How Serious Is Abbas About Peace?

[Reffo]

And as one of the judges points out, breaking down the value of the Green Line is a strategy which can cut both ways. Israeli title to territory captured in the '48 war would then be equally open to challenge. It's worth recalling that large regions in Israel have Arab majorities, including most of the Galilee

And I would remind that judge that in the not too distant history, the Arabs did exactly that. They openly disputed the right of Israel, in it's entirety, to exist (Hamas still does). Indeed that's why they were the ones who insisted on the particular wording of the 1949 Armistice agreements, in order to keep THEIR claims live. But now, those words have come back to haunt them or more correctly, SHOULD come back to haunt them if the UN bodies such as the IJC would take the trouble to consider that very relevant document, as well as resolution 242. But alas, they seem to ignore that as just an inconvenient truth and they assert that the borders of Israel ARE the 1949 armisticece lines. Why? Because that's the new Arab party line ... ?

By the way, both Ehud Barak and Olmert offered deals to the Palestinian Arabs, which would have involved land swaps with the consequence that the borders would NOT be strictly the Green Line borders. So what would have been so wrong with that? I can only think that Arafat and Abbas did not agree precisely because they didn't/don't want to see Israel with more secure borders and somehow there seems to be this trend in the UN to ignore all past agreements and fall in line with Arab demands instead of playing the role of an honest broker. IMO, they haven't come up with a single logical justification for ignoring what was agreed in The 1949 Armistice agreements and Resolution 242. I am still waiting to hear how anyone can excuse them for such a grave oversight ...

[Mediocrates]

Abbas, the PLO and their EU and liberal supporters need to be reminded that they're supporting, funding and championing ethnic cleansing. We need to constantly remind them on that point and ask politely how they defend that. It is ethnic cleansing. The short and the sweet of it is that what they demand is indeed nothing more than ethnic cleansing. No Jews. Period. If our esteemed companions here want to use 'international law' to excuse ethnic cleansing, then fine. Let them do that. Half of the Jews in Yesha are concentrated in 5 towns making up about 150,000 Jews. Setting aside their demands to ethnically cleanse the other 150,000 Jews scattered about in smaller communities, they are demanding the wholesale ethnic cleansing of entire cities BECAUSE they are populated by Jews.

Again, I have no specific quarrel with people who advocate ethnic cleansing. I merely want to point that out to them and give them the opportunity to admit and defend their own position on the support of ethnic cleansing.

[bararallu]

"Abbas, the PLO and their EU and liberal supporters need to be reminded that they're supporting, funding and championing ethnic cleansing. We need to constantly remind them on that point and ask politely how they defend that."

You know they have no problems with that, only our expression of nationalism.

[curlyg]

And I would remind that judge that in the not too distant history, the Arabs did exactly that. They openly disputed the right of Israel, in it's entirety, to exist (Hamas still does). Indeed that's why they were the ones who insisted on the particular wording of the 1949 Armistice agreements, in order to keep THEIR claims live. But now, those words have come back to haunt them or more correctly, SHOULD come back to haunt them if the UN bodies such as the IJC would take the trouble to consider that very relevant document, as well as resolution 242. But alas, they seem to ignore that as just an inconvenient truth and they assert that the borders of Israel ARE the 1949 armisticece lines. Why? Because that's the new Arab party line ... ?

They never made any determination as to Israel's borders, so I don't know where you're getting that. They simply said that what is considered occupied territory, as a matter of fact, being territory which was acquired by force and is under the authority of the Israeli military, begins at the Green Line and ends at the Jordanian border. Within that territory Israel has accepted upon itself certain obligations under treaties it has signed or under customary international law.

By the way, both Ehud Barak and Olmert offered deals to the Palestinian Arabs, which would have involved land swaps with the consequence that the borders would NOT be strictly the Green Line borders. So what would have been so wrong with that?

Nothing would be wrong with that, nor did they say or imply there would be anything wrong with that... A Treaty between Israel and the Palestinians would be perfectly valid if it included border adjustments.

I can only think that Arafat and Abbas did not agree precisely because they didn't/don't want to see Israel with more secure borders and somehow there seems to be this trend in the UN to ignore all past agreements and fall in line with Arab demands instead of playing the role of an honest broker. IMO, they haven't come up with a single logical justification for ignoring what was agreed in The 1949 Armistice agreements and Resolution 242. I am still waiting to hear how anyone can excuse them for such a grave oversight ...

