Major powers warn Israel, Palestinians against unilateral measures harmful to peace

[webfact]

Major powers warn Israel, Palestinians against unilateral measures harmful to peace

By John Irish, Lesley Wroughton and Marine Pennetier

REUTERS

 

(First row From L) Russian Ambassador to France Alexander Orlov, US Secretary of State John Kerry, French President Francois Hollande, French Minister of Foreign Affairs Jean-Marc Ayrault, European Union Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini, State Secretary for European Affairs Harlem Desir pose for a family picture during the Mideast peace conference in Paris, France, January 15, 2017. REUTERS/Bertrand Guay/POOL

 

PARIS (Reuters) - Some 70 countries on Sunday reaffirmed that only a two-state solution could resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and warned they would not recognise any unilateral steps by either side that could prejudge negotiations.

 

The final communique of a one-day international Middle East peace conference in Paris shied away from explicitly criticising plans by U.S. president-elect Donald Trump to move the U.S Embassy to Jerusalem, although diplomats said the wording sent a "subliminal" message.

 

Trump has pledged to pursue more pro-Israeli policies and to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, all but enshrining the city as Israel's capital, despite international objections.

 

Countries including key European and Arab states as well as the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council were in Paris for the conference, that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected as "futile". Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians were represented.

 

However, just five days before Trump is sworn in, the meeting was seen as a platform for countries to send a strong signal to the incoming American president that a two-state solution to the conflict could not be compromised on and that unilateral decisions could exacerbate tensions on the ground.

 

The participants "call on each side ... to refrain from unilateral steps that prejudge the outcome of negotiations on final-status issues, including, inter alia, on Jerusalem, borders, security, refugees and which they will not recognise," the final communique said.

 

A French diplomatic source said there had been tough negotiations on that paragraph.

 

"It's a tortuous and complicated paragraph to pass a subliminal message to the Trump administration," the diplomat said.

 

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters it would have been inappropriate to include the issue of moving the U.S. embassy, it being publicly debated in the United States.

 

Relations between the United States and Israel have soured during President Barack Obama's administration, reaching a low point late last month when Washington declined to veto U.N. resolution 2334 demanding an end to Israeli settlements in occupied territory.

 

Paris has said the meeting did not aim to impose anything on Israel or the Palestinians and that only direct negotiations could resolve the conflict.

 

The final draft did not go into any details other than reaffirming U.N. Security Council resolutions, including 2334. Diplomats said that had been a source of friction in talks.

 

"When some are questioning this, it's vital for us to recall the framework of negotiations. That framework is the 1967 borders and the main resolutions of the United Nations," French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, told reporters.

 

Kerry, who abandoned his efforts to broker peace talks in April 2014, told reporters that the meeting had "moved the ball forward."

 

"It underscores this is not just one administration's point of view, this is shared by the international community broadly," he said.

 

Home to Europe's largest Muslim and Jewish communities, France has tried to breathe new life into the peace process over the past year and argued that it should not play second fiddle to the war in Syria and fight against Islamic State militants.

 

The final statement said interested parties would meet again before year-end.

 

But Netanyahu told a cabinet meeting on Sunday that "this conference is among the last twitches of the world of yesterday ... Tomorrow will look different and that tomorrow is very close."

 

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who said on Saturday that moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem would kill off the peace process, said the Paris meeting would help at stopping "settlement activities and destroying the two-state solution through dictations and the use of force."

 

(Additional reporting Lesley Wroughton in Paris and Jeffrey Heller in Jerusalem; Editing by Susan Fenton, Greg Mahlich)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-01-16

[Ulysses G.]

Sounds like these folks are the ones making unilateral steps that prejudge the outcome of negotiations on final-status issues. The recent, very biased, UN resolution is just one example. Hopefully, president Trump will just ignore them.

 

For the past 35 years, every administration, including a reelection-seeking Obama himself in 2011, has protected Israel with the U.S. veto because such a Security Council resolution gives immense legal ammunition to every boycotter, anti-Semite and zealous European prosecutor to penalize and punish Israelis.

