Palestine has rejected 31 Israeli peace treaties

[maybemaybenot]

This is for those of you who think Palestinians just want the West Bank and Gaza:

There is an eerie déjà vu about an unmistakable and oft-repeated process in the Arab–Israel conflict. The process started in 1937 and has repeated itself with minor variations many times over the subsequent 74 years. The process is as follows: Arabs go to war with Israel, promising Israel’s destruction and the annihilation of its Jews. Israel wins the war and offers peace. Arab leaders reject Israel’s peace offer, renew their promises of destruction and annihilation; and after a while they go to war again, and lose again, and Israel again offers peace. Repeat this process 31 times and you have the history of the Arab-Israel conflict in a nutshell.Unfortunately, this process never seems to make it to our mainstream media’s radar screen, nor into many of the classrooms of professors of Near Eastern Studies.

...

The first such opportunity arose in 1937 when the Peel Commission recommended the partition of British Mandatory Palestine west of the Jordan River. The Jews would get about 15% of that territory, with the other 85% going to the Arabs, and to a small corridor from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem that would remain under British Mandatory control. The Jews accepted the recommendation. The Arab leadership rejected the plan and escalated Arab violence against the British and Jews to a bona fide war: the “great Arab revolt.” ...

The next opportunity came with the UN Partition Plan of November 29, 1947, and the UN’s non-binding General Assembly Resolution #181.This resolution gave c. 55% of Mandatory Palestine to the State of Israel for the Palestinian Jews, and the other c. 45% would be the state for the Arabs west of the Jordan River. The Zionists accepted. Arab leaders rejected the plan, went to war in high-handed defiance of the UN, and lost. ...

But even in defeat, with their armies in disarray and with the nascent state of Israel in control of far more territory than had been intended by the UN Partition Plan, the Arab belligerents refused to make peace. Instead they agreed to what they triumphantly announced would be a mere temporary armistice. With this agreement came the third opportunity for an Arab state alongside of Israel. At the Rhodes Armistice Talks of 1949 the Israeli negotiators indicated that the newly conquered territory was negotiable, in exchange for recognition, negotiations without preconditions, and peace. The Arab representatives refused, confident that they would soon wipe out the Jewish State. ...

Ironically, it was the 6-Day War (6/5-10/1967) that offered the fourth opportunity for the creation of an Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A few days after the UN cease fire of 6/11/67, Abba Eban, Israel’s representative at the UN, made his famous speech.

He held out the olive branch to the Arab world, inviting Arab states to join Israel at the peace table, and informing them in unequivocal language that everything but Jerusalem was negotiable. Territories taken in the war could be returned in exchange for formal recognition, bi-lateral negotiations, and peace. The Arab representatives at the UN torched his olive branch.

Had the Arab states taken him up on his offer, there could have been peace and the possibility of the fulfillment of the UN General Assembly Resolution #181. Instead, the leaders of eight Arab states met in Khartoum, Sudan, in September, 1967 to discuss what they called the “new reality.” Their decision was no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.

The first Camp David Accords offered the fifth opportunity. During 18 months of intense negotiations, ending on September of 1978, President Carter, Prime Minister Menahem Begin, and Egyptian President Anwar es-Sadat, thrashed out the text of a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. In the context of this agreement, Menahem Begin agreed to a 3-month freeze on Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank. He also urged the PLO and Jordan to renounce the three Khartoum “NOs” and join Egypt in negotiations for a more comprehensive peace agreement. Israel offered a framework for negotiating accords to establish an autonomous self-governing authority in the West Bank and the Gaza strip, and to fully implement the UN’s binding Security Council Resolution #242. The accords recognized the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people,” with implementation of those rights and full autonomy within five years, and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank and Gaza after the democratic election of a self-governing authority to replace Israel’s military government. Israel’s willingness to return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in exchange for peace demonstrated definitively that its offers of territorial compromise for peace were not mere words. Nonetheless, Arafat refused.

...

In 1993, with Pres. Clinton’s support, Israel undertook negotiations in Oslo with Arafat for the creation of an autonomous Palestinian entity. The result was the first iteration of the Oslo Accords.The PLO became the Palestinian Authority (PA), and Arafat was brought out of his Tunisian exile to be the “rais” (head, leader) of the PA, with its capitol in Ramallah. In exchange, Arafat agreed to eschew terror, end incitement, disarm and dismantle the terrorist groups under his control, create a democratic Palestinian government, educate the next generation for peace, and settle all differences by negotiation, per his personal letter signed and handed to Rabin on September 9. Arafat immediately violated every one of the Oslo Accords and began a terror war against Israel with the first suicide bombing on April 6, 1994. This offensive grew into a full-blown terror war with the “2^nd Intifada”, which began on 9/29/2000 (see below).

...

Israel’s reply to Arafat’s continued terror war, despite his commitments at Oslo was “Oslo 2,” a re-convening of both sides on September 24, 1995 in Taba, Egypt, with Arafat again agreeing to halt terror attacks, end incitement, and handle all disagreements via peaceful negotiations. But he did not, and car bombs, suicide bombers, roadside bombs, kidnappings, sniper shootings, and stabbings continued to be his modus operandi for Palestinian independence.

Three years later, on October 23, 1998, at the Wye River Plantation, Israel and the USA worked again with Arafat to re-engage him on a diplomatic level and pressure him to uphold the commitments he made at Oslo. Per the Wye River Memorandum documenting that meeting Arafat agreed again to crack down on terrorism. In exchange for that renewal of his original promise, Israel agreed to withdraw from more of the West Bank. Arafat continued his terrorism partnership with Hamas, pretending that he could not control Hamas and was thus not responsible for continued terrorism. But for two more years, Arafat continued to sponsor terrorism against Israel, fund more than a dozen terror organizations, work hand in hand with Hamas, teach Palestinian children that Palestine included all of Israel, and pay the salaries of imams who preached the coming of the one last great and mighty jihad that would drive the Jews into the sea.

...

