Palestinian Chief Negotiator: No Jewish State

Thunder · 12th November 2007, 07:12 AM

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/923076.html

The Palestinian chief negotiator says the Pals. will refuse to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state".

I have to say, this may be the stupidest reason I have ever seen to threaten negotiations. All that matters is that Israel protects civil rights for all. Who cares what they call themselves???

I dont see the Palestinians boycotting the "Islamic Republic" of Iran.

Just when I thought the Israelis held the monopoly on ruining peace talks, the Arabs prove me wrong.

Palestinians, today you take the cake.

JoeEllison · 12th November 2007, 07:17 AM

I can understand why someone would be against a state founded on favoritism towards one group, and bigotry against the group that he belongs to... can't you?

Thunder · 12th November 2007, 08:43 AM

The Syrian Arab Repubic.
The Islamic Republic of Iran.
The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
The Arab Republic of Egypt.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
The United Arab Emirates.
Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab State.

Yeah, I really can't stand nations that emphasize one ethnicity over another, especially when there are other groups in that country.

Do you smell a double standard? Clearly not.

gtc · 12th November 2007, 03:43 PM

This is hypocritical but hardly surprising.

The following is from the PLO charter (taken from Yale's website). The PLO charter clearly states that Palestine is for Arab Palestinians only and any Jew who resided there before the 'invasion' (but they must be raised as arab nationalists). There is no place for Israel or for any Jew (or non-arab) who migrated to the region.

There is a great irony in overseas based Palestinians using the benefits of their citizenship in Western countries to argue that migrants to Israel should be striped of their citizenship rights. Not that they are the only ones who do this.

Quote:

Article 1:
Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 2:
Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

Article 3:
The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.

Article 5:
The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.

Article 6:
The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.

Article 7: That there is a Palestinian community and that it has material, spiritual, and historical connection with Palestine are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner.

Article 15:
The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine.

Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

dudalb · 13th November 2007, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

I can understand why someone would be against a state founded on favoritism towards one group, and bigotry against the group that he belongs to... can't you?

So Joe is coming out in the open about wanting the destruction of Israel.

Elind · 13th November 2007, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

I can understand why someone would be against a state founded on favoritism towards one group, and bigotry against the group that he belongs to... can't you?

You can understand when someone makes that statement, but surely not when anyone does so?

davefoc · 14th November 2007, 07:08 PM

This is a little off the topic of this thread, but calling Israel a Jewish state was problematic on a few different levels.

1. Israel by what its founders claimed and its own actions has attempted to be a modern liberal nation with equal rights and equal opportunities for all. Calling it a Jewish state belies this and must at least be troubling to non-Jewish citizens.

2. Many people in Israel are only Jewish under some definitions and not others. Are these Jews in the gray area going to have the same rights and opportunities as the unequivocally Jewish?

3. Calling it a Jewish state has worked as encouragement and justification for the extreme elements of its citizenry to attempt to make it true by harassment and murder of non-Jewish citizens.

4. Calling it a Jewish state has served to cement the idea amongst its citizenry that any kind of state where Jews wouldn't be a majority population is at cross purposes to the goals of the state of Israel. This cements the role of ethnicity in the policies of a country in a way that might be counter productive to any long term acceptance of a more modern, less ethnically oriented state.

gtc · 14th November 2007, 07:43 PM

Before you talk about a state where Jews do not form the majority, you need to show that such a state would protect the rights of Jews (or indeed any non-arab).

webfusion · 15th November 2007, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by davefoc

This is a little off the topic of this thread, but calling Israel a Jewish state was problematic on a few different levels.

1. Israel by what its founders claimed and its own actions has attempted to be a modern liberal nation with equal rights and equal opportunities for all. Calling it a Jewish state belies this and must at least be troubling to non-Jewish citizens.

2. Many people in Israel are only Jewish under some definitions and not others. Are these Jews in the gray area going to have the same rights and opportunities as the unequivocally Jewish?

3. Calling it a Jewish state has worked as encouragement and justification for the extreme elements of its citizenry to attempt to make it true by harassment and murder of non-Jewish citizens.

4. Calling it a Jewish state has served to cement the idea amongst its citizenry that any kind of state where Jews wouldn't be a majority population is at cross purposes to the goals of the state of Israel. This cements the role of ethnicity in the policies of a country in a way that might be counter productive to any long term acceptance of a more modern, less ethnically oriented state.

A well thought-out and very appropriate posting. This is the type of reasoning that brings us together as skeptics. Honestly, davefoc, thank you for putting this into the thread. It's not actually off-topic at all, when you think about it.

And gtc's reply to it was spot-on.

My own contribution:
If the palestinians want to reject Israel as a "Jewish State" (which they indeed may have some justification for doing: See davefoc's comments) then the least they could do is present an alternative and come forward with a proposal that would include an acknowledgement that the jews who choose to reside in the New Palestine State (Gaza and the West Bank) would be welcome, not only to own land and maintain their existing communities, but to work and travel freely.
This element is completely missing from the equation, and every time we hear of the establishment of a future New Palestine State, the palestinians invariably talk about a "jew free" environment as being their goal (See: Gaza)

Can anyone point to statements, articles, position papers, or any public proposals that cover the eventuality of New Palestine being a place where jews can live unmolested?

Beerina · 15th November 2007, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

I can understand why someone would be against a state founded on favoritism towards one group, and bigotry against the group that he belongs to... can't you?

So you also endorse exterminating Jews and driving them into the sea? You endorse suicide bombers?

You adopt what you claim is a reasonable position, then, incorrectly, apply it to someone drooling with rage.

A man rapes a girl and murders her. I can understand why a guy gets horny...can't you?

Beerina · 15th November 2007, 06:59 AM

So we have two theories:

1. The Palestinian Nation is a group of people searching for justice and letigimacy.

2. "The Palestinian Nation" is a useful tool for power-hungry thugs who really want a mass of people they have totalitarian control over.

Both make different predictions as to how the leaders should behave. Which model does this fit?

Darth Rotor · 15th November 2007, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by gtc

Before you talk about a state where Jews do not form the majority, you need to show that such a state would protect the rights of Jews (or indeed any non-arab).

The United states of America.

Next question?