An ordinary Israeli who lives or works in the Old City of Jerusalem becomes an international pariah, a potential outlaw. To say nothing of the soldiers of Israel’s citizen army. “Every pilot and every officer and every soldier,” said a confidant of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, “we are waiting for him at The Hague,” i.e. the International Criminal Court.

Moreover, the resolution undermines the very foundation of a half-century of American Middle East policy. What becomes of “land for peace” if the territories that Israel was to have traded for peace are, in advance, declared to be Palestinian land to which Israel has no claim?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-final-most-shameful-legacy-moment/2016/12/29/ee04bcca-cdfc-11e6-a747-d03044780a02_story.html?utm_term=.afc876d2bd5a

Edited January 16, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[yardrunner]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Sounds like these folks are the ones making unilateral steps that prejudge the outcome of negotiations on final-status issues. The recent, very biased, UN resolution is just one example. Hopefully, president Trump will just ignore them.

 

For the past 35 years, every administration, including a reelection-seeking Obama himself in 2011, has protected Israel with the U.S. veto because such a Security Council resolution gives immense legal ammunition to every boycotter, anti-Semite and zealous European prosecutor to penalize and punish Israelis.

An ordinary Israeli who lives or works in the Old City of Jerusalem becomes an international pariah, a potential outlaw. To say nothing of the soldiers of Israel’s citizen army. “Every pilot and every officer and every soldier,” said a confidant of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, “we are waiting for him at The Hague,” i.e. the International Criminal Court.

Moreover, the resolution undermines the very foundation of a half-century of American Middle East policy. What becomes of “land for peace” if the territories that Israel was to have traded for peace are, in advance, declared to be Palestinian land to which Israel has no claim?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-final-most-shameful-legacy-moment/2016/12/29/ee04bcca-cdfc-11e6-a747-d03044780a02_story.html?utm_term=.afc876d2bd5a

The UN resolution was not biased it was based on international law that Israel has decided to ignore, hopefully the rest of the world will ignore the incoming Russian puppet

[Ulysses G.]

21 minutes ago, yardrunner said:

The UN resolution was not biased it was based on international law that Israel has decided to ignore, hopefully the rest of the world will ignore the incoming Russian puppet

 

Can't ignore him. He can veto resolutions that are biased against Israel and he will. No more stabbing them in the back like the recent vote.

 

http://nypost.com/2016/12/27/after-back-stabbing-israel-team-obama-pretends-its-hands-are-clean/

Edited January 16, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[Johpa]

Neither appeals to international law, what ever that is, nor a one state or two state "solution" will resolve this conflict. The only current resolution of the conflict occurs when the vast majority of Muslins accept the legitimacy of the Jewish state of Israel or when Israel is eradicated from the map. Neither scenario is likely in my lifetime, and given the short nature of my lifetime, nor in my children's lifetime.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, yardrunner said:

The UN resolution was not biased it was based on international law that Israel has decided to ignore, hopefully the rest of the world will ignore the incoming Russian puppet

 

The Democratic lobby have really done a good job on that. Convincing so many easily led that Trump was elected only with Russian help.

 

No proof of course but nudge nudge wink wink. And managed to sweep all the crap about the DNC lies and cheating along with Hilary under the carpet.

 

Russia is the Democrats go to bogeyman. Heaven forbid someone actually trying to improve things. Would undermine so much of where they laid previous blame - conveniently if not factually.

 

So why did Obama choose not to use the veto at the UNSC? Could it be to stir the pot for his successor? Or perhaps he's hoping for some work from the Saudi funded Clinton Foundation?

Edited January 16, 2017 by Baerboxer

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

warned they would not recognise any unilateral steps by either side that could prejudge negotiations

A bit disingenuous. There are already 90 Palestinian embassies and consulates throughout the world and Palestine recently opened an embassy in The Vatican. Compare this to the number of Taiwan embassies and consulates - zero. North Korea 24.