Then came the biggest and best ever opportunity for a state for the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the UN General Assembly Resolution #181 in 1947 – Camp David 2. From July 11 – 24, 2000 President Clinton presided over the second Camp David accords. Prime Minister Baraq made what Saudi Crown Prince Bandar bin Sultan called the best offer that Arafat could possibly expect[iv]. This was an historic offer, with Arafat receiving 97% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and 3% of Israeli land, and a Palestinian Authority capitol in East Jerusalem. All that was required of Arafat was an end to the conflict. He could not do it.

At Camp David, Dennis Ross has said, there was no comprehensive final settlement offered. The Israeli and American negotiators put forth ideas regarding borders, Jerusalem, and land transfers. One of those was a Palestinian state comprised of four cantons. Arafat rejected these suggestions, but did not raise a single idea himself. Shlomo Ben-Ami, one of Israel’s negotiators who took copious notes at the closed meeting and kept meticulous diaries of the proceedings, said that Clinton exploded at the Palestinians over their refusal to make a counteroffer. “‘A summit’s purpose,’ Clinton said, ‘is to have discussions that are based on sincere intentions and you, the Palestinians, did not come to this summit with sincere intentions.’ Then he got up and left the room.”

According to Ben-Ami, Israel tried to find a solution for Jerusalem that would be “a division in practice…that didn’t look like a division:” that is, Israel was willing to compromise on the issue, but needed a face-saving formula. The Palestinians, however, had no interest in helping the Israelis. To the contrary, they wanted to humiliate them. Nevertheless, Ben-Ami said Israel dropped its refusal to divide Jerusalem and accepted “full Palestinian sovereignty” on the Temple Mount and asked the Palestinians only to recognize the site was also sacred to Jews.

According to Denis Ross’ account[v], in his comprehensive and definitive exposition of the Camp David 2 proceedings, Arafat’s only contribution was the assertion that, in reality, no Jewish Temple ever existed on the Temple Mount, and the real Temple existed in Nablus. Not only did he not make any accommodation to Israel, Ross said, “he denied the core of the Jewish faith.” This stunning remark indicated to the Americans that Arafat was incapable of the psychological leap necessary — the one Anwar Sadat had made — to achieve peace. As a result, President Clinton’s press conference following the summit laid most of the blame for the outcome on Arafat. Clinton made it clear that the failure of Camp David 2 was Arafat’s fault, as did Ross.
There are some dissenting views about Arafat’s posturing[vi]; but even if these dissenting views were correct, the dynamics of the Camp David 2 negotiations remain unchallenged: Baraq offered, Arafat refused, and made no counter offer. And then he went to war.

The clearest demonstration of Arafat’s real intentions came with the outbreak of the 2^nd Intifada on September 29, 2000. In English Arafat spoke of the Oslo Accords as “the peace of the brave,” but in Arabic he told his people that the Accords were merely a ploy to give the PLO time to build its strength so that it could more effectively attack Israel in the future. And, indeed, just six months after the failed Camp David 2 negotiations, Arafat was deploying suicide bombers and shrieking on Arab television about the great “Day of Rage” and the renewed terror war that would soon bring Israel to its knees. The ferocity and frequency of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks launched during the 2^nd intifada caught the IDF off guard; but after about 6 months, the Israeli military and other security forces were able to intercept and prevent most terror attacks. The fence around the Gaza Strip (built in 1996) and later the security barrier around much of the West Bank (started in 2002) were more than 90% effective in stopping attacks.

Again, Israel offered peace and Arabs went to war, and lost.

In a desperate attempt to quell the violence, President Clinton sent George Mitchell to the region on December 11, 2000. After whirlwind meetings with both sides, the Mitchell Commission proposed that Israel would stop building settlements and return to the negotiating table if Arafat would put an end to terror and return to the negotiating table. ... Since an on-going PA complaint was the continued expansion of the Israeli settlement population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, this was an ideal time for Arafat to leverage the opportunity created by Mitchell’s visit, to restrain his terrorists and return to negotiations. Israel accepted the Mitchell Plan. Arafat continued the terror war.

In another attempt to use diplomacy to quell the 2^nd Intifada, Clinton suggested a “bridge plan” on December 23, 2000, to pave the way for a return to the negotiating table. This plan was similar to Baraq’s offers, and suggested a physical bridge elevated above Israeli territory connecting the northeast corner of the Gaza Strip with the southwest corner of the West Bank. ...

Nonetheless, Arafat rejected it, and then had his spin-meisters tell the world that actually the plan was not a good one. Saudi crown prince Bandar bin Sultan thought otherwise, and told so to reporter Elsa Walsh of The New Yorker[vii]. ...

Still trying to use diplomacy to end the intifada and fulfill the vision of Oslo, Israel met with PA representatives at Taba, in Sinai, in January 28, 2001, where, by anecdotal ex-post-facto accounts, both sides were on the verge of agreement about many issues. Baraq tried to negotiate in good faith; but Arafat kept the Intifada raging, with from10 to 20 terrorist attacks per day. Arafat’s terror war cost Baraq the next election and brought Ariel Sharon to the Prime Minister’s office. The last meeting at Taba was on January 27, 2001, where Arafat’s team rejected the latest proposals from Baraq for Israeli concessions; but the talks closed with the expectation of further meetings.

Ironically, it is likely that the Taba talked demonstrated to Arafat that the intifada’s terrorist violence was a good tactic for the Palestinian Arabs. Dore Gold and Shimon Peres have noted that the more that Israel agreed to negotiations while Arafat continued to wage his terror war, and the more Israel offered greater and more comprehensive concessions at each negotiation, the more it became clear to Arafat that terror had its rewards.

...

Arafat’s outrageous speech at Davos ended any possibility of continuing the Taba negotiations. When he learned of the speech, Prime Minister Ehud Barak cut off diplomatic contact with Arafat until after the election. US Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal), a participant at the Davos Conference, made it clear in her speech to Congress on March 7, 2001 that Arafat had squandered a splendid opportunity for peace and statehood, and Israeli leaders had made every conceivable concession to induce him to stop his terror war and enter into serious negotiations. Ariel Sharon’s landslide victory on February 6, 2001 was due in part to Arafat’s speech at Davos.

