Netanyahu non-committal on Palestinian statehood as he heads to U.S.

[webfact]

Netanyahu non-committal on Palestinian statehood as he heads to U.S.

By Luke Baker

REUTERS

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chairs the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem February 12, 2017. REUTERS/Gali Tibbon/Pool

 

TEL AVIV (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sidestepped a question on whether he still supports the creation of a Palestinian state as he left for the United States on Monday on his first visit since President Donald Trump took office.

 

Netanyahu has never publicly abandoned his conditional backing for Palestinian statehood, which he first stated in 2009, but Palestinians say that commitment has been rendered worthless by Israeli settlement building on occupied land.

 

Hours before Netanyahu's departure for Washington, Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan told Army Radio that "all members of the security cabinet, and foremost the prime minister, oppose a Palestinian state". The forum convened on Sunday ahead of Wednesday's White House meeting between Netanyahu and Trump.

 

On the Tel Aviv airport tarmac, Netanyahu was asked if he still stood behind the so-called two-state solution. "Come with me, you'll hear very clear answers," he told reporters accompanying him on the flight.

 

If confirmed, a departure from a two-state policy would present Israel with diplomatic, political and demographic challenges as it contends with the complex question of how to deal with a Palestinian population now under limited self-rule.

 

Far-right partners in Netanyahu's coalition have called for the annexation of parts of the West Bank, a demand he has resisted.

 

Last month, Israel's Haaretz newspaper said Netanyahu, in a closed-door meeting with Likud ministers, coined a new term "Palestinian state-minus" to describe his vision of limited Palestinian sovereignty in the territory.

 

He has already conditioned Palestinian statehood on demilitarisation, long-term presence of Israeli troops in the West Bank and Palestinian recognition of Israel as the "nation-state" of the Jewish people.

 

A one-state solution to the conflict would compromise Israel's Jewish character through the absorption of several million Palestinians.

 

NUANCED

 

Erdan belongs to the right-wing Likud party, many of whose legislators often espouse a harder line than Netanyahu himself.

 

Asked about Erdan's comments, Wasel Abu Youssef, an official of the Palestine Liberation Organization, said it is also "what the government of the extreme right in Israel does on the ground (that) prevents any chance of the establishment of a Palestinian state".

 

Palestinians seek a state in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. Israel captured those areas in a 1967 war; it pulled its troops and settlers out of Gaza in 2005.

 

Since Trump took office last month, Netanyahu has approved construction of 6,000 settler homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, drawing international condemnation which the White House did not join.

 

In recent days, however, the Trump administration has taken a more nuanced position, saying building new settlements or expanding existing ones may not be helpful in achieving peace.

 

But in his airport remarks, Netanyahu said that he and Trump "see eye-to-eye on the dangers emanating from the region but also on the opportunities, and we'll talk about both as well as upgrading the relations between Israel and the United States in many, many fields."

 

Also on the agenda will be the situation in Syria, and a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran that Netanyahu and Trump have strongly criticised. Before flying home on Thursday, Netanyahu plans to meet Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders.

 

(Additional reporting by Nidal al-Mughrabi in Gaza; Writing by Jeffrey Heller; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-14

[Ulysses G.]

Settlement building has not rendered anything "worthless". Israel has has turned over land and dismantled settlements before. However, the Palestinians need to agree to making peace first.

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were not captured from the Palestinians. They were captured from Jordan and Egypt, who had been occupying the land for decades with few complaints. 

Edited February 14, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[thaibeachlovers]

Given the behaviour of the Knesset since they knew Trump was president, it has to be apparent that Netanyahu is not going to try to make a Palestinian state a reality.

The question now is only what he does want to do.

As I see it, his options may be to encourage dispossession of Palestinian land and the de facto expulsion of Palestians to ?where? or to simply attempt to create a Jewish state in all the illegally occupied territory and impose apartheid to prevent non Jews becoming a majority voting block.

Whatever, the present situation can only continue with a pro Israel US government. Should that change, Israel as it is will be in a whole pile of doo doo. I don't have to remind us that few other countries support Israel now.

[humqdpf]

Why would he ever agree to Palestinian statehood?

 

1. If the Palestinians ever had statehood, there would be no threat - that would mean he could never do his shroud waving and frightening his population and make noise in the USA about the state of Israel being embattled and surrounded by enemies. Being in its current state keeps Yetanyahu in power even though it is more risky for the State of Israel  and the rest of the world, including the USA relations with with Iran. And that is all Yetanyahu really cares about.

2. His own coalition partners would never agree - they are too extreme.

3. Israel under a Palestinian state agreement would have to at least stop the building of settlements and might have to do something about the illegality of the existing ones.

4. Any version of "statehood" for Palestinians would be a version that not even a crazy man would agree to - they would remain occupied by the Israeli armed forces and their trade would the tightly controlled. Such a state would be undemocratically controlled by Israel and therefore would never be a state.

[Srikcir]

Netanyahu will be committed to Palestine statehood but only if the size of the Vatican City.

[dexterm]

7 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Settlement building has not rendered anything "worthless". Israel has has turned over land and dismantled settlements before. However, the Palestinians need to agree to making peace first.