DR

Thunder · 15th November 2007, 08:55 AM

The Islamic Republic of Iran has many non-Muslims.
The Czech Republic has many people who are not of Czech ethnicity.

Funny how no one cares about "the Islamic Republic" or the "Czech republic"...but the "Jewish state" is somehow a crime.

I don't point out anti-Semitic hipocracy often, but this is clearly a great example.

I suggest Israel changes its identity from being the "Jewish state" when the Czech Republic, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the United Arab Republic of Egypt, all change their names.

Darth Rotor · 15th November 2007, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

The Islamic Republic of Iran has many non-Muslims.
The Czech Republic has many people who are not of Czech ethnicity.

Funny how no one cares about "the Islamic Republic" or the "Czech republic"...but the "Jewish state" is somehow a crime.

I don't point out anti-Semitic hipocracy often, but this is clearly a great example.

I suggest Israel changes its identity from being the "Jewish state" when the Czech Republic, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the United Arab Republic of Egypt, all change their names.

Ever hear of a guy called Woodrow Wilson? He was a big fan of nationalism in the micro sense, for other nations, or at least some other nations if it didn't bother allies too much . . .

From his Fourteen Points Speech:

Quote:

IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.

X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous development.

XI. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into.

XII. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of an autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.

XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.

Check out how the Austrian Empire, or Austro Hungarian Empire, was partitioned after WW I.

Funny, it was sorta by nationality, which was based on what? Help me out here.

DR

corplinx · 15th November 2007, 12:16 PM

Apparently Ellison has been hanging out with Mel Gibson again.

Darth Rotor · 15th November 2007, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by corplinx

Apparently Ellison has been hanging out with Mel Gibson again.

WTF, did Mel turn liberal all of a sudden?

DR

webfusion · 15th November 2007, 06:57 PM

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/924439.html

Avigdor Lieberman, that darling of the Israeli Right, has declared that he wants to make this topic a 'cause celebre' and force the issue.

"Yisrael Beiteinu is rumored to be planning a bill that would translate the precondition into law."
(the precondition being that the palestinians recognize Israel as "The Jewish State" prior to any further negotiations taking place with them, at Annapolis or elsewhere)

gtc · 17th November 2007, 04:21 AM

Darth,

I was talking about a successor state to Palestine & Israel and whether it could protect the Jews.

I think Israel wants to protect itself from 'too many' Palestinians wanting to claim a right of return. By 'too many' I mean, enough Palestinians to tip the demographics away from those who support a two-state solution.

On the other hand, I can see why the Palestinians would be peeved with this as it does make it seem like the Israelis want the 'Right of Return' off the table before talks even start.

Ideally both sides would be able to agree that Israel is going to be a country where the majority are Jews and Palestine is going to be a country where the majority are Arab Muslims but that the rights of minorities will be respected.

Perhaps a joint declaration during the summit would be a better approach.

Thunder · 17th November 2007, 09:54 AM

I think this whole issue is just an excuse to avoid making concessions. The Palestinians do not want to share Jerusalem, do not want to compromise on the right of return. So they are using this "jewish state" crap to avoid having to make the hard choices.

webfusion · 17th November 2007, 04:57 PM

Quote:

I think this whole issue is just an excuse to avoid making concessions.

You know, this could just as easily be construed to mean -- "just an excuse on the part of Israel." What makes you think that the Israeli government can withstand any compromises and concessions? You know as well as I do that Olmert is in a very precarious position and could easily lose his coalition over "core issues" and even the mention of "relinquishing Jerusalem" will lose him the vital support of SHAS.
Israel also has to make the hard choices, and there are no easy ways to make them.

webfusion · 18th November 2007, 10:22 AM

A follow-up to this discussion:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/925328.html

(Israeli Foreign Minister indicates that any Palestinian State will be the homeland for all Palestinians, including Israeli-Palestinians. She declared that Israel is the Jewish Homeland.)

a_unique_person · 18th November 2007, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/923076.html

The Palestinian chief negotiator says the Pals. will refuse to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state".

I have to say, this may be the stupidest reason I have ever seen to threaten negotiations. All that matters is that Israel protects civil rights for all. Who cares what they call themselves???

I dont see the Palestinians boycotting the "Islamic Republic" of Iran.

Just when I thought the Israelis held the monopoly on ruining peace talks, the Arabs prove me wrong.

Palestinians, today you take the cake.

One point.

The Israeli negotiatores demanded that the Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state, they didn't stand up and demand that Israel accept their point of view.

However, right of return is not to be discussed, once again, a demand by the Israeli negotiators.

webfusion · 18th November 2007, 03:45 PM

Quote:

The Israeli negotiators demanded that the Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state; they didn't stand up and demand that Israel accept their point of view.

That's not the way it reads in the article.
Condaleeza Rice made the original request, in her visit to Ramallah to set up some ground-rules, since she understands the Israeli sensitivities on this.

Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's spokesperson later said, (after hearing that Abbas rejected the very idea of recognition of Israel as a Jewish State):
""The prime minister made it clear that from Israel's point of view, this issue is not subject to either negotiations or discussion." (Olmert's office released that statement about his talks with E.U. foreign policy official Javier Solana last Wednesday).

The Annapolis conference was being touted as some sort of "breakthrough" for the peace process, when in fact, the arabs are the ones making all their maximalist demands as preconditions for even showing up. It is the typical arab "shouk" (open-air marketplace) mentality, where they ask for the moon while all along realizing they will accept less.

Palestinian intransigence on six major points were encountered in Ramallah by the American Sec'y of State Rice:

1. The Annapolis declaration will include Palestinian recognition of Israel – but not as a Jewish state.

2. The boundaries of the future Palestinian state will follow the pre-1967 War lines with minor adjustments through territorial swaps. A few hundreds of square meters may be offered on the West Bank in return for areas in central Israel, not the Negev.

3. Palestinian sovereignty over Temple Mount, the holiest shrine of the Jewish people, must be undivided and include the Jewish place of worship at the Western Wall. (bolding mine)

4. The right of return for 1948 refugees is absolute and non-negotiable.

5. The future Palestinian state will enjoy full sovereignty, including its air and electromagnetic space and underground resources, such as water.