Palestinian Representative Missions in Palestine - 48 countries (seven located in Jerusalum) and includes all 5 UN Permanent Security Counsel members.

Nonresident Embassies in Palestine - 23

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diplomatic_missions_in_Palestine

If Trump insists on a one-state strategy, he will destroy the US as a credible negotiator and Russia together with Egypt, Iran, Syria and Iraq will be pleased to replace the US.

 

[ddavidovsky]

4 hours ago, Johpa said:

Neither appeals to international law, what ever that is, nor a one state or two state "solution" will resolve this conflict. The only current resolution of the conflict occurs when the vast majority of Muslins accept the legitimacy of the Jewish state of Israel or when Israel is eradicated from the map. Neither scenario is likely in my lifetime, and given the short nature of my lifetime, nor in my children's lifetime.
 

 

Neither solution grasps the nature of the problem. Fact is, Israel wants the conflict to go on,  during which time they are gradually annexing the West Bank for themselves - that's their long-term goal, and their timeframe is Biblical.

 

Note the sociology underlying this: Israel wants either to push the Palestinians out or for them to get fed up and exile themselves, rendering them  stateless, wandering people such as the Jews once were. It's their divine retribution. Israel just needs to keep provoking the Palestinians into belligerency to give themselves an excuse to do bring this about.

 

The immediate problem is that no one - neither the politicians nor the media - understands or is willing to publicly acknowledge this fundamental fact. The only practical solution is therefore threat of military action against Israel by western powers. As that won't happen due to lack of political will, the situation I have described above is how it will end - maybe in several hundred years' time.

[Jingthing]

Well, I'm very pro-Israel (not the same thing as approving of all their government's policies) but am also for keeping hope alive for a negotiated two state solution. The U.S. moving the embassy to Jerusalem (which BTW I don't think is REALLY going to happen under trump) is definitely provocative and definitely dampens such hopes, the same as expanding west bank settlements. On the other hand, U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem should be recognized officially by the U.S. as being born in ISRAEL.

 

 

[Jingthing]

21 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

Neither solution grasps the nature of the problem. Fact is, Israel wants the conflict to go on,  during which time they are gradually annexing the West Bank for themselves - that's their long-term goal, and their timeframe is Biblical.

 

Note the sociology underlying this: Israel wants either to push the Palestinians out or for them to get fed up and exile themselves, rendering them  stateless, wandering people such as the Jews once were. It's their divine retribution. Israel just needs to keep provoking the Palestinians into belligerency to give themselves an excuse to do bring this about.

 

The immediate problem is that no one - neither the politicians nor the media - understands or is willing to publicly acknowledge this fundamental fact. The only practical solution is therefore threat of military action against Israel by western powers. As that won't happen due to lack of political will, the situation I have described above is how it will end - maybe in several hundred years' time.

Your extreme anti-Israel POV painting all Israelis in such an evil way may be true of a segment of Israelis but I call FOUL on the implication that it represents all, or even most Israelis.

 

To wit:

http://forward.com/news/israel/360043/68-of-israelis-support-two-state-solution-j-street-poll/?attribution=home-top-story-5-headline

Quote

68% of Israelis Support Two-State Solution: J Street Poll

 

I'd like to see some polling on what percentage of Israelis support the PROVOCATIVE idea of moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Keep in mind the ambassador that trump picked for Israel is to the RIGHT of Netanyahu, and yes, that takes some doing.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Jingthing

[ddavidovsky]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Your extreme anti-Israel POV painting all Israelis in such an evil way may be true of a segment of Israelis but I call FOUL on the implication that it represents all, or even most Israelis.