For the 18^th time, Israel offered and Arab leaders refused. At Davos Arafat initiated a diplomatic war, and the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip once again missed an opportunity for peace and political self-realization.

On February 24, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell came on a special fact-finding mission.
The facts that he found were very straight-forward: “Prime Minister-elect Ariel Sharon showed openness and a willingness to leave his past behind, while PA Chairman Yasser Arafat is entrenched in stubborn positions and may not be doing everything possible to calm the situation.”

As Arafat’s terror war escalated, President Bush sent in the CIA. George Tenet, CIA director, came to Israel for another whirlwind round of talks, and proposed the “Tenet Plan” on June 13, 2001. Resumption of negotiations between Prime Minister Sharon and Arafat was conditioned upon a single week free of Arab terror attacks. Arafat could not bring himself to forego terrorism for even one week. In desperation, Sharon agreed to drop the demand for one week without terror attacks, but Arafat refused to do anything to stop his terror war. The plan failed.

Israel’s reprisals to a sudden spate of sequential Palestinian terror attacks in early 2002 seem to have prompted a ground-breaking UN resolution, initiated by Secretary General Kofi Anan. UN Security Council Resolution #1397, 3/12/2002, called upon Israel to end its “occupation” of Palestinian territory and upon Arafat to end his “morally repugnant acts of terror.” The resolution affirmed a “vision of a region where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side with secure and recognized borders.” It further demanded the immediate cessation of violence, terror, incitement, provocation and destruction, urging both sides to co-operate in the implementation of the Tenet and Mitchell plans.

...

Even the Saudis joined the “make peace, not war” initiatives. On March 27, 2002, the Arab League met in Beirut to discuss an idea that originated with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (apparently arising from an informal conversation with reporter Thomas Friedman). The Beirut Declaration demanded of Israel the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from all “occupied territories” back to the 1949 armistice lines, a solution to the “Palestinian refugees” problem, and the creation of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In return the Arab states would consider the Arab-Israel conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel and establish normal relations with Israel.

Israel’s response was guarded but positive. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon publicly announced that he was willing to meet Saudi officials, publicly or behind the scenes, to explore the proposal, and Defense Minister Ben-Eliezer indicated that the plan was positive and worth pursuing. Other members of the Israeli government called for immediate dialogue with the Saudis about the plan, stating that it was a positive trend and a new opportunity. The Israeli government, in response to the plan, re-opened negotiations with the PA to stop violence, but Arafat cancelled the meetings.

Coincidentally, or perhaps by design, a suicide bomber self-detonated at the Park Hotel in Netanya, during a Passover Seder, killing thirty Israeli civilians and injuring 140, on the same day that the Saudi initiative was adopted by the Arab League. That and almost a dozen other terror attacks in quick succession over the next two days put an end to any consideration of the “new opportunity” and drove Israel to re-occupy the West Bank in Operation Defensive Shield on March 29.

In the wake of the Mitchell and Tenet failures, President Bush sent General Anthony Zinni (retired) to broker peace between Israel and Arafat on March 26, 2002. His plan was simple, clear cut, and straight-forward: both sides immediately and simultaneously declare cease-fires, Israel stops pro-active operations (i.e., arrests or assassinations of known terrorists) at the same time that Arafat orders field commanders to stop all attacks and arrest anyone involved in terror activities, the IDF then begins redeployment from most of the West Bank, and the Palestinian Authority assumes security responsibility for West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel agreed, and enforced its first part of the deal. Arafat said he agreed but then did nothing to stop terror attacks. As terror attacks continued, Israel had no choice but to deploy the IDF to stop them. Arafat’s unwillingness or inability to stop terrorism scuttled the Zinni plan.

...

Fed up with Arafat’s unwillingness, or inability, to stop the terrorism, President Bush took a step that no former President had ever done: on June 24, 2002 he promised the Palestinian people their own state, as long as they eschewed terrorism and violence.” Terror must be stopped,” he said. “No nation can negotiate with terrorists. For there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death.” He went on record that the United States supports the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a Palestinian state, such that the two states would live side by side in peace and security. He also went on record blaming Arafat for the merciless terror war he initiated against Israel on September 29, 2000, and recognized Israel’s need to use force against the terrorist networks attacking Israeli civilians. But Arafat ignored this offer and did nothing to stop the terror attacks. There was no one among the Palestinian leadership willing to oppose Arafat. The terror war continued.

Less than a year later, in April, 2003, for the first time in history, The USA, the EU, the UN and Russia convened in Washington to create a performance-based “roadmap” intended to lead to a permanent Two-State solution: the “Road Map for Peace.” ... The first line of the first paragraph of the first section of part I of the Road Map stated that the Palestinian Authority must unconditionally and immediately stop the terrorism and incitement. Thereafter Israel must stop settlement expansion. Then Arafat was to enable the creation of a democratic Palestinian parliament with the appointment of a prime minister who will select a cabinet. Then both sides return to the peace talks, the clearly defined purpose of which was to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel accepted the Road Map with some reservations, while committing to painful concessions and acknowledging that the Palestinians could ultimately achieve statehood by ending terrorism and committing to peaceful co-existence. Arafat said he accepted the Road Map, but then postponed talks with Israel and put the Road Map’s peace process at risk by rejecting the cabinet of the newly appointed Palestinian Authority Prime Minster Mahmud Abbas. Reports fromPalestinian West Bank officials revealed that Arafat continued the funding of his terrorist groups, while contingents of these groups attacked, abducted, and tortured supporters of Abbas. Thus, in the face of another international offer for the creation of a Palestinian state, Arafat chose to continue his war.

From February 3 to April 14, 2004 President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon developed together a plan for an unconditional and unilateral withdrawal of all Israeli forces from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Information about this plan was shared with Ahmed Qure’a, the Prime Minister of the PA (by this time, Arafat was too ill to function. He died on November 11, 2004), as was theassessment of this plan by US lobbyists. On April 14 Sharon sent Bush an official letter stating Israel’s willingness to disengage from the West Bank and Gaza Strip simultaneous with the PA’s assumption of effective security controls and the cessation of terrorism and other hostilities. Bush and Sharon held a press conference announcing the plan that same day.

