We didn't forget about the occupation

[sharonbn]

Saudi Initiative = 1967 borders = ethnic cleansing of 500,000 "settlers"

The Saudi Initiative does not explicitly state that the settlers have to be resettled. They can live under Palestinian rule.

Saudi Initiative = "Right of Return" of millions of Palestinians into Israel proper.

The initiative refers to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, which emphasizes the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel. In a compromise wording, it states that the League supports any negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestinians and does not mention the term "right of return" (source: wikipedia)

Saudi Initiative = Israel has to give up all of East Jerusalem.

so does Geneva accord and so (probably) did Olmert.
Like dayag said - assuming we can strike a deal with the Palestinians that is close to the Geneva accord proposal, I am sure the Saudis and Arab world would accept that. They, too, are tired of the conflict and of the Palestinian refugees.

Saudi Initiative = No recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.

The "carrot" part of the Saudi Initiative includes recognition in the existence and legitimacy of Israel, incl' establishing formal relations, as well as formal declaration of end of claims and end of conflict (source: same as above)

[sharonbn]

Two more points I think are important enough to merit a separate post -

1) I think its time we realize that the Arabs are not going to hand us a proposal with exact terms that we like on day one.
We are not going to hear an explicit declaration from any Arab official regarding recognition of Israel as Jewish homeland or abandoning of "right of return".
and this is the same the other way around - the Palis will never get an Israeli open proposal that includes everything they want on day one.

what this means? this means the Israel can state that it agrees to take the Saudi proposal as opening position for further negotiations. it does not mean Israel just committed to full right of return.

2) The whole point of my reference to the Saudi plan was not to take the proposal face value and shove it up the throat of Israel.
The point was that as long as Israel refuses any and all Arab initiatives, it is easy for the Arabs and indeed for the rest of the world to point the finger at Israel and blame it for prolonging the conflict. If Israel agrees to negotiate on the basis of the Saudi plan, this may reflect some of the int'l pressure onto the Palestinians - and we all seem to agree that this is what is missing nowadays.

[Aliyah1995]

Sharon-

The Saudi Initiative does not explicitly state that the settlers have to be resettled. They can live under Palestinian rule.

Let's be honest. I venture to say that for most of us Jews living in Judea and Samaria, telling us we can live under Palestinian rule is, for all practical purposes, the same as telling us to leave.

[dayag]

Saudi Initiative = Israel has to give up all of East Jerusalem.

...so does Geneva accord and so (probably) did Olmert...

Actually, in the Geneva Initiative, some of the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would be retained by Israel.

http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmen...tive-jerusalem

Also in Olmert's plan, the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain part of Israel, but the Holy Basin (area around Old City) would be under the control of five different states (Palestine, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and Israel); though Abbas was under the impression that Egypt and the Vatican would be involved as well). Having a majority of Muslim states in this mix seems like a major mistake to me.

And for what little it is worth, I personally oppose giving up even a centimeter of any of the Holy Basin under any circumstances.

[dayag]

Sharon-

Let's be honest. I venture to say that for most of us Jews living in Judea and Samaria, telling us we can live under Palestinian rule is, for all practical purposes, the same as telling us to leave.

How about a post-peace-agreement population swap for those settlements on the wrong side of the line with the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta, Satmarers, etc. replacing those settlers repatriating to Israel?

[Reffo]

Yes, but for all its faults, the Saudi Initiative was still a big step forward from the three No's of Khartoum. Even the Palestinians talk about the pre-1967 cease fire lines as if they are the final borders. They are tiring of the conflict as well (except for Hamas and their numerous supporters who at least are honest about their intentions)

Please don't mistake my objections to the Saudi Initiative as reflexive negativity. Of course it is a major progress to the three 'Nos' of Khartoum. But it needs to be put in perspective. It is still very far away from a possible peace deal.

If the right of return is limited to those 30,000 or so who actually are refugees (and not their millions of descendants) that part of it would not be a problem. Especially if the right of return is contingent on the returning refugees swearing to be loyal citizens of Israel. I wonder if Abbas would avail himself of this right with that proviso?!

The Saudi offer did NOT put a limit on the numbers who would be allowed "to return".

Also, if the Palestinians and Israelis came to an agreement on the borders, I don't think the Saudis and other Arab nations would object. Olmert and Abbas were only a couple of percentage points apart on how much territory in the West Bank that Israel would retain. So, it could feasibly be done

Even then, I am not sure about the Saudi reaction. They seem to have maximalist claims on Jerusalem.

To be honest, I am not as trustful of the Saudis as you seem to be. Historically, they have shown great propensity to sow mischief. I am not convinced that they have changed all that much. Of course, I admit I could be wrong.

However recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people is necessary if this is to completely end the conflict. And the final agreement must clearly rule out any further claims or demands down the road.

