Add two more to the ever growing list of peace plans that "moderate" Palestinians have rejected

Haaretz details two American initiatives to forge a peace plan under the Obama administration.

Once again, it shows that the conventional wisdom is wrong: the Likud government that is routinely described as "the most right wing government in Israeli history" was willing (for whatever reason) to accept a far-ranging and potentially self-damaging "peace" plan with the Palestinians - and the "moderate" Palestinian Authority said no.

Here is Haaretz' summary of its very detailed reporting.



If Haaretz cannot find anything bad to say about Netanyahu's position and cannot find anything flexible about Abbas' position, that is all the proof you need to know who wants peace and who prefers the status quo.

When Kerry met Abbas in Paris on February 19, 2014 and presented him with this version of the framework accord, the Palestinian president responded with anger and disappointment. Former U.S. officials say his biggest concern was with how the document addressed Jerusalem. The weak wording on this paramount issue was a nonstarter for him.

As a result of Abbas’ reaction, the U.S. team realized that in order to get a “yes” from the Palestinian president, they would have to change some parts of the framework document. The challenge was how to do it without losing Netanyahu, who had verbally expressed his openness toward the February version of the document (although he never accepted it in writing).

Abbas was scheduled to meet President Barack Obama in the White House on March 16, 2014 – less than a month after his dinner with Kerry in Paris. Ahead of that meeting, the U.S. peace team crafted an updated version of the framework, which, unlike the February document, was not pre-negotiated with the Israelis. The result was a different document, one that on a number of issues was tilted more toward the Palestinians.

After failing to first negotiate a document with Netanyahu and then get a “yes” from Abbas, the Americans now wanted to test the opposite option: Getting the Palestinian leader to agree to a document on the core issues, and then take it back to Netanyahu. But Abbas didn’t accept Obama’s framework document. He didn’t reject it, though – he simply didn’t respond.The Obama administration was disappointed and frustrated by his reaction. Obama asked Abbas to “see the big picture” instead of squabbling with “this or that detail” – to no avail. A month later, Kerry’s peace talks collapsed.

Haaretz tries to spin this as best it can to fits its narrative, saying that Netanyahu has lied to the public about the extent of what he was willing to give up for peace and trying to justify Abbas' rejection of the plans.

But the facts that they uncovered cannot be spun: the "moderate" Palestinians have twice again rejected formulas for peace while Israel has shown amazing flexibility to end the conflict.

There are scores of articles this week in major media  decrying "50 years of occupation" - but the fact is that Israeli leaders, both left and right, have proposed and accepted peace deals throughout the entire five decades which would end Israeli rule over disputed territories, and Palestinians have rejected every single one either directly or indirectly.

1967, 2000, 2001, 2008, and now 2014. How many times does this need to occur before the world sees the truth?

John Kerry knew this more than anyone - and yet in December gave a speech that blamed Israel alone for failure of peace in the Middle East.

The anti-Israel narrative will not be scratched by the supposed "peaceniks" who will attack Israel as intransigent and praise the Palestinians as victims regardless of the facts. There will be no breast-beating NYT op-eds about how Palestinians missed another opportunity for peace, about how they continue to support violence, about how they have been intransigent and consistently rejected any progress towards an end to the conflict.

The facts don't matter.


http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2017/06/add-two-more-to-ever-growing-list-of.html


Plus 1937 and 1947 where the Palestinians rejected peace and the chance of a nation.

Thorin wrote:Haaretz tries to spin this as best it can to fits its narrative, saying that Netanyahu has lied to the public about the extent of what he was willing to give up for peace and trying to justify Abbas' rejection of the plans.

Trust is a very important part of the peacemaking process.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:Haaretz tries to spin this as best it can to fits its narrative, saying that Netanyahu has lied to the public about the extent of what he was willing to give up for peace and trying to justify Abbas' rejection of the plans.

Trust is a very important part of the peacemaking process.

Then based on that, why should the Israeli's ever trust the Palestinians, who as seen have never accepted peace?

And even more so that the Palestinian Authorities cannot be trusted to bring about peace?

This evidence though, really puts all your false claims about Netanyahu easily exposed

Hey ho

The 50th anniversary of the Six-Day War, which fell this week, has sparked much hand-wringing about why Israel still controls the West Bank half a century later. By sheer coincidence, Haaretz reporter Amir Tibon produced a scoop this week answering that question. It detailed the precise offer the Obama administration made to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in the final stages of the peace talks it brokered, and how Abbas, once again, walked away without even deigning to respond.

In early 2014, as the end of the nine months of talks agreed to the previous July were drawing to a close, the administration began drafting a “framework agreement” that would serve as the basis for further talks. Tibon obtained two versions of the administration’s proposal.

The first, dating from February 2014, contained a relatively balanced mix of concessions to Israeli and Palestinian demands. For instance, it stipulated a border based on the 1967 lines, as Abbas demanded, but said Palestinian refugees and their descendants would have no “right of return” to Israel, as Israel demanded. It rejected a permanent Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley, thereby pleasing Abbas. It also pleased Israel by saying the talks must result in a Palestinian state alongside “Israel, the nation-state of the Jewish people.” It also left a few issues open: On Jerusalem, for instance, it merely restated both sides’ aspirations.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave verbal consent to the document. Then, on February 19, Secretary of State John Kerry presented it to Abbas, who went ballistic. His primary objection, U.S. officials told Tibon, was that the issue of Jerusalem was left open. Abbas wanted the U.S. to commit to giving him half the city.

