Israel will never get a better deal than the one it rejected

[Swede]

Never, but never, will Israel be offered a better deal than the one now revealed - and what came of it? Israeli rejection. Rejectionism. No, no,no, absolutely not.

And yes to what? To continuing the occupation, perpetuating the conflict. From now on we can say to our children: For Har Homa we'll continue living on the edge of the volcano. That is the terrible truth. The settlers have vanquished Israel. It is not hard to imagine how possible it would have been to return the West Bank to its owners had there not been hundreds of thousands of settlers living in it.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-will-never-get-a-better-deal-than-the-one-it-rejected-1.339435

[bemildred]

1. Well, that's been true for some time now.

At least since Jabba trashed the Oslo deal.

[pscot]

2. Maybe they got what they wnted

[oberliner]

3. There was no deal offered

Once again, Gideon Levy runs with a story without too much concern for facts.

No deal was revealed to have been proposed/rejected in any of the released documents.

[shaayecanaan]

4. I think you're starting to part ways with reality, my friend

Even if one concedes that you've done an admirable job trying to reconcile the two universes to date.

And I don't even have to try to rebut that last post in detail. Suffice to say that no one outside the hardcore hasbarado camp is going to accept that narrative. No one.

[oberliner]

8. There was no offer made- have you read the documents?

According to the documents released, there were discussions in meetings about different ideas and possible components of an agreement - but no actual offer made.

[shaayecanaan]

9. "We are offering you the biggest Jerusalem in history"

Focus on that word, "offer".

Yes, there were three discussions in which the Palestinians put forth their chief proposals.

I don't think that the fact those proposals emerged in three separate discussions affects their being considered collectively as an offer.

If you are objecting on the basis that the offer was not a formal, written offer, then you have to reject Olmert's offer as it was not a formal offer either.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Putting the hasbara hat on...

Don't you understand? A deal can only be offered if it's Israel doing it. Otherwise it becomes a concession, or maybe even a pre-negotiation discussion. But not an offer of a deal. For it to be an offer it has to be written in blood, have the signatures of 10 former Israeli PM's, and after being run for four weeks on the front page of CAMERA, promptly sealed in a Swiss bank vault for safekeeping. As you can see, in this case, even though the word 'offer' is used and those doing so honestly think they're making an offer, it just doesn't meet the criteria required of a real offer of a deal. A general rule of thumb when dealing with such issues is to always remember that while Israel constantly makes generous offers that are continously rejected by those rejectionist Palestinians, the Palestinians don't make offers because they don't want peace. Remember that and there won't be any need for further corrections...

[shaayecanaan]

12. I think you've summed it up neatly...

for years Israel maintained the line that they wanted peace, craved it with every fibre of their being but was aggrieved they couldnt reach an agreement because they had no partner on the other side. The entire hasbarado MO is critically dependent upon maintaining this facade - witness for example, the obsessive recitation of that Golda Meir quote that peace will happen when the Arabs love their children. Or that the Arabs don't want peace, they just want to destroy Israel.

Now that that narrative has been blown to shreds, they're desperately casting around for another one...the papers are a forgery...its all a plot devised by the emir of Qatar...the offer being made wasn't actually an offer. Anything to avoid the obvious conclusion that is staring everybody else in the face.

[shira]

13. LOL...if there was an offer, why hasn't the entire package been publicized?

What's that?

The PA fears telling the world what it offered Israel?

:eyes:

The PA, of all organizations, isn't really interested in telling the world how much more reasonable they are than Israel, and how EVIL Satanic Israel is really holding back the peace process?

It's just too, wait for it.......TOP SECRET? Abbas would rather publicly say that the PA's positions reported by AJ and the Guardian were really Israel's positions?

Please.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Do you think that just maybe it's the Palestinian people who they'd fear?

Making public their attempts to sell their own people down the river to gain a few pathetic crumbs in return would be at the very least, totally embarressing for the PA, and at the worst, put them in a position where people have no faith in them at all for very good reason...

