We didn't forget about the occupation

[Reffo]

1) according to wikipedia, the Israeli gov't from 2002 rejected the initiative. good enough for you?

Of course they rejected it in it's original form, wouldn't you? But the fact is that according to Wilkepedia, Peres in his capacity as foreign minister of Israel, reacted positively towards the plan and suggested that it would form a good basis for negotiating a real plan. And yet he was told by the Arabs to take it or leave it because they were not willing to negotiate about the plan.

2) I am not saying that Israel says no all the time. I am saying that int'l public opinion (and of course the media) says so, and Israel is making it easy for them to say so

Actually it shouldn't be easy for anyone to say so. But it seems that because Israel is a small country with few allies and no oil (yet), many countries find it easier to blame Israel for everything in order to ingratiate themselves with the Arabs and their many allies. That's just a fact of life, sharonbn, with which Israel has to live with. No matter what Israel does or does not do, those countries will always treat Israel the same way. At least for now ...

[Reffo]

I can agree to justify natural growth within the perimiter of the large blocks if you can agree to justify total freeze everywhere else

It is totally irrelevant what you and I are willing to agree to. The only thing that is relevant is what Abbas and his people are willing to agree to. Right now, they demand a total freeze everywhere before he is even willing to negotiate.

If I was an Israeli decision maker, my response would be that if Israel has to agree to a freeze even on territories that it would likely keep as part of a peace deal, then the Arabs too should agree to a freeze in territories that they are likely to keep.

Of course the Arabs would not agree to that. So why should Israel?

[Reffo]

Having said what I said above about the Arab Peace initiative, I do agree that perhaps it is time for Israel to revisit it. My suggestion is that Israel should formulate a formal response to it in which it should praise the positive elements in the initiative but at the same time highlight the objectionable elements within the proposal. Finally, it should indicate a willingness to conduct face to face negotiations to try and arrive at a common consensus and sort out the differences.

I don't think it would get Israel anywhere because the Arabs still don't want to negotiate with Israel, they just want to dictate terms to it, but there would be no harm in trying.

[Reffo]

sharonbn

Look what I found. I didn't know about this, did you?

Reexamining the Arab PeaceInitiative
Published in the Huffington Post on Jan. 24, 2012

Nonetheless, in March 2007, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert described the API as a “revolutionary change.” In July 2009, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the API as a mechanism to “create an atmosphere in which a comprehensive peace can be reached.” Israel, with the encouragement of the United States, could accept the API in principle as a basis for negotiations. The sensitive issues of Jerusalem and the holy sites and refugees should not be dictated as ultimatums, but left open for negotiations

i wonder why nothing came out of this?

[sharonbn]

Of course they rejected it in it's original form, wouldn't you?

no

But the fact is that according to Wilkepedia, Peres in his capacity as foreign minister of Israel, reacted positively towards the plan and suggested that it would form a good basis for negotiating a real plan. And yet he was told by the Arabs to take it or leave it because they were not willing to negotiate about the plan.

so the foreign minister had some positive remarks and the gov't rejected the initiative. I can understand how easy it is for the western media and public opinion to dismiss Israel's position as yet another knee-reflex negative response, can't you?

Actually it shouldn't be easy for anyone to say so. But it seems that because Israel is a small country with few allies and no oil (yet), many countries find it easier to blame Israel for everything in order to ingratiate themselves with the Arabs and their many allies. That's just a fact of life, sharonbn, with which Israel has to live with. No matter what Israel does or does not do, those countries will always treat Israel the same way. At least for now ...

yes, I know we are a small country surrounded by enemies (who for the last 60 years proclaim a desire to destroy us, right?)
and this is indeed a fact of life. However, I forcefully reject the notion that we cannot do anything about it. this is the line of thinking that cost us the Jarring initiative on 1971 and the London agreement of 1987. I tell you that in 10 years time, we will look at the maps of the Geneva accord and wonder why did we miss that opportunity as well. There is certainly more Israel can do to portray itself as peace seeking than it does today.

[sharonbn]

It is totally irrelevant what you and I are willing to agree to. The only thing that is relevant is what Abbas and his people are willing to agree to. Right now, they demand a total freeze everywhere before he is even willing to negotiate.

get off your high horse. by that line of logic, our whole discussion is irrelevant, and indeed this while forum, since it is unlikely that Abbas will ever read it or otherwise be influenced by it. this whole discussion is just two schmucks conversing online, isn't it?
so I say it is relevant what you and I are willing to agree to. it is the only thing that is relevant.

If I was an Israeli decision maker, my response would be that if Israel has to agree to a freeze even on territories that it would likely keep as part of a peace deal, then the Arabs too should agree to a freeze in territories that they are likely to keep.

