It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Erekat: Netanyahu is sabotaging two-state solution

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Erekat: Netanyahu is sabotaging two-state solution


www.haaretz.com

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is working to end the possibility of a two-state solution by insisting on a continued Israeli presence along a future Palestinian state's borders, chief Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat told Israel Radio on Thursday.

Erekat was responding to Netanyahu's Wednesday statement, according to which Israel would demand a continued military presence along the future Palestinian state's border with Jordan.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Important extract from the article:


"Israel must ensure that rockets aren't being smuggled into territories in its vicinity," the premier had told reporters, and to achieve that "an Israeli presence will be necessary along the Palestinian state's eastern side."

Netanyahu had also urged the Palestinians to return to the negotiation table without any preconditions, saying that the "PA climbed a high tree and are content on staying there. The more ladders they are offered, the higher they ascend."

In response, Erekat said that while "Netanyahu calls for the Palestinians to resume peace talks, he is effectually leaving the Palestinians nothing to negotiate about."

Kadima MK Meir Sheetrit also responded to the premier's comments, saying Thursday that "Netanyahu was ruining any chance for negotiations and is proving, again and again, that he is not interested in peace."

"There is no way that the Palestinians would agree to such an offer, and whoever raises it should negotiate with himself," Sheetrit said.

MK Talab al-Sana (United Arab List-Ta'al) said in response to the PM's statement that Israel's eastern border was secure enough.

"With a peace with Jordan in effect as well as a U.S. presence in Iraq, what Netanyahu's offer amounts to is an assassination of any hope for peace with the Palestinian people," al-Sana said.


Undoubtedly Netanyahu's demand will effectively kill the Two-State hope, which is what I think Israeli Govt. want's. Which sovereign country/ state would allow foreign troops on their land stationed monitoring them, none!

www.haaretz.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   
December_Rain, I don't understand.

Netanyahu has called on the Palestinians to resume negotiations without preconditions on 6 occasions now. Why don't they accept his offer if they want a separate state so badly? Why do they keep refusing to talk?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 


Netanyahu has included pre-conditions. Netanayhu says even after returning West Bank their land he wants Israeli soldiers to remain in West Bank to monitor them. How is that applicable? No sovereign state will accept such a condition.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


He's stated his own position and what he would like to be the outcome of negotiations. That isn't setting preconditions for negotiations.

The Palestinian Authority has also stated its position - it wants right of return, East Jerusalem to be Jew free, etc. Neither side finds the others' palatable or politically acceptable.

Surely it would be in their best interests to negotiate compromises, sooner rather than later? So why aren't they?

[edit on 21-1-2010 by mattpryor]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor
December_Rain, I don't understand.

Netanyahu has called on the Palestinians to resume negotiations without preconditions on 6 occasions now. Why don't they accept his offer if they want a separate state so badly? Why do they keep refusing to talk?


The Palestinian preconditions are a complete freeze on Israeli Settlement construction in the West Bank and Palestinian Jerusalem.

The construction of Settlements in the West Bank has been ruled illegal by the EU, every major body of the United Nations, is against the Fourth Geneva Convention, and also goes against numerous UN Security Council Resolutions.


Perhaps they refuse to talk unless Israel can be seen to be willing to deal in good faith?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor
reply to post by December_Rain
 


He's stated his own position and what he would like to be the outcome of negotiations. That isn't setting preconditions for negotiations.


His "position" is the "pre-condition"

"Israel must ensure that rockets aren't being smuggled into territories in its vicinity," the premier had told reporters, and to achieve that "an Israeli presence will be necessary along the Palestinian state's eastern side."



The Palestinian Authority has also stated its position - it wants right of return, East Jerusalem to be Jew free, etc. Neither side finds the others' palatable or politically acceptable.


That is an erroneous lie, please show me any solid source where PLA has asked the area to be "Jew free"?? If you cannot that please accept that is a lie. Palestinian have asked the area to be Israeli free.


Surely it would be in their best interests to negotiate compromises, sooner rather than later? So why aren't they?

Thats what I want to know from Netanyahu why hasn't he removed Israel's presence from West/ Bank and Gaza.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 


Well firstly, Israel has stopped construction in the disputed territories. At huge a political cost I may add (you must have seen the footage of protesters against the IDF destroying peoples' homes).

But even if the State of Israel was still building, wouldn't you agree that the PA's position is a little counter-productive? If they want their own state, and they want Israel to withdraw from the disputed territories, why won't they just show some good faith and sit down and negotiate how it's all going to work?

It doesn't make sense to me. If ownership of an area is disputed and one side wants the other side to withdraw from it, and that other side is willing to sit down and work out a compromise, why don't they just join them in negotiations?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor
reply to post by vox2442
 


It doesn't make sense to me. If ownership of an area is disputed and one side wants the other side to withdraw from it, and that other side is willing to sit down and work out a compromise, why don't they just join them in negotiations?


Because the other side is not withdrawing, they are stating they will maintain presence in on the "other side". I am still waiting for your source of "Jew free" thing.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


When you say "Israeli free", it means Jew Free. Really. Do you think Mahmoud Abbas would have problems with an Israeli Muslim Arab building a home in East Jerusalem or in Bethlehem?

You must know that in Palestinian Authority controlled areas of the West Bank it is illegal (and punishable by death) to sell land or property to a Jew? Not a Christian or a Muslim - a Jew.

Why will East Jerusalem (which by the way, in spite of being described as "Arab East Jerusalem in the media, is where the Jewish quarter is and always has been with the exception of when it was under Jordanian occupation) be any different if it falls under PA control?

It seems to me that if Abbas turned round and said "Okay, we don't agree with your idea about de-militarization or border troops, but let's talk about it" then negotiations could start. Right now. Just as Netanyahu has said on numerous occasions "We don't agree with your position about right of return and dividing Jerusalem but let's talk about it."

