The 77 year old flop

[P F Tinmore]

The two state solution was first put on the table in 1937. Since then there has been a world wide drumbeat to implement this solution. "Everybody knows" that the two state solution will bring peace.

It is the epitome of insanity.

 

[toastman]

There will never be peace in the ME.

It just seems to good to be true.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There will never be peace in the ME.

It just seems to good to be true.

Not as long as we keep beating that dead horse.

 

[toastman]

So if you don't think the two state solution would work, you are pro one state solution?

 

[MHunterB]

Shouldn't be so hard on yourself, Tinny!

So, are you a cow-flop, a prairie-dog flop, or what?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you are a little bit behind the times. Forget 1937! Come back to the living and the current situation.

The two state solution was first put on the table in 1937. Since then there has been a world wide drumbeat to implement this solution. "Everybody knows" that the two state solution will bring peace.

It is the epitome of insanity.

(OBSERVATION)

Considering that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States, in accordance with the Charter, is of the greatest importance for the maintenance of international peace and security and for the implementation of the other purposes of the United Nations,​

States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

SOURCE: Rule of Law - A/RES/25/2625

(COMMENT)

Today, a determination has to be made about the Palestinian demands they put forth just to enter into "good faith" negotiations.

The Palestinians have compiled a new list of demands for the continuation of peace talks, the list of demands are: (Article: Palestinians publish new list of demands: PM must agree to East Jerusalem as capital, Elior Levy, Published: 04.03.14, Israel News)

1. A written commitment by Prime Minister Benjamin Netnayahu that the borders of the Palestinian state will be along the 1967 'green-line' and that its capital will be East Jerusalem.
2. The release of 1,200 Palestinian prisoners, including political heavyweights Marwan Barghouti, Ahmed Saadat and Fuad Shubkhi.
3. An end to the Egyptian-Israeli blockade on Gaza, and the formulation of dealing allowing the flow of goods into Gaza.
4. A halt in construction in East Jerusalem.
5. The IDF will not be allowed to enter Area A – the area of the West Bank under autonomous PA control since the Oslo Accords – to conduct arrests or assassinations
6. Israel will permit the PA control over Area C – currently under Israel's control.
7. The Palestinians known as the Church of Nativity deportees – a group of terrorist who barricaded themselves in the Church of the Nativity on April 2, 2002 and were later deported to European nations and the Gaza Strip – will be allowed to return to the West Bank.
8. The reopening of a number of Palestinian development agencies Israel shut down.

Are these legitimate demands as a prerequisite to "good faith negotiations" for peace? Or, is this some kind of devious means at subterfuge --- to break-down the negotiation process? There is a question as to whether the Palestinians ever wanted to employ peaceful means as a foundation for settlement.

Should Israel just step back from the process and allow the current path of events to unfold as they are? (Maintain the status quo.)

If Israel does not meet these negotiation demands, what benefit does a break-down in the negotiations give the Arab Palestinian.

How do these demands help?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you are a little bit behind the times. Forget 1937! Come back to the living and the current situation.

The two state solution was first put on the table in 1937. Since then there has been a world wide drumbeat to implement this solution. "Everybody knows" that the two state solution will bring peace.

It is the epitome of insanity.

(OBSERVATION)

Considering that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States, in accordance with the Charter, is of the greatest importance for the maintenance of international peace and security and for the implementation of the other purposes of the United Nations,​

States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

SOURCE: Rule of Law - A/RES/25/2625

(COMMENT)

Today, a determination has to be made about the Palestinian demands they put forth just to enter into "good faith" negotiations.

The Palestinians have compiled a new list of demands for the continuation of peace talks, the list of demands are: (Article: Palestinians publish new list of demands: PM must agree to East Jerusalem as capital, Elior Levy, Published: 04.03.14, Israel News)

1. A written commitment by Prime Minister Benjamin Netnayahu that the borders of the Palestinian state will be along the 1967 'green-line' and that its capital will be East Jerusalem.
2. The release of 1,200 Palestinian prisoners, including political heavyweights Marwan Barghouti, Ahmed Saadat and Fuad Shubkhi.
3. An end to the Egyptian-Israeli blockade on Gaza, and the formulation of dealing allowing the flow of goods into Gaza.
4. A halt in construction in East Jerusalem.
5. The IDF will not be allowed to enter Area A – the area of the West Bank under autonomous PA control since the Oslo Accords – to conduct arrests or assassinations
6. Israel will permit the PA control over Area C – currently under Israel's control.
7. The Palestinians known as the Church of Nativity deportees – a group of terrorist who barricaded themselves in the Church of the Nativity on April 2, 2002 and were later deported to European nations and the Gaza Strip – will be allowed to return to the West Bank.
8. The reopening of a number of Palestinian development agencies Israel shut down.

