palestine papers - israel's peacemakers unmasked

[bud]

i'm sure most of you have heard about the hundreds of leaked confidential palestinian documents that shed light into negotiations between the palestinian authorities and the israeli government. they present a moment of truth for the peace process. they provide us with a real look at how serious each side is about a peace agreement and how far they are willing to go.

so far, the major highlight of the leaks is the palestinians willingness to concede all but one of the east jerusalem jewish settlements, and parts of the old city. giving up control of the al-asqa mosque to an international committee was the biggest concession of all. that was apparently the issue that stalled the camp david talks.

another big concession was the palestinians agreed to land swap to accommodate 70% of the jewish settlers in the west bank and east jerusalem AND to forgo the rights of all but a few thousand palestinian refugees.

the concessions did not end there. they also agreed to:

- recognize israel as a 'jewish state'

- a land swap deal which echos lieberman's population transfer proposal

- demilitarization of palestine

the most recent documents released show how deep the abbas government was in bed with the israelis, in knowing about the attack on gaza that left over 1000 civilians killed and thousands more injured and homeless. an attack and a continued blockade that has over 80% of the population reliant on foreign aid.

so how will each side suffer from this leak?

the abbas government was not only aware of the gaza attack but seem to have given its blessing. and of course, willing to "sell out", as many palestinians are calling it, and give up major parts of east jerusalem occupied by jewish settlers.

then there is the israeli government who, contrary to what their PR campaign puts out, isn't interested in making a real and just peace deal. all they're interested in is paying lip service while continuing their land grab and discrimination against the palestinians.

[Bob]

Thanks for that expert analysis, bud.

Although your entire post is filled with silly editorializing, the most important mistake was the statement that the PA is willing to recognize Jewish independence and self-determination via Israel. The PA will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state and the legitimacy of the Zionist mission.

Feel free to show us the allegedly leaked documents that demonstrate the PA's willingness to recognize Jewish national rights in Israel.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Bob

[dre]

Thanks for that expert analysis, bud.

Although your entire post is filled with silly editorializing, the most important mistake was the statement that the PA is willing to recognize Jewish independence and self-determination via Israel. The PA will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state and the legitimacy of the Zionist mission.

Feel free to show us the allegedly leaked documents that demonstrate the PA's willingness to recognize Jewish national rights in Israel.

More useless horseshit.

[Bob]

More useless horseshit.

You're disputing this? Will you now show me where the PA demonstrated that it would recognize Jewish independence in Israel? Go ahead, show me the leaked documents from The Guardian or Al-Jazeera where Abu Mazen and his team of peace-makers stated their willingness to recognize Israel as the Jewish state. Prove me wrong.

[Bonam]

The most important point about the offered concessions is that as soon as they became public, Abbas and other PA officials immediately distanced themselves from them, and Palestinians clamored that the PA had no right to make these concessions on their behalf.

So the reality is that had Israel accepted this proposal and signed a deal with Abbas, vast numbers of Palestinians would remain "unsatisfied" and the terrorism would continue.

So yes, Israel rejected the deal. I would to. You can't make a deal with an entity that is incapable of holding up its end of the bargain, even if it has the best intentions. The PA is incapable of lining up the Palestinian population behind such a proposal, and so it would be pointless for Israel to accept.

A peace deal with the tough compromises demanded of both sides cannot happen until the Palestinian leadership gains the confidence and trust of their people. The West Bank and Gaza must be re-unified under a single government which has broad popular support and which publicly endorses the idea that making significant compromises is necessary to achieve the creation of their own state. Only then can a final peace agreement move forward.

[Bob]

The most important point about the offered concessions is that as soon as they became public, Abbas and other PA officials immediately distanced themselves from them, and Palestinians clamored that the PA had no right to make these concessions on their behalf.

So the reality is that had Israel accepted this proposal and signed a deal with Abbas, vast numbers of Palestinians would remain "unsatisfied" and the terrorism would continue.

So yes, Israel rejected the deal. I would to. You can't make a deal with an entity that is incapable of holding up its end of the bargain, even if it has the best intentions. The PA is incapable of lining up the Palestinian population behind such a proposal, and so it would be pointless for Israel to accept.

