Hamas, PA reject any peace plan without right of return

[Kurska]

The Palestinian Authority said that it would reject any peace initiative that requires Palestinians to relinquish the right of return.

Nabil Sha’ath, member of the PA negotiating team, said that the right of return was a basic right, which the Palestinians couldn’t give up.

“We will reject any American peace plan that calls on us to give up one of our basic rights – the right of return for refugees,” Sha’ath, a former PA foreign minister who played a major role in the signing of the Oslo Accords, said.

Sha’ath noted that the Oslo Accords that were signed between Israel and the PLO cal for holding discussions on major issues like Jerusalem, refugees, borders and security.

“How can Washington plan for such a solution?” he asked, referring to the report about US President Barack Obama’s new peace initiative. “There are no contacts between Washington and the PA on this issue.”

Sha’ath claimed that members of the Quartet – the US, EU, UN and Russia – were recently forced to postpone their meeting to discuss the status of the Middle East peace talks because Washington was opposed to a pro-Palestinian statement that they were planning to issue.

The Hamas government in the Gaza Strip described the Obama initiative as an “alarm bell that jeopardizes the right of return.”

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=217641

Well there you go, what exactly is the point of negotiations now? The PA has plainly stated it will accept nothing less than Israel committing national suicide on the negotiation table. Wonderful, there will be no peace in our time. The Palestinians will try to force the issue at the GA claiming that Israelis outrageously won't consent to their own destruction. It could very well be the issue that rips the UN apart as this will play right into the hands of right wingers (especially in the united states) who have always viewed the UN as nothing more than a international attempt to subject democratic countries to the whims of authoritarian ones and at least in this case they will be right. Prepare for massive cuts to UN funding by the United States, followed by other international moves to mitigate the UN's influence.

War will probably follow, goaded on by the dictators of the middle east desperate to deflect attention from themselves. Their useful idiots, who have for 60 years put the focus on tiny democratic Israel instead of the millions with no democratic representation and far less human rights than the Palestinian citizens in Israel enjoy and less still than the non-citizens of the occupied territories, will continue to play their part.

I have never felt that all is lost more than I do at this moment and I fear for the future of the millions caught up in this game, no matter if they are Israeli, Palestinian and other Arabs. In the end they are all going to bleed, and I can't help but feeling there will be a lot of blood.

[azurnoir]

1. And what would Israel have to give up with the 'new' Obama Peace Plan?

and how willing would Israel be to give that up?

[Kurska]

2. I don't believe it has even been proposed yet.

But it doesn't matter if the Palestinians won't accept it without right of return. As said, it is a demand for national suicide, for the destruction of Israel through diplomatic instead of military means. A nation of 300 million would be hard pressed to accept millions of refugees, for a nation of 7 million it would be apocalyptic regardless of ethnicity or culture. When those refugees probably don't even speak the language and would permanently shift the demographic balance you're looking at a flux that Will destroy the state.

[azurnoir]

3. Israel would be required to give up everything outside the 1967

borders with the exception of Jerusalem which it would be required to share

If US President Barack Obama puts forward an American plan in the coming days, it will likely include four principles, or terms of reference, built around the final status issues, The New York Times reported.

According to the report, the terms of reference could call for Israel to accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. For their part, the Palestinians would have to accept that they would not get the right of return, to land in Israel from which they fled or were forced to flee. Jerusalem would be the capital of both states, and Israeli security would have to be protected, according to officials who spoke to the daily.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=381071

and your right the Palestinians are outraged about RoR but it is a matter of who can be 'called out' as saying no first

For their part some Israeli law maker have come up with an 'innovative' new plan for peace

Revisiting the Jordan option

Amid the unrest now sweeping the Middle East, Israeli government and security officials are quietly discussing an unusual strategy that would pass the Palestinians’ political future off to Jordan. With the odds of a negotiated two-state solution at an all-time low, former Defense Minister Moshe Arens, Knesset Member Arieh Eldad, and Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin resurrected the “Jordan is Palestine” model for regional peace.


Israeli officials fear that a Palestinian Intifada could break out on both sides of the Jordan River, and they seek to make it as much a Jordanian problem as an Israeli one.

<snip>

The notion of a Palestinian controlled polity in Jordan is not new. From the war of Israeli independence in 1948 through the Six-Day War in 1967, Israeli politicians on the Left and Right advanced a policy of “Jordan is Palestine.” While defending Israel from Arab aggression, they proposed that Jordan become the Palestinian homeland. Israeli officials proposed various scenarios for a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation that fused the East Bank and West Bank of the Jordan River under one administration.


However, it is not as simple as that. Dan Schueftan, author of A Jordanian Option, correctly noted in 1986 that such an arrangement would be dependent on Israeli-Jordanian relations and how the two parties view potential threats from the Palestinian populations in their midst.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4059954,00.html

[azurnoir]

5. according to the Palestine Papers the PA already

offered only nominal RoR and Israel (under Olmert) turned it down

[Kurska]

6. Their position then might not be their position now.

I can only go by their most recent statement. As I feared, the threat of action in the GA has only hardened the Palestinian position, making peace before then next to impossible.

[azurnoir]

7. But there is some question here as to Mr Sha'aths actual role here

the JPost article states

The Palestinian Authority said that it would reject any peace initiative that requires Palestinians to relinquish the right of return.

Nabil Sha’ath, member of the PA negotiating team, said that the right of return was a basic right, which the Palestinians couldn’t give up.

but it seems they forgot the former in front of negotiator, he was a negotiator during the Oslo talks but does not seem to be an official negotiator as of right now

here's what I found on Mr Sha'ath

“Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Information”

Dr. Nabil Shaath - Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of InformationNabil Shaath was appointed Deputy Prime Minster and Minister of Information in Mahmoud Abbas’ new government.

He had previously held the positions of Foreign Minister and Minister of Planning and International Cooperation since. He was elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council in 1996 representing Khan Younis in the Gaza Strip.

Shaath is a member of Fatah's Central Committee and was part of the Palestinian delegation to the 1991 Madrid Middle East Peace Conference and has participated in several sessions of peace negotiations with Israel in Oslo and Washington.

http://www.palestine-pmc.com/whodesc.asp?id=12

Shaath: Israel responsible for failure of talks

A Fatah official said Thursday that Israel was responsible for the failure of peace talks last year because of its refusal to commit to international resolutions and end settlements.

Nabil Shaath said Israel was trying to place Palestinians into isolated cantons, through its building of a separation barrier that has separated Palestinian communities. Israel says the wall is for security.

Worse still, Shaath said, was the lack of Palestinian unity which "is destroying the Palestinian cause and giving Israel an excuse to continue assaulting and besieging Gaza."

