Abbas Rejects U.S. Peace Proposal, Again

[Mosby]

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rejected a peace initiative proposed by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on Wednesday, the Palestinian newspaper Al Quds reported. The deal included a Palestinian capital in eastern Jerusalem and a moratorium on West Bank construction in exchange for recognizing Israel as a Jewish state and relinquishing the Palestinian “right of return.”

The dismissal of Biden’s reported offer follows an almost 20-year history of Palestinians rejecting peace proposals. In July 2000 at Camp David, former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat rejected Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s offer of 92% of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip, along with a capital in eastern Jerusalem. After he left office, President Bill Clinton made it clear that Arafat was to blame for the failure of the Camp David Summit. Arafat responded to the offer by launching the Second Intifada.

In 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert presented Abbas with a proposal for a peace agreement. It was also rejected. In an interview a year later, Abbas said he refused the offer because “the gaps were wide.” (Abbas again admitted his rejection of Olmert’s offer last year.) In March 2014, Israel accepted Secretary of State John Kerry’s framework for continued peace negotiations and agreed to proceed on the basis of it, while Abbas rejected it and the next month formed a unity government with the Iran-backed terror organization Hamas. In September 2015, Netanyahu stated that he was willing to restart talks at anytime without preconditions. The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, responded by calling Netanyahu’s bid a “PR stunt” and rejected the offer.

http://www.thetower.org/abbas-rejects-u-s-peace-proposal-again/

Why negotiate when you have a successful intifada going that the media can't get enough of.

[BillZBubb]

1. Geez another give Israel everything it wants "peace deal" is turned down.

Who could have seen that coming? Biden should be ashamed for even proposing such a lopsided fantasy.

[King_David]

2. Obviously your clueless on this topic

A state with East Jerusalem as capital?

Palestinians ain't ever ever ever gonna get more than that ever ... If ever....

[aranthus]

4. There are people (see responses in this thread),

who will fight to destroy the Jewish state if it takes to the last Palestinian.

[6chars]

7. Exactly

There have been generations of Palestinians born and died while their leaders and the supporters of their leaders reject a state.

[King_David]

10. At least come clean with it,

Stop the pretense, they not suporting 2 States, they supporting one Palestinian state and no Jewish state.

[Israeli]

12. The most religious Right wing Gov in our history ....

....is going to give them East Jerusalem as a capital?

Anybody foolish enough to believe that needs their heads examined .

Rightist Group Boosting Efforts to Evict Arabs, Settle Jews in East Jerusalem

Ateret Cohanim now has 12 suits in the court system to evict over 300 East Jerusalem residents from their homes.

Nir Hasson Mar 11, 2016

An organization that settles Jews in Arab areas of East Jerusalem has filed six suits in recent months to evict 27 Palestinian families from their homes in the Silwan neighborhood.

These latest suits by Ateret Cohanim, filed in the last four months, bring the total number of such suits now moving through the courts to 12. Altogether, the 12 suits affect 51 families made up of more than 300 people. The names of all the people involved in the suits are under a court-approved gag order.

Security for each Jewish family now living in Silwan costs the state about 1 million shekels ($260,000) a year.

All the land at issue was purchased by a Jewish trust more than a century ago for the purpose of housing Jewish immigrants from Yemen. Ateret Cohanim obtained control over the land in 2001, when it successfully asked the Jerusalem District Court, with backing from the Justice Ministry’s administrator general, to appoint it as the trust’s trustee, on the grounds that the original trustees – appointed back in 1899 – could no longer fulfill their role.

In 2004, Ateret Cohanim began settling Jewish families in Silwan’s Beit Yonatan building. Ever since, it has worked to evict Palestinians living on the trust’s land, both by filing suits and by offering families generous compensation to leave voluntarily.

So far, the organization has settled 10 Jewish families in Beit Yonatan. Over the past year, it has emptied another 13 apartments in Silwan, but most haven’t yet gotten new tenants.

A few months ago, however, it apparently decided to begin a concerted legal effort to clear all the land it controls of its Palestinian residents. Most of the 60 families targeted have lived there for decades.

Attorney Ziad Kawar, one of a team of lawyers representing most of the Palestinian families, said he believes Ateret Cohanim is filing the suits now for fear that if it waits, the statute of limitations will expire. The organization obtained control of the land in November 2001, he noted, and the statute of limitations on unresolved land issues is 15 years, “so they have to file all the suits by November 2016.”

Kawar, however, argues that the statute of limitations should have expired long ago, because the administrator general was aware of these lands but made no effort to take control of them.

Another unresolved legal question is whether the land really remained in Jewish hands after the Yemenite Jews left the neighborhood in the late 1930s during the Arab Revolt. Moreover, some of the Palestinians claim to have bought their plots from the Jewish owners, while others claim their plots aren’t actually the ones mentioned in the original Ottoman-era deeds.