Of course the Arabs would not agree to that. So why should Israel?

...and you would make the same mistakes that Israeli decision makers made time and time again -

1) in 1977, when Sadat visited Jer'm, he asked to see former PM Golda Meir. This was hard to arrange but he insisted and finally the two met in the Knesset. Sadat asked her right away - "Ms Meir, why did you reject my peace proposal from 1972, delivered in a letter by UN envoy Dr. Jarring?" Golda gave Sadat a long gaze and then quietly said "we didn't believe you, Sadat"
true stroy (source - Haaretz article in Hebrew)
like you, Golda just knew what Sadat was thinking in 1972, so why bother to take him seriously?

2) once again (repeated several times in this and other threds) I have to mention the basics of PR - the whole purpose of answering initiatives and demands is to throw the ball back at your opponent. let him be the one who says NO or else let your proposals stay unanswered.

[Aliyah1995]

What about the eleven month "complete" settlement freeze not so long ago? I know because people in my community were not even allowed to so much as add to their patio during that freeze. For 10.5 months, Abbas and crew did not even come to the table. Two weeks before the freeze was over, they showed up saying it wasn't enough. If Israel was to declare another freeze, what would happen this time that didn't happen last time?

[sharonbn]

regarding the so called "complete" settlement freeze of 2009-2010

1) the freeze was in place for exactly 10 month - from Nov 26th 2009 to Sept 25th 2010.

2) according to the central statistics authority, during the freeze, work started on 114 new houses, and continued or finished on 1175 ongoing projects. some freeze indeed.

3) the summit between Netanyahu and Abbas took place on Sept 1st 2010 in Washington (some three weeks before the end date of the freeze). During the summit, which included president Obama, Jordanian King Abdallah and Egyptian president Mubaraq, all participants pressured the Israeli PM to prolong the freeze, saying that indeed it took time for the process to start but now that it is on track, prolonging the freeze is needed to keep it going. Netanyahu refused.
(source for all the above: Wikipedia in Hebrew)

I don't get it, if the whole purpose of the freeze was to show Israel's willingness for peace, than refusing the prolonging seems to defeat that purpose. Also, it is expected that the peace negotiations will take time, it is even expected that the Palestinians will drag their feet. after all, they believe (and rightfully so) that time plays to their benefit. These things one must take into account when dealing with the Palestinians. to me it seemed natural to prolong the freeze, especially given that I think it is reasonable to do so regardless of the peace process....

[Reffo]

No

So what would you have done?

so the foreign minister had some positive remarks and the gov't rejected the initiative. I can understand how easy it is for the western media and public opinion to dismiss Israel's position as yet another knee-reflex negative response, can't you?

I have already answered that one before. That's how things work, that's what they do when it comes to Israel. You don't believe me? Then ask yourself why they dismissed everyone of Israel's other initiatives? The hand that Rabin extended to Arafat when he was down in the dumps after he supported Saddam in Gulf war 1. They ignored waves of subsequent terror attacks against Israelis and were constantly demanding more gestures from Israel. They ignored the Gaza withdrawal and overooked the constant shelling of Israeli civilians from Gaza. They ignored the fact that the majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas too and they constantly urge Israel to lift the siege. They ignored Olmert's 2008 peace offer too but they were quick to applaud the Goldstone report. I could go on but if you don't already get the idea, then there is no point for me to go on, is it?

yes, I know we are a small country surrounded by enemies (who for the last 60 years proclaim a desire to destroy us, right?)
and this is indeed a fact of life. However, I forcefully reject the notion that we cannot do anything about it. this is the line of thinking that cost us the Jarring initiative on 1971 and the London agreement of 1987. I tell you that in 10 years time, we will look at the maps of the Geneva accord and wonder why did we miss that opportunity as well. There is certainly more Israel can do to portray itself as peace seeking than it does today

Yes, I am sure that Israel could always do more but would it do any good? Personolly I doubt it. There is no pleasing those who just don't want to be pleased except by concessions that Israel just cannot afford to give because it's very survival would be endangered by making such concessions. Yes, I believe that even if you don't because I don't believe that Israel can afford to act against 500,000 of it's own citizens whom various Israeli governments, both left wing and right wing governments, encouraged in the past to live in Judea and Samaria. Much as the Arabs wish it, you cannot unravel the past. The situation that exists today is as much THEIR mistake [the Arabs] as Israel's. Had they not acted they way that they had, there would not be an "occupation" today. There wouldn't even been any "settlements" because right after 1967, Israel offered to get out of the entire West Bank, except Jerusalem, in exchange for direct negotiations and a comprehensive peace deal.

