White House- Israel "undermining" two-state solution

[Dot Com]

Surprising what the con Isreal gov't has been doing right?

State Dept. criticizes Israeli settlement expansion, demolitions

JERUSALEM — The Israeli government’s plans to build new units in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and a spate of home demolitions in Palestinian areas over the past week have drawn sharp criticism from the Obama administration.

Israel “is systematically undermining the prospects for a two-state solution” with the Palestinians, State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement Wednesday.

“We strongly oppose settlement activity, which is corrosive to the cause of peace,” the statementsaid.

 

[turzovka]

Surprising what the con Isreal gov't has been doing right?

State Dept. criticizes Israeli settlement expansion, demolitions

JERUSALEM — The Israeli government’s plans to build new units in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and a spate of home demolitions in Palestinian areas over the past week have drawn sharp criticism from the Obama administration.

Israel “is systematically undermining the prospects for a two-state solution” with the Palestinians, State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement Wednesday.

“We strongly oppose settlement activity, which is corrosive to the cause of peace,” the statementsaid.

The day Israel takes the advice of D.C., especially the mindless democrats, is the day they may as well pack up and leave the region.

"Undermining the prospects for a two state solution..." right.
That assumes the other side wants a two state solution or EVER wanted a two state solution.

 

[ogibillm]

if anyone believes israel wants peace they are a fool

 

[P F Tinmore]

if anyone believes israel wants peace they are a fool

Israel's version of peace.

All of Palestine without the Palestinians.

 

[ogibillm]

if anyone believes israel wants peace they are a fool

Israel's version of peace.

All of Palestine without the Palestinians.

i don't think it goes that far. but conflict is good for israel - if there was no conflict wold we give them as much aid, invest as heavily, or let them act without consequence?

 

[turzovka]

if anyone believes israel wants peace they are a fool

Well, we think you guys are the fools. I think history is on our side. You know... the real history. Not the one as told and written about by those elitist liberal snob professors covering the landscape of our universities. Nor does the mainstream media care enough to even know what the hell they are talking about. And U.N. are a bunch of traitors and cowards.

 

[The Irish Ram]

if anyone believes israel wants peace they are a fool

Israel's version of peace.

All of Palestine without the Palestinians.

It is actually Israeli land. The squatters are there on the border because of Egypt. Not Israel. Egypt needs to relocate them.

 

[Dot Com]

Surprising what the con Isreal gov't has been doing right?

State Dept. criticizes Israeli settlement expansion, demolitions

JERUSALEM — The Israeli government’s plans to build new units in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and a spate of home demolitions in Palestinian areas over the past week have drawn sharp criticism from the Obama administration.

Israel “is systematically undermining the prospects for a two-state solution” with the Palestinians, State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement Wednesday.

“We strongly oppose settlement activity, which is corrosive to the cause of peace,” the statementsaid.

The day Israel takes the advice of D.C., especially the mindless democrats, is the day they may as well pack up and leave the region.

"Undermining the prospects for a two state solution..." right.
That assumes the other side wants a two state solution or EVER wanted a two state solution.

so no sourcing for any of that bloviation?

 

[turzovka]

Surprising what the con Isreal gov't has been doing right?

State Dept. criticizes Israeli settlement expansion, demolitions

JERUSALEM — The Israeli government’s plans to build new units in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and a spate of home demolitions in Palestinian areas over the past week have drawn sharp criticism from the Obama administration.

Israel “is systematically undermining the prospects for a two-state solution” with the Palestinians, State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement Wednesday.

“We strongly oppose settlement activity, which is corrosive to the cause of peace,” the statementsaid.

The day Israel takes the advice of D.C., especially the mindless democrats, is the day they may as well pack up and leave the region.

"Undermining the prospects for a two state solution..." right.
That assumes the other side wants a two state solution or EVER wanted a two state solution.

so no sourcing for any of that bloviation?

I would have an easier time proving Jesus is God to an atheist.

Mental and spiritual blocks can be impermeable.

 

[Dot Com]

They've been undermining a two-state solution since Bibi has been in office

 

[Penelope]

Surprising what the con Isreal gov't has been doing right?

State Dept. criticizes Israeli settlement expansion, demolitions

JERUSALEM — The Israeli government’s plans to build new units in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and a spate of home demolitions in Palestinian areas over the past week have drawn sharp criticism from the Obama administration.

