jillian, Linkiloo, et al,
In the question of who brings what to the (peace talks) table, it is obvious that the Israelis need to assess (without external interference) their position and determine what they are willing to compromise in the name of "peace." But our friend "Jillian" is correct in that their is a lot of backlash in these discussions. One might ask if they are helpful.
At times these discussions become too emotional and counterproductive.
If this is the intention of the Jews, then they have been miserable as executing it. Instead the Palestinian population is growing. i am sure that if Israel was under Chinese control, there would be no Palestinian presence.
I am also not sure what these kind of discussions bring to the table. Yeah Israel was created haphazardly mostly due to the brits but it is what it is and it is time to accept that both peoples have a right to live in peace in 2 states.
these "discussions" bring nothing to the table aside from anti-semitic anti-israel spew. they should not be "debated". debate legitimizes scum.
(COMMENT)
There are a couple salient points I would like to make in the debate relative to the "Recognition Issue."
The Israelis (their current administration) is very keen on the idea that Israel be recognized as a Jewish State
[as in Part II Section B --- Jewish State --- General Assembly Resolution 181(II)]. It was even brought-up by Israel that this idea should be a requirement in the recent US-Iranian Nuclear Agreement.
Business Insider ---- 7 April 2015
Recognition of Israel won't be part of the Iran Nuclear Deal
Washington (AFP) - US President Barack Obama has rejected a call by Israel for any nuclear agreement with Iran to be conditional on Tehran's recognition of the Jewish state's right to exist, branding it a "fundamental misjudgement".
Israel's government reacted angrily to the historic framework agreement on Iran's nuclear programme announced last week, with a final accord due by June 30. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded Sunday that Iranian recognition of the Jewish state's right to exist be written into the agreement.
Now, it is somewhat confusing, in that outsiders
(Non-Israeli Citizens) cannot always tell whether or not this demand is Likud Centric, a personal agenda with the Prime Minister, or an interest to the general population at all. And normally, it would not be of interest to Americans and the US Leadership because it is a domestic issue
(the matter of how The State of Israel projects its image). Seldom is it in America's best interest to become involved in foreign domestic issues that have no real impact on American Foreign Policy, National Defense, Diplomatic Access, of Business and Commercial interests. And while it was controversial in the past ---- whether the issue on the recognition of Israel as a Jewish State was a matter for American commentary ---- that discussion is made clear now ---- Israel wants the US to include the Language in a foreign agreement.
The Jerusalem Post ---- 8 December 2014
Netanyahu says recognition of Jewish state is ‘minimal requirement for peace’
Netanyahu said the “minimal requirement for peace” with the Palestinians was their recognition of the state as home to the Jewish people with equal right to self-determination as themselves.
“It’s about one thing: the persistent refusal to accept the Jewish state, in any border,” Netanyahu said. “The question shouldn’t be, why does Israel make this demand. The question is, why do the Palestinians consistently refuse to accept it?” “I’m ready for a historic compromise that ends the conflict between us once and for all,” he added, calling peace a “two-way street.”
This is not a new issue; but it was not an issue when it was first discussed. The Jewishness of Israel was made clear --- unequivocally --- nearly a century ago in the
Balfour Declaration (1917) when the UK Foreign Office used the language: "national home for the Jewish people" in its recommendation. And this language was further adopted by the Principle Allied Powers at the
San Remo Conference (1920) when the Allied Powers decided to assign the
Mandate for Palestine (1922) under the League of Nations to the UK; both using the language: "the establishment of the Jewish National Home." And this language remained intact through 1947 when it was used in the
Partition Plan A/RES/181(II): "Jewish State."
(It should be noticed that the Organization of the Islamic Conference has 57 member States; including Lebanon (1969), Syria (1970), Jordan (1969), Saudi Arabia (1969), and Egypt (1969). There is only one Jewish State.)
Times of Israel --- 12 April 2015
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that he was ready to resume peace negotiations with Israel without preconditions -----
The PA president also said that popular uprising against Israel was a legitimate form of resistance to occupation, and that while Palestinians recognize Israel as a sovereign state, they would not recognize it as a Jewish one –a key demand put forth by Netanyahu. Abbas added that he was in no way hostile towards Jews, and that whenever he met with various Jewish delegations in Israel or abroad, he makes a point of clarifying this.
Abbas warned that the Islamic extremism and terrorism that has engulfed much of the Middle East in recent years could soon reach Israel unless a solution was found to the “issue of Palestine.”
In the case of the Peace between Israel and Palestine, it is odd that the State of Palestine does not recognize the Israel as a Jewish State. No one has adequately explained the nature of the objection and why the people of the State of Israel should be denied the right to determine the nature of their own country. What is even more curious is the
implications left by the PA President when he said: "Islamic extremism and terrorism" will be employed "unless a solution was found to the “issue of Palestine.” This is a veiled threat, pertaining to the use of "Islamic extremism and terrorism" if the Palestinians don't get their way. Negotiations under threat are a form of attempted coercion. Under these conditions, it is less likely that the Israelis will accept overtures for peace.
Most Respectfully,
R