Abbas Demands Israel Withdraw To The 67 Borders Within A Year

[RoccoR]

RE: Abbas Demands Israel Withdraw To The 67 Borders Within A Year
SUBTOPIC: Demands
⁜→ et al,

BLUF: Actually, what President Abbas demanded was that Israel withdraw from the Palestinian Territory it occupied in 1967.

At UN General Assembly, Abbas gives Israel one year to withdraw to 1967 lines

He talks about " negotiation" What makes him think then that ALL his demands will be met? Does he HONESTLY believe Israel will give up access to their Holy Sites or the Jewish Quarter? Let him keep " demanding" for something that will never happen

(COMMENT)

This is not the first time this demand has been made by the Arab Palestinian Leadership (alla Ramallah).

As far as the West Bank is concerned, Israel occupied territory that was annexed by Jordan in 1950. And since that time, Jordan established a permanent peace with Israel; and established an international boundary between Jordan and Israel → delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate.

Again, this is a demand for a football style instant replay going back more than a half-century.

In 1950, The House of Deputies and House of Nobility (Jordan), adopted a resolution annexing the West Bank and Jerusalem.

◈ Refugees as a result of arbitrary abandonment.And in 1967: Six Day War​

◈ Refugees as a result of arbitrary abandonment.And in 1968: Palestine National Charter.​

◈ Refugees as a result of arbitrary abandonment.And in 1974: The Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.​

◈ Refugees as a result of arbitrary abandonment.And in 1988: Political Communiqué of the Palestine National Council and the Declaration of Independence.​

​

In 1967, there was no Armistice Line, International Boundary, or other delimitation separating Israel from Palestine. In point of fact there was no such thing (other than a "Legal Entity" A/AC.21/UK/42). It was made very clear that after the termination of the Mandate, Palestine would continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state.

It was noted by the UN Legal Affairs Office, that STILL in 2012, Palestine was no identified as a state or country NOR could its authorities be identified as a government.

It is not really clear if the today's Arab Palestinians be identified as a refugee as a result of:

◈ Refugees as a result of arbitrary abandonment.The displacement during the 1948 War for Independence ​

.....................................or​

◈ Refugees as a result of arbitrary abandonment by Jordan.​

​

It will be interesting to see if anyone will take notice. And if a debate starts, which countries will standup and put forth a credible defense for Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[USAF 2023]

Another Israeli lie.

Israel forced ALL of the settlers out of the area and Rocket fire increased. Are you denying that?

 

[Plow Boy]

Let Abbas play his hand, because this is a bluff or an empty threat.
He can’t do anything to Israel except send in terrorists, and that’s nothing Israel can’t handle.

 

[USAF 2023]

View attachment 544364

What does President Abbas mean by ‘two-state solution?’ - The Jewish Standard

The Times of Israel Partner in New Jersey

jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com

What does President Abbas mean by ‘two-state solution?’


home page
OPINION

What does President Abbas mean by ‘two-state solution?’​

​

By RABBI ALAN SILVERSTEINJuly 29, 2021, 4:36 pm
Following 11 days of violence between Hamas in Gaza and Israel, President Joe Biden commented on his administration’s Mideast policy.
Asked at a White House press conference if there had been a change in the Democratic Party’s position on Israel, Biden said, “There is no shift in my commitment to the security of Israel, period. No shift, not at all…; my party still supports Israel.”