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were not captured from the Palestinians. They were captured from Jordan and Egypt, who had been occupying the land for decades with few complaints. 

What has Israel got to offer in return for peace?
...no land, no right of refugee return, no Jerusalem, no fair distribution of resources and now no state.

Beginning to sound pretty much that all that is on offer is a "Palestinian state-minus" newly coined by Netanyahu...his euphemism for apartheid... non contiguous patches of land 100% controlled by Israel, but no voting rights.

 

Netanyahu's and US negotiations for a two state solution over the last 24 years since the Oslo Accords can now be seen for exactly what it was ...a sham, a delaying tactic,  a ruse just to appease Palestinians into thinking they may one day have a state of their own.

 

With continued settlement expansion and calls for annexation, the majority of Palestinians now believe the two state solution is dead too.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/221681

 

Well, so be it. Annex the land. Annex the population who have lived there for generations too.

[Jingthing]

In honor of Bibi's visit to trump, an extremely politically incorrect humor break.

Israel joins the list of nations vying for SECOND to trump's America First.

 

As far as Palestinian statehood, obviously the election of trump greatly harms what was already a thin chance hope. I'm talking about  a Palestinian state where there is mutual recognition between Palestine and Israel, not recognition of a non-existent Palestinian state by other nations. That will continue of course, but it's not real real until there is a direct agreement with the LOCAL parties.

 

 

Edited February 14, 2017 by Jingthing

[Morch]

14 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Settlement building has not rendered anything "worthless". Israel has has turned over land and dismantled settlements before. However, the Palestinians need to agree to making peace first.

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were not captured from the Palestinians. They were captured from Jordan and Egypt, who had been occupying the land for decades with few complaints. 

The "worthless" comment was in reference to Netnayahu's half-hearted "commitment" to a two-state solution, which was aired in 2009. There are other things beside the ongoing illegal settlement effort which can be said to make this so-called commitment worthless, but in terms of actions, rather than words, they certainly top the list.

 

While it is true that Israel turned over land, and dismantled settlements, such things were, for the most part, carried out under stronger leaderships than Netanyahu's. Even if one was to hold that Netanyahu's aim is to trade land and settlements for peace, it would explain the need for further settlement expansions. The Palestinian position, by the way, is that such expansions being carried out while holding negotiations does not amount to dealing in good faith. A fair point.

 

[Morch]

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given the behaviour of the Knesset since they knew Trump was president, it has to be apparent that Netanyahu is not going to try to make a Palestinian state a reality.

The question now is only what he does want to do.

As I see it, his options may be to encourage dispossession of Palestinian land and the de facto expulsion of Palestians to ?where? or to simply attempt to create a Jewish state in all the illegally occupied territory and impose apartheid to prevent non Jews becoming a majority voting block.

Whatever, the present situation can only continue with a pro Israel US government. Should that change, Israel as it is will be in a whole pile of doo doo. I don't have to remind us that few other countries support Israel now.

What "behaviour" would that be? The recent controversial vote in the Knesset was 60-52. But for certain political conditions unrelated to the issue (such as corruption investigations against Netanyahu), doubtful that it would have been successfully passed. So alluding to a supposed general "behaviour" is off mark. Most of the recent relevant legislation efforts are initiated by politicians belonging to the extreme right wing. They are by no means a general trend among all Israeli political parties.

 

Netanyahu is no unaware of the potential international price attached to these moves. Not saying that he is unsympathetic to their theme, just that his take is not disconnected from reality as seems to be the case with some of his coalition partners. The trouble is that his current political circumstances (and indeed, survival) are strained. Some of his right wing rivals are  keenly aware of this, and try their best to capitalize on his perceived weakness.

 

So no, it isn't even halfway as simple as being a question of "what he does want to do". But if pressed, I'd say political survival was top of the list.

 

[Morch]

10 hours ago, humqdpf said:

Why would he ever agree to Palestinian statehood?

 

1. If the Palestinians ever had statehood, there would be no threat - that would mean he could never do his shroud waving and frightening his population and make noise in the USA about the state of Israel being embattled and surrounded by enemies. Being in its current state keeps Yetanyahu in power even though it is more risky for the State of Israel  and the rest of the world, including the USA relations with with Iran. And that is all Yetanyahu really cares about.

2. His own coalition partners would never agree - they are too extreme.

3. Israel under a Palestinian state agreement would have to at least stop the building of settlements and might have to do something about the illegality of the existing ones.

4. Any version of "statehood" for Palestinians would be a version that not even a crazy man would agree to - they would remain occupied by the Israeli armed forces and their trade would the tightly controlled. Such a state would be undemocratically controlled by Israel and therefore would never be a state.

 

Palestinian statehood will not equate with "no threat". That's a fantasy. It may, possibly, change the set of current threats with another. It would not necessarily satisfy all Palestinians, all neighboring and regional countries. Whether this would more or less risky for Israel security is open for debate. Making it a foremost global issue is questionable at best. The current state of things, and worse, was in place long before Netanyahu - it is hardly the driving force maintaining his political power.

 

Some of Netanahu's current coalition partners would not agree to a Palestinian state. So would many of his own party. But then, neither the current coalition nor Netanyahu are permanent fixtures.

