To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

[Reffo]

By the way, let me remind you once again, curlyg, by rejecting the recognition of Israel as the nation state OF and FOR the Jewish people, Abbas clearly rejects the Geneva accord. Which contradicts your claim that they are likely to accept it if Netanyahu would.

The truth is that TODAY, at least, BOTH sides reject it. Those are the only FACTS. The rest is speculation.

[Reffo]

... which is exactly what I am saying. 'Being populist' only works if the positions you are taking are, well, popular. If everyone in Egypt loved Israel, the Islamists would hold their tongues and nobody would be talking about abrogating the peace treaty. Whatever the case used to be, the voice of the people appears to be more significant now. So now the question, 'why do they hate us?' -- or to be more exact 'why do they hate us so much that they would abrogate a peace treaty that has kept the peace for 30 years?' Generations of brainwashing is probably part of the answer, but do you want to pretend that the continuing conflict with the Palestinians has nothing to do with it? Invariably when you ask most Egyptians for the reason they hate Israel, they'll respond Palestine

I repeat, it is absurd to even talk about the notion of Egyptians loving Israel, let alone not hating them. And I repeat, there is NOTHING that Israel can do about it short of committing national suicide. Then the Egyptian people might come to love them but I highly doubt it even then ...

Only the Egyptians themselves can stop their hatred of Jews and Israel by starting a different internal dialogue which stops the demonization of Jews and Israel. I don't see any signs of that happening on the horizon.

[curlyg]

I repeat, the only party that does not even want to sit down and negotiate, are the Palestinians. And the excuse that you are prepared to accept on their behalf is Netanyahu's speech at Bar Ilan. His "sin" was that he said this .... ?

His sin is rejecting the subject matter of negotiation, and in the same breath calling for negotiation, as though there is no contradiction between the two positions. I think the Palestinians are not being honest in their refusal to talk - I suspect, as I am sure most people do, that they are trying to isolate Israel and that the absence of negotiations serves that objective well. There's certainly some bad faith there. But I can't say in all honesty that I think Netanyahu is any more genuinely committed to negotiations than Abbas is. And so I'll criticise both, because both are undermining the real interests of Jews and Arabs in the region. I won't be a mindless partisan - I find Netanyahu's policies more or less across the board to have been quite appalling. His isn't a government that I can support in good conscience.

Full text of Netanyahu's foreign policy speech at Bar Ilan
Jun.14, 2009 | 11:41 PM

Now let's see what Abbas said about Jerusalem in one of his speeches ...

That's some very selective quoting Reffo...

For the sake of convenience, let's compare Netanyahu's Bar Ilan speech as a statement of official Israeli policy, Mahmoud Abbas' UN General Assembly speech as a statement of Palestinian policy, and the Geneva Accords, shall we?

The core issues of the peace process, which were JOINTLY DEFINED by Israel and the Palestinians in the Oslo Accords, are:

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest.

Jerusalem

Netanyahu: 'Israel needs defensible borders with Jerusalem remaining the united capital of Israel.'
Abbas: 'The goal of the Palestinian people is the realization of their inalienable national rights in their independent State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital'
Geneva Accords: 'The Parties shall have their mutually recognized capitals in the areas of Jerusalem under their respective sovereignty'


Refugees

Netanyahu: 'Therefore, justice and logic dictates that the problem of the Palestinian refugees must be solved outside the borders of the State of Israel. There is broad national agreement on this.'
Abbas: 'The time has come to end the suffering and the plight of millions of Palestine refugees in the homeland and the Diaspora, to end their displacement and to realize their rights'
Geneva Accords: 3. Compensation
(a) Refugees shall be entitled to compensation for their refugeehood and for loss of property. This shall not prejudice or be prejudiced by the refugee's permanent place of residence.

(b) The Parties recognize the right of states that have hosted Palestinian refugees to remuneration.

