"Palestinian" Authority to Collapse

[Polk]

I agree with that! The settlers and the settlements do not need to be evacuated, but rather the setters will become Jewish Palestinians and part of the Palestinian state! I see nothing wrong with that!

Just as Palestinian settlers sit in Israel along the border.

HOWEVER, if the Jewish settlers get forced out, so should the Palestinian ones!

Out of curiosity, are the numbers even remotely comparable?

The Arab triangle, which is located on the border of the West Bank and where no Jews can go, contains more Palestinians, than the large Jewish settlements than in the West Bank. They are very comparable in numbers and geographical size!

Thanks. I honestly wasn't aware and wanted more information. Do you think it's possible that some sort of arrangement could be worked out where those areas are exchanged for the settlement blocks?

 

[The Rabbi]

Both sides have preconditions for negotiations. To claim otherwise is just dishonest.

You may assume so, but you would be incorrect. What do you imagine an Israeli pre condition for negotiations is?

No negotiation over right of return, for starters. I understand why Israel doesn't want to discuss the topic (I wouldn't want to either in their shoes), but without discussing it, there isn't going to be a way to come up an alternative arrangement. Also, that the Israel stance basically involves turning the West Bank into the holes in Swiss cheese, many small and divided units.

The "right of return" would guarantee the demise of teh Israeli state. No state is going to negotiate away its existence.
The many small divided units bullshit is just that, a Palestinian talking point. Look, the Palestinians had virtually everything they wanted, including E.Jerusalem, in the Arafat-Barak negotiations and Arafat blinked at the last minute and couldn't sign.
How do you negotiate with people who cannot control themselves? With people who elect terrorists as their legitimate government, and proceed to machine gun the opposition? There is no negotiating partner. There is no one capable of enforcing any commitment he has made. It is a fantasy of the Arab and European world that there is a Palestinian negotiating partner anywhere in sight.

 

[Polk]

You may assume so, but you would be incorrect. What do you imagine an Israeli pre condition for negotiations is?

No negotiation over right of return, for starters. I understand why Israel doesn't want to discuss the topic (I wouldn't want to either in their shoes), but without discussing it, there isn't going to be a way to come up an alternative arrangement. Also, that the Israel stance basically involves turning the West Bank into the holes in Swiss cheese, many small and divided units.

The "right of return" would guarantee the demise of teh Israeli state. No state is going to negotiate away its existence.

Which is why I said I understand Israel's position. However, it's a legitimate grievance and needs to be dealt with.

The many small divided units bullshit is just that, a Palestinian talking point. Look, the Palestinians had virtually everything they wanted, including E.Jerusalem, in the Arafat-Barak negotiations and Arafat blinked at the last minute and couldn't sign.
How do you negotiate with people who cannot control themselves? With people who elect terrorists as their legitimate government, and proceed to machine gun the opposition? There is no negotiating partner. There is no one capable of enforcing any commitment he has made. It is a fantasy of the Arab and European world that there is a Palestinian negotiating partner anywhere in sight.

I've seen the maps. It would create large tracts of land that would legally be considered part of Palestine, but would be under Israeli control until a future date. Surely you can see why the Palestinians would be leery of a system where land could technically be theirs, but they'd never have use of it. Also, as much as you want to blame Arafat for the breakdown at Taba, it was Israel that withdrew from the negotiations. The reality is the deal was one neither side could agree to.

 

[Varth Dader]

Sorry. The Israelis are already in the West Bank illegally. The entire WB would need to be part of a Palestinian state; no negotiating. The loons who settled there could either live in the Palestinian state or march straight back to Israel. No more concessions will be made.

I agree with that! The settlers and the settlements do not need to be evacuated, but rather the setters will become Jewish Palestinians and part of the Palestinian state! I see nothing wrong with that!

Just as Palestinian settlers sit in Israel along the border.

HOWEVER, if the Jewish settlers get forced out, so should the Palestinian ones!

What is a Palestinian settler?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Both sides have preconditions for negotiations. To claim otherwise is just dishonest.

You may assume so, but you would be incorrect. What do you imagine an Israeli pre condition for negotiations is?

No negotiation over right of return, for starters. I understand why Israel doesn't want to discuss the topic (I wouldn't want to either in their shoes), but without discussing it, there isn't going to be a way to come up an alternative arrangement. Also, that the Israel stance basically involves turning the West Bank into the holes in Swiss cheese, many small and divided units.