The next day, PA Prime Minister Qure’a sent letters to UN Secretary General Kofi Anan, President Bush, and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair expressing the PA’s outright dismissal of Sharon’s plan. So Sharon, with Bush’s backing, offers the PA its freedom from Israeli control and its complete independence, and PA leadership says no.

Prior to the beginning of his discussions with President Bush about unilateral withdrawal from all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, on Dec. 19, 2003, Prime Minister Sharon had announced hisplan to unilaterally and unconditionally withdraw all Israelis from only the Gaza Strip and turn it over, in toto, to the Palestinian Authority. President Bush, the UN and the EU all enthusiastically endorsed the plan and urged Palestinian leadership to step up to the plate and reciprocate by fulfilling the demands of the Road Map and beginning the process that would end with a peaceful two-state solution.

At first Sharon’s plan was rejected by the Israeli government, but after six months of internal negotiations and political gerrymandering, and after the negative responses from the PA about Sharon’s plan for more comprehensive withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza strip, the less ambitious plan for the Gaza Strip alone was approved on June 6, 2004. On August 15, 2005 Israeli security forces evicted more than 9,000 Israeli residents from 21 Israeli communities in the Gaza Strip. And on September 22, 2005 four additional Israeli communities in the West Bank were forcibly dismantled and their residents evicted. ...


But Palestinian leadership did not reciprocate. Almost immediately, Hamas began qassam rocket attacks on Israel from the newly liberated Gaza Strip, forcing Israel to close its Gaza border crossings and police the coast and airspace to prevent Hamas from importing weapons. Over the next five years Hamas would fire more than 10,000 rockets and missiles and RPGs at Israeli civilians in communities around the Gaza Strip.

Five years after its first attempt at peace making, the Saudi royal family renewed its leadership with the Riyadh summit of March 28, 2007, which proposed a retread of its 2002 plan. This time, the demands on Israel were harsher, with the expectation that Israel, a priori, would return to the 1949 armistice lines and accept millions of so-called “Palestinian refugees” into what they claim to be their former homes and farms in Israel. Only after Israel completed these potentially catastrophic concessions would the Arab world agree to peace and a normalization of relations.

Despite this hardening of the Saudi position, Israel’s government, under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, was warm to the plan and referred to it as a “new opportunity” offered by “moderate Palestinians and pragmatic Arab leaders.” Olmert invited Arab leaders to a meeting at which they would discuss the plan in more detail. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, however, declined Olmert’s offer. This snub, and the wording of the plan itself, which presented Israel with a fait acompli, a take-it or leave-it offer which guaranteed that Israel would be flooded with millions of Arabs claiming descent from the refugee population of Arabs who fled Mandatory Palestine during the 1948 war, cooled Israel’s initial enthusiasm. Upon more thoughtful consideration, it became clear to Israeli leaders that the plan was not an invitation to peace negotiations, but an ultimatum that would put Israel in a severely compromised position in the event that the Arab side did not fulfill its requirements.

Moreover, the actions from the Arab side that would guarantee Israel’s security and provide follow-up stages of implementation were vague and overly general. Israel would first need to make substantive and irreversible concessions of territory and polity, and then hope that the Arab side would fulfill its commitments to easily reversible philosophical changes of language, attitude and behavior.

...

Just a few months after the plan was presented, Hamas ousted the PA from the Gaza Strip in a bloody coup and took full control of the Strip and promptly renewed rocket and mortar attacksagainst Israel. With Hamas stronger than ever, and the PA reduced in power and influence, Israel’s reluctance to fulfill the requirements of the Riyadh ultimatum seemed wise. Today, in light of the recent “Arab Spring” and the changes taking place in Arab governments across the Middle East, Israel’s hesitation, in hindsight, was clearly justified.

On October 21, 2007, Israeli military intelligence exposed a Palestinian plot to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Mahmud Abbas arrested the perpetrators, but then immediately released them despite the fact that they had confessed to the plot. None the less, Olmert continued to support negotiations with the Palestinians and Israel’s participation in the Annapolis summit scheduled for November 27, 2007.

President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice hosted Abbas and Olmert together at Annapolis, even as Hamas was firing hundreds of rockets in to Israel and murdering Fatah representatives in Gaza. The purpose of the conference was to encourage progress along the lines of the “Road Map” toward a formal peace agreement between Israel and the PA. Olmert made the most generous concessions ever, even offering to re-divide Jerusalem so that the Palestinian state could have East Jerusalem as its capital.

Abbas gave a very up-beat speech of hope and vision and promise and an outstretched hand of friendship and cooperation to Israel, but concluded it by demanding as a pre-condition and sine qua non before the PA would consider peace:

“…ending the occupation of all Palestinian occupied territories in 1967, including East Jerusalem (as though Olmert had not just made that very offer), as well as the Syrian Golan and what remains of occupied from Lebanese territories, and to resolve all other issues relating to the conflict, especially the Palestinian refugees question in all its political, humanitarian, individual and common aspects, consistent with Resolution 194…”

So in the midst of all his optimism and hope and vision and brotherly love, and even as Olmert made even more far-reaching concessions, Abbas did exactly what every other Arab leader had done over the past 70 years: he laid out the up-front demands, the pre-conditions, making it clear that without these concessions guaranteed before negotiations could start, there could be no peace. In essence he both ignored and rejected Olmert’s offer.
And then, a few days later, during a live news interview in Saudi Arabia, he again re-iterated his refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state[i]; thus effectively negating all the lovely words of brotherhood and intentions of peaceful co-existence that he had eloquently orated in Annapolis.

This was a conference to which 49 nations were invited. Even the UN and the EU backed the conference with its noble objectives of getting both sides stating their commitment to a two-state solution. But because of Abbas’ rejection of Olmert’s offer, and the absence of any counter-proposal from the PA, the Annapolis meeting led to no progress toward peace. Hamas continued its qassam attacks and sporadic terrorism continued in the West Bank. The PA refused to budge from its adamant statement of an all-or-nothing agreement in which the PA gets all that it demands and Israel gets vague promises.