Finally, the Palestinians argue that Jews shouldn’t be allowed to regain property lost in the 1948 War of Independence as long as Palestinians aren’t allowed to do the same. During that war, Jordan conquered East Jerusalem and expelled its Jewish residents, while many Palestinians fled or were driven from the city’s western part.

“My father had a house in the [Old City’s] Jewish Quarter,” said Zuheir Rajbi, a Silwan resident. “If they want to remove me from here, then I want it back.”
“Israel, by means of discriminatory legislation, is helping to establish settlements in the heart of East Jerusalem and turning the many Palestinian refugees who live [in Silwan] into refugees once again,” added attorney Muhammad Dahleh, Kawar’s colleague.

Moving more Jews into Silwan would also have far-reaching security and budgetary implications. Jewish residents of the area have repeatedly had their houses and cars stoned or firebombed, and they can only leave home in armored cars accompanied by an armed guard.

Last year, the state spent 83 million shekels to guard Jews living in Palestinian neighborhoods of Jerusalem, while this year, the figure is expected to be 74 million shekels. A source familiar with the issue said the cost of security for Jews in the part of Silwan where Ateret Cohanim operates comes to 12 million shekels a year – about one million shekels per family. This budget, which comes from the Housing Ministry, doesn’t include the extra costs to the police.

Nor is Ateret Cohanim the only organization moving Jews into Silwan. Elad, for instance, has settled 25 families in a different part of Silwan over the past 18 months.

Attorney Avraham Moshe Segal, who represents the trust, said the courts had ruled it to be the sole owner of the land in question, and therefore, “all the squatters against whom suits have been filed ought to vacate the land voluntarily. My client, going beyond the letter of the law, is even willing to compensate the squatters who vacate the trust’s land voluntarily.”

The Ir Amim organization, which is helping the Palestinian residents, said that settler organizations, “under the auspices of a discriminatory system, are dispossessing and uprooting the Palestinian community from its houses, and dispossessing Israel of any chance of a future diplomatic solution.”

Source : http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.708243

[shira]

9. Yeah right. Now stop pretending you're for a Palestinian state, okay?

Obviously you're not when you want Israel gone more than you want a Palestinian state.

[oberliner]

17. East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state is not what Israel wants

Yet that was the first clause of the initiative.

[Little Tich]

3. Was Biden at least gracious enough to offer Abbas a tissue after spitting in his face?

That offer means literally giving away the Palestinian birthright and getting nothing in return. A temporary moratorium on building in the illegal settlements for permanently giving up the right of return is what I would call a blatant scam. Perhaps it would've been better if Biden just had stayed home.

[sabbat hunter]

5. If the Palestinians

really think there will be a return of all the Palestinians that left what is now Israel (be it they were forced out, left on their own, or left at the behest of Arab generals on the ground), they are kidding themselves.

Best case scenario is that a small token ( couple of thousand) are allowed back, while the rest are compensated monetarily (while all the jews who were forced out of Arab countries at the same time are compensated as well)..

But as far as a full right of return? Never going to happen. It would mean teh death of Israel, and only one state from sea to river, Palestine.

[Little Tich]

6. When it comes to the question of a future return of the Palestinian refugees, it's possible it will

solve itself.

A few more years with the current Israeli policies will make the one-state solution the only possible outcome. In that case, there will be only one state for Palestinians and Jews to return to.

I have a nagging feeling that Biden somehow made a strategic mistake by coming to Israel, and in a time when the Palestinians desperately need help to stop the current violence and convince Netanyahu to stop making things worse, Biden swoops in and offers some scam proposal with no understanding of the situation whatsoever. Should the Palestinian leadership believe that the White House has given up on a two-state solution and that there will be no criticism whatsoever of Netanyahu's handling of the current situation?

[shira]

8. We get it already, okay? You're against 2 states & peace...

That's why you're against any 2 state proposal ever proposed & against any Palestinian concessions that would lead to peace.

[Little Tich]

18. For me, you are the one-stater in this thread, not me.

Last edited Sat Mar 12, 2016, 10:19 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm against any two-state solution that doesn't result in two viable states. I oppose everything that makes the one-state solution inevitable; the settlements, the occupation and the diligent efforts of Netanyahu to make the two-state solution forever non-viable.There's no chance whatsoever for a viable state in what's left of Palestine, therefore, the bi-national state is the only viable option.

Do you have anything to support your view that the two-state solution is still a viable option, and not just a scam?

[shira]

28. Not buying it. You reject every offer from 1937 to 2008.

None have been good enough because they keep the state of Israel intact.

[Little Tich]

30. What about the Arab Peace Initiative from 2002?

It's been on the table ever since, but Israel hasn't responded to it in any meaningful way. It's just for everyone involved, and is completely in line with the UN resolutions. "The initiative calls for normalizing relations between the Arab region and Israel, in exchange for a complete withdrawal by Israel from the occupied territories (including East Jerusalem) and a "just settlement" of the Palestinian refugee problem based on UN Resolution 194." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative)

I'm not against proposals that lead to a working solution, just the bad ones that don't.