Of course, anyone who followed the negotiations that ended in 2000 or even the more recent negotiations under Olmert knows that Israel has never set any pre conditions for negotiations and has never held any issue off limits for discussions or negotiations. In fact, Israel has shown considerable flexibility on both the issues you mention.

In the context of Clinton's proposal to set up an international fund to help Arabs who claimed a right of return to settle in the new Palestinian state or elsewhere, Israel agreed to accept 100,000 of these, but Arafat, under pressure from other Arab leaders, held the issue to be non negotiable.

On the issue of the settlements, in both the negotiations that ended in 2000 and the more recent negotiations, Israel agreed to give up all but four large settlements, three contiguous with pre 1967 Israel and one near Jerusalem, and to exchange pre 1967 Israeli land for the land those settlements are on. Neither Arafat nor Abbas accepted or rejected this offer.

On the issue of Jerusalem, in both sets of negotiations, Israel offered to share sovereignty over Jerusalem with the new Palestinian state, the Arabs controlling largely Arab areas and the Israelis controlling largely Jewish areas, but both Arafat and Abbas held the issue of Jerusalem to be non negotiable.

If you have been following the news since Netanyahu took office, you know that while Israel has set no pre conditions for negotiations to begin and has declared no issue not open to discussion, Abbas has insisted that as pre conditions for negotiations, the Netanyahu government must hold these offers open, despite the fact both Arafat and Abbas had previously rejected them, and that Netanyahu honor the Palestinian claim to the land the settlements are on and to Jerusalem by freezing all construction there, the settlement freeze pre condition getting more attention in the media because it sometimes seems to have the support of the Obama administration.

Netanyahu has responded that Israel is ready to begin negotiations on all issues without any pre conditions any time the Palestinians are.

 

[Polk]

You may assume so, but you would be incorrect. What do you imagine an Israeli pre condition for negotiations is?

No negotiation over right of return, for starters. I understand why Israel doesn't want to discuss the topic (I wouldn't want to either in their shoes), but without discussing it, there isn't going to be a way to come up an alternative arrangement. Also, that the Israel stance basically involves turning the West Bank into the holes in Swiss cheese, many small and divided units.

Of course, anyone who followed the negotiations that ended in 2000 or even the more recent negotiations under Olmert knows that Israel has never set any pre conditions for negotiations and has never held any issue off limits for discussions or negotiations. In fact, Israel has shown considerable flexibility on both the issues you mention.

In the context of Clinton's proposal to set up an international fund to help Arabs who claimed a right of return to settle in the new Palestinian state or elsewhere, Israel agreed to accept 100,000 of these, but Arafat, under pressure from other Arab leaders, held the issue to be non negotiable.

On the issue of the settlements, in both the negotiations that ended in 2000 and the more recent negotiations, Israel agreed to give up all but four large settlements, three contiguous with pre 1967 Israel and one near Jerusalem, and to exchange pre 1967 Israeli land for the land those settlements are on. Neither Arafat nor Abbas accepted or rejected this offer.

On the issue of Jerusalem, in both sets of negotiations, Israel offered to share sovereignty over Jerusalem with the new Palestinian state, the Arabs controlling largely Arab areas and the Israelis controlling largely Jewish areas, but both Arafat and Abbas held the issue of Jerusalem to be non negotiable.

If you have been following the news since Netanyahu took office, you know that while Israel has set no pre conditions for negotiations to begin and has declared no issue not open to discussion, Abbas has insisted that as pre conditions for negotiations, the Netanyahu government must hold these offers open, despite the fact both Arafat and Abbas had previously rejected them, and that Netanyahu honor the Palestinian claim to the land the settlements are on and to Jerusalem by freezing all construction there, the settlement freeze pre condition getting more attention in the media because it sometimes seems to have the support of the Obama administration.

Netanyahu has responded that Israel is ready to begin negotiations on all issues without any pre conditions any time the Palestinians are.

Actually, the Netanyahu government has insisted that any Palestinian state have no sovereignty over its own airspace, have no military whatsoever, and that Jerusalem would have to be undivided Israeli territory.

 

[The Rabbi]

Seems pretty reasonable to me, given the history there.
So why didnt the Palestinians go for this? Are they better off now?

 

[JW Frogen]

Sorry. The Israelis are already in the West Bank illegally. The entire WB would need to be part of a Palestinian state; no negotiating. The loons who settled there could either live in the Palestinian state or march straight back to Israel. No more concessions will be made.

