Abbas: Israelis want peace, leaders don’t

[Jefferson23]

Palestinian president adamant launch statehood bid despite UN ambiguity, denies Israel offered anything to advance peace talks. Jerusalem sources tell Ynet PM Netanyahu's speech at UNGA will focus on Israel's security needs, PA's refusal to resume talks

Attila Somfalvi Published: 09.23.11, 01:04 / Israel News


NEW YORK – Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, in his first interview since arriving in New York for the 66th UN General Assembly, said Thursday that he has no knowledge of a new Israeli proposal meant to propel the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

In an interview with the Palestinian news agency Maan, Abbas said that while he "met with President Shimon Peres three times and with Defense Minister Ehud Barak twice, he heard "nothing new."

"I am convinced that the majority of Israeli people want peace, but the Israeli leadership has done nothing to achieve it so far. On the contrary – it has deliberately thwarted all of the international, Arab and Palestinian efforts," he said.

snip* All eyes, it seems, are on Netanyahu. Ynet has learned that the prime minister's speech will feature three key elements: The need for strict security arrangements vis-à-vis the Palestinians, Israel's efforts to achieve peace with the PA and its willingness to hold direct negotiations, and the Palestinians' "defiant and obstinate behavior" which translates into their refusal to negotiate.

in full: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4126419,00.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jefferson23]

2. Judenfrei West Bank..millions of Palestinians become Israeli citizens

and the complete surrender of Ancient Jerusalem..hmmm. Likud much? Lieberman would love ya holdencaufield.

[shaayecanaan]

3. I'm always reminded of Ian Paisley whenever I read this over-the-top nonsense...

I remember how he used to insist that the Catholics weren't interested in peace, that the Good Friday agreement was merely a stepping stone to complete Catholic supremacy in Northern Ireland and that if we all didn't wake up then Scotland would be next and the IRA would be able to take pot shots at jets flying into Heathrow with Stinger missiles.

He always used to insist that he himself, of course, was a man of peace and would sign a truce the moment the papist traitor would abandon their violent ways.

Had people actually taken heed of him then Northern Ireland would still be at war today.

[bemildred]

21. Same cliches, anywhere you go.

The names change, and that is about all. You can hear more anti-semitic tropes here than just about anywhere except Storm Front.

[holdencaufield]

5. Explain which one of these isn't a Palestinian demand

Judenfrei West Bank -- a consistent Palestinians position was that ALL settlers be withdrawn from West Bank territory based on '67 borders. Gaza is already Judenfrei.

Right of Return gives millions of Palestinians the right to become Israeli citizens

Palestinians claim Ancient Jerusalem (East Jerusalem) to be their territory and their capital.


Could it be possible that these are Likud talking points because they're true?

[Matilda]

10. In order ...

Since 1967, Israelis have taken land that rightfully belonged to Palestinians in order to build settlements. They have destroyed Palestinian homes and desecrated their land, often destroying their livelihood in the process. It is all illegal, yet Israel operates on the theory (all too correct) that once settlement is established on the ground, the reality is that they are there to stay. Palestinians can't even travel on roads that run through the territory that is theirs by U.N. decree. That this is morally, legally, and ethically wrong doesn't seem to bother the Israelis in the slightest.

The Right of Return would allow Palestinian families driven out during the Nakba to return - they would not be in the millions, but in their thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. The Palestinians generally didn't keep much in the way of documentation; land was simply handed down by tradition, and that would go against many of them. This alone may be enough to keep numbers returning to a level that could be absorbed.

Until 1967, Jerusalem was divided into East and West, and while it was often uneasy, it was workable. West Jerusalem was neat and orderly, everything well-kept and organised; East Jerusalem was noisy, untidy, often dirty, and fun.

The solution would take a great deal of good will on both sides, and extremists among both Israelis and Palestinians would never be satisfied. But the Israelis can't go on playing the guilt card against the West whenever they are criticised - there are already at least two generations of young people in the West who have no recollection of World War II history, and don't particularly care - the holocaust means nothing to them, and they certainly have no guilt. They see things in black and white terms – the victim and the bully, and Israel doesn't look much like a victim to them. Israel needs a rethink.