Israel “is systematically undermining the prospects for a two-state solution” with the Palestinians, State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement Wednesday.

“We strongly oppose settlement activity, which is corrosive to the cause of peace,” the statementsaid.

The day Israel takes the advice of D.C., especially the mindless democrats, is the day they may as well pack up and leave the region.

"Undermining the prospects for a two state solution..." right.
That assumes the other side wants a two state solution or EVER wanted a two state solution.

They are more than happy to take our money though. Israel needs to fend for themselves. They cause us nothing but trouble. There are enough elite billionaire jews to support Israel.

 

[Penelope]

if anyone believes israel wants peace they are a fool

Israel's version of peace.

All of Palestine without the Palestinians.

It is actually Israeli land. The squatters are there on the border because of Egypt. Not Israel. Egypt needs to relocate them.

Once again, no its not, most of it belonged to the Palestinians.

 

[turzovka]

They've been undermining a two-state solution since Bibi has been in office

That's because Israel is totally sick and tired of being played the fool and lied to.
August 2000 I believe was the last time Israel would ever take the Palestinians and their Arab overlords seriously on wanting a peace agreement or peace at all. I do not care how much you think Israel overreacts to violent attacks, they stand alone against the whole world for their survival. They are always judged harshly by Western snobs and foes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 2000 Camp David ‘Final Status’ Summit.

When Clinton summoned Barak and Arafat to Camp David in August 2000 for final status talks, Israel made dramatic, unprecedented concessions on virtually every point ever raised in the peace process, including all the major stumbling blocks that had repeatedly defied solutions because of Palestinian refusal to compromise.

According to media reports, Barak made the following offer:

• Establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state on some 92 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip.

• Dismantlement of most Jewish settlements; uprooting settlers from isolated communities to concentrate the bulk of the settlers inside 8 percent of the West Bank along the Green Line, and annexing this area to Israel in exchange for a transfer of 3 percent of land in Israel proper adjacent to Gaza.

• Establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem and sovereignty over half the Old City of Jerusalem (the Muslim and Christian quarters) and ‘religious custodianship’ 11 over the Temple Mount; some Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem would become sovereign Palestinian territory, while others would enjoy ‘functional autonomy.’

• A return of Palestinian refugees to the prospective Palestinian state, although no Right of Return to Israel proper would be allowed; generous international assistance to help settle the refugees would be encouraged. In return,

…all Israel asked for were two ‘concessions’:

• An end to violence, and

• A public declaration that the terms of the final settlement marked an ‘end of the conflict’ and that there would be no more Palestinian claims or additional demands on Israel in the future.

The offer went beyond long-standing Israeli ‘red lines,’ particularly with regard to Jerusalem and a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. Barak made it clear this was a one-time, now-or-never offer that neither he nor any future Israeli leader would offer again. Yet Arafat walked out, effectively shutting the door on permanent status negotiations. (Ed. Nor would he even offer a counter proposal.)

As President Bill Clinton stated on July 25 (the day after the summit closed), negotiations under such conditions could not bind either party or be construed as a ‘starting point’ for future negotiations: “Under the operating rules that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, they are, of course, not bound by any proposal discussed at the summit.”26 Arafat was aware of the rules of the game and the ‘now-or-never’ quality of the Israeli offer. Yet Arafat walked out, his actions underscoring Palestinians’ refusal to seek compromise or reconciliation.

Shortly thereafter, in September 2000, the al-Aqsa Intifada erupted. Subsequently, it became evident that this guerrilla war, launched by the Palestinians, was in the planning stages prior to Camp David. It was accompanied by escalation of violence on all fronts, including waves of suicide bombers, ambushes of civilian traffic on the roads, shootings into Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, and rocket attacks from Gaza into civilian settlements in the Negev. Michael Oren, an Israeli scholar of the Six-Day War and other aspects of modern Israeli history, summed up Camp David and the Palestinian position in an article in the December 2001 issue of Harper’s magazine:

Why did the Palestinians constantly ‘lose ground?’ Oren asked. The peace process collapsed not over land but because of the Palestinians’ refusal to accept Israel’s existence. Historically, it has been that refusal rather than Israel’s resistance to compromise that has led to the Palestinians ‘losing ground.’ Cleaving to it will only cost them more. Oren’s assessment of responsibility is backed up by Palestinian pronouncements.