See this was my position too until Sharon vacated Gaza, with no preconditions or concessions from the Palestinians, Sharon forcibly removed the Israeli settlers in Gaza, and how did Hamas respond? Did they concentrate on building an embryonic state there, improving living conditions, asking the international community for more aid and stop terror attacks to prove that if land is vacated Israel gets peace? Did they prove that if they get land they will accept peace?

Nope, the morons just turned Gaza into one big military base in which to lob rockets for months into Israel, inviting an attack they could not fend off.

Forget suicide bombs, the entire Palestinian political strategy is suicidal.

 

[toomuchtime_]

No negotiation over right of return, for starters. I understand why Israel doesn't want to discuss the topic (I wouldn't want to either in their shoes), but without discussing it, there isn't going to be a way to come up an alternative arrangement. Also, that the Israel stance basically involves turning the West Bank into the holes in Swiss cheese, many small and divided units.

Of course, anyone who followed the negotiations that ended in 2000 or even the more recent negotiations under Olmert knows that Israel has never set any pre conditions for negotiations and has never held any issue off limits for discussions or negotiations. In fact, Israel has shown considerable flexibility on both the issues you mention.

In the context of Clinton's proposal to set up an international fund to help Arabs who claimed a right of return to settle in the new Palestinian state or elsewhere, Israel agreed to accept 100,000 of these, but Arafat, under pressure from other Arab leaders, held the issue to be non negotiable.

On the issue of the settlements, in both the negotiations that ended in 2000 and the more recent negotiations, Israel agreed to give up all but four large settlements, three contiguous with pre 1967 Israel and one near Jerusalem, and to exchange pre 1967 Israeli land for the land those settlements are on. Neither Arafat nor Abbas accepted or rejected this offer.

On the issue of Jerusalem, in both sets of negotiations, Israel offered to share sovereignty over Jerusalem with the new Palestinian state, the Arabs controlling largely Arab areas and the Israelis controlling largely Jewish areas, but both Arafat and Abbas held the issue of Jerusalem to be non negotiable.

If you have been following the news since Netanyahu took office, you know that while Israel has set no pre conditions for negotiations to begin and has declared no issue not open to discussion, Abbas has insisted that as pre conditions for negotiations, the Netanyahu government must hold these offers open, despite the fact both Arafat and Abbas had previously rejected them, and that Netanyahu honor the Palestinian claim to the land the settlements are on and to Jerusalem by freezing all construction there, the settlement freeze pre condition getting more attention in the media because it sometimes seems to have the support of the Obama administration.

Netanyahu has responded that Israel is ready to begin negotiations on all issues without any pre conditions any time the Palestinians are.

Actually, the Netanyahu government has insisted that any Palestinian state have no sovereignty over its own airspace, have no military whatsoever, and that Jerusalem would have to be undivided Israeli territory.

That is a negotiating position, not a pre condition for negotiations to begin, and Netanyahu has not declared any issue is not open to discussion. Actually, Netanyahu's position on Palestinian sovereignty and Jerusalem are nearly identical to what Rabin's had been. Rabin never agreed that the peace talks would ever lead to full sovereignty for a Palestinian state, and on the issue of Jerusalem, his position was that a unified Jerusalem would be the capital of Israel forever.

Members of Knesset,

We are divided in our opinions, on the Left and the Right. We argue over courses of action and over purpose. I believe that there is no argument on one matter the wholeness of Jerusalem, and its continued existence as the capital of the State of Israel. I said yesterday, and repeat today, that there are not two Jerusalems; there is only one Jerusalem. From our perspective, Jerusalem is not a subject for compromise. Jerusalem was ours, will be ours, is ours and will remain as such forever.

At the same time, it is our supreme obligation as Jews and Israelis to show genuine respect for members of the two other religions of whose lives and faiths Jerusalem is a part; to allow for freedom of religious worship for all those who come to the city, in all holy places; to demonstrate tolerance, and; to realize the saying: "Let every man live according to his faith."

RABIN JERUSALEM DAY ADDRESS TO KNESSET - 29-May-95

It was Barak and Olmert who showed a willingness to compromise on Jerusalem, although it is doubtful the Israeli public or the Knesset would ever have consented to their proposals, and no Israeli leader has ever proposed full sovereignty for a Palestinian state.