 

There will not be a Palestinian state without agreed upon limitations. Some of these were openly discussed, some were even agreed upon to a certain extant. So saying limitations will not be acceptable is incorrect. More a question of what and how. This, by the way, relates directly to the first part of the post.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, dexterm said:

What has Israel got to offer in return for peace?
...no land, no right of refugee return, no Jerusalem, no fair distribution of resources and now no state.

Beginning to sound pretty much that all that is on offer is a "Palestinian state-minus" newly coined by Netanyahu...his euphemism for apartheid... non contiguous patches of land 100% controlled by Israel, but no voting rights.

 

Netanyahu's and US negotiations for a two state solution over the last 24 years since the Oslo Accords can now be seen for exactly what it was ...a sham, a delaying tactic,  a ruse just to appease Palestinians into thinking they may one day have a state of their own.

 

With continued settlement expansion and calls for annexation, the majority of Palestinians now believe the two state solution is dead too.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/221681

 

Well, so be it. Annex the land. Annex the population who have lived there for generations too.

 

You are, as usual, ignoring that there are two sides involved, and neither got much to offer or the willingness to do so. It is not that the Palestinians (even if this signified an agreed upon leadership) are any better.

 

Netanyahu did not really coin a new phrase. A similar one ("less than a state") was employed by the late Israeli prime minister, Rabin. In a sense, that was always the offer - a state that would lack (at least to begin with) certain characteristics and prerogatives, mostly related to security issues. Of course, there are considerable differences between what Rabin (and other Israeli leaders) would have gone for, and Netanyahu's version (if it exists). Lumping it all into a single concept is the sort of thing you do - neither surprising nor very compelling.

 

No one duped the Palestinians into anything or forced them into an agreement. It seems that you somehow imagine that things wold have been better for the Palestinians if they hadn't gone for the Oslo Accords. Not that it is clear exactly how. Also, if you think that Israel has more control over the Palestinians now, as opposed to pre-Oslo Accords time, I'd suggest a reality check.

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You are, as usual, ignoring that there are two sides involved, and neither got much to offer or the willingness to do so. It is not that the Palestinians (even if this signified an agreed upon leadership) are any better.

 

Netanyahu did not really coin a new phrase. A similar one ("less than a state") was employed by the late Israeli prime minister, Rabin. In a sense, that was always the offer - a state that would lack (at least to begin with) certain characteristics and prerogatives, mostly related to security issues. Of course, there are considerable differences between what Rabin (and other Israeli leaders) would have gone for, and Netanyahu's version (if it exists). Lumping it all into a single concept is the sort of thing you do - neither surprising nor very compelling.

 

No one duped the Palestinians into anything or forced them into an agreement. It seems that you somehow imagine that things wold have been better for the Palestinians if they hadn't gone for the Oslo Accords. Not that it is clear exactly how. Also, if you think that Israel has more control over the Palestinians now, as opposed to pre-Oslo Accords time, I'd suggest a reality check.

So what have the Palestinians got to offer, other than yes, we surrender?

 

Zionists are the European invaders, colonizers, and occupiers. Not the other way around. It is the Palestinians who have lost their land, not the Israelis. Israel is the only nuclear power in the region, and the only one with a sophisticated standing army, not the Palestinians.

 

In your second paragraph you demonstrate your usual amazing ability to call black white with lashings of chutzpah. You, not I,  are the one "Lumping it all into a single concept", when you conflate Rabin's "less than a state" into Netanyahu's "state-minus", then openly admit "there are considerable differences". I never mentioned Rabin...you did. I mentioned newly coined, because I was quoting the OP.
"Last month, Israel's Haaretz newspaper said Netanyahu, in a closed-door meeting with Likud ministers, coined a new term "Palestinian state-minus" to describe his vision of limited Palestinian sovereignty in the territory."

I suggest you take up your usual obfuscatory pedantry with the editor of Haaretz and Reuters.

 

Of course the Palestinians have been duped. The spirit of the Oslo Accords was to achieve a peace-treaty based on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, and to fulfill the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

UN Res 242 I may remind you hinges on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. In particular..

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.." 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

 

Under the guise of negotiations, Israel far from withdrawing armed forces, and establishing secure and recognized boundaries free from threats and acts of force (ho ho ho) has done just the opposite.

 

It's not just the Palestinians who have been tricked. Better ask Clinton, Obama and Kerry what they thought they were negotiating towards if not a two state solution. It sure as hell wasn't a "state-minus".

 

I suppose we will now get a communique from Netanyahu and Trump recommending that we continue to work over the next 24 years towards a lasting peace agreement blah blah blah without preconditions, except the status of Jerusalem is non negotiable, as is the right of return of Palestinian refugees, oh and you must now recognize the Jewish State of Israel, not just the state of Israel. And if you do all that, we will generously grant you a "state minus". It ain't going to happen is it.

 

Meanwhile Israel continues to dig itself into a deeper hole towards a one state solution. Good.

 

The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man ..yes, I know, the apocryphal message from an early Zionist fact finding mission describing Palestine, but nevertheless it still holds true. The Palestinians were the majority indigenous population in the region when the racist ideology Zionism was founded in 1897 and European colonization began, and they still are today. That is the flaw built into Zionism which will ultimately cause it to fail.