With all due respect citing UN 242 as entirely supporting the Israeli position is very selective. As we well know there are multiple reasonable interpretations of that resolution, including its authoritative French version, which are at odds with Israel's interpretation and which would support a Palestinian claim to the entire West Bank.

I also do not think that they ignored the armistice agreement per se. Again, they didn't so much make a determination as to future borders, they simply recognized a particular fact situation existing in the West Bank -- namely belligerent occupation.

[Reffo]

They never made any determination as to Israel's borders

To the best of my knowledge, they implied that they consider the Green Line to be Israel's legitimate border, by claiming that Israel is only entitled to build it's security wall along the Green Line. Of course, if Israel would adhere to that, then it would incur significant additional costs, the wall would not be as effective (for example sections of it would need to be built in low grounds overlooked by high grounds) and worst of all, the ruling has major political implications. It sends a false message that the Green Line, strictly, should be Israel's border.

With all due respect citing UN 242 as entirely supporting the Israeli position is very selective. As we well know there are multiple reasonable interpretations of that resolution, including its authoritative French version, which are at odds with Israel's interpretation and which would support a Palestinian claim to the entire West Bank

with due respect, firstly: The most reliable interpretation of what a document says, any document, is the one that one can understand from the original language in which the document was written. And Security Council Resolution 242 was originally written in English, NOT in French. So the English interpretation is the one that should be considered as the authoritative interpretation.

Secondly: Most of the original authors of the document, when quizzed about the interpretation of Resoltion 242, agreed with Israel's interpretation of it.

[Reffo]

curlyg

Here is what one of the authors of UN Resolution 242 had to say about it:

This was a nod towards the fact that noted experts in international law, such as former U.S. Under-Secretary of State Eugene Rostow who was instrumental in drawing up the seminal UN Resolution 242, have said not only that the settlements are legal but have drawn attention to the fact that under still-binding Mandatory law Jews have been legally entitled to settle throughout the West Bank and Gaza for the past six decades

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melanieph...e-cracks.thtml

[Reffo]

... And here is some more of what some of the main contributors to UN Security Council Resolution 242 said about it ...

Obviously the most reliable sources from whom to seek clarification are the persons who played key roles in drafting the resolution, British Ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon, American Ambassador, Arthur Goldberg and US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Eugene Rostow.

In an article in The New Republic, "Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies," (Oct. 21, 1991) Rostow wrote

"Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from 'all' the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called 'secure and recognized' boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims".

Goldberg has clarified that although the French and Soviet texts differ from the English in this respect, the Security Council voted on the English text, which is thus determinative. He Caradon and Rostow have stated categorically that in drafting resolution 242, they deliberately omitted a demand for Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders.

In an interview in the Beirut Daily Star on June 12, 1974, Caradon stated:
"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967 because these positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers on each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them, and I think we were right not to."

http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com/id127.html

[Reffo]

It is unfolding right under our eyes. Yesterday, Fayad stormed out of a meeting with Ayalon. They couldn't agree on the wording for a press conference. Fayad wanted to talk about a "Two State" solution while Ayalon wanted to talk about a "Two States for Two Peoples" solution.

What does it all mean? It means that the Palestian Arabs are holding out for a two phased approach. In phase one, they want Israel to accept one and a half states for the Arabs in which the new "Palestinian" state would be entirely Arab while Israel, within the Auschwitz borders (the Green Line) would be a dual Jewish/Arab state. In phase two, Israel too would be turned into an Arab state by using a combination of demographics and by making it difficult for Jews to have secure borders. Israel cannot accept such a deal and it mustn't accept it!

But what happens if the talks would collapse? Israel will be blamed, Israel will be vilified and Israel will be demonized. Like I said, the Arab strategy is to win if the coin toss turns out to be 'Heads' or to make Israel lose if the coin toss turns out to be 'Tails'. THEIR strategy is crystal clear. The question is how can Israel counter their strategy and how can we, those of us who love Israel, help Israel counter it ...?

