That's what a lot of people seem to miss.

Do they recognize borders with Palestine, or do they dispute the whole shebang?
Do they forsake violence/resistance or do they arm the IDF to the teeth for their tours of "the territories"?

JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a dramatic reversal under U.S. pressure, endorsed the goal of a Palestinian state Sunday.

But it was unclear whether the breakthrough, welcomed by President Barack Obama, would lead to a revival of talks with the Palestinians, who immediately rejected Netanyahu's terms for a peace accord.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-06-15/news/0906140535_1_palestinian-state-netanyahu-palestinian-authority

The state of Israel, the state of Palestine, and again the colonies of the state of Israel within the state of Palestine.

The state of Israel, the state of Palestine, and again the colonies of the state of Israel within the state of Palestine. Plus the ongoing annexations of depopulated (to protect the Palestinians) closed military zones, which mustn't cease before or during negotiations (to show Israel's sincerity). And, let's not forget the Israeli-only roads and highways which must connect the colonies, and the need to enclose Palestine with border walls w. sniper towers and drones and free-fire zones so as to ensure peace and stability. Since for security reasons Israel will require the entire Jordan river the end result will be a Palestinian garden state consisting of multiple separated enclaves (in less enlightened times known as 'ghettos') entirely surrounded by Israel, w. Israel of course controlling all substantive sources of water lest it be misused. Since for security reasons the free Palestinian state can't be allowed a military, this will require a perpetual siege at border control points lest someone smuggle in an AK-47 -- and this means, naturally, that there can't be any airports. Again, for security purposes Israel will naturally have every right to overfly with f16s and drones and, when necessary, mount night raids and assassins to preemptively eliminate potential terrorist targets - Palestinians being prone to terrorism because they're covetous of the land God didn't give them.

So what's to complain about???

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3879974,00.html

Odd behavior from a gov't allegedly for a greater Israel and against a Palestinian state.

Abbas should have taken it.

But that means he would ACTUALLY admit there is a Jewish state there... Goodbye river to sea.

Abbas should have taken what he could get right lol but do continue with this the seeming 'beggars can't be choosers ' attitude on display is sort of telling

Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2013, 07:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Maybe you should quit with the bullshit.

Israel was good with 2 states since the 1937 Peel Commission and 1947 Partition Plan. They've offered 2 fair deals since 2000-01.

When are you going to admit that the PLO/Hamas and their totalitarian friends throughout the mideast aren't as interested in a Palestinian state as much as they are against a Jewish one?

Every year, for many years, most of the world overwhelmingly agrees on the Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine.

Who rejects it every year is telling.

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/997AAD7178DBFD66852579950056A99C

Enough of the BS about Israel not wanting 2 states.

state for the Palestinians and who does not.

Do you know why they rejected it, when most of the world embraces it?

I'm sure you do.

...for the very same reason. Again, 1937 and 1947 were fair offers.

And the UN link is WRT a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Israel still makes offers and all get rejected w/o so much as a reasonable counter-offer.

to Palestinian concessions, not Israeli.

Although I am sure that is fair to a mindset such as yours that defies international law at every turn.


Link the offers, the full text, not some fly by reference.

...if not for the very same reason today (refusal to live in peace alongside a Jewish Democratic state).

Again, they were fair offers too.

You have a link to the direct language.

Link the offers, the full text.

I can't wait to read them.

...a Jewish Democratic State.

True or False?

Link the full text of the offers you claim were fair and were rejected.

That means you too.

Both were for land-swaps and either very close to or equal to 100% of pre-'67 land w/ swaps. They both divided Jerusalem, had big compensation packages for refugees, and the occupation and settlements would be over by now.

What else could they reasonably offer that you know the Palestinians would agree to?

Link the text of each of the offers you claim were fair and were rejected in this thread...1937 and 1947.

Once one makes an accusation they won't back up, over and over, but then tell you to go and find the proof instead of them doing the work it is time to move on and dismiss the attitude and continual round-a-round. Something smells of fish in the state of Denmark.

http://www.ijs.org.au/Peel-Commission-Partition-Plan-1937/default.aspx

Does the land involved look unfair to you?

More on Peel here. And note that Ben Gurion would have accepted it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission

Apparently it wasn't fair to the Palestinians. Why?

I don't mind the wiki thing, but you would or should agree that is not the text I was referring to but whatever.

You should understand the word transfer and how and why this was ultimately rejected.


Fair to whom shira, fair to whom..not that hard to understand.

That's happened throughout history all over the world, and a lot of it went on in the first half of the 20th century in order to decrease the chances of conflict (civil war).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer

Jews were to be transferred as well as Arabs according to Peel.

and I am oh so sure that the Israel you tell us of would jump on such a deal-right?

....no matter how small.

Ben Gurion not only was for it, but 20 years later said that accepting Peel would have changed history (Holocaust).