Are these legitimate demands as a prerequisite to "good faith negotiations" for peace? Or, is this some kind of devious means at subterfuge --- to break-down the negotiation process? There is a question as to whether the Palestinians ever wanted to employ peaceful means as a foundation for settlement.

Should Israel just step back from the process and allow the current path of events to unfold as they are? (Maintain the status quo.)

If Israel does not meet these negotiation demands, what benefit does a break-down in the negotiations give the Arab Palestinian.

How do these demands help?

Most Respectfully,
R

Look at Israel's pre-conditions.

1)The Palestinians must surrender.
2) They must disarm.
3) No refugees.
4) No Jerusalem.
5) Settlements will stay.
6) Israel will control all imports and exports.
7) Israel will control all travel and tourism.
8) Israel recognized as a Jewish state.​

OK, so who isn't serious?

 

[montelatici]

An interesting response I saw on another forum:

"Brofor, I think you are living in fantasy land, besides important red lines in the Likud charter which make the establishment of a Palestinian state impossible, the people in power have absolutely no inclination to allow a Palestinian state to be established. The Israelis will never give up the Jordan Valley which is a third of the West Bank and will not give up the West Bank settlements. There is no room for a Palestinian state, why don't you just look at the situation logically from just a geographical point of view. It cannot happen.

"The Jordan Valley must be placed under Israeli sovereignty,"

Deputy Foreign Minister: Jordan Valley must be under Israeli sovereignty | JPost | Israel News





LIKUD Platform:

a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”



b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”

c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”

d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.”

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you are a little bit behind the times. Forget 1937! Come back to the living and the current situation.

The two state solution was first put on the table in 1937. Since then there has been a world wide drumbeat to implement this solution. "Everybody knows" that the two state solution will bring peace.

It is the epitome of insanity.

(OBSERVATION)

Considering that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States, in accordance with the Charter, is of the greatest importance for the maintenance of international peace and security and for the implementation of the other purposes of the United Nations,​

States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

SOURCE: Rule of Law - A/RES/25/2625

(COMMENT)

Today, a determination has to be made about the Palestinian demands they put forth just to enter into "good faith" negotiations.

The Palestinians have compiled a new list of demands for the continuation of peace talks, the list of demands are: (Article: Palestinians publish new list of demands: PM must agree to East Jerusalem as capital, Elior Levy, Published: 04.03.14, Israel News)

1. A written commitment by Prime Minister Benjamin Netnayahu that the borders of the Palestinian state will be along the 1967 'green-line' and that its capital will be East Jerusalem.
2. The release of 1,200 Palestinian prisoners, including political heavyweights Marwan Barghouti, Ahmed Saadat and Fuad Shubkhi.
3. An end to the Egyptian-Israeli blockade on Gaza, and the formulation of dealing allowing the flow of goods into Gaza.
4. A halt in construction in East Jerusalem.
5. The IDF will not be allowed to enter Area A – the area of the West Bank under autonomous PA control since the Oslo Accords – to conduct arrests or assassinations
6. Israel will permit the PA control over Area C – currently under Israel's control.
7. The Palestinians known as the Church of Nativity deportees – a group of terrorist who barricaded themselves in the Church of the Nativity on April 2, 2002 and were later deported to European nations and the Gaza Strip – will be allowed to return to the West Bank.
8. The reopening of a number of Palestinian development agencies Israel shut down.

Are these legitimate demands as a prerequisite to "good faith negotiations" for peace? Or, is this some kind of devious means at subterfuge --- to break-down the negotiation process? There is a question as to whether the Palestinians ever wanted to employ peaceful means as a foundation for settlement.