6. Negotiations after the Annapolis conference must be concluded by Aug. 2008. The Palestinians chose that date, our sources report, because it coincides with the Republican Party’s primary for electing its presidential candidate and bid President Bush farewell.

============

In any case, the entire Annapolis venture still up in the air. No agenda has even been compiled. No invitations have been sent. Nobody is ready to proceed.

a_unique_person · 18th November 2007, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

A follow-up to this discussion:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/925328.html

(Israeli Foreign Minister indicates that any Palestinian State will be the homeland for all Palestinians, including Israeli-Palestinians. She declared that Israel is the Jewish Homeland.)

Israel appears to be making demands before negotiations even begin that guarantee the negotiations will fail.

They demand that.

* Israel be recognised as a Jewish state. According to Haaretz, that means a lot more than you would think.
* No negotiations on right of return
* No negotiations on Jerusalem.

Even before the negotiations begin.

webfusion · 18th November 2007, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Israel appears to be making demands before negotiations even begin that guarantee the negotiations will fail.

That guarantee negotiations will fail? There will not even be any negotiations at all if the palestinians insist on presenting a list of demands on things that Israeli can never permit.

The timeline for the statements by Saeb Erekat (the subject of the OP) --
Condaleeza Rice came to Israel last week. She met with Ehud Olmert, who conveyed to her the importance of the palestinians recognizing the Jewish character and importance of Israel for jews worldwide.
Last Monday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that the starting point for all negotiations with the Palestinians will be the "recognition of Israel as a state for the Jewish people."

It was that statement which prompted Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organization, to reject later on Monday (during an interview with an Israeli journalist) the point that the Palestinians need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

You see, there is an undercurrent here ---- the palestinian leaders believe that ALL of Israel is occupying sacred Islamic land, and that the jews need to be subjugated, within the bounds of Islamic Law.

This is the reasoning for their demand of the return of the Western Wall, and their demand for the return of 8-million (or however many they claim) "refugees", and their demand for the quick conclusion of the "full withdrawal" within 180 days.

The palestinians know perfectly well these are non-starters, and by insisting upon their maximalist demands, they assure that nobody from Israel will get onto aircraft bound for Maryland. The palestinians are the ones guaranteeing failure, and they are trying to present it as if Israel is being rejectionist!

Look, even you, a_u_p, have bought into the turn-speak.

a_unique_person · 18th November 2007, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

That guarantee negotiations will fail? There will not even be any negotiations at all if the palestinians insist on presenting a list of demands on things that Israeli can never permit.

The Israelis are making three demands before the negotiations even begin, on matters that haven't even been negotiated yet. As your own link clearly points out, recognising Israel as a Jewish state may mean a lot more to Palestinians who live in Israel than at first appears to be the case.

Quote:

The timeline for the statements by Saeb Erekat (the subject of the OP) --
Condaleeza Rice came to Israel last week. She met with Ehud Olmert, who conveyed to her the importance of the palestinians recognizing the Jewish character and importance of Israel for jews worldwide.
Last Monday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that the starting point for all negotiations with the Palestinians will be the "recognition of Israel as a state for the Jewish people."

It was that statement which prompted Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organization, to reject later on Monday (during an interview with an Israeli journalist) the point that the Palestinians need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

You see, there is an undercurrent here ---- the palestinian leaders believe that ALL of Israel is occupying sacred Islamic land, and that the jews need to be subjugated, within the bounds of Islamic Law.

This is the reasoning for their demand of the return of the Western Wall, and their demand for the return of 8-million (or however many they claim) "refugees", and their demand for the quick conclusion of the "full withdrawal" within 180 days.

The palestinians know perfectly well these are non-starters, and by insisting upon their maximalist demands, they assure that nobody from Israel will get onto aircraft bound for Maryland. The palestinians are the ones guaranteeing failure, and they are trying to present it as if Israel is being rejectionist!

Look, even you, a_u_p, have bought into the turn-speak.

You have bought into LGF speak, you mean.

webfusion · 18th November 2007, 05:30 PM

LGF? WTF?

I don't see demands coming from Israel. They are being cautious, and rightfully so.
There are political constraints, and the Israeli government is not able to withstand an internal collapse over a discussion about the Western Wall, or about the "return" of 8-million so-called refugees.

There is no doubt that the State of Israel is designed to fulfill a need for jews worldwide, and the arabs can't stand it! It makes them insane because they know that the jews have some powerful standing and can't be subjugated so easily as they would have preferred. (see: 1974 Declaration of the PNC/PLO)

Look, a_u_p, we Israelis are prepared to have a series of negotiations even though we clearly see a potential nightmare of HAMASTAN forming in our backyard, which is supported by Iran (same as the Hezbollah, which is making inroads to the north, in Lebanon). Our government needs to perform some fancy maneuvers and dance around these major problems of HAMAS & Hezbollah being such influential factors in the politics of neighboring territories, but Olmert and Co. are certainly not comfortable doing so. (Lebanon is trying to decide on their political future, and the date of November 22 is crucial).

No, a_u_p, to start off with the premise that Israel should be denied our special jewish character and jewish legacy, is hardly the type of thing that jewish Israelis (or jews anywhere, for that matter) would like to hear, especially when those who are most loudly promoting the concept that Israel is "illegitimate" are the worst kinds of fanatic islamic-fundamentalist terror-supporters on earth.

a_unique_person · 18th November 2007, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

LGF? WTF?

I don't see demands coming from Israel. They are being cautious, and rightfully so.

I just pointed out three demands about the coming negotiations, two topics that are not to be discussed, and a demand that Israel be recognised as a Jewish State.

Elind · 19th November 2007, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

I just pointed out three demands about the coming negotiations, two topics that are not to be discussed, and a demand that Israel be recognised as a Jewish State.

Sorry to jump in late here, but I want to ask what YOU think can be negotiated about recognizing Israel as a Jewish state? Either it is defined as such or it is not, meaning dissolved it would seem?

As to the right of return, we all know that on the one hand the great majority have never been there to begin with, and if they all did this would be exactly the same as dissolving Israel, as you well know.

As to Jerusalem, I believe I have read elsewhere that Israel has said it would consider allowing part of Jerusalem to be controlled by the Palestinians, in principle.