A peace deal with the tough compromises demanded of both sides cannot happen until the Palestinian leadership gains the confidence and trust of their people. The West Bank and Gaza must be re-unified under a single government which has broad popular support and which publicly endorses the idea that making significant compromises is necessary to achieve the creation of their own state. Only then can a final peace agreement move forward.

I can assure you there are similarities in the Jewish population, as well. You think Netanyahu can command the following of the majority of the Jewish population? Granted, we're certainly not terrorists and won't go around blowing up buses in rejection of the offers made by the Israeli leadership, but Israel doesn't have the leader it needs in Netanyahu - the leader that can command the following of his Jewish citizens. And as time goes on, the patience and the hopes among the Jewish population dwindle. We're becoming less and less willing to make sacrifices because we don't believe we will achieve true peace. We're very fragmented and angry. It's really tragic. In my mind, the Vegas odds on serious progress on final status issues are a million-to-one.

I'm also not sure you can say Israel rejected the deal, as no deal was made. There are core issues that seemingly cannot be resolved. Temple Mount/Western Wall, settlements around Jerusalem, refugees, removal of Arab citizenship from Israel (transfer of Arab territories to Palestinian sovereignty), Hebron, Gaza, etc... Neither or of can reconcile, so the status quo continues (hopefully with improvements for the Jewish population).

As far as security goes, even if the PA cannot guarantee security and compliance of the Palestinian population, a deal is still the best option is possible. We have agreements with Egypt and Jordan, despite popular public anti-Semitic opinion among the Arabs/Muslims. Even without popular support, an agreed to set of parameters is on our best interests.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Bob

[dre]

The most important point about the offered concessions is that as soon as they became public, Abbas and other PA officials immediately distanced themselves from them, and Palestinians clamored that the PA had no right to make these concessions on their behalf.

So the reality is that had Israel accepted this proposal and signed a deal with Abbas, vast numbers of Palestinians would remain "unsatisfied" and the terrorism would continue.

So yes, Israel rejected the deal. I would to. You can't make a deal with an entity that is incapable of holding up its end of the bargain, even if it has the best intentions. The PA is incapable of lining up the Palestinian population behind such a proposal, and so it would be pointless for Israel to accept.

A peace deal with the tough compromises demanded of both sides cannot happen until the Palestinian leadership gains the confidence and trust of their people. The West Bank and Gaza must be re-unified under a single government which has broad popular support and which publicly endorses the idea that making significant compromises is necessary to achieve the creation of their own state. Only then can a final peace agreement move forward.

A peace deal with the tough compromises demanded of both sides cannot happen until the Palestinian leadership gains the confidence and trust of their people.

Israel is constantly trying to scuttle that confidence though. At a time where theres arguably the most moderate PA in history, Israel is expanding settlement building, and continuing to steal water and land. This makes the PA's job of selling Israel as a party they can negotiate with completely impossible. And the reason theyre doing it is because they have no interest in any deal. End of story.

People living under a military occupation are NEVER going to have warm and fuzzy thoughts about the occupier. Theyre gonna hate them... I sure as fuck would.

Youre putting up an impossible obstacle to peace. Now not only does the PA have to agree to the terms of a settlement but you need to poll west-bank residents? Please... get serious.

You only need about 5 braincells for it to be obvious that Israel has no interest in any settlement at ALL.

Edited January 27, 2011 by dre

[Bob]

Israel is constantly trying to scuttle that confidence though. At a time where theres arguably the most moderate PA in history, Israel is expanding settlement building, and continuing to steal water and land. This makes the PA's job of selling Israel as a party they can negotiate with completely impossible. And the reason theyre doing it is because they have no interest in any deal. End of story.

People living under a military occupation are NEVER going to have warm and fuzzy thoughts about the occupier. Theyre gonna hate them... I sure as fuck would.

Youre putting up an impossible obstacle to peace. Now not only does the PA have to agree to the terms of a settlement but you need to poll west-bank residents? Please... get serious.

You only need about 5 braincells for it to be obvious that Israel has no interest in any settlement at ALL.