Should Israel just step back from the process and allow the current path of events to unfold as they are? (Maintain the status quo.)

If Israel does not meet these negotiation demands, what benefit does a break-down in the negotiations give the Arab Palestinian.

How do these demands help?

Most Respectfully,
R

Look at Israel's pre-conditions.

1)The Palestinians must surrender.
2) They must disarm.
3) No refugees.
4) No Jerusalem.
5) Settlements will stay.
6) Israel will control all imports and exports.
7) Israel will control all travel and tourism.
8) Israel recognized as a Jewish state.​

OK, so who isn't serious?

Tinmore is forgetting to tell us about his beloved Hamas charter preconditions

-the only solution is the destruction of the state of Israel.
-no peace treaties or negotiations will be accepted
-negotiations will be accepted only as a tool to deceive the enemy
- Israel will be replaced by an Islamic shithole Khalifate of Palestine
- nazis were right about Jews
-terror and murder is sanctioned by Allah, we ask all Muslims to join us in the slaughter of the Jews.
-after Israel is destroyed, Palestinians will follow barbaric shariah law for animals.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you are a little bit behind the times. Forget 1937! Come back to the living and the current situation.

The two state solution was first put on the table in 1937. Since then there has been a world wide drumbeat to implement this solution. "Everybody knows" that the two state solution will bring peace.

It is the epitome of insanity.

(OBSERVATION)

Considering that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States, in accordance with the Charter, is of the greatest importance for the maintenance of international peace and security and for the implementation of the other purposes of the United Nations,​

States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

SOURCE: Rule of Law - A/RES/25/2625

(COMMENT)

Today, a determination has to be made about the Palestinian demands they put forth just to enter into "good faith" negotiations.

The Palestinians have compiled a new list of demands for the continuation of peace talks, the list of demands are: (Article: Palestinians publish new list of demands: PM must agree to East Jerusalem as capital, Elior Levy, Published: 04.03.14, Israel News)

1. A written commitment by Prime Minister Benjamin Netnayahu that the borders of the Palestinian state will be along the 1967 'green-line' and that its capital will be East Jerusalem.
2. The release of 1,200 Palestinian prisoners, including political heavyweights Marwan Barghouti, Ahmed Saadat and Fuad Shubkhi.
3. An end to the Egyptian-Israeli blockade on Gaza, and the formulation of dealing allowing the flow of goods into Gaza.
4. A halt in construction in East Jerusalem.
5. The IDF will not be allowed to enter Area A – the area of the West Bank under autonomous PA control since the Oslo Accords – to conduct arrests or assassinations
6. Israel will permit the PA control over Area C – currently under Israel's control.
7. The Palestinians known as the Church of Nativity deportees – a group of terrorist who barricaded themselves in the Church of the Nativity on April 2, 2002 and were later deported to European nations and the Gaza Strip – will be allowed to return to the West Bank.
8. The reopening of a number of Palestinian development agencies Israel shut down.

Are these legitimate demands as a prerequisite to "good faith negotiations" for peace? Or, is this some kind of devious means at subterfuge --- to break-down the negotiation process? There is a question as to whether the Palestinians ever wanted to employ peaceful means as a foundation for settlement.

Should Israel just step back from the process and allow the current path of events to unfold as they are? (Maintain the status quo.)

If Israel does not meet these negotiation demands, what benefit does a break-down in the negotiations give the Arab Palestinian.

How do these demands help?

Most Respectfully,
R

Look at Israel's pre-conditions.

1)The Palestinians must surrender.
2) They must disarm.
3) No refugees.
4) No Jerusalem.
5) Settlements will stay.
6) Israel will control all imports and exports.
7) Israel will control all travel and tourism.
8) Israel recognized as a Jewish state.​

OK, so who isn't serious?

Got a link for 1,5,6 and 7?
For 5 , Netanyahu said some settlements will stay not all.

 

[Phoenall]

The two state solution was first put on the table in 1937. Since then there has been a world wide drumbeat to implement this solution. "Everybody knows" that the two state solution will bring peace.

It is the epitome of insanity.

Link from a reliable unbiased source please ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you are a little bit behind the times. Forget 1937! Come back to the living and the current situation.