His remarks came at a meeting with the speaker of the parliament of Paraguay.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=381017

[Kurska]

8. If Abbas wants to come out and rebuke this stance fine.

But as of right now there is no reason to assume Sha'ath is acting as some sort of rogue agent, especially when the story is a day or so old and no one has said anything to counter him.

[azurnoir]

9. Mr Sha'ath at present does not appear to be an official negotiator

now a couple posts back I gave you an example of some Israeli lawmakers spouting some stuff, I did not present them as an official Israeli position however they are politicians with big mouths as IMO Mr Shha'ath politicians with big mouths are hardly a rarity

[Kurska]

10. Well then it would be fairly easy for Abbas to denounce the comment then.

Yeah sure, that is going to happen the PA is too busy opening fire on hassidic jews to build "street cred" ahead of the war they are going to start.

http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=217700

The chance for negotiated peace died as soon as Abbas decided to try and force the UN's hand. There is going to be a another war because of it.

[azurnoir]

16. Does Netanyahu have to 'denounce' every Israeli politician

who says something stupid? Oh ya I've read the story about what happened at Joseph's Tomb

[Kurska]

19. A minister who used to be a negotiator isn't just another politician.

They speak with the authority of the government, when do the inane excuses end?

[azurnoir]

21. so every Israeli politician is now an official spokesman or is this a blatant double standard?

Mr Sha'ath was a negotiator almost 20 years ago

[Kurska]

29. Sha'ath is clearly a rogue element, i mean he is only a minister!

With access to the inner workings of the PA and insider knowledge.

[azurnoir]

82. You are the one making the 'rogue' this and that claims my stance is that Sha'ath is not

currently an official negotiator, and that he was 18 years ago has little bearing on today

he is not a rogue anything he is a politician nothing more nothing less, same as his Israeli counterparts

[Ken Burch]

95. Netanyahu needs to make a meaningul counter-offer.

Not just compensation for the dispossessions in '48 and '67(btw, I've heard that some of those who had to leave in '48 had their bank accounts frozen by the Israeli government and those accounts are still frozen-true or not?) but also apologies and an admission that they were wronged.

I truly think that acknowledgment(including an acknowledgment that BOTH national entities have equal roots in the land), as much as anything else, might make a difference.

At this point(and perhaps this will only change when Bibi's ancient and hate-based dad Benzion finally kicks)Bibi STILL looks like he's more interested in looking like he's got the Pals at his mercy than in actually ending the dispute. The man's made gratuitously defiant bloody-minded arrogance his trademark-is it possible for him to change?

[Ken Burch]

97. Damn...that should've been "meaningful", not "meaningul".

I hate when I do that.

[shira]

15. The PA offered nothing WRT refguee return....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=347701&mesg_id=347880

[cali]

13. I think this is more a bargaining position than anything else.

It's not like the Palestinians have a lot of other chips to play.

[houstonintc]

4. Asking for National suicide is asking alot...

Asking for National Suicide is a pretty big demand to make,

Demands for the Old City of Jerusalem would also be about as high in the hearts and minds of most Jews within Israel and even abroad.

[azurnoir]

17. But there is no 'national suicide' being asked for here n/t

[Kurska]

20. Are you denying that full right of return would be the end of Israel?

We've discussed this, no nation could double it's population through immigration and survive, much less when the immigrates don't even speak the language and of a completely different culture most likely.

[azurnoir]

23. I am denying that full RoR is being required

as was pointed out to you down thread

[Kurska]

30. Yes you're countering a statement made days ago by a minister with statements

made 7 or 8 years ago by A DEAD MAN.

[azurnoir]

32. BS I am stating that nowhere in your JPost piece does it state that full RoR is required

not to mention again that Sha'ath is not an official negotiator in these talks as is JPost appears to be purporting

[Kurska]

33. "Right of return" has a meaning.

Unless it is QUALIFIED with another statement like "partial right of return" I am going to assume full right of return is mentioned.

Again this wouldn't be a issue if the PA would make a statement, they have not and won't.

[azurnoir]

41. and once again does Netanyahu have to qualify everything his politicians say? the double standard

is appalling

[Kurska]

45. Go ahead and be appalled, the mental gymnastic being used to explain away

the comment or the position is on full display.

[azurnoir]

72. or those off someone trying to ignore the issue of one standard for Israeli's

and another for Palestinians but it's ok we see that all the time

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. not to sound excessively semantical - but there is a huge difference in legal terms between refusing

to relinquish the right of return and demanding the implementation of the right of return.

As recognized by international law - every Palestinian who became a refugee in 1948 and 1949 and their descendants has at least in theory the right to return to their home or the environs of their homes - according to Article 13 of the Declaration of Universal Human Rights and specifically affirmed in regards to the Palestinians by U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 1948. Very few Palestinians actually expect this right to actually be implemented. But most would have a real crisis of conscience to actually sign off on or give up that right as a matter of principle.

I recall once talking with a Palestinian who was born and raised in Jordan and had full Jordanian citizenship. He made it very clear that his life was in Jordan and he had no desire whatsoever to return to even the West Bank much less to Jaffa where his father was born. He was going to stay in Jordan. But when I asked if he would be willing to formally, officially and legally rescind his right of return - on this point he was absolutely dogmatic - no - Never! This might all sound like semantics - but the difference in language is crucial from the point of view of selling the agreement to the Palestinian diaspora around the world. Emotionally speaking it would be like insisting that Jewish people around the world to rescind their claim to Israel's law of return.

The late Chairman Yasser Arafat stated clearly in an editorial on February 3, 2002 in the New York Times that Palestinians do recognize the demographic concerns of Israel and that these concerns must be considered in any peace agreement:

"We understand Israel's demographic concerns and understand that the right of return of Palestinian refugees, a right guaranteed under international law and United Nations Resolution 194, must be implemented in a way that takes into account such concerns." - - Yasser Arafat

.....

Palestinians are ready to end the conflict. We are ready to sit down now with any Israeli leader, regardless of his history, to negotiate freedom for the Palestinians, a complete end of the occupation, security for Israel and creative solutions to the plight of the refugees while respecting Israel's demographic concerns. - - Yasser Arafat


http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/03/opinion/the-palestinian-vision-of-peace.html

Furthermore according to the Morantinos Documents of the Taba Talks of January 2001 - there was significant discussions in regards to the issue of refugees and the right of return. These documents do verify that there was a willingness to compromise on the part of both parties:

3. Refugees

Non-papers were exchanged, which were regarded as a good basis for the talks. Both sides stated that the issue of the Palestinian refugees is central to the Israeli-Palestinian relations and that a comprehensive and just solution is essential to creating a lasting and morally scrupulous peace. Both sides agreed to adopt the principles and references with could facilitate the adoption of an agreement.