4. Choice of Permanent Place of Residence (PPR)
The solution to the PPR aspect of the refugee problem shall entail an act of informed choice on the part of the refugee to be exercised in accordance with the options and modalities set forth in this agreement. PPR options from which the refugees may choose shall be as follows;
(a) The state of Palestine, in accordance with clause a below.
(b) Areas in Israel being transferred to Palestine in the land swap, following assumption of Palestinian sovereignty, in accordance with clause a below.
(c) Third Countries, in accordance with clause b below.
(d) The state of Israel, in accordance with clause c below.
(e) Present Host countries, in accordance with clause d below.
i. PPR options i and ii shall be the right of all Palestinian refugees and shall be in accordance with the laws of the State of Palestine.
ii. Option iii shall be at the sovereign discretion of third countries and shall be in accordance with numbers that each third country will submit to the International Commission. These numbers shall represent the total number of Palestinian refugees that each third country shall accept.
iii. Option iv shall be at the sovereign discretion of Israel and will be in accordance with a number that Israel will submit to the International Commission. This number shall represent the total number of Palestinian refugees that Israel shall accept. As a basis, Israel will consider the average of the total numbers submitted by the different third countries to the International Commission.
iv. Option v shall be in accordance with the sovereign discretion of present host countries. Where exercised this shall be in the context of prompt and extensive development and rehabilitation programs for the refugee communities.


Borders

Netanyahu: No comment on borders other than saying Israel is entitled to 'defensible' boundaries, has subsequently refused to utter the words '1967 lines'
Abbas: 'The goal of the Palestinian people is the realization of their inalienable national rights in their independent State of Palestine... on all the land of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip'
Geneva Accords:'In accordance with UNSC Resolution 242 and 338, the border between the states of Palestine and Israel shall be based on the June 4th 1967 lines with reciprocal modifications on a 1:1 basis'


Security

Netanyahu: Extensive demands (demilitarisation, control of airspace, Palestine can't enter into alliances, etc.
Abbas: No significant comments (lip service to peace and security)
Geneva Accords: Various arrangements including non-militarization, each controls own airspace, each can sign whatever agreements they want as sovereign states


etc

Most Jews and Israelis agree with him. So can you please explain why what he said was wrong, curlyg?

What's wrong is that you can't out of hand refuse to discuss the rights of refugees when you've specifically defined that as a core issue... Or declare in advance that Jerusalem will remain united under Israeli sovereignty, when you've defined the status of Jerusalem as a core issue.

It seems to me that you have come to accept the Palestinian notion of what IS or ISN'T important. And it seems that you feel that way because of Oslo. Now hear this, curlyg: Things transpired before Oslo too. For instance, UN GA Resolution 181 in 1948 talked specifically about the creation of a Jewish State and an Arab state in what was then called Palestine. The Jews accepted it, the Arabs didn't. It is high time to correct their historical rejectionism NOW. It is very much a core issue.

This hasn't been the position of Israeli governments and isn't reflected in any of the various international agreements signed with the Palis, nor was it raised in previous negotiations. We may think that it is appropriate to negotiate the issue and that Palestinians should recognise Israel as a Jewish state - but I hardly expect that they will agree to do that as a condition of negotiation, before negotiations even begin.

By the way, let me remind you once again, curlyg, by rejecting the recognition of Israel as the nation state OF and FOR the Jewish people, Abbas clearly rejects the Geneva accord. Which contradicts your claim that they are likely to accept it if Netanyahu would.

The truth is that TODAY, at least, BOTH sides reject it. Those are the only FACTS. The rest is speculation.

Well, no... Say there are three people: A, B and C. C suggests to A and B, 'you should go shopping, then fishing, then swimming, then jogging.' A replies that they're happy to do the first three, but can't stand jogging. B replies that they're willing to go fishing, but won't do the rest. Technically, both reject C's proposal. But A's views are clearly closer to C's than B's are. The Palestinian positions seem to me to be closer to the Geneva positions than Netanyahu's.

I repeat, it is absurd to even talk about the notion of Egyptians loving Israel, let alone not hating them. And I repeat, there is NOTHING that Israel can do about it short of committing national suicide. Then the Egyptian people might come to love them but I highly doubt it even then ...

Way to completely ignore what I was writing by focusing on a single word and taking it out of context.

[Reffo]

His sin is rejecting the subject matter of negotiation, and in the same breath calling for negotiation, as though there is no contradiction between the two positions. I think the Palestinians are not being honest in their refusal to talk - I suspect, as I am sure most people do, that they are trying to isolate Israel and that the absence of negotiations serves that objective well. There's certainly some bad faith there. But I can't say in all honesty that I think Netanyahu is any more genuinely committed to negotiations than Abbas is. And so I'll criticise both, because both are undermining the real interests of Jews and Arabs in the region. I won't be a mindless partisan - I find Netanyahu's policies more or less across the board to have been quite appalling. His isn't a government that I can support in good conscience

Hey, no one expects you to support Netanyahu. I am not sure I agree with him about everything either (although there are plenty of things that I do agree with him about).