The PA may be more moderate than before, but that doesn't say much. The PA stills rejects the legitimacy of Jewish independence via statehood in Israel. There are endless examples of PA intransigence and incitement. They still name name streets after suicide-bombers. They still spread anti-Semitism through official channels (state-media, schools, public pronouncements). Abu Mazen's thesis in university was Holocaust-denial "light". Prominent personalities such as Saeb Erekat and Mustafa Barghouti still incite against Israel with deceitful rhetoric on a daily basis.

You don't pay enough attention to have a valid opinion on the degree of "moderation" of the current PA leadership. They're certainly not moderate. Being more moderate than Arafat by not blatantly calling for intifadas every other day doesn't really impress us.

Anyways, you're continuing with the typical lies about Israeli leadership being the obstacle to peace. Of course it's Israel, as the PA always operates in good will. And when the PA messes up, they can't be blamed because they're under "occupation". You also completely ignore the context of the occupation, forgetting that there was no occupation between 1949 and 1967, so why did we see hundreds of terrorist acts then? Do I even need to mention anti-Semitic murder-sprees from Arabs in the pre-Israel Palestine Mandate? The violence started close to a century before any occupation came around.

It's tiring following you around and correcting all your lies and ignorance.

[dre]

The PA may be more moderate than before, but that doesn't say much. The PA stills rejects the legitimacy of Jewish independence via statehood in Israel. There are endless examples of PA intransigence and incitement. They still name name streets after suicide-bombers. They still spread anti-Semitism through official channels (state-media, schools, public pronouncements). Abu Mazen's thesis in university was Holocaust-denial "light". Prominent personalities such as Saeb Erekat and Mustafa Barghouti still incite against Israel with deceitful rhetoric on a daily basis.

You don't pay enough attention to have a valid opinion on the degree of "moderation" of the current PA leadership. They're certainly not moderate. Being more moderate than Arafat by not blatantly calling for intifadas every other day doesn't really impress us.

Anyways, you're continuing with the typical lies about Israeli leadership being the obstacle to peace. Of course it's Israel, as the PA always operates in good will. And when the PA messes up, they can't be blamed because they're under "occupation". You also completely ignore the context of the occupation, forgetting that there was no occupation between 1949 and 1967, so why did we see hundreds of terrorist acts then? Do I even need to mention anti-Semitic murder-sprees from Arabs in the pre-Israel Palestine Mandate? The violence started close to a century before any occupation came around.

It's tiring following you around and correcting all your lies and ignorance.

The PA may be more moderate than before, but that doesn't say much. The PA stills rejects the legitimacy of Jewish independence via statehood in Israel.

Who cares if they do that or not. All they need to do is accept the legitimacy of the nation of Israel. Thats all any other country does... whether or not Israel decides on policies to keep the state Jewish or have a Jewish majority is Israels own internal business. Theres no reason or need to for nations to recognize any of that crap.

It's tiring following you around and correcting all your lies and ignorance.

Spare me your bullshit Bobo. If lies and ignorance were currency youd be Bill Gates.

[Bob]

Who cares if they do that or not. All they need to do is accept the legitimacy of the nation of Israel. Thats all any other country does... whether or not Israel decides on policies to keep the state Jewish or have a Jewish majority is Israels own internal business. Theres no reason or need to for nations to recognize any of that crap.

It's relevant to their claimed fundamental grievances. The Palestinians commemorate the Nakba annually, in direct contrast to our celebration of the anniversary of Jewish independence. It's directly connected to core issues such as refugees and Jerusalem. The policies towards ensuring that Israel remains Jewish will be another point of conflict between the Jewish people and our enemies who wish to see us washed away. It's not irrelevant.

That being said, negotiations should not be held up because of this lack of recognition. The truth is, we don't need anyone's recognition to actualize our fundamental rights. That Israeli leadership isn't demanding recognition of Jewish independence as a precondition for negotiations, though. We're not the ones derailing negotiations on a secondary-issue.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Bob

[Timothy17]

The policies towards ensuring that Israel remains Jewish will be another point of conflict between the Jewish people and our enemies who wish to see us washed away.

The policies towards ensuring the Christian nations remain Christian will be another point of conflict between the Christian people and our enemies who wish to see us washed away.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Timothy17

[dre]

It's relevant to their claimed fundamental grievances. The Palestinians commemorate the Nakba annually, in direct contrast to our celebration of the anniversary of Jewish independence. It's directly connected to core issues such as refugees and Jerusalem. The policies towards ensuring that Israel remains Jewish will be another point of conflict between the Jewish people and our enemies who wish to see us washed away. It's not irrelevant.