[shira]

31. In 2013, land swaps were voted into the Arab Peace Initiative

You support that?

[azurnoir]

32. Israel rejected that out of hand

excu err reasoning here:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/why-is-israel-so-afraid-of-the-arab-peace-initiative/

[shira]

33. Abbas rejected that out of hand WRT Olmert. Arafat WRT Clinton Initiatives 2001

But the point is there's no 2 state deal any Israel hating BDS'er would agree to going back nearly 80 years.

Not one.

[azurnoir]

34. Abbas was not in power during the Clinton era and must we really revisit Olmert-again

well okay if you insist -

Netanyahu: I won't carry out an Olmert-Abbas peace deal if elected

Opposition leader favored by polls to sweep elections if held today rejects proposal to divide Jerusalem, says would toss out agreement between current PM, Palestinians

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3533242,00.html

Shaul Arieli of the Council for Peace and Security, which developed a map with a final border as part of the Geneva Initiative, said Israel's capacity to swap territory with a future Palestinian state is more limited than what Olmert reportedly proposed.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-exclusive-olmert-s-plan-for-peace-with-the-palestinians-1.1970

Nabil Abu Rdainah, Abbas's spokesman, told the official Palestinian news agency WAFA that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's plan showed a "lack of seriousness."

Under the proposal, Israel would return to the Palestinians 93 percent of the West Bank, plus all of the Gaza Strip, when the Palestinian Authority regains control over the Gaza Strip, which the militant group Hamas seized from forces loyal to Abbas in June 2006.

Olmert presented Abbas with the proposal as part of an agreement in principle on borders, refugees and security arrangements between Israel and a future Palestinian state

http://www.haaretz.com/news/pa-rejects-olmert-s-offer-to-withdraw-from-93-of-west-bank-1.251578

Livni tells France's Kouchner: I oppose Olmert's peace plan

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told her French counterpart Bernard Kouchner that she opposes the agreement in principle that outgoing prime minister Ehud Olmert has offered Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

"I do not believe in far-reaching proposals and an attempt to expedite matters, especially in light of the political situation," Livni, the prime minister-designate, told Kouchner on Sunday.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/livni-tells-france-s-kouchner-i-oppose-olmert-s-peace-plan-1.285402

eta Olmert resigned 8 days after presenting Abbas with this plan, there is little way this plan would have been finalized in 8 days, much less implemented.

[shira]

35. No deflecting. Which 2-state solution going back 80 years do u support? n/t

[azurnoir]

36. Lol perhaps you take your own advice :)

[shira]

39. You butted in, which is fine. But I was talking about Tich...

....and presumably yourself who cannot support any 2 state proposal going back 80 years.

You went off track.

[azurnoir]

40. you brought up Abbas Olmert comment #33 - I replied to that I replied comment #34

[King_David]

37. No deflecting you say?

It's all done to change the subject.
It's uncomfortable...

[azurnoir]

42. No need when the subject has been debunked

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134125965#post29

[King_David]

43. Debunked by you?

That was really good

Ha ha ha ha

[azurnoir]

44. well let's take a look again mmmkay

The Tower makes a claim and links to a ToI* article as proof

which links to another ToI article as proof of the previous ToI story which links to a WSJ* story as proof of its claims , in the end it turns out this was something that is being considered along with another UNSC resolution. Note the Tower claims it's story came from al-Quds, yet strangely nowhere is that verified in fact as one digs deeper one finds the story is actually based on hearsay and speculation about what Obama might do before he leaves office -deflect? no it appears there is nothing substancial to deflect from

link from the Tower (btw The Tower article is an uncredited almost verbatim repeat of the ToI article, no link to al-Quds at either)

http://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-said-to-reject-visiting-bidens-peace-idea/

link from above ToI article

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-may-back-un-resolution-outlining-principles-of-two-state-deal-report/

link to WSJ story

http://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-working-on-renewed-mideast-peace-push-1457389793

[King_David]

46. .

[azurnoir]

50. I support the one Abbas himself presented to the UN in 2011

[shira]

54. What are the details of this wonderful peace plan?

Are you sure he presented a 2-state peace plan at the UN in 2011?

[Little Tich]

47. Please provide an example of such a land swap so that can I understand what you mean.

For example, what would Israel give for a square foot in East Jerusalem for example?

[shira]

55. Your position is so hardline extreme, you oppose the Arab Peace Initiative...

....and Mahmoud Abbas for agreeing to land swaps.

Which just goes to show - again - that you oppose a 2 state solution. There is not one offer from the past 80 years you'd agree to.

[Little Tich]

59. I'm not against the Arab Peace Initiative, but it seems as if you are.

I just don't think there are any viable land swaps - the settlements are all in the wrong place, and there are no possible land swaps that would alleviate the negative effects they cause to nearby Palestinian communities. If you think there are possible land swaps, please provide an example, so that I can show you how wrong you are...