 

 

[sanemax]

15 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Zionists are the European invaders, colonizers, and occupiers. Not the other way around.

You do seem unaware that many Israeli Jews moved to Israel from neighboring Arab Countries .

  Only 22% of Israeli Jews have European heritage . 

Most Israeli Jews have a Middle Eastern area heritage 

[dexterm]

20 minutes ago, sanemax said:

You do seem unaware that many Israeli Jews moved to Israel from neighboring Arab Countries .

  Only 22% of Israeli Jews have European heritage . 

Most Israeli Jews have a Middle Eastern area heritage 

No sources or links I note for your alternative facts. I suggest you check your info.

 

Even though you actually admit "many Israeli Jews moved to Israel from neighboring Arab Countries"

 

How about....

35% From Europe, America and Oceania by own or paternal country of origin
15.5% From Africa by paternal country of origin
12% From Asia by own or paternal country of origin
37% Father born in Israel  (but where did the grandfather come from?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Jews

 

And please explain how  36 of the 37 signatories of Israel's Declaration of Independence were born outside Palestine mainly in Eastern Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence#Signatories

 

Of course it is Zionist colonization, with dispossessed Palestinians being offered a few crumbs in a "state-minus". No-one is going to accept that joke.

Edited February 14, 2017 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

53 minutes ago, dexterm said:

So what have the Palestinians got to offer, other than yes, we surrender?

 

You are finally getting it. That is ALL the Palestinians have to offer.

The campaign of violence against Jews in the early 1900s did not work. Warfare against the Jews until 1947 did not work. Turning down the UN solution to the conflict - and the guarantee of a Palestinian country - did not work. Declaring war on Israel for accepting the deal only led to multiple losses in combat and 70 years of Terrorism did not help their situation either. The ONLY thing that will improve their lives is to finally give up violence and make peace.

[Ulysses G.]

48 minutes ago, sanemax said:

You do seem unaware that many Israeli Jews moved to Israel from neighboring Arab Countries .

  Only 22% of Israeli Jews have European heritage . 

Most Israeli Jews have a Middle Eastern area heritage 

Correct and most of those Jewish immigrants were kicked out of those Arab countries and their land and property stolen. What about THEIR right of return? The Arabs hsve made their own bed.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-refugees-from-arab-countries

Edited February 14, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[sanemax]

26 minutes ago, dexterm said:

No sources or links I note for your alternative facts. I suggest you check your info.

 

Even though you actually admit "many Israeli Jews moved to Israel from neighboring Arab Countries"

 

How about....

35% From Europe, America and Oceania by own or paternal country of origin
15.5% From Africa by paternal country of origin
12% From Asia by own or paternal country of origin
37% Father born in Israel  (but where did the grandfather come from?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Jews

 

And please explain how  36 of the 37 signatories of Israel's Declaration of Independence were born outside Palestine mainly in Eastern Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence#Signatories

 

Of course it is Zionist colonization, with dispossessed Palestinians being offered a few crumbs in a "state-minus". No-one is going to accept that joke.

 You post pretty much said what my post did , and it contradicts what you first claimed .

  Although you may have added Russia and America to your  "European" figures , but that still only gives a percentage of 35 % . Which means the other 65 % of Israeli Jews come from the Middles East, North Africa and Asia.

  So much for your "European colonisation" Claim

 

[dexterm]

14 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

You are finally getting it. That is ALL the Palestinians have to offer.

The campaign of violence against Jews in the early 1900s did not work. Warfare against the Jews until 1947 did not work. Turning down the UN solution to the conflict - and the guarantee of a Palestinian country - did not work. Declaring war on Israel for accepting the deal only led to multiple losses in combat and 70 years of Terrorism did not help their situation either. The ONLY thing that will improve their lives is to finally give up violence and make peace.

Putting aside your usual irrelevent pseudo history schtick, debunked many times before on TV.

I do believe Netanyahu and Trump are discussing the present situation and what to do about the future.

 

If all that is on offer is a "state-minus" which appears to resemble a patchwork quilt of Bantustans with Israel in 100% control, it is not going to be acceptable to the Palestinians or the global community. Palestinians may not have a permanent peace, but neither does Israel.

 

Maybe that is the plan:   just to continue managing the conflict while building facts on the ground.

 

The Zionists may be making colonies, while the Palestinians are making babies.  The problem is not going away.

[dexterm]

30 minutes ago, sanemax said:

 You post pretty much said what my post did , and it contradicts what you first claimed .

  Although you may have added Russia and America to your  "European" figures , but that still only gives a percentage of 35 % . Which means the other 65 % of Israeli Jews come from the Middles East, North Africa and Asia.

  So much for your "European colonisation" Claim

 

You fail to answer the questions:  where did the the 37% Israeli born's grandparents come from, nor do you explain how come 36 out of the 37 signatories to Israel's Declaration of Independence were born mainly in Eastern Europe.

 

And of course Netanyahu is the first Israeli Prime Minister to be born in Israel; the rest have Palestine or some European country written on their birth certificate.