In January 1996, Nabil Sha’ath, a senior member of the PA leadership, considered a ‘moderate’ by Western observers, told a gathering in Nablus: "We decided to liberate our homeland step-by-step. Should Israel continue [to make concessions] – no problem. If and when Israel says 'enough' we will return to violence. But this time it will be with 30,000 armed Palestinian soldiers…”

On November 28, 1996, in an official communiqué, Muhammad Dahlan, at that time the PA’s security chief responsible for enforcing the 2003 hudna, reiterated: “The Palestinian Authority does not exclude the return to the armed struggle, and it will use its weapons.”

The term hudna in Arabic refers to a temporary breather for tactical reasons, not a peace pact. Should negotiations ever resume in earnest, the Arabs will no doubt claim that negotiations should begin ‘from the point where negotiations broke off,’ but there is absolutely no foundation for such a claim.

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/media/user/PLO-Agreement.pdf


I am certain you can find pro-palestinian sources that will tell the story far differently.

 

[Dot Com]

They've been undermining a two-state solution since Bibi has been in office

That's because Israel is totally sick and tired of being played the fool and lied to.
August 2000 I believe was the last time Israel would ever take the Palestinians and their Arab overlords seriously on wanting a peace agreement or peace at all. I do not care how much you think Israel overreacts to violent attacks, they stand alone against the whole world for their survival. They are always judged harshly by Western snobs and foes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 2000 Camp David ‘Final Status’ Summit.

When Clinton summoned Barak and Arafat to Camp David in August 2000 for final status talks, Israel made dramatic, unprecedented concessions on virtually every point ever raised in the peace process, including all the major stumbling blocks that had repeatedly defied solutions because of Palestinian refusal to compromise.

According to media reports, Barak made the following offer:

• Establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state on some 92 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip.

• Dismantlement of most Jewish settlements; uprooting settlers from isolated communities to concentrate the bulk of the settlers inside 8 percent of the West Bank along the Green Line, and annexing this area to Israel in exchange for a transfer of 3 percent of land in Israel proper adjacent to Gaza.

• Establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem and sovereignty over half the Old City of Jerusalem (the Muslim and Christian quarters) and ‘religious custodianship’ 11 over the Temple Mount; some Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem would become sovereign Palestinian territory, while others would enjoy ‘functional autonomy.’

• A return of Palestinian refugees to the prospective Palestinian state, although no Right of Return to Israel proper would be allowed; generous international assistance to help settle the refugees would be encouraged. In return,

…all Israel asked for were two ‘concessions’:

• An end to violence, and

• A public declaration that the terms of the final settlement marked an ‘end of the conflict’ and that there would be no more Palestinian claims or additional demands on Israel in the future.

The offer went beyond long-standing Israeli ‘red lines,’ particularly with regard to Jerusalem and a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. Barak made it clear this was a one-time, now-or-never offer that neither he nor any future Israeli leader would offer again. Yet Arafat walked out, effectively shutting the door on permanent status negotiations.

As President Bill Clinton stated on July 25 (the day after the summit closed), negotiations under such conditions could not bind either party or be construed as a ‘starting point’ for future negotiations: “Under the operating rules that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, they are, of course, not bound by any proposal discussed at the summit.”26 Arafat was aware of the rules of the game and the ‘now-or-never’ quality of the Israeli offer. Yet Arafat walked out, his actions underscoring Palestinians’ refusal to seek compromise or reconciliation.

Shortly thereafter, in September 2000, the al-Aqsa Intifada erupted. Subsequently, it became evident that this guerrilla war, launched by the Palestinians, was in the planning stages prior to Camp David. It was accompanied by escalation of violence on all fronts, including waves of suicide bombers, ambushes of civilian traffic on the roads, shootings into Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, and rocket attacks from Gaza into civilian settlements in the Negev. Michael Oren, an Israeli scholar of the Six-Day War and other aspects of modern Israeli history, summed up Camp David and the Palestinian position in an article in the December 2001 issue of Harper’s magazine:

Why did the Palestinians constantly ‘lose ground?’ Oren asked. The peace process collapsed not over land but because of the Palestinians’ refusal to accept Israel’s existence. Historically, it has been that refusal rather than Israel’s resistance to compromise that has led to the Palestinians ‘losing ground.’ Cleaving to it will only cost them more. Oren’s assessment of responsibility is backed up by Palestinian pronouncements.