[holdencaufield]

11. Allow me to point out where you're mistaken...

"Since 1967, Israelis have taken land that rightfully belonged to Palestinians in order to build settlements..." -- Between 1967 and 1988, Israel built settlements on land they captured from Jordan in a war where Jordan invaded Israel. Jordan annexed and controlled the West Bank from 1948 until 1967. In all that time, why didn't they make provision for the Palestinians? Why didn't Jordan declare it a Palestinians homeland? Why did Jordan slaughter tens of thousands of Palestinians in a single month and drive the PLO leadership into exile in Tunis?

"They have destroyed Palestinian homes and desecrated their land..." -- Perhaps you can explain how the Jewish houses desecrate Palestinian land? If I were a more sensitive chap, I would take that as a pejorative statement.

"It is all illegal, yet Israel operates on the theory (all too correct) that once settlement is established on the ground..." -- You say that, but has there ever been a single body with actual jurisdiction that has ruled how it is illegal? The UN GA has no jurisdiction, the UN Security Council never established borders between the two parties except by mutual agreement and guarantees for the safety of Israel.

"Palestinians can't even travel on roads that run through the territory that is theirs by U.N. decree..." -- Again, you say UN Decree, but if that were the case, why the need to go before the UN Security Council and declare it? The UN has never established the borders of Palestinian land.

"The Right of Return would allow Palestinian families driven out during the Nakba to return..." -- Let us forget for a moment just WHO drove out the Palestinian families in 1948 and what they had to gain from it. Do the equivalent number of Jews get to seek equal compensation for being forced out of THEIR homes and properties in countries around the region when Israel became a state? Additionally, Right of Return, the way the PA defines it, is not only Palestinians who left Israel proper in 1948, but their descendents. That number is in the millions.

"Until 1967, Jerusalem was divided into East and West, and while it was often uneasy, it was workable..." -- It was divided by a Jordanian invasion of Israeli territory and held by force of arms from 1948 to 1967. The "International City", that the UN had declared Jerusalem to be, was gone the second Jordanian tanks came pouring across the border. During which time, Jordan cruelly abused the Palestinians to the point where the UN was forced to take over control of refugee camps to prevent mass starvation. Black September, when tens of thousands of PLO loyalists were slaughtered by the Jordanian Army, happened when the property belonged to Jordan. During the time Jordan controlled East Jerusalem, Jews were forbidden access to holy sites, Jewish historical sites were destroyed or defaced and Jewish-owned property was expropriated by Jordan.

"But the Israelis can't go on playing the guilt card against the West whenever they are criticised - there are already at least two generations of young people in the West who have no recollection of World War II history, and don't particularly care - the holocaust means nothing to them..." -- You seem to be the one playing the guilt card by declaring that Israel's right to exist is based on the Holocaust. The Holocaust merely highlighted to the world what Jews have known for centuries. In order for Jews to be safe, they must be autonomous and not dependent on a host country for survive. The world acknowledge that fact when it created the partition and recognized the Jewish State in 1948. While I fully support a negotiated Palestinian State, but I don't think anyone can claim Palestinian's survival is in jeopardy if they don't have an autonomous state.

[Jefferson23]

23. Judenfrei, I am not going to dignify your claims here with any further

response. Regarding Right of Return, this is negotiable, a number, and compensation..you against that too I guess.

And as far as the issue with East Jerusalem, the ICJ since 2004 has said the Palestinians have the right to the whole of EJ as its
capital. That Lieberman has an issue with the ICJ advisory ruling is not surprising.

[JDPriestly]

6. What is unreasonable about Netanyahu's request to negotiate for security?

What prevents Abbas from talking to Israel?

It won't cost him or the Palestinian people to talk?