 

You see, the Zionist narrative always has to be perfect even though it means calling black white. It's all part of the great Israeli hoax that they play the victim, when they are in fact the aggressor. Or as in your instance the illegal Jewish immigrants are somehow the indigenous people and the Palestinians the aliens.

 

Enough of this nonsense. Back to the OP.

Any idea of what Netanyahu means by "state-minus" yet.

Edited February 14, 2017 by dexterm

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

You fail to answer the questions:  where did the the 37% Israeli born's grandparents come from,

I did not answer because I do not know the answer.

It doesnt matter anyway, because their Parents and Gran Parents were born in Israel, which makes them Israeli from the Middle East 

   Or do you feel that everyone should go back to where they came from ?

All Blacks back to Africa ?

All Whites back to Europe ?

All Jews back to Israel ?

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

Putting aside your usual irrelevent pseudo history schtick, debunked many times before on TV.

Very ironic claiming others are posting psuedo-history. Morch debunks your posts almost every single day and he is much more knowledgeable about the Israel/ Palestine conflict than anyone on the forum.

Morch has not given up on a two-state solution and that gives me some hope. However, I can see why the Israelis might be sick of waiting for a sincere partner to emerge.

[Thorgal]

Correct and most of those Jewish immigrants were kicked out of those Arab countries and their land and property stolen. What about THEIR right of return? The Arabs hsve made their own bed.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-refugees-from-arab-countries

Those mainly Arabs, Bedouins and Berbers were actually native local people converted earlier to Judaism, long before mass Catholic and later on Islamic religious conversions in those nowadays Arab regions/nations.

Those people are known as Mizrahi or Sephardic Jews.

In some case they obtained directly foreign colonial citizenship, while their Catholic and Muslim neighbors remained legally outcasted by the existing European colonial power.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crémieux_Decree

Furthermore many of the Arab leaders warned the Zionist leadership at the League of Nations that those Jews will be deported if the early 1947 Zionist leadership would annexe Palestine and if a Palestinian Nakbah would happen. This can be found in the original records in that time. Sadly, the many warnings were not taken seriously.

It's rather false to link physically, historically or ancestrally this people to Israel.

A famous Berber war-Queen converted herself and her people for example in the 7th Centery AD to Judaism. Her name was Kahina.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihya

Cheers !

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Ulysses G.]

35 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

Those mainly Arabs, Bedouins and Berbers were actually native local people converted earlier to Judaism, long before mass Catholic and later on Islamic religious conversions in those nowadays Arab regions/nations.

 

They are still Jews and still robbed of their property and thrown out of their countries with nothing. Not sure why you are making excuses for the countries that did it.

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

So, rather than actually addressing anything in a meaningful way, your back to default propaganda. Again, not unexpected, and as usual, not very compelling. Your own question was, what does Israel (under Netanyahu, I presume) got to offer, and yet you fail to address that the Palestinian side is not all that able and willing to make a realistic and reliable counter offer. And no, that does not mean what you (and other posters) present as possible conditions, but rather, what is actually on offer.

 

Your usual drivel about colonialism, and equating Israel and Zionism with it, does not acquire more merit with repetition. It's sole purpose is to derail the discussion from anything concrete to allegation and allocation of supposed blame. Not only does it counter your usual "look to the future" nonsense, but it also exhibits once again that essentially all of your posting originates from a premise which rejects Israel's legitimacy. This by itself places you pretty much out there, on the extreme end. Same goes for the narrative which harps on the Palestinians losing their land - they were never in possession of said land (the current situation, perversely, being the closest they came to self-determination and self-rule).

 

Lumping thing together does appear in your post - treating all negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians since the Oslo Accords and up to nowadays as being of the same quality. As for claiming to not bringing up Rabin, may want to check who was the Israeli prime minister at the time of the Oslo Accords, perhaps that would make the reference clearer.

 

You insist, as you do, that the Oslo Accords were "a sham, a delaying tactic,  a ruse" - and that therefore the Palestinians were "duped". That's not even worthy as hogwash. There was never a final status agreement or clear formulation of one, at the time. And the UN resolution quoted, does not even mention the Palestinians. But even if it did, note that it would apply both ways with regard to claims.

 

Rabin's quote ("less than a state") was not made in secret, nor were its practical implications ever hidden. In all negotiations it was a clear understanding that a Palestinian state would lack certain elements of sovereignty, mostly related to security issues. Some of these issues were generally agreed upon, while others were not. Neither Clinton, Obama or Kerry ever ignored or were unaware of these issues. Same goes for Abbas, the EU and pretty much anyone actually having a notion of what a possible outcome might be like. 

 

The "purist" all-or-nothing positions you espouse are pretty much those which brought about the Palestinian predicament, and those which maintain it. The rejectionism, the unwillingness to take what's on offer when it's offered - and favoring instead an appeal to absolute justice and supposed "victory" - were not, on the whole, very beneficial for the Palestinians. The Palestinians would have been better served following the example of the Zionist leadership at the time - building solid foundations for their future state and accepting imperfect solutions. There was a recent bit of of news related to former Palestinian prime minister, Fayyad - guess you're not a fan.

[Scott]

Stay on topic or face a suspension.  