So the Americans revised the document to accommodate more of Abbas’ demands. The new version, written in March, explicitly said East Jerusalem must become the Palestinian capital, thereby prejudging the outcome of one of the talks’ most sensitive issues. It also made several other concessions to the Palestinians, such as adding a statement asserting that the talks’ goal was “to end the occupation that began in 1967,” the implication being that the conflict isn’t one for which both sides share blame, but an evil unilaterally perpetrated by Israel against innocent Palestinians.

Similarly, whereas the February document said the border would be based on the 1967 lines with 1:1 land swaps that would “take into account subsequent developments” since 1967, this phrase was dropped in the March version. In other words, the February version said the border would be adjusted to accommodate the major settlement blocs, while the March version allowed Abbas to continue demanding that hundreds of thousands of Israelis be uprooted from their homes.

Thus, what started out as a relatively balanced document in February had morphed by March into one that clearly tilted toward the Palestinians. So how did Abbas respond to these concessions? He neither accepted the document nor rejected it; he “simply didn’t respond,” Tibon reported.

This, of course, is exactly what happened the last time Abbas received an offer complying with almost all his demands. In 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered him 93 percent of the West Bank with 1:1 land swaps for the remainder, plus all of Gaza and most of East Jerusalem, with Muslim control over all the city’s holy sites, including the Western Wall (Olmert proposed governing the sites with a five-member committee comprising representatives of Palestine, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and America, thereby guaranteeing the Muslims an automatic majority). But Abbas never responded; he simply walked away. Only nine months later did he tell the Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl that he rejected the offer because “the gaps were wide.” Perhaps he would have said the same of Obama’s offer had Diehl interviewed him again.

This is also what happened when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and U.S. President Bill Clinton made a similar offer to Yasser Arafat in 2000-01. Arafat walked away without even making a counterproposal and then launched a lethal terrorist war against Israel, killing over 1,000 Israelis in the next four years.

And that’s without even mentioning all the previous examples, like the Arabs’ rejection of the UN partition plan in 1947, or their adoption of a policy of “no peace, no recognition and no negotiations” with Israel at the Khartoum summit three months after the Six-Day War.

In other words, there’s one very simple reason why Israel still controls the West Bank: The Palestinians have consistently refused repeated offers to give it to them.

But there’s an important supporting reason as well: Palestinians feel they can get away with serial rejectionism because the world always responds by blaming Israel, as the Obama Administration did.

Addressing the Senate in April 2014, for instance, Kerry famously declared that Israel’s announcement of new construction in Jerusalem had caused the talks to go “poof,” carefully neglecting to mention that by this point, the talks were dead anyway since Abbas had already rejected the administration’s best offer. The excuses administration officials gave Tibon were equally ridiculous. Abbas, they said, was “disappointed” that Netanyahu had delayed releasing some two dozen Palestinian prisoners—as if that were ample grounds for rejecting an offer of statehood. They also said Abbas wasn’t sure Obama could “deliver” Netanyahu. But Netanyahu said yes to the February proposal without being sure Obama could deliver Abbas – which it turns out he couldn’t; why was it unreasonable to expect Abbas to go out on a similar limb?

The problem isn’t just Palestinian rejectionism. It’s that the rest of the world actually encourages this rejectionism by ensuring that the diplomatic price is always paid by Israel, and never the Palestinians themselves. The Palestinians have quite reasonably concluded that they can play this game ad infinitum, until the world eventually pressures Israel to accept even those Palestinian demands that would entail committing national suicide, like the “right of return.”

If the Palestinians actually wanted peace, they’d do a deal regardless of how the rest of the world behaved. If the world behaved differently, the Palestinians might eventually conclude that a deal was in their interests. But as long as neither of these two conditions is met, there’s every reason to think that in another 50 years, we’ll be reading more hand-wringing articles about why Israel still controls the West Bank.


https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/50-years-palestinians-rejection-state/

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Trust is a very important part of the peacemaking process.

Then based on that, why should the Israeli's ever trust the Palestinians, who as seen have never accepted peace?

Frankly, I don't think he Israelis will ever trust the Muslim world, either. It will most likely end in a decisive war. My best guess is Iran vs. Israel.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Then based on that, why should the Israeli's ever trust the Palestinians, who as seen have never accepted peace?

Frankly, I don't think he Israelis will ever trust the Muslim world, either.  It will most likely end in a decisive war.  My best guess is Iran vs. Israel.

But the point is and as seen Israel has trusted, when reaching out to have peace. What we continue to see is the same problem all along, that it is the Palestinians, who refuse to have peace. So now the world has to stop pandering to them, as its the Palestinians who continue to create and maintain these problems

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Frankly, I don't think he Israelis will ever trust the Muslim world, either.  It will most likely end in a decisive war.  My best guess is Iran vs. Israel.

But the point is and as seen Israel has trusted, when reaching out to have peace. What we continue to see is the same problem all along, that it is the Palestinians, who refuse to have peace. So now the world has to stop pandering to them, as its the Palestinians who continue to create and maintain these problems

It takes two to tango, and that includes conflict as well as peace.  I've never seen Israel ever have to trust the Palestinians...and I've certainly never seen them put into a position where they must go it alone.  The US has always got their back if things go wrong.  What gambler wouldn't sit at the table of risk, with a rich uncle standing right behind him?

