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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Israel is offering negotiations without preconditions. Saying what Israel would like to come out of negotiations is not a precondition.

Show me just one instance of the current Israeli government making a single demand before it will even sit down to negotiations. Just one.




posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 


You mean like let's have a two-state solution wherein you are allowed to have zero arms?

Like that?
I'm not understand what you are getting at, perhaps because it's morning and I didn't have my tea yet.

For "peace" reasons would you allow armed gunmen right outside your house surrounding the perimeter but you were not allowed to own one weapon, and these armed gunmen are your enemy?

How is that even offering stability?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Those aren't the terms of negotiations. That's how Israel sees as the only way to maintain its own security, and is quite honest about it. Israel isn't only threatened by armed gangs and suicide bombers, it's also threatened by Syria and Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon and potentially Egypt and Jordan if things become unstable there.

The primary responsibility for any Israeli politician is the safety and well-being of Israeli citizens. As it is with any government. Those are the constraints that Israel's government has to act within being a democracy and requiring a popular mandate from the electorate.

I understand that the Palestinian Authority doesn't like those constraints, but compromise is surely the key?

So again, why doesn't he sit down for negotiations?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor
Those aren't the terms of negotiations. That's how Israel sees as the only way to maintain its own security

What the hell is the difference?
Are you trying to win this debate by cleverly playing with semantics?


These aren't terms of negotiations it's just perspective?
Pulease man
That's not going to work with me i'm sorry



Originally posted by mattpryor
it's also threatened by Syria and Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon and potentially Egypt and Jordan if things become unstable there.

Maybe Hezbollah somewhat, but other than that nobody poses a threat to Israel. You want to talk military budget?

They do not pose a threat to Israel, only superpowers do.


Originally posted by mattpryor
The primary responsibility for any Israeli politician is the safety and well-being of Israeli citizens. As it is with any government.

What is causing rockets?
The Apartheid and growing settlements and destroying PA homes.
Stop these things

I'm not saying you will get absolute peace out that, but at least you will have an actual foundation to stand on while debating, as opposed to you not having one now.


Originally posted by mattpryor
I understand that the Palestinian Authority doesn't like those constraints, but compromise is surely the key?

Umm........
maybe I should double check with my wife but isn't compromise NOT supposed to be one-sided?

If only one party compromises guess what.... That's NOT a compromise



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Both sides are expected to compromise.

Palestinian Authority wants right of return for millions of Palestinians to live within Israel proper. Palestinian Authority wants Jerusalem to be divided in half as it was before 1967 when Jews were forcibly removed from their homes and barred from their holy sites. Palestinian Authority wants Jews to be barred from the West Bank.

None of these things are acceptable to Israelis. But still Israelis are willing to compromise, but the Palestinian Authority is not, based on quibbling about bloody building permits and theoretical military arrangements. It's ridiculous.

I'm not arguing semantics. I'm asking a perfectly valid question. WHY won't Mahmoud Abbas sit down at the negotiating table? Answer the question if you support his position!



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor
None of these things are acceptable to Israelis. But still Israelis are willing to compromise, but the Palestinian Authority is not, based on quibbling about bloody building permits and theoretical military arrangements. It's ridiculous.


This statement right here shows you have no understanding of the situation either that or complete inability to empathize!

You really want to talk about building permits?
Do you know how many PAs have become homeless?

Do you know how much chaos the building permits issue have caused?
How much homelessness?

They always say Israel has the right to defend itself, but PA is not within the proposed two-state solution?

Listen, unless the two really compromise with perhaps a mediator(Not US or Egypt and nobody from UN Security Council) there won't be peace.

Bottom line it's Israel that created an apartheid not PA.

Israel needs to be tried in an international court for crimes against humanity. Put both Netanyahu and Hamas in jail.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I see you've resorted to the Apartheid word. Tsk tsk. Slogans don't bring peace you know and they don't win arguments. They're just empty words.

Talking brings peace, as you correctly assert. One side has offered to enter negotiations and the other is refusing to budge. I've yet to be convinced otherwise.