Both sides suggested, as a basis, that the parties should agree that a just settlement of the refugee problem in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 242 must lead to the implementation of UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

3.1 Narrative

The Israeli side put forward a suggested joint narrative for the tragedy of the Palestinian refugees. The Palestinian side discussed the proposed narrative and there was much progress, although no agreement was reached in an attempt to develop and historical narrative in the general text.

3.2 Return, repatriation and relocation and rehabilitation

Both sides engaged in a discussion of the practicalities of resolving the refugee issue. The Palestinian side reiterated that the Palestinian refugees should have the right of return to their homes in accordance with the interpretation of UNGAR 194. The Israeli side expressed its understanding that the wish to return as per wording of UNGAR 194 shall be implemented within the framework of one of the following programs:

A. Return and repatriation
1. to Israel
2. to Israel swapped territory
3. to the Palestine state.

B. Rehabilitation and relocation
1. Rehabilitation in host country.
2. Relocation to third country.

Preference in all these programs shall be accorded to the Palestinian refugee population in Lebanon. The Palestinian side stressed that the above shall be subject to the individual free choice of the refugees, and shall not prejudice their right to their homes in accordance with its interpretation of UNGAR 194.

The Israeli side, informally, suggested a three-track 15-year absorption program, which was discussed but not agreed upon. The first track referred to the absorption to Israel. No numbers were agreed upon, but with a non-paper referring to 25,000 in the first three years of this program (40,000 in the first five years of this program did not appear in the non-paper but was raised verbally). The second track referred to the absorption of Palestinian refugees into the Israeli territory, that shall be transferred to Palestinian sovereignty, and the third track referring to the absorption of refugees in the context of family reunification scheme.

The Palestinian side did not present a number, but stated that the negotiations could not start without an Israeli opening position. It maintained that Israel's acceptance of the return of refugees should not prejudice existing programs within Israel such as family reunification.

3.3 Compensation

Both sides agreed to the establishment of an International Commission and an International Fund as a mechanism for dealing with compensation in all its aspects. Both sides agreed that "small-sum" compensation shall be paid to the refugees in the "fast-track" procedure, claims of compensation for property losses below certain amount shall be subject to "fast-track" procedures.

There was also progress on Israeli compensation for material losses, land and assets expropriated, including agreement on a payment from an Israeli lump sum or proper amount to be agreed upon that would feed into the International Fund. According to the Israeli side the calculation of this payment would be based on a macro-economic survey to evaluate the assets in order to reach a fair value. The Palestinian side, however, said that this sum would be calculated on the records of the UNCCP, the Custodian for Absentee Property and other relevant data with a multiplier to reach a fair value.


http://prrn.mcgill.ca/prrn/papers/moratinos.html

So again, it is important to understand the huge difference between asking the Palestinians to not insist on demanding the implementation of the right of return and insisting that they fully rescind their claim to a right of return. These semantics make all the difference in the world when it comes to presenting the agreement to the Palestinian people.

[Kurska]

12. And the position of 2001 or 2003 doesn't dictate the position of now.

I read every word of your post, but if that is what this man meant, then he should say THAT. If that is in fact what he meant. When you go into negotiations even apparently demanding the destruction of the other party (Right of return would be the destruction of Israel, this shouldn't be denied), you create such a toxic state of affairs I would be shocked if something ever came out of it.

It is simple Abbas has actually said before that he doesn't expect the full of right of return, why then at such a critical diplomatic moment is he allowing hamas and his own ministers call for the full right of return or nothing? This isn't soothsaying where it needs to be divined what the Palestinians say when they say it as you are doing. It can be a very clear and concise message that could win Israelis over with moderation and prepare Palestinians for the fact there are going to be hard choices on what they want, but that isn't happening.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. well Mr, Netanyahu has specifically ruled out any possibility whatsoever of any settlement freeze

ever again being instituted. The head of the Israeli government has also ruled out any possibility of the removal ever again of any settlers - ever.

These are not the words of just any Minister in the Israeli government. They are the words of the head of the Israel government. Words that completely obliterate any possibility whatsoever of any plausible peace agreement.

I think one has to look at the entirety of the Palestinian position as represented by its President and Prime Minister and understand the difference between relinquishing the right of return and insisting on the implementation of the right of return.

Having said that, Mr. Nabil Sha’ath's words at this time do not appear very helpful. But I tend to agree with Cali above who sees these words as a bargaining position. I would want to believe that Mr. Netanyahu's words are also only a bargaining position. However, given the makeup of his cabinet - I doubt that Mr. Netanyahu could moderate his position even if he wanted to - without collapsing his own government.

[pelsar]

18. history once again is ignored...its too bothersome i guess

israel has elections...prime ministers change, cabinets change...policies change (remember begin? oslo? rabin?). Hence this statement is nothing less the 100% BS
The head of the Israeli government has also ruled out any possibility of the removal ever again of any settlers - ever.

i've always wondered, sometimes asked, but NEVER EVER EVER get an answer.

since its so obviously false, such a statement..why write it?

(oh and please, dont try to redefine what the word "ever " means.... i have a dictionary as well as a masters degree, hence i know how to use it)

[Kurska]

22. The fate of the settlements are a FINAL STATUS situation that should be discussed.

And I honestly think it is completely unreasonable that the lives of every settler needs to be frozen, no new houses for married couples, no new schools, nothing for natural population growth, for there to even be peace discussions.

Even then Israeli governments in the past HAVE frozen settlement growth, so the assertion that no Israeli leader will ever do it again is silly.

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. all settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory are in violation of International law and have no

business being there in the first place. Furthermore, ever increasing settlement expansion only convinces the whole world and all the more so the Palestinians that Israel is not serious about the two-state solution as well as making a plausible two-state solution all the less likely.

[Kurska]

31. You're just reading off the talking points now aren't you?

Whose more serious about the two state solution, the people building schools and houses to accommodate population growth, or the ones demanding national suicide of the other state?

I'll wait for the answer.

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. Olmert to Haaretz: Two-state solution, or Israel is done for

Olmert to Haaretz: Two-state solution, or Israel is done for

WASHINGTON - "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Haaretz Wednesday, the day the Annapolis conference ended in an agreement to try to reach a Mideast peace settlement by the end of 2008.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/olmert-to-haaretz-two-state-solution-or-israel-is-done-for-1.234201

Peace or apartheid, Israel's Barak warns

Nation & World
February 03, 2010

JERUSALEM -- Israel's defense minister warned Tuesday that if Israel does not achieve a peace deal with the Palestinians, it will be either a binational state or an undemocratic apartheid state.