That being said, negotiations should not be held up because of this lack of recognition. The truth is, we don't need anyone's recognition to actualize our fundamental rights. That Israeli leadership isn't demanding recognition of Jewish independence as a precondition for negotiations, though. We're not the ones derailing negotiations on a secondary-issue.

No youre derailing negotiations by continuing colonization of land that isnt yours. This makes the PA a lameduck and damages their credibility which is exactly why Israel does it.

And ANY CLAIM on a piece of land based on race or religion at the exclusion of others is nothing but horse shit.

[dre]

The policies towards ensuring the Christian nations remain Christian will be another point of conflict between the Christian people and our enemies who wish to see us washed away.

If the Christians in my nation try to claim that they have some inherent right to Canada based on which Abrahamic sect they belong to, then never mind Muslims... Ill take up arms against them myself.

[Bob]

No youre derailing negotiations by continuing colonization of land that isnt yours. This makes the PA a lameduck and damages their credibility which is exactly why Israel does it.

And ANY CLAIM on a piece of land based on race or religion at the exclusion of others is nothing but horse shit.

Although some settlements are certainly established without practical purposes, the vast majority of Jewish communities across the 1949 armistice-lines serve several essentials purposes.

If the PA actually expects to have certain lands given to them as part of some peace agreement, then it should not make a difference whether or not there is construction on it with Jewish residents. If they believe they can make a legitimate claim to certain lands, then these lands will be ceded to them in a future peace deal - with or without settlements and with or without settlers. By screaming that settlement developments destroy the prospects of peace, they are indirectly conceding that settlements will never be relinquished as part of some final status agreement (ignoring the fact that Israel has withdrawn from settlements in the past).

If anything, the PA is using the settlements issue as an excuse to not sit at the table and negotiate. Moreover, it is essential to understand that the PA cries wolf when construction takes place in lands that will never, ever, ever be relinquished for any reason. The neighbourhoods surrounding Jerusalem, primarily, are integral to the city and will never be severed. The PA knows this. We know this. Yet people like you do not, and the PA continues to cry about necessary construction that takes place to address natural growth in our capital. Basically, the PA is making demands it knows fully will not and cannot be met - for every imaginable reason: security, economics, social needs, and everything in between.

Although the Israeli leadership isn't doing this, imagine that it set out a specific precondition for negotiations: recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. All Jews know that the Arabs and Muslim will NEVER acknowledge Jewish independence in Israel. They completely oppose Zionism and view every inch of Israel as Arab/Muslim land. We know that recognition of Jewish independence, although important symbolically and practically, goes against every fibre of the Arab narrative. This demand would mean one thing - no possibility of negotiations. The truth being, negotiations can and should continue even in the absence of Arab/Muslim recognition of inalienable Jewish national rights. Israeli leadership would be stupid to set out such a precondition for negotiations.

But that is exactly what the PA is demanding in this situation - a cease of necessary and natural developments in Jewish communities as a precondition for negotiations. They're knowingly making an impossible demand. The PA knows this need cannot be met, yet it makes this demand for one reason: to play politics and portray Israel as the party that doesn't want peace. The government cannot and should not force Jerusalem to not build in its own communities. The "settlements" are vital communities and integral to the life of Jerusalem, with schools, hospitals, synagogues, apartments, businesses, governmental offices, civil infrastructure, and everything else. People like you refer to these places as "settlements" without having the faintest idea what these places are (for the most part) - Jewish communities with hundreds of thousands of residents in vital areas surrounding Jerusalem.

They flip out over the most outrageous things. The restoration of a synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, dating back hundreds of years and destroyed and desecrated by the Arabs during the Jordanian occupation of the Old City between 1949 and 1967, caused major riots and violence among the Arabs in Jerusalem. Imagine that, a restoration of a synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City - how offensive! According to many, the Old City is also "occupied territory) as it was occupied by Jordan before being liberated in the Six-Day War. I use this example because it was recent, back in March of last year. There are countless examples of Arab spin on Jewish developments in order to incite and provoke. This is the same game the PA is playing, and you have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

The least the PA can do is sit down and negotiate. But they can't even do that. And according to your spin, they're making the right choice. Ridiculous.