Do you think the Palestine Papers are fakes? If so, who do you think forged them and why?

[shaayecanaan]

18. To quote the old Church song...

is this the taste of victory?

(Or at least as close to victory as one is going to get)

The former liberal champions of Israel are either silent (Burston), or contrite and semi-repentant (witness Strenger's op-ed in Haaretz today), or increasingly associated with the middle-to-far right.

Even on this website, the number of pro-Israel posters has gone from a boxful, to a handful. The two remaining rusted-on supporters that frequent here are probably symptomatic of what you might call the "Croatianisation" of diaspora Jews - that is to say, the increasing tendency of politically active members of that community to drift towards the political right.

For an example, just look at these guys:-

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/juliankossoff/100059179/the-english-defence-league-the-jewish-division-and-the-useful-idiots/

[shira]

19. Of course, which would lead reasonable people to conclude the PA would never make...

...a real offer to Israel similar to the Clinton Parameters or Olmert's offer. They know they'd be lynched.

It's completely irrational to believe any such magnanimous offer was made. The PA has never once articulated any such position in english or arabic. And to believe they would do this is to insult their collective intelligence, as if they're too stupid not to know they'd be lynched. FFS, they've never stopped inciting Palestinians to hatred and intolerance of every and anything Israeli. IOW, they've worked only on keeping the conflict ongoing. Here's proof...

http://www.palwatch.org/

The documents haven't been authenticated by anyone yet. And the spin out there in reporting what's actually there is ridiculous.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. So, who produced these 'fakes' and why?

And where's any shred of evidence that they're fakes? Or is everyone just supposed to take yr word and that of assorted hardline zealots for it?

I'm a reasonable and rational person and I do believe it's more than likely that offers were made, which Israel promptly rejected.

Please don't link to websites run by extremist settlers and call them proof. That's just as bad as someone linking to the Stormfront homepage and calling that proof of some claim against Israelis...

[shira]

22. So you believe the PA is stupid and wouldn't mind getting lynched for making so many concessions?

Especially when there's not a shred of proof (based on the historical record) that they would ever once dare to make all these concessions in one big offer? They simply talked concessions, they wouldn't dare offer them all in one package, and for certain "IF" they ever did, it was in a package they knew Israel could never accept. Remember, Abbas ran away from Olmert's offer without so much as countering anything in return, demanding the US bridge the gaps between Olmert's and the PA's "mysterious" offer...

BTW, the website PMW is not run by extremist settlers so it appears you have a problem with any criticism of the PA, Hamas....

[Violet_Crumble]

23. I asked you who produced these 'fakes', and why?

And I asked for some proof or even a bit of evidence. Yr saying that you think they're a hoax isn't proof. Nor is posting a link to the entrypage of a hardcore partisan 'pro-Israel' site run by an extremist settler and insisting that's proof.

The founder and director of PMW is an extremist settler, not to mention a bigot who was involved in the making of an anti-Muslim documentary called 'Obsession'. I pointed that out because that's what he is, so I don't know what that nonsense at the end of the post is about. Let's keep things real...

[shira]

24. I didn't say they're fake or a hoax, only that there's much spin in reporting them...

Like, for example, the claim that there was a big offer made to Olmert and it included x, y, z, etc... and was therefore very reasonable. No one, not even the USA, is aware of any such offer which demands bridging the gaps with Olmert's offer. Also, no one has yet authenticated the documents, which is a fact, meaning even if 99% is accurate and 1% (being reported) is false then that is problematic. I wrote about the media manipulation involved with these papers earlier...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=342199&mesg_id=342253

So there is no question that the content of the documents has been misreported quite deliberately by spinmeisters.

There is no evidence suggesting the founder and director of PMW is an extremist, bigoted settler. Translating PA media for western audiences in order to expose their agenda is not bigotry.

Why do you think the PA would stick its neck out suicidally by making a big, magnanimous offer? What do they gain by doing that?