Two years later, on June 14, 2009, President Obama demanded that Israel stop all settlement construction and make every effort to facilitate the creation of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as though Israel had not offered to do so 30 times previously. Netanyahu responded with partial agreement regarding settlement construction, and called upon the Palestinian leaders to stop the terrorism and incitement and join Israel at the negotiating table so that agreement upon the territory and structure of a Palestinian state could be established.

The Palestinian response was not heartwarming. Hamas promised more terrorism, while PA responses were words of rejection and ad hominem attacks on Netanyahu. “Netanyahu’s speech closed the door to permanent status negotiations,” senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat said. Yasser Abed Rabo, a senior PA negotiator, called Netanyahu a conman and a liar, mere moments after Netanyahu had stated, for the umpteenth time, his commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state living in peace and cooperation with Israel.

According to the Arabic daily al-Hayat al Jedidah, quoted in Haaretz, President Abbas urged President Obama to forcibly impose upon Israel a solution to the Arab-Israel conflict, one that would give the Palestinians an independent state. President Obama’s response came on April 29, 2010, when he stated publicly that he was committed to seeing the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state within two years. In essence, Obama agreed to Abbas’ demand.
Prior Presidents and Mr. Obama had always stated their support for Israel’s right of self defense and need for defensible borders. But on May 19, 2011, one year after his promise to the PA that he was committed to the creation of a sovereign Palestinian State, he made a now famous speech in which he demanded that Israel begin negotiations with the Palestinian Authority on the basis of the “1967 lines” with mutually agreed upon land swaps:

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

Given the current deployment of Arab forces around Israel, the upheaval presently under way in many Arab states, and the rise in strength and popularity of Hamas and Hezbollah, the demand to a return to the “1967 lines,” which are the 1949 Armistice lines, is tantamount to a suicide note for Israel. The President’s speech was critiqued in other quarters as well.

So, again the President of the USA, the single most powerful person in the world, offers the Palestinian leadership its state. Yet Abbas seems to have chosen to ignore Obama’s statement, just as Arafat ignored President Bush’s offer in 2002. Instead, Abbas now seeks the creation of Palestinian sovereignty by the UN, before the end of July of this year. President Obama has expressed opposition to such a move and is working with European countries to find ways to politically neutralize Abbas’ UN ploy.

The single most powerful person in the world, the commander in chief of the world’s most powerful army, the leader of the free world, says that he will help you get our state…and you ignore him? How can this make any sense? How can it make any sense that Palestinian leadership has rejected or ignored all 31 offers of peace and statehood since 1937, and rejected every attempt at resolution?

There is only one possible answer. Palestinian leadership does not want, and has never wanted, peace and a state alongside of Israel. If it did, it could have achieved that aim dozens of times in the past 74 years. Rather, Palestinian leadership wants all of Palestine, from the River to the Sea. They want a Palestinian state not alongside of Israel, but instead of Israel.

Yet this obvious reality never seems to make it to our media’s radar screen, or to our countries top political leaders; despite the fact that Arab leadership from Hajj Amin el Husseini to Arafat and his minions to Abbas and Hamas and Hezbollah, have all been forthright and above board about their intentions. They have told the world time and again just exactly what they intend to do. The so-called “Palestinian national movement” is the only one of its kind in the world, and across all of world history, whose sole defining paradigm is terrorism and whose unabashed and unrelenting goal is the destruction of a sovereign state and the genocide of its Jews.

Over and over, they choose the pursuit of genocide against Israel over statehood for their people.

And that is what Abbas is doing now with his UN ploy. Unwilling to restart the negotiations that he suspended in October of 2010, and facing new conflicts with Hamas despite their recent reunion, Abbas has found a new political maneuver. He knows that success in his quest for statehood via a UN fiat means an end to the fiction of negotiations, an end to the Oslo commitments, an end to any need for compromises, and the opportunity for a Palestinian state to arise, fait acompli, with no need for concessions, and all of its demands met in advance, just as Arab leaders from the Hajj onward have always sought — and, of course, a strengthening of Abass’ own political position in the tumultuous politics of his terrorist cronies.

With amazing candor, Abbas tells the world that the entry of “Palestine” into the UN will enable PA leadership to pursue claims against Israel at the UN and the International Court of Justice. So the UN’s creation of this state will not mean the end of the conflict. It will not mean peace. Rather it will mean the elevation of the conflict to a new level, catapulting it to a new arena. It will merely be a new and perhaps more effective means to facilitate the pursuit of the Arab war against Israel via political means.

Anyone suggesting today that Israel needs to hurry up and make a peace offer before the PA presents its case to the UN in September is either ignorant of the history of Israel’s 31 peace offers, or simply hopes that his audience is.
Prime Minister Netanyahu was right: If the Arabs put down their weapons, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons, there would be no more Israel.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/dav...r-of-genocide/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/dav...ocide-part-ii/

[newbitech]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist


and


http://www.meforum.org/3831/palestin...ject-statehood

[Ronin Truth]

WOW, you just steal some folks' country and what thanks do you get? Maybe the Palestinians learned from the Native American's experience.

[maybemaybenot]

WOW, you just steal some folks' country and what thanks do you get? Maybe the Palestinians learned from the Native American's experience.

So... you're saying they stole whose country? Palestine? Palestine never existed. And they didn't steal anything, they bought land. The only exception is the 1947 war when Israel kicked out 700k Muslims, while the Arabs kicked out nearly a million Jews. Palestine and Israel were invented at the same exact time. Palestine just never understood the concept of sovereignty, they think you can invade your neighbor repeatedly and then cry victim when they get their asses kicked repeatedly.

Palestinians weren't just tribal nomads, they were part of a country, the Ottoman Empire, that was then turned into a bunch of newly invented countries by the West. Why is Israel the illegal one, too many immigrants for your preferences? Its like you're offended that too many Jews who were practically or actually banned from Israel for centuries bought land and returned. So you call it "theft."