He then specified the conditions for peace. “Until the region says, unequivocally, they acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as an independent Jewish state, there will be no peace,” the president said. “[W]e still need a two-state solution. It is the only answer.”
Get The Jewish Standard Newsletter by email and never miss our top storiesFREE SIGN UP
Biden’s approach to achieving a two-state solution seems to be equitable. He affirms both Jewish and Palestinian national aspirations, asserting that each side has a claim to land and that neither side is going away. The Biden administration wants an independent Jewish state and an independent Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security. To achieve this goal, the two parties must accept one another’s national claims; Palestinian refugees must resettle into the future Palestinian Arab state — not into pre-1967 Israel — and a clear endpoint to the conflict, with a cessation of all claims, must be established. And direct negotiations between the parties must ensue without preconditions from either side.
What is the primary obstacle to implementing this vision? On the surface, Israel appears to be the reluctant party. Compared to today’s climate, in 1977, when Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat came to Jerusalem seeking peace, Israelis opened their arms to him. But the bitter failure in 2000-01 of President Bill Clinton’s Oslo peace process, which began in the mid-’90s, and the fallout from Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 created skepticism among the Israeli population toward subsequent Palestinian efforts to achieve peace.
In contrast, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas consistently assures American diplomats that he will be a partner in the effort to achieve peace. At J Street’s recent National Conference, he again affirmed that the PA accepts the concept of a two-state solution.
But Israelis need more than mere statements to be convinced that an aging, unpopular, and corrupt Abbas — with no designated successor who can be relied on to implement any long-term agreement — is committed in a real path to peace. They must know specifically what Abbas means by a two-state solution.
Certain facts sustain Israelis’ reluctance to trust Abbas:
Abbas’s anti-Semitic views persist:
Decades ago, Abbas wrote a doctoral dissertation validating Holocaust denial. Diplomats had hoped that over the years his views had changed. However, on April 30, 2018, in a public address to the Palestinian National Council. he reiterated canards denying the Holocaust. He implied that the Jews brought the Holocaust upon themselves due to their “social behavior, [charging] interest, and financial matters.” He insisted that only a few hundred thousand had died, not six million. Furthermore, Abbas alleged that David Ben-Gurion and the Zionist movement collaborated with the Nazis to foment world sympathy for the creation of a Jewish state. He also falsely claimed that Jewish life in Arab lands had been idyllic, devoid of anti-Semitic episodes, “not even once.”
Abbas rejected previous efforts to effect a two-state solution:
• In 2001, after the failure of the Clinton peace process — which had been accepted by then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak — chief U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross expressed frustration with Abbas. “While pleasant as always in our meeting” — at the end of the process in 2000 — “Abu Mazen [Abbas] was…unyielding on substance, saying that the Palestinians had made their concessions. They could only accept the full implementation [of the Arab interpretation] of the UN resolutions…both on territory and refugees…[and] that it would take time….” Ross went on to say that Abbas’s stance reflected his view that time was on the Arab side, and so he “did not want anything to happen soon.”
• In her memoir, Condoleezza Rice says that in 2008 Abbas rejected Prime Minister Olmert’s proposed concessions. These recommendations were more generous to the Arab side than the Clinton plan had been. Rice was amazed by how far the Israeli leader was willing to go; Olmert was prepared to give up nearly the entire West Bank, with equivalent land swaps between the parties. He offered to divide Jerusalem, internationalizing the “Holy Basin” in the Old City and some adjacent areas. As Arafat had done in 2001, Abbas said no. Abbas told Rice that the Palestinian Authority could not agree to a deal that would prevent millions of Palestinians from being able to “go home” — into pre-1967 Israel.
• On March 17, 2014, in a meeting in Washington, President Barack Obama presented Abbas with a long-awaited framework for an agreement that set out the U.S. administration’s views on major issues, including borders, security, settlements, Palestinian refugees, and Jerusalem. Then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu indicated a willingness to proceed on the basis of the framework, despite some reservations. Abbas remained evasive, and to this day, has not given a reply to the proposed framework.
Why hasn’t Abbas said yes to a two-state solution?
• No independent Jewish state is acceptable to him: Abbas and Fatah’s Central Committee have explicitly stated that “the Palestinians do not accept…that the State of Israel is a Jewish state.” Abbas does affirm that an “Israel” exists, but to him “Israel” initially must be a binational state, like Lebanon, of “Jews and…those who are not Jews,” until “returning” Arabs emerge as a majority. Abbas’s denial of independent Jewish statehood is buttressed by his parallel denial of the Jews as a people. To Abbas, Jews are simply “members of the Jewish religion.” In contrast to Arabs, Jews can have no national rights or claims.
• He denies any Jewish historical connection to the land: Abbas dismisses any evidence of Jewish sovereignty in biblical times, To him, “the members of the Jewish religion” never have been indigenous to the Land of Israel. They are, he claims, actually descendants of the medieval Turkish Khazar tribe. Abbas says that while “the Jews claim that 2,000 years ago they had a temple [in Jerusalem], I challenge the claim that this is so.” For Mahmoud Abbas, there were no Jewish settlements in the Land until the “recent Zionist incursion.” For him, Israel “is a colonial project that has nothing to do with Judaism.” Abbas’s strategy of historical denial severs Judaism’s links to Zion and our holy places. Muslim, Christian, and Jewish shrines must be placed under Islamic sovereignty with access limited at the discretion of Islamic authorities.
• Abbas cannot envision an endpoint to the conflict: In 2017, at an event marking the centennial of the Balfour Declaration, Prime Minister Netanyahu lamented that he had never met “a Palestinian Sadat.” What he meant was that Abbas — who’s been in power since 2005 — has refused to define an endpoint of the conflict, an end of all claims against Israel. Abbas demands that any of the estimated five million descendants of the Palestinian refugees be permitted to “return” immediately to pre-1967 Israel. He requires that their right to choose whether or not to exercise their return continue indefinitely into the future, with neither time limit nor numerical quota