It would seem that either the Palestinians want a state in most of the "territories" or they want a state that includes Israel, meaning they want the status quo to continue.

What's to negotiate before negotiating?

webfusion · 19th November 2007, 05:19 PM

Quote:

...A demand that Israel be recognised as a Jewish State.

No, the requirement is for the arabs (not just the palestinians) to acknowledge that Israel is a state for the Jewish people, and has a special character as such.

The majority of arabs have always refused to agree to that. That is the basis for the conflict. At the root.

After being forcibly exiled from their land, the jewish people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.

--- from the Declaration of Independence of the modern State of Israel

In general, arabs reject this entire line of thought. Their attitude is simply: "jewish shmewish, that's all just rubbish; This is Islamic Land, and the jews be damned."

a_u_p, would you expect the jewish-majority of Israelis to chuck their heritage out the window and go ahead and start from scratch with the premise that Islamo-fascists are to be allowed to dictate terms? And that those terms would inherently be fair to the jews?

Is that your position? Is that what you believe should happen?

Thunder · 19th November 2007, 06:01 PM

Are the Palestinians really gonna throw away the possibility of having their own state, over the issue of Israel being a Jewish state?

That would be very very sad..and their children will not forgive them.

Dr Adequate · 19th November 2007, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

So we have two theories:

1. The Palestinian Nation is a group of people searching for justice and letigimacy.

2. "The Palestinian Nation" is a useful tool for power-hungry thugs who really want a mass of people they have totalitarian control over.

Both make different predictions as to how the leaders should behave. Which model does this fit?

Last time I checked, both of those statements were true; and the first condition is the usual precondition for the second.

gtc · 19th November 2007, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

Are the Palestinians really gonna throw away the possibility of having their own state, over the issue of Israel being a Jewish state?

That would be very very sad..and their children will not forgive them.

That is sad but I also think the Israelis should not be pushing this so hard.

Palestine is going to be a Arab Muslim dominated country and Israel is going to be a Jewish dominated country. Both countries should respect the rights of their minorities and respect the existence of the other country.

I don't think it matters whether it is an explicit recognition or an implicit recognition (i.e. dropping all claims to a greater Israel or greater Palestine). I think the right of return will have to be dropped but it could be negotiated away.

webfusion · 19th November 2007, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

Are the Palestinians really gonna throw away the possibility of having their own state, over the issue of Israel being a Jewish state?

You fail to see this in the context of what this rejection of the jewish state means for the arabs. You assume that the arab's goal is "their own State" ---- but I disagree that this is their aim.

From what I know, most arabs have very limited interests regarding a "Palestinian State" composed of just Gaza/West Bank territories. To them, it's merely a big wedge to be used against Israel, with the overall goal being the bringing-down of the Israeli-Zionist enterprise.

Just look at the arab's propoganda machinations, all their islamic teachings, all their educational institutions, all their glorification of "martyrdom" and even their "sacred Charters" ---- can anyone point here to a single statement, a single glimpse of interest in giving the jews their due? I have not, and believe me, I've been searching pretty damn hard.

Yossi Beilin just wrote an interesting article, where he says that Annopolis is a waste of time, and that instead of that high-profile trip to meet in the USA, the Israelis and Palestinains should keep up their efforts at negotiating the nitty-gritty details, and do what they each need to do to stabilize things. Israel can make far-reaching steps to dismantle many of the larger illegal settler outposts, dismantle the network of checkposts, dismantle half of the Ketziot camp (prison), and go in with combat engineers and re-open the Gaza airport, as a favor to Abbas. The Israelis could also organize a revitalization of the OASIS Casino in Jericho, and give a need boost to the palestinian economy (that gambling resort generated millions of $$$ for the PA).
As for Jerusalem, the facts of the matter are clear -- Abu Dis and the surroundings will be the Capital of New Palestine, and the Temple Mount will be at the center of Al_Quds. The Israelis already have laid out that plan, and the Demarcation Barrier has created this as a physical reality.
Refugees? In any case, once New Palestine is an independent entity, there will be an influx of returnees, some wishing to live in Israel, as Israeli citizens, and most going to live within the New Palestine environment.
Water? Air rights? Electromagenetic rights? To be shared, under the terms of mutually-beneficial contracts and agreements that assure the protection of the limited resources which need to be enjoyed and allocated among intertwined peaceful neighbors.

New Palestine will not exist as a seperate entity, but rather as a cooperative and co-dependent Principality, with Israel as the ultimate overseer of the entire area; on land, sea and air.

gtc · 19th November 2007, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

Water? Air rights? Electromagenetic rights? To be shared, under the terms of mutually-beneficial contracts and agreements that assure the protection of the limited resources which need to be enjoyed and allocated among intertwined peaceful neighbors.

The Europeans might be able to help with that.

Originally Posted by webfusion

New Palestine will not exist as a seperate entity, but rather as a cooperative and co-dependent Principality, with Israel as the ultimate overseer of the entire area; on land, sea and air.

I hope it gets to be a bit more independent than that.

webfusion · 19th November 2007, 08:00 PM

Quote:

I hope it gets to be a bit more independent than that.

Not in this lifetime.

a_unique_person · 19th November 2007, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

Not in this lifetime.

I think they realised that long ago.

webfusion · 20th November 2007, 05:33 AM

Yeppers, a_u_p, the palestinians are on the road to perdition. Without a road-map!

Elind · 20th November 2007, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

Are the Palestinians really gonna throw away the possibility of having their own state, over the issue of Israel being a Jewish state?

That would be very very sad..and their children will not forgive them.

What is sad is that it IS their children doing exactly what their parents have bred them for.

webfusion · 20th November 2007, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Elind

What is sad is that it IS their children doing exactly what their parents have bred them for.

The tragedy they have brought upon themselves extends far beyond the parent's influence and reaches deep into the very core of their society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hTwDZ1GQxc

If they had leaders capable of relinquishing and denouncing the mentality of islamic jihadists, they long ago would have had a flourishing nation in cooperation with Israel, and the jews of Israel (and probably jews around the world) would have helped the palestinians to achieve great levels of advancement and raise their standards of living beyond anything known to other arabs in the MidEast.

Instead, they are caught in a downward spiral of self-loathing and outward expressions of hate for "the other" (the jews, or anyone they can lash out at).