[Ronin Truth]

So... you're saying they stole whose country? Palestine? Which never existed? Ever? And by doing what exactly? Buying land? Or kicking out Muslims when the Muslims kicked out even more Jews? Palestine and Israel were invented at the same exact time. Palestine just never understood the concept of sovereignty, they think you can invade your neighbor repeatedly and then cry victim when they get their asses kicked. Only religion makes ppl invade their neighbors repeatedly, and then actually act like the victims repeatedly.

What was that land called before the UN partition in 1948? BTW, you may enjoy this. This Land Is Mine (video)

The Rothschilds wanted a country and they got one.

[acptulsa]

If I were offered a Carthaginian peace, I'd reject it too. Out of hand.

[newbitech]

WOW, you just steal some folks' country and what thanks do you get? Maybe the Palestinians learned from the Native American's experience.

what is really interesting to me (and new to me) in this discussion is the idea that "Palestine" doesn't really have self-determination. The second link I posted is very similar to the OP, but goes into greater detail about the so called "delusion" of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Arabism.

I am trying to find an historical context for this that goes back further than the 1930's.

It is also interesting to note that the Arabs who espoused this idea in the 1930's attempted to ally with the Nazi's. The notion still exists to this day as we learn more about the goals of so called "ISIS".

I have to wonder what is really being fought over?

There is something in Israel that everyone seems to want. I have a hard time understanding why the banksters err the powers that be were so willing to carve out a slice of this territory to implant the Jewish people there and lackadaisically and historically call it "self-determination".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel

I can understand why "Palestinians" would be viewed as rejecting Israeli peace treaties. For starters, Israeli would need to admit that it was created out of international usurpation of territory that had been part of so called pan-Arabia for nearly 1300 years after the Muslim conquest of Syria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_..._of_the_Levant

for 1300 years after the rise of the Caliphate and many failed crusades, the land was finally reconquered by Britian in 1917.

So it would appear that at first glance, the creation of "The Jewish State" in 1948 was somehow victimizing the poor Palestinians who were originally in this land.

But in reality, the Palestinians are the conquerors and held that territory for some 1300 years in the name of the Muslim (pan-Arab) imperialist caliphate.

So it not like "The Jewish State" is simply kicking indigenous population off the land like Europeans kicked American Indians off the land. It's more like if the international community decided to conquer America, and give the Indians full control of Washington DC and Virginia and arm those Indians to the teeth.

There is no way any American would want to recognize the "Indian State" for the purpose of peace, since they "occupy" the land that is "rightfully" pan-America.

But really, the American Indians were there first and if anyone has an "international" territory claim based on indigenous status in the case of Washington DC and the Virginia territory it's whatever "tribe" of Indians that were there when the Europeans arrived.

So now here is the real question as far as I see it. Why cannot the people with pan-Arab destiny in mind for instance the muslim caliphate and all the various arab leaders accept the Jewish Tribe who has indigenous claims just as much as any other pan-arab tribe?

For me it boils down to the same thing it always boils down to as outlined in the link I posted. Greed, corruption, and violation of individual rights.

Racially and genetically the indigenous "jews" are identical to the indigenous "muslims". The territory itself is not segregated by race, but rather identification with religion. The jewish faith like every other religion has been corrupted by greedy, corrupt, and tyrannical "leaders".

People claiming land based not on their indigenous status but rather an adherence to religious tradition are fighting over something in that desert.

ALL that aside, WTF is out there that those greedy corrupt tyrants whether they be Jew, Christian, or Muslim want?

Can't just be oil, cause this fight has been going on for a lonnggg time. Hmmm... find out what is out there and you find out why there is no peace.

[robert68]

You sounded like gwax23 in your first zionist prop thread. And I see he was banned a few months ago.

[Ronin Truth]

Well, I'm inclined to believe that the Zionist's goal is to establish "Greater Israel".

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...92.3ZYTgqyUqYU

[maybemaybenot]

What was that land called before the UN partition in 1948? BTW, you may enjoy this. This Land Is Mine (video)

The Rothschilds wanted a country and they got one.

Yes, the land was called "Palestine," but it was never a country, you're making up things. It was under the Palestine mandate, just like Jordan was part of the Palestine mandate and is now Jordan. The Palestine mandate was a temporary British governing mandate over the land, just like the British mandates over Iraq and Lebanon and the French mandate over Syria. This was all the Ottoman Empire before WWI, which resulted in the League of Nations granting those mandates to the European countries. Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon were invented all at the same time.

The fact that rich criminals got something out of the creation of a country doesn't take away their legitimacy. Why aren't you complainong about every other country on Earth because of rich benefactors? The Rothschilds literally BOUGHT land from Muslims. Lol this is only theft because you're calling it theft.

Why are you complaining about the only former Ottoman territory that wasn't gift wrapped and handed to a dictator? Why are you complaining about the only former Ottoman territory where Muslims vote and have freedom of expression?

[newbitech]

Well, I'm inclined to believe that the Zionist's goal is to establish "Greater Israel".

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...92.3ZYTgqyUqYU

It would appear that indigenous jews have a much longer history in the territory.

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Places/Place/339184

but I do think that is besides the point. Zionism much like current Arabism is corrupted by the same influence (and probably people) that corrupt Americanism.

[ctiger2]

No matter what, the Israelis are currently committing war crimes far worse than the Nazis ever did. Slaughtering women and children. God help them.

[Ronin Truth]

It would appear that indigenous jews have a much longer history in the territory.

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Places/Place/339184

but I do think that is besides the point. Zionism much like current Arabism is corrupted by the same influence (and probably people) that corrupt Americanism.

Most of the Jewish population of Israel is Ashkenazim and is not indigenous.

[maybemaybenot]

You sounded like gwax23 in your first zionist prop thread. And I see he was banned a few months ago.

Lol yep, all you guys have are conspiracy theories. I'm a Zionist agent, I'm secretly that guy. Well you sound like somebody who can't construct a rational thought, so you just insult the speaker.