 

 

Sure, there are always hawks and doves in any population - goes without saying - but as long as Israelis feel threatened they will continue to elect right-wing leaders, and it only takes a few such leaders to bring such a policy about. Hence, it's in the interests of right-wing leaders to make sure all Israelis do feel sufficiently threatened. For example, if Gaza goes quiet you can be sure the Gazans will provoked  in some way to get them firing rockets again - behind the cover of which, more new settlements will be built in the West Bank. And so it goes on. I seriously doubt that many people understand that this covert process is even happening.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Sounds like these folks are the ones making unilateral steps that prejudge the outcome of negotiations on final-status issues. The recent, very biased, UN resolution is just one example. Hopefully, president Trump will just ignore them.

 

For the past 35 years, every administration, including a reelection-seeking Obama himself in 2011, has protected Israel with the U.S. veto because such a Security Council resolution gives immense legal ammunition to every boycotter, anti-Semite and zealous European prosecutor to penalize and punish Israelis.

An ordinary Israeli who lives or works in the Old City of Jerusalem becomes an international pariah, a potential outlaw. To say nothing of the soldiers of Israel’s citizen army. “Every pilot and every officer and every soldier,” said a confidant of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, “we are waiting for him at The Hague,” i.e. the International Criminal Court.

Moreover, the resolution undermines the very foundation of a half-century of American Middle East policy. What becomes of “land for peace” if the territories that Israel was to have traded for peace are, in advance, declared to be Palestinian land to which Israel has no claim?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-final-most-shameful-legacy-moment/2016/12/29/ee04bcca-cdfc-11e6-a747-d03044780a02_story.html?utm_term=.afc876d2bd5a

 

I will skip most of the uninteresting diatribe, and refer to the last line.

 

Israel does occupy Palestinian land. Sure, you could go on with the usual deflections about there not being a Palestinian state in the past etc. - which are not incorrect, but simply irrelevant. The bottom line is that everyone knows what a two state solution entails - the West Bank and the Gaza Strip under Palestinian control. There could be variations on certain parameters, but the essential element of trading land for peace is a given. By accepted standards, Israel does not have a legitimate claim to most of the territory in question.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, yardrunner said:

The UN resolution was not biased it was based on international law that Israel has decided to ignore, hopefully the rest of the world will ignore the incoming Russian puppet

 

How do you suggest (or imagine) that "the World" will ignore Trump? It seems all the more a nonsensical proposition considering the wimpy note on which the conference ended, compared to the initial French ideas about setting deadlines etc., or Kerry reassuring Netanyahu that not further UNSC resolutions will follow. All this was already taking Trump into account.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Johpa said:

Neither appeals to international law, what ever that is, nor a one state or two state "solution" will resolve this conflict. The only current resolution of the conflict occurs when the vast majority of Muslins accept the legitimacy of the Jewish state of Israel or when Israel is eradicated from the map. Neither scenario is likely in my lifetime, and given the short nature of my lifetime, nor in my children's lifetime.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

I'm hardly as pessimistic, but then my threshold for what passes for peace is probably rather low. The problem I see with the view above is that it can never be fully accomplished to the satisfaction of some . What does "accepting the legitimacy of the Jewish state of Israel" entail? How can it be measured?

 

Example - Egypt and Jordan both have long standing peace agreements with Israel, which withstood a known amount of strain. Formally, there's peace, no hostilities and even some trade. On the other hand, public opinion in both countries is very much anti-Israeli. So how do these cases stack against the condition set above?

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Srikcir said:

A bit disingenuous. There are already 90 Palestinian embassies and consulates throughout the world and Palestine recently opened an embassy in The Vatican. Compare this to the number of Taiwan embassies and consulates - zero. North Korea 24.

Palestinian Representative Missions in Palestine - 48 countries (seven located in Jerusalum) and includes all 5 UN Permanent Security Counsel members.

Nonresident Embassies in Palestine - 23

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diplomatic_missions_in_Palestine

If Trump insists on a one-state strategy, he will destroy the US as a credible negotiator and Russia together with Egypt, Iran, Syria and Iraq will be pleased to replace the US.