The US talks with all kinds of countries all the time.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. I'd say it has a lot to do with continuing to build settlements

He's an extremist and he's no more interested in good faith negotiations than Hamas would be. And its kind of hypocritical for Israel to demand that others talk to it with no conditions when Israel has a long and not too recent record of refusing to negotiate.

[JDPriestly]

8. Israel has destroyed settlements in the past.

Shouldn't the Palestinians bring their request that the settlements be ended to the negotiating table? Maybe in exchange for proof that Palestinians will guarantee as far as they are possible, Israel's security, some or all of the settlements could be either handed over to the Palestinians or destroyed? I have no idea whether that might be done, but it seems to me it would be worth a try.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Removal of the settlements isn't something that would be up for negotiation...

They're illegal under international law. The problem is that the current Israeli government is hell-bent on expanding the settlements and creating facts on the ground, and the longer that goes on, the more unlikely it becomes that a two-state solution will ever eventuate.

[oberliner]

13. Pretty sure they are

The Palestinian side has offered to let some settlements stay in exchange for land swaps within Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. That'd be a mutually agreed landswap. The settlements themselves are illegal...

And they'd only be involving land along the Green Line, which contains some settlements, not ones like Ariel which are deep inside the West Bank...

[oberliner]

19. I'm just saying that they have been part of negotiations

It seems like any agreement will result in Israel keeping some of them.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. I know, but it's only the ones along the Green Line...

And that's because they'd be on land that would be swapped if there was agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. I doubt very much all the other settlements inside the West Bank would be on the table for negotiations. I should have worded it better in my earlier post, but I was having a lazy and distracted moment a bit earlier on :)

[holdencaufield]

9. What is the inducement

for Israel to STOP settlement building? Settlement building reinforces the fact that the 1967 borders aren't set in stone and have nothing to do with the Palestinians (The 1967 borders were between Jordan and Israel and not the PA and Israel). The '67 borders are only a starting point for negotiations, not the final agreement.

Settlement building gives Israel something to give up that isn't tied to ROR, or giving up Jerusalem. Settlement building is in fact a savvy strategy to put pressure on the PA to negotiate. The long the PA stays away from the table, the more they stand to lose.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. I think there'd be one major one that would come immediately to mind...

And this is one for those folk for who it's All About Israel and nothing else. The longer Israel keeps hold of the West Bank and continues to build settlements, the more the possibility of a two-state solution fades. There will come a point where the non-Jewish population between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River becomes a majority, and not only would the cherished Jewish majority be lost, but the crap and well-earned reputation Israel has as a hostile occupying power would continue to grow. Israel would have very few choices at that point. Expel the Arab population from the area, which would be a massive war crime, annex the West Bank (I prefer to call that the Lieberman Plan) and see the end of Israel as a democracy, or continue to let the status quo grow naturally and keep on going with a costly occupation that feeds hatred. If Israel had a leader who had two brain cells to rub together, it'd also be concerned that the era of the US as a global hegemon is drawing to a close and the world is changing. Israel will have to look for a powerful protector as Australia did midway through WWII when it ditched Britain in favour of the stronger US, and with the US fading, there's a vacuum that's not likely to be filled for Israel..

[holdencaufield]

16. Your concern for Israel touches me. NT

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Thank you n/t

[shira]

24. The settlements are growing within areas, not expanding outwards.

The percentage of land on which settlements exist now is the same percentage as in the mid 1990's.

In 2008, Olmert offered just as much land, and pretty much the same deal as Barak/Clinton 8 years earlier. There wasn't "less" land to negotiate with due to settlement expansion.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Israel announces mass settlement expansion

JERUSALEM (Ma'an) -- Israel on Sunday announced massive expansions to illegal Jewish-only settlements in the occupied West Bank, a day after a five Israelis were killed in a brutal attack in Itamar settlement.

The move was immediately slammed by the Palestinian Authority. Presidential spokesman Nabil Abu Rdeina said the decision was "unacceptable and wrong," in a statement. He told the official PA news agency Wafa, "the atmosphere this decision creates isn't helpful, it creates problems, and peace needs courageous decisions."