I don't know about you curly, but I set out to discuss on this thread whether now is the right time for Israel to bend over backwards and make more concessions or not, as well as how far they should or should not go. And my conclusion is that it is NOT the right time unless the Palestinian Arabs start paying more attention to what Israelis want too (and not just focus on their own needs and wants).

[curlyg]

There's never going to be a 'good' time to do this. Some pretty awful things are going to happen when a peace treaty is signed - both sides are going to have large segments of their populations more or less in rebellion. Tens of thousands of settlers which will end up losing their homes, and a rather-too-large-for-my-liking extremist Palestinian population, are going to be pretty damn pissed. That's not even talking about all sorts of other concessions that will be involved (refugees, dividing Jerusalem, etc). Peace will have a high price, and that's true whether it happens tomorrow or in 10 years. In fact, the price is only going to increase the more time goes by.

[Reffo]

That's some very selective quoting Reffo...

For the sake of convenience, let's compare Netanyahu's Bar Ilan speech as a statement of official Israeli policy, Mahmoud Abbas' UN General Assembly speech as a statement of Palestinian policy, and the Geneva Accords, shall we?

The core issues of the peace process, which were JOINTLY DEFINED by Israel and the Palestinians in the Oslo Accords, are:

Nothing selective about it curly unless you claim that Abbas did not make the statement about Jerusalem that I posted (with a link).

They can both say what they want in various speeches. And let's face it, they both do. Not only do they do but Abbas in particular often makes contradictory statements depending on who the audience is. But the fact is that unless they sit down and negotiate, they definitiely have no chance of signing an agreement. And as we both agreed, Abbas is the one who refuses to recommence the negotiations. He sets preconditions insisting that Israel should accept his terms even before the negotiations start. That's not negotiating, that's attempting to dictate. Netanyahu will never agree to that and I hope none of his successors will agree to it either.

[Reffo]

What's wrong is that you can't out of hand refuse to discuss the rights of refugees when you've specifically defined that as a core issue... Or declare in advance that Jerusalem will remain united under Israeli sovereignty, when you've defined the status of Jerusalem as a core issue

My question to you was regarding the issue of the refugees. And I think you better read what Netanyahu actually said. He specifically indicated that he wants the refugee problem solved but not by allowing them to settle in Israel proper. There are other solutions to the refugee problem you know.

As for the Jerusalem issue, they both shot their mouths off in various speeches, as I showed you. So if Abbas uses Netanyahu's speech as an excuse not to negotiate, then Netanyahu could do the same to him for the same reason. Then where would we be?

Yet I'll point it out to you again, the one who refuses to negotiate is Abbas, not Netanyahu.

[Reffo]

This hasn't been the position of Israeli governments and isn't reflected in any of the various international agreements signed with the Palis, nor was it raised in previous negotiations. We may think that it is appropriate to negotiate the issue and that Palestinians should recognise Israel as a Jewish state - but I hardly expect that they will agree to do that as a condition of negotiation, before negotiations even begin

Well, it IS the position of the Israeli government NOW! And it always was although they should have been more insistent about it, I grant you that.

Had the Palestinian Arabs not overturned the Oslo accords and had they signed off on a deal with Israel, I would be the first one to agree with you that Netanyahu has no right to change the rules. But since there was no sign off on either Barak's proposals or olmert's, and worse, the Palestinians themselves broke the rules of Oslo, netanyahu too can and SHOULD emphasize important issues such as recognition of the Jewish state.

[dayag]

...Yet I'll point it out to you again, the one who refuses to negotiate is Abbas, not Netanyahu.

Yes, that is it in a nutshell. Both sides have their red lines, but ONLY Abbas has preconditions to talk (i.e. demanding that Israel give up some things before negotiations even begin). And if Israel agrees to their preconditions, the Palestinians will pocket these concessions and continue to create new ones. If they do so, they are fryers (suckers).

[Reffo]

Well, no... Say there are three people: A, B and C. C suggests to A and B, 'you should go shopping, then fishing, then swimming, then jogging.' A replies that they're happy to do the first three, but can't stand jogging. B replies that they're willing to go fishing, but won't do the rest. Technically, both reject C's proposal. But A's views are clearly closer to C's than B's are. The Palestinian positions seem to me to be closer to the Geneva positions than Netanyahu's

Yes curly and I know someone who is half pregnant (NOT).