Why would Israel agree to ANY of this?

 

[DGS49]

It would be politically suicidal for Abbas to acknowledge the right of a JEWISH state to exist. A state that was not overtly Jewish would quickly be overcome by an Arab population that would vote it out.

Just as with racism in this country, there are simply too many people in "Palestine" who live on the back of Jew-hatred. If the official policy of Jew-hatred were abolished, they would have no reason to exist. And they are the ones in control.

 

[USAF 2023]

It would be politically suicidal for Abbas to acknowledge the right of a JEWISH state to exist. A state that was not overtly Jewish would quickly be overcome by an Arab population that would vote it out.

Just as with racism in this country, there are simply too many people in "Palestine" who live on the back of Jew-hatred. If the official policy of Jew-hatred were abolished, they would have no reason to exist. And they are the ones in control.

Ask any Pro Palestinian poster why Israel would cede their Religious Sites to the Palestinians and eventually be denied access to any forms of Govt and there will be no response

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel forced ALL of the settlers out of the area and Rocket fire increased. Are you denying that?

Then they locked the doors and threw away the key. Gaza is still considered occupied territory according to the international community.

 

[Hollie]

Then they locked the doors and threw away the key. Gaza is still considered occupied territory according to the international community.

False.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What does President Abbas mean by ‘two-state solution?’ - The Jewish Standard

The Times of Israel Partner in New Jersey

jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com

What does President Abbas mean by ‘two-state solution?’


home page
OPINION

What does President Abbas mean by ‘two-state solution?’​

​

By RABBI ALAN SILVERSTEINJuly 29, 2021, 4:36 pm
Following 11 days of violence between Hamas in Gaza and Israel, President Joe Biden commented on his administration’s Mideast policy.
Asked at a White House press conference if there had been a change in the Democratic Party’s position on Israel, Biden said, “There is no shift in my commitment to the security of Israel, period. No shift, not at all…; my party still supports Israel.”

