I picked this up from the Pulse. Note the delicious irony of the PA now demanding of Netanyahu precisely what Israel and the U.S. demand of Hamas before it can be recognized as legitimate by the world. The story is by Ben Caspit in Maariv:
The PA will not hold any talks with the Netanyahu government until three conditions are met: the settlements are frozen, Israeli recognizes all the agreements signed between the sides and all the agreements appended to them, and Israel recognizes the solution of “two states for two peoples,” high-ranking Palestinian figures told Ma’ariv.
This is a…decision that was made after Netanyahu’s victory, and refers to any talks between the sides, including sending messengers such as Attorney Yitzhak Molcho, who was and remains Netanyahu’s personal envoy to the Palestinians. Molcho has been taking part in the last few days in the feverish consultations that Netanyahu is holding as part of the “reassessment” he is making on the Palestinian issue. Naturally the Palestinian decision also refers to meetings of the leaders, Abu Mazen and Netanyahu, which will not be held, as said, until the conditions are met.
The Palestinian decision casts in a problematic light the Netanyahu government, which is now operating in a vacuum, without a clear or declared policy, except for general mutterings about a commitment to the peace process. Israel is cast as the rejectionist, similar to Hamas, which also refuses to meet the three conditions set by the international community. Abu Mazen himself said in the last few days, in closed meetings as well as in open forums, things from which it could be understood that there would be no negotiations or talks with Israel until these conditions were met.
Let it not be said that Abu Mazen is not an excellent ironist. A very deft flanking move on his part. It defines Netanyahu as the rejectionist before he’s even had a chance to define himself. Not that Netanyahu has many cards to play here. What can he say in his own defense?
I also think this is excellent. I support the conditions of the international community towards Hamas and the conditions of the PA towards Israel (as prerequisites for negotiations). From this post, can I surmise that you do as well?
No, I don’t & I have written that here often enough that you should know what my views are.
One small problem, no-one should ever be forced to concede Israel’s right to exist without Israel conceding they are squatting illegally in Palestine.
It’s deluded – sort of like the victim of a gang rape being told to smile nicely at the rapists and then telling them she accepts their right to gang rape her and saying “thank you”.
It is also a false claim by Abbas, who is not the president and has not been since January, because Khalid Mishal offered Israel a 30 year truce way back in 1997 and the answer was the attempted assassination 3 days later by Bibi.
And Richard, Israel has not much of a bargaining position at all. They do not get to steal the house, the land, the car, the furniture and the garden shed and when caught out only offer back the garden shed.
It is time the thugs in the settlements were told by the Palestinians to just go home.
Except that some of the settlements are on land that was owned by individual and collective Jews prior to 1948, before they were ethnically cleansed from then Jordan.
The rule of law would facilitate their restoration of title (or compensation), as similar is required to perfect title for Israelis living on land for which Palestinians have title claims.
Abbas has the right approach.
Its an obvious parallel.
So can I surmise that you don’t think it’s right for Abbas to hold Israel to certain conditions as a pre-requisite for negotiations?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. As long as the U.S. and Israel want to maintain an absurd charade regarding Hamas it’s perfectly fine w. me if Abbas creates his own artful charade.
They did not own much of the land in 1948 Richard, a mere 6% over all and most of it around Jaffa and Haifa. You need to check the maps and stats. in the back of Ilan Pappe’s book.
And jews were not ethnically cleansed from the west bank or anywhere else.
Where do you get that sort of tripe from?
The settlements are on what 8% of the West Bank, and of that 1/6th were Jewish owned prior to 1948.
That doesn’t seem outlandish to me in the slightest.
Jews were forcefully removed and dispossessed of land that they held title to.
Of the 100% of the land that you are referring Marilyn, what percentage was state owned land (British, prior Turkish). What % was unnoccupied and untitled.
You are comparing 6% to 94% (it was 7% anyway, not a big difference). When an apples to apples comparison might be more like 6 to 25%. I’m not sure. You’re not either is the point.
Who says 1/6 of the current settlements are on formerly Jewish owned land? And besides, this isn’t a question of honoring old titles. If that were so then Israeli Arabs should have recourse to their own titles being honored for property in Jaffa, Jerusalem & scores of other places now inhabited by Jews.
This is really a question of resolving an international conflict. That requires that Israel return to pre-67 borders & such an agreement should & will trump honoring old titles. Perhaps some current settlements will remain under Israeli sovereignty. Perhaps some won’t. It’s really what the 2 sides agree. And if Israel wishes to continue war over old titles that’s something about which the rest of the world may not be too keen.
Richard, stop already with the percentages, quibbling & legalisms. It’s boring.
Palestinian residents of Jaffa or elsewhere should get their day in court. That would uphold the rule of law, and the requirement that title be perfected, rather than determined by ANY political logic solely.
I distinguish between the questions of sovereignty and title. Most that reference their “tikkun olam” on political orientation, don’t bother.
The significance of sovereignty is that it is the permanent determination of borders, definition of process of self-governance within those borders.
The significance of title is that by the “reasonable man” test, title is determined to be perfected (consented), or imperfect (contested). It applies to CASES, not to general borders.
I prefer the 67 borders with the right of current residents to remain, but required to perfect their title primarily by compensation (case by case in color-blind courts). It constructs an environment of 80/20 majority/minority relation in each state. The 80% is sufficient to retain clear majority and character of the state. The 20% is sufficient to create a significant minority presence that cannot be ignored or suppressed, but also does not threaten the majority character.
I OPPOSE either the Lieberman versions of sovereignty that seek 98% majorities (the number is not a quote), or the Palestinian nationalist version that seeks to make the West Bank free of Jews with any religious affinity for the “return”.
If mutual consent to modifications is agreed, with some provision for compensation to those that have had title rights expropriated (both ways), then that would be wonderful.
The numbers as to % of land expropriated NEEDS to be addressed skeptically. The quote “Zionists owned only 6% of the land” in 1948 is often sited, but in a manner that MISREPRESENTS the reality.
We need to be skeptical, so that we understand reality, and not gullibly propagate.
So if there were no conditions for talking to Hamas, you would be against Abbas’ conditions?
(One of the ironies of all this, of course, is that Abbas has essentially said that Hamas need to meet the three conditions as a prerequisite for Fatah taking part in a unity government)
Yes, of course.
That being said, there isn’t a hope in hell that Bibi will negotiate in any serious way about I-P peace unless the U.S. really puts his feet to the fire, the Moshiach comes, or Bibi does a Sharon & turns into a centrist pragmatist. The first option is possible, the others aren’t.
Obama has signalled recently that he won’t accept Israel relenting on prior agreements.
Lieberman and Netanyahu state that they will abide by the “letter of the agreements”, but no more than that.
Marilyns:
And Richard, Israel has not much of a bargaining position at all. They do not get to steal the house, the land, the car, the furniture and the garden shed and when caught out only offer back the garden shed.
Since the Israelis have no bargaining position, there’s no point in negotiations. That will help the Palestinians a lot.
Yes Julian, typical stupid spin. You know very well that I meant Israel is in the wrong and in the weaker position legally and this answer is nonsense.
Fancy allowing the criminals to judge themselves and adjudicate how much of the their crimes they should be punished for.
That is what is happening with Israel. They stole most of Palestine after an illegal, immoral and non-binding UN general assembly resolution and have ignored every resolution since while they steal more.
I can’t believe you are so dense.