Some 500 new Jewish-only housing units have been approved in the Etzion, Ma'ale Adumim, Ariel and Kiryat Sefer settlements, a statement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said.

The ministerial committee for settlements met Saturday night to okay the construction, reports said.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=368010

[shira]

40. That's expansion within existing settlement blocs. Not beyond. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

44. It didn't say anything of the sort in the article...

I'm not interested in arguing this with you, so yr on yr own from this point...

[shira]

45. It's the 3rd paragraph in your post. Here it is...

"Some 500 new Jewish-only housing units have been approved in the Etzion, Ma'ale Adumim, Ariel and Kiryat Sefer settlements, a statement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said."

So 'expansion' is within existing settlements, not beyond.

There are also many thousands of Israeli Arabs living within those settlements, so the housing units are hardly "Jewish-only".

:eyes:

[JDPriestly]

28. Right, holdencaulfield.

It is very clearly the kind of chip that a negotiating partner tries to acquire.

The 1947 Declaration foresaw negotiations between the parties. It's time to implement those negotiations. Obama is correct about that.

The only peace possible is a negotiated peace.

I don't know what the Palestinians would gain in getting UN "recognition." What would be recognized? What borders? What rights?

Palestine has to define its borders in peace with ALL of its neighbors in order to be able to claim to really be a country worthy of belonging to the UN. The point in the UN is to bring peace, not to admit to its membership self-proclaimed nations that don't live in peace with their closest neighbors. Palestine is not the only country that should not qualify for UN membership because it is at war with its closest neighbors.

In fact, the US's actions in Iraq were pretty unworthy of a member of the UN.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Yr claim that a member state of the UN has to define borders is incorrect...

Palestine has to define its borders in peace with ALL of its neighbors in order to be able to claim to really be a country worthy of belonging to the UN.

Israel never has, so are you claiming that Israel's not a country worthy of belonging to the UN?

[JDPriestly]

32. Israel has not refused to negotiate disputes about its borders to my knowledge.

The problem is that its neighbors refuse to negotiate to set their own and Israel's borders.

Israel was created as a Jewish state by UN Declaration (I think it is 181) in 1947. The Palestinians have never been willing to accept and abide by that Declaration. I think that Declaration provides that Israel and the Palestinians will negotiate the details of their borders. I personally think that Israel is in compliance with that original Declaration. It is the Palestinians who are refusing to comply and negotiate to define the borders. But you cannot have a country that is unwilling to negotiate with its neighbors about its borders, unwilling to guarantee to the best of its ability that its own citizens will not attack the neighboring country.

I always like to point to the recurring disputes between Germany and France over the Alsace-Lorraine. That issue was not resolved until after WWII. I believe that the German-speaking and French-speaking populations live in harmony there now and have done so since shortly after the end of WWII. There is no reason in the world that Palestinians and Israelis cannot resolve to live in peace in some similar arrangement with time. Clearly France and Germany are different countries. And the minority of Germans who live in France are not oppressed. It took a long time, a violent war and broad-ranging peace negotiations to achieve that productive peace, but it is working.

A lot of DUers have this knee-jerk pro-Palestinian reaction to every news report. I have followed the conflicts since my father was interested (neither Jewish nor Palestinian) in the post-war period because of his work on helping provide aid to refugees, and I have watched the deplorable, sometimes dishonest leadership under which the Palestinians have suffered. They blame Israel for everything, but having watched the developments in that area without being attached culturally to either Israel or Palestine, I think the Palestinians have mostly their own leadership to blame. Hopefully, Abbas will recognize and be able to persuade his people that negotiation is their best bet. There is, however, some history suggesting that any Palestinian leader who advocates negotiation rather than confrontation will be replaced.

So, I am not at all saying what you think I am saying.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Yes, it's refused to negotiate based on the 1967 borders...

The problem is that its neighbors refuse to negotiate to set their own and Israel's borders.