He then specified the conditions for peace. “Until the region says, unequivocally, they acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as an independent Jewish state, there will be no peace,” the president said. “[W]e still need a two-state solution. It is the only answer.”
Get The Jewish Standard Newsletter by email and never miss our top storiesFREE SIGN UP
Biden’s approach to achieving a two-state solution seems to be equitable. He affirms both Jewish and Palestinian national aspirations, asserting that each side has a claim to land and that neither side is going away. The Biden administration wants an independent Jewish state and an independent Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security. To achieve this goal, the two parties must accept one another’s national claims; Palestinian refugees must resettle into the future Palestinian Arab state — not into pre-1967 Israel — and a clear endpoint to the conflict, with a cessation of all claims, must be established. And direct negotiations between the parties must ensue without preconditions from either side.
What is the primary obstacle to implementing this vision? On the surface, Israel appears to be the reluctant party. Compared to today’s climate, in 1977, when Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat came to Jerusalem seeking peace, Israelis opened their arms to him. But the bitter failure in 2000-01 of President Bill Clinton’s Oslo peace process, which began in the mid-’90s, and the fallout from Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 created skepticism among the Israeli population toward subsequent Palestinian efforts to achieve peace.
In contrast, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas consistently assures American diplomats that he will be a partner in the effort to achieve peace. At J Street’s recent National Conference, he again affirmed that the PA accepts the concept of a two-state solution.
But Israelis need more than mere statements to be convinced that an aging, unpopular, and corrupt Abbas — with no designated successor who can be relied on to implement any long-term agreement — is committed in a real path to peace. They must know specifically what Abbas means by a two-state solution.
Certain facts sustain Israelis’ reluctance to trust Abbas:
Abbas’s anti-Semitic views persist:
Decades ago, Abbas wrote a doctoral dissertation validating Holocaust denial. Diplomats had hoped that over the years his views had changed. However, on April 30, 2018, in a public address to the Palestinian National Council. he reiterated canards denying the Holocaust. He implied that the Jews brought the Holocaust upon themselves due to their “social behavior, [charging] interest, and financial matters.” He insisted that only a few hundred thousand had died, not six million. Furthermore, Abbas alleged that David Ben-Gurion and the Zionist movement collaborated with the Nazis to foment world sympathy for the creation of a Jewish state. He also falsely claimed that Jewish life in Arab lands had been idyllic, devoid of anti-Semitic episodes, “not even once.”
Abbas rejected previous efforts to effect a two-state solution:
• In 2001, after the failure of the Clinton peace process — which had been accepted by then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak — chief U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross expressed frustration with Abbas. “While pleasant as always in our meeting” — at the end of the process in 2000 — “Abu Mazen [Abbas] was…unyielding on substance, saying that the Palestinians had made their concessions. They could only accept the full implementation [of the Arab interpretation] of the UN resolutions…both on territory and refugees…[and] that it would take time….” Ross went on to say that Abbas’s stance reflected his view that time was on the Arab side, and so he “did not want anything to happen soon.”
• In her memoir, Condoleezza Rice says that in 2008 Abbas rejected Prime Minister Olmert’s proposed concessions. These recommendations were more generous to the Arab side than the Clinton plan had been. Rice was amazed by how far the Israeli leader was willing to go; Olmert was prepared to give up nearly the entire West Bank, with equivalent land swaps between the parties. He offered to divide Jerusalem, internationalizing the “Holy Basin” in the Old City and some adjacent areas. As Arafat had done in 2001, Abbas said no. Abbas told Rice that the Palestinian Authority could not agree to a deal that would prevent millions of Palestinians from being able to “go home” — into pre-1967 Israel.
• On March 17, 2014, in a meeting in Washington, President Barack Obama presented Abbas with a long-awaited framework for an agreement that set out the U.S. administration’s views on major issues, including borders, security, settlements, Palestinian refugees, and Jerusalem. Then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu indicated a willingness to proceed on the basis of the framework, despite some reservations. Abbas remained evasive, and to this day, has not given a reply to the proposed framework.
Why hasn’t Abbas said yes to a two-state solution?
• No independent Jewish state is acceptable to him: Abbas and Fatah’s Central Committee have explicitly stated that “the Palestinians do not accept…that the State of Israel is a Jewish state.” Abbas does affirm that an “Israel” exists, but to him “Israel” initially must be a binational state, like Lebanon, of “Jews and…those who are not Jews,” until “returning” Arabs emerge as a majority. Abbas’s denial of independent Jewish statehood is buttressed by his parallel denial of the Jews as a people. To Abbas, Jews are simply “members of the Jewish religion.” In contrast to Arabs, Jews can have no national rights or claims.
• He denies any Jewish historical connection to the land: Abbas dismisses any evidence of Jewish sovereignty in biblical times, To him, “the members of the Jewish religion” never have been indigenous to the Land of Israel. They are, he claims, actually descendants of the medieval Turkish Khazar tribe. Abbas says that while “the Jews claim that 2,000 years ago they had a temple [in Jerusalem], I challenge the claim that this is so.” For Mahmoud Abbas, there were no Jewish settlements in the Land until the “recent Zionist incursion.” For him, Israel “is a colonial project that has nothing to do with Judaism.” Abbas’s strategy of historical denial severs Judaism’s links to Zion and our holy places. Muslim, Christian, and Jewish shrines must be placed under Islamic sovereignty with access limited at the discretion of Islamic authorities.
• Abbas cannot envision an endpoint to the conflict: In 2017, at an event marking the centennial of the Balfour Declaration, Prime Minister Netanyahu lamented that he had never met “a Palestinian Sadat.” What he meant was that Abbas — who’s been in power since 2005 — has refused to define an endpoint of the conflict, an end of all claims against Israel. Abbas demands that any of the estimated five million descendants of the Palestinian refugees be permitted to “return” immediately to pre-1967 Israel. He requires that their right to choose whether or not to exercise their return continue indefinitely into the future, with neither time limit nor numerical quota