The Arab leadership in Palestine rejected the plan,[6][7] arguing that the Arabs had been promised independence and granting rights to the Jews was a betrayal. The Arabs emphatically rejected the principle of awarding any territory to the Jews.[8] After lobbying by the Arab Higher Committee, hundreds of delegates from across the Arab world convened at the Bloudan Conference in Syria on 8 September and wholly rejected both the partition and establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.[9] Jewish opinion remained divided. The Twentieth Zionist Congress in Zurich (3-16 August 1937) announced "that the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission is not to be accepted, [but wished] to carry on negotiations in order to clarify the exact substance of the British government's proposal for the foundation of a Jewish state in Palestine". [10]

At the same Zionist Congress in Zurich, David Ben-Gurion, then chairman of the executive committee of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, told those in attendance that, though "there could be no question ... of giving up any part of the Land of Israel,... it was arguable that the ultimate goal would be achieved most quickly by accepting the Peel proposals."[11] University of Arizona professor Charles D. Smith suggests that, "Weizmann and Ben-Gurion did not feel they had to be bound by the borders proposed [by the Peel Commission]. These could be considered temporary boundaries to be expanded in the future."[11]

Ben-Gurion wrote: "The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we have never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the First and Second Temples: [a Galilee almost free of non-Jews]. ... We are being given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imagination. This is more than a state, government and sovereignty---this is a national consolidation in a free homeland. ... if because of our weakness, neglect or negligence, the thing is not done, then we will have lost a chance which we never had before, and may never have again."[12]

Ben-Gurion wrote 20 years later: "Had partition [referring to the Peel Commission partition plan] been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed---most of them would be in Israel".'[13]

The British response was to set up the Woodhead Commission to "examine the Peel Commission plan in detail and to recommend an actual partition plan" [10] This Commission declared the Peel Commission partition unworkable (though suggesting a different scheme under which 5% of the land area of Palestine become Israel).The British Government accompanied the publication of the Woodhead Report by a statement of policy rejecting partition as impracticable [14]

This page was last modified on 20 January 2013 at 10:25.

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

For example, borders that accord with the UN partition plan of 1947, and with Palestinian RoR to within Palestinian borders so defined, and with those Israelis who've made their homes within those Palestinian borders being granted the right to full Palestinian citizenship iff they give up Israeli citizenship.

That or something similar (after a few land swaps) seems reasonable to me.

And have we been disagreeing all this time about RoR when it appears you're for that RoR within a future Palestinian state?

Hell, I'm for that and always have been.

I remember a time when Palestinians traveled freely into Israel to work. That was before the Second Intifada when, once again, Palestinian terrorists did what they could to make any people-to-people movement toward peace and co-existence possible.

Those same Palestinian terrorists intimidate their own people and for what reason?

Prior to the Partition after WWII, "Palestine" was either a part of the Ottoman Empire or the British Protectorate. It never was a separate, independent state.

It has the opportunity to become a separate, independent state now and has had that opportunity since the partition -- but has never dared to take it. I think the Palestinian leadership is afraid of peace. That is what I think.

Or are you a part of the more radical factions of the Pro-Israeli lobby that blindly supports everything that extremist government does?

"I think the Palestinian leadership is afraid of peace. That is what I think."

Israel is the one afraid of peace. It's Zionist dreams can never be realized without blocking a peaceful Palestine. Ask yourself this... Why else does Israel continue to legitimise groups like Hamas by provoking violent attacks and using them as a reason to not negotiate with the other more moderate forces in Palestine? Building illegal settlements, continuing the siege which is an act of war and not your pathetic excuse for "self-defence". Going into villages and towns at night to do "raids" and SUPRISE! innocent people end up dead the next morning. Remember that 90+ year old Palestine lady who had IDF military dogs set on her? It must be what passes for entertainment for those soldiers... why else do it? Sadistic fun?

The conflict could have been resolved many years ago. It's being maintained, dragged out, and it only benefits the extremist terrorists on both sides: Hamas and loony Israeli right-wing government you support.

Peace is a roadblock for Zionism. Go think about that.

Wow.

What do you think Zionism is exactly?

A peaceful Israel is poison to groups like Hamas. They feed off aggression and Israel is all too willing to keep providing it. Then Israel lies to its people: It's all in self-defence! It's really not. It's manufactured conflict.

A peaceful Israel gives hope for Palestine and Israel.

Just try and look at things differently for once.

My point still stands.

You're wrong.

Like I give a shit. LOL

They walked away. Why?

I wish Obama luck because he is, I suspect, going to try to negotiate peace. I hope he succeeds. But peace has to mean security for both sides.

"We want it all."

Unfortunately, I hardly think that statement is the one thing the settlers and Hamas can agree on.

GAZA CITY (Ma’an) -- Hamas chief Khalid Mashaal told Jordanian state TV on Saturday that media reports suggesting he accepts the two-state solution are false.

Last week, the Saudi newspaper Al-Sharq reported that Mashaal asked Jordan's King Abdullah to inform US President Barack Obama that Hamas will accept two states for Israel and Palestine.

But Mashaal tried to dampen the comments in a TV interview, saying the movement would not "all of a sudden accept a Palestinian state with interim borders."

The party chief was referring to a possible political position of Hamas, to accept a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and West Bank as a temporary measure, or "interim borders", as part of a long-term ceasefire with Israel.

"We do not accept any other alternative to Palestine," he said, without making clear if he meant historic Palestine, now partly the state of Israel, or the West Bank and Gaza.

The exiled Hamas leader, widely regarded as a pragmatist in contrast to more hardline leaders based in the Gaza Strip, has equivocated about the party's position towards the Israeli state.

In interviews with international media he has endorsed the two-state solution, and he professed support for President Mahmoud Abbas' statehood bid, which is based within the 1967 borders, at the UN last year.

But the party continues to officially deny it supports two states, and Mashaal peppers his political rhetoric with references to territory within the state of Israel, hinting at wider ambitions.

http://maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=561906