"The simple truth is, if there is one state" including Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, "it will have to be either binational or undemocratic. ... If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state," Defense Minister Ehud Barak said.

He called for an immediate resumption of peace talks.

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said he agreed with Barak about that goal, but he rejected Barak's call for Palestinians to drop their demand for a halt in construction in Israel's West Bank settlements first.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-02-03/news/1002020112_1_binational-state-israel-s-west-bank-defense-minister-ehud-barak

And the settlements ARE illegal under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.. It is disingenuous for one to support continued settlement expansion and to claim one supports a negotiated two-state solution. Obviously the Palestinian Authority will negotiate a resolution to the refugee problem that respects Israel's demographic concerns. Making the two-state solution implausible will result in a situation where within a decade the state of Israel will be ruling over a Palestinian/Arab majority thus the end to a state that is both Jewish and democratic.

Part III : Status and treatment of protected persons #Section III : Occupied territories
ARTICLE 49

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600056

There are approximately 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, (*now closer to 500,000) including East Jerusalem. According to B'tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, " the built-up area of the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank ".*

http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp

full PDF map:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/Settlements_Map_Eng.pdf

Diplomats say the effect of the infrastructure changes would be to formalise the de facto cantonisation of the West Bank . Some 450,000 Israelis live in the West Bank and occupied east Jerusalem and settlements have grown by at least 5.5 per cent a year compared with less than 3 per cent among Palestinians.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/728a69d4-12b1-11dc-a475-000b5df10621.html?nclick_check=1#axzz1KUGpySfn

“there is no Palestinian state, even though the Israelis speak of one.” Instead, he said, “there will be a settler state and a Palestinian built-up area, divided into three sectors, cut by fingers of Israeli settlement and connected only by narrow roads."

Mr. Tufakji said he had become cynical about the way Israel builds for the future it defines, no matter what it promises Washington. He sees a West Bank divided into three parts by Israeli settlement blocs, the most important of which are Maale Adumim and E1, around the capital that both peoples claim as their own. “Israel is building the infrastructure to keep E1, to surround Jerusalem,” he said. “They are working to have an area of minimum Palestinians and maximum Israelis.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/world/middleeast/11road.html?_r=12&pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=22948d4799a34065&ex=1187496000&emc=eta1&oref

[Kurska]

46. I support the two state solution, you don't need to convince me it is necessary n/t..

[Recursion]

94. You cannot support both a two-state solution and any settlement expansion

The two are absolutely incompatible.

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. those are Mr. Netayahu's words not mine...

Yes, Israel of course does have elections and the policy will hopefully change at some point. But unfortunately, changing political demographics in Israel do not look encouraging. Even under Labor governments settlement expansion continued unabated and have at times even increased especially during the Oslo period.

The Changing Face of Israel

By John Mearsheimer - December 12, 2008

Avraham Burg obviously believes that the occupation has had a deeply corrupting effect on Israel. But there is something else going on inside Israel that worries him greatly: the changing nature of that society. He says, for example, that "Israeli society is split to its core," and although he does not detail the specifics of that divide, it is apparent that it has a political and a religious dimension. He believes that the political center of gravity in Israel has shifted markedly to the right. Indeed, he believes that the left has "decreased in numbers and become marginal." He also sees the balance between secular and religious Israelis shifting in favor of the latter, which is why he writes that "the establishment of a state run by rabbis and generals is not an impossible nightmare."

snip:

The rapid growth of the ultra-Orthodox community has significant consequences for Israel, because only 30 percent of Haredi men work and very few of them serve in the military. More generally, it means that they are likely to play a major role in running Israel in the decades ahead. It is worth noting that in the recent mayoral race in Jerusalem, the ultra-Orthodox candidate, Meir Porush, said that, "In another fifteen years there will not be a secular mayor in any city in Israel, except for perhaps in some far-flung village." He was exaggerating for sure, but his comment captures where Israel is headed, and why Burg worries about rabbis running the state.

snip:

Third, young Israelis who think like Burg are likely to become increasingly uncomfortable living in Israel, and find the idea of living in Europe or North America increasingly attractive. And Europe, which will be facing wicked demographic problems down the road, is likely to welcome - if not try to attract - those Israelis who want to immigrate there.

Fourth, it is likely to be increasingly difficult for pro-Israel forces in the United States to make the case that Washington should maintain its "special relationship" with Israel, because the two countries have "common values." There is not much similarity in terms of core values between the emerging Israel and contemporary America.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/12/the_changing_face_of_israel/

West Bank settlement population has indeed increased every single year. But what's really surprising is that the general trend has not changed significantly even when Israel was intensely negotiating a two-state agreement with the Palestinians. This implies that Israel has never actually been serious about a two-state solution.

http://reform-dem.blogspot.com/2009/04/israeli-west-bank-settlement-growth.html

[pelsar]

25. so?

and you believe that Netenyho is that powerful..that he can command something that will last forever?

you just spent several posts explaining how the PA leadership/negotiators dont really mean what they say and then turn around an take Netanyahos words exactly?....

so again i ask..hoping for a more serious reply...why did you write "ever"....do you really believe it? do you expect us to believe it? or is your double standard to be expected and accepted?

____

how about for a change of pace....honesty, facts, dictionary definitions, no exaggerations? no insinuations, no obvious BS? and most of all admitting when one is exaggerating, modifying the definition of words, using a double standard? i realize thats asking for a change in culture, but it might actually enhance the discussion a bit.

hell one of you might even ask a few questions about living in israel, about the IDF, about the israeli govt instead of making assumptions....(sorry got carried away).

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. knock it off..Everything I said was 100% correct and you know it.

I assume people on this forum are aware that Israel has elections. I assume people on this forum are aware that it is possible that a change of governments could results in a change of policy - although the signs are not encouraging. In that settlement expansion has continued unabated even during labor governments, even when Israel was supposedly engaging in negotiations, I doubt that we will see at least in the foreseeable future an actual decrease in the number of settlers in Occupied Palestinian Territory. We have not seen it since the beginning of Oslo - so I don't expect we well see it at any time in the foreseeable future - all the more so given that the left parties are now down to the lowest levels since the founding of the state of Israel and political demographics certainly do not look auspicious.

It is a violation of forum rules to engage in personal attacks and to attack the character of DU members. If you cannot observe forum rules - you should not be posting on this forum.

[pelsar]

28. i was just commenting.....

my comment on the lack of honesty was meant to be a general comment that is found through out this forum...but as far as your quoting netanyahu with his "for ever" comment

I assume it was the actual quote, but the simple fact that you used it, to make a point, while your previous posts were about how the PA doesn't really mean what they say, is precisely what i am talking about.

you actually don't see the double standard?...its pretty hard to miss

and the graph your using...why don't you add an asterisk that mentions it doesn't include the removal of the gazan settlements?....wouldn't that be more honest?

you'll note i have not mentioned anything about interpretation of the events....