 

 

I very much doubt that the US is considered a "credible negotiator" even prior to Trump's term in office. Not quite sure what Iran, Syria or Iraq got to do with it. None of them are in any position to mediate the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

Neither solution grasps the nature of the problem. Fact is, Israel wants the conflict to go on,  during which time they are gradually annexing the West Bank for themselves - that's their long-term goal, and their timeframe is Biblical.

 

Note the sociology underlying this: Israel wants either to push the Palestinians out or for them to get fed up and exile themselves, rendering them  stateless, wandering people such as the Jews once were. It's their divine retribution. Israel just needs to keep provoking the Palestinians into belligerency to give themselves an excuse to do bring this about.

 

The immediate problem is that no one - neither the politicians nor the media - understands or is willing to publicly acknowledge this fundamental fact. The only practical solution is therefore threat of military action against Israel by western powers. As that won't happen due to lack of political will, the situation I have described above is how it will end - maybe in several hundred years' time.

 

You are making some blanket statements with regard to Israel, Israelis and supposed long term policies. Most being rubbish. Israelis are not necessarily right wing supporters, see the illegal settlements as a boon to the country or are eager to fulfill religious edicts. It would have been more to the point to comment on government policies, but that wouldn't make a sweeping argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

Sure, there are always hawks and doves in any population - goes without saying - but as long as Israelis feel threatened they will continue to elect right-wing leaders, and it only takes a few such leaders to bring such a policy about. Hence, it's in the interests of right-wing leaders to make sure all Israelis do feel sufficiently threatened. For example, if Gaza goes quiet you can be sure the Gazans will provoked  in some way to get them firing rockets again - behind the cover of which, more new settlements will be built in the West Bank. And so it goes on. I seriously doubt that many people understand that this covert process is even happening.

 

The usual one sided drivel.

 

The Palestinians are not always provoked, but initiate hostilities for their own ends and goals. Israelis vote for right wing parties not only due to security issues, but also because of long standing social divides, and the apparent inability of left/centrist parties to produce a credible opposition.

 

 

 

[Johpa]

 

Neither solution grasps the nature of the problem. Fact is, Israel wants the conflict to go on,  during which time they are gradually annexing the West Bank for themselves - that's their long-term goal, and their timeframe is Biblical.

 

Note the sociology underlying this: Israel wants either to push the Palestinians out or for them to get fed up and exile themselves, rendering them  stateless, wandering people such as the Jews once were. It's their divine retribution. Israel just needs to keep provoking the Palestinians into belligerency to give themselves an excuse to do bring this about.

Ridiculous. The heart of the problem remains even if the Likud and their delusional Orthodox partners abandon their Biblical aspirations and Israel were to withdraw to pre-1967 borders.

[yardrunner]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

How do you suggest (or imagine) that "the World" will ignore Trump? It seems all the more a nonsensical proposition considering the wimpy note on which the conference ended, compared to the initial French ideas about setting deadlines etc., or Kerry reassuring Netanyahu that not further UNSC resolutions will follow. All this was already taking Trump into account.

You can only hope, and no i know it wont happen but still i can dream

[Kiwiken]

7 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Can't ignore him. He can veto resolutions that are biased against Israel and he will. No more stabbing them in the back like the recent vote.

 

http://nypost.com/2016/12/27/after-back-stabbing-israel-team-obama-pretends-its-hands-are-clean/

And Israel will continue trying to undermine Democracies which it believes are not blindly biased in favour of Israel. Such as the current UK scandal

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

The usual one sided drivel.

 

The Palestinians are not always provoked, but initiate hostilities for their own ends and goals. Israelis vote for right wing parties not only due to security issues, but also because of long standing social divides, and the apparent inability of left/centrist parties to produce a credible opposition.

 

 

 

Don't want to get sidetracked discussing Gazan Wars, but I believe all 3 recent wars were deliberately provoked by Israel's heavy handed actions. So I agree with ddavidovsky that it would be very easy for Netanyahu to create another intifada or Gazan War on some pretext especially with the Trump cheer squad and his ambassador encouraging anything and everything Israel does.