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Then why did you say 'of course' if I asked if you thought they were a fake?

You also said in the thread you linked to in yr reply to me that you thought they were fake, and then backed down. So do you think they're a fake or not?

I'm sure there's absolutely no question in yr mind that linking to a post of yrs that doesn't show what you claim it does is evidence and concrete proof. Not in my mind, however...

Of course Marcus Itimar is an extremist, a settler, and an anti-Muslim bigot. He hates Arabs and Palestinians, lives in a West Bank settlement, and contributed to the bigoted documentary 'Obsession'. I wouldn't trust that ugly and bigoted right-wing extremist to translate something from American English into Australian English for me and would urge anyone with a real interest in the conflict to steer well clear of such a hateful individual...

[shira]

27. 'Of course' was in response to the title of your post about the PA fearing Palestinian reaction

What's fake is putting disingenuous spin on the existing papers, as the Guardian and al-Jazeera have done. The claim here at DU that there was a big offer made by the PA is preposterous. The papers don't point to a big offer. See, that claim is fake. I'm not saying the 'offer' is fake, as there was no offer.

And the link of mine that I posted to shows clearly how the Guardian lied about the PA accepting a Jewish state, just as al-Jazeera lied about Livni's position WRT International Law.

Please prove how Itamar Marcus hates Arabs and Palestinians. Prove how all settlers are extremists. Dershowitz and Khaled Abu Toameh also contributed to Obsession but they're not bigoted Rightwingers. You're assuming a lot WRT Itamar Marcus, with no proof to back your claims. Lastly, no one has ever shown that PMW has mistranslated (either willfully or by accident) anything coming out of the PA/Hamas media. Please bring evidence to the contrary if you can.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. You said in the thread you just linked to you thought the papers were fake...

In response to another poster in that thread saying that they thought you'd said that you thought the Palestine papers were fake, you replied 'they are'. I'm not sure how it changed from thinking they're fakes to attacking the media that printed the papers in such a short space of time, but there you go....

You keep on repeating that there was no offer, but there was, and anyone can read it for themselves. Another poster posted a direct quote showing what was being offered. I'm not sure how when something is offered to someone with the word offer in front of it, it can be twisted into not being an offer....

No, that link of yrs was to you falsely accusing the Guardian of lying. I read that article, and there was nothing at all wrong with that headline...

Sorry, but are you serious when you say you need some evidence that Itamar Marcus is a bigot? I'm pretty sure people in this forum have explained to you before how the film he was involved in is a bigoted film. I can explain it again if you've forgotten. Or you could email Pamela Geller and get her to authenticate a claim that he's not a bigot? After all, he and Pamela have hung out together and he moves in the same circles. Shall you be needing evidence that Pamela Geller's a bigot as well? ;)

Settlers? Don't ask me to prove things I haven't said. I did NOT say all settlers were extremists. I said that bigoted RW extremist Marcus is an extremist settler. And I'm not sure how pointing out something that's a fact can be proven to you. What sort of proof are you looking for? I suggest you google Marcus...

Those other two you mentioned are most certainly bigoted RW types. Dershy in particular is a virulently ugly individual who went in recently to defend Sarah Palin, supports torture, and slavers over the most hardline RW govts as long as they're Israeli....

I'm a bit confused here. Why is it that you demand 'evidence' constantly in yr post, but you don't provide a shred of proof to back up the accusations you make? And having seen you refer to that revolting PMW site as 'proof', I have some concerns that yr idea of what constitutes proof varies wildly depending on what it is yr looking at...

[shira]

29. The 2 of us will never agree on basic facts, so we'll never come to agree on much....

1. If you can't see how the Guardian lied in its headline about the PA recognizing a Jewish state, then there's simply no amount of evidence that can ever convince you that you're wrong.

Here's the article...

Palestinian negotiators accept Jewish state, papers reveal
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/24/palestinian-negotiators-jewish-state-papers

There's nothing in that article suggesting what the headline claims. Worse, I'm 100% certain neither you or anyone else on this planet is capable of showing how the article justifies such a headline.


