A message from Canada to the Palestinians

[toastman]

John Baird to Palestinians: You?ll face consequences if you take Israel to ICC | Canadian Politics | Canada | News | National Post

 

[Jos]

Last Updated: 13/03/06

Baird delivered his message to an approving audience Sunday in Washington at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

 

[Saigon]

I have to say that I'm disappointed that the best response Canada can muster to the endless construction in the West Bank is to act as Israel's PR agency.

It is woefully one sided, painfully short-sighted and not beneficial to Canada's normally positive reputation abroad. It seems to me that the Canadians have simply crumpled into the lap of lobbyists.

Regardless of how one sees an eventual solution to the Palestinian issues - the construction are an extremely hostile and counter-productive move.

 

[toastman]

I have to say that I'm disappointed that the best response Canada can muster to the endless construction in the West Bank is to act as Israel's PR agency.

It is woefully one sided, painfully short-sighted and not beneficial to Canada's normally positive reputation abroad. It seems to me that the Canadians have simply crumpled into the lap of lobbyists.

Regardless of how one sees an eventual solution to the Palestinian issues - the construction are an extremely hostile and counter-productive move.

Once again Saigon. Abbas was offered 93%, which is virtually all, of the West Bank (as well as Gaza being completely under control of the Palestinians, and sharing East Jerusalem. He rejected.

 

[irosie91]

It seems to me that the far more serious consquences that the "palestinians"
will face is COUNTER CLAIMS -----I believe that "counter claims" is the real
reason that the "goldstone" report came to nothing----and ----as a general rule
why pali claims against Israel always come to nothing.

 

[Coyote]

I have to say that I'm disappointed that the best response Canada can muster to the endless construction in the West Bank is to act as Israel's PR agency.

It is woefully one sided, painfully short-sighted and not beneficial to Canada's normally positive reputation abroad. It seems to me that the Canadians have simply crumpled into the lap of lobbyists.

Regardless of how one sees an eventual solution to the Palestinian issues - the construction are an extremely hostile and counter-productive move.

Once again Saigon. Abbas was offered 93%, which is virtually all, of the West Bank (as well as Gaza being completely under control of the Palestinians, and sharing East Jerusalem. He rejected.

Really...you keep on repeating this - however, negotiations were never completed because Olmert had to step down - an unforseen event.

 

[Truthseeker420]

I have to say that I'm disappointed that the best response Canada can muster to the endless construction in the West Bank is to act as Israel's PR agency.

It is woefully one sided, painfully short-sighted and not beneficial to Canada's normally positive reputation abroad. It seems to me that the Canadians have simply crumpled into the lap of lobbyists.

Regardless of how one sees an eventual solution to the Palestinian issues - the construction are an extremely hostile and counter-productive move.

Once again Saigon. Abbas was offered 93%, which is virtually all, of the West Bank (as well as Gaza being completely under control of the Palestinians, and sharing East Jerusalem. He rejected.

Isn't the same agreement Native Americans accepted in their first of many treaties by Colonists? My message to the Palestinians : If you give them 3 % next time they will want just 10 % and you'll be done. don't give an inch.

 

[Saigon]

Once again Saigon. Abbas was offered 93%, which is virtually all, of the West Bank (as well as Gaza being completely under control of the Palestinians, and sharing East Jerusalem. He rejected.

With all due respect, Toastman, what Israel did NOT offer was what was key here.

Also - when you post this, please do be clear that you are referring to a map drawn on a napkin. Otherwise you make it sound like a formal and real offer - which it patently was not.

 

[toastman]

Once again Saigon. Abbas was offered 93%, which is virtually all, of the West Bank (as well as Gaza being completely under control of the Palestinians, and sharing East Jerusalem. He rejected.

With all due respect, Toastman, what Israel did NOT offer was what was key here.

Also - when you post this, please do be clear that you are referring to a map drawn on a napkin. Otherwise you make it sound like a formal and real offer - which it patently was not.

Can you be a bit more specific with that please?

 

[Saigon]

Toastman -

What do you mean?

 

[toastman]

Toastman -

What do you mean?

You said that what Israel did NOT offer was key here. What specifically did they not offer that you are referring to ?

 

[Saigon]

Ah, ok - sorry, I should have guessed that!

There are a few issues which have never been clairified about the so-called offer, but I have heard it said that what was not offered included -

- any right of return at all
- control of ports and airports
- control of airspace
- control of international borders, including those with Egypt & Jordan

These are all difficult issues.

I do think Olmert's offer was a fairly good one, but thus far I have only read heard his side of it. I wouldn't go too far along the "He offered 95% of the West Bank!" road until you have more information.

 

[toastman]

Ah, ok - sorry, I should have guessed that!