 

Even if we accept your thesis that "Israelis are not necessarily right wing supporters, see the illegal settlements as a boon to the country or are eager to fulfill religious edicts."  Whatever you may say, the reality is that seems to be the state of play at the moment, with nothing and no-one in sight to curb the fanatics' Greater Israel aspirations.

 

Apart from perhaps a few toothless comments from the Paris conference, at least it is partly reassuring that the world is still watching Israel's illegal activities. And may curb any fantasies held by some in Netanyahu's cabinet of further ethnic cleansing to maintain a Jewish majority.

 

Personally I have lost hope of a two state solution. Israel has established too many facts on the ground with their illegal colonizing in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

 

With Trump's encouragement, Israel is blundering further into a one state solution, which I regard as inevitable anyway, and with it the demise of the racist Zionist ideology.

Edited January 16, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Don't want to get sidetracked discussing Gazan Wars, but I believe all 3 recent wars were deliberately provoked by Israel's heavy handed actions. So I agree with ddavidovsky that it would be very easy for Netanyahu to create another intifada or Gazan War on some pretext especially with the Trump cheer squad and his ambassador encouraging anything and everything Israel does.

 

Even if we accept your thesis that "Israelis are not necessarily right wing supporters, see the illegal settlements as a boon to the country or are eager to fulfill religious edicts."  Whatever you may state, the reality is that seems to be the state of play at the moment, with nothing and no-one in sight to curb the fanatics' Greater Israel aspirations.

 

Apart from perhaps a few toothless comments from the Paris conference, at least it is partly reassuring that the world is still watching Israel's illegal activities. And may curb any fantasies held by some in Netanyahu's cabinet of further ethnic cleansing.

 

Personally I have lost hope of a two state solution. Israel has established too many facts on the ground with their illegal colonizing in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

 

With Trump's encouragement, Israel is blundering further into a one state solution, which I regard as inevitable anyway, and with it the demise of the racist Zionist ideology.

 

What you "believe" is immaterial. Your clearly stated position is that the only side responsible for anything is Israel. Further, on previous topics you have already stated that you intentionally ignore (or justify) any Palestinian transgressions. As such, pretty much all of your posts are suspect, and the first line from my quoted post applies - "The usual one sided drivel."

 

The conflict being what it is, easy enough for extremists on either side to start things going. Claiming all these instances are a result  of Israeli provocations is both incorrect and on top of that, displays the usual ceaselessness with regard to Palestinian power plays and politics.

 

Israelis are not necessarily right wing supporters, see the illegal settlements as a boon to the country or are eager to fulfill religious edicts. These are facts, not a "thesis". The "thesis" was the nonsense I replied to. If you wish to attack the policies of the Israeli government or Israeli's political right, that's a legitimate position. Making the sort of blanket statements I replied to, is not. And, as usual, not a word about the Palestinian side, which is not all too eager to embrace a peaceful resolution, nor the concessions that go with it.

 

You may wish to read the OP and the actual statements made during the conference. The criticism was not solely directed at Israel even if you choose to ignore the bits that do not fit your agenda and narrative. The usual off topic deflection ramblings about Zionism are about as inaccurate as they always were.

 

I fully expect that you will do your best to turn this "discussion" into the usual off-topic bash-fest.

[dexterm]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What you "believe" is immaterial. Your clearly stated position is that the only side responsible for anything is Israel. Further, on previous topics you have already stated that you intentionally ignore (or justify) any Palestinian transgressions. As such, pretty much all of your posts are suspect, and the first line from my quoted post applies - "The usual one sided drivel."

 

The conflict being what it is, easy enough for extremists on either side to start things going. Claiming all these instances are a result  of Israeli provocations is both incorrect and on top of that, displays the usual ceaselessness with regard to Palestinian power plays and politics.