On the issue of a Palestinian military, during the Bush years, the US, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority entered into an agreement under which the US and Jordan would train and arm a professional Palestinian security force so that if the PA had the will to stop terrorist attacks against Israel, it would have the means to, and if it did, Israeli forces could withdraw, removing roadblocks and checkpoints as they did. An American general has been over there for the last few years overseeing this project and as far as I know Obama has continued this program. Since Netanyahu has taken office the rate of withdrawal of Israeli forces has been accelerated, the role of PA security forces has been expanded and roadblocks and checkpoints have been removed at an accelerated pace.

 

[Polk]

Sorry. The Israelis are already in the West Bank illegally. The entire WB would need to be part of a Palestinian state; no negotiating. The loons who settled there could either live in the Palestinian state or march straight back to Israel. No more concessions will be made.

See this was my position too until Sharon vacated Gaza, with no preconditions or concessions from the Palestinians, Sharon forcibly removed the Israeli settlers in Gaza, and how did Hamas respond? Did they concentrate on building an embryonic state there, improving living conditions, asking the international community for more aid and stop terror attacks to prove that if land is vacated Israel gets peace? Did they prove that if they get land they will accept peace?

Nope, the morons just turned Gaza into one big military base in which to lob rockets for months into Israel, inviting an attack they could not fend off.

Forget suicide bombs, the entire Palestinian political strategy is suicidal.

They vacated Gaza while increasing settlement activity on the West Bank. It wasn't noble, it was a misdirection.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sorry. The Israelis are already in the West Bank illegally. The entire WB would need to be part of a Palestinian state; no negotiating. The loons who settled there could either live in the Palestinian state or march straight back to Israel. No more concessions will be made.

See this was my position too until Sharon vacated Gaza, with no preconditions or concessions from the Palestinians, Sharon forcibly removed the Israeli settlers in Gaza, and how did Hamas respond? Did they concentrate on building an embryonic state there, improving living conditions, asking the international community for more aid and stop terror attacks to prove that if land is vacated Israel gets peace? Did they prove that if they get land they will accept peace?

Nope, the morons just turned Gaza into one big military base in which to lob rockets for months into Israel, inviting an attack they could not fend off.

Forget suicide bombs, the entire Palestinian political strategy is suicidal.

They vacated Gaza while increasing settlement activity on the West Bank. It wasn't noble, it was a misdirection.

I dont know whether it was noble or not. But the fact is they voluntarily handed over territory to people and got nothing in return.
Maybe the Palestinians could try that, quit car bombing or lobbing rockets into Israel. Might change things. You never know. Give peace a chance.

 

[JW Frogen]

They vacated Gaza while increasing settlement activity on the West Bank. It wasn't noble, it was a misdirection.

I never said it was noble; it was a brilliant gamble that Sharon could not loose knowing his enemy better than they know themselves.

Leave, without any concessions, and if Hamas builds a state there and actually stops terrorism he has a victory, and if they simply play moth to the Islamic flame, do not reciprocate and use it to attack, well he has a victory, he can now say, we can not leave the West Bank.

As always, the Palestinians chose the worst option for Palestinians.

History will not bet on idiots.

Only the Nobel Committee does that.

 

[GHook93]

You havent answered why Hamas would want to negotiate, given the history.

To get their own state! For the Palestinian economy to finally be able to grow without grand obstacles. In order for the Palestinian people to stop suffering!

You do know in Hamas's beginning they were supported by Israel. They started out as a grassroots humanitarian organizations and eventually morphed into a terrorist entity!

Eventually people lose their will to fight!

 

[GHook93]

You may assume so, but you would be incorrect. What do you imagine an Israeli pre condition for negotiations is?

No negotiation over right of return, for starters. I understand why Israel doesn't want to discuss the topic (I wouldn't want to either in their shoes), but without discussing it, there isn't going to be a way to come up an alternative arrangement. A[/QUOTE]

The right of return is discussed! Basically they say the right of return is restricted to the future Palestinian state with the Jews providing monetary retribution! That is MORE that sufficient. No country would be willing to take on millions of enemies of the state! Its beyond illogical to demand it and it is (as it should be) a no go to any negotiations!

lso, that the Israel stance basically involves turning the West Bank into the holes in Swiss cheese, many small and divided units.

The is very inaccurate!

The during the Camp David Accords 98% of the west bank was offered! Currently on the table is equal land distributions, including a land bridge from Gaza to the WB! WB will not be chopped up into swiss cheese, but possibly a few parts might be missing, but equal parts will be added!

 

[GHook93]

Out of curiosity, are the numbers even remotely comparable?