But Abbas won't.

Why not?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 


When is a freeze not a freeze?




The population of Jewish settlements in the West Bank could grow by 10,000 in the coming year despite a declared "freeze" on Israeli building in the occupied territory, an Israeli cabinet minister has said.

Benny Begin, a rightist minister and member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party, told a conference on Thursday night that the moratorium would be painful but was not a full construction "freeze" in the accepted sense of the word.

He noted that 3,000 homes already started would be completed regardless of the freeze, and said about 10,000 more settlers would move in, according to reports by Israel Radio and the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.


Source: uk.reuters.com...

This "freeze" does not apply to government buildings, schools, synagogues, or infrastructure, nor does it apply to East Jerusalem, where settlement construction continues.

They ARE still building. They're just not issuing new permits for housing construction in the West Bank until August.

The Palestinian Leadership is well within their rights to demand that Israel halt all illegal settlement activity for negotiations to take place. It's the type of request that tends to be a foregone conclusion in any type of conflict resolution, from the household domestic level up to international trade disagreements and on to war.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 


That's what I thought you told a false information about "Jew-free", and have no solid sources backing that up. Sorry but you have not provided single source for Jew thing so it is discarded.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 


Sorry, I don't accept that premise and I think you are finding ways to justify the Palestinian Authority's intransigence.

Neither of you has explained to me why the Palestinian Authority is not willing to enter negotiations which would result in an independent Palestinian State.

On the one hand they say they want their own State. Fine.

But when offered the chance to negotiate for that state, they won't. And they cite people building schools and hospitals as a reason for refusing negotiations. Even if building schools and hospitals is the worst and most offensive thing that Israel could possibly do, it still seems utterly ridiculous to use it as an excuse to avoid peace talks.

I don't buy it. Convince me I'm wrong.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


Hi Everyone,

There are two clear sides in this argument, however, in my limited experience, the situation is between the powerful and the powerless. Any reading of history that examines past the Israeli propaganda will notice a striking trend. It seems nearly all attempts at peace have been sabotaged by Israeli statesmen and politicians or at least that is what I have understood from thinking about the situation.

While its true that Israel is subjected to rocket and stone throwing attacks, Palestine is essentially an open air sewer/prison where GENERATIONS have been subjected to inhuman treatment that in any other country would be described as genocide. The MSM is a large part of the problem in the way they give massive support to Israeli while at the same time pronouncing that the media is anti-Israeli in a classic example of Orwellian newspeak with all the negative connotations attached.

Peace Out



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor

Sorry, I don't accept that premise and I think you are finding ways to justify the Palestinian Authority's intransigence.

Neither of you has explained to me why the Palestinian Authority is not willing to enter negotiations which would result in an independent Palestinian State.


I think the applicable legal term (and precedents) would be an armistice.

Before negotiations towards a peace treaty occur, an armistice is declared, which indicates a cessation of hostilities.

In this situation, the Israeli settlement construction - which extends to government projects in existing settlements - is both a continuation of past hostilities, and a crime under international law.

If you can point me to a peace treaty that was negotiated without a cessation of hostilities or armistice in place, I'd love to hear about it. None spring to mind.

What Israel is suggesting is that Palestine enter into negotiations that will result in an end to the conflict while Israel continues it's side of the fighting - which is plainly unrealistic. and something that no one would agree to.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by vox2442]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


I'm sorry but that's the complete reverse of the situation. From where I'm sitting the future Palestinian State and the Palestinians' claim to the disputed land has the backing and goodwill of:

- The UN
- The OIC
- The USA
- The EU

Now many people (including me) would say that the Jewish claim to a right to live in what they consider to be their ancestral homeland is every bit as valid. So where does this get spoken about in the MSN or by supposed "friends" of Israel? Nowhere. It's a marginal view which gets ignored by politicians and media alike.

FACT: If Mahmoud Abbas agreed to peace negotiations and really, really wanted an independent Palestinian state he would have it. And not only that he would have enormous goodwill and assistance in setting up that state and making it viable from governments all over the world.

But he doesn't. Instead he sits on his hands and complains about schools, hospitals and homes in Jerusalem.

Why?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 


The armistice was between Israel and Jordan. That conflict ended when Israel and Jordan signed a peace agreement in 1994.

If by continuing to build Israel is breaking any truce or armistice agreement with anyone it's with Jordan, not with the Palestinian Authority.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 


You misunderstand.

The negotiations with the PA that are proposed are, in essence, peace treaty negotiations, designed to end this conflict.

An armistice - that is to say, a complete cessation of hostilities - are standard procedure for such negotiations. The continued violations of international law that are the settlements represent a hostile act. Thus requesting that they cease as a condition for entering peace talks is neither unreasonable or without substantial precedent in international law.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 


Are you joking?
There wasn't ever without pre-conditions

not only were there pre-conditions but the pre-conditions were unnaceptable.

I can't believe you actually said that



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 


Well okay let's explore that a bit. Let's assume that a state of war exists between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. It doesn't, by the way, and in fact Israel and the USA supports the PA militarily and economically, but let's leave that inconvenient reality aside for a moment.

Who would you say is the winning side in that conflict, and who is the losing side? Considering that the PA is vastly outnumbered, out-gunned and out-flanked by Israel?

If a state of war does exist, and Israel is clearly winning, then why on Earth should Israel surrender and negotiate and offer to concede territory, when it is already a very small country with historically aggressive neighbours? It makes absolutely no sense.

But the fact is that for some unknown reason Israel IS willing to negotiate and IS willing to concede land in order for stability, and has said so on numerous occasions.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why Palestinians aren't jumping at the chance. None of you have explained it to me yet.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join