It's pathological, honestly.

12th November 2007, 07:12 AM	#1
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Palestinian Chief Negotiator: No Jewish State http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/923076.html The Palestinian chief negotiator says the Pals. will refuse to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state". I have to say, this may be the stupidest reason I have ever seen to threaten negotiations. All that matters is that Israel protects civil rights for all. Who cares what they call themselves??? I dont see the Palestinians boycotting the "Islamic Republic" of Iran. Just when I thought the Israelis held the monopoly on ruining peace talks, the Arabs prove me wrong. Palestinians, today you take the cake.
	Last edited by Thunder; 12th November 2007 at 07:12 AM.

12th November 2007, 08:43 AM	#3
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	The Syrian Arab Repubic. The Islamic Republic of Iran. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The Arab Republic of Egypt. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The United Arab Emirates. Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab State. Yeah, I really can't stand nations that emphasize one ethnicity over another, especially when there are other groups in that country. Do you smell a double standard? Clearly not.
	Last edited by Thunder; 12th November 2007 at 08:44 AM.

15th November 2007, 06:35 AM	#9
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Originally Posted by davefoc This is a little off the topic of this thread, but calling Israel a Jewish state was problematic on a few different levels. 1. Israel by what its founders claimed and its own actions has attempted to be a modern liberal nation with equal rights and equal opportunities for all. Calling it a Jewish state belies this and must at least be troubling to non-Jewish citizens. 2. Many people in Israel are only Jewish under some definitions and not others. Are these Jews in the gray area going to have the same rights and opportunities as the unequivocally Jewish? 3. Calling it a Jewish state has worked as encouragement and justification for the extreme elements of its citizenry to attempt to make it true by harassment and murder of non-Jewish citizens. 4. Calling it a Jewish state has served to cement the idea amongst its citizenry that any kind of state where Jews wouldn't be a majority population is at cross purposes to the goals of the state of Israel. This cements the role of ethnicity in the policies of a country in a way that might be counter productive to any long term acceptance of a more modern, less ethnically oriented state. A well thought-out and very appropriate posting. This is the type of reasoning that brings us together as skeptics. Honestly, davefoc, thank you for putting this into the thread. It's not actually off-topic at all, when you think about it. And gtc's reply to it was spot-on. My own contribution: If the palestinians want to reject Israel as a "Jewish State" (which they indeed may have some justification for doing: See davefoc's comments) then the least they could do is present an alternative and come forward with a proposal that would include an acknowledgement that the jews who choose to reside in the New Palestine State (Gaza and the West Bank) would be welcome, not only to own land and maintain their existing communities, but to work and travel freely. This element is completely missing from the equation, and every time we hear of the establishment of a future New Palestine State, the palestinians invariably talk about a "jew free" environment as being their goal (See: Gaza) Can anyone point to statements, articles, position papers, or any public proposals that cover the eventuality of New Palestine being a place where jews can live unmolested?
	Last edited by webfusion; 15th November 2007 at 06:37 AM.

15th November 2007, 06:47 AM	#10
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by JoeEllison I can understand why someone would be against a state founded on favoritism towards one group, and bigotry against the group that he belongs to... can't you? So you also endorse exterminating Jews and driving them into the sea? You endorse suicide bombers? You adopt what you claim is a reasonable position, then, incorrectly, apply it to someone drooling with rage. A man rapes a girl and murders her. I can understand why a guy gets horny...can't you?
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

15th November 2007, 06:59 AM	#11
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	So we have two theories: 1. The Palestinian Nation is a group of people searching for justice and letigimacy. 2. "The Palestinian Nation" is a useful tool for power-hungry thugs who really want a mass of people they have totalitarian control over. Both make different predictions as to how the leaders should behave. Which model does this fit?
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

12th November 2007, 07:17 AM	#2
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	I can understand why someone would be against a state founded on favoritism towards one group, and bigotry against the group that he belongs to... can't you?

12th November 2007, 03:43 PM	#4
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	This is hypocritical but hardly surprising. The following is from the PLO charter (taken from Yale's website). The PLO charter clearly states that Palestine is for Arab Palestinians only and any Jew who resided there before the 'invasion' (but they must be raised as arab nationalists). There is no place for Israel or for any Jew (or non-arab) who migrated to the region. There is a great irony in overseas based Palestinians using the benefits of their citizenship in Western countries to argue that migrants to Israel should be striped of their citizenship rights. Not that they are the only ones who do this. Quote: Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation. Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will. Article 5: The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian. Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians. Article 7: That there is a Palestinian community and that it has material, spiritual, and historical connection with Palestine are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination. Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

13th November 2007, 10:39 AM	#5
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 23,014	Originally Posted by JoeEllison I can understand why someone would be against a state founded on favoritism towards one group, and bigotry against the group that he belongs to... can't you? So Joe is coming out in the open about wanting the destruction of Israel.

13th November 2007, 09:06 PM	#6
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,692	Originally Posted by JoeEllison I can understand why someone would be against a state founded on favoritism towards one group, and bigotry against the group that he belongs to... can't you? You can understand when someone makes that statement, but surely not when anyone does so?

14th November 2007, 07:08 PM	#7
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 7,333	This is a little off the topic of this thread, but calling Israel a Jewish state was problematic on a few different levels. 1. Israel by what its founders claimed and its own actions has attempted to be a modern liberal nation with equal rights and equal opportunities for all. Calling it a Jewish state belies this and must at least be troubling to non-Jewish citizens. 2. Many people in Israel are only Jewish under some definitions and not others. Are these Jews in the gray area going to have the same rights and opportunities as the unequivocally Jewish? 3. Calling it a Jewish state has worked as encouragement and justification for the extreme elements of its citizenry to attempt to make it true by harassment and murder of non-Jewish citizens. 4. Calling it a Jewish state has served to cement the idea amongst its citizenry that any kind of state where Jews wouldn't be a majority population is at cross purposes to the goals of the state of Israel. This cements the role of ethnicity in the policies of a country in a way that might be counter productive to any long term acceptance of a more modern, less ethnically oriented state.

14th November 2007, 07:43 PM	#8
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	Before you talk about a state where Jews do not form the majority, you need to show that such a state would protect the rights of Jews (or indeed any non-arab).

