculous. How can the group's founding charter still call for the destruction of Israel and for recovering ALL mandate Palestine and recognize Israel at the same time?

Why have leaders of Hamas repeatedly said that they won't recognize Israel as recently as few months ago (see link to article below)? Some say one thing. Some say another, but there has been no formal recognition and nothing else counts.

Israel will recognize the right of the state of Palestine to exist, when they sign a peace treaty and honor their commitments under the Oslo Agreements to negotiate with Israel on borders and such first - as they have promised.

Looking to reassure Western allies, Abbas said the new government would recognize Israel and honor previous treaties. Zahar dismissed this as a hollow gesture, saying the ministers would be academics with no political authority.

"Abbas is not telling them the truth. He says 'this is my government'. But it is not his government. It is a government of national unity. He is marketing it in this way to minimize the pressure," said Zahar, who took part in the unity negotiations.

http://www.jpost.com...s-change-350787

Edited December 19, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

Morch? JT? UG? It would really help the discussion to put down what you think the plan should be.

That is up to the Israelis, not to me. It depends on too many variables and the situation changes all the time.