Sources: Quartet push for peace talks weakened by issue of Israel as Jewish state

[bemildred]

The issue of whether and how to suggest that Israel should be a Jewish state ultimately sank diplomatic efforts by the Mideast Quartet to draft a substantive statement to revive peace talks, sources familiar with the matter said.

The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Israel and the Palestinians - and their effective proxies in the negotiations, the United States and Russia - remain too far apart on that issue and others.

---

The Quartet hoped to draft a statement with "terms of reference" to head off UN push by Abbas but when it became clear that was impossible, they chose to issue a statement on Friday designed to revive peace talks in spite of his request.

In a week of high-stakes diplomacy under the spotlight of the UN General Assembly last week, diplomats could not find a formula acceptable to both sides on the central issues: borders, Jewish settlements, the fate of Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/sources-quartet-push-for-peace-talks-weakened-by-issue-of-israel-as-jewish-state-1.386779

[King_David]

1. Weakened by the fact

That The Jewish State is a Jewish state?

Makes no sense .

[azurnoir]

2. Gee ya think the Palestinians have recognized Israel back in 1993

this was an add on since then

[shaayecanaan]

10. A problem of escalating demands...

one imagines that if the Palestinians did agree to recognise Israel as a Jewish state then some other demand would be invented for them - perhaps that the Palestinians recognise the biblical land of Eretz Israel, or that Palestinians recognise the right of return of Jews to Israel after 2000 years of exile.

[Jefferson23]

3. Well, that was Israel's objective to begin with. n/t

[bemildred]

4. I admit I am curious what would happen

if Abbas said "OK, we will recognize you as a Jewish State." I mean in particular what the Israeli government response to that would be. But since there are a bunch of much more difficult issues that must be resolved, I'm not inclined to obsess about it much.

[Jefferson23]

5. Perhaps Abbas is lining up all these "issues", red herrings among them

to use to give back what you know is not essential to you in the first place?

This one issue in particular, Bibi knows imo, Abbas would be reasonable about right of return with a number and compensation etc.
So why give that away now with nothing to show for it? Netanyahu throws up as Clinton said recently..keep changing the goal posts
and it is more obvious than ever its b/c you want the West Bank for your state. With that said, it would be a rug to pull out from
under Bibi if Abbas said it and leave Israel to go fishing once again for more reasons to not negotiate until.....( insert excuse here).

I do wish Abbas well, he has surprised me when you consider his history.

[bemildred]

6. I can only speculate, however some things seem likely ...

Abbas wants:
1.) More leverage for negotiations
2.) To force real negotiations between equals, or some semblance of that
3.) To get a political settlement while he is still around to see it
4.) Better international political backing (which supports 1-3)

And Bibi wants to prevent some or all of those things.

[Jefferson23]

7. Yes, and I think Abbas is on his way. I don't trust Bibi, but who does? n/t

[Mosby]

21. i think abbas should call bibi's bluff with the jewish state thing

But he can't do it - I think we all know why.

Like it or not netanyahu knows how to play his cards.

Abbas will never create negotiations "between equals" because they aren't, since the turn of the century Israelis have built up a prosperous state while the Palestinians have done what, complained a lot?

Bottom line actions speak louder than words and unfortunately while words might be enough for the arab street the west is just shaking its head in disbelief, we like to get shit done not just talk about it.

[bemildred]

22. I have mixed feelings.

On the one hand I think it is a contrived issue, it's not Abbas' business to say what Israel is, and it ought not be his business either, and vice versa. This appears to me to be Abbas' position.

On the other hand, I'd like to see it removed as a stumbling block to a political settlement, and I think it unlikely that it will make diddly-squat of a difference say twenty years on whether he does or does not say "Jewish State", for either Palestine or Israel.

[Mosby]

23. i think your right thats it's something of a contrived issue...

But it is important in the long run.

Preconditions are not helping, regardless what side they come from. In any final settlement though the Palestinians are going to have to accept a "Jewish state" of Israel.

I really think the Palestinians need new, younger leaders which is why I have been focussing on the election issue, Abbas is way past his expiration date.

[bemildred]

24. I quite agree that Palestinian elections would be good.

If for no other reason, to provide the necessary legitimacy to make a political settlement, which is going to be an issue as things stand.

But I am not in a mood to argue or quibble, so I'll just say thanks for the exchange of views for now.

[aranthus]

25. It's as contrived as the demand that the PLO formally amend its Charter.

That was something that the Israelis really did want, but when it became clear that the Palestinians wouldn't do it, they worked a fudge around it. Acceptance as a Jewish state is something that Israelis want. Among others, Hassan Jabareen http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/why-palestinians-can-t-recognize-a-jewish-state-1.382091 and Yossi Klein Halevi have written that it's a key to ending the conflict. But Bibi knows that the Palestinians aren't going to do that, so asking for it seems to be a stall or frustration tactic.