I'll say it again. Neither Netanyahu nor Abbas accept the Geneva accord in it's entirity. You can claim (not necessarily accurately) that Abbas accepts more of it. But you can't claim that he actually accepts it in it's entirety. But if you want to insist on the relevance of your academic example, then let me challenge it this way:

What if A is more stubborn than B? What if B is more easily persuadable to change his views and agree to go along with C? But it is all academic, curly, the point is that right now we just don't know.

PS
Your example is simplistic and it trivializes the issues. You compare recreational activities to life and death choices. And one could argue that even if one side is closer to accepting the Geneva accord than the other, the sticking point which they reject outweighs in importance the issues that that the OTHER party rejects. But please let's not go there. It is very much an academic discussion.

[Reffo]

There's never going to be a 'good' time to do this. Some pretty awful things are going to happen when a peace treaty is signed - both sides are going to have large segments of their populations more or less in rebellion. Tens of thousands of settlers which will end up losing their homes, and a rather-too-large-for-my-liking extremist Palestinian population, are going to be pretty damn pissed. That's not even talking about all sorts of other concessions that will be involved (refugees, dividing Jerusalem, etc). Peace will have a high price, and that's true whether it happens tomorrow or in 10 years. In fact, the price is only going to increase the more time goes by

OK curly, I'll ask you the same question that I asked sharonbn.

If it is NOW that Israel has to make peace, then it is obvious that Israel has to give in to Abbass's demands, because things are at an impasse and Abbass is stubborn. So, how far would you be willing to go? How much would you be willing to give up and what would you expect in return from the Palestinians? If you were the decision maker for Israel ...

[Reffo]

There's never going to be a 'good' time to do this. Some pretty awful things are going to happen when a peace treaty is signed - both sides are going to have large segments of their populations more or less in rebellion. Tens of thousands of settlers which will end up losing their homes, and a rather-too-large-for-my-liking extremist Palestinian population, are going to be pretty damn pissed. That's not even talking about all sorts of other concessions that will be involved (refugees, dividing Jerusalem, etc). Peace will have a high price, and that's true whether it happens tomorrow or in 10 years. In fact, the price is only going to increase the more time goes by

There are two problems with this ...

Firstly, it assumes that the Palestinian Arabs want to and would be able to deliver peace at this time. That's patently false. And if you don't believe me then look at the proportion of Palestinians who support Hamas and what Hamas stands for. And I am not even sure what Fatah stands for but I do have my suspicions.

Secondly, if Israel is to make sacrifices for peace, then it should expect something in return. But it is patently obvious that Abbas is willing to offer nothing that is important to most Israelis in return. Nothing except empty words that don't even go far enough and what is happening with Egypt, proves what value many Arabs place on any promises that they make to Israel.

That's why my position is that Israel should bide it's time and wait till the politics of the Arabs change so that at least they will appear to be more reasonable peace partners.

[dayag]

...And I am not even sure what Fatah stands for but I do have my suspicions...

Fatah is the reverse acronym of "Harakat al-Tahrir al-Filistiniya" (Palestinian Liberation Organization), but the word also means "victory" in Arabic.

[Reffo]

Fatah is the reverse acronym of "Harakat al-Tahrir al-Filistiniya" (Palestinian Liberation Organization), but the word also means "victory" in Arabic.

That says it all. They are playing a zero sum game. Not because of whatever their name stands for but because they are not even pretending about what their ultimate aim is.

Not wanting to recognize Israel as the nation state OF and FOR the Jewish people, says it ALL.

[wat0n]

There are two problems with this ...

Firstly, it assumes that the Palestinian Arabs want to and would be able to deliver peace at this time. That's patently false. And if you don't believe me then look at the proportion of Palestinians who support Hamas and what Hamas stands for. And I am not even sure what Fatah stands for but I do have my suspicions.

Secondly, if Israel is to make sacrifices for peace, then it should expect something in return. But it is patently obvious that Abbas is willing to offer nothing that is important to most Israelis in return. Nothing except empty words that don't even go far enough and what is happening with Egypt, proves what value many Arabs place on any promises that they make to Israel.

That's why my position is that Israel should bide it's time and wait till the politics of the Arabs change so that at least they will appear to be more reasonable peace partners.

Well, Israel can and would get something in return if it withdraws the settlers from (at least) the lands east of the barrier: It would make the probability of an impossibility to withdraw from most of the West Bank to be zero. It would also help to reduce friction between settlers and Palestinians, thus fostering stability and - in the event of a new Intifada - it would also make its civilians to be in a much safer environment. At complete withdrawal of its settlers from the West Bank would also greatly improve Israel's international standing, which would greatly undermine efforts of delegitimization of Israel.