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

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

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.

Morch wrote...

"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."

...Clearly you could not provide links to your counter claim, because they don't exist.

 

Is 17 years enough for you that Palestinians have been offering a comprehensive peace deal, while Israel has been mainly rejecting it once the right wing gained power until Netanyahu in the OP has now whittled down an Israeli offer to a "state-minus" and even with strings attached to that such as recognition of the Jewish State of Israel?

 

Previous Palestinian peace offers which include precisely the elements you denied were on offer....

 

Developments following Camp David 2000

Clinton's proposals...

- a sovereign Palestinian state in the Gaza strip and 94–96 percent of the West Bank plus the equivalent of 1–3 percent of the West Bank in land swaps from pre-1967 Israel. 
- Jerusalem: Arab areas to be Palestinian, and Jewish areas Israeli. Palestinians to have sovereignty over the Temple Mount; Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall.
- On refugees: financial compensation, the right of return to the Palestinian state, and Israeli acknowledgement of suffering caused to the Palestinians in 1948. 
- a "non-militarized" Palestinian state, and an international force for border security.

 

 "Both sides accepted Clinton's plan and it became the basis for the negotiations at the Taba Peace summit the following January."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#Developments_following_Camp_David

 

Taba 2001

Clinton plan continued..

"The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli elections." 

 

"Sharon's new government chose not to resume the high-level talks"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#Taba_Summit_.282001.29

 

Arab Peace Initiative 2002  re-endorsed 2007

 

"It spelled out "final-solution" borders based explicitly on the UN borders established before the 1967 Six-Day War. It offered full normalization of relations with Israel, in exchange for the withdrawal of its forces from all the occupied territories, including the Golan Heights, to recognize "an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital" in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as a "just solution" for the Palestinian refugees."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#Arab_Peace_Initiative

 

The Israeli government under Ariel Sharon rejected the initiative as a "non-starter".

The Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat immediately embraced the initiative. His successor Mahmoud Abbas also supported the plan and officially asked U.S. President Barack Obama to adopt it as part of his Middle East policy.

 

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

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Morch wrote...

"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."

...Clearly you could not provide links to your counter claim, because they don't exist.

 

Is 17 years enough for you that Palestinians have been offering a comprehensive peace deal, while Israel has been mainly rejecting it once the right wing gained power until Netanyahu in the OP has now whittled down an Israeli offer to a "state-minus" and even with strings attached to that such as recognition of the Jewish State of Israel?

 

Previous Palestinian peace offers which include precisely the elements you denied were on offer....

 

Developments following Camp David 2000

Clinton's proposals...

- a sovereign Palestinian state in the Gaza strip and 94–96 percent of the West Bank plus the equivalent of 1–3 percent of the West Bank in land swaps from pre-1967 Israel. 
- Jerusalem: Arab areas to be Palestinian, and Jewish areas Israeli. Palestinians to have sovereignty over the Temple Mount; Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall.
- On refugees: financial compensation, the right of return to the Palestinian state, and Israeli acknowledgement of suffering caused to the Palestinians in 1948. 
- a "non-militarized" Palestinian state, and an international force for border security.

 

 "Both sides accepted Clinton's plan and it became the basis for the negotiations at the Taba Peace summit the following January."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#Developments_following_Camp_David

 

Taba 2001

Clinton plan continued..

"The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli elections." 

 

"Sharon's new government chose not to resume the high-level talks"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#Taba_Summit_.282001.29

 

Arab Peace Initiative 2002  re-endorsed 2007

 

"It spelled out "final-solution" borders based explicitly on the UN borders established before the 1967 Six-Day War. It offered full normalization of relations with Israel, in exchange for the withdrawal of its forces from all the occupied territories, including the Golan Heights, to recognize "an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital" in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as a "just solution" for the Palestinian refugees."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#Arab_Peace_Initiative

 

The Israeli government under Ariel Sharon rejected the initiative as a "non-starter".

The Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat immediately embraced the initiative. His successor Mahmoud Abbas also supported the plan and officially asked U.S. President Barack Obama to adopt it as part of his Middle East policy.

 

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

 

No doubt you'll do your best to deflect the following as "pedantry" or some other stock nonsense - but do read the previous posts again: what you detail are external offers and plans, not Palestinian ones. In accordance with your usual dishonest representation of things, you omit instances which saw Palestinian leaders (both Abbas and Arafat) decline agreements offered by Israel (for example, negotiations with Barak and Olmert). And being routine by now, no reference whatsoever to Hamas or to the ongoing rift among Palestinians.