Lastly, I make these posts for those who might actually be interested in learning a thing or two about reality, rather than read your vapid rhetoric-filled posts. Don't think I didn't realize long ago that you are in no position to be speaking on these issues.

[dre]

Although some settlements are certainly established without practical purposes, the vast majority of Jewish communities across the 1949 armistice-lines serve several essentials purposes.

If the PA actually expects to have certain lands given to them as part of some peace agreement, then it should not make a difference whether or not there is construction on it with Jewish residents. If they believe they can make a legitimate claim to certain lands, then these lands will be ceded to them in a future peace deal - with or without settlements and with or without settlers. By screaming that settlement developments destroy the prospects of peace, they are indirectly conceding that settlements will never be relinquished as part of some final status agreement (ignoring the fact that Israel has withdrawn from settlements in the past).

If anything, the PA is using the settlements issue as an excuse to not sit at the table and negotiate. Moreover, it is essential to understand that the PA cries wolf when construction takes place in lands that will never, ever, ever be relinquished for any reason. The neighbourhoods surrounding Jerusalem, primarily, are integral to the city and will never be severed. The PA knows this. We know this. Yet people like you do not, and the PA continues to cry about necessary construction that takes place to address natural growth in our capital. Basically, the PA is making demands it knows fully will not and cannot be met - for every imaginable reason: security, economics, social needs, and everything in between.

Although the Israeli leadership isn't doing this, imagine that it set out a specific precondition for negotiations: recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. All Jews know that the Arabs and Muslim will NEVER acknowledge Jewish independence in Israel. They completely oppose Zionism and view every inch of Israel as Arab/Muslim land. We know that recognition of Jewish independence, although important symbolically and practically, goes against every fibre of the Arab narrative. This demand would mean one thing - no possibility of negotiations. The truth being, negotiations can and should continue even in the absence of Arab/Muslim recognition of inalienable Jewish national rights. Israeli leadership would be stupid to set out such a precondition for negotiations.

But that is exactly what the PA is demanding in this situation - a cease of necessary and natural developments in Jewish communities as a precondition for negotiations. They're knowingly making an impossible demand. The PA knows this need cannot be met, yet it makes this demand for one reason: to play politics and portray Israel as the party that doesn't want peace. The government cannot and should not force Jerusalem to not build in its own communities. The "settlements" are vital communities and integral to the life of Jerusalem, with schools, hospitals, synagogues, apartments, businesses, governmental offices, civil infrastructure, and everything else. People like you refer to these places as "settlements" without having the faintest idea what these places are (for the most part) - Jewish communities with hundreds of thousands of residents in vital areas surrounding Jerusalem.

They flip out over the most outrageous things. The restoration of a synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, dating back hundreds of years and destroyed and desecrated by the Arabs during the Jordanian occupation of the Old City between 1949 and 1967, caused major riots and violence among the Arabs in Jerusalem. Imagine that, a restoration of a synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City - how offensive! According to many, the Old City is also "occupied territory) as it was occupied by Jordan before being liberated in the Six-Day War. I use this example because it was recent, back in March of last year. There are countless examples of Arab spin on Jewish developments in order to incite and provoke. This is the same game the PA is playing, and you have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

The least the PA can do is sit down and negotiate. But they can't even do that. And according to your spin, they're making the right choice. Ridiculous.

Lastly, I make these posts for those who might actually be interested in learning a thing or two about reality, rather than read your vapid rhetoric-filled posts. Don't think I didn't realize long ago that you are in no position to be speaking on these issues.

Another load of complete horse shit. You know as well as I do that the settlements completely undermine the Palestinian authority and make negotiated peace IMPOSSIBLE. The Israeli government knows that as well. In fact the entire world knows this, and knows the settlements are illegal and even pro-Israel countries like the US have practically begged you to stop illegally settling other peoples land.

Lastly, I make these posts for those who might actually be interested in learning a thing or two about reality, rather than read your vapid rhetoric-filled posts. Don't think I didn't realize long ago that you are in no position to be speaking on these issues.