[shira]

61. You're against land swaps, which means you're against the Arab Peace Initiative.

I'm for a peaceful 2 state solution. I support every offer of 2 states going back before Israel's re-birth. So long as it results in peace. It's that simple.

I think you're for "justice" rather than peace.

[Little Tich]

62. It seems as if you've got difficulties forming a cogent argument about the land swaps.

The 2013 amendment of the Arab League peace plan wasn't really that much: "But, unlike in previous such offers, he cited the possibility of “comparable,” mutually agreed and “minor” land swaps between the Israelis and the Palestinians." (http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-sea-change-arab-league-backs-land-swaps-in-peace-talks/) I'm not against land swaps in principle, but the swaps must be equal and not make a prospective Palestinian state unviable even before it gets off the ground. So if Israel offers a square foot of Negev desert, they can swap it for a Palestinian square foot of desert, and if Israel wants a square foot of East Jerusalem, logically it would be swapped for a square foot in Western Jerusalem. For me that's pretty simple.

The problem is that due to the placement of the settlements, most, if not all of them can't be swapped, or there's simply no political will in Israel to propose an equal swap.

If you think that swaps are possible, please tell me how and where. As it is now, your argument has no substance whatsoever, and I'm not able to evaluate your argument without specifics on the land swaps.

[shira]

64. I'm pointing out the fact that no 2 state proposal would be good enough for you....

As for land swaps, here is the most recent offer from Olmert:

Olmert's proposed annexation to Israel of settlement blocs corresponds in large part to the route of the security fence. In his proposal for a territory swap, Olmert rejected suggestions previously raised involving the transfer to the Palestinians of the eastern Lachish hills, deciding instead to establish communities there for evacuees from the Gaza Strip. He also showed a preference for giving the Palestinians agricultural land over the transfer of the Halutza sands near the Egyptian border.

The implementation of the Olmert plan would require the evacuation of tens of thousands of settlers and the removal of hallmarks of the West Bank settlement enterprise such as Ofra, Beit El, Elon Moreh and Kiryat Arba, as well as the Jewish community in Hebron itself.

Olmert reached a verbal understanding with the Bush administration to the effect that Israel would receive American financial aid to develop the Negev and Galilee to absorb some of those settlers evacuated from the West Bank. Other evacuees would have been resettled in new apartments to be built in the settlement blocs that Israel would annex.

Olmert's office said in response to the disclosure of the plan: "On September 16, 2008, [Olmert] presented Palestinian Authority President Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] a map that had been prepared based upon dozens of conversations that the two held in the course of the intensive negotiations after the Annapolis summit. The map that was presented was designed to solve the problem of the borders between Israel and the future Palestinian state. Giving Abu Mazen the map was conditioned upon signing a comprehensive and final agreement with the Palestinians so it would not be used as an 'opening position' in future negotiations the Palestinians sought to conduct. Ultimately, when Abu Mazen did not give his consent to a final and complete agreement, the map was not given to him."

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/haaretz-exclusive-olmert-s-plan-for-peace-with-the-palestinians-1.1970

[Little Tich]

65. Wasn't that offer withdrawn when Netanyahu took over, or do you think it's still valid? n/t

[Little Tich]

67. It's not whether I would deign to accept a peace proposal or not, it's only about whether it's

viable or not.

What's the point of a two-state proposal that wouldn't lead to a viable Palestinian state? You haven't addressed that issue at all. I have no objections to any proposal that would lead to a viable Palestinian state, but OTOH I'm completely against any "two-state" proposal that wouldn't result in a viable Palestinian state. No amount of Negev desert given to Palestine in a swap can alleviate the fact that the settlements in their present locations are making a Palestinian state non-viable.

We're just going around in circles - you haven't been able to show me how any swaps would result in a viable Palestinian state, and it's getting tedious to ask you again.

[shira]

68. Here are 2 maps with 2 viable Palestinian states....

From 2000-2001. This is a viable state.





And here's Olmert's map of 2008. Even more viable as there's a connector from the W.Bank to Gaza.




You're out of excuses.

[Little Tich]

69. Those maps only prove my point.

According to Olmert's proposal, in what direction could East Jerusalem expand, and how can Jerusalem be connected with Betlehem, Jericho, Ramallah and Hebron when there are settlements in the way? Wouldn't Qalqiyah be completely hemmed in by settlements? I hope you understand that these towns and cities need to be connected and to be able to expand, or there won't be a viable Palestinian state. If the economic situation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem was different and less poverty stricken, it would prove me wrong to at least some extent, but things being what they are, I can say with some certainty that if Israel keeps most of the settlements in the heart of the West Bank that make things difficult for the Palestinians, there won't be a Palestinian state.

[shira]

70. Nonsense. If you're worried that the state isn't contiguous then see Olmert's....

...plan WRT connecting Gaza to the W.Bank.

