We didn't forget about the occupation

[Reffo]

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?

Peres already said what you suggest Israel should be saying and he was sent packing.

As for Netanyahu to say it again now, it would not help unless he would be willing to implement a total freeze on accommdating natural growth in all the contested areas. Such a proposition is politically untenable, impractical and it is unfair too.

I am not just inventing this, sharonbn, Abbas is reiterating at every opportunity that he won't negotiate unless there is a total freeze. And he means natural growth within the perimeters of existing "settlements".

[Aliyah1995]

Sharon, as Reffo said, taking the Saudi Plan "as an opening position" has been tried in the past, only to be answered by "take the plan as is or leave it...."

So, what do we do then?

[sharonbn]

with all due respect to Peres, he is not the Israeli gov't. The gov't sets foreign policy and represents Israel position, not the president.
Once again - it is easy for the Arab world and the western one to dismiss Peres' statements and continue to point the finger at Israel as the obstacle. The gov't needs to publicly declare something productive if it wants to be treated otherwise.

and in my eyes, freezing new building in the settlements is indeed a justified precondition. For instance, the new "Har Choma" neighborhood in east jer'm did not exist at the time of the signing of Geneva accord, so it is not referenced. now that it is erected, does Israel have any justification to claim it just b/c its there? at this rate, if the peace process is stalled for ten more years, we will come to a point where the maps of Geneva accord will no longer be relevant - so then what? we draw new maps? why? just because Israel continue the policy of "sprawl annexation"? this needs to be stopped. It should have been done back in the 70s but it wasn't. now we have the maps of Geneva accord - Israeli gov't can counter the Saudi plan with its own public plan based on the Geneva accord and can turn the negative tide and pressure of int'l community against the Palis.

If we know now that eventually we will have to give up the occupied territories, we cannot rely on the stalling of the peace process in order to annex more and more land - this is both unfair and unproductive (see ulpana hill case...)

guys, time plays against us b/c of this "sprawl annexation" policy (or lack of).

edit -
after a little bit of online research, I see that perhaps I was mistaken regarding "Har Choma" neighborhood and Geneva accord. However, my point still stands - Geneva accord will be obsolete if Israel continues to treat the occupied territories as anything else then just that - occupied territories, to be returned in "land for peace" deal.

[Aliyah1995]

with all due respect to Peres, he is not the Israeli gov't.

True, but if they gave Peres the virtual middle finger, why should we believe they would respond to Netanyahu/Barak anymore favorably. After all, Peres is probably the most beloved Israeli figure internationally (like it or not). So, if he can't convince our partners that the Saudi Peace Initiative or the Geneva Accord should be a starting point, what can we expect from other Israeli figures?

[sharonbn]

perhaps if the gov't publicly declares some kind of initiative, instead of saying NO all the time - perhaps that can change the opinion of the western world?
perhaps not
isn't it worth trying??

[Aliyah1995]

How far was what Barak and/or Olmert offered away from the Geneva Initiative or SPI?

[sharonbn]

regarding Barak's proposal from 2000, I think the general opinion is that Arafat is to blame for the failure of the Camp David summit of 2000, largely due to Clinton's statements of the time.

the negotiations during Olmert's term were secret and were never fully revealed.

[wat0n]

The documents were leaked last year. You can find both sides' positions here:

PA: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/pale...documents/2648
Israel: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/pale...documents/4736

[Reffo]

sharonbn

Yes, Arafat was to blame for the rejection of Ehud Barak's 2000/2001 initiative. And yes, Abbas was to blame for not saying yes to Ehud Olmert's 2008 peace offer. And with due respect, never mind that Shimon Peres said exactly what you want Israel to say in 2002, in response to the so called Arab peace initiative when Peres was the foreign minister of Israel. Never mind all that? You say that Israel is the one who says 'No' all the time?