The two state solution was first put on the table in 1937. Since then there has been a world wide drumbeat to implement this solution. "Everybody knows" that the two state solution will bring peace.

It is the epitome of insanity.

(OBSERVATION)

Considering that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States, in accordance with the Charter, is of the greatest importance for the maintenance of international peace and security and for the implementation of the other purposes of the United Nations,​

States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

SOURCE: Rule of Law - A/RES/25/2625

(COMMENT)

Today, a determination has to be made about the Palestinian demands they put forth just to enter into "good faith" negotiations.

The Palestinians have compiled a new list of demands for the continuation of peace talks, the list of demands are: (Article: Palestinians publish new list of demands: PM must agree to East Jerusalem as capital, Elior Levy, Published: 04.03.14, Israel News)

1. A written commitment by Prime Minister Benjamin Netnayahu that the borders of the Palestinian state will be along the 1967 'green-line' and that its capital will be East Jerusalem.
2. The release of 1,200 Palestinian prisoners, including political heavyweights Marwan Barghouti, Ahmed Saadat and Fuad Shubkhi.
3. An end to the Egyptian-Israeli blockade on Gaza, and the formulation of dealing allowing the flow of goods into Gaza.
4. A halt in construction in East Jerusalem.
5. The IDF will not be allowed to enter Area A – the area of the West Bank under autonomous PA control since the Oslo Accords – to conduct arrests or assassinations
6. Israel will permit the PA control over Area C – currently under Israel's control.
7. The Palestinians known as the Church of Nativity deportees – a group of terrorist who barricaded themselves in the Church of the Nativity on April 2, 2002 and were later deported to European nations and the Gaza Strip – will be allowed to return to the West Bank.
8. The reopening of a number of Palestinian development agencies Israel shut down.

Are these legitimate demands as a prerequisite to "good faith negotiations" for peace? Or, is this some kind of devious means at subterfuge --- to break-down the negotiation process? There is a question as to whether the Palestinians ever wanted to employ peaceful means as a foundation for settlement.

Should Israel just step back from the process and allow the current path of events to unfold as they are? (Maintain the status quo.)

If Israel does not meet these negotiation demands, what benefit does a break-down in the negotiations give the Arab Palestinian.

How do these demands help?

Most Respectfully,
R

Look at Israel's pre-conditions.

1)The Palestinians must surrender.
2) They must disarm.
3) No refugees.
4) No Jerusalem.
5) Settlements will stay.
6) Israel will control all imports and exports.
7) Israel will control all travel and tourism.
8) Israel recognized as a Jewish state.​

OK, so who isn't serious?

Link from a reliable unbiased source to prove your post please ?

 

[Roudy]

So if you don't think the two state solution would work, you are pro one state solution?

Tinmore is a Hamas spokesperson, so yes he believes in a one state solution. An Islamic Palestinian state on top of the ruins of a destroyed Israel.

We all have a right to our own fantasies I guess.

 

[Phoenall]

An interesting response I saw on another forum:

"Brofor, I think you are living in fantasy land, besides important red lines in the Likud charter which make the establishment of a Palestinian state impossible, the people in power have absolutely no inclination to allow a Palestinian state to be established. The Israelis will never give up the Jordan Valley which is a third of the West Bank and will not give up the West Bank settlements. There is no room for a Palestinian state, why don't you just look at the situation logically from just a geographical point of view. It cannot happen.

"The Jordan Valley must be placed under Israeli sovereignty,"

Deputy Foreign Minister: Jordan Valley must be under Israeli sovereignty | JPost | Israel News





LIKUD Platform:

a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”



b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”

c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”

d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.”

And under a democracy those could be changed overnight to something more appealing to everyone. You being an ISLAMONAZI do not understand that democracy is the will of the people, and the people can remove the politicians that they feel are not representing them properly.
The fact that there is already a Palestinian state west of the Jordan river and that it has its capital in East Jerusalem shows that the above is a complete fabrication

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure where you got this information. But, the current talks, which started last year, had something different.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday he would be willing to launch direct peace negotiations with the Palestinians without preconditions in order to reach a historic agreement that would end the conflict.

Speaking to reporters in Warsaw alongside Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Netanyahu said the time has come to end the "squabbling over preconditions" and resume negotiations.