Absolutely incorrect. Anyone who's followed the conflict or given it the slightest bit of attention knows that's not true at all. The PA are ready to negotiate, but Israel flat-out refused to cease it's settlement construction.

Israel was created as a Jewish state by UN Declaration (I think it is 181) in 1947. The Palestinians have never been willing to accept and abide by that Declaration.

No, Israel was created when it declared its independence. The Partition Plan didn't create either state. Also, are you reading any responses to what you post? I know I only recently explained to you that the Palestinians have long recognised the right of Israel to exist. Here's what I posted in LBN:

'Resolution 181 was a General Assembly resolution that outlined the end of the British Mandate and the plan to divide Palestine into two states. There is nothing whatsoever in it that states the Palestinians must recognise Israel as a Jewish state. The PLO has long recognised the right of Israel to exist inside the Green Line, and that 'as a Jewish state' was tacked on later in an exercise in moving the goalposts. Israel applying to the UN for statehood and now turning round and opposing a Palestinian state is not because of Resolution 181. When the Palestinians made their Declaration of Independence in 1988, the document referred to Resolution 181 as giving the claim to a Palestinian state legitimacy. Which is what it does every bit as much as it did for Israel. There's no expiry date on it...'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=5001354&mesg_id=5003658

A lot of DUers have this knee-jerk pro-Palestinian reaction to every news report. I have followed the conflicts since... <snip knee-jerk blame the Palestinians for everything, pro-Israeli reaction>'

Well, good for you, but I think there's some massive gaps in what you've learnt...

Hopefully, Abbas will recognize and be able to persuade his people that negotiation is their best bet.

I'm pretty sure this has been pointed out to you before as well, but Abbas has already said that gaining statehood doesn't mean there's no chance of negotiations. He's willing to negotiate with Israel, and has said that statehood won't mean an end to negotiations

'Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told reporters in Spain on Wednesday that his plan to seek recognition of a Palestinian state at the United Nations in September "will not be detrimental to peace nor to negotiations that we want to continue to have. Whatever happens and whatever the reaction and the result of our action in the UN, we know conclusively that we will return to the negotiating table to reach the best solutions with the Israelis." His statement was viewed as a reaction to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who gave an interview with Saudi owned Al Arabiya on Tuesday declaring that he was willing to negotiate with the PA but that a unilateral move at the UN would do nothing to solve the issues.'

http://int.icej.org/news/headlines/abbas-%E2%80%9Cpa-statehood-bid-won%E2%80%99t-end-negotiations%E2%80%9D

So, I am not at all saying what you think I am saying.

I know exactly what yr saying as I'm going on what yr saying in yr posts.

[JDPriestly]

34. The Palestinians cannot claim to be willing to recognize Israel

on the one hand and insist upon the so-called "right of return" on the other. That is why I say they have refused to negotiate.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. They've already officially recognised Israel...

I'm pretty sure I pointed that out in the post you replied to. Anyway, here's the text:

September 9, 1993

Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Sincerely,

Yasser Arafat Chairman
The Palestine Liberation Organization

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1992-1994/107%20Israel-PLO%20Mutual%20Recognition-%20Letters%20and%20Spe

I don't understand. Even though yr aware that the Palestinians have negotiated in the past and are willing to do so in the future, do you think they're not really negotiations or something?

[shira]

36. Oxymoronic. The PA cannot recognize Israel and insist on full RoR at the same time. N/T

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Well, they did, so you'll just have to cope with it...

Bye!

[shira]

41. Recognizing Israel but insisting on RoR and the 1947 partition borders is not peaceful. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Thanks for admitting that the PLO officially recognised Israel long ago...

As for what you think is peaceful or not, who cares? I sure don't...

[shira]

46. Hamas is part of the gov't. They don't recognize Israel and the PA isn't calling on them to do so.

So no, the Palestinian gov't doesn't recognize Israel now.

You don't have a problem with that?

