Comments on: Obama’s trip to Israel: Just showing up isn’t enough

By: barney rubble

barney rubble — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:43:46 +0000

‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed negotiations’

you mean the creation of a Jewish state can’t be agreed unless its simultaneous with the creation of a Palestinian state

By: Masoud Jazayeri

Masoud Jazayeri — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 03:56:42 +0000

The commenter using the name of a general in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is banned from commenting on this site. S/he is also banned when using any other of his/her pseudonyms.

By: Shmuel

Shmuel — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 03:21:22 +0000

-
“Wonderful race policing K9. It must have been very hard in the Soviet.”

I wish I would understand what these two sentences mean. Ihaven’t the foggiest what you are trying to say, Greg.

By: sh

sh — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:39:44 +0000

A couple of the settlements you mentioned had already evacuated themselves long before Sharon did it officially, another had decided to establish a yeshiva in a mosque, the other schlepped things out until 2007? In short those evictions were no great concession and don’t compare at all with returning anything serious like Tapuah or Kedumim or Eilon Moreh to their rightful owners.

The way you say it, the difference between a negotiating point and a precondition is semantics.

By: Richard Lightbown

Richard Lightbown — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 07:59:35 +0000

K9: “This conversation is over.”
That’s about the only acknowledgement I am likely to get from you that Netanyahu has set a precondition, unacceptable to the Palestinians, as unambiguously acknowledged by the former Israeli Ambassador to the UN. A precondition he sprung, as you know, in late 2010, to bust the direct negotiations. A condition for peace that he has consistently repeated not only in Israel, but in Europe and the US.

The reference you gave me does not specifically say the Palestinians set the 67 borders as a precondition, and the headline merely states “Abbas: No Israel talks without settlement freeze”. It’s not my place to do your research for you: I’m calling your statement as unproven. It’s up to you to back it up with a legitimate reference – if you can.

You’ve ducked and dived on this one but your claims that the Palestinians are entirely at fault for the failure of direct negotiations to start is fraudulent. And now you slink off from the debate because you know you cannot back it up and you do not have the integrity to acknowledge your position is wrong.

By: Greg Pollock

Greg Pollock — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 02:53:09 +0000

Wonderful race policing K9. It must have been very hard in the Soviet.

By: Greg Pollock

Greg Pollock — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 02:50:59 +0000

I actually didn’t remember Bush’s visit; there came a point where I gave up on news regarding Bush. So I was wrong.

If you want to see a love fest between the two, go ahead. I think you will find the Administration’s distaste for the vanguard settlers unchanged.

By: Kolumn9

Kolumn9 — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 21:35:27 +0000

Richard, the Palestinian preconditions of using the 67 lines as a basis for negotiations and a total freeze to settlement construction including Jerusalem are well-known. Abbas and the PA point them out at every opportunity. I provided you with a link but you can do your own research into the matter. Search google for Abbas and preconditions.

As you yourself point out at the end of your post Netanyahu most certainly has a large number of positions that he expects to achieve in peace negotiations including the recognition of Israel is a Jewish state. As I pointed out the Palestinians have their own negotiating positions that they pronounce quiet clearly that are unlikely to ever be realized – the right of return for example. That is different from the Palestinian position whereby they refuse to even sit down to negotiate in the first place unless Israel does A, B, and C. These are called preconditions in that they are conditions that the Palestinians demand to be met before they are willing to negotiate. The Palestinians have them. Israel doesn’t.

This conversation is over.

By: Richard Lightbown

Richard Lightbown — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:14:46 +0000

The ynet report is not clear and I think you are reading something into it that is incorrect. It does not specifically say that 67 border is a precondition. The headline would probably have mentioned it if that is what they meant. I think you need to back that one up with a clearer reference.

I question whether it was a gesture of good will when there had never been a freeze in the first place. It was a good pretext to get a demand for a Jewish state in though. And that definitely WAS a precondition in late 2010.

Gabriela Shalev at least agrees with my interpretation
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/08/08/290126/shalev-jewish-state-superfluous/?mobile=nc
Shalev, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, offered harsh advice to Netanyahu, challenging his claims that he has no “preconditions” for talks with the Palestinians, saying:
Israel could show by gestures that when Netanyahu talks about negotiations without preconditions, there really are no preconditions; that we are not only willing to speak about painful concessions, but show that we are willing to do it by not going on with building settlements; and by not putting new things on the table, like the requirement that Palestinians recognize Israel as the homeland of Jewish people, which to my mind is superfluous. Brazil didn’t recognize us as that. Egypt didn’t.

Shimon Peres seemed to think so too, but I can’t nail that one down. But Netanyahu has been saying it consistently since 2010 that Palestinians must agree to it for a peace agreement.

By: Kolumn9

Kolumn9 — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:22:40 +0000

Yep, everyone loves those humanist Jews who wish to stop being Jews.