SOURCE: Attila Somfalvi, AP Published: 06.12.13, Israel News

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you are a little bit behind the times. Forget 1937! Come back to the living and the current situation.

The two state solution was first put on the table in 1937. Since then there has been a world wide drumbeat to implement this solution. "Everybody knows" that the two state solution will bring peace.

It is the epitome of insanity.

(OBSERVATION)

Considering that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States, in accordance with the Charter, is of the greatest importance for the maintenance of international peace and security and for the implementation of the other purposes of the United Nations,​

States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

SOURCE: Rule of Law - A/RES/25/2625

(COMMENT)

Today, a determination has to be made about the Palestinian demands they put forth just to enter into "good faith" negotiations.

The Palestinians have compiled a new list of demands for the continuation of peace talks, the list of demands are: (Article: Palestinians publish new list of demands: PM must agree to East Jerusalem as capital, Elior Levy, Published: 04.03.14, Israel News)

1. A written commitment by Prime Minister Benjamin Netnayahu that the borders of the Palestinian state will be along the 1967 'green-line' and that its capital will be East Jerusalem.
2. The release of 1,200 Palestinian prisoners, including political heavyweights Marwan Barghouti, Ahmed Saadat and Fuad Shubkhi.
3. An end to the Egyptian-Israeli blockade on Gaza, and the formulation of dealing allowing the flow of goods into Gaza.
4. A halt in construction in East Jerusalem.
5. The IDF will not be allowed to enter Area A – the area of the West Bank under autonomous PA control since the Oslo Accords – to conduct arrests or assassinations
6. Israel will permit the PA control over Area C – currently under Israel's control.
7. The Palestinians known as the Church of Nativity deportees – a group of terrorist who barricaded themselves in the Church of the Nativity on April 2, 2002 and were later deported to European nations and the Gaza Strip – will be allowed to return to the West Bank.
8. The reopening of a number of Palestinian development agencies Israel shut down.

Are these legitimate demands as a prerequisite to "good faith negotiations" for peace? Or, is this some kind of devious means at subterfuge --- to break-down the negotiation process? There is a question as to whether the Palestinians ever wanted to employ peaceful means as a foundation for settlement.

Should Israel just step back from the process and allow the current path of events to unfold as they are? (Maintain the status quo.)

If Israel does not meet these negotiation demands, what benefit does a break-down in the negotiations give the Arab Palestinian.

How do these demands help?

Most Respectfully,
R

Look at Israel's pre-conditions.

1)The Palestinians must surrender.
2) They must disarm.
3) No refugees.
4) No Jerusalem.
5) Settlements will stay.
6) Israel will control all imports and exports.
7) Israel will control all travel and tourism.
8) Israel recognized as a Jewish state.​

OK, so who isn't serious?

(COMMENT)

These are not pre-conditions to the continuation of talks. I'm not sure where you get that from! All the Israeli pre-conditions were dropped last July.

The downward spiral on the talks was initiated when the last of the agreed upon prisoner releases was held-up because the Palestinians were planning to discontinue further negotiations. Israel wanted assurances that if the release was carried-out, the Palestinian would then terminate the talks. The Palestinians have been the "bad faith" partners in the talks from the beginning.

(SIDEBAR)

I (personally) agree that Justice Minister Tzipi Livni has been handicapped by the limitations and directions placed on her negotiating team by some of the decisions coming from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But this is a domestic matter for the Israelis to consider and evaluate.

Time is on the side of the Israelis. The longer it takes for each side to enter into "good faith" negotiations with a willingness to compromise, the worse the situation becomes for the Palestinians. Neither Fatah or HAMAS are acting in the best interest of the Palestinian People. But, then one can say (similarly) that Likud Party (Chairman Netanyahu) is really not acting in the best interest of Israel and the establishment of peace.

The Israelis will have to decide whether they want to continue along this same path, or if they want to break the mold and try something different.

In any event, unlike Secretary of State John Kerry, I don't blame Israel for the breakdown in the talks. I don't believe that either side really wanted to make the hard choices in compromises that would be necessary for a peace settlement in the disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The two state solution was first put on the table in 1937. Since then there has been a world wide drumbeat to implement this solution. "Everybody knows" that the two state solution will bring peace.