In January 1996, Nabil Sha’ath, a senior member of the PA leadership, considered a ‘moderate’ by Western observers, told a gathering in Nablus: "We decided to liberate our homeland step-by-step. Should Israel continue [to make concessions] – no problem. If and when Israel says 'enough' we will return to violence. But this time it will be with 30,000 armed Palestinian soldiers…”

On November 28, 1996, in an official communiqué, Muhammad Dahlan, at that time the PA’s security chief responsible for enforcing the 2003 hudna, reiterated: “The Palestinian Authority does not exclude the return to the armed struggle, and it will use its weapons.”

The term hudna in Arabic refers to a temporary breather for tactical reasons, not a peace pact. Should negotiations ever resume in earnest, the Arabs will no doubt claim that negotiations should begin ‘from the point where negotiations broke off,’ but there is absolutely no foundation for such a claim.

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/media/user/PLO-Agreement.pdf


I am certain you can find pro-palestinian sources that will tell the story far differently.

tl;dr

BTW- cutnpaste much?

 

[turzovka]

They've been undermining a two-state solution since Bibi has been in office

That's because Israel is totally sick and tired of being played the fool and lied to.
August 2000 I believe was the last time Israel would ever take the Palestinians and their Arab overlords seriously on wanting a peace agreement or peace at all. I do not care how much you think Israel overreacts to violent attacks, they stand alone against the whole world for their survival. They are always judged harshly by Western snobs and foes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 2000 Camp David ‘Final Status’ Summit.

When Clinton summoned Barak and Arafat to Camp David in August 2000 for final status talks, Israel made dramatic, unprecedented concessions on virtually every point ever raised in the peace process, including all the major stumbling blocks that had repeatedly defied solutions because of Palestinian refusal to compromise.

According to media reports, Barak made the following offer:

• Establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state on some 92 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip.

• Dismantlement of most Jewish settlements; uprooting settlers from isolated communities to concentrate the bulk of the settlers inside 8 percent of the West Bank along the Green Line, and annexing this area to Israel in exchange for a transfer of 3 percent of land in Israel proper adjacent to Gaza.

• Establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem and sovereignty over half the Old City of Jerusalem (the Muslim and Christian quarters) and ‘religious custodianship’ 11 over the Temple Mount; some Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem would become sovereign Palestinian territory, while others would enjoy ‘functional autonomy.’

• A return of Palestinian refugees to the prospective Palestinian state, although no Right of Return to Israel proper would be allowed; generous international assistance to help settle the refugees would be encouraged. In return,

…all Israel asked for were two ‘concessions’:

• An end to violence, and

• A public declaration that the terms of the final settlement marked an ‘end of the conflict’ and that there would be no more Palestinian claims or additional demands on Israel in the future.

The offer went beyond long-standing Israeli ‘red lines,’ particularly with regard to Jerusalem and a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. Barak made it clear this was a one-time, now-or-never offer that neither he nor any future Israeli leader would offer again. Yet Arafat walked out, effectively shutting the door on permanent status negotiations.

As President Bill Clinton stated on July 25 (the day after the summit closed), negotiations under such conditions could not bind either party or be construed as a ‘starting point’ for future negotiations: “Under the operating rules that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, they are, of course, not bound by any proposal discussed at the summit.”26 Arafat was aware of the rules of the game and the ‘now-or-never’ quality of the Israeli offer. Yet Arafat walked out, his actions underscoring Palestinians’ refusal to seek compromise or reconciliation.