[Morch]

Considering Trump's volatility, it is hard to say how the meeting will go or if anything concrete will be agreed upon. I have no doubt that there will be statements and spins from all parties claiming this or that achievement, but that's expected.

 

As opposed to some of his coalition partners and party members, Netanyahu was careful all along not to overdo the Trump hype, and argued against moves which would corner the US administration. That his current political situation in Israel does not leave him a lot of maneuvering space is partially the reason why some of these were taken anyway. If he could get back from DC with an understanding, even short of concrete agreement to moves - he'll probably consider it a success.

 

The Trump administration seems to be coming to terms with the concept of international politics. For example, can't apply pressure on Iran without support of ME Arab countries, and therefore perhaps not the best idea to let the Israeli government run rampant or make certain aggravating moves (such as moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem). But again, given the Trump's administration conduct and decision making processes up to now - hard to predict how things will pan out, especially when it comes to a specific meeting.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

So, rather than actually addressing anything in a meaningful way, your back to default propaganda. Again, not unexpected, and as usual, not very compelling. Your own question was, what does Israel (under Netanyahu, I presume) got to offer, and yet you fail to address that the Palestinian side is not all that able and willing to make a realistic and reliable counter offer. And no, that does not mean what you (and other posters) present as possible conditions, but rather, what is actually on offer.

 

Your usual drivel about colonialism, and equating Israel and Zionism with it, does not acquire more merit with repetition. It's sole purpose is to derail the discussion from anything concrete to allegation and allocation of supposed blame. Not only does it counter your usual "look to the future" nonsense, but it also exhibits once again that essentially all of your posting originates from a premise which rejects Israel's legitimacy. This by itself places you pretty much out there, on the extreme end. Same goes for the narrative which harps on the Palestinians losing their land - they were never in possession of said land (the current situation, perversely, being the closest they came to self-determination and self-rule).

 

Lumping thing together does appear in your post - treating all negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians since the Oslo Accords and up to nowadays as being of the same quality. As for claiming to not bringing up Rabin, may want to check who was the Israeli prime minister at the time of the Oslo Accords, perhaps that would make the reference clearer.

 

You insist, as you do, that the Oslo Accords were "a sham, a delaying tactic,  a ruse" - and that therefore the Palestinians were "duped". That's not even worthy as hogwash. There was never a final status agreement or clear formulation of one, at the time. And the UN resolution quoted, does not even mention the Palestinians. But even if it did, note that it would apply both ways with regard to claims.

 

Rabin's quote ("less than a state") was not made in secret, nor were its practical implications ever hidden. In all negotiations it was a clear understanding that a Palestinian state would lack certain elements of sovereignty, mostly related to security issues. Some of these issues were generally agreed upon, while others were not. Neither Clinton, Obama or Kerry ever ignored or were unaware of these issues. Same goes for Abbas, the EU and pretty much anyone actually having a notion of what a possible outcome might be like. 

 

The "purist" all-or-nothing positions you espouse are pretty much those which brought about the Palestinian predicament, and those which maintain it. The rejectionism, the unwillingness to take what's on offer when it's offered - and favoring instead an appeal to absolute justice and supposed "victory" - were not, on the whole, very beneficial for the Palestinians. The Palestinians would have been better served following the example of the Zionist leadership at the time - building solid foundations for their future state and accepting imperfect solutions. There was a recent bit of of news related to former Palestinian prime minister, Fayyad - guess you're not a fan.

Would love to debate much of your usual hot air, but we have been urged to "stay on topic". Another time, another suitable thread maybe 

 

>>yet you fail to address that the Palestinian side is not all that able and willing to make a realistic and reliable counter offer. And no, that does not mean what you (and other posters) present as possible conditions, but rather, what is actually on offer.
...The Palestinian offer has been on the table for decades, and it is a far cry from Netanyahu's "state-minus" ... main elements being: peace and full international diplomatic recognition of Israel in return for roughly 67 borders with land swaps, a shared Jerusalem, compensation or repatriation for Palestinian refugees

And before you say that's not realistic or in the too hard basket, the parties have come very close to that under recent more liberal Israeli governments.

 

>>The rejectionism, the unwillingness to take what's on offer when it's offered - and favoring instead an appeal to absolute justice and supposed "victory" - were not, on the whole, very beneficial for the Palestinians. 

...Are you suggesting the Palestinians ought now to accept Netanyahu's "state-minus" even if it turns out to be apartheid under  another name?

 

It's like a mugger steals your wallet, then beats you up when you resist, then when police called offers to give you back the wallet so long as he can keep the money and credit cards, and now , with a corrupt cop attending, he wants to keep the wallet too, but criticizes you for trying to get back up rather than stay lying down while he kicks you.

 

Netanyahu will probably urge Trump to stick to the disingenuous charade of direct negotiations script towards a two state solution, but now it will be called a "state-minus" solution, while they continue to build facts on the ground. 

Putting the rubber stamp on annexation that the far right in Netanyahu's cabinet want will probably cause Israel and the USA too much international flak.

 

No matter. Keep digging that hole for yourself, Israel, making a two state solution impossible and a one state solution inevitable, when the holy land will one day revert to what it always was...Palestine.  