It is the epitome of insanity.

Link from a reliable unbiased source please ?

What part do you question?

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you are a little bit behind the times. Forget 1937! Come back to the living and the current situation.


(OBSERVATION)


(COMMENT)

Today, a determination has to be made about the Palestinian demands they put forth just to enter into "good faith" negotiations.

The Palestinians have compiled a new list of demands for the continuation of peace talks, the list of demands are: (Article: Palestinians publish new list of demands: PM must agree to East Jerusalem as capital, Elior Levy, Published: 04.03.14, Israel News)

1. A written commitment by Prime Minister Benjamin Netnayahu that the borders of the Palestinian state will be along the 1967 'green-line' and that its capital will be East Jerusalem.
2. The release of 1,200 Palestinian prisoners, including political heavyweights Marwan Barghouti, Ahmed Saadat and Fuad Shubkhi.
3. An end to the Egyptian-Israeli blockade on Gaza, and the formulation of dealing allowing the flow of goods into Gaza.
4. A halt in construction in East Jerusalem.
5. The IDF will not be allowed to enter Area A – the area of the West Bank under autonomous PA control since the Oslo Accords – to conduct arrests or assassinations
6. Israel will permit the PA control over Area C – currently under Israel's control.
7. The Palestinians known as the Church of Nativity deportees – a group of terrorist who barricaded themselves in the Church of the Nativity on April 2, 2002 and were later deported to European nations and the Gaza Strip – will be allowed to return to the West Bank.
8. The reopening of a number of Palestinian development agencies Israel shut down.

Are these legitimate demands as a prerequisite to "good faith negotiations" for peace? Or, is this some kind of devious means at subterfuge --- to break-down the negotiation process? There is a question as to whether the Palestinians ever wanted to employ peaceful means as a foundation for settlement.

Should Israel just step back from the process and allow the current path of events to unfold as they are? (Maintain the status quo.)

If Israel does not meet these negotiation demands, what benefit does a break-down in the negotiations give the Arab Palestinian.

How do these demands help?

Most Respectfully,
R

Look at Israel's pre-conditions.

1)The Palestinians must surrender.
2) They must disarm.
3) No refugees.
4) No Jerusalem.
5) Settlements will stay.
6) Israel will control all imports and exports.
7) Israel will control all travel and tourism.
8) Israel recognized as a Jewish state.​

OK, so who isn't serious?

Got a link for 1,5,6 and 7?
For 5 , Netanyahu said some settlements will stay not all.

He read it on his favorite newspaper, The Hamas Tribune. Ha ha ha.

 

[Roudy]

The two state solution was first put on the table in 1937. Since then there has been a world wide drumbeat to implement this solution. "Everybody knows" that the two state solution will bring peace.

It is the epitome of insanity.

Link from a reliable unbiased source please ?

What part do you question?

Wow, what a convincing response. You sound like a liar who just got cornered.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure where you got this information. But, the current talks, which started last year, had something different.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday he would be willing to launch direct peace negotiations with the Palestinians without preconditions in order to reach a historic agreement that would end the conflict.

Speaking to reporters in Warsaw alongside Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Netanyahu said the time has come to end the "squabbling over preconditions" and resume negotiations.

SOURCE: Attila Somfalvi, AP Published: 06.12.13, Israel News

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you are a little bit behind the times. Forget 1937! Come back to the living and the current situation.


(OBSERVATION)


(COMMENT)

Today, a determination has to be made about the Palestinian demands they put forth just to enter into "good faith" negotiations.

The Palestinians have compiled a new list of demands for the continuation of peace talks, the list of demands are: (Article: Palestinians publish new list of demands: PM must agree to East Jerusalem as capital, Elior Levy, Published: 04.03.14, Israel News)

1. A written commitment by Prime Minister Benjamin Netnayahu that the borders of the Palestinian state will be along the 1967 'green-line' and that its capital will be East Jerusalem.
2. The release of 1,200 Palestinian prisoners, including political heavyweights Marwan Barghouti, Ahmed Saadat and Fuad Shubkhi.
3. An end to the Egyptian-Israeli blockade on Gaza, and the formulation of dealing allowing the flow of goods into Gaza.
4. A halt in construction in East Jerusalem.
5. The IDF will not be allowed to enter Area A – the area of the West Bank under autonomous PA control since the Oslo Accords – to conduct arrests or assassinations
6. Israel will permit the PA control over Area C – currently under Israel's control.
7. The Palestinians known as the Church of Nativity deportees – a group of terrorist who barricaded themselves in the Church of the Nativity on April 2, 2002 and were later deported to European nations and the Gaza Strip – will be allowed to return to the West Bank.
8. The reopening of a number of Palestinian development agencies Israel shut down.