Now, with what is happening in the west bank, we've seen evidence that Israel is leveraging that support, and that makes peace a whole lot less likely.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

But the point is and as seen Israel has trusted, when reaching out to have peace. What we continue to see is the same problem all along, that it is the Palestinians, who refuse to have peace. So now the world has to stop pandering to them, as its the Palestinians who continue to create and maintain these problems

It takes two to tango, and that includes conflict as well as peace.  I've never seen Israel ever have to trust the Palestinians...and I've certainly never seen them put into a position where they must go it alone.  The US has always got their back if things go wrong.  What gambler wouldn't sit at the table, with a rich uncle standing right behind him?

Now, with what is happening in the west bank, we've seen evidence that Israel is leveraging that support, and that makes peace a whole lot less likely.

It does take two and at every point in history the Palestinians have chosen conflict and hate over that of peace. Well the Israeli's have trusted the Palestinians, that is why they have a semi-autonomy today, for the first time in history, due to the Oslo accords. So why do you continue to excuse where the problem lies?

With the Palestinian authorities, who refused to and have continued to refuse the right to Israel to exist.

So where Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon, the Sinai, Gaza etc, are countless examples of Israel seeking peace and what happens?

No peace and you blame Israel for this? When they have been constantly attacked for simple wanting the right to exist? As seen numerous times the Palestinians have continued the conflict, when they could have had peace and been fully Independent.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It takes two to tango, and that includes conflict as well as peace.  I've never seen Israel ever have to trust the Palestinians...and I've certainly never seen them put into a position where they must go it alone.  The US has always got their back if things go wrong.  What gambler wouldn't sit at the table, with a rich uncle standing right behind him?

Now, with what is happening in the west bank, we've seen evidence that Israel is leveraging that support, and that makes peace a whole lot less likely.

It does take two and at every point in history the Palestinians have chosen conflict and hate over that of peace. Well the Israeli's have trusted the Palestinians, that is why they have a semi-autonomy today, for the first time in history, due to the Oslo accords. So why do you continue to excuse where the problem lies?

With the Palestinian authorities, who refused to and have continued to refuse the right to Israel to exist.

So where Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon, the Sinai, Gaza etc, are countless examples of Israel seeking peace and what happens?

No peace and you blame Israel for this? When they have been constantly attacked for simple wanting the right to exist? As seen numerous times the Palestinians have continued the conflict, when they could have had peace and been fully Independent.

The Israelis have never had to trust the Palestinians because they have never been vulnerable to them. They’ve always had Uncle Sam standing behind them.

In the very examples you give--Lebanon, the Sinai, Gaza-–the Israelis were giving back what they shouldn’t have taken in the first place. The other example is the west bank, which they are settling into quite nicely, ty. Israel isn’t an independent player in all this. Israel always has the heavy hand of the US backing it.

Yes, I blame Israel…but I blame the US perhaps more (being an American I have that right). The US is constantly dipping its hand in, not for the sake of peace, but for it’s own interests. Israel is just an underling, seeing what it can get away with when daddy’s not looking.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

It does take two and at every point in history the Palestinians have chosen conflict and hate over that of peace. Well the Israeli's have trusted the Palestinians, that is why they have a semi-autonomy today, for the first time in history, due to the Oslo accords. So why do you continue to excuse where the problem lies?

With the Palestinian authorities, who refused to and have continued to refuse the right to Israel to exist.

So where Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon, the Sinai, Gaza etc, are countless examples of Israel seeking peace and what happens?

No peace and you blame Israel for this? When they have been constantly attacked for simple wanting the right to exist? As seen numerous times the Palestinians have continued the conflict, when they could have had peace and been fully Independent.

The Israelis have never had to trust the Palestinians because they have never been vulnerable to them.  They’ve always had Uncle Sam standing behind them.

In the very examples you give--Lebanon, the Sinai, Gaza-–the Israelis were giving back what they shouldn’t have taken in the first place.  The other example is the west bank, which they are settling into quite nicely, ty.  Israel isn’t an independent player in all this.  Israel always has the heavy hand of the US backing it.

Yes, I blame Israel…but I blame the US perhaps more (being an American I have that right).  The US is constantly dipping its hand in, not for the sake of peace, but for it’s own interests.  Israel is just an underling, seeing what it can get away with when daddy’s not looking.

1) The 1947 civil war and before them shows that this perception you have is a fallacy. Let alone when they were attacked by numerous Arab nations. The Jews have been Vulnerable throughout their entire history, let alone their time when many returned to Historical Israel. Where time and time again we saw Arabs commit the worse violence to them. So that view you made is not only a poor view on history, but fails to even understand the many murders committed by the Palestinian Arabs and the Mufti's active support of Hitler to eradicate the Jews.

2) Should have given back? So based on that view. Poland had no right to exist after the First World War and that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany have every right to take back what was former lands held by both nations?

Really?

Based on that stance Serbia was only taking back lands from the Bosnian Muslims?

So the view to say they should be giving back lands, even though they did, when others have had nations formed from wars won, as the non-aggressors like Israel shows how great Israel is, does it not?

That they would rather sacrifice land for peace?

Do you see how your argument is falling apart, after in every single case Israel has been attacked by aggressors? You see you have this view that the Palestinians are the David in the David and Goliath story here. Neglecting, that there is over 350 million Arabs world wide and that there is only 15 million Jews. Only one Jewish nation and 18 Arab ones. That is where your argument falls down. You blame Israel and not the aggressors. That is like Blaming Poland for WW2. The USA did nothing to help Israel when it was attacked from all side in 1948 by numerous Arab nations. Who openly called for their extinction. Only some rich US Jews helped.

So where does that leave your argument?

As seen, the Palestinians could have had peace and a nation so many times and each time, it was they that would not even consider peace. Or ever consider a Jewish nation. Even worse they would forego having a nation for themselves over peace. In order to be in perpetual conflict with Israel. You then blame Israel and the US for this?