2. PMW has never once been shown to lie about any of the thousands of Palestinian media soundbites that it has translated over the years. In contrast, I've shown how a source you trust is disreptuable and unreliable. You choose to see it completely opposite when the evidence is clearly stacked against you.

3. I find it amusing you call PMW a rightwing source when the Guardian is falling all over itself being a political megaphone for the very extreme 3rd world Rightwing (pro-Muslim Brotherhood) al-Jazeera media. It's hard to take seriously anyone's claim of "Rightwing" when the very sources they're relying on make Arutz Sheva seem reasonable in comparison. One thing to remember is that the political ideology of the folks at al-Jazeera has absolutely zero to do with liberal ideology. It's the complete opposite.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Yr opinions aren't facts...

And yr opinions also aren't evidence. I'd say that's where things go off the rails....

I've read the article. They do indeed accept Israel as a Jewish state, as they quite rightly tell Israel that it can identify itself as that if it wants to....

You repeating over and over again yr opinion of the Guardian or other sources does not mean that yr opinion is reality. Especially when in the next breath yr defending extremist RW and incredibly bigoted individuals like the founder and director of an extremely zealoted 'pro-Israel' site. Seriously, that guy makes some of the bigots at Arutz Sheva look tame, though I expect they all move in the same circles. Have you watched 'Obsession'? Do you think that it was bigoted against Muslims?



Al-Jazeera doesn't have a political ideology. It's absolutely ridiculous to claim they're the opposite of 'liberal', given that they manage at various times to piss many govts of different political persuasions off, including the US. But let me guess. You think Al-Jazeera are fascists? How warm am I?

[shira]

31. Neither are yours. Facts are facts.

The article doesn't state anything new that hasn't been reported already. In fact, Abbas made this similar statement:

"You can call yourselves as you like, but I don't accept it and I say so publicly."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3707501,00.html

Also, the Palestine Papers prove the PA was adamantly against it...

TL:

To stop incitement. We can say it in a positive point of view. The ultimate goal that peace requires historic reconciliation guided by the fundamental principle that two states of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security, each a homeland of its people and the fulfillment of all national aspirations for its people. Israel for the Jewish people, and Palestine for the Palestinians.


Palestinian team all protest adamantly.

http://www.ajtransparency.com/en/document/1963

So the Guardian is full of shit as the PA has not accepted Israel as a Jewish state. That headline is indefensible, as are more of their wild claims WRT the Palestine Papers. Now that it's been proven the Guardian falsely reported on the PA accepting a Jewish state, would you like to move onto its false and dishonest allegations WRT Tzipi Livni?

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

You have yet to prove Itamar Marcus, Dershowitz, or Toameh are extreme Rightwing, bigoted sources. Participating in "Obsession" doesn't prove anything if you can't show how their political opinions are demonstrably Rightwing. With that logic, Britain's George Galloway and Ken Livingstone are Rightwing for hosting PRESS-TV shows under direct Iranian government sponsorship. What's rightwing is not tolerating or respecting people like Dershowitz and Marcus, for having different opinions.

There is no evidence PMW has ever once mistranslated anything the PA or Hamas has spewed in Arabic. Therefore, there is no reason to suspect that what is on the PMW site is misleading, unreliable, or dishonest. Unless proven otherwise, PMW's reports are all factual. It's also absurd to declare that sources of factual information are "Rightwing", for no other reason that you don't like what's being reported.

Al-Jazeera is easily as biased as FOX news and it's well known. Here's Gershon Baskin, a very politically left-wing Israeli...

