It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Palestinian state should come about as a result of an agreement between Israel and Palestine, believes Riyad Al-Maliki, Palestinian Foreign Affairs Minister.
Since last September, Israel has been avoiding any kind of talks and ignoring the calls of the international community to cease settlement activities, therefore the peace process has been stopped altogether.
“Our position is that by September we should have the Palestinian state as it was promised to us by [American] President Barack Obama, by the international community, by the [Middle East] Quartet and everybody else,” Al-Maliki stated, adding that if Israel refuses to fulfill the bilateral negotiations, Palestinians would demand international recognition of their state through the UN institutions.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was very clear from the day he took office to this day that he is definitely against the creation of a Palestinian state and withdrawal from the occupied territories.
“He has not shown any kind of sign of willingness to be peace partner for the Palestinians,” Al-Maliki pointed out.
Still, the Palestinian side does not reject the idea of direct negotiations with Israel and proclaims its around-the-clock readiness to take sit at the negotiation table.
There are no June 1967 borders, only armistice lines.
You are being fed lies, very well hidden I should say.
Palestinian so called concessions...
"If I were a Palestinian, I Would Have Rejected Camp David"
SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Well, the Oslo peace process was an agreement—it started as an agreement between two unequal partners. Arafat conceived Oslo as a way, not necessarily to reach a settlement, but more importantly to him at that particular moment, in order to come back to the territories and control the politics of the Palestinian family. Don’t forget that the Intifada, to which Oslo brought an end, started independently of the P.L.O. leadership, and he saw how he was losing control of the destiny of the Palestinians. His only way to get back to the territories was through an agreement with Israel. So in Oslo, he made enormous concessions.
In fact, when he was negotiating in Oslo with us, an official Palestinian delegation was negotiating with an official Israeli delegation in Washington, and the official Palestinian delegation was asking the right things from the viewpoint of the Palestinians—self-determination, right of return, end of occupation, all the necessary arguments—whereas Arafat in Oslo reached an agreement that didn’t even mention the right of self-determination for the Palestinians, doesn’t even mention the need of the Israelis to put an end to settlements. If the Israelis, after Oslo, continued expansion of settlements, they were violating the spirit of Oslo, not the letter of Oslo. There is nothing in the Oslo agreement that says that Israelis cannot build settlements. So this was the cheap agreement that Arafat sold, precisely because he wanted to come back to the territories and control the politics of Palestine.