Its embarrassing when you make such an absurd falsification

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The Israelis have never had to trust the Palestinians because they have never been vulnerable to them.  They’ve always had Uncle Sam standing behind them.

In the very examples you give--Lebanon, the Sinai, Gaza-–the Israelis were giving back what they shouldn’t have taken in the first place.  The other example is the west bank, which they are settling into quite nicely, ty.  Israel isn’t an independent player in all this.  Israel always has the heavy hand of the US backing it.

Yes, I blame Israel…but I blame the US perhaps more (being an American I have that right).  The US is constantly dipping its hand in, not for the sake of peace, but for it’s own interests.  Israel is just an underling, seeing what it can get away with when daddy’s not looking.

1) The 1947 civil war and before them shows that this perception you have is a fallacy. Let alone when they were attacked by numerous Arab nations. The Jews have been Vulnerable throughout their entire history, let alone their time when many returned to Historical Israel. Where time and time again we saw Arabs commit the worse violence to them. So that view you made is not only a poor view on history, but fails to even understand the many murders committed by the Palestinian Arabs and the Mufti's active support of Hitler to eradicate the Jews.

2) Should have given back? So based on that view. Poland had no right to exist after the First World War and that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany have every right to take back what was former lands held by both nations?

Really?

Based on that stance Serbia was only taking back lands from the Bosnian Muslims?

So the view to say they should be giving back lands, even though they did, when others have had nations formed from wars won, as the non-aggressors like Israel shows how great Israel is, does it not?

That they would rather sacrifice land for peace?

Do you see how your argument is falling apart, after in every single case Israel has been attacked by aggressors? You see you have this view that the Palestinians are the David in the David and Goliath story here. Neglecting, that there is over 350 million Arabs world wide and that there is only 15 million Jews. Only one Jewish nation and 18 Arab ones. That is where your argument falls down. You blame Israel and not the aggressors. That is like Blaming Poland for WW2. The USA did nothing to help Israel when it was attacked from all side in 1948 by numerous Arab nations. Who openly called for their extinction. Only some rich US Jews helped.

So where does that leave your argument?

As seen, the Palestinians could have had peace and a nation so many times and each time, it was they that would not even consider peace. Or ever consider a Jewish nation. Even worse they would forego having a nation for themselves over peace. In order to be in perpetual conflict with Israel. You then blame Israel and the US for this?

Its embarrassing when you make such an absurd falsification

Serbia?  Poland?  Boznia?   You're getting grandiose now.  Stick to the point.

Does Israel have possession of land they should give back?  Yes or no?  If yes, why don't they do what they should?  

If no, justify their possession of the land they now possess, but to which they didn't have a right.  The Soviets and Germany?  You put up some pretty sorry examples for Israel to follow.  

And, what is worse, they are leveraging the power of the US to pull off their larceny.  Someday the US may discard it's RW shroud (Trump is helping in that regard) and say 'NO' to Israel, and then we'll see how tough Israel really is on its own.

The core LW of the US is Jewish, and they are sophisticated enough to see through Netanyahu.  A lot of the US' position is based upon appeasing this Jewish base, and if Israel loses them...Katy bar the door.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

1) The 1947 civil war and before them shows that this perception you have is a fallacy. Let alone when they were attacked by numerous Arab nations. The Jews have been Vulnerable throughout their entire history, let alone their time when many returned to Historical Israel. Where time and time again we saw Arabs commit the worse violence to them. So that view you made is not only a poor view on history, but fails to even understand the many murders committed by the Palestinian Arabs and the Mufti's active support of Hitler to eradicate the Jews.

2) Should have given back? So based on that view. Poland had no right to exist after the First World War and that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany have every right to take back what was former lands held by both nations?

Really?

Based on that stance Serbia was only taking back lands from the Bosnian Muslims?

So the view to say they should be giving back lands, even though they did, when others have had nations formed from wars won, as the non-aggressors like Israel shows how great Israel is, does it not?

That they would rather sacrifice land for peace?

Do you see how your argument is falling apart, after in every single case Israel has been attacked by aggressors? You see you have this view that the Palestinians are the David in the David and Goliath story here. Neglecting, that there is over 350 million Arabs world wide and that there is only 15 million Jews. Only one Jewish nation and 18 Arab ones. That is where your argument falls down. You blame Israel and not the aggressors. That is like Blaming Poland for WW2. The USA did nothing to help Israel when it was attacked from all side in 1948 by numerous Arab nations. Who openly called for their extinction. Only some rich US Jews helped.

So where does that leave your argument?

As seen, the Palestinians could have had peace and a nation so many times and each time, it was they that would not even consider peace. Or ever consider a Jewish nation. Even worse they would forego having a nation for themselves over peace. In order to be in perpetual conflict with Israel. You then blame Israel and the US for this?

Its embarrassing when you make such an absurd falsification

Serbia?  Poland?  Boznia?   You're getting grandiose now.  Stick to the point.

Does Israel have possession of land they should give back?  Yes or no?  If yes, why don't they do what they should?  

If no, justify their possession of the land they now possess, but to which they didn't have a right.  The Soviets and Germany?  You put up some pretty sorry examples for Israel to follow.  

And, what is worse, they are leveraging the power of the US to pull off their larceny.  Someday the US may discard it's RW shroud (Trump is helping in that regard) and say 'NO' to Israel, and they we'll see how tough Israel really is on its own.