 

Israelis are not necessarily right wing supporters, see the illegal settlements as a boon to the country or are eager to fulfill religious edicts. These are facts, not a "thesis". The "thesis" was the nonsense I replied to. If you wish to attack the policies of the Israeli government or Israeli's political right, that's a legitimate position. Making the sort of blanket statements I replied to, is not. And, as usual, not a word about the Palestinian side, which is not all too eager to embrace a peaceful resolution, nor the concessions that go with it.

 

You may wish to read the OP and the actual statements made during the conference. The criticism was not solely directed at Israel even if you choose to ignore the bits that do not fit your agenda and narrative. The usual off topic deflection ramblings about Zionism are about as inaccurate as they always were.

 

I fully expect that you will do your best to turn this "discussion" into the usual off-topic bash-fest.

Palestinians are the ones who have been invaded, displaced and occupied. So no apologies on behalf of the victims.

 

Even if the US reps and Paris delegates felt the need to dress things up a bit pointing a little finger at the Palestinians to assuage Israeli sensitivities, they all know the truth about who really is hindering the peace process and is the cause of the entire conflict.

 

I regard many of your posts as interesting, but immaterial and irrelevant when you try to justify the unjustifiable, because ultimately the truth will out and you are the wrong side of history.

 

I am afraid I will have to sign off now. Travelling for a couple of days.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

Palestinians are the ones who have been invaded, displaced and occupied. So no apologies on behalf of the victims.

 

Even if the US reps and Paris delegates felt the need to dress things up a bit pointing a little finger at the Palestinians to assuage Israeli sensitivities, they all know the truth about who really is hindering the peace process and is the cause of the entire conflict.

 

I regard many of your posts as interesting, but immaterial and irrelevant when you try to justify the unjustifiable, because ultimately the truth will out and you are the wrong side of history.

 

I am afraid I will have to sign off now. Travelling for a couple of days.

 

As said "the usual one sided drivel".

 

May want to actually read the OP, the referenced UN resolution and related statements. They are nowhere as one-sided as your views, nor do they amount to a blanket free pass for the Palestinian side. You can post whatever nonsense you like, the truth is that intransigence is something both sides excel at. If it hurts your sensibilities that this is repeatedly recognized by almost any relevant international forum - may want to take your issues with them.

 

I do not really see where I tried to justify anything in the posts above. Guess that comment was just the usual mumbo jumbo offensive offered in lieu of a reasonable argument.

[Ulysses G.]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I will skip most of the uninteresting diatribe, and refer to the last line.

 

Israel does occupy Palestinian land. Sure, you could go on with the usual deflections about there not being a Palestinian state in the past etc. - which are not incorrect, but simply irrelevant. The bottom line is that everyone knows what a two state solution entails - the West Bank and the Gaza Strip under Palestinian control. There could be variations on certain parameters, but the essential element of trading land for peace is a given. By accepted standards, Israel does not have a legitimate claim to most of the territory in question.

 

Sorry, but the "uninteresting diatribe" was written by a Pulitzer Prize winner for distinguished writing - who also wrote the best-selling book of essays of all time. He also knows a lot more about politics and Israel than you do.

Sure you are the Thai Visa forum "expert" on Israel (but not so much on American politics or literary criticism). However, you certainly do not get everything right - not even close. I will take Charles Krauthammer's opinion over yours - on pretty much anything - anytime.

By the way, according to the Oslo Accords, the borders of any possible Palestinian state are yet to be decided. They have to be negotiated and it is very doubtful that Jeruselem will be included. At this time, there is no "Palestinian land".

Edited January 16, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[ilostmypassword]

From Robert Fisk:

The Paris peace conference was beyond useless – everyone knows a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine is impossible now

"Anyone who’s visited the West Bank these past few years, looked at the Jewish colonies built on stolen Arab land, witnessed the occupation and the filth of Gaza and observed its brutal Hamas militia leaders – and realised that Netanyahu will soon be the most left-wing member of his increasingly racist government – knows very well that the “two-state solution” vanished long ago. Why, did we really think it would survive the political surgery of our beloved former Middle East panjandrum, Tony Blair? As he would say if he was honest, the whole charade is “absolutely and completely” over".