Israel has instigated a 10 month moratorium on new buildings in the disputed territories. After that there'll have been mid-term elections in the USA. Don't expect the USA to be anywhere near as pro-Palestinian as it is at present. The GOP have turned very pro-Israel in the last year.

Time's running out.

Best start talking eh?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 

Israel has instigated a 10 month moratorium on new buildings in the disputed territories. After that there'll have been mid-term elections in the USA.


I guess you forgot to mention that this excludes public buildings, nor do settler extremists really care about it and happily continue constructing houses.


JERUSALEM — Defence Minister Ehud Barak decided Wednesday to push ahead with plans to transform a college in the West Bank settlement of Ariel into a university, Israeli officials said.

The decision sparked outrage among many who viewed it as provocative at a time when Israel is pushing to enter talks with the Palestinians over the fate of the West Bank, which Israel captured in the 1967 Six-Day War.

A decision to transform the college into a university was taken five years ago but frozen. On Wednesday, Barak decided to grant the institution an intermediate status of "a university centre," a senior defence ministry official told AFP.

Full recognition as a university -- planned for an unscheduled date -- would entitle it to significant additional funding and the ability to grant advanced degrees.

Opponents said the move would also hurt the international standing of Israel, which has faced several academic boycotts over the continued occupation of the West Bank.

"It is a decision that will harm all the universities in Israel.

"It's not right that in a place where you have occupation and military rule, they want to establish an institution of higher education that teaches knowledge and values," said Yariv Oppenheimer of the anti-settlement Peace Now group.


Source



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 


Those "settler extremists" as you call them (although what is quite so "extreme" about building a house I've yet to understand) are opposed by the Israeli government and army.

As I've already pointed out.

If Palestinians have their own state they can police such people themselves no? So what's the hold up? Hmm?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 


Actually the correct word is "illegal extremist settlers".



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor
reply to post by Mdv2
 


Those "settler extremists" as you call them (although what is quite so "extreme" about building a house I've yet to understand) are opposed by the Israeli government and army.

As I've already pointed out.

If Palestinians have their own state they can police such people themselves no? So what's the hold up? Hmm?


I find you being very selective as to what you reply to. You ignore the first part of my reply. As for settler extremists. It's obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about. Settlements are not opposed by the Israeli government, why do you think they continue the construction of that college? Because of permanent residence. You are not going to allow the construction of a college in a settlement to only destroy it months or years later (or hand it over to the Palestinians - which would never happen). But you are wondering why I call these settlers, extremists, right? They don't obey government legislation, block roads to avoid Israeli patrols to check specific areas forbidden to build in, fight government officials who are trying to stop them from further construction of settlements and expansion.

Apart from a few show-cases, settlers are left alone and little is done to stop these extremists from violating the law. This, together with statements of Israeli government officials show that further expansion of settlements are officially not allowed, but in reality are permitted to continue.


I don't think you have ever been to the area because if you would, you would not have such a narrow minded opinion. Recently, there was a reportage on TV about a Palestinian refugee of 25 living in Holland and a Dutch Jewish student whom had been living in Israel for some years (Tel Aviv). In order to gain understanding for one another's situation, they visited both sides: a settlement, a Palestinian-Israeli peace initiative, an Israeli theater group and an Israeli town regularly under fire by rocket fire.

First they visited the settlement. In the settlement there were still some Palestinian families living refusing to give up their properties. Initially, the settlers tried to buy the house, but when the Palestinian owner refused, they started bullying them in a serious way, from spitting on their children - terrified to go to school - to throwing rocks through their windows. The situation got so bad that they had to barricade their doors. When the Dutch Jewish girl asked the Israeli settlers why they acted in the way they did, she was told that the land was theirs and no one would stop them from taking it. Having seen and heard this, the Dutch girl turned very emotional, saying that she had no idea these kind of things were going on as such things are naturally not witnessed in Tel Aviv. Two months later, the house was burnt down by the settlers.