The core LW of the US is Jewish, and they are sophisticated enough to see through Netanyahu.  A lot of the US' position is based upon appeasing this Jewish base, and if Israel loses them...Katy bar the door.

1) Its bang on the point, where you would never apply the same principle in these conflicts. That is the point being made here and its you confirmation bias against Israel that makes you fail to see any logical sense here.

2) The land is contested and part of the British mandate. 72% was given to the Arabs in the formation of Jordan, when all of the Mandate was promised to the Jews. Then after this the 1937 partition gave most of the rest of the 22% of the mandate to the Palestinians. They again refused. In 1947 the Palestinians against refused the partition and started a civil war. So what land does Israel have to give up and why? The land now contested in the West Bank, was occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967 and yet they sought peace with Israel. So did the Egyptians. Yet the Palestinian never have and you continue to excuse them for their hate or Israel Before then Britain and then the Ottomans. So was it ever Palestinian?

No

There never was ever such a nation state

3) Now Israel has been attacked numerous times and are the only nation in history as the non-aggressor to give up lands for peace.

Did you see Britain or the US give up lands for peace during WW2?

Did you see Kosovo give up lands for peace after they were attacked?

How about Bosnia?

How about Kuwait?

So your argument is based on the aggressors, those of Arab nations and the Germans and Soviet union. As Israel was never the aggressor. Yet in each case when they defeated their enemies, what did Israel do?

Give up land gained for peace

Israel has done that?

What land has the Arab nations and the Palestinians given up for peace with Israel?

Take your time

Thorin wrote:2) The land is contested and part of the British mandate.

What...about the British mandate?  What about the Roman Mandate?  The Babylonian?  We can go back 10,000 years if you want.  Anything can be justified using history.

But we deal in the here and now.  What you give is a formula for the kind of perpetual war we see pending today.  That all depends upon what period in history on which you want to focus.  And then back and forth, back and forth...ad infinitum.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:2) The land is contested and part of the British mandate.

What about the British mandate?  What about the Roman Mandate?  The Babylonian?  We can go back 10,000 years if you want.  Anything can be justified using history.

But we deal in the here and now.  What you give is a formula for the kind of perpetual war we see pending today.  That all depends upon what period in history on which you want to focus.  And then back and forth, back and forth...ad infinitum.

There was no Roman Mandate, but there was many Mandates in the Middle East that formed the countries you see today and funnily enough. There is other territory disputes between them. Yet by international law, all are applied to the mandate system. Syria has claims on Lebanon, did you know that? There is disputes between Syria and Turkey? This is just a number of ongoing disputes over land, did you know this?

Yes we do deal in the here and now and you have looked a right wally.

You stated countless times that Netanyahu was the barrier to peace. And you only ever did this off a media story. Not on real concrete facts that showed he was willing to compromise for peace. Where again for the second time in history. It was Abbas who shunned peace and the chance to have a fully Independent Palestinian nation.

So why is it you cannot condemn Abbas or Fatah or the PLO for this?

As seen it was Netanyahu who did what you claimed he would not. Seek peace and make concessions

How silly do you look now mate?

As I ask again

What land has the Arab nations and the Palestinians given up for peace with Israel?

Take your time

Thorin wrote:As seen it was Netanyahu who did what you claimed he would not. Seek peace and make concessions

Appearing to "seek peace and make concessions" while grabbing as much land for Israel, is a more apt description.  As I've said, Israel is leveraging the support of the US into a profitable land grab for itself.  Regardless of the international moral implications, this is not anything the US should be a part of.

Thorin wrote:How silly do you look now mate?

Why does that matter to you?  It's not about me.

Thorin wrote:As I ask again

What land has the Arab nations and the Palestinians given up for peace with Israel?

Take your time

A better question is, what right does Israel have to the land?  They are the newcomers on the block.

National territory is simply a European notion about division of land according to cultural identity.  European legal notions about boundaries are not as important as the identity of the land with the culture.  The land of Palestine was clearly associated with Palestinians, who are now being asked to share it with Israel.  

I agree with you that the time is right for the Arab peoples to recognize the right of Israel to exist, but I see no connection of that with a land grab of further territory as Netanyahu favors.  As long as Israel wants to take that approach, many Americans feel it should go it alone, at a minimum, and perhaps suffer international consequences in addition..

1) So here we go again with revisionist history.

Lets just post up this to show why you are talking nonsense







So this has to be the funniest part to the debate.

What right does Israel have to the land?

So now more revisionist history and Quill ignores over 3,000 years of history of Jewish presence in the land and the Kingdoms of Judea and Israel, in Ancient History. He instead gives preferences to Arab invaders 1,600 years later after these kingdoms. These same Arab invaders who caused colonialism, which we know as Arabization. Where people had little choice to adapt to Islam and Arabic or pay heavy fines. So the land is clearly associated with Jews and not Arabs, as most Palestinians are Arabs. Where the genesis of the Arabs is in the Arabian Peninsular, not historical Israel

Thanks for proving my point Quill.

You then seem to think that Jews living in the West bank is an obstacle to peace, so how is that?

Where Arabs live alongside Jews in Israel, so why cannot Jews live alongside Arabs in a future Palestinian state? It seems to me you are making the borders yourself here and not both sides. As seen your claims on Netanyahu are false. As seen by this peace deal, he was the one who was happy to make a deal. It was the Palestinians who did not and you still cannot come to terms with your misjudgment here. How you were so poorly in error.

History is not necessary, flunk-out.  You don't even know English history, let alone the history of the Levant.

Thorin wrote:Where Arabs live alongside Jews in Israel, so why cannot Jews live alongside Arabs in a future Palestinian state?