[twomp]

Lol yep, all you guys have are conspiracy theories. I'm a Zionist agent, I'm secretly that guy. Well you sound like somebody who can't construct a rational thought, so you just insult the speaker.

No you just come here with your IDF sponsored news releases hoping to change hearts and minds for the IDF but all you do is create more animosity for your cause. Your boss should fire you, you are a terrible troll.

[maybemaybenot]

Most of the Jewish population of Israel is Ashkenazim and is not indigenous.

Why is Israel the illegal one, too many immigrants for your preferences? Its like you're offended that too many Jews who were practically or actually banned from Israel for centuries bought land and returned. So you call it "theft."

Go on, continue your point. Israel is filled with immigrants and the children of immigrants, and this is bad because...

[maybemaybenot]

No you just come here with your IDF sponsored news releases hoping to change hearts and minds for the IDF but all you do is create more animosity for your cause. Your boss should fire you, you are a terrible troll.

You know, I'm hearing a lot of "Zionist agent, Zionist agent," and not a lot of arguments. Its almost like you guys gave up.

[Ronin Truth]

Yes, the land was called "Palestine," but it was never a country, you're making up things. It was under the Palestine mandate, just like Jordan was part of the Palestine mandate and is now Jordan. The Palestine mandate was a temporary British governing mandate over the land, just like the British mandates over Iraq and Lebanon and the French mandate over Syria. This was all the Ottoman Empire before WWI, which resulted in the League of Nations granting those mandates to the European countries. Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon were invented all at the same time.

The fact that rich criminals got something out of the creation of a country doesn't take away their legitimacy. Why aren't you complainong about every other country on Earth because of rich benefactors? The Rothschilds literally BOUGHT land from Muslims. Lol this is only theft because you're calling it theft.

Why are you complaining about the only former Ottoman territory that wasn't gift wrapped and handed to a dictator? Why are you complaining about the only former Ottoman territory where Muslims vote and have freedom of expression?

What am I making up? The land was called Palestine. The people living there were called Palestinians. This whole mess was and is totally a creation of the UN. For me, it's case closed. You don't like that? That's OK too.

[acptulsa]

[B]Yes, the land was called "Palestine," but it was never a country, you're making up things.

You do realize, don't you, that most of us are in another former British colony, that most of us are of the opinion that the citizens of that colony who declared independence had every right to do so, and that you are really, really barking up the wrong tree if you think we think those people had more right to do so than people who had lived on their 'British Crown Colony' since before the Normans learned to paint themselves blue...?

You know, I'm hearing a lot of "Zionist agent, Zionist agent," and not a lot of arguments. Its almost like you guys gave up.

We make the case, you ignore the fact, and you want us to keep saying stuff? Why? You won't acknowledge the point even if we make seven or eight airtight cases. And you know it.

[newbitech]

Most of the Jewish population of Israel is Ashkenazim and is not indigenous.

So what, same can be said of most people anywhere these days.

Anyways, here is the historical record of the Kingdom of Israel. Not saying I support modern Israeli usurpers, but if the argument is of "indigenous" nature in favor of the so called Palestinians returning to their so called home land, its severely flawed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom...ited_monarchy)

That being said, I would reiterate that the problems in this particular area of the world and all over the world for that matter have been historically generated by greedy corrupt tyrannical individuals regardless of race, religion, or ethical creed.

My question is, why has the rest of the world seemed to settle down for the most part and is this one particular area attract so much historical attention?

I get that it is around the vicinity of the supposed cradle of civilization (if that's not a laugher) and is the historical cross roads of the global economy. But, really I feel there must be more too it. Sure today it's natural resources, but what about say 500 years ago, why the incessant attacks by the crusaders? Or 1300 years ago, why the take over by the original caliph?

What is so important about this territory to corrupt, greedy, tyrants the world over throughout history?

[maybemaybenot]

No matter what, the Israelis are currently committing war crimes far worse than the Nazis ever did. Slaughtering women and children. God help them.

If massive civilian casualties equal war crimes, then wouldn't you be arguing that every war ever was worse than what the Nazis did? You're just using double standards. Lol there are times Israel announces the terrorist leader whose house they'll bomb, and Hamas (and the PA) tell ppl to go there to act as human shields. You don't care. You criticize Israel over it.

And so you think Hamas should be allowed to build tunnels to ship weapons and terrorists into Israel? And you think Hamas should be allowed to use human shields, and then just call them civilians killed by Israel? And shoot rockets from inside ppl's homes? You blame Israel for those deaths? And what do you think Hamas would do if they had Israeli military power? They say they want to kill all the Jews. You doubt them?

Most importantly, what would you do? Its easy to criticize from half a world away. What if you were in Israel, and you had to go into bomb shelters multiple times a day because of Palestinian rockets? You'd be okay with that?

[newbitech]

No matter what, the Israelis are currently committing war crimes far worse than the Nazis ever did. Slaughtering women and children. God help them.

Yeah, I think it doesn't take much digging to understand why peace offers are being rejected. I'm just not so sure that the idea of "palestine" is one that the people who occupy that particular region designated by the "international" community accept. I mean how can those people be forced to accept peace terms that identifies them as something they clearly don't consider themselves as?

Sort of makes no sense in light of the historical view. At the same time, the whole idea of pan-Arabia is just as repulsive to me.

[twomp]

You know, I'm hearing a lot of "Zionist agent, Zionist agent," and not a lot of arguments. Its almost like you guys gave up.

Why argue with a Israeli troll about Israel? It's like arguing with a child about Santa Claus. Do you know who Santa Claus is? In America, we tell our children about him to sort of explain Christmas. Kind of like how we tell our children about the holocaust so they learn to allow Israel to do whatever it wants in the Middle East. It's like hey Israel just killed a bunch of Palestinian children. And the answer is usually, " well its okay because you know, the holocaust."

[newbitech]

I think it's ironic that people will eschew the idea of physical intervention in regards to a fight between neighbors while espousing a revolution of ideas, yet have no qualms of taking ideological sides in the same conflict. hmm... maybe i'm not in the thread I thought i was in.