But it is quite clear that peace between the Egyptian and Israeli people never emerged. The masses in Egypt hate Israel, and identify strongly with its enemies. But this too is a relatively new phenomenon, deeply influenced by Al-Jazeera and other Arab media, with their pro-Islamic, pro- Hamas positions.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=206122

And here's Bernard Avishai, very leftwing Israeli/American on how reprehensible the reporting is at the Guardian...
http://bernardavishai.blogspot.com/2011/01/guardian-watch-more-reprehensible.html

David Landau, former editor at Haaretz, also very leftwing on the Guardian/Al-Jazeera coverage...
http://217.18.90.33/news/world-news/44333/palestine-papers-the-view-tel-aviv

To top it off, Al Jazeera and the Guardian pay bigots like Ben White and Ali Abunimah to write editorials for them - and that's no better than Fox News employing bigots to opine against Muslims for their fake news network.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. I asked for yr opinion on whether 'Obsession' is bigoted against Muslims...

You didn't answer it. I'm very interested in knowing what you think. Do you think 'Obsession' is bigoted against Muslims? If not, why not?

[shira]

34. Yes, it's bigoted. My turn now. Is PRESS-TV bigoted against Jews?

Because if so, then using your logic Ken Livingstone, Lauren Booth, Yvonne Ridley, and George Galloway are all bigots for spewing the official antisemitic Iranian line.
Right?

:)

Al-Jazeera is pro-Muslim Brotherhood, and in case you didn't know there is not one thing politically that the Muslim Brotherhood has in common with liberal ideology.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Ah, but I know the difference between facts and opinions....

So, I'll repeat that yr opinions are NOT facts, no matter how many times you say 'facts are facts'. Here's some information on the difference that you should read:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-fact-and-opinion.htm

That statement you claim was similar made by a different person? You bolded the bit that was totally different from what was said in the Guardian article you claimed was lying. Also, you've said in this forum that you think the Palestine Papers are a hoax, but now yr turning around and pointing to something in them to try to prove something? Sorry, but that's not a particularly effective way to argue something. If you need to have it explained, I'm happy to explain why....

No, the Guardian is NOT full of shit and it hasn't falsely reported at all. Erekat is a negotiator and he had accepted Israel as a Jewish state. Or do you think the Guardian conjured this statement of his from the article from thin air? 'But behind closed doors in November 2007, Erekat told Tzipi Livni, the then Israeli foreign minister and now opposition leader: "If you want to call your state the Jewish state of Israel you can call it what you want," ' I'm seeing a lot of false claims, but they're not coming from the Guardian.

I'm going to put any discussion of bigotry aside until you answer the question I asked in an earlier post about whether or not you consider 'Obsession' to be bigoted against Muslims.

And if you read back to what I said about PMW, I never claimed it had mistranslated anything. Like you, I don't read, write or speak Arabic, so I wouldn't know and I'm not sure how you could either. What I said about PMW was that I wouldn't trust that bunch of extremist bigots to translate something from Arabic anymore than I'd trust their mirror-images at Stormfront to translate anything from Hebrew. Does that help make it a bit clearer for you?

I don't understand what guideline you use to divide things into Left and Right. It does appear to me that if it's something you agree with, it's Leftwing, and if not it's Rightwing. The reason I despise the likes of Dershy is that he's a disgusting creature who advocates torture, and defended Sarah Palin over her use of the blood libel comment, so yr right - I don't respect him at all. How on earth is not respecting people with revolting views a Right-Wing thing? I don't think a lack of respect for people who hold views that are horrible is something that's split along political lines. Nor is there anything wrong at all with not respecting a creep like Dershy...

It's also absurd to declare that sources of factual information are "Rightwing", for no other reason that you don't like what's being reported.

That's a pot, kettle, black moment if ever there was one. I guess everything you like that's being reported is factual to you, and therefore it's quite acceptable to label a multitude of sources and individuals RW?

Which leads to the final bit of yr post. Posting a rather ignorant and silly comment from one person isn't showing that Al-Jazeera is the opposite of liberal ideology, and that's the accusation you made. I think once you explain what guidelines you use to divide things into Left and Right, and answer the question you were asked earlier about whether or not you consider 'Obsession' to be bigoted, it'll make things a lot clearer. Right now I'm a bit confused as to how you don't see any problem with Marcus hanging out with a bigoted individual like Pamela Geller, but use the guilt by association thing to condemn the Guardian...