15th November 2007, 08:29 AM	#12
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,370	Originally Posted by gtc Before you talk about a state where Jews do not form the majority, you need to show that such a state would protect the rights of Jews (or indeed any non-arab). The United states of America. Next question? DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

15th November 2007, 08:55 AM	#13
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	The Islamic Republic of Iran has many non-Muslims. The Czech Republic has many people who are not of Czech ethnicity. Funny how no one cares about "the Islamic Republic" or the "Czech republic"...but the "Jewish state" is somehow a crime. I don't point out anti-Semitic hipocracy often, but this is clearly a great example. I suggest Israel changes its identity from being the "Jewish state" when the Czech Republic, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the United Arab Republic of Egypt, all change their names.

15th November 2007, 11:01 AM	#14
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,370	Originally Posted by parky76 The Islamic Republic of Iran has many non-Muslims. The Czech Republic has many people who are not of Czech ethnicity. Funny how no one cares about "the Islamic Republic" or the "Czech republic"...but the "Jewish state" is somehow a crime. I don't point out anti-Semitic hipocracy often, but this is clearly a great example. I suggest Israel changes its identity from being the "Jewish state" when the Czech Republic, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the United Arab Republic of Egypt, all change their names. Ever hear of a guy called Woodrow Wilson? He was a big fan of nationalism in the micro sense, for other nations, or at least some other nations if it didn't bother allies too much . . . From his Fourteen Points Speech: Quote: IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality. X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous development. XI. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into. XII. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of an autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees. XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant. Check out how the Austrian Empire, or Austro Hungarian Empire, was partitioned after WW I. Funny, it was sorta by nationality, which was based on what? Help me out here. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 15th November 2007 at 11:06 AM.

15th November 2007, 12:16 PM	#15
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Apparently Ellison has been hanging out with Mel Gibson again.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

15th November 2007, 01:09 PM	#16
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,370	Originally Posted by corplinx Apparently Ellison has been hanging out with Mel Gibson again. WTF, did Mel turn liberal all of a sudden? DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

15th November 2007, 06:57 PM	#17
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/924439.html Avigdor Lieberman, that darling of the Israeli Right, has declared that he wants to make this topic a 'cause celebre' and force the issue. "Yisrael Beiteinu is rumored to be planning a bill that would translate the precondition into law." (the precondition being that the palestinians recognize Israel as "The Jewish State" prior to any further negotiations taking place with them, at Annapolis or elsewhere)
	__________________ "You support Israel. Enough said." -- mxwarrior, a rabid anti-Israel JREF poster (now banned) offered this in trying to dismiss all comments offered in rebuttal to him by those JREF'ers who use logic, facts, valid sources, and reality. Last edited by webfusion; 15th November 2007 at 06:57 PM.

17th November 2007, 04:21 AM	#18
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	Darth, I was talking about a successor state to Palestine & Israel and whether it could protect the Jews. I think Israel wants to protect itself from 'too many' Palestinians wanting to claim a right of return. By 'too many' I mean, enough Palestinians to tip the demographics away from those who support a two-state solution. On the other hand, I can see why the Palestinians would be peeved with this as it does make it seem like the Israelis want the 'Right of Return' off the table before talks even start. Ideally both sides would be able to agree that Israel is going to be a country where the majority are Jews and Palestine is going to be a country where the majority are Arab Muslims but that the rights of minorities will be respected. Perhaps a joint declaration during the summit would be a better approach.

17th November 2007, 09:54 AM	#19
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	I think this whole issue is just an excuse to avoid making concessions. The Palestinians do not want to share Jerusalem, do not want to compromise on the right of return. So they are using this "jewish state" crap to avoid having to make the hard choices.

17th November 2007, 04:57 PM	#20
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Quote: I think this whole issue is just an excuse to avoid making concessions. You know, this could just as easily be construed to mean -- "just an excuse on the part of Israel." What makes you think that the Israeli government can withstand any compromises and concessions? You know as well as I do that Olmert is in a very precarious position and could easily lose his coalition over "core issues" and even the mention of "relinquishing Jerusalem" will lose him the vital support of SHAS. Israel also has to make the hard choices, and there are no easy ways to make them.

18th November 2007, 10:22 AM	#21
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Breaking News A follow-up to this discussion: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/925328.html (Israeli Foreign Minister indicates that any Palestinian State will be the homeland for all Palestinians, including Israeli-Palestinians. She declared that Israel is the Jewish Homeland.)

18th November 2007, 03:13 PM	#22
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,457	Originally Posted by parky76 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/923076.html The Palestinian chief negotiator says the Pals. will refuse to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state". I have to say, this may be the stupidest reason I have ever seen to threaten negotiations. All that matters is that Israel protects civil rights for all. Who cares what they call themselves??? I dont see the Palestinians boycotting the "Islamic Republic" of Iran. Just when I thought the Israelis held the monopoly on ruining peace talks, the Arabs prove me wrong. Palestinians, today you take the cake. One point. The Israeli negotiatores demanded that the Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state, they didn't stand up and demand that Israel accept their point of view. However, right of return is not to be discussed, once again, a demand by the Israeli negotiators.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes Last edited by a_unique_person; 18th November 2007 at 03:16 PM.