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. but the PA did NOT say that..one minister did while he was in Paraguay

The Palestinian President and Prime Minister have made it clear on a number of occasions that they recognize that a resolution to the refugee problem have to take into concern Israeli demographic concerns. Mr. Netanyahu is the Prime Minister of Israel when he promises the settlers that there will not be any more settlement freezes and that there will be no more removal of settlers - he is speaking for the Government of Israel.

There are some "pro-Israeli" posters here who make some incredibly untrue comments that borderline on out and out CRAZY. Although they may very well believe what they are saying. Perhaps you can have a word with them. I limit myself to saying things that I believe to be true. However, I don't deny my bias. I am a pro-Palestinian partisan. You are an Israeli and obviously a pro-Israeli partisan. You don't nuance every pro-Israeli statement you make. I don't expect you or any pro-Israeli partisan to nuance every statement you make nor should you expect those of us who support the Palestinians to do the same. We are all propagandist here.

[pelsar]

42. i do not doubt your sincerity...nor do i doubt the info you post

i usually have a problem with your interpretations of the events (that i define as out and out crazy sometimes), but that is "fair game"......

but that is not the issue...One of the reasons i usually don't go about quoting politicians is because politics are a result of the environment, when the environment changes* so to does the politics...isnt that the basic premise for those who believe that hamas will one day "come around"? (*excluding the religious, whom the environment has no relevancy as far as i am concerned)

Using Netanayhos full quote, that mention forever (that was your point was it not) was simply disingenuous, its not hard to find a simaler but opposite quote from abbas and friends....but then, i'm not really interested in propaganda (but that explains more than anything else your point and i accept it)

I"m actually here for a different reason..not for propaganda, but for a little change in the "conversation". Real lives depend upon it, including my own, my kids, the generals kids across the street, the lawyers kid, my kids friend, who is now in flight school, (and will be making huge decisions in a few years that involve real lives for the Palestinians as well). These extreme conversations do no one any good at all, other than producing more extremism, a small piece of a very large puzzle.

isn't that one of the arguments against israel?...that its extreme defense measures only serve to product more extremists from the Palestinians?...yet here we see the same extremism only with words..i.e. propaganda.



What i am asking for, and it requires a change in the "culture here" is a single standard, and yes it goes to both sides. Just as i have no problem publicizing that westbank settlement graph that you like (facts are facts, pretending they dont exist or attempting to hide them, does no good in the long run) i would expect you to be equally honest and mention that the gaza settlement destruction, or an equally honest phrase, is not mentioned in that graph.

If you goal is propaganda (i never realized that), then i understand why you prefer to leave out information that weakens your goal. It just differs from my goal, which is a lowering of the tone.

at any rate, you cleared it up for me....i'm not into propaganda, but you've clarified your position - thanks

[Douglas Carpenter]

48. you may genuinely believe you are not propagandizing - but there is such a thing

as being honest with oneself. I actually thought you were capable of being honest about admitting your biases as I am honest about admitting mine. My words. "we are all propagandist here" was an attempt at a little irony to emphasize the biases we all hold about this conflict. I hope my irony was not lost.

[pelsar]

52. i am bias...no doubt about that....

but yes the irony was lost on me (chalk that up to trying to communicate on a forum- aren't you suppose to put one of those stupid little smily type icons?)

but within my own bias and skewed point of view, i attempt to keep the my discussion as honest as possible, for me that means including information that may not be so comfortable for me, yet is relevant to the discussion.

propaganda in my eyes is pushing a point of view while using such tools as redefining terms, sloppy terminology, ignoring relevant information etc...to attempt to convince people, that is not my aim.

its too close to the concept of "the ends justifys the means".....for me.

and i have no idea how one can have a serious discussion if one or both sides keep hiding/ignoring/manipulating information...isn't that what politicians do for a living-and they are not high on my list of respected professions.

[Douglas Carpenter]

54. well I am glad that you recognize your bias...I was wondering there for a moment

I never post anything that I believe to be untrue or misleading and I trust you follow the same principle. I suppose in the world that I know, what one might call "the Zionist narrative" does indeed sound like something from a different planet and I am constantly asking myself, "do they really believe what they are saying?" I suppose it must be the same for you and those who hold your point of view.

[pelsar]

60. yes...i believe we have an understanding....

I suppose in the world that I know, what one might call "the Zionist narrative" does indeed sound like something from a different planet and I am constantly asking myself, "do they really believe what they are saying?" I suppose it must be the same for you and those who hold your point of view.

its that jupiter and mars thing........worlds apart seems to fit.

whereas i definitely understand to a point the Palestinian narrative (we get zillions of interviews, meet them, make movies about them), what i reject who heartily is the demonization of us israelis as cold blooded killers, concentration camp guards, genocidal maniacs......i seem to read that here a lot.

do you believe those accusations?

i don't know if its understood, or it doesn't fit the "people good/army bad" narrative here, but israel is a small country. One cannot accuse the IDF of a policy of targeting civilians without accusing the israeli people of it, one cannot accuse israel of a policy of carpet bombing and devistating gaza without accusing its soldiers actively participating.

and those soldiers?...they're me and people like me......... i've two kids in the IDF today, their friends, are all stationed in various areas, some are in various commander courses, some will be pilots, some may be a general or two....Those kids on the front lines, their commanders are israels "cream of the crop" the ones that will move on to create industries and inventions that the world will be using (intel chips, medicines, etc).

something to keep in mind that next time israel is accused of genocide or its variation
_____

.....out of curiosity and in an attempt to close the gap: lets just say gaza even with hamas, improves, gnp goes up, they surf more, export to egypt, import oil from the siniai, and no longer need israel.....i.e. they make something of gaza (never forgetting their cousins in the westbank), what would you think?

[Douglas Carpenter]

62. of course I would want to see the Gaza economy improve - whatever it takes

The occupation is bad enough - there is no need to exaggerate with words like carpet-bombing or genocide.

[pelsar]

63. i dont know if you "get it"

most of us israeli (rw being the exceptions) would be ecstatic if gazan improved/worked....I don't know anybody who buys your "it was designed to fail"..but that aside, a working gaza would turn the whole I/P conflict around

do you see that...or not?

the question is serious, since us Jupitarians sure dont speak "martian"

[Douglas Carpenter]

64. of course a working Gaza would help on every level

I would hope most Israelis do see that, of course.