This is your excuse for the great Israeli land grab?  The same argument could be made for an Irish land grab of Northern Ireland: the English can live alongside an Irish Ireland, so let them have it, fgs.

Oooh, that one hits home, innit?  But that's what you are saying.

Original Quill wrote:History is not necessary, flunk-out.  You don't even know English history, let alone the history of the Levant.

Thorin wrote:Where Arabs live alongside Jews in Israel, so why cannot Jews live alongside Arabs in a future Palestinian state?

This is your excuse for the great Israeli land grab?  The same argument could be made for an Irish land grab of Northern Ireland: the English can live alongside an Irish Ireland, so let them have it, fgs.

Oooh, that one hits home, innit?  But that's what you are saying.

WTF?

So again you avoid my points and questions.
Make absurd claims and even further gibberish

WOW


So this has to be the funniest part to the debate.

What right does Israel have to the land?

So now more revisionist history and Quill ignores over 3,000 years of history of Jewish presence in the land and the Kingdoms of Judea and Israel, in Ancient History. He instead gives preferences to Arab invaders 1,600 years later after these kingdoms. These same Arab invaders who caused colonialism, which we know as Arabization. Where people had little choice to adapt to Islam and Arabic or pay heavy fines. So the land is clearly associated with Jews and not Arabs, as most Palestinians are Arabs. Where the genesis of the Arabs is in the Arabian Peninsular, not historical Israel

Thanks for proving my point Quill.

You then seem to think that Jews living in the West bank is an obstacle to peace, so how is that?

Where Arabs live alongside Jews in Israel, so why cannot Jews live alongside Arabs in a future Palestinian state? It seems to me you are making the borders yourself here and not both sides. As seen your claims on Netanyahu are false. As seen by this peace deal, he was the one who was happy to make a deal. It was the Palestinians who did not and you still cannot come to terms with your misjudgment here. How you were so poorly in error.

Know what? You are a waste of time, with your half-degree in history and the general bullshit you toss around.

All the garbage you wade around in, all the half-baked bowel urges you toss out (they can't be classed as ideas), and it's all no more than waa, waa, po' Israel! If you had any reason for backing Israel's land grab, you would have offered it by now. All this shit, and you still have nothing.

Waste of time, really.

Original Quill wrote:Know what?  You are a waste of time, with your half-degree in history and the general bullshit you toss around.  

All the garbage you wade around in, all the half-baked bowel urges you toss out (they can't be classed as ideas), and it's all no more than waa, waa, po' Israel!  If you had any reason for backing Israel's land grab, you would have offered it by now.  All this shit, and you still have nothing.

Waste of time, really.

1) So instead of countering my points you instead act like a child, because I wiped the floor with your poor arguments. 

2) I back a two state solution

3) Bye then

We have been hearing a lot about the war waged by multiple Arab countries against Israel 50 years. But there was another war waged some of those same countries that same week that we have heard pretty much nothing about: a war against the Jews.

Even in June 1967, after two decades of threats, expulsions, and pointed hostility by Arab leaders toward their own Jewish populations, there were still some doughty Jews left in the Arab world.

Admittedly, not too many.

By the mid to late 1960s, the vast majority of Arab Jews, who once numbered 800,000, were gone from their ancestral lands. It had taken only two decades for the Arab world—a fairly congenial home for Jews for hundreds of years or more—to rid themselves of most of their Jewish populations. Some countries, such as Algeria, had seen Jews leave en masse after the country became independent from France in 1962 and there were few who remained.

But some Jewish stragglers had held on. Either out of a sense of principle that the Middle East was their home, or because they lacked the wherewithal to leave, or they thought they could tough it out, or God knows why. There they were, clustered in small communities from Cairo to Tunis.

That week in June—which sparked terrifying anti-Jewish riots, shop burnings, mass incarcerations, and even murders—would change that, eliminating any last lingering illusions these Jews may have held that they could stay put.

We know of course how multiple Arab armies who had expected to stamp out Israel were themselves crushed. It was all so humiliating, and it is understandable the region was seething.

What wasn’t—what isn’t—forgivable, even looking back 50 years later, was how residents of those countries chose to vent their rage: By turning it against the Jews in their midst, most of who were studiously apolitical and had nothing to do with the war, its outbreak or its outcome

Even in those countries that were, as some of us like to say, “nice to the Jews”—such in Tunisia, where fairly sizable Jewish communities were left in 1967—there were terrifying demonstrations and expressions of hatred and venom. Jews from Morocco left in exodus. In countries like Libya, murderous assaults took place that prompted an emergency evacuation of hundreds of Jews.

Egypt, where I was born and spent my early childhood, engaged in especially tawdry behavior. My family had left in 1963, following tens of thousands of other Jews out of the country. We did so reluctantly: My father didn’t want to go and it took pressure from my siblings to convince him. He simply couldn’t bear the thought of life outside of Egypt.

That was the case with a lot of Egyptian Jews. While they loved Israel too, they saw themselves as Egyptian. I can still hear Dad’s cries on the boat out of Alexandria harbor: “Ragaouna Masr”—Take Us Back to Cairo.

But our little boat kept chugging along.It wouldn’t turn back. It has taken me years to realize—sort of, as I still love Egypt passionately: Lucky us.

In 1967, there were an estimated 2,500-3,000 Jews still left between Cairo and Alexandria, down from a high of 80,000 in 1948.

On that week in ’67, the Egyptian government began rounding up Jewish men, to send to jails and prison camps. By accounts of the time, as many as 400 or 500 Jews were imprisoned.