[maybemaybenot]

You do realize, don't you, that most of us are in another former British colony, that most of us are of the opinion that the citizens of that colony who declared independence had every right to do so, and that you are really, really barking up the wrong tree if you think we think those people had more right to do so than people who had lived on their 'British Crown Colony' since before the Normans learned to paint themselves blue...?



We make the case, you ignore the fact, and you want us to keep saying stuff? Why? You won't acknowledge the point even if we make seven or eight airtight cases. And you know it.

I never said Palestine doesn't have the right to exist, neither does Israel. Arabs (and critics here) say that Israel doesn't have the right to exist. Again, you ppl have this conflict totally upside down. And unlike the British colonies (other than Manhattan), the JNF and the evil Rothschilds (I actually do hate them) bought land from Natives. In the 1947 war, 700k Muslims were kicked out of Israel, while nearly a million Jews were kicked out of the Arab states that invaded Israel.

Lol yeah, your airtight case for me being a Zionist agent. You can't respond to basic arguments, you can't hold Israel to the same standard as other countries, and when you're called out on it you cry "Zionist agent" over and over. Lol its not at all plausible that I'm some biased, brainwashed Zionist (who routinely condemns Zionism, while you ppl can't condemn Islamism). No, he must be a Zionist agent. That's an "airtight case."

[Ronin Truth]

So what, same can be said of most people anywhere these days.

Anyways, here is the historical record of the Kingdom of Israel. Not saying I support modern Israeli usurpers, but if the argument is of "indigenous" nature in favor of the so called Palestinians returning to their so called home land, its severely flawed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom...ited_monarchy)

That being said, I would reiterate that the problems in this particular area of the world and all over the world for that matter have been historically generated by greedy corrupt tyrannical individuals regardless of race, religion, or ethical creed.

My question is, why has the rest of the world seemed to settle down for the most part and is this one particular area attract so much historical attention?

I get that it is around the vicinity of the supposed cradle of civilization (if that's not a laugher) and is the historical cross roads of the global economy. But, really I feel there must be more too it. Sure today it's natural resources, but what about say 500 years ago, why the incessant attacks by the crusaders? Or 1300 years ago, why the take over by the original caliph?

What is so important about this territory to corrupt, greedy, tyrants the world over throughout history?

Jordan should absorb the Palestinian population. (same folks) Saudi Arabia and the Rothschild Zionists should stop financing and stirring up the pot. Will these things happen? I seriously doubt it. They will just keep on fussing and fighting until they decide to quit because it's in everyone's best interest to do so.
Or until Jesus comes back and sorts stuff out.

[maybemaybenot]

Why argue with a Israeli troll about Israel? It's like arguing with a child about Santa Claus. Do you know who Santa Claus is? In America, we tell our children about him to sort of explain Christmas. Kind of like how we tell our children about the holocaust so they learn to allow Israel to do whatever it wants in the Middle East. It's like hey Israel just killed a bunch of Palestinian children. And the answer is usually, " well its okay because you know, the holocaust."

Oh really? And who's brining up "Holocaust" and "Nazis" in this thread? Its not me. Its you guys. You're the one who insists that Arab violence against Israelis isn't relevant to Israeli violence against Arabs. Lol you routinely mention Israeli attacks without any mention of preceding Arab attacks, and then when I point out the Arab attacks you say its irrelevant and "out of context" (which would make your mention of a sole Israeli attack even MORE out of context). Then you just call me a Zionist agent.

I've admitted Israeli crimes repeatedly. I bring up the expelling of Muslims from Israel repeatedly. I don't hide it. Lol I think I'm the only one who has EVER brought up that specific fact. But you guys will never admit an Arab crime, ever. You'll literally blame Israel for the death of Palestinians used as human shields, you'll explicitly blame Israel for a death even if you admit they were being used as a human shield.

And of course, you can't confront the fact that Israel has always offered peace, and Palestine has always rejected it. Always. Palestine itself never came into existence because they couldn't resist attacking Israel.

[Ronin Truth]

I think it's ironic that people will eschew the idea of physical intervention in regards to a fight between neighbors while espousing a revolution of ideas, yet have no qualms of taking ideological sides in the same conflict. hmm... maybe i'm not in the thread I thought i was in.

"Blessed are the peacemakers."

[twomp]

Oh really? And who's brining up "Holocaust" and "Nazis" in this thread? Its not me. Its you guys. You're the one who insists that Arab violence against Israelis isn't relevant to Israeli violence against Arabs. Lol you routinely mention Israeli attacks without any mention of preceding Arab attacks, and then when I point out the Arab attacks you say its irrelevant. Then you just call me a Zionist agent.

I've admitted Israeli crimes repeatedly. I bring up the expelling of Muslims from Israel repeatedly. I don't hide it. Lol I think I'm the only one who has EVER brought up that specific fact. But you guys will never admit an Arab crime, ever. You'll literally blame Israel for the death of Palestinians used as human shields, you'll explicitly blame Israel for a death even if you know they were being used by terrorists.

AND because you know, the holocaust!

[maybemaybenot]

Well, I'm inclined to believe that the Zionist's goal is to establish "Greater Israel".

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...92.3ZYTgqyUqYU

If the Zionists' goal was to establish "Greater Israel," why did Israel give most of their territory to Egypt in 1973? Not to mention offers for the ENTIRE West Bank and Gaza before 1967, and 97% of it since? Israel literally declared borders in 1947 that did not include a single one of the four holy cities: Jerusalem (which was 40% Jewish in 1947, before an inch of land was stolen, despite discriminatory policies against Jewish ownership), Judea, Samaria and Hebron. Since then, they have offered Samaria, Judea and Hebron repeatedly, as well as having Jerusalem being an int'l city, or another offer with East Jerusalem in Palestine.

So basically, you don't know basic facts about the conflict. Lol I'm not even refuting the fact that Israel has committed and still commits horrible crimes. But to call them the aggressors here is just delusional. Ppl here are insisting Palestine was a country before 1947 (or jumping around it and implying it), when it never was. Ever.