Why would Israel agree to ANY of this?

Abbas does not have the authority to make the concessions required by Israel.

There never was, and never will be, a two state solution. That was always a western pipe dream that has no legal basis. There is no law requiring a two state solution. In fact the two state solution runs counter to international law.

That is why there cannot be a negotiated solution.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel forced ALL of the settlers out of the area and Rocket fire increased. Are you denying that?

Nope.

 

[USAF 2023]

Abbas does not have the authority to make the concessions required by Israel.

There never was, and never will be, a two state solution. That was always a western pipe dream that has no legal basis. There is no law requiring a two state solution. In fact the two state solution runs counter to international law.

That is why there cannot be a negotiated solution.

Still didn’t answer my question. Why should Israel agree to possibly having Millions of Palestinians PLUS no control over Religious Sites? What assurances will the Israelis have that they will have ANY say in Govt with a overwhelming Palestinian majority?
A “ Two State Solution” is against “ International Law?” Somebody should tell the UN

 

[USAF 2023]

Then they locked the doors and threw away the key. Gaza is still considered occupied territory according to the international community.

Regardless of what the “ International Community” thinks there is not ONE Israeli there. Stop the Rockets; Israel will stop with military action

 

[P F Tinmore]

Regardless of what the “ International Community” thinks there is not ONE Israeli there. Stop the Rockets; Israel will stop with military action

Israel is always in Gaza.

 

[Hollie]

Abbas does not have the authority to make the concessions required by Israel.

There never was, and never will be, a two state solution. That was always a western pipe dream that has no legal basis. There is no law requiring a two state solution. In fact the two state solution runs counter to international law.

That is why there cannot be a negotiated solution.

The Emir of Abbas'istan has issued his fatwa.

 

[Hollie]

Israel is always in Gaza.

More like ever-present in your psyche.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Still didn’t answer my question. Why should Israel agree to possibly having Millions of Palestinians PLUS no control over Religious Sites? What assurances will the Israelis have that they will have ANY say in Govt with a overwhelming Palestinian majority?
A “ Two State Solution” is against “ International Law?” Somebody should tell the UN

Israel has made its bed now it must sleep in it.

 

[USAF 2023]

Israel is always in Gaza.

Stop the Rockets. Still haven’t answered my question. Why should Israel concede to eventually a Palestinian Majority with control over their Religious Sites?

 

[USAF 2023]

Israel has made its bed now it must sleep in it.

Deflection. Still can’t answer my Israel should concede

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Terrorists know that they have friends in the communist democrats.

Who is more anti-Semitic than the Squad? You have to go to Jihad-land to find it

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Israel should give back Gaza when we give back Southern California to Mexico