 

 

 

 

 

[Thorgal]

 
No doubt you'll do your best to deflect the following as "pedantry" or some other stock nonsense - but do read the previous posts again: what you detail are external offers and plans, not Palestinian ones. In accordance with your usual dishonest representation of things, you omit instances which saw Palestinian leaders (both Abbas and Arafat) decline agreements offered by Israel (for example, negotiations with Barak and Olmert). And being routine by now, no reference whatsoever to Hamas or to the ongoing rift among Palestinians.
 

@Dexterm provided a well documented and interesting overview of earlier important peace negotiations.

I don't see any dishonest representation in it.

It's not really a requirement to explain further any implication of Palestinian factions like Hamas, Fatah, PLO, etc...since we know that Israel eliminated physically and politically all inter-connections of those Palestinian political factions.




Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Thorgal said:

@Dexterm provided a well documented and interesting overview of earlier important peace negotiations.

I don't see any dishonest representation in it.

It's not really a requirement to explain further any implication of Palestinian factions like Hamas, Fatah, PLO, etc...since we know that Israel eliminated physically and politically all inter-connections of those Palestinian political factions.




Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

No, he presented a partial overview, aimed at supporting his usual one-sided view. And no, considering your own posting history on these topics, allow me to take your opinion of what amounts to "dishonest representation" with a truckload of salt.

 

The Fatah-Hamas split is real, and ignoring it by any contrived excuse will not make it go away or become less relevant. The last bit is your usual nonsense, which will no doubt lead to an off-topic discussion. Been there done that.

[dexterm]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

No doubt you'll do your best to deflect the following as "pedantry" or some other stock nonsense - but do read the previous posts again: what you detail are external offers and plans, not Palestinian ones. In accordance with your usual dishonest representation of things, you omit instances which saw Palestinian leaders (both Abbas and Arafat) decline agreements offered by Israel (for example, negotiations with Barak and Olmert). And being routine by now, no reference whatsoever to Hamas or to the ongoing rift among Palestinians.

 

 

 

 

 

Morch wrote above..."There was no Palestinian peace offer such as you describe, which was "on the table for decades".

 

So I provide proof of the 3 pillars of the Palestinian peace deal that Palestinians have accepted for the last 17 years. ...67 borders with land swaps, shared Jerusalem, compensation or right of return for Palestinian refugees.

 

Your response is your typical pathetic nitpicking chicanery ... The Palestinians didn't actually present the conditions ( how do you know what contribution Palestinian negotiators made to these pretty standard criteria), although they endorsed them 100% and have done so for the last 17 years, but somehow in Morchspeak that doesn't count as being "on the table for decades."

 

You do your credibility a great disservice. It's the typical  Zionist response when lies are exposed...deny, deflect, and call black white.

Not impressed.

[dexterm]

US President Donald Trump has said he will work very hard to deliver "really a great peace deal" between Israel and the Palestinians.

 

Except of course no details.

 

Yet he hints that he favors a one state solution.

"So I'm looking at two states and one state," said Mr Trump. "And I like the one that both parties like. I'm very happy with the one that both parties like.
"I can live with either one. I thought for a while that two states looked like it may be the easier of the two.
"To be honest, if Bibi [Mr Netanyahu] and the Palestinians, if Israel and the Palestinians are happy - I'm happy with the one they like the best."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38987028

 

Then Netanyahu announces that a precondition would be Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish State, relegating 20% of its present (and future!) non Jewish citizens to instant 2nd class status. So it looks like it's not going to happen, and the charade continues.

[Ulysses G.]

13 minutes ago, dexterm said:

US President Donald Trump has said he will work very hard to deliver "really a great peace deal" between Israel and the Palestinians.

 

Except of course no details.

 

Yet he hints that he favours a one state solution.

 

He "hinted" no such thing. He clearly stated that he was in favor of whichever solution that the parties involved arrived at. 

Netanyahu makes a good point that the Palestinians can not be allowed to set up another terrorist Islamic dictatorship.

[dexterm]

5 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

He "hinted" no such thing. He clearly stated that he was in favor of whichever solution that the parties involved arrived at. 