[Ken Burch]

8. Bibi would find some way to say "that's not good enough"

And all the DU Likudniks would defend him for it and accuse anyone who disagreed of being an antisemite. And we all know it.

[bemildred]

9. Well, you don't know that.

I did not expect Abbas to grow a spine, I myself have called him a tool. But there he is.

And in any case it would be fun to watch it unfold,

[azurnoir]

11. well Abbas has been 'elevated' from tool to terrorist

at least by some here thats got to mean something :-)

[bemildred]

13. Well, I mean, those names do not really have ANY content any more.

I defy anyone to define "terrorist", for example, in a way that matches up with how it is actually used and yet is consistent. Everybody sort of agrees on the core meaning, but then they make exceptions for all the people whose violence they approve of or think is necessary, so you wind up with the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" cliche. So then it winds up meaning something like "person whose violence I do not approve of", that is how it is used.

Edit: and then it is extended to people who support people who you call a "terrorist", who are "terrorist supporters" (or as I like to call them "terrorist jockstraps"), and then after a while they are just "terrorists" too.

But debasing the language is pretty much what politics is all about, the endless search for "spin".

[azurnoir]

14. Terrorist is usually the other guy and you are correct words lose meaning or are so redefined

that they have no meaning the most recent victim of the word war seems to be unilateral which means

unilateral <ˌjuːnɪˈlætərəl>
adj
1. of, having, affecting, or occurring on only one side
2. involving or performed by only one party of several unilateral disarmament
3. (Law) Law (of contracts, obligations, etc.) made by, affecting, or binding one party only and not involving the other party in reciprocal obligations
4. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Botany) Botany having or designating parts situated or turned to one side of an axis
5. (Sociology) Sociol relating to or tracing the line of descent through ancestors of one sex only Compare bilateral <5>
6. (Linguistics / Phonetics & Phonology) Phonetics denoting an (l) sound produced on one side of the tongue only

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unilateral


however something which takes over 100 nations to approve can hardly be called unilateral whilst actions approved by one side say building now over 5000 new settlement unit are ......?

[vminfla]

15. The defnition of terrorism

“the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”

[Jefferson23]

16. You think you have this all wrapped up?

Document - Israel / OPT: Fuelling conflict: Foreign arms supplies to Israel/Gaza

CONTENTS

Introduction 6

Misuse of conventional arms by Israeli forces 7

Air delivered munitions 7

Anti-Tank Mines 9

Artillery and Mortars 9

White Phosphorus 10

Illuminating artillery shells 12

Flechettes 13

Tank Ammunition 14

Missiles from UAVs – or “drones”, helicopters and aircraft 15

Cube-shaped shrapnel 16

Dense Inert Metal Explosives (DIME) 17

Unlawful use of indiscriminate rockets by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups 18

Arms supplies to Israel 19

International obligations regarding conventional arms transfers 21

A note on UN Comtrade data 24

Aircraft and Helicopters 24

Tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles 25

Ammunition 25

Rockets and Missiles 26

Bombs 27

Artillery shells including white phosphorus shells 28

Small Arms and Light Weapons 28

Electronic Equipment 29

Components 29

Special Fuels 31

Current US arms ships 31

Arms supplies to Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups 33

Appendix Two: US Foreign Military Sales Fuel Contracts for Israeli government 2002-2008 41


http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/012/2009/en/5be86fc2-994e-4eeb-a6e8-3ddf68c28b31/mde150122009en.html

[azurnoir]

17. sure he does because you see its all sewn up

Israel can do anything it's legitimate military is merely defending Israel and Israeli citizens however the Palestinians have no military so anything they do is automatically terrorism along with the claim I've seen here that if the Palestinians did not try to resist or defend themselves there would be no need to resist or defend themselves

[Jefferson23]

18. Their pal the US has stained hands too. I was hoping to get that point across

through Amnesty's report. The message has been clear for awhile, Israel's deterrence is ok, like OCL, but anything you guys
do is terrorism in one form or another.

[azurnoir]

19. Orwell would be flattered at the logic n/t

[bemildred]

20. You leave out the two occurrences of "unlawful" and I'm OK with that definition.

That looks like: “the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”

Mainly because I'm not willing to let governments off the hook, like what Syria is doing right now. Just because you make the laws, that does not mean you are not a terrorist. States do have a lawful monopoly on legitimate use of force, but that does not mean they can do whatever they like and it's OK. Violence is OK only under the conjunctiuon of certain stringent conditions.

You could leave off the "in the pursuit" phrase at the end and have a better definition IMHO too.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. I've wondered the same thing sometimes...

But yr right. It's a minnow of an issue compared to many other unresolved issues...