[Reffo]

get off your high horse. by that line of logic, our whole discussion is irrelevant, and indeed this while forum, since it is unlikely that Abbas will ever read it or otherwise be influenced by it. this whole discussion is just two schmucks conversing online, isn't it?

Yep.

so I say it is relevant what you and I are willing to agree to. it is the only thing that is relevant

Ignoring reality is never relevant. And the reality is that we cannot ignore Abbas's agenda. His agenda is a total and indefinite "settlement" freeze, including natural growth WITHIN the perimeters of existing settlements. And my guess is that he would make sure that the negotiations would be protracted till either Israel agrees to ALL his demands or the "settlers" would rise up in rebellion against the hardship that such a freeze would bring on them. Then he would sit back and watch in satisfaction while Israeli would fight against Israeli.

...and you would make the same mistakes that Israeli decision makers made time and time again -

1) in 1977, when Sadat visited Jer'm, he asked to see former PM Golda Meir. This was hard to arrange but he insisted and finally the two met in the Knesset. Sadat asked her right away - "Ms Meir, why did you reject my peace proposal from 1972, delivered in a letter by UN envoy Dr. Jarring?" Golda gave Sadat a long gaze and then quietly said "we didn't believe you, Sadat"
true stroy (source - Haaretz article in Hebrew)
like you, Golda just knew what Sadat was thinking in 1972, so why bother to take him seriously?

First of all, Abbas is most definitely NOT a Sadat. If he would be, I would not hold the opinion that I hold and more importantly, I have no doubt that the Israeli public would insist and force the Israeli government to react the same way that even that arch right wing Israeli prime minister, Begin, reacted to Sadat. To make major territorial concessions in exchange for what was a genuine peace offer by the Egyptian president (Sadat).

2) once again (repeated several times in this and other threds) I have to mention the basics of PR - the whole purpose of answering initiatives and demands is to throw the ball back at your opponent. let him be the one who says NO or else let your proposals stay unanswered

What, you are going to ignore my post #49, are you?

[sharonbn]

So what would you have done?

I would say I agree to start negotiations based on the plan as starting point.
I would also say I endorse the Geneva accord, let the Saudis be the ones who openly reject a peace proposal and/or negotiations.

I have already answered that one before. That's how things work, that's what they do when it comes to Israel. You don't believe me? Then ask yourself why they dismissed everyone of Israel's other initiatives?

b/c there was not enough int'l pressure for them to do otherwise.
like I said, the Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular, don't want to negotiate peace with Israel.
However, it is in our interests that they do - we want to end the conflict more than they do.
we need to enlist the int'l media and community to ais us in pressuring the Arabs to the table and then to sign a peace treaty.
we almost succeeded in doing so in 2000, and failed b/c of Arafat's stubbornness. we need to try again.
I know that the int'l media is biased against us, its going to be hard. however, I reject the notion that there is nothing we can do.

Yes, I am sure that Israel could always do more but would it do any good? Personolly I doubt it.

and I don't.

Had they not acted they way that they had, there would not be an "occupation" today. There wouldn't even been any "settlements" because right after 1967, Israel offered to get out of the entire West Bank, except Jerusalem, in exchange for direct negotiations and a comprehensive peace deal.

yes, the Arabs made a lot of mistakes, so did Israel.
now its time we learned from our mistakes and hope they do the same.

[Pleepleus]

...b/c there was not enough int'l pressure for them to do otherwise.
like I said, the Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular, don't want to negotiate peace with Israel.
However, it is in our interests that they do - we want to end the conflict more than they do.
we need to enlist the int'l media and community to aid us in pressuring the Arabs to the table and then to sign a peace treaty.
we almost succeeded in doing so in 2000, and failed b/c of Arafat's stubbornness. we need to try again.
I know that the int'l media is biased against us, its going to be hard. however, I reject the notion that there is nothing we can do...

I don't see the value in a peace treaty that one side has been pressured against their will into signing.

So, Abbas signs a treaty, Israel vacates strategic lands overlooking is populations centers, then Hamas gets elected by an overwhelming majority by the Islamists and pissed off returned refugees who oppose the treaty, and the rockets and mortar shells start landing on Ben Gurion airport, Tel Aviv, Netanya, Jerusalem, etc.

You are not going to get peace in this way, only a worthless peace of paper.

[Aliyah1995]

Sharonbn-

2) according to the central statistics authority, during the freeze, work started on 114 new houses, and continued or finished on 1175 ongoing projects. some freeze indeed.

I don't know where the above houses where built/finished, but in my community the freeze was QUITE real. We know people who wanted to add to their houses, but couldn't and people who frantically looked for places to rent because they were counting on being able to finish their homes, but couldn't.