While they gallantly left girls and women alone, authorities picked up Jewish men young and old. Even the Chief Rabbi of Alexandria was arrested. Enraged about their failure to defeat the Jewish state, the Egyptians turned their wrath on Jews whose crime, as far as I can tell, was that they were living in Egypt.

Nor did the aftermath of the war lead to the prisoners’ swift release. It is true some were in jail a mere couple of weeks until some foreign embassies helped get them out. But others lingered for months, even years, as Egypt released Jewish prisoners in painful dribs and drabs.

Albert Gabbai, rabbi of the venerable Congregation Mikveh Israel in Philadelphia, was 18 and still in school in Cairo that June. He and his three older brothers and two sisters lived with their widowed mother. Their father, once a shirt-maker to King Farouk, had died years earlier and the brothers managed his clothing business along with their mom. Four other brothers had made it to America and the plan, he recalled, was to join them.

Rabbi Gabbai still remembers how the authorities first dragged his two older brothers to prison that week in June. Then some weeks later they came for him and another brother. They carried machine guns, yet were exquisitely polite, he recalls, inviting him to come with them as if they were going out for coffee. The four Gabbai brothers remained prisoners for three years, till June 1970.

There were other Jewish victims across the Middle East. While in Tunis researching a book on Jews of the Arab lands, I met with elderly Jews who vividly remembered that week in ’67, when a country that had treated them exceedingly well became simply unrecognizable.

They recalled how mobs took to the streets, targeting Jewish shops for destruction. They attacked the magnificent Grande Synagogue, whose enormous towering Jewish star was a testament to how tolerant Tunisian culture once had been.

The marauders turned their wrath on, of all places, the Kosher butcher shops on the Avenue de Paris, attacking them with odd ferocity and dragging carcasses of meat from the stores to the sidewalks. It was, I was told, a particularly gruesome sight.

Many Tunisian Jews left then and there, abandoning all they owned—homes, furniture, clothing. The expression I heard was “la clef dans la verouille“—they had left their key in the lock.

And Libya—yes, even Libya once had an important Jewish presence—was especially brutal to its Jews that week, who tried to barricade themselves in their homes to avoid the angry mobs. “Jewish stores, homes, synagogues were burned and destroyed. People were violated and killed,” and two families were murdered (except for one survivor who wasn’t there), said Vivienne Roumani, a Libyan Jew who made the 2007 film, The Last Jews of Libya. Later that month many of the Libyan Jews were evacuated to Italy. It was no longer possible for them to remain safe in Libya.

And that is how a Jewish presence that dated back 2,500 years, effectively ended, says Roumani, a native of Benghazi who left Libya in 1962.

Perhaps that is why, whenever a supporter of the BDS movement targeting Israel insists they are “only” anti-Israel not anti-Jewish, I cast a cold eye, recalling how bogus that distinction turned out to be for Jews of Arab countries. It is as false now as it was 50 years back.

Lucette Lagnado, author of two books about her Egyptian-Jewish family, is at work on a memoir of the Jews of Arab countries titled And Then There Were None, to be published by Nextbook Press/Schocken Books.


http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/236828/there-were-once-jews-here

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Know what?  You are a waste of time, with your half-degree in history and the general bullshit you toss around.  

All the garbage you wade around in, all the half-baked bowel urges you toss out (they can't be classed as ideas), and it's all no more than waa, waa, po' Israel!  If you had any reason for backing Israel's land grab, you would have offered it by now.  All this shit, and you still have nothing.

Waste of time, really.

1) So instead of countering my points you instead act like a child, because I wiped the floor with your poor arguments. 

2) I back a two state solution

3) Bye then

Simply put, you're a waste of time. I have a lot to do with my time, much of it remunerative. Occasionally I look in here to find something interesting. We cross paths when I find something interesting in a thread that you are on.

But your comments are so thoughtless and inane that I end up spending more time sorting them out than moving forward on the topic. You go into these meaningless discourses on history, avoiding analysis, and never say why. In fact, your lack of attention to overall relevance is indicative of your inability to hold on to and trace a thought.

The reason why you are a collector (C&P, long lists, etc.) is because it is a form of avoidance of the fact that you have no analytical skills...nothing to say. You are a poser, similar to looking busy at work. It would be far better for you to make 1/10th the posts, but include some content...or at least a little thought. Quality, not quantity. But you never do. Predictably, the whole process (in your case) ends up with you insulting someone...which, as I've said, is simply and extension of your way of avoiding thought about the subject.

Pedagogically, I'm trying to help you sort things out. I pick through your words trying to make some sense of them. But precisely where you need help, you are most self-protective of yourself, and thus unreachable. Until you are willing to interact rather than damning everyone--accept the help you need--you will remain an island: producing lots and lots of collected items, and incapable of communicating deeply with anyone about them...and ultimately, getting yourself at odds with everyone.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

1) So instead of countering my points you instead act like a child, because I wiped the floor with your poor arguments. 

2) I back a two state solution

3) Bye then

Simply put, you're a waste of time.  I have a lot to do with my time, much of it remunerative.  Occasionally I look in here to find something interesting.  We cross paths when I find something interesting in a thread that you are on.

Really, because you say so? Wow lets take stock of your argument here? Your whole reply was about me and nothing on the topic, which proves you are desperate and in the wrong here. Where you cannot counter my views you again look to deligitimize me. Seriously grow the fuck up you little brat, as nobody is going to tolerate your hate speech any longer.

Now either take on my views or go and sulk, either way I simple do not care for your temper tantrums


WTF?