The same could easily be done to connect everything within Palestine.

Just as some settlements would require the same, via highways or tunnels.

[Little Tich]

71. The GDP per capita in the West Bank is 1974 US$, in Gaza it's 876 US$.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_State_of_Palestine) East Jerusalem is an overcrowded slum where people survive on Israeli handouts. (http://www.acri.org.il/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/EJ-Facts-and-Figures-2015.pdf) How do you suggest a functional economy be built from this without removing the settlements and the restrictions they cause? I just can't see how it can be done, especially since the Palestinian GDP growth rate is -1.5%. (http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/westbankandgaza)

If the Palestinian GDP per capita was more like Jordan's 5,422 US$ (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD), perhaps it would be enough to be the economic base for a Palestinian state, at least in the beginning and with a lot of help. Then perhaps, the economic obstacle of the settlements could be overcome in some way, as the economy would be already viable, if a bit poor.

But the way things are now, if you can't show me where and how an economic miracle will happen that would turn the way things are going in Palestine completely around, I just won't believe there is a possibility for a viable Palestinian state.

[aranthus]

45. It's an example of a non-peace proposal.

You have to read it carefully. The proposal called for three things:

1. Normalized relations with Israel. So far, so good.

2. Complete withdrawal from all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Sounds reasonable as a starting oint, but it's what isn't said that is problematic. No mention of any Israeli security needs. No mention of any mechanism to maintain the safety of Jewish holy sites. No mention of maintaining free access. So it's okay as a starting point, but as the take it or leave proposal that was offered? No sane Israeli leader would accept it, and the Arabs knew it.

3. Implementing UNGAR 194. This is where they take back all the good stuff they said before. Have you read 194? Here it's code for Israel agreeing to the "Right of Return." Every knowledgeable honest person understands that means the end of the Jewish state. Certainly the Israelis understand it that way.

Again, the Arab leaders know all of this. So they knew before they made the proposal that there was no possible way that Israel could accept it. So it couldn't be and never was a serious peace proposal for two reasons. First, because if it was implemented, then the Israeli side wouldn't exist anymore. It's not a peace agreement if at the end of it, on side ceases to exist. Then it's really just a demand for total surrender. Second, because the Arab leaders knew that's what it was, and knew that Israel would never accept it. In short this was much more a propaganda ploy than a serious effort to bring about peace.

[Little Tich]

48. Is there any way the Arab Peace Initiative could be amended to become acceptable to Israel?

Perhaps the Palestinian refugees could be resettled somewhere else, like the US or Canada, and a permanent international force could be stationed in Palestine?

[aranthus]

56. I do not think that anything acceptable to Israel would be offered or accepted by the other side.

Take the Biden proposal for instance. Rejected by Abbas. And you think he was right to reject it. But what could be changed about the API so that Israel would accept it? Leaving aside the present government, I think that if it was up for a referendum, a majority of Israelis would accept the following:

1. Full withdrawal from the West Bank and the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.
2. Recognition of a Palestinian state by Israel and a Jewish state of Israel by Palestinians.
3. Renunciation of claims to return to Israel proper.

There is no way that the Arab states that offered the API would offer this. And if it was up for a referendum, the Palestinians would reject it.

[shira]

58. Add to that a #4 about legitimate security considerations (given Gaza). n/t

[Little Tich]

60. That wouldn't leave enough land for a viable Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem,

which would mean no viable Palestinian state. The Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would be completely surrounded by Jewish neighborhoods and no direct access to the West Bank. There would be no direction in which East Jerusalem could expand, and it would become a poverty ridden cul-de-sac with no hope for the future.

The current situation in East Jerusalem is already pretty bad; 75.4% of all Palestinian residents in East Jerusalem are living below the poverty line, Only 64% of households are officially connected to the water infrastructure, and the streets of entire neighborhoods are unnamed. (http://www.acri.org.il/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/EJ-Facts-and-Figures-2015.pdf) An Israeli withdrawal would only make things worse.

If Israel can't give up enough land for a viable Palestinian state, then it's time for plan B. I personally think the binational state is the only viable plan B, but there have been suggestions of unilateral withdrawals and convincing neighbouring states to take over the lands and people that Israel doesn't want. I suppose Israelis have to believe in something that will save the Jewish state. The current French involvement is interesting, but I think it will only prove that a two-state solution is no longer possible.

[shira]

63. The reason there aren't 2 states today is the same reason it didn't happen in 1947.

In 1947, there were no settlements. The Palestinans flat-out rejected 2 states.

Absolutely nothing has changed.

=======================================

As for your "viable" Plan B, one-state; I just posted this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134126189

There's your 1-secular state. Isn't it wonderful? And you think that's better than 2 states at this point.

Unreal.

[Little Tich]

66. I would like to point out that it's not always a good idea to draw a direct parallell between a

historical event and a current one.