The Arab triangle, which is located on the border of the West Bank and where no Jews can go, contains more Palestinians, than the large Jewish settlements than in the West Bank. They are very comparable in numbers and geographical size!

Thanks. I honestly wasn't aware and wanted more information. Do you think it's possible that some sort of arrangement could be worked out where those areas are exchanged for the settlement blocks?

Possibly, however, the biggest issue with the borders is not the settlements, rather is Jerusalem (more specifically East Jerusalem)!

 

[GHook93]

Sorry. The Israelis are already in the West Bank illegally. The entire WB would need to be part of a Palestinian state; no negotiating. The loons who settled there could either live in the Palestinian state or march straight back to Israel. No more concessions will be made.

I agree with that! The settlers and the settlements do not need to be evacuated, but rather the setters will become Jewish Palestinians and part of the Palestinian state! I see nothing wrong with that!

Just as Palestinian settlers sit in Israel along the border.

HOWEVER, if the Jewish settlers get forced out, so should the Palestinian ones!

What is a Palestinian settler?

Use your brain power! I assume you have a little!

In Israel along the border of the West Bank and Gaza (but mostly the west bank), there are cities where no Jews are allowed! They refuse citizenship! They wave Palestinian flags. They denounce the state! They refuse to assimilate! They refuse to learn the language. And they actively call for the downfall of the government!

With all do respect they are Palestinian settlers in Israel. Therefore, its only logical that in any final solution, these areas should be part of Palestine!

 

[The Rabbi]

You havent answered why Hamas would want to negotiate, given the history.

To get their own state! For the Palestinian economy to finally be able to grow without grand obstacles. In order for the Palestinian people to stop suffering!

You do know in Hamas's beginning they were supported by Israel. They started out as a grassroots humanitarian organizations and eventually morphed into a terrorist entity!

Eventually people lose their will to fight!

Hamas believes, like all terrorists, that they can get what they want by holding out and continuing their terrorist war. They have legitimacy precisely because they refuse to compromise on their principles, which include the destruction of Israel.
They don't give two shits about the suffering of the Palestinians. Like all ideologues, they believe you have to break eggs to make an omelet.
The Muslim Brotherhood was also supported by Israel. Alliances come and go and are dictated by expedience at the time.

 

[Varth Dader]

I agree with that! The settlers and the settlements do not need to be evacuated, but rather the setters will become Jewish Palestinians and part of the Palestinian state! I see nothing wrong with that!

Just as Palestinian settlers sit in Israel along the border.

HOWEVER, if the Jewish settlers get forced out, so should the Palestinian ones!

What is a Palestinian settler?

Use your brain power! I assume you have a little!

In Israel along the border of the West Bank and Gaza (but mostly the west bank), there are cities where no Jews are allowed! They refuse citizenship! They wave Palestinian flags. They denounce the state! They refuse to assimilate! They refuse to learn the language. And they actively call for the downfall of the government!

With all do respect they are Palestinian settlers in Israel. Therefore, its only logical that in any final solution, these areas should be part of Palestine!

So you are talking about Israeli citizens? What does it mean, they refuse citizenship?

Where can I read about these cities?

Bottom line though is that you are trying to make a comparison between settlers in the West Bank and people you really want to kick out, which is a bit weird.

 

[GHook93]

What is a Palestinian settler?

Use your brain power! I assume you have a little!

In Israel along the border of the West Bank and Gaza (but mostly the west bank), there are cities where no Jews are allowed! They refuse citizenship! They wave Palestinian flags. They denounce the state! They refuse to assimilate! They refuse to learn the language. And they actively call for the downfall of the government!

With all do respect they are Palestinian settlers in Israel. Therefore, its only logical that in any final solution, these areas should be part of Palestine!

So you are talking about Israeli citizens? What does it mean, they refuse citizenship?

Where can I read about these cities?

Bottom line though is that you are trying to make a comparison between settlers in the West Bank and people you really want to kick out, which is a bit weird.

They are Israeli residences (offered citizenship), but most refuse citizenship, hence not citizens!

: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_(Israel)

 

[Varth Dader]

They are Israeli residences (offered citizenship), but most refuse citizenship, hence not citizens!

: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_(Israel)

I looked at both links, and I fail to see where it says that these people don't have Israeli citizenships.

I searched a little bit more and really, all I can find is either that these people would rather remain in Israel or references to Avidgor Lieberman who wants to get rid of those people (Lieberman Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

So again, where do you see that these people are not citizens?