And here we have? You guessed. MORE HORSESHIT. You have absolutely no interest at all in "reality" or anyone "learning anything". Youre really no different than the extremists on the other side. Same bullshit mentality... same completely failure see any side but your own.

Youre a racist, extremist little weasle that does absolutely nothing but provide bogus justification for naked outright theft, and then jump up and down screaming "VICTIM VICTIM! VICTIM!"

The middle east is the perfect place fo you.

Edited January 28, 2011 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Youre a racist, extremist little weasle that does absolutely nothing but provide bogus justification for naked outright theft, and then jump up and down screaming "VICTIM VICTIM! VICTIM!"

Oh really? Do you mean Palestine or Caledonia? Israel laughs at your compromised position.

[Bob]

Another load of complete horse shit. You know as well as I do that the settlements completely undermine the Palestinian authority and make negotiated peace IMPOSSIBLE. The Israeli government knows that as well. In fact the entire world knows this, and knows the settlements are illegal and even pro-Israel countries like the US have practically begged you to stop illegally settling other peoples land.

How exactly do settlements (the majority of which are communities of Jerusalem) undermine the PA? Please explain to me how they make a negotiated peace settlement impossible.

Just a side note, you did state a moment ago that defining land based on race or religion is wrong, so why do you justify it in the case of the Arabs/Muslims?

Beyond that, you're wrong, because national identities can be connected to things such as ethnicity (related to race), religion, and other related concepts. Beyond that, national identities are connected to land. In our case, Jewish national identity is inextricable from Israel. Still, you expose your own hypocrisy and/or lack of understanding by saying it's wrong for one group (the Jewish people), while it's right for the other group (the Arabs/Muslims that refer to themselves as Palestinians).

And here we have? You guessed. MORE HORSESHIT. You have absolutely no interest at all in "reality" or anyone "learning anything". Youre really no different than the extremists on the other side. Same bullshit mentality... same completely failure see any side but your own.

Youre a racist, extremist little weasle that does absolutely nothing but provide bogus justification for naked outright theft, and then jump up and down screaming "VICTIM VICTIM! VICTIM!"

The middle east is the perfect place fo you.

I understand the Arab/Muslim side much better than you do. I also have a legitimate sympathy for their position, however that sympathy ends where their demands overlap ours. You're the one who regularly disrespects the affected parties with disparaging and callous statements, while always making a point to point the finger of blame at Israel and the Jewish people.

How exactly am I a racist or extremist? I want a seemingly simple thing: Jewish independence and self-determination through Israel, and the normal things you'd expect in a state such as peace and security.

I've also never claimed to be a victim. We've overcome adversity, and not used it as an excuse for underperfomance. The Jewish story may seem like a story of victimhood upon your superficial examination, but the truth is our story is one of overcoming. I can see you're beginning to get frustrated and desperate, with your responses becoming even more banal and insulting than usual. It's pretty sad. Look how long you'll argue without simply conceding that you're not equipped to participate in this debate. It's actually funny.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Bob

[dre]

How exactly do settlements (the majority of which are communities of Jerusalem) undermine the PA? Please explain to me how they make a negotiated peace settlement impossible.

Just a side note, you did state a moment ago that defining land based on race or religion is wrong, so why do you justify it in the case of the Arabs/Muslims?

Beyond that, you're wrong, because national identities can be connected to things such as ethnicity (related to race), religion, and other related concepts. Beyond that, national identities are connected to land. In our case, Jewish national identity is inextricable from Israel. Still, you expose your own hypocrisy and/or lack of understanding by saying it's wrong for one group (the Jewish people), while it's right for the other group (the Arabs/Muslims that refer to themselves as Palestinians).

How exactly do settlements (the majority of which are communities of Jerusalem) undermine the PA? Please explain to me how they make a negotiated peace settlement impossible.

I understand the Arab/Muslim side much better than you do. I also have a legitimate sympathy for their position, however that sympathy ends where their demands overlap ours. You're the one who regularly disrespects the affected parties with disparaging and callous statements, while always making a point to point the finger of blame at Israel and the Jewish people.

How exactly am I a racist or extremist? I want a seemingly simple thing: Jewish independence and self-determination through Israel, and the normal things you'd expect in a state such as peace and security.