The circumstances under which the partition of Palestine were rejected were different then than now, and besides, the Palestinians were not part of any decision-making regarding the partition plan - it was all done over their heads.

[Igel]

11. We heard that once already.

About Gaza.

When the dust settled, we had to really revise the meaning of the word "occupation" to be able to continue to use the same words in the same sentences. And we suddenly started to think of border tunnels as public works or vocational education.

It's like the revision of "genocide." When you get a massive increase in population and reinforcement of the culture, the only way to call it "genocide" is to decide it means "ciding (sic) with the tribe and only with the tribe."

[Little Tich]

19. I think the chance for a viable two-state solution is less likely now than before Netanyahu.

Perhaps we'll have to redefine the "Jewish state" into meaning a bi-national state with a Jewish minority. Not what I'm hoping for, but it's seems as if that's what's going to happen...

[King_David]

24. No

More likely s Jewish state Israel with unilateral withdrawal and drawing up of borders.
And 2 dysfunctional Palestinian statelets that may be non viable but probably reabsorb into their Arab neighbors.
Why would enemy people's make one state when the neighboring states are more culturally similar.

[6chars]

13. About "right of return"

There is no accepted notion of this. For example, are Pakistanis guaranteed a right of return to India following the population exchange that occurred there? Let's see.

A Person of Indian Origin (PIO) is a person living outside of India and without Indian citizenship, but of Indian origin up to four generations removed. It is available to persons of Indian origin anywhere in the world as long as they have never been citizens of Pakistan or of Bangladesh (a reservation excluding Muslims who joined Pakistan during or after the 1947 partition).

The Palestinians clearly aim to echo Israel's "Law of Return" The Law of Return has a unique motivation. Care to guess what?

Specifically, the Law of Return was enacted by Israel in 1950 shortly after 1/3 of the world's Jews were killed when no country would accept them and at a time when 10% of the world's Jews had just been expelled from Muslim countries where their families had lived for millenia, it was clear that the Jewish people would benefit from a country that would accept them and grant them citizenship. Of course, the whole of Jewish history over the last 2000 years contains many other instances where Jews fled to wherever they could to avoid death, or weren't able to flee. The Law of Return has ensured sanctuary to Jews fleeing murderous anti-Semitic regimes in many cases over the decades.

Palestinians have the distinction of being the only people in the world with hereditary refugee status, with Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt ensuring that they do not have birth citizenship. It certainly sense that moving forward, the situation of those 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th generation refugees should be improved. There are ways to do this, involving aid and deals with various nations, but bringing to Israel many millions of people who are hostile to Israel is not the way to do it. As SH says, never going to happen. If they are going to refuse peace until that happens, then they will wait forever.

[aranthus]

14. There isn't one.

The "Right of Return" was manufactured at the UN to appease Arab interests that wanted to reverse Israel's victory in the War of Independence, and destroy the Jewish state before it could get going. There had never been such a right proposed before. Not After WWI or WWII. Not after the partition of India. Nor has there been a "Right of Return" that has been followed since. Have Greeks kicked out of their homes in Cyprus been given the right to return to their homes? No one even talks about it.

Not only that, but international tradition has been to force aggressor nations that lost wars to live with the loss. Germany lost territory in both world wars, and no one has ever suggested that the Germans displaced by that had any right to return home or to obtain compensation. If anyone can be held most responsible for starting the war that made them refugees, it is the Palestinians themselves.

One final point. The people screaming loudest for "Right of Return" and following International Law, always forget that there are two even more important principles of International Law. The right of national self determination and the right of national sovereignty. The first states that nations (such as the Jews) have a right to their own country (usually in at least part of the territory considered their national homeland). The second says that states have the right to rule and to govern who comes into their territory. Without those two principles there is no international system and no international law at all. And the demand for "Right of Return" contradicts both of them. Even Norman Finkelsteen (who is overly obsessed with international law) recognizes that the demand for "Right of Return" contravenes the most basic principles of international law.

[6chars]

15. Thanks for the clarification

It is important to understand this. People hear the term "right of return" bandied about and assume it is a universal right except that Israel is denying it to Arabs. But that is not true.

[azurnoir]

16. Can you link us to the part where Bibi welcomed it with open arms? I must have missed that part

[King_David]

20. I don't think there's anyone here who understands this post of yours,

Did you mean to post on a different thread?

[azurnoir]

21. Nope are you sure you understand the thread? maybe reread the title again

[aranthus]

22. Can you link to the part where Biden presented it to Bibi? n/t

[azurnoir]

23. actually it was an idea "floated by unnamed WH 'officials'" according to the Towers source -ToI

The idea was floated on Tuesday by White House officials who told The Wall Street Journal that President Barack Obama, who leaves office in less than year, wanted to bequeath more promising ground to his successor by announcing an initiative of some kind to push the moribund peace process forward. One of the ideas on the table was the one Biden reportedly proposed to Abbas.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-said-to-reject-visiting-bidens-peace-idea/

[King_David]

25. What has that to do with what Aranthus asked?

Nothing whatsoever.