18th November 2007, 03:45 PM	#23
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Quote: The Israeli negotiators demanded that the Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state; they didn't stand up and demand that Israel accept their point of view. That's not the way it reads in the article. Condaleeza Rice made the original request, in her visit to Ramallah to set up some ground-rules, since she understands the Israeli sensitivities on this. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's spokesperson later said, (after hearing that Abbas rejected the very idea of recognition of Israel as a Jewish State): ""The prime minister made it clear that from Israel's point of view, this issue is not subject to either negotiations or discussion." (Olmert's office released that statement about his talks with E.U. foreign policy official Javier Solana last Wednesday). The Annapolis conference was being touted as some sort of "breakthrough" for the peace process, when in fact, the arabs are the ones making all their maximalist demands as preconditions for even showing up. It is the typical arab "shouk" (open-air marketplace) mentality, where they ask for the moon while all along realizing they will accept less. Palestinian intransigence on six major points were encountered in Ramallah by the American Sec'y of State Rice: 1. The Annapolis declaration will include Palestinian recognition of Israel – but not as a Jewish state. 2. The boundaries of the future Palestinian state will follow the pre-1967 War lines with minor adjustments through territorial swaps. A few hundreds of square meters may be offered on the West Bank in return for areas in central Israel, not the Negev. 3. Palestinian sovereignty over Temple Mount, the holiest shrine of the Jewish people, must be undivided and include the Jewish place of worship at the Western Wall. (bolding mine) 4. The right of return for 1948 refugees is absolute and non-negotiable. 5. The future Palestinian state will enjoy full sovereignty, including its air and electromagnetic space and underground resources, such as water. 6. Negotiations after the Annapolis conference must be concluded by Aug. 2008. The Palestinians chose that date, our sources report, because it coincides with the Republican Party’s primary for electing its presidential candidate and bid President Bush farewell. ============ In any case, the entire Annapolis venture still up in the air. No agenda has even been compiled. No invitations have been sent. Nobody is ready to proceed.

18th November 2007, 03:48 PM	#24
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,457	Originally Posted by webfusion A follow-up to this discussion: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/925328.html (Israeli Foreign Minister indicates that any Palestinian State will be the homeland for all Palestinians, including Israeli-Palestinians. She declared that Israel is the Jewish Homeland.) Israel appears to be making demands before negotiations even begin that guarantee the negotiations will fail. They demand that. * Israel be recognised as a Jewish state. According to Haaretz, that means a lot more than you would think. * No negotiations on right of return * No negotiations on Jerusalem. Even before the negotiations begin.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

18th November 2007, 04:34 PM	#25
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Originally Posted by a_unique_person Israel appears to be making demands before negotiations even begin that guarantee the negotiations will fail. That guarantee negotiations will fail? There will not even be any negotiations at all if the palestinians insist on presenting a list of demands on things that Israeli can never permit. The timeline for the statements by Saeb Erekat (the subject of the OP) -- Condaleeza Rice came to Israel last week. She met with Ehud Olmert, who conveyed to her the importance of the palestinians recognizing the Jewish character and importance of Israel for jews worldwide. Last Monday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that the starting point for all negotiations with the Palestinians will be the "recognition of Israel as a state for the Jewish people." It was that statement which prompted Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organization, to reject later on Monday (during an interview with an Israeli journalist) the point that the Palestinians need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. You see, there is an undercurrent here ---- the palestinian leaders believe that ALL of Israel is occupying sacred Islamic land, and that the jews need to be subjugated, within the bounds of Islamic Law. This is the reasoning for their demand of the return of the Western Wall, and their demand for the return of 8-million (or however many they claim) "refugees", and their demand for the quick conclusion of the "full withdrawal" within 180 days. The palestinians know perfectly well these are non-starters, and by insisting upon their maximalist demands, they assure that nobody from Israel will get onto aircraft bound for Maryland. The palestinians are the ones guaranteeing failure, and they are trying to present it as if Israel is being rejectionist! Look, even you, a_u_p, have bought into the turn-speak.
	Last edited by webfusion; 18th November 2007 at 04:37 PM.

18th November 2007, 05:07 PM	#26
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,457	Originally Posted by webfusion That guarantee negotiations will fail? There will not even be any negotiations at all if the palestinians insist on presenting a list of demands on things that Israeli can never permit. The Israelis are making three demands before the negotiations even begin, on matters that haven't even been negotiated yet. As your own link clearly points out, recognising Israel as a Jewish state may mean a lot more to Palestinians who live in Israel than at first appears to be the case. Quote: The timeline for the statements by Saeb Erekat (the subject of the OP) -- Condaleeza Rice came to Israel last week. She met with Ehud Olmert, who conveyed to her the importance of the palestinians recognizing the Jewish character and importance of Israel for jews worldwide. Last Monday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that the starting point for all negotiations with the Palestinians will be the "recognition of Israel as a state for the Jewish people." It was that statement which prompted Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organization, to reject later on Monday (during an interview with an Israeli journalist) the point that the Palestinians need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. You see, there is an undercurrent here ---- the palestinian leaders believe that ALL of Israel is occupying sacred Islamic land, and that the jews need to be subjugated, within the bounds of Islamic Law. This is the reasoning for their demand of the return of the Western Wall, and their demand for the return of 8-million (or however many they claim) "refugees", and their demand for the quick conclusion of the "full withdrawal" within 180 days. The palestinians know perfectly well these are non-starters, and by insisting upon their maximalist demands, they assure that nobody from Israel will get onto aircraft bound for Maryland. The palestinians are the ones guaranteeing failure, and they are trying to present it as if Israel is being rejectionist! Look, even you, a_u_p, have bought into the turn-speak. You have bought into LGF speak, you mean.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes Last edited by a_unique_person; 18th November 2007 at 05:08 PM.

18th November 2007, 05:30 PM	#27
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	LGF? WTF? I don't see demands coming from Israel. They are being cautious, and rightfully so. There are political constraints, and the Israeli government is not able to withstand an internal collapse over a discussion about the Western Wall, or about the "return" of 8-million so-called refugees. There is no doubt that the State of Israel is designed to fulfill a need for jews worldwide, and the arabs can't stand it! It makes them insane because they know that the jews have some powerful standing and can't be subjugated so easily as they would have preferred. (see: 1974 Declaration of the PNC/PLO) Look, a_u_p, we Israelis are prepared to have a series of negotiations even though we clearly see a potential nightmare of HAMASTAN forming in our backyard, which is supported by Iran (same as the Hezbollah, which is making inroads to the north, in Lebanon). Our government needs to perform some fancy maneuvers and dance around these major problems of HAMAS & Hezbollah being such influential factors in the politics of neighboring territories, but Olmert and Co. are certainly not comfortable doing so. (Lebanon is trying to decide on their political future, and the date of November 22 is crucial). No, a_u_p, to start off with the premise that Israel should be denied our special jewish character and jewish legacy, is hardly the type of thing that jewish Israelis (or jews anywhere, for that matter) would like to hear, especially when those who are most loudly promoting the concept that Israel is "illegitimate" are the worst kinds of fanatic islamic-fundamentalist terror-supporters on earth.