I've also never claimed to be a victim. We've overcome adversity, and not used it as an excuse for underperfomance. The Jewish story may seem like a story of victimhood upon your superficial examination, but the truth is our story is one of overcoming. I can see you're beginning to get frustrated and desperate, with your responses becoming even more banal and insulting than usual. It's pretty sad. Look how long you'll argue without simply conceding that you're not equipped to participate in this debate. It's actually funny.

How exactly do settlements (the majority of which are communities of Jerusalem) undermine the PA? Please explain to me how they make a negotiated peace settlement impossible.

And big suprise here... More horseshit! The settlements and the jurrisdiction of their regional councils cover more than 1/3rd of the entire west bank. Im not going to explain to you why this undermines the peace process because the answer is so blatantly obvious and so many other people from around the world including Israeli Jews has already written on this subject.

Heres a few thousand articles about it... go and read them yourself.

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=off&biw=1436&bih=699&q=israeli+settlements+undermine+peace+process&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&fp=21ceb0f9b63dbb40

Heres some quick snippets. Ill start with a few from the US, but representitives of virtually every government on the planet have said the same things.

Mr. Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing, November 25, 2002: "Our position on settlements, I think, has been very consistent, very clear. The secretary expressed it not too long ago. He said settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope, preempts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations, and in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and prosperity. The U.S. has long opposed settlement activity and, consistent with the report of the Mitchell Committee, settlement activity must stop."

Letter signed by James A. Baker III (Former Secretary of State), Zbigniew Brzezinski (Former National Security Adviser), Frank C. Carlucci (Former National Security Adviser), Lawrence S. Eagleburger (Former Secretary of State), Richard Fairbanks (Former Middle East Peace Negotiator), Brent Scowcroft (Former National Security Adviser), Robert S. Straus (Former Middle East Peace Negotiator), Cyrus R. Vance (Former Secretary of State).

"We write you because we are concerned that unilateral actions, such as expansion of settlements, would be strongly counterproductive to the goal of a negotiated solution and, if carried forward, could halt progress made by the peace process over the last two decades. Such a tragic result would threaten the security of Israel, the Palestinians, friendly Arab states, and undermine U.S. interests in the Middle East.”

U.S. Secretary of State James Baker

May 22, 1991: "Every time I have gone to Israel in connection with the peace process on each of my trips I have been met with the announcement of new settlement activity. This does violate United States policy. It is the first thing that Arabs--Arab governments—the first thing that Palestinians in the territories—whose situation is really quite desperate—the first thing they raise when we talk to them. I don’t think there is any greater obstacle to peace than settlement activity that continues not only unabated but at an advanced pace."

Reagan Plan, September 1982

"The Reagan Plan states that ‘the United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transition period (5 years after Palestinian election for a self-governing authority). Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlements freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be fee and fairly negotiated."

William Scranton, US Ambassador to the United Nations

UN Security Council -- March 23, 1976: "Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the locations of the borders of states by the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors."

The really funny thing is that you even have to ask that question... as if its hard to understand why building new settlements on the very land you claim to be negotiating over in good faith, is going to enrage palestinians. Oddly enough treating people as subhuman doesnt seem to be a very effective way to make a deal with them

The Yesha Council is an umbrella organization of municipal councils in the Judea and Samaria district. (Yesha is a Hebrew acronym for Judea, Samaria and Gaza, which was coined when there were Israeli settlements in the Gaza strip.) The jurisdiction of the Israeli settlements and their regional councils includes 42% percent of the West Bank, although the actual buildings of the settlements cover just 1% of the West Bank, according to a study released by B'Tselem. Much of this 42% is land that was seized from Palestinian landowners in violation of an Israeli Supreme Court decision, according to the study

Beyond that, you're wrong, because national identities can be connected to things such as ethnicity (related to race), religion, and other related concepts. Beyond that, national identities are connected to land. In our case, Jewish national identity is inextricable from Israel. Still, you expose your own hypocrisy and/or lack of understanding by saying it's wrong for one group (the Jewish people), while it's right for the other group (the Arabs/Muslims that refer to themselves as Palestinians).

Nope its not right for ANY group to do that. Policies designed to tweak demographics based on race are nothing but institutionalized racism. And I dont support in the slightest ANY such policies not by the palestinians or anyone else.