In addition they visited a peace initiative founded by a Palestinian man who lost his daughter and an Israeli who lost his son by a suicide attack. The Palestinian daughter had been shot while buying candy down the street by an Israeli soldier without a reason. The son of the Israeli man had been killed by a terrorist suicide attack in a bus, killing and injuring many. Instead of allowing feelings of hatred, they decided to use their energy more effectively by starting a peace initiative to promote bilateral understanding.

Then they visited an Israeli theater group that promoted co-operation and peace between Israelis and Palestinians. One of their members, a kid aged 14, was spit on by his fellow students solely for participating in this peace initiative.

Last, they visited a village in the southern part of Israel that is often under fire of Hamas rocket fire, frightening the children to death. These children exchange letters with their Palestinian counterparts to gain understanding for each other's situations.

And you are wondering why I call settlers extremists. Perhaps you should book yourself a trip to Israel and try to figure out yourself what you are speaking of.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 


Look NO-ONE is denying that there are injustices wrought on Muslim Arabs in the disputed territories, and personal experiences can be harrowing. The hatred and violence hasn't just suddenly started, it's been going on for over a century. There are also injustices wrought on Jews. It's a conflict. I'm not denying it, and I'm certainly not supporting or condoning either side of the violence or harassment.

As it happens I think Netanyahu is playing a clever political game - he knows perfectly well that Abbas will not agree to negotiations with Israel because he's worried about his own security, appearing weak, and is also very worried about a Hamas takeover in the West Bank. That's what's holding them back. The rest is just excuses. Netanyahu is more than likely hoping that peace talks can be delayed until next year when he will have much more American support. There will NEVER be another opportunity like this.

The point I'm trying to get across in all this is that the ball is in Fatah and the PA's court. It's up to them. If they want an independent Palestinian state NOW is the time to start working towards it, and there really is nothing stopping them. The door is open. But it won't be for long.

I find it extremely frustrating that this chance is being squandered, by Abbas, by Fatah, and by those around the world that claim to support the Palestinian people. All because of blind stubbornness.

If YOU want to make a difference to the situation, put pressure on Abbas to call Netanyahu's bluff. Or put pressure on your PM, president or whatever. That's the ONLY way forward in this, because Israel will never offer more than it's offering now.

Next August Netanyahu will turn around and say "I offered them peace talks. They didn't want them. So let's build where we like". And he'll have popular support, and probably American support.

Then things will get REALLY nasty. In my country, probably in yours, and especially in Israel.

Don't say I didn't warn you.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Mdv2 I really would appreciate your thoughts on what I've posted above as I think this is extremely important.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor

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.


I think you're having trouble with understanding the concept of an armistice.

It doesn't mean "surrender".

It means "stop so that negotiations can occur".

You're also having some serious difficulty with understanding what a settlement actually is:



If Palestinians have their own state they can police such people themselves no? So what's the hold up? Hmm?


The West Bank settlements, in most recent rounds of negotiation by Israel, are proposed as being Israeli territory. The Palestinian Police would not be able to control them, as they would likely be Israeli.

Getting it yet?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 


If Israel and the Palestinian Authority come to an agreement about formal boundaries then Israel will remove any Jewish communities over that line. Just like they did in Gaza. That will be the least of the complications, the Israeli government has had no problem with evicting Jews from their homes in the past.

Settlements aren't stopping peace talks.

Mahmoud Abbas refusing to join peace talks is stopping peace talks.

It's daft, because he has everything to lose or everything to gain, depending on how he plays it. Netanyahu on the other hand wins either way, especially if the Palestinians drag their heels until the moratorium expires.

An historic opportunity being p*ssed away in my opionion.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor
reply to post by vox2442
 


Settlements aren't stopping peace talks.

Mahmoud Abbas refusing to join peace talks is stopping peace talks.

It's daft, because he has everything to lose or everything to gain, depending on how he plays it. Netanyahu on the other hand wins either way, especially if the Palestinians drag their heels until the moratorium expires.

An historic opportunity being p*ssed away in my opionion.


Hahaha...appreciate your sarcasm!
Second line.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join