Shortly thereafter, in September 2000, the al-Aqsa Intifada erupted. Subsequently, it became evident that this guerrilla war, launched by the Palestinians, was in the planning stages prior to Camp David. It was accompanied by escalation of violence on all fronts, including waves of suicide bombers, ambushes of civilian traffic on the roads, shootings into Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, and rocket attacks from Gaza into civilian settlements in the Negev. Michael Oren, an Israeli scholar of the Six-Day War and other aspects of modern Israeli history, summed up Camp David and the Palestinian position in an article in the December 2001 issue of Harper’s magazine:

Why did the Palestinians constantly ‘lose ground?’ Oren asked. The peace process collapsed not over land but because of the Palestinians’ refusal to accept Israel’s existence. Historically, it has been that refusal rather than Israel’s resistance to compromise that has led to the Palestinians ‘losing ground.’ Cleaving to it will only cost them more. Oren’s assessment of responsibility is backed up by Palestinian pronouncements.

In January 1996, Nabil Sha’ath, a senior member of the PA leadership, considered a ‘moderate’ by Western observers, told a gathering in Nablus: "We decided to liberate our homeland step-by-step. Should Israel continue [to make concessions] – no problem. If and when Israel says 'enough' we will return to violence. But this time it will be with 30,000 armed Palestinian soldiers…”

On November 28, 1996, in an official communiqué, Muhammad Dahlan, at that time the PA’s security chief responsible for enforcing the 2003 hudna, reiterated: “The Palestinian Authority does not exclude the return to the armed struggle, and it will use its weapons.”

The term hudna in Arabic refers to a temporary breather for tactical reasons, not a peace pact. Should negotiations ever resume in earnest, the Arabs will no doubt claim that negotiations should begin ‘from the point where negotiations broke off,’ but there is absolutely no foundation for such a claim.

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/media/user/PLO-Agreement.pdf


I am certain you can find pro-palestinian sources that will tell the story far differently.

tl;dr

BTW- cutnpaste much?

Yes, I cut and paste and cited my source.
Why, don't care to hear the truth... again?

 

[flacaltenn]

Surprising what the con Isreal gov't has been doing right?

State Dept. criticizes Israeli settlement expansion, demolitions

JERUSALEM — The Israeli government’s plans to build new units in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and a spate of home demolitions in Palestinian areas over the past week have drawn sharp criticism from the Obama administration.

Israel “is systematically undermining the prospects for a two-state solution” with the Palestinians, State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement Wednesday.

“We strongly oppose settlement activity, which is corrosive to the cause of peace,” the statementsaid.

Who would you suggest Bibi negotiate with for a 2 state solution? Need an answer Dottie. Hamas in Gaza? Or the smoking heap of what's left of the PAuthority in the WBank?

You need a PARTNER and a recognized LEADERSHIP to negotiate.. EXCEPT !!!! !

If BO would get off his bony ass and get the NEIGHBORS together to create a state FOR the PAlis. They could leave it in trust for them until they got their act together.

There IS no Pali National movement or government right now.. Hasn't been one for a decade. Life goes on...

 

[The Irish Ram]

if anyone believes israel wants peace they are a fool

Israel's version of peace.

All of Palestine without the Palestinians.

It is actually Israeli land. The squatters are there on the border because of Egypt. Not Israel. Egypt needs to relocate them.

Once again, no its not, most of it belonged to the Palestinians.

It belonged to Britian. It was a wasteland.

 

[flacaltenn]

They've been undermining a two-state solution since Bibi has been in office

That's because Israel is totally sick and tired of being played the fool and lied to.
August 2000 I believe was the last time Israel would ever take the Palestinians and their Arab overlords seriously on wanting a peace agreement or peace at all. I do not care how much you think Israel overreacts to violent attacks, they stand alone against the whole world for their survival. They are always judged harshly by Western snobs and foes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 2000 Camp David ‘Final Status’ Summit.

When Clinton summoned Barak and Arafat to Camp David in August 2000 for final status talks, Israel made dramatic, unprecedented concessions on virtually every point ever raised in the peace process, including all the major stumbling blocks that had repeatedly defied solutions because of Palestinian refusal to compromise.

According to media reports, Barak made the following offer:

• Establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state on some 92 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip.

• Dismantlement of most Jewish settlements; uprooting settlers from isolated communities to concentrate the bulk of the settlers inside 8 percent of the West Bank along the Green Line, and annexing this area to Israel in exchange for a transfer of 3 percent of land in Israel proper adjacent to Gaza.

• Establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem and sovereignty over half the Old City of Jerusalem (the Muslim and Christian quarters) and ‘religious custodianship’ 11 over the Temple Mount; some Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem would become sovereign Palestinian territory, while others would enjoy ‘functional autonomy.’