[Reffo]

The documents were leaked last year. You can find both sides' positions here:

PA: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/pale...documents/2648
Israel: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/pale...documents/4736

What a pity that the PLO leadership, including Abbas, vehemently denied the veracity of the leaked papers. That tells me one of two possibilities:

• Either they are right to deny it and the papers represent fiction.
• Or they are wrong and the leaked papers represent what DID happen. But they didn't mean what they offered and they now don't want to own it.

Either way, the leaked papers to all practical purpuses, are irrelevant.

[Reffo]

and in my eyes, freezing new building in the settlements is indeed a justified precondition. For instance, the new "Har Choma" neighborhood in east jer'm did not exist at the time of the signing of Geneva accord, so it is not referenced. now that it is erected, does Israel have any justification to claim it just b/c its there? at this rate, if the peace process is stalled for ten more years, we will come to a point where the maps of Geneva accord will no longer be relevant - so then what? we draw new maps? why? just because Israel continue the policy of "sprawl annexation"? this needs to be stopped. It should have been done back in the 70s but it wasn't. now we have the maps of Geneva accord - Israeli gov't can counter the Saudi plan with its own public plan based on the Geneva accord and can turn the negative tide and pressure of int'l community against the Palis.

If we know now that eventually we will have to give up the occupied territories, we cannot rely on the stalling of the peace process in order to annex more and more land - this is both unfair and unproductive (see ulpana hill case...)

guys, time plays against us b/c of this "sprawl annexation" policy (or lack of).

edit -
after a little bit of online research, I see that perhaps I was mistaken regarding "Har Choma" neighborhood and Geneva accord. However, my point still stands - Geneva accord will be obsolete if Israel continues to treat the occupied territories as anything else then just that - occupied territories, to be returned in "land for peace" deal

I thought you said that we all know what the final peace agreement will look like. I took it that by that you meant that the major "settlement blocks" will be annexed to Israel. If so, then how can you agree with the proposition that at least in those settlements there should be a total freeze in natural growth within the existing perimeters of those blocks?

[wat0n]

What a pity that the PLO leadership, including Abbas, vehemently denied the veracity of the leaked papers. That tells me one of two possibilities:

• Either they are right to deny it and the papers represent fiction.
• Or they are wrong and the leaked papers represent what DID happen. But they didn't mean what they offered and they now don't want to own it.

Either way, the leaked papers to all practical purpuses, are irrelevant.

"Irrelevant" is not the correct word, IMO. It does show that there is willingness among Fatah's leaders to give out concessions (they aren't personally or even ideologically against it), the real question mark remaining is whether they actually have the guts to do so. It also shows that the gaps between both sides aren't as wide as it may seem...

Of course, this doesn't change the current situation that much. But it does leave a window open for a breakthrough if political conditions change...

[Reffo]

"Irrelevant" is not the correct word, IMO. It does show that there is willingness among Fatah's leaders to give out concessions (they aren't personally or even ideologically against it), the real question mark remaining is whether they actually have the guts to do so. It also shows that the gaps between both sides aren't as wide as it may seem...

Of course, this doesn't change the current situation that much. But it does leave a window open for a breakthrough if political conditions change...

Ok I am willing to go along with that.

[sharonbn]

sharonbn

Yes, Arafat was to blame for the rejection of Ehud Barak's 2000/2001 initiative. And yes, Abbas was to blame for not saying yes to Ehud Olmert's 2008 peace offer. And with due respect, never mind that Shimon Peres said exactly what you want Israel to say in 2002, in response to the so called Arab peace initiative when Peres was the foreign minister of Israel. Never mind all that? You say that Israel is the one who says 'No' all the time?

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

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.

[sharonbn]

I thought you said that we all know what the final peace agreement will look like. I took it that by that you meant that the major "settlement blocks" will be annexed to Israel. If so, then how can you agree with the proposition that at least in those settlements there should be a total freeze in natural growth within the existing perimeters of those blocks?

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