Edited February 15, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

Would love to debate much of your usual hot air, but we have been urged to "stay on topic". Another time, another suitable thread maybe 

 

>>yet you fail to address that the Palestinian side is not all that able and willing to make a realistic and reliable counter offer. And no, that does not mean what you (and other posters) present as possible conditions, but rather, what is actually on offer.
...The Palestinian offer has been on the table for decades, and it is a far cry from Netanyahu's "state-minus" ... main elements being: peace and full international diplomatic recognition of Israel in return for roughly 67 borders with land swaps, a shared Jerusalem, compensation or repatriation for Palestinian refugees

And before you say that's not realistic or in the too hard basket, the parties have come very close to that under recent more liberal Israeli governments.

 

>>The rejectionism, the unwillingness to take what's on offer when it's offered - and favoring instead an appeal to absolute justice and supposed "victory" - were not, on the whole, very beneficial for the Palestinians. 

...Are you suggesting the Palestinians ought now to accept Netanyahu's "state-minus" even if it turns out to be apartheid under  another name?

 

It's like a mugger steals your wallet, then beats you up when you resist, then when police called offers to give you back the wallet so long as he can keep the money and credit cards, and now , with a corrupt cop attending, he wants to keep the wallet too, but criticizes you for trying to get back up rather than stay lying down while he kicks you.

 

Netanyahu will probably urge Trump to stick to the disingenuous charade of direct negotiations script towards a two state solution, but now it will be called a "state-minus" solution, while they continue to build facts on the ground. 

Putting the rubber stamp on annexation that the far right in Netanyahu's cabinet want will probably cause Israel and the USA too much international flak.

 

No matter. Keep digging that hole for yourself, Israel, making a two state solution impossible and a one state solution inevitable, when the holy land will one day revert to what it always was...Palestine.  

 

Most of the so-called "hot-air" is simply pointing out the contradictions, exaggerations, inaccuracies and outright propaganda prevalent in your posts.

 

There was no Palestinian peace offer such as you describe, which was "on the table for decades". What you allude to appeared in various negotiations instances, not always supported by the Palestinians or presented by a leadership that was fully capable or willing to carry it through. Hence the caveats "realistic" and "reliable". There is no current Palestinian leadership to which any of this is relevant, and that's been the situation for quite a while now (over a decade, if one insists). So once again - not hypothetical offers, but concrete ones and such that can be carried out. Also, I have never used the phrase "too hard basket" - these are your own words which you regularly and dishonestly try to attach  to my posts. As you point out, such outlines (if not exactly as described) were in fact discussed between the sides, these did not culminate to a full agreement for several reasons, at least some attributable to the Palestinian leadership.

 

My comment on Palestinian rejectionism was general, and sought to portray an attitude prevalent among some of the Palestinians and their so-called supporters (such as yourself). This rejectionism is pretty much the bane of the Palestinian self-determinism. So, no - I did not suggest the spin suggested, but commented on how this attitude fails the Palestinians over and over again.

 

The Palestinians current political situation cannot be addressed without any reference to their own past choices and decisions. It cannot be addressed while ignoring all the current issues plaguing their internal politics as well. The current situation did not come about solely due to Israeli actions, but is also a product of what the Palestinian did or did not do. Treating it otherwise is nothing but a contrived partisan view.

 

Making a whole lot of Netanyahu's current phrase is nonsense, and misses the point. In effect, every final agreement formulations effectively discussed a Palestinian state devoid of certain sovereign elements. This is not something new, and not something which the Palestinian leadership was unaware of since the outset of negotiations. Negotiations were commenced and carried out on the premises of the above.

 

The main difference between this and what (theoretically) Netanyahu could offer is territorial continuity in the West Bank. This was even addressed by the current US administration with regard to the ongoing Israeli settlement expansion. The point made earlier was that if one follows each instance where Palestinian rejectionism was chosen, it can be observed that the next instance found the Palestinians in worsened circumstances. It can be argued that it may serve the Palestinians better to make any effort to enter negotiations, even if considering them futile. But such assertions are often disconnected from the context of Palestinian politics and ethos, or to put it otherwise, from the personal interests of leaders.

 

What the Palestinian ought to do is first and foremost sort their own act. They can't be treated as a serious negotiation partner as long as their internal rift exist. Then, it's more of a choice of which path is to be taken - and no, this not wholly up to Israel, as drivel merchant claim. The main problems here are that the democratic elements required for peaceful mediation and acceptance of such consensus decisions are not the hallmarks of the Palestinian side.

 

With regard to the Trump-Netanyahu meeting, doubtless there will be the usual suspects among the Palestinians making headlines according to their respective agendas (and again, much of this is related to domestic politics). There were several reports claiming that Palestinian officials already met with administration representatives, given certain reassurances and will be briefed later on with regard to the meeting. Seeing as this it Trump's administration, such things may or may not mean a whole lot - but doesn't sound as snubbing as some earlier portrayed.

 

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Most of the so-called "hot-air" is simply pointing out the contradictions, exaggerations, inaccuracies and outright propaganda prevalent in your posts.