[pelsar]

83. a new thread...

i just put the gaza subject its in own thread..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x350265

your invited

[shira]

35. No settlement freeze happened under Olmert but he made a generous offer Abbas rejected

I've asked you repeatedly if YOU would have accepted that offer, in order to FINALLY end the occupation, settlements, and conflict.

I'm assuming you would have rejected it as well.

[Douglas Carpenter]

37. very interesting article in Forward - quote: "No, Abbas didn’t “walk away,” as myth has it."

The crazy thing is, Israel and the Palestinians reached agreement on many of these points in negotiations between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in 2008. Demilitarization, check. Keep Ben Gurion Airport clear, check. Close supervision of the Jordan River crossings, check. In return, the Palestinians were to get what they have insisted is their bottom-line minimum: a state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed land swaps. There were compromises in the works on Jerusalem and refugees, too. The deal wasn’t completed, but they were getting there.

So what happened? The talks were suspended when Olmert was indicted on corruption charges and Israel was forced into early elections. No, Abbas didn’t “walk away,” as myth has it. He stood back and waited until Israel elected a new leader with the legitimate authority to negotiate.


Read more: http://forward.com/articles/137177/#ixzz1K848ZGYl

Olmert's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni tells France's Kouchner: I oppose Olmert's peace plan

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told her French counterpart Bernard Kouchner that she opposes the agreement in principle that outgoing prime minister Ehud Olmert has offered Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

"I do not believe in far-reaching proposals and an attempt to expedite matters, especially in light of the political situation," Livni, the prime minister-designate, told Kouchner on Sunday.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/livni-tells-france-s-kouchner-i-oppose-olmert-s-peace-plan-1.285402

Netanyahu: I won't carry out an Olmert-Abbas peace deal if elected

Opposition Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu has said if he is elected prime minister, he won't carry out any peace deal with the Palestinians reached by the current Israeli leader, Ehud Olmert, the Makor Rishon daily reported on Thursday.

Polls show that if elections were held today, Netanyahu would handily beat both Olmert and the Labor Party's chairman, Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3533242,00.html

[shira]

38. He walked away, saying the gaps were too wide. He never mentioned waiting for the next PM.

Neither has he said ever since that he would have accepted it from the next Israeli PM.

Moreover, I don't believe YOU would have accepted it if it were up to you.

:eyes:

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. I have no idea whether I would have accepted it or not. I was not privy to all the fine details and

the implications for the Palestinian people. If the Palestinians accept any peace plan. It is certainly not my place to oppose it.

But in that Olmert's own Foreign Minister as well as other members of his cabinet opposed it - it is clear that it could not have been approved by the Israeli cabinet so the point is mute.

[shira]

51. That's a cop-out. Arafat said he regretted rejecting CD/Taba 10 years ago...

...and it appears YOU would also choose to prolong the conflict rather than finally end it with a fair resolution (not perfect but fair). It's not like the Palestinians will get a significantly better offer any time soon. I'm certain you're aware of that.

For someone who says they're for peace and ending the occupation and settlements, you have an odd way of showing it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

56. as Akiva Eldar put it in regard to the Moratinos Document record of Taba

"It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."

"(Israeli negotiator Yossi)Beilin stressed that the Taba talks were not halted because they hit a crisis, but rather because of the Israeli election. At the time, the two sides were discussing arranging a Barak-Arafat meeting in an effort to close the gaps; they had also discussed continuing the talks the day after the election, independent of the outcome."

http://prrn.mcgill.ca/prrn/papers/moratinos.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a neutral and dispassionate examination of what led to the break down at Camp David in 2000 and Taba in January 2001:

Vision of Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba" by Professor Jeremy Pressman:

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/322/visions_in_collision.html?breadcrumb=%2Fexperts%2F355%2Fjeremy_pressman

Here is a calm and rational debate between lead negotiator at Taba and Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami and Professor Norman Finkelstein - much of the debate focuses on the Taba Talks:

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_shlomo_ben

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sharon calls peace talks a campaign ploy by Barak
Likud leader says he won't comply with latest agreements
Palestinians pledge to work with Sharon

January 28, 2001
Web posted at: 1:42 p.m. EST (1842 GMT)

"Sharon leads Barak by 16 to 20 percentage points in opinion polls that have changed little in recent weeks."

"Barak's challenger for the prime minister's post, hard-line, hawkish Likud party chairman Ariel Sharon -- who holds a commanding lead in the polls -- has said he would not honor any agreement worked out between Barak's negotiators and the Palestinians. "



links:

http://premium.europe.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/06/mideast.palestinians.02/index.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast.01/index.html

[shira]

57. So if more time was needed at Taba, that was rectified with Annapolis

The Annapolis offer was better than the one Arafat regretted rejecting - and no one complained about "time running out" WRT Olmert/Abbas.

You would have rejected that too, opting for more war, occupation, and settlements.

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. as you know Olmert's own Foreign Minister as well as other members of his cabinet

opposed the "offer" put forward by Olmert and thus "the offer" had no chance of making it through the Israeli cabinet - and Mr. Netanyahu absolutely pledged that he would not honor any such agreements - so there simply was no real offer.

As far as the "offer" itself. There are some real matters of concern. Such as the removal of only 60,000 out of 480,000 illegal settlers and the question of Jerusalem and refugees were not adequately addressed.



As the article by J.J. Goldberg in Forward put it:

"The crazy thing is, Israel and the Palestinians reached agreement on many of these points in negotiations between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in 2008. Demilitarization, check. Keep Ben Gurion Airport clear, check. Close supervision of the Jordan River crossings, check. In return, the Palestinians were to get what they have insisted is their bottom-line minimum: a state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed land swaps. There were compromises in the works on Jerusalem and refugees, too. The deal wasn’t completed, but they were getting there.

So what happened? The talks were suspended when Olmert was indicted on corruption charges and Israel was forced into early elections. No, Abbas didn’t “walk away,” as myth has it. He stood back and waited until Israel elected a new leader with the legitimate authority to negotiate.


Read more: http://forward.com/articles/137177/#ixzz1K848ZGYl

[shira]

59. So you would have rejected it and opted for more war, occupation, and settlements? n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

61. There was nothing to reject -- you know that - show some intellectual honesty

The fact that there was absolutely no possibility whatsoever of "the offer" making it through the Israeli cabinet and the incoming government vows not to honor it - is not some little technical point of history. Without the slightest possibility of ratification by the Israeli cabinet - There was no offer! To imply there was an actual credible offer is utterly dishonest and disingenuous to the extreme.


If there was a government capable of negotiating in good faith and presenting a negotiated settlement that could actually make it through the Israeli cabinet - and also meet the minimal requirement for the majority of Palestinians - I would support keeping the talks going until a negotiated settlement was reached. But to do this the Israeli government simply cannot only choose to negotiate seriously and in good faith when their government is on the verge of collapse - such as what happened in Taba and with the Olmert/Abbas negotiations.