[JDPriestly]

38. There was an era of peace, but it was broken by terrorist bombings

including bombings by Palestinians of innocent civilians in Israel.

These preludes to peace need to be reconfirmed. Palestine and Israel each of them has to show itself willing and able to punish terrorists and aggression toward the other country.

Words are the first step, but the only way to establish peace is to enforce laws against aggression aimed at the other country within your own borders and against your own people.

I note that there are Israeli demonstrations for peaceful relationships with Palestine from time to time. I have not heard of similar demonstrations within Palestine. I have heard of demonstrations within Palestine for various things, but not for peaceful relations with Israel? There is a movement in Israel to recognize Palestine. Is their a similar movement within Palestine to recognize Israel?

The last time that I heard about real progress toward peace in that area was under the Clinton administration. Both sides have to compromise and agree that peace will benefit them. So far, a lot of the leaders of Palestine including but not limited to Yasser Arafat have enriched themselves from their representation of Palestinian interests -- without enriching the people they represent. That is a lot of the problem.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Yr talking about what killed off Oslo and you don't even mention Baruch Goldstein?

That wasn't a 'terrorist bombing', so it definately wasn't all peaceful till terrorist bombings started.

I note that there are Israeli demonstrations for peaceful relationships with Palestine from time to time. I have not heard of similar demonstrations within Palestine. I have heard of demonstrations within Palestine for various things, but not for peaceful relations with Israel? There is a movement in Israel to recognize Palestine. Is their a similar movement within Palestine to recognize Israel?

This is disturbingly familiar to the folk who go 'I've not heard moderate Muslims speak out against radical Islamists.' In this case, why are you only interested in demonstrations? Wouldn't you also be interested in grassroots movements that work alongside Israelis pursuing peace? Because if you are, there's quite a number of them. And as Palestine has already officially recognised Israel, yet Israel is refusing to recognise the right of a Palestinian state to exist, why should Palestinians have a movement to recognise Israel?

So far, a lot of the leaders of Palestine including but not limited to Yasser Arafat have enriched themselves from their representation of Palestinian interests -- without enriching the people they represent. That is a lot of the problem.

I would have put Abbas in the same category until recently. I notice, though, that you focus only on the Palestinian leadership when the same thing applies to the Israeli leadership as well...

[Jefferson23]

39. The so called right of return?

You may want to clear your lack of understanding about that and read the ICJ advisory ruling, 2004.

snip* International Court of Justice (9 July 2004), the UN’s highest judiciary body ruled that “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination is no longer in question. Construction of the wall (along with measures previously taken) severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination, and is therefore a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right.”

While the ruling is limited to the occupied territories, it reaffirms the general legal principle that Israel has a responsibility to restitute and compensate all persons displaced as a result of conquest and annexation, whether through the construction of the wall or other means. In other words, the international consensus is that Palestinians must be able to exercise their collective right to self-determination in the 1967 occupied Palestinian territories, including eastern Jerusalem, and refugees must be permitted to exercise their individual right to self-determination, including return and restitution.

The ICJ ruling is not binding on anyone and Israel is trying to distance itself from it. Others, including the United States, will not accept the ruling although even the U.S. Judge Buergenthal who is on the ICJ and dissented from the opinion accepts “that the wall is causing deplorable suffering to many Palestinians…” He shared the Court’s conclusion that “international humanitarian law, including the 4th Geneva Convention, and international human rights law are applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and must be faithfully complied with by Israel.” Judge Buergenthal added, “I accept that the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination” and that this right should be fully protected.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Documents/The%20Palestinian%20Rights%20of%20Return%20and%20Self-Determination%20Asserted%20in%20All%20International%20Law%20By%20Ron%20Wilkinson.htm


The occupation must end, and to suggest the Palestinians would be unreasonable and not negotiate a number for right of return to include compensation is ridiculous. The international consensus is behind them because for one, to ask them to give up their right to more parts of the
West Bank the most fertile soil, they would have to go along with giving up their water too.