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/paris-peace-conference-israel-palestine-settlements-two-state-solution-middle-east-impossible-a7529141.html

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[bangon04]

Without the constant diplomatic protection and financial support of the USA, would Netanyahu be forced to moderate his actions in pursuing the ethnic cleansing of the west bank, and would he be forced to enter into meaningful diplomacy with the arab states which have an interest.?

 

Or would he just feel compelled to threaten major military retaliation and more suppression?

[Thorgal]

 
Sorry, but the "uninteresting diatribe" was written by a Pulitzer Prize winner for distinguished writing - who also wrote the best-selling book of essays of all time. He also knows a lot more about politics and Israel than you do.
Sure you are the Thai Visa forum "expert" on Israel (but not so much on American politics or literary criticism). However, you certainly do not get everything right - not even close. I will take Charles Krauthammer's opinion over yours - on pretty much anything - anytime.
By the way, according to the Oslo Accords, the borders of any possible Palestinian state are yet to be decided. They have to be negotiated and it is very doubtful that Jeruselem will be included. At this time, there is no "Palestinian land".

Charles Krauthammer is so biased, but actually opposed strongly the Oslo accords...


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Ulysses G.]

9 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Charles Krauthammer is so biased, but actually opposed strongly the Oslo accords...
 

 

 

He is "biased" against Islamic terrorism - so what? - and he opposed the Oslo Accords for good reason. He felt the Palestinians would not live up their word to renounce terrorism - among other things - and he was correct. In retrospect, it was probably a deal that Israel never should have made.

However, Charles Krauthammer does not make the rules in Israel, so - now that the Accords are in place - he can only insist that the Palestinians live up to their side of the deal.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/oslo-accords-brought-10-years-conflict-analysts-say

 

[Morch]

21 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Sorry, but the "uninteresting diatribe" was written by a Pulitzer Prize winner for distinguished writing - who also wrote the best-selling book of essays of all time. He also knows a lot more about politics and Israel than you do.

Sure you are the Thai Visa forum "expert" on Israel (but not so much on American politics or literary criticism). However, you certainly do not get everything right - not even close. I will take Charles Krauthammer's opinion over yours - on pretty much anything - anytime.

By the way, according to the Oslo Accords, the borders of any possible Palestinian state are yet to be decided. They have to be negotiated and it is very doubtful that Jeruselem will be included. At this time, there is no "Palestinian land".

 

Seems that other than ad hominem comments and an appeal from authority, you do not actually have much of an argument. And in the manner of a zealot, quite a reaction when criticism or doubt are directed at one of your idols. Myself, I'm not too keen on assigning omniscience to people, and that would include Krauthammer. Not denying he is very perceptive, just that I do not feel the need to adopt all of his views - the above would be one of them.

 

Allow me to put your rather vehement response in perspective - never claimed to be much of an "expert" on US politics, and can't recall engaging in literary criticism on TVF (but the latter does make me wonder if we ever met on another corner of the net). As for getting everything right - doubt anyone really does. I do feel pretty good about my batting average, though.

 

Back on topic (sorta)..

 

Read my post again. The Oslo Accords (and that's a rather vague reference) essentially recognized the core areas under discussion. In one form or another, the very same territories, with minor variations, appeared in all peace agreement formulations. All of these were pretty much based on a handful of former resolutions. Further, previous Israeli governments and leaders accepted such premises and engaged in talks based on them.

 

Pretty much the whole world (other than Israel's right wing and Trump) sees the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as legally and morally being Palestinian land. This is a fact. How one deals with it is a choice - saying "it ain't so" won't make it go away. With regard to the question of Jerusalem - there were peace proposals which incorporated various ways of dealing with dividing the parts in question. Not particularly easy to achieve and a PITA to maintain, but not beyond the realm of possibility. There is no realistic demand that Israel will actually give up access or control of the Western Wall, for example.