It is not up to me to accept or reject anything on behalf of the Palestinians or anyone else. I can only try to understand what happened and why.

[shira]

65. You're making that up - Abbas/Erekat did reject Olmert's offer, claiming the gaps were wide.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=147168
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/warpedmirror/entry/saeb_erekat_s_secret_posted

You're making up excuses for the PA, as they never claimed talks broke down for the reasons you listed.

They rejected Olmert's offer without so much as a counterproposal in order to bridge the gaps. They've never even articulated what those gaps are.

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. it still would have not made it through the Israeli cabinet and be implemented -so the point is mute

With Olmert's own Foreign Minister publicly rejecting the proposal as well as other members of his cabinet also rejecting the proposal - there was no viable offer. These are the facts. With Netanyahu poised to become Prime Minister absolutely vowing that he would not honor the agreement - There simply was not a viable offer that could actually be implemented. The Palestinian leadership certainly knew that along with their very legitimate concerns about settlements, refugees and Jerusalem.

[shira]

67. You don't know that - you're making that one up too. You have no problem w/Abbas rejecting Olmert.

For all we know, Abbas could have accepted it in October, that would have played a MAJOR role in the November election, and the Israeli cabinet - as well as the next government - would have been under ENORMOUS international pressure to uphold a deal that would forever end the conflict, occupation, settlements, refugees, etc.

[shira]

70. Douglas, would you be happy if Abbas had accepted the Olmert offer? n/t

[aranthus]

43. Not true.

Legally, there is only one Right of Return, and that is the Full Right of Return. What you are suggesting is something like claiming the Right of Free Speech, but agreeing to not say anything that the government doesn't like. It's legally nonsense, that makes a mockery out of something as important as a Right. The semantics are worthless. Given that the Right of Return is considered inalienable; something which the Palestinians can not give up on behalf of future generations, then they can't give up the demand for full implementation of the Right of Return by future generations. Any agreement by them to do that would be void. further given how closely the Right of Return is tied to the Palestinian desire to destroy the Jewish state, the Israelis have little choice but to demand that the Palestinians formally rescind the claim. The Israelis can never acknowledge the Right, because that would invite any future generation of Palestinians to try and enforce it. Perhaps the best that can be achieved is an agreement that is completely silent on the issue.

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. the Israeli negotiating team at Taba did accept the principle of the right of return

The question for both sides was how to implement the right. Obviously the Israelis and the Palestinians had different perspectives:

3. Refugees

Non-papers were exchanged, which were regarded as a good basis for the talks. Both sides stated that the issue of the Palestinian refugees is central to the Israeli-Palestinian relations and that a comprehensive and just solution is essential to creating a lasting and morally scrupulous peace. Both sides agreed to adopt the principles and references with could facilitate the adoption of an agreement.

Both sides suggested, as a basis, that the parties should agree that a just settlement of the refugee problem in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 242 must lead to the implementation of UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

http://prrn.mcgill.ca/prrn/papers/moratinos.html

No the Palestinian desire for the right of return is not all about some sinister plot to destroy Israel. It is about wanting to go home. If a fully assimilated Jewish person who has lived in Europe or America for generations wants to immigrate to Israel on the belief that they are returning home - based on a claim from two-thousand years ago. How much more would someone whose connection to Palestine from less than 60 years ago must surely be very real to them.

Nonetheless as the late Chairman Yasser Arafat said, "We understand Israel's demographic concerns and understand that the right of return of Palestinian refugees, a right guaranteed under international law and United Nations Resolution 194, must be implemented in a way that takes into account such concerns."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/03/opinion/the-palestinian-vision-of-peace.html

[shira]

53. Douglas, are you for keeping Palestinian refugees caged up another 60 years in camps if need be?

They've been used by Arab regimes, including the PA and Hamas, ever since 1948.

Allowing them to live as citizens wherever they may be within the Arab world does nothing to take away their "refugee status".

For or against?

====================

In addition, how does the PA clearly define "implenting the right of return"? Why aren't they crystal clear on what they want WRT right of return? What are they hiding?

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. no I am not. I think they should be offered citizenship in their country of residence

The issue of implementing the right of return is a matter of negotiations which did seem to be making some progress at the time of Taba.

[shira]

73. Excellent! So why is it that no pro-Palestinian activists are working on making this happen? n/t

[aranthus]

92. They did no such thing.

The Moratinos non-paper you refer to is not a signed statement by Israelis. It's the third party interpretation of what was said. Moreover, that third party interpretation doesn't reference RoR. It references UNGAR 194, which Israel believes does not create a RoR. Israel has staunchly resisted any claim to RoR to israel proper. If the Palestinians want a RoR to the future Palestinian state, that's between them and their own state. The Israelis aren't ever going to agree to a RoR to Israel.

Second, RoR is about much more than merely wanting to go home. n As stated in the Internation Crisis Group (ICG) 2004 Report "Palestinian Refugees and Politice of Peacemaking" http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/Israel%20Palestine/Palestinian%20Refugees%20and%20the%20Politics%20of%20Peacemaking.ashx,

"There are obvious historical reasons why the refugee question was and remains the most emotive permanent status issue for Palestinians – refugees and nonrefugees alike. It must be understood in its multiple dimensions: as a practical, material issue for refugees, who endure harsh living conditions in refugee camps or as second class citizens in third countries; as a political issue for those refugees who genuinely want to return to their homes or seek compensation for their losses; but also as an existential issue for the Palestinian people as a whole, the most compelling embodiment and expression of the Palestinians’ experience of dispossession and injustice." ICG, p. 6.

Also:

"Behind such sentiments expressed by refugees and non-refugees alike lies a powerful need for recognition that the Palestinians have suffered an historic injustice. It also reflects a continued reluctance to accept Israel’s legitimacy and its right to exist as a Jewish state – seen as tantamount to a retroactive legitimisation of their own dispossession – that is unlikely to be overcome in the foreseeable future. (ICG, p.11, emphasis mine).

Yes the Palestinians believe (falsely) that they were all intentionally expelled by the Jews to create the Jewish state. However, the above relationship involves more than that false belief. In the Palestinian conception, RoR is intimately linked with the denial of Israel’s legitimacy. They demand the right of return as recognition of an historic injustice. As Efraim Karsh puts it:

"Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the Palestinians’ legal case, their foremost argument for a “right of return” has always rested on a claim of unprovoked victimhood. In the Palestinians’ account, they were and remain the hapless targets of a Zionist grand design to dispossess them from their land, a historical wrong for which they are entitled to redress. In the words of Mahmoud Abbas (a/k/a Abu Mazen), Yasir Arafat’s second-in-command and a chief architect of the 1993 Oslo accords: 'When we talk about the right of return, we talk about the return of refugees to Israel, because Israel was the one who deported them.'” (Commentary Magazine, May 2001; http://www.hagshama.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=252).