I couldn't agree with you more.

[Reffo]

The Saudi Initiative does not explicitly state that the settlers have to be resettled. They can live under Palestinian rule

I agree with what Aliyah said about that.

The initiative refers to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, which emphasizes the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel. In a compromise wording, it states that the League supports any negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestinians and does not mention the term "right of return" (source: wikipedia)

Resolution 194 states the following:

The UNCCP, which was set up to facilitate the implementation of Resolution 194 (III), subsequently drafted a number of papers to facilitate its work. In 1950, however, the Committee prepared a comprehensive paper (W/45) on the meaning of paragraph 11. The Committee arrived at 6 major conclusions:

(1) the term “refugees” applies to all persons displaced during the war in Palestine;

(2) the refugees have a right to exercise their free choice about their future;

(3) the refugees have a right to return to their homes and not just their homeland;

(4) refugees wishing to return should give advance assurances of their intention to live in peace. Israel may reserve a right to veto individual cases based on evidence of past action;

(5) Israel has an obligation to protect the rights of returnees and Arab host states have an obligation to ensure that refugees are able to make a free choice; and,

(6) refugees should be able to return when stable conditions have been established and that such conditions were created by the 1949 armistice agreements

Please pay attention to items 2 and 3. Those items make the issue of the refugees too open ended. There are currently about 5 million Arabs recognized as Palestinian refugees by the UN ( they recognize the descendants as refugees too). So what if say 75% of them choose to exercise their "right" to return to their "homes"? What happens then? According to the Saudi plan, their will would have to prevail because that's what UN resolution 194 says. Certainly the Arabs believe that. They have said as much many times.

so does Geneva accord and so (probably) did Olmert.
Like dayag said - assuming we can strike a deal with the Palestinians that is close to the Geneva accord proposal, I am sure the Saudis and Arab world would accept that. They, too, are tired of the conflict and of the Palestinian refugees

I agree with dayag. Neither the Geneva accord, nor Olmert offered to give up ALL of East Jerusalem. Both specified that the Jewish holy places would remain under Israeli jurisdiction.

[Reffo]

Two more points I think are important enough to merit a separate post -

1) I think its time we realize that the Arabs are not going to hand us a proposal with exact terms that we like on day one.
We are not going to hear an explicit declaration from any Arab official regarding recognition of Israel as Jewish homeland or abandoning of "right of return".
and this is the same the other way around - the Palis will never get an Israeli open proposal that includes everything they want on day one.

what this means? this means the Israel can state that it agrees to take the Saudi proposal as opening position for further negotiations. it does not mean Israel just committed to full right of return.

2) The whole point of my reference to the Saudi plan was not to take the proposal face value and shove it up the throat of Israel.
The point was that as long as Israel refuses any and all Arab initiatives, it is easy for the Arabs and indeed for the rest of the world to point the finger at Israel and blame it for prolonging the conflict. If Israel agrees to negotiate on the basis of the Saudi plan, this may reflect some of the int'l pressure onto the Palestinians - and we all seem to agree that this is what is missing nowadays

Unfortunately though the Saudis presented their plan as a 'Take it or Leave it' package deal. They said that unless Israel accepts the whole package as is, there would be no deal.

Here read the following article by Mordechai Kedar of Bar Ilan University ...

Peace needs a very different Arab League approach

Several years ago, I appeared on the Arabic-language satellite channel al-Hurra, which is run by the US State Department, in a discussion of the API. With me on the panel, from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, was Dr. Muhammad Al Zulfa, diplomatic adviser to King Abdullah. I believe, not without foundation, that he was the brains behind the API, which entered the world as a Saudi initiative presented to the Arab League summit in March 2002 in Beirut.

In the ensuing televised discussion, I argued that the API comprised positive components like recognition of Israel and comprehensive Arab peace with us. The Arab League should, I stated, negotiate with Israel regarding the details. Al Zulfa insisted that Israel must accept the plan word for word without deleting a single letter and implement it, only after which the Arabs would agree to talk to Israel. The Arabs would not negotiate with Israel over anything until the latter completed implementation. Al Zulfa insisted this was a non-negotiable condition

And he is not lying because I remember reading the same thing in Australian newspapers and American magazines at the time when the Arab Peace Initiative was first mentioned in 2002. Since then, the spin network has gone to work full time and they have been trying to spread their usual message that Israel is the party that is intransigent. The truth is that I remember Peres reacting positively to the plan at the time. He said that it was a good starting point from which they could arrive at a deal after negotiations. He was told by the Arabs that there would be no negotiations and that either Israel accepts the plan as is or it can leave it ...

[Pleepleus]

"the term “refugees” applies to all persons displaced during the war in Palestine"

Nothing about their descendants there.