So again you avoid my points and questions.
Make absurd claims and even further gibberish

WOW


So this has to be the funniest part to the debate.

What right does Israel have to the land?

So now more revisionist history and Quill ignores over 3,000 years of history of Jewish presence in the land and the Kingdoms of Judea and Israel, in Ancient History. He instead gives preferences to Arab invaders 1,600 years later after these kingdoms. These same Arab invaders who caused colonialism, which we know as Arabization. Where people had little choice to adapt to Islam and Arabic or pay heavy fines. So the land is clearly associated with Jews and not Arabs, as most Palestinians are Arabs. Where the genesis of the Arabs is in the Arabian Peninsular, not historical Israel

Thanks for proving my point Quill.

You then seem to think that Jews living in the West bank is an obstacle to peace, so how is that?

Where Arabs live alongside Jews in Israel, so why cannot Jews live alongside Arabs in a future Palestinian state? It seems to me you are making the borders yourself here and not both sides. As seen your claims on Netanyahu are false. As seen by this peace deal, he was the one who was happy to make a deal. It was the Palestinians who did not and you still cannot come to terms with your misjudgment here. How you were so poorly in error.

Thorin wrote:Thanks for [im]proving my point Quill.

Just trying to help. I've been doing it all along, but you are too busy 'posing'--to be the pseudo-expert on everything--to realize.

Give a little, and learn to accept help. You'll not only absorb more, but eventually be able to give back to others.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:Thanks for [im]proving my point Quill.

Just trying to help.  I've been doing it all along, but you are too busy 'posing'--to be the pseudo-expert on everything--to realize.

Give a little, and learn to accept help.  You'll not only absorb more, but eventually be able to give back to others.

lol help?

Is that why for the last view posts you could not counter my points and acted like ab brat trying to dish me instead?

Seriously Quill, you need to learn some humility when educated on history, as i constantly do for you

So hope you get over your sulk here, as you are a decent chap, just prone to tantrums it seems

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Just trying to help.  I've been doing it all along, but you are too busy 'posing'--to be the pseudo-expert on everything--to realize.

Give a little, and learn to accept help.  You'll not only absorb more, but eventually be able to give back to others.

lol help?

Is that why for the last view posts you could not counter my points and acted like ab brat trying to dish me instead?

Seriously Quill, you need to learn some humility when educated on history, as i constantly do for you

So hope you get over your sulk here, as you are a decent chap, just prone to tantrums it seems

As I said:

Original Quill wrote:But precisely where you need help, you are most self-protective of yourself, and thus unreachable.

And you are still talking about me and not taking on my points Quill.

What does that say about you?

I take it as a compliment, that you cannot counter my points and instead look to deligitimize me.

Thanks buddy

Thorin wrote:And you are still talking about me and not taking on my points Quill.

What does that say about you?

I take it as a compliment, that you cannot counter my points and instead look to deligitimize me.

Thanks buddy

Just trying to help.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:And you are still talking about me and not taking on my points Quill.

What does that say about you?

I take it as a compliment, that you cannot counter my points and instead look to deligitimize me.

Thanks buddy

Just trying to help.

Not sure how you are helping by avoiding the topic and talking about me instead.

I think the reality here is you are acting like the Palestinian authority. You will not listen and are incapable of compromise.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Just trying to help.

Not sure how you are helping by avoiding the topic and talking about me instead.

I think the reality here is you are acting like the Palestinian authority. You will not listen and are incapable of compromise.

Perhaps...if the PA are doing what I'm doing.

What I'm trying to do here is turn you into an interesting poster.  You have some good topics, but you are not very adept at--what's the word?--massaging the ideas.  Some of that is acquired by reading others, and how they do it, etc.  But at some point you have to jump in and try your own strokes.

I see you wanting to test ideas and associations, but when you get challenged, you retreat into a pissed off attitude.  And stop trying to 'show-off' about your background in history.  History is a good tool on occasion, but it's not the only game in town.

The main thing is to follow a linear train of thought.  Try not to retreat into just blowing smoke (which is kinda what history is for you)...resist the temptation to go for appearances, and ask yourself: does this idea convince me?

And don't be afraid to stretch and play with ideas. You can always explain that that's what you are doing...(but not if you always have to be in command).  Like the violinist said when asked by a tourist, How do I get to Carnegie Hall?  

Practice, practice, practice...

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Not sure how you are helping by avoiding the topic and talking about me instead.

I think the reality here is you are acting like the Palestinian authority. You will not listen and are incapable of compromise.

Perhaps...if the PA are doing what I'm doing.

What I'm trying to do here is turn you into an interesting poster. 

Still talking about me and not the points of the debate and now trying to make me a puppet of you. Its not down to you how I debate or whether you find my views interesting or not. Its about countering my views. The fact you have again talked about me and again failed to address my points, proves you are running scared Quill.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Perhaps...if the PA are doing what I'm doing.

What I'm trying to do here is turn you into an interesting poster. 

Still talking about me and not the points of the debate and now trying to make me a puppet of you. Its not down to you how I debate or whether you find my views interesting or not. Its about countering my views. The fact you have again talked about me and again failed to address my points, proves you are running scared Quill.

It's for the good, didge. It will help you be the person you want to be...but are not now.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Still talking about me and not the points of the debate and now trying to make me a puppet of you. Its not down to you how I debate or whether you find my views interesting or not. Its about countering my views. The fact you have again talked about me and again failed to address my points, proves you are running scared Quill.

It's for the good, didge.  It will help you be the person you want to be...but are not now.

So you admit your reasons are selfish to your needs and not mine