He asked where does it say that Biden presented the plan to Netenyahu .... And you answered some other off topic answer that had absolutely nothing to do with anything whatsoever.

Did you think no one would notice?

[aranthus]

26. It deflects from it.

Just as azunoir's first post deflects from the original post. What else can the other side do? If they tell the truth (Little Tich, among others), they reveal the anti-Israel nature of their support for the Palestinians. There really isn't anywhere they can hide on this one. Abbas has made it clear where the PA stands, and it isn't in a good place. So they are going to have to make weak excuses, deflect, or admit that they support the Palestinian cause of destroying the Jewish state.

[King_David]

27. Deflect is the right word for that reply we got

Pathetic....
It doesn't work here anymore.

[azurnoir]

29. I'm questioning the veracity The Tower makes a claim and links to a ToI* article as proof

which links to another ToI article as proof of the previous ToI story which links to a WSJ* story as proof of its claims , in the end it turns out this was something that is being considered along with another UNSC resolution. Note the Tower claims it's story came from al-Quds, yet strangely nowhere is that verified in fact as one digs deeper one finds the story is actually based on hearsay and speculation about what Obama might do before he leaves office -deflect? no it appears there is nothing substancial to deflect from

link from the Tower

http://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-said-to-reject-visiting-bidens-peace-idea/

link from above ToI article

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-may-back-un-resolution-outlining-principles-of-two-state-deal-report/

link to WSJ story

http://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-working-on-renewed-mideast-peace-push-1457389793

[azurnoir]

41. Deflect from this please

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134125965#post29

[leftynyc]

38. Of course he did

If he actually pretended he wanted an agreement, his own people would kill him. I see the pathetic attempts at deflection all over this thread. That's predictable.

[Israeli]

49. Sounds familiar somehow .....

.....flash back to 1995.........

[Scootaloo]

51. Anyone have the text of the deal, not filtered through the Israel Project's propaganda pamphlet?

[azurnoir]

53. WSJ maybe? at least that's where the road leads

http://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-working-on-renewed-mideast-peace-push-1457389793

[Mosby]

57. I don't see it as a deal exactly do you?

To me it sounds like Biden proposed a couple CBMs and "acknowledgements" in order to start the process going towards a full settlement. In the recent past Abbas said he would not proceed with a piecemeal approach though, every single issue had to be decided at the same time because according to him the piecemeal approach gives Israel an advantage. This single roadblock thrown up by Abbas IMO prevents any possible progress until the time he isn't involved anymore in the decision making. Interestingly but not surprising I guess is that factions on both sides see Oslo 1 and 2 as mistakes.

[JDPriestly]

52. The Palestinians are fools.

If they made peace, they could easily get Israel which is one of the most sophisticated countries on the planet with a lot of well educated citizens and a relatively high living standard, to help them make a lot of progress materially and as a society.

Fools.

Just fools.

They should take the peace agreement, enforce it against any Palestinians who refuse to accept it and, once they have proved that Israel can trust them, start to reconstruct their society and build a nation with Israel's help.

They just mire in their own self-pity and don't take advantage of the good fortune they have in living so close to a society that needs peace with them and is technologically and in every other way more advanced than they are.

That's foolish. Just foolish.

[Israeli]

72. Why Abbas turned Biden down............

Summary:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas refused US Vice President Joe Biden's offer to reopen talks with Israel, convinced that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has no real intention of negotiating.

Author Shlomi Eldar Posted March 16, 2016
Translator Aviva Arad

So why did Abbas laugh? And why did he reject out of hand a diplomatic process with Israel, a moment after he told the vice president that a political solution would have prevented the current violent uprising? The answer is that Abbas simply does not trust Netanyahu’s intentions.

Abbas' diplomatic experience with Netanyahu, including during the Kerry-driven negotiations, left him with the impression — one shared by all the senior Palestinian leadership — that the Israeli prime minister isn’t negotiating in order to reach a diplomatic agreement, but to stonewall. He believes that Netanyahu wants to appear in the international arena as someone intending to move toward a diplomatic compromise that would have succeeded if Abbas hadn’t caused it to fail. “You can ask Tzipi Livni how serious we were, and how Netanyahu kept her on a tight leash,” Abbas told Biden, according to the Palestinian source.

In the past, Abbas had hinted that he doesn’t see the right of return as a make-or-break issue. In an interview on Israeli Channel 2 in November 2012, he declared that even though he is a refugee from Safed, in northern Israel, he doesn’t think of returning there. “Palestine now for me is the ’67 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital," he said in the interview. "I am a refugee, but I am living in Ramallah. … I believe that [the] West Bank and Gaza is Palestine … and the other parts [are] Israel.”