In short, the Palestinians view themselves as inocent victims of Israel's existence. That injustice can only be rectifide (so the Palestinians believe) by the Israelis accepting RoR, tacitly admitting that they have no right to exist as a Jewish state.

Finally, because of the centrality of RoR; because Palestinians can not give up for future generations the RoR; they also can not give up for future generations the right to fully implement the RoR. So any agreement they would make in that regard would be void. They have made RoR into a zero sum game.

[Alamuti Lotus]

40. as well they should!

[aranthus]

44. You do understand that the demand prevents any kind of a peace agreement, right? n/t

[Alamuti Lotus]

88. I request a defintion of precisely what is implied by "peace" before answering

it is not a synonym for one side meekly submitting to the whims of its would-be conqueror, which is unfortunately a prevailing conception.

[aranthus]

89. The dictionary definition is

1. the normal, nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) an agreement or treaty between warring or antagonistic nations, groups, etc., to end hostilities and abstain from further fighting or antagonism:

[Alamuti Lotus]

90. not really my question, but as good an answer as I can expect, methinks.

[aranthus]

91. Then you need to ask better questions.

The problem with the demand for RoR (and with your position) is that it precludes any peace agreement at all. RoR can not be achieved without a Palestinian victory in war. Your's is a call for endless war, or else the total destruction of one or the other side.

[King_David]

47. its a non negotiable. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Was that supposed to mean something?

'It's a non-negotiable (insert something here)'??

or

'It's non-negotiable'??

I took the liberty of fixing up the lack of punctuation. Hope you don't mind!

[Kurska]

69. Don't be rude, you know what he meant. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

74. I wasn't. The sentence made no sense...

What's rude is what you posted. I won't hold my breath waiting for an apology...

[Kurska]

84. Where was I rude? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

85. Telling me that I'm rude and that I know what he meant...

I wasn't, and I didn't. Is that clear enough for you or would you like to tell me what else I'm supposed to know? Or maybe you could try asking 'King David' why he refused to explain what that incomplete sentence was supposed to say?

[oberliner]

71. Also, remember that "you're" means "you are"

Whereas "your" is a possessive pronoun.

Hopefully someone as helpful as you will take the liberty to fix up that error should it ever appear in your posts.

Hope you don't mind!

[Violet_Crumble]

75. Ah, but that's not an error. I do it intentionally!

And as with the countless other times you do it, I don't mind at all. I feel very special knowing that while you never try to correct anyone else, yr ever so regular when it comes to me!

[oberliner]

76. Well, that's even worse!

Perhaps the other poster's error was intentional too.

How about we all agree not to correct people's grammar or syntax?

[Violet_Crumble]

78. I'm sure you think it is...

The many, many posts showing yr displeasure over me saying 'yr' would indicate that you'd think that. As I've told you many times in the past, yr just going to have to learn to deal with it or continue to pop up randomly going on about it at me. I can work with whichever way you go :)

I don't give a shit about whether the other poster was intentional or not, didn't think it was a big deal to start with, and I'm not sure why it all matters so deeply to you. How about you take a deep breath, step back and let the other poster answer the question I asked him? Is that possible for you to do?

You don't need to get people to agree with you in order for you to decide not to do something. Just do it if you want to. Or don't do it if you don't want to.

[King_David]

77. Go ahead and fix it ,I do not mind at all

Can I fix everytime you say 'yr' too?

[Violet_Crumble]

79. You didn't explain what you meant....

The sentence you came out with made no sense, so could you explain what you meant by it?

I'm also not sure why yr asking me for permission to 'fix' something I say.

[King_David]

80. Sigh

This exchange is not stimulating me,it lacks substance and is probably boring for anyone reading it.So I will end it here.

[Violet_Crumble]

81. Well, that's a bit rude and condescending!

Clearly you don't want people to understand what yr saying. I'll make sure I NEVER understimulate you by ever asking you to put something you said in a way that can be understood...

[Alamuti Lotus]

87. We agree, any demand to give up right of return is absolutely non-negotiable and unacceptable

I don't believe that's what you meant, however, but as it is "not stimulating" for you to clarify your half-statements, I will just do what any hasbara brigadeer would do and presume the most twisted interpretation as the likely intention.

[Kurska]

68. Well we finally know your postion regarding actually wanting peace.

"Sure, it can have peace, so long as we can flood it with millions of refugees and seize power from within." Gotta love the "peace" camp.

[Alamuti Lotus]

86. Do not put words into my mouth

I have never at any point claimed to be in any "peace" camp. And don't be coy, my positions on this and any number of other subjects have long been clear and frankly stated. Don't try to invent any crudely manufactured poutrage nonsense now.

[aranthus]

93. The demand for a Right of Return is a call for total war to the death.

Those who demand it have lost any moral standing to complain about Israel's actions to defend itself.

[Harmony Blue]

96. The demand being made is supposedly to not lose

the Right of Return that may be possible, which I admit is a stretch. But it probably has more to do with principle than tangible value as stated above from the Palestinian perspective.

Assuming settler expansion continues, wouldn't that put a one state situation closer to reality, thus the state of Israel having to assimilate Palestinian populations? There are so many walls, and fences that can be built to protect the ever expanding incoming settlers. I honestly don't think the Israeli government can keep up. It is almost as if the Israeli government is in a lose lose situation.

As a result, Israeli leadership is kicking the can down the road, but ironically they are hastening a one state where Palestinians will have to be absorbed.

This is why, in my opinion, there are some Israeli's who are subtly hinting that a two state solution is the way to go.

A Right of Return in a two state solution seems reasonable no? But if a one state solution is an unavoidable reality, which appears to be the case, then I can see why Israeli's wouldn't want to worsen the situation. Imagine Israeli's having to absorb the existing Palestinian population, having to deal with incoming settlers, AND Palestinians exercising their own right of return? A disaster for any government to deal with. And as stated above, they can't even keep the incoming settlers in check as of right now.

[Shaktimaan]

98. huh?

This is why, in my opinion, there are some Israeli's who are subtly hinting that a two state solution is the way to go.

are you being sarcastic?

[pelsar]

99. subtly?

I don't know where you "live" but the two state solution as backed by israelis is not subtle.....since intifada I (which brought about its reality to most israelis), its the vast majority.

you should read more and i don't mean the far left/right blogs/forums and papers.