Look how long you'll argue without simply conceding that you're not equipped to participate in this debate.

I seriously doubt youve participated in a real debate in your entire life. Youre MO is to spout a bunch of one-sided propoganda, and play the victim card... then when someone shoves it up your ass for you, you make fallacious appeals to authority and claim the other person is somehow unqualified to debate

Edited January 28, 2011 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

Heres some quick snippets. Ill start with a few from the US...,

Of course you will....that's what you always do.

[Bob]

Aren't you always trashing the USA for its approach to the Israel-Arab conflict? Although hen you can find public pronouncements from politicians condemning Israeli actions, apparently that's a different story.

Anyways, I respect James Baker and am well aware that official US-policy, for decades, has been opposed to Israeli construction in lands liberated during the Six-Day War. Why is the American official line on this issue valid, though? Just because that's the their position? Is the position valid simply by virtue that it's American?

The truth remains, the vast majority of "settlers" (myself included) live in communities that are a part of Jerusalem. I, and about two hundred thousand other Jews, live in areas near Jerusalem that were under Jordanian occupation for about 20 years. We need these areas for many reasons, all of which are pretty much existential with respect to Jerusalem. They address security needs, population needs, business needs, infrastructure needs, and everything else in between. We're not going to restrict our construction in our capital to the jagged, indefensible, and wholly impractical lines in the sand that were the 1949 armistice lines. We're not going to build this city in a narrow corridor Westward. This has been going on since shortly after the conclusion of the Six-Day War.

The USA has its position, and that's fine. It can do what it needs to for its own political ends, perhaps in order to try and appease the Arabs. An interesting aside, there have been conflicting statements from American leadership with respect to Jerusalem. There have been statements (and bills such as the Jerusalem Embassy Act) which conflict with some anti-settlement statements from current and previous administrations.

The cries about settlement activity undermining the possibility of Palestinian independence also overlooks something very important - why was a Palestinian state not established between 1949 and 1967? For twenty years under Jordanian occupation we didn't hear a word about occupation, or see any moves towards actualizing a then largely non-existent Palestinian nationalism. Why is that? The territories liberated after the Six-Day War, "occupied territory", was used as launching pads for terrorism and war against the Jewish people for decades. You think we're going to relinquish these territories so that the Arabs/Muslims can shoot into our homes from their apartments as they did between 1949 and 1967?

You keep acting like this conflict started in 1967.

As far as negotiations go, you can still negotiate over "settled" land. As I said, the most well-known offer is Barak's offer at Taba for 97% of the West Bank. Negotiations have taken place many times since 1967, and settlements have been being built since then. Some settlements can be relinquished through negotiations. In recent years, however, the politicization of settlements has gained traction as a political excuse by the PA not to engage in negotiations, despite having engaged in negotiations in the past for many years during settlement construction.

I'm still waiting for explanations as to how I'm an "racist" and an "extremist". Oh ya, apparently I also perceive myself as a victim - how's that, again?

[Bob]

Of course you will....that's what you always do.

He won't post any "snippets" from American leadership declaring Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capital.

[Bob]

The American position on this issue has been, at times and to put it lightly, contradictory. Moreover, there are realities which are unaddressed by the rhetoric - such as the indefensible nature of the 1949 armistice lines (specifically around Jerusalem), and the needs of Jerusalem to expand naturally and not restricted to the impractical and unworkable 1949 armistice lines. The "settlements" around Jerusalem are inextricable, and integral parts of the city's social, economic, and spiritual fabric.

Of course, you'd have to know a thing or two about Jerusalem to understand these things. These aren't the kinda facts that'll be understood or mentioned in a New York Times article written by some liberal arts graduate living in Manhattan.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Bob

[Bonam]

The cries about settlement activity undermining the possibility of Palestinian independence also overlooks something very important - why was a Palestinian state not established between 1949 and 1967? For twenty years under Jordanian occupation we didn't hear a word about occupation, or see any moves towards actualizing a then largely non-existent Palestinian nationalism. Why is that?

Because the Palestinians get along even worse with Jordan than they do with Israel, as was shown in 1970.

[Bob]

Because the Palestinians get along even worse with Jordan than they do with Israel, as was shown in 1970.

...?

[Bonam]

...?

Black September and all.