Also, the resolution calls only for the return of those refugees "wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours." I have no doubt the wishing to live at peace with their neighbors clause would exclude the overwhelming majority of those who left Palestine circa 1947-48.

Resolution 194 also calls for Jerusalem and Bethlehem to be turned over to the UN. I don't see anyone talking about the UN's "Right" to rule Jerusalem.

Finally and most importantly, Resolution 194 is a non-binding resolution of the General Assembly. Israel is under no legal or moral obligation to commit demographic suicide and allow the immigration of millions of people who have been inculcated with hatred towards the Jewish State and all Jews their entire lives.

[Reffo]

Nothing about their descendants there

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) defines a Palestine refugee as a person "whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict".[5] The descendants of the original Palestine refugees in the male line "are also eligible for registration."[5] UNRWA aids all "those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance"[5] and those who first became refugees as a result of the Six-Day War, regardless whether they reside in areas designated as Palestine refugee camps or in other permanent communities. A Palestine refugee camp is "a plot of land placed at the disposal of UNRWA by the host government to accommodate Palestine refugees and to set up facilities to cater to their needs".[5] Today, 58 UNRWA recognised refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank habor only "one-third of the registered Palestine refugees, more than 1.4 million."[5] The UNRWA definition does not cover final status.[5][9] In many cases UNHCR provides support for the children of Palestine refugees too.

Registered descendants of UNRWA Palestine refugees are, like “Nansen Passport” and “Certificate of Eligibility” holders (the documents issued those displaced by World War II) and UNHCR refugees [10] are inherited the same UNRWA Palestine refugee status as their male parent.

Based on the UNRWA definition, the number of original Palestine refugees has declined from 711,000 in 1950[1] to an estimated 30 to 50,000 in 2012. An estimated 5 million Palestine refugees are registered in total in 2012. In 2012 the number of registered descendants of male parents of the original Palestine refugees, based on the UNRWA registration requirements, are an estimated 4,950,000.[2][3][4][5]

Palestinian Refugee

Trust me, Pleepleus, the Palestinians insist on the UNRWA definition. I can offer you links that confirm what I say, if you want.

[Reffo]

Pleepleus

You probably know this already, but nevertheless it is worth pointing out that the Palestinian Arabs are the only people on this earth who are recognized as refugees, by the UN, even if they are just descendants of refugees. No other refugee population is accorded the same treatment by the UN. For other people, the UN only recognizes as refugees the people who actually flee their country. Their descendants are not recognized as refugees.

The Palestinian Arabs are the only refugees who are extended this extra recognition. The Arabs fought tooth and nail at the UN to ensure this extra recognition for Palestinian Arabs. One has to wonder, why?

[Aliyah1995]

How about a post-peace-agreement population swap for those settlements on the wrong side of the line with the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta, Satmarers, etc. replacing those settlers repatriating to Israel?

It would certainly be a good chance for them to put their "they aren't against Jews, only Zionists" theory to the test.

[dayag]

...

You probably know this already, but nevertheless it is worth pointing out that the Palestinian Arabs are the only people on this earth who are recognized as refugees, by the UN, even if they are just descendants of refugees. No other refugee population is accorded the same treatment by the UN. For other people, the UN only recognizes as refugees the people who actually flee their country. Their descendants are not recognized as refugees.

The Palestinian Arabs are the only refugees who are extended this extra recognition. The Arabs fought tooth and nail at the UN to ensure this extra recognition for Palestinian Arabs. One has to wonder, why?

Reffo, it is like Lincoln's dog joke:

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

There is no need to wonder why the UNRWA does this. Calling the descendants of refugees "refugees" is merely a ploy to use them as a weapon against Israel. Likewise anti-Palestinian Apartheid in the Arab countries seeks to isolate them in camps and force them back to "Palestine". No complaints from the left about this official discrimination. J'accuse!

Fortunately for Israel, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency definition is not binding in International Law. The Palestinians can whine about their so-called "Right of Return" forever, but it isn't going to happen.

[Reffo]

Fortunately for Israel, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency definition is not binding in International Law. The Palestinians can whine about their so-called "Right of Return" forever, but it isn't going to happen

And it also renders the so called Arab peace initiative a non starter. At least so long as they insist that the tail of the dog is a fifth leg

[sharonbn]

can't you see how your (and Israel's) constant negative replies help to paint Israel as the obstacle to peace in the eyes of the int'l community? how easy it is for them to turn a blind eye over the Palis' position and apply pressure only to Israel?

I will say it again - regardless how thew Saudis present it now - its an opening position only
Perhaps if Israel would say: ok, it seems like a good start, we can't accept it face valie but there is some good ground to build upon. how about we sit over the table and try to negotiate a compromise between all of us? hmm? how about if we take the Geneva accord and work from there? hmm?
something... anything but just plain NO

can't you see the reason behind that? am I talking to myself?