Abbas' assent to dictates from Netanyahu, who had utterly humiliated the Palestinian chairman in the past, would now be seen by Palestinians, including senior members of his movement, as capitulation to the Israelis. In this situation, no Israeli compromise could make up for that.

Abbas' smile at Biden’s proposal meant, "Now you remember, when the United States is about to have an election?" What chance is there that a diplomatic initiative could be concluded in just a few months? After all, the previous round of talks, which lasted more than a year, didn’t even get to the essential issues.

It seems that Abbas' term will end not over a democratic process failing to take place in the Palestinian Authority, but because of the vehemence of opposition to his rule among the general Palestinian populace.

From their standpoint, the Palestinians don’t have high hopes for the US elections. In their opinion, neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton nor even Bernie Sanders will solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and force Israel to end the occupation. The only path for the Palestinians, they believe, is to take action themselves in pursuing recognition by the United Nations with European support and hope for a lot of luck.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/03/mahmoud-abbas-joe-biden-john-kerry-benjamin-netanyahu.html#ixzz43EiMBr9w

[shira]

73. Abbas Rejects Peace and Palestinian Statehood, U.S. Media Rejects Coverage

If the President of the Palestinian Authority (PA) rejects, out of hand, a U.S. offer for statehood—often reported as the objective of the authority—does it make a sound in U.S. print news media? Apparently not.

On March 9, 2016 PA President Mahmoud Abbas rejected a peace initiative presented, in person, by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden in Ramallah. The offer proposed a freeze on Israeli settlement construction and a Palestinian state with its capital in eastern Jerusalem—three things which Abbas has claimed previously to want.

In exchange, the PA would be expected to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and desist with calls to destroy its Jewish character by the so-called “right of return.” Under this “right”—not found in U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948) or related resolutions as claimed by Palestinian spokesman—descendants of Palestinian Arabs who fled or chose to leave during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war would be allowed to settle in Israel instead of a newly-created Palestinian state. This is an odd and counterintuitive nationalistic aim and one that Fatah, the movement that controls the PA, claimed was to “help Jews get rid of the racist Zionism that wants to impose their permanent isolation from the rest of the world. (Yasser Arafat: A Political Biography, Barry Rubin, Oxford Press, pg. 211).”

The day before Vice President Biden presented the proposal, an American tourist and U.S. Army veteran, Taylor Force, was murdered by a Palestinian terrorist in part of municipal Tel Aviv—less than a mile from where Biden was staying. Three other terrorist attacks occurred in Israel on the same day, part of ongoing Palestinian terrorism that has been occurring since September 2015—partly the result of incitement by PA officials and their media.

For example, in a Sept. 16, 2015 speech on official PA TV that preceded an increase of anti-Jewish violence, Abbas claimed that Jews held secret designs on the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. The PA leader exhorted, “The Al-Aqsa is ours…and they (Jews) have no right to defile it…We bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah.” Abbas’ use of the so-called “al-Aqsa libel” echoed that of previous Palestinian Arab leaders, such as his predecessor Yasser Arafat in 2000 and Haj Amin al-Husseini in 1929—who would go on to collaborate with Adolf Hitler during World War II—among other instances.

This is the third known occasion in which Abbas has rejected a potential opportunity to gain a new Palestinian Arab state. (Jordan, with a majority Palestinian Arab population, at least until the current Syria refugee influx, occupies a majority of the land originally designated for the post-World War I Palestine Mandate.) The Palestinian leader—currently in the tenth year of a single, elected four-year term—dismissed U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s proposal to restart negotiations for peace with Israel and a Palestinian state in 2014 and an Israeli offer in 2008 after the Annapolis conference, which he acknowledged was refused “out of hand” (“Abbas admits for the first time that he turned down peace offer in 2008,” The Tower, Nov. 17, 2015). Abbas’ predecessor, Yasser Arafat, also rejected statehood and peace with Israel in 2000 at Camp David and 2001 at Taba.

Major U.S. news outlets failed to report Abbas’ rejection of Biden’s offer. According to a Lexis-Nexis search, not a single article appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times or USA Today, among others, on the latest Palestinian rejection of statehood and peace.

This is not to say that there wasn’t any coverage of Israel in the days following Biden’s visit. In a March 14 editorial entitled “Mr. Netanyahu’s Lost Opportunities,” The New York Times blamed the Israeli prime minister for the lack of a “two-state solution” while excusing Abbas as “a weak and aging leader.” The “newspaper of record” failed to specifically note any of Abbas’ refusals of statehood and peace.

Perhaps mention of Palestinian rejectionism—consistent since dismissal of British “two-state” offers in the 1930’s and the 1947 U.N. partition plan, as well as Palestinian autonomy provisions in the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty and failure to implement the 1990s Oslo accords prior to “final status” talks—would raise a question: has Abbas—or any previous Palestinian Arab leader—really wanted a country of their own if it required making peace with the Jewish state?

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/abbas-rejects-peace-and-palestinian-statehood-u-s-media-rejects-coverage/