Are these legitimate demands as a prerequisite to "good faith negotiations" for peace? Or, is this some kind of devious means at subterfuge --- to break-down the negotiation process? There is a question as to whether the Palestinians ever wanted to employ peaceful means as a foundation for settlement.

Should Israel just step back from the process and allow the current path of events to unfold as they are? (Maintain the status quo.)

If Israel does not meet these negotiation demands, what benefit does a break-down in the negotiations give the Arab Palestinian.

How do these demands help?

Most Respectfully,
R

Look at Israel's pre-conditions.

1)The Palestinians must surrender.
2) They must disarm.
3) No refugees.
4) No Jerusalem.
5) Settlements will stay.
6) Israel will control all imports and exports.
7) Israel will control all travel and tourism.
8) Israel recognized as a Jewish state.​

OK, so who isn't serious?

(COMMENT)

These are not pre-conditions to the continuation of talks. I'm not sure where you get that from! All the Israeli pre-conditions were dropped last July.

The downward spiral on the talks was initiated when the last of the agreed upon prisoner releases was held-up because the Palestinians were planning to discontinue further negotiations. Israel wanted assurances that if the release was carried-out, the Palestinian would then terminate the talks. The Palestinians have been the "bad faith" partners in the talks from the beginning.

(SIDEBAR)

I (personally) agree that Justice Minister Tzipi Livni has been handicapped by the limitations and directions placed on her negotiating team by some of the decisions coming from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But this is a domestic matter for the Israelis to consider and evaluate.

Time is on the side of the Israelis. The longer it takes for each side to enter into "good faith" negotiations with a willingness to compromise, the worse the situation becomes for the Palestinians. Neither Fatah or HAMAS are acting in the best interest of the Palestinian People. But, then one can say (similarly) that Likud Party (Chairman Netanyahu) is really not acting in the best interest of Israel and the establishment of peace.

The Israelis will have to decide whether they want to continue along this same path, or if they want to break the mold and try something different.

In any event, unlike Secretary of State John Kerry, I don't blame Israel for the breakdown in the talks. I don't believe that either side really wanted to make the hard choices in compromises that would be necessary for a peace settlement in the disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R

All the Israeli pre-conditions were dropped last July.

Is Israel going to allow Palestinians to have personal weapons and an army?
Is Israel going to allow return of the refugees?
Is Israel going to give up the Jordan valley?
Will East Jerusalem be the capital of Palestine?

Israel gave up those preconditions?
Got a link?

 

[montelatici]

An interesting response I saw on another forum:

"Brofor, I think you are living in fantasy land, besides important red lines in the Likud charter which make the establishment of a Palestinian state impossible, the people in power have absolutely no inclination to allow a Palestinian state to be established. The Israelis will never give up the Jordan Valley which is a third of the West Bank and will not give up the West Bank settlements. There is no room for a Palestinian state, why don't you just look at the situation logically from just a geographical point of view. It cannot happen.

"The Jordan Valley must be placed under Israeli sovereignty,"

Deputy Foreign Minister: Jordan Valley must be under Israeli sovereignty | JPost | Israel News





LIKUD Platform:

a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”



b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”

c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”

d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.”

And under a democracy those could be changed overnight to something more appealing to everyone. You being an ISLAMONAZI do not understand that democracy is the will of the people, and the people can remove the politicians that they feel are not representing them properly.
The fact that there is already a Palestinian state west of the Jordan river and that it has its capital in East Jerusalem shows that the above is a complete fabrication

So, there is a Palestinian state and its capital is East Jerusalem. I will tell the author of that post I quoted that he is full of it.