18th November 2007, 06:14 PM	#28
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,457	Originally Posted by webfusion LGF? WTF? I don't see demands coming from Israel. They are being cautious, and rightfully so. I just pointed out three demands about the coming negotiations, two topics that are not to be discussed, and a demand that Israel be recognised as a Jewish State.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

19th November 2007, 06:26 AM	#29
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,692	Originally Posted by a_unique_person I just pointed out three demands about the coming negotiations, two topics that are not to be discussed, and a demand that Israel be recognised as a Jewish State. Sorry to jump in late here, but I want to ask what YOU think can be negotiated about recognizing Israel as a Jewish state? Either it is defined as such or it is not, meaning dissolved it would seem? As to the right of return, we all know that on the one hand the great majority have never been there to begin with, and if they all did this would be exactly the same as dissolving Israel, as you well know. As to Jerusalem, I believe I have read elsewhere that Israel has said it would consider allowing part of Jerusalem to be controlled by the Palestinians, in principle. It would seem that either the Palestinians want a state in most of the "territories" or they want a state that includes Israel, meaning they want the status quo to continue. What's to negotiate before negotiating?

19th November 2007, 05:19 PM	#30
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Quote: ...A demand that Israel be recognised as a Jewish State. No, the requirement is for the arabs (not just the palestinians) to acknowledge that Israel is a state for the Jewish people, and has a special character as such. The majority of arabs have always refused to agree to that. That is the basis for the conflict. At the root. After being forcibly exiled from their land, the jewish people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom. --- from the Declaration of Independence of the modern State of Israel In general, arabs reject this entire line of thought. Their attitude is simply: "jewish shmewish, that's all just rubbish; This is Islamic Land, and the jews be damned." a_u_p, would you expect the jewish-majority of Israelis to chuck their heritage out the window and go ahead and start from scratch with the premise that Islamo-fascists are to be allowed to dictate terms? And that those terms would inherently be fair to the jews? Is that your position? Is that what you believe should happen?
	Last edited by webfusion; 19th November 2007 at 05:20 PM.

19th November 2007, 06:01 PM	#31
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Are the Palestinians really gonna throw away the possibility of having their own state, over the issue of Israel being a Jewish state? That would be very very sad..and their children will not forgive them.

19th November 2007, 06:31 PM	#32
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Beerina So we have two theories: 1. The Palestinian Nation is a group of people searching for justice and letigimacy. 2. "The Palestinian Nation" is a useful tool for power-hungry thugs who really want a mass of people they have totalitarian control over. Both make different predictions as to how the leaders should behave. Which model does this fit? Last time I checked, both of those statements were true; and the first condition is the usual precondition for the second.
	Last edited by Dr Adequate; 19th November 2007 at 06:32 PM.

19th November 2007, 06:36 PM	#33
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	Originally Posted by parky76 Are the Palestinians really gonna throw away the possibility of having their own state, over the issue of Israel being a Jewish state? That would be very very sad..and their children will not forgive them. That is sad but I also think the Israelis should not be pushing this so hard. Palestine is going to be a Arab Muslim dominated country and Israel is going to be a Jewish dominated country. Both countries should respect the rights of their minorities and respect the existence of the other country. I don't think it matters whether it is an explicit recognition or an implicit recognition (i.e. dropping all claims to a greater Israel or greater Palestine). I think the right of return will have to be dropped but it could be negotiated away.

19th November 2007, 06:48 PM	#34
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Originally Posted by parky76 Are the Palestinians really gonna throw away the possibility of having their own state, over the issue of Israel being a Jewish state? You fail to see this in the context of what this rejection of the jewish state means for the arabs. You assume that the arab's goal is "their own State" ---- but I disagree that this is their aim. From what I know, most arabs have very limited interests regarding a "Palestinian State" composed of just Gaza/West Bank territories. To them, it's merely a big wedge to be used against Israel, with the overall goal being the bringing-down of the Israeli-Zionist enterprise. Just look at the arab's propoganda machinations, all their islamic teachings, all their educational institutions, all their glorification of "martyrdom" and even their "sacred Charters" ---- can anyone point here to a single statement, a single glimpse of interest in giving the jews their due? I have not, and believe me, I've been searching pretty damn hard. Yossi Beilin just wrote an interesting article, where he says that Annopolis is a waste of time, and that instead of that high-profile trip to meet in the USA, the Israelis and Palestinains should keep up their efforts at negotiating the nitty-gritty details, and do what they each need to do to stabilize things. Israel can make far-reaching steps to dismantle many of the larger illegal settler outposts, dismantle the network of checkposts, dismantle half of the Ketziot camp (prison), and go in with combat engineers and re-open the Gaza airport, as a favor to Abbas. The Israelis could also organize a revitalization of the OASIS Casino in Jericho, and give a need boost to the palestinian economy (that gambling resort generated millions of $$$ for the PA). As for Jerusalem, the facts of the matter are clear -- Abu Dis and the surroundings will be the Capital of New Palestine, and the Temple Mount will be at the center of Al_Quds. The Israelis already have laid out that plan, and the Demarcation Barrier has created this as a physical reality. Refugees? In any case, once New Palestine is an independent entity, there will be an influx of returnees, some wishing to live in Israel, as Israeli citizens, and most going to live within the New Palestine environment. Water? Air rights? Electromagenetic rights? To be shared, under the terms of mutually-beneficial contracts and agreements that assure the protection of the limited resources which need to be enjoyed and allocated among intertwined peaceful neighbors. New Palestine will not exist as a seperate entity, but rather as a cooperative and co-dependent Principality, with Israel as the ultimate overseer of the entire area; on land, sea and air.

19th November 2007, 07:02 PM	#35
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	Originally Posted by webfusion Water? Air rights? Electromagenetic rights? To be shared, under the terms of mutually-beneficial contracts and agreements that assure the protection of the limited resources which need to be enjoyed and allocated among intertwined peaceful neighbors. The Europeans might be able to help with that. Originally Posted by webfusion New Palestine will not exist as a seperate entity, but rather as a cooperative and co-dependent Principality, with Israel as the ultimate overseer of the entire area; on land, sea and air. I hope it gets to be a bit more independent than that.