 

There was no Palestinian peace offer such as you describe, which was "on the table for decades". What you allude to appeared in various negotiations instances, not always supported by the Palestinians or presented by a leadership that was fully capable or willing to carry it through. Hence the caveats "realistic" and "reliable". There is no current Palestinian leadership to which any of this is relevant, and that's been the situation for quite a while now (over a decade, if one insists). So once again - not hypothetical offers, but concrete ones and such that can be carried out. Also, I have never used the phrase "too hard basket" - these are your own words which you regularly and dishonestly try to attach  to my posts. As you point out, such outlines (if not exactly as described) were in fact discussed between the sides, these did not culminate to a full agreement for several reasons, at least some attributable to the Palestinian leadership.

 

My comment on Palestinian rejectionism was general, and sought to portray an attitude prevalent among some of the Palestinians and their so-called supporters (such as yourself). This rejectionism is pretty much the bane of the Palestinian self-determinism. So, no - I did not suggest the spin suggested, but commented on how this attitude fails the Palestinians over and over again.

 

The Palestinians current political situation cannot be addressed without any reference to their own past choices and decisions. It cannot be addressed while ignoring all the current issues plaguing their internal politics as well. The current situation did not come about solely due to Israeli actions, but is also a product of what the Palestinian did or did not do. Treating it otherwise is nothing but a contrived partisan view.

 

Making a whole lot of Netanyahu's current phrase is nonsense, and misses the point. In effect, every final agreement formulations effectively discussed a Palestinian state devoid of certain sovereign elements. This is not something new, and not something which the Palestinian leadership was unaware of since the outset of negotiations. Negotiations were commenced and carried out on the premises of the above.

 

The main difference between this and what (theoretically) Netanyahu could offer is territorial continuity in the West Bank. This was even addressed by the current US administration with regard to the ongoing Israeli settlement expansion. The point made earlier was that if one follows each instance where Palestinian rejectionism was chosen, it can be observed that the next instance found the Palestinians in worsened circumstances. It can be argued that it may serve the Palestinians better to make any effort to enter negotiations, even if considering them futile. But such assertions are often disconnected from the context of Palestinian politics and ethos, or to put it otherwise, from the personal interests of leaders.

 

What the Palestinian ought to do is first and foremost sort their own act. They can't be treated as a serious negotiation partner as long as their internal rift exist. Then, it's more of a choice of which path is to be taken - and no, this not wholly up to Israel, as drivel merchant claim. The main problems here are that the democratic elements required for peaceful mediation and acceptance of such consensus decisions are not the hallmarks of the Palestinian side.

 

With regard to the Trump-Netanyahu meeting, doubtless there will be the usual suspects among the Palestinians making headlines according to their respective agendas (and again, much of this is related to domestic politics). There were several reports claiming that Palestinian officials already met with administration representatives, given certain reassurances and will be briefed later on with regard to the meeting. Seeing as this it Trump's administration, such things may or may not mean a whole lot - but doesn't sound as snubbing as some earlier portrayed.

 

Which part of the deal "roughly 67 borders with land swaps, a shared Jerusalem, compensation or repatriation for Palestinian refugees" has been "not always supported by the Palestinians" in negotiations following the Oslo Accords...link please.

 

I can understand in all final status negotiations there has been an element of addressing Israeli security concerns including perhaps demilitarisation and some border controls. But other than that the parties have supposedly been negotiating a two sovereign state solution. The sketchy details so far of Netanyahu's state-minus are a far cry from that, and is thus I would assume a non starter.

 

Israel is headed ultimately towards a one state solution. The problems of separation have been made intractable by Israel establishing too many facts on the ground.

[Morch]

39 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Which part of the deal "roughly 67 borders with land swaps, a shared Jerusalem, compensation or repatriation for Palestinian refugees" has been "not always supported by the Palestinians" in negotiations following the Oslo Accords...link please.

 

I can understand in all final status negotiations there has been an element of addressing Israeli security concerns including perhaps demilitarisation and some border controls. But other than that the parties have supposedly been negotiating a two sovereign state solution. The sketchy details so far of Netanyahu's state-minus are a far cry from that, and is thus I would assume a non starter.

 

Israel is headed ultimately towards a one state solution. The problems of separation have been made intractable by Israel establishing too many facts on the ground.

 

You were the one making concrete claims about such a Palestinian peace proposal in existence for "decades" without support, and you demand links? Not impressed. What you possibly refer to is a sum of various negotiation positions over the years, which also changed and fluctuated over time according to circumstances. To allege that this somehow represents a standing accepted Palestinian position or that there is a Palestinian leadership able and willing to push it forward is incorrect.

 

While the non-sovereignty elements related to security are the ones usually highlighted, there's a range of "civilian" aspects which in effect would convey control of certain "Palestinian" matters to Israel. So no, your mini-version isn't quite it. I doubt that Netanyahu had anything concrete in mind when using the phrase. His most pressing issue at the time was conserving his right wing image vs. attacks from rival politicians. An actual workable proposal and the will to implement it - don't think so. Hence, a bit of a storm in a teacup. It's a non-starter in the sense that there's doesn't seem to be anything started.

 

May want to check the last settlements legislation motion again, 60-52. And that's with the coalition reigning in all strays but one. Not much of a margin, and probably not enough if annexation and adding 2.5 million Palestinians was on the line.