There are a few issues which have never been clairified about the so-called offer, but I have heard it said that what was not offered included -

- any right of return at all
- control of ports and airports
- control of airspace
- control of international borders, including those with Egypt & Jordan

These are all difficult issues.

I do think Olmert's offer was a fairly good one, but thus far I have only read heard his side of it. I wouldn't go too far along the "He offered 95% of the West Bank!" road until you have more information.

Those are very good points, but when two parties are negotiating, I believe both should make offers and counter offers. Abbas did not make a counter offer from what I understand

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ah, ok - sorry, I should have guessed that!

There are a few issues which have never been clairified about the so-called offer, but I have heard it said that what was not offered included -

- any right of return at all
- control of ports and airports
- control of airspace
- control of international borders, including those with Egypt & Jordan

These are all difficult issues.

I do think Olmert's offer was a fairly good one, but thus far I have only read heard his side of it. I wouldn't go too far along the "He offered 95% of the West Bank!" road until you have more information.

The prisoners got 95% of the prison.

The only part they did not get was the walls and doors.

 

[toastman]

Ah, ok - sorry, I should have guessed that!

There are a few issues which have never been clairified about the so-called offer, but I have heard it said that what was not offered included -

- any right of return at all
- control of ports and airports
- control of airspace
- control of international borders, including those with Egypt & Jordan

These are all difficult issues.

I do think Olmert's offer was a fairly good one, but thus far I have only read heard his side of it. I wouldn't go too far along the "He offered 95% of the West Bank!" road until you have more information.

The prisoners got 95% of the prison.

The only part they did not get was the walls and doors.

What was Abbas counter offer?

 

[Saigon]

Those are very good points, but when two parties are negotiating, I believe both should make offers and counter offers. Abbas did not make a counter offer from what I understand

I do agree with you, but I am confused about what happened at these meetings.

I read here:

Olmert Details His Offer to Abbas :: Middle East Forum

Olmert claim they had 35 meetings - and then Abbas seemed to lose interest.

That doesn't add up to me. If Olmert offered everything he said he did, I can't see why Abbas wouldn't have at least taken talks to the next level. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[toastman]

Those are very good points, but when two parties are negotiating, I believe both should make offers and counter offers. Abbas did not make a counter offer from what I understand

I do agree with you, but I am confused about what happened at these meetings.

I read here:

Olmert Details His Offer to Abbas :: Middle East Forum

Olmert claim they had 35 meetings - and then Abbas seemed to lose interest.

That doesn't add up to me. If Olmert offered everything he said he did, I can't see why Abbas wouldn't have at least taken talks to the next level. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Yes, there are a couple of points missing here. Weird.
I'm guessing that had Abbas accepted the offer, then Hamas would have not been to happy ! Maybe he rejected it out of fear?

 

[Saigon]

Toastman -

It is possible. But he would also have been hailed around the world, and would have been a cert for a Nobel Peace Prize. And he would have got what I think most Palestinians would think was a great deal.

I am curious now...I'll see what I can find out.

 

[skye]

I have to say that I'm disappointed that the best response Canada can muster to the endless construction in the West Bank is to act as Israel's PR agency.

It is woefully one sided, painfully short-sighted and not beneficial to Canada's normally positive reputation abroad. It seems to me that the Canadians have simply crumpled into the lap of lobbyists.

Regardless of how one sees an eventual solution to the Palestinian issues - the construction are an extremely hostile and counter-productive move.

Once again Saigon. Abbas was offered 93%, which is virtually all, of the West Bank (as well as Gaza being completely under control of the Palestinians, and sharing East Jerusalem. He rejected.

You are correct!

The Palestinians were also offered by Ehud Barak a very generous peace settlement at Camp David in 2000, but of course this was rejected by Arafat because the Palestinians won't settle for just a two state solution, what they really want is one state solution!!! that is all of Gaza, the West bank and Israel!

PALESTINIANS = ETERNAL TROUBLEMAKERS

 

[irosie91]

Those are very good points, but when two parties are negotiating, I believe both should make offers and counter offers. Abbas did not make a counter offer from what I understand

I do agree with you, but I am confused about what happened at these meetings.

I read here:

Olmert Details His Offer to Abbas :: Middle East Forum

Olmert claim they had 35 meetings - and then Abbas seemed to lose interest.

That doesn't add up to me. If Olmert offered everything he said he did, I can't see why

Abbas wouldn't have at least taken talks to the next level. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Yes, there are a couple of points missing here. Weird.
I'm guessing that had Abbas accepted the offer, then Hamas would have not been to happy ! Maybe he rejected it out of fear?

Toast---I think you are right-----arafart did say something about
"if I make a deal I will die"-----no actual deal can be
made with the ZIONIST ENTITY----by any muslim leader---
it either kills them or puts them in jail or in exile or hiding
until they are dead. The ZIONIST ENTITY is not supposed
to exist