[shira]

35. On the Guardian's claim...

"That statement you claim was similar made by a different person? You bolded the bit that was totally different from what was said in the Guardian article you claimed was lying. Also, you've said in this forum that you think the Palestine Papers are a hoax, but now yr turning around and pointing to something in them to try to prove something? Sorry, but that's not a particularly effective way to argue something. If you need to have it explained, I'm happy to explain why...."

1. By quoting Abbas saying he did not accept Israel as a Jewish state, I simply showed how a similar statement proves the Guardian wrong - that the PA (and that's Abbas) hasn't accepted what you think the Guardian accurately reported.

2. The Guardian's claim is clearly contradicted by the Palestine Papers from which it uses as a source.

3. False claims by the Guardian, twisting of facts, deceiving, etc... is a hoax or fabrication by definition. Look it up if you want.

I'm not sure why you're having such trouble admitting the Guardian completely misrepresented the situation.

:shrug:

"No, the Guardian is NOT full of shit and it hasn't falsely reported at all. Erekat is a negotiator and he had accepted Israel as a Jewish state. Or do you think the Guardian conjured this statement of his from the article from thin air? 'But behind closed doors in November 2007, Erekat told Tzipi Livni, the then Israeli foreign minister and now opposition leader: "If you want to call your state the Jewish state of Israel you can call it what you want," ' I'm seeing a lot of false claims, but they're not coming from the Guardian."

That's not accepting anything and it's similar to the Abbas quote from YNET that I cited in which Abbas said he did not accept Israel as a Jewish state.

Further, the Palestine Papers show the PA delegation strongly objecting to the notion. Do you agree that the part I quoted from the Palestine Papers showing how the PA objected to a Jewish state contradicts the Guardian's headline claim? Yes or No?

Here it is again:

TL:

To stop incitement. We can say it in a positive point of view. The ultimate goal that peace requires historic reconciliation guided by the fundamental principle that two states of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security, each a homeland of its people and the fulfillment of all national aspirations for its people. Israel for the Jewish people, and Palestine for the Palestinians.


Palestinian team all protest adamantly.

http://www.ajtransparency.com/en/document/1963

You don't see proof there that the PA has not accepted recognizing Israel as a Jewish state?

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Yeah, it's pretty much the sort of 'arguments' that I've seen used...

The verbal gymnastics done to try to downgrade an offer into something else look very energetic, but very clumsy. Especially when the bar is so far lower when it comes to the criteria for what's considered to be an offer if it comes from the Israeli side...

[shira]

36. What you guys fail to see is that Abbas could offer the moon in negotiations, but can't deliver...

Israel knows very well Abbas could make a reasonable offer but that he is...

1. The illegal leader of the PA
2. Has no backing from the Palestinian populace
3. So if a deal was made, he would be out of power shortly, Hamas would take over and the deal wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on.

[shira]

7. Correct. The PA talked about concessions but never offered them.

Here's Bernard Avishai on how ridiculous the reporting on these leaks are...

http://bernardavishai.blogspot.com/2011/01/guardian-watch-more-reprehensible.html

Guardian Watch: More Reprehensible Journalism

Just following up on the Guardian's distorted and inflammatory claims. The paper reports that Saeb Erekat recognized the principle of Israel "as a Jewish state," and that, correspondingly, Tzipi Livni pressed for the transfer of Israeli Arab citizens to Palestine, in effect, adopting the principle "backed in its wholesale form by rightwing nationalists such as the Yisrael Beiteinu party of the foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman."