PS
Note, we don't mind the idea that Israel can have Arab citizens. What we reject is the idea of the so called right of return in which many more Arabs would be allowed to "return" to become Israeli citizens and thereby reduce the Jewish majority of Israel. And we also insist that as part of the peace agreement, the Arabs should recognize Israel as the state for the Jewish people which it was always intended to be even by the UN (read the text of UN resolution 181). Why do we insist on that? Because by formally recognizing Israel as the state for the Jewish people, they will show to the world, and to their own people, that they at long last reject their old policy of belligerence to the existence of a Jewish state in the Jewish national home land in the Middle East ...

[GratefulFred]

We can only win by playing the stall game as much as we can with Obama. Imagine freezing actual building, but not putting in plans for building on the west bank but not in Jerusalem for 3 months. The end of 3 months approaches and the Arabs want more time. We come up with a compromise where existing planned homes can be done but we stop it some more time.

Play the game and before you know it we look at the US election cycle come around and than make it an issue banking on an Obama loss.

I can't wait for some republican to call Jews foolish for voting for Obama. So much dirt on him.

[Reffo]

One has to wonder how the world would react if Israel would enact laws like this:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/palestin...srael-1.275039

A Palestinian military court has sentenced a man to death by hanging for selling land to an Israeli company.

Land sales are considered treason by the Palestinians because of their long-running dispute with the Israelis, however the sentence is unlikely to be implemented.

Are these the people with whom Netanyahu is expected to conclude a peace deal?

[Aliyah1995]

One has to wonder how the world would react if Israel would enact laws like this:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/palestin...srael-1.275039

Are these the people with whom Netanyahu is expected to conclude a peace deal?

Yes, these are the people we are expected to make peace with.

The hypocrisy of the global bleeding heart liberals (like Code Pink and the Green Party) never ceases to amaze me. When it comes to the tyrannical Arab countries where women are oppressed, churches burned, etc. everyone is expected to "understand" that this is their "culture" and we shouldn't be so "arrogant" in expecting them to just adopt Western values like women being able to drive and go to school. Some of these countries, like Saudi Arabia, are considered "moderate" and are doing business with the US (including weapons), yet Jews are not even allowed to step foot there. In other words, when it comes to Arab tyrannical countries, everyone should just mind their own business.

However, this understanding or "mind your own business" attitude stops when it comes to Israel expressing our sovereignty and defending ourselves (whether from our neighbors vowing to annihilate us physically or demographically with the trojan of a "two state solution"). In this case, the radical left around the world feel perfectly comfortable with sticking their noses into our business.

[Reffo]

Aliyah

You are absolutely right about the so called "Liberal" Bleeding hearts. Their double standard is mind boggling and now I sense that they feel so smug about their accomplishments with regards to the Arab Israeli conflict that they no longer bother even arguing their case with us. They feel themselves in the box seat and pretend that their assertions are all proven to the main stream audiences and all they have to do is just repeat their blood libels against Israel.

I must say, a few years ago I used to have patience and accepted the possibility that at least some of them are just well meaning misguided individuals. But now, after years of arguing with so many of them and trying to educate them, I know that it's a losing battle because most of them are just robotic automatons who follow their party line ...

[Reffo]

Abbas has said there was no point in negotiating while Israeli settlements keep taking over more of the lands the Palestinians want for a future independent state

Is this guy for real? How is catering for natural growth by building new homes WITHIN the boundaries of existing settlements taking over more Palestinian lands?

He is using rhetoric to justify his pre-determined intention to scuttle the talks and walk away. The Palestinian Arabs have no intention to reach a peace deal with Israel.

[farmboy]

Is this guy for real? How is catering for natural growth by building new homes WITHIN the boundaries of existing settlements taking over more Palestinian lands?

He is using rhetoric to justify his pre-determined intention to scuttle the talks and walk away. The Palestinian Arabs have no intention to reach a peace deal with Israel.

What sickens me about the whole thing is that now, because of the building freeze, it gives the impression that Jews WERE building on arab lands. Will the arabs be happy with 99% of Judea and Samaria? Not bloody likely. They want the lot because the building freeze entitled them to it.

[Reffo]

farmboy

I wouldn't be surprised if the whole theatre of the pretend negotiations was deliberately engineered with this in mind. Certainly by the Palestinian Arab leadership in any case ...