Netanyahu makes a good point that the Palestinians can not be allowed to set up another terrorist Islamic dictatorship.

You have deliberately distorted my post by failing to quote my entire post (which you frequently do!)...against forum rules.

 

I said he hinted that he favored a one state solution with the words:

"I can live with either one. I thought for a while that two states looked like it may be the easier of the two."  implying that he may have  changed his mind about a two state solution.

 

[Jingthing]

Well, I watched the news conference and seriously not impressed as far as any hope for a two state solution. I do get why Bibi's thrilled though. 

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

 

I said he hinted that he favored a one state solution with the words:

"I can live with either one. I thought for a while that two states looked like it may be the easier of the two."  implying that he may have  changed his mind about a two state solution.

 

That is not a hint that he  "favors" a one state solution. It is a direct statement that he is not disposed one way, or the other. He wants the parties involved to come to their own agreement on the matter.

[Skywalker69]

Trump was asked about racism and anti-Semitism. Here’s a transcript of his full response.

 

http://fusion.net/story/386985/donald-trump-netanyahu-racism-answer/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialshare&utm_content=theme_top_mobile

[Morch]

10 hours ago, dexterm said:

Morch wrote above..."There was no Palestinian peace offer such as you describe, which was "on the table for decades".

 

So I provide proof of the 3 pillars of the Palestinian peace deal that Palestinians have accepted for the last 17 years. ...67 borders with land swaps, shared Jerusalem, compensation or right of return for Palestinian refugees.

 

Your response is your typical pathetic nitpicking chicanery ... The Palestinians didn't actually present the conditions ( how do you know what contribution Palestinian negotiators made to these pretty standard criteria), although they endorsed them 100% and have done so for the last 17 years, but somehow in Morchspeak that doesn't count as being "on the table for decades."

 

You do your credibility a great disservice. It's the typical  Zionist response when lies are exposed...deny, deflect, and call black white.

Not impressed.

 

You can try and twist this all you like, but wouldn't change facts - the offers and plans mentioned are not Palestinians, but originated from foreign sources. Nor were all of them accepted by all Palestinians (notably so, the Arab Peace Initiative, which was rejected by the Hamas). You keep ignoring that the Palestinians rejected similar offers on certain occasions (negotiations with Barak and Olmert) and, of course, the earlier decades of Palestinian rejectionism. Basically, anything that doesn't fit with your adopted narrative is washed out of the presentation - hence the "dishonest" label.

 

As per script, every time where your wide brush, one-sided and careless statements is debunked, you scream "nitpicking", "pedantry" and whatnot. There's actually quite detailed accounts of most proposals and how they came about, same goes for negotiations and how they were actually conducted. These do not, generally, support your "views". And no, the Palestinians do not endorse anything by a 100% - not even if you put it bold. That's just another way of ignoring reality in favor of agenda driven, emotive laden narrative.

 

I feel very confident about my own credibility, thanks. From someone who openly admitted his posts intentionally ignore the faults of the Palestinians, any criticism you might have on other posters credibility is laughable.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, dexterm said:

US President Donald Trump has said he will work very hard to deliver "really a great peace deal" between Israel and the Palestinians.

 

Except of course no details.

 

Yet he hints that he favors a one state solution.

"So I'm looking at two states and one state," said Mr Trump. "And I like the one that both parties like. I'm very happy with the one that both parties like.
"I can live with either one. I thought for a while that two states looked like it may be the easier of the two.
"To be honest, if Bibi [Mr Netanyahu] and the Palestinians, if Israel and the Palestinians are happy - I'm happy with the one they like the best."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38987028

 

Then Netanyahu announces that a precondition would be Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish State, relegating 20% of its present (and future!) non Jewish citizens to instant 2nd class status. So it looks like it's not going to happen, and the charade continues.

 

Trump did not hint at favoring a one-state solution. He just did the Trump thing, spread a bunch of half cooked ideas and left it at that. Same with many other public addresses on a variety of topics. There's no use trying to read too much into it, as he can backtrack on pretty much anything he says.

 

There was no real expectation that anything positive (as per the prospects of conflict resolution) will come out of this meeting. On the other hand, there was nothing which amounted to the scaremongering nonsense about the Trump administration giving the Israeli government free rein to do as they will, or fully endorsing Israeli right wing policies.