This is just the tip of the iceberg why the majority of the world does understand that they are being asked to agree to something no one
would agree to.

Even Bill Clinton has made himself clear about who is the obstacle here, Netanyahu.


Advisory Opinion, ICJ

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=5a&case=131&code=mwp&p3=4

[Jefferson23]

22. I believe you need to take a serious look at what transpires

when there are talks...nothing. Look at what happened just since Obama took office, why Mitchell left. Why
Netanyahu refused settlement expansion to end, even when he said it had been frozen. That Netanyahu could come to the US Congress
and use his political clout here to include Democrats for Obama to back off, when you consider these moves I am
certain you will begin to understand why Abbas went to the UN. The power play we have witnessed of late to circumvent the process
of the bid so the US does not have to veto in the SC would be a win for Obama at home, but fools no one imo in the ME, most especially,
their citizens. There are consequences for that, Obama knows this. Credibility as any kind of honest broker takes a deeper toll for the US but
Bibi..he has bought more time. Obama's challenge will be what he may get if anything from Israel in exchange for the speech he delivered.

Just yesterday Bill Clinton pointed a direct finger at Netanyahu as the obstacle for peace. I do not find the timing of this statement from
Clinton to be a coincidence, his wife is Secretary of State, she can't say it, but he can.



snip* The freeze is really a very thin layer of ice atop the river of settlement growth. Netanyahu says it will last just 10 months (of which three weeks have already passed) and no more. It doesn’t apply to Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem, where building of Jewish neighborhoods is intended to block a political division of the city between Israel and a Palestinian state. It also doesn’t apply to 3,000 or more housing units already under construction elsewhere in the West Bank. For example, in Modi’in Illit, a town of 38,000 or so people, work continues on more than 850 homes. A recent analysis by the Peace Now movement shows that relative to population size, the rate of residential building is higher in the settlements than inside Israel—even during the supposed freeze. In other words, the availability of homes will keep encouraging Israelis to migrate to settlements. Unnatural growth will continue. http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_settlement_freeze_that_isnt



snip* Who's to blame for the continued failure of the Middle East peace process? Former President Bill Clinton said today that it is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- whose government moved the goalposts upon taking power, and whose rise represents a key reason there has been no Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/22/bill_clinton_netanyahu_killed_the_peace_process#.TnuVojZ_qy4.twitter

[shira]

25. Ask yourself why Abbas rejected Olmert's offer, saying the gaps were too wide...

You need to consider that if Abbas agrees to Olmert's deal, he's a dead man on the streets of Palestine.

He's doomed if he does, doomed if he doesn't agree.

He knows it.

We all know it.

It's why he doesn't want to negotiate. Not even during a 10 month settlement freeze.

[Jefferson23]

26. I know you have passed on nothing remotely accurate. n/t

[shira]

27. Really? He can't agree to Olmert's terms. He'd be as dead as Sadat.

He can't agree to anything reasonable, whether it's the Geneva Initiative, Clinton Parameters, Olmert, etc.

Therefore, there's no point negotiating.

He fears being exposed for not agreeing to anything reasonable. He'll never give up RoR, for example. Something no one sane would find reasonable.

He has nothing to gain from negotiations.

[villager]

4. This is more or less true of the world at large; ergo, it's time to dump our "leaders"

n/t

[LeftishBrit]

14. Sadly true.

[pelsar]

29. actually abbas can talk directly to israelis.....

our elected leaders come and go all the time..they are hardly permanent, more so the israeli population is relatively active an actually gets results from its elected leadership. Whereas the israeli "rich elite" are few, the political "elite" continues to comes from all levels of the israeli society (something most democracies can only dream of having) and as a result do in fact respond to the population.

"I am convinced that the majority of Israeli people want peace, but the Israeli leadership has done nothing to achieve it so far.

so abbas simply has to figure out how to convince us that he is serious........and that his "friends" are too and will continue his peaceful vision once he transfers his seat of power to his chosen one......no small challenge, but we're still waiting for him to even try.