I just spoke with Tal Becker, Livni's aide, and her chief negotiator in the talks in question. Erekat in no way recognized Israel as a Jewish state. What he said, clearly, was that it was not the business of the Palestinians to determine what Israel would call itself, or, presumably, the business of Israelis how Palestinians called themselves, legislated identity, and so forth. He had said (the Guardian had this but ignored its implications), "This is a non-issue. I dare the Israelis to write to the UN and change their name to the 'Great Eternal Historic State of Israel'. This is their issue, not mine." Is this the same as recognizing Israel as a Jewish state?

As to "transfer," Livni certainly did not adopt Lieberman's vision. She was addressing only those towns which the Green Line already bisected, and she was hoping to settle the disposition of their municipal governments in a humane fashion; so she suggested that these towns be reunited, and then be either wholly Palestinian or wholly Israeli. Naturally, she assumed that it would make more sense for them to be Palestinian. But when Palestinian negotiators rejected the idea, assuming the residents would, she tabled the issue. The Guardian went on in its next paragraph to note that Livni had told Palestinian leaders how "the basis for the creation of the state of Israel is that it was created for the Jewish people," as if this were her rationale for "transfer." Really.

With editing and reporting like this, you have to wonder if the real story here is not the shoddiness of agenda-driven journalism. It also makes you wonder, Becker adds, "if the Guardian committed to this kind of spin in order to secure the leaks from Al Jazeera." Does the paper really not realize that headlines and teasers travel much faster than truths and that lives may be at stake?

The reporting is so absurdly and intentionally distorted that people are seeing "offers" that were never made and concessions the PA wouldn't dream of making.

:eyes:

What we do see is how the Palestinian street, Hamas and their cheerleaders at al-Jazeera, etc... would react had the PA actually made such a suicidal offer (which would obviously never happen).

[whosinpower]

17. Al Jazeera has released the papers

So any person interested can see for themselves exactly what the papers say, without interpretation, spin, or journalistic narrative.

The cat is out of the box and it cannot be boxed back in.

I would not trust the Israeli side's interpretation, nor would I trust the palistinian one. The papers speak for themselves for those who wish to delve into the thousands of papers.

You know Shira - there is another offer sitting waiting for an Israeli answer. And thus far, they have refused to address it either. The Arab Initiative.

Ah well, the entire region is poised for a dramatic shift.

[shira]

37. Do you believe the PA offered to recognize a Jewish state of Israel, like the Guardian claims? N/T

[RZM]

5. Isn't that what people said 10 years ago about the other side

That at camp david Arafat rejected the best deal the Palestinians would get? We'll see. . .

[regnaD kciN]

6. I suspect Israel doesn't WANT a deal...

...because a deal would mean giving something up, while the Israelis believe that time is on their side and all they have to do is wait a while longer to get everything they want -- the occupied territories, the cheap labor, the water resources, and so on -- without giving up a thing. Do you really think the Palestinians (and I do mean any faction of them) have the strength to stage even a shadow of another Intifada? I suspect the Israelis now feel that, if they wait a while longer, those Palestinians with resources or ability will give up and settle elsewhere, while those remaining will be too poor, disorganized, and demoralized to remain anything but "hewers of wood and bearers of water" in perpetuity.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. That's coz Israel doesn't need any deal. The status quo is far preferable n/t

[frankieT]

16. it was their plan from the start.

ISRAEL NEVER WANTED THE PEACE. They trapped & fucked good the palestinians. Well played.

[shira]

20. Israel has tried for peace from day one, the PLO never. N/T

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Completely untrue. Israel flatly refused to talk to the Palestinians for decades...

Someone who's trying for peace doesn't refuse to talk to the people they're brutally occupying....

Maybe it'll sound more dramatic if it goes: 'Israel has tried for peace every day from day one, even when the weather's really bad and everyone else is sitting in front of the telly'?

[shira]

38. Israel accepted the partition plan, made peace with Egypt and Jordan, ended occupying Gaza/Lebanon..

....worked to make both Gaza and the W.Bank economically viable with better education, health, etc...and agreed to and offered credible peace deals in 2000 and 2008.

The Palestinian side has done nothing in over 62 years except incite their population to more violence, hatred, and terror.