• A return of Palestinian refugees to the prospective Palestinian state, although no Right of Return to Israel proper would be allowed; generous international assistance to help settle the refugees would be encouraged. In return,

…all Israel asked for were two ‘concessions’:

• An end to violence, and

• A public declaration that the terms of the final settlement marked an ‘end of the conflict’ and that there would be no more Palestinian claims or additional demands on Israel in the future.

The offer went beyond long-standing Israeli ‘red lines,’ particularly with regard to Jerusalem and a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. Barak made it clear this was a one-time, now-or-never offer that neither he nor any future Israeli leader would offer again. Yet Arafat walked out, effectively shutting the door on permanent status negotiations.

As President Bill Clinton stated on July 25 (the day after the summit closed), negotiations under such conditions could not bind either party or be construed as a ‘starting point’ for future negotiations: “Under the operating rules that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, they are, of course, not bound by any proposal discussed at the summit.”26 Arafat was aware of the rules of the game and the ‘now-or-never’ quality of the Israeli offer. Yet Arafat walked out, his actions underscoring Palestinians’ refusal to seek compromise or reconciliation.

Shortly thereafter, in September 2000, the al-Aqsa Intifada erupted. Subsequently, it became evident that this guerrilla war, launched by the Palestinians, was in the planning stages prior to Camp David. It was accompanied by escalation of violence on all fronts, including waves of suicide bombers, ambushes of civilian traffic on the roads, shootings into Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, and rocket attacks from Gaza into civilian settlements in the Negev. Michael Oren, an Israeli scholar of the Six-Day War and other aspects of modern Israeli history, summed up Camp David and the Palestinian position in an article in the December 2001 issue of Harper’s magazine:

Why did the Palestinians constantly ‘lose ground?’ Oren asked. The peace process collapsed not over land but because of the Palestinians’ refusal to accept Israel’s existence. Historically, it has been that refusal rather than Israel’s resistance to compromise that has led to the Palestinians ‘losing ground.’ Cleaving to it will only cost them more. Oren’s assessment of responsibility is backed up by Palestinian pronouncements.

In January 1996, Nabil Sha’ath, a senior member of the PA leadership, considered a ‘moderate’ by Western observers, told a gathering in Nablus: "We decided to liberate our homeland step-by-step. Should Israel continue [to make concessions] – no problem. If and when Israel says 'enough' we will return to violence. But this time it will be with 30,000 armed Palestinian soldiers…”

On November 28, 1996, in an official communiqué, Muhammad Dahlan, at that time the PA’s security chief responsible for enforcing the 2003 hudna, reiterated: “The Palestinian Authority does not exclude the return to the armed struggle, and it will use its weapons.”

The term hudna in Arabic refers to a temporary breather for tactical reasons, not a peace pact. Should negotiations ever resume in earnest, the Arabs will no doubt claim that negotiations should begin ‘from the point where negotiations broke off,’ but there is absolutely no foundation for such a claim.

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/media/user/PLO-Agreement.pdf


I am certain you can find pro-palestinian sources that will tell the story far differently.

tl;dr

BTW- cutnpaste much?

Yes, I cut and paste and cited my source.
Why, don't care to hear the truth... again?

Dottie is a tl:dr person. Can't comprehend or exhaust him/herself with anything longer than a tweet. I think that's the problem. You're gonna have take all that and boil it down to 140 characters.

Not only the resistance to acknowledge Israels claim to the 67 borders -- it's also the fact that a UNIFIED Palestine would require all the internal factions to stop killing each other. Like they did when Israel completely vacated the Gaza and turned it over. Only to have a war break out between Fatah and Hamas and an end to that whole peace process. And the death of the PAuth. They can't FORM a govt. That's largely why someone has to form it FOR THEM -- and hold in trust --- until they care more about Palestine -- than they care about their tribal, religious, and cultural differences.

 

[flacaltenn]

Israel is not undermining 'nothin.. They are NOT gonna form a hostile nation-state without respected leadership.
That's not how you BECOME a nation..

 

[Shusha]

if anyone believes israel wants peace they are a fool

Israel's version of peace.

All of Palestine without the Palestinians.

Says the guy who declares that only the REAL Jews (TM) have rights. Funny.