EU threat to recognise Palestine state

[Violet_Crumble]

EUROPEAN Union foreign ministers have threatened to recognise an independent Palestinian state to punish Israel for refusing to halt illegal settlements.

A text seen by The Daily Telegraph warned of EU ''readiness, when appropriate, to recognise a Palestinian state'', increasing pressure on Israel following the effective collapse of direct Middle East peace talks last week.

''There is growing frustration with Israel after its refusal to commit to a new settlements freeze and patience is running out,'' a European diplomat said.

Advertisement: Story continues below During talks at the weekend, EU countries - including the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Sweden, Ireland, Greece, Luxembourg and Finland - urged a tougher stance.

Some countries argued that unless Israel reinstated a ban on Jewish settlements, the EU should recognise an independent state of Palestine with a seat at the United Nations.

In a letter to Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign minister, the Palestinian Authority ''affirmed the need for a EU recognition of two states along the 1967 borders and to oblige the Israeli government to completely halt settlement activity, including in east Jerusalem''.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/eu-threat-to-recognise-palestine-state-20101214-18ws4.html

[Kolesar]

1. Error: You can't recommend threads from this forum

Peace and love in the new year.

[azurnoir]

2. This may well be IMO the way to go at this point

talks have failed and while they talk and talk, Israel builds and builds, time for something else

[The Magistrate]

3. This Should Have Been Done Long Ago, Ma'am

If the political leadership of Arab Palestine has made up its mind to state actual borders, rather than harboring dreams on 'river to the sea' lines for the future, this would be a solid advance in the situation.

There is no shadow of legal grounds from which Israel could impose a legitimate veto on the action, and, at least in the absence of violence from the new state against Israel and Israeli citizens, the politics of an attempt to prevent the action or overturn it by military force would be insupportable for Israel.

[Lithos]

4. Agreed

This is a good development.

Personal note, hope you are well sir, long time no see.

L-

[shira]

6. Disagree, this will lead to lots more bloodshed...

With the IDF out of the West Bank, it won't take long until rockets fall on Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Ben Gurion Airport.

War, big time.

And the Palestinian refugees will continue to remain in camps throughout the mideast, waiting until Israel lets them all in.

This is a bad move.

[Lithos]

9. Not sure that all follows

The question is one of whether war and hostilities are more likely from continual occupation of the West Bank or from a free West Bank. With each passing day of the occupation, it seems the ante goes up and the extremists on both sides seem more and more empowered and more and more inclined to escalate the violence. In the end, occupation will ultimately offer no real security.

L-

[shira]

16. The conflict will continue regardless, and any excuse will do...

If any settlers are left, if there aren't exact 1967 borders, the Golan isn't returned, Gaza isn't "free", all refugees aren't taken in by Israel...

The conflict will continue.

It must.

Jews are too great a political scapegoat for both the Arab world and outside it. The finger pointing "over there" to Israel or to Jews in general won't stop no matter what Israel or Jews do.

[shaayecanaan]

22. Then it sounds like you are opposed to any peace deal

no matter what the terms.

In any event, this is the same tired old rhetoric that the enemies of peace used to scuttle the peace deal between Israel and Egypt, and Israel and Jordan. At the end of the day, there is stable peace between those countries because it is in those countries' mutual interests.

[shira]

26. I'm for genuine peace and would agree to give in on almost everything if it would bring real peace.

[shaayecanaan]

28. But nothing will bring real peace, so you will not give in on anything.

And if that\'s the case, Israel may as well nuke all the Arabs because they\'re never going to stop trying to kill Jews.

Right?

[shira]

32. How do you define real peace in the Arab/Israel conflict? n/t

[shaayecanaan]

33. By the absence of occupation and the absence of war...

essentially, as an extension of the peace that currently exists between Israel and Egypt. It is a cold peace, no mistake, and I don't expect that Israel and Palestine will be best friends forever. Still, it is by far the best option available.

I don't think you quite understand the implications if the current situation is allowed to fester for another fifty years. Israel is a young state and its institutions are still quite weak. Demographically, it is becoming more right wing and more religious. The Labor party, the only significant left-wing party and once the natural party of government, might be completely annihilated at the next election. This can all be expected to hasten the diplomatic isolation of Israel, particularly in Europe.

Given demographic trends, if Israel fails to seal a peace deal with the Palestinians in the next two electoral cycles then it will probably be unable to do so permanently. It will be impossible for any imaginable coalition to dismantle the settlements (particularly if up to one-third of Israel's population is living in them).

If that takes place, then as Ehud Barak has said, only three things can happen. One state, apartheid, or a societal collapse that will involve the killing or expulsion of much of the remaining Arab population.

You need to stop treating this as simply a public relations problem and realise that Israel has a real problem on its hands.

[shira]

37. UN recognition of Palestine won't achieve that kind of peace.

The extremists (Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, most of the PLO) will see such a decision as a blow that weakens Israel, so rather than an end to the conflict this would make war more inevitable. It would have the effect of the Lebanon 2000 and Gaza 2005 withdrawals.

If you think I'm wrong, show me signs from the Arabic press that I'm wrong.

[shaayecanaan]

38. The UN has already recognised Palestine by according it observer status

I fail to see how granting it full member status would weaken Israel or strengthen the position of Hamas, indeed given that it would be a symbolic victory for Fatah I would imagine Hamas would be rather piqued if it did occur.

The withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 was a military victory for Hezbollah - it demonstrated that the Israelis could be persuaded to leave territory by killing a sufficient number of them. A recognition of Palestine by the EU would be a diplomatic victory - it would demonstrate that progress is possible by peaceful and diplomatic means. So it is not really the same thing at all, is it? Quite the opposite in fact.

Roughly 100 states have already recognised Palestine without it impeding peace talks in the slightest. Most liberal commentators (including Carlos Strenger, whom I believe you regard favourably) support the Palestinians' bid for recognition, believing it to be necessary in order to revive the moribund peace process.

[oberliner]

40. Not under 1967 borders

That is something altogether different.

[shaayecanaan]

44. The question of borders is altogether different from the issue of recognition

None of the countries that recognise Israel have taken a position on the extent of Israel's boundaries - which is fair enough because Israel has not defined its boundaries itself.

Similarly, there is nothing that requires countries to define the borders of Palestine prior to extending recognition to it.

[oberliner]

47. Bolivia recognizes the Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, like Brazil and Argentina

Each of the recent statements of recognition that have been made has been on the basis of the 1967 borders.

Mention of such borders has been included in statements or recognition from the foreign ministries of Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay.

[shira]

41. With 1967 borders, Israel would be seen as invaders of Palestine...

...stoking more incitement to terror. Also, with the 1967 borders, there is no reason the PA should negotiate further for peace. This is a recipe for ongoing war.

Part of UNSCR 242 recognizes Israel's need for secure and defensible borders. Israel cannot possibly be expected to return the 1949 armistice lines and risk giving the highlands to Hamas and Iran for easy sniper shooting, mortars, etc.. on major Israeli population centers. It's not as if Israel can trust Fatah either.

It appears that the pro-Palestinian contingent here at DU believes these risks are worth taking. If a major war breaks out and thousands of lives are lost, so be it because it beats the status quo. I can't understand the mentality given the history of this conflict and how Hamas, Fatah, etc. operate. There is nothing in the PA arabic press, whether on TV or radio, sermons in Mosques, textbooks, or political statements by leaders suggesting that a unilateral declaration of Palestine within 1967 borders would lead to a more peaceful or humane situation for all involved.

[shaayecanaan]

53. Invaders of Palestine? What a preposterous thought...

I can only hope that such a bizarre concept never pops up in the head of civilised peoples such as ourselves.

[Mosby]

42. i dont think you understand the implications

The US is broke, most of the EU nations are broke so exactly who do you think is going to give a shit about the Palestinians in fifty years?

The Palestinians need to do a deal soon or they can forget about it - the Israelis will eventually withdraw from the WB and the Palestinians will lose their funding and the arab states might talk a good game but won't help financially, who stands to lose here?? Not the Israelis.

[shaayecanaan]

45. If the EU is broke then Israel is broke

Israel's national debt (at 76% of GDP) is larger than many nations in Europe. They have avoided growing this deficit any further in the last few years but they certainly havent been paying any of it off. It will probably become harder to balance the budget once the population ages and the less productive sectors of Israeli society (the ultra-Orthodox and the Arabs) grow as a proportion of the whole.

"the Israelis will eventually withdraw from the WB"

I think that's exactly what the Palestinians want.

[Mosby]

15. if Palestinian leadership unilaterally declare a state

which is accepted by many eu and sa countries why wouldn't the refugees be relocated to Palestine and unrwa dissolved?

Seems reasonable if people are now going to ignore unsc resolutions.

[shaayecanaan]

23. There's no UNSC resolution preventing the Palestinians from declaring a state...

moreover, the issue of diplomatic recognition of states is not the domain of the Security Council. The issue of whether Palestine is recognised as a sovereign state (including whether it has full member status at the UN) is a matter for the General Assembly, as well as its member states.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Which UNSC resolution are you claiming is being ignored?

And as the opposition I'm seeing in this thread and elsewhere appears to be opposition to any unilateral actions, why is it that it appears to be that any opposition to unilateral actions only manifests itself when it's the Palestinians? While I saw some opposition to the major unilateral action taken by Israel in removing settlers from Gaza, none of it was because it was a unilateral action...

[Mosby]

30. 242/338

The Palestinians are free to declare their state and other nations are free to recognize it but until the two sides sit down and negotiate a settlement the border between the two will be undetermined. Moreover without a negotiated agreement the Palestinian government can continue to have millions of it's citizens living outside the country in refugee camps, something I find more than a little odd, almost surreal.

From a PR standpoint the Palestinians are going to have a hard time explaining to the average joe why they now have a country but for convoluted reasons they also need to prevent their own citizens from returning to their country. Given the trajectory of the world economy and the fact that the US and EU in particular provide the vast majority of the funding of UNRWA and the PA I would not want to risk cuts just to score some political points. You all are always complaining how pro Israel the US congress is, how long do you think it would take for a member to introduce a resolution to de-fund the PA and UNRWA after the Palestinians declare their state and others recognize it?

Considering the UNSC reaffirms 338 annually (last three are 1848 in 2008, 1899 in 2009 and 1934 in 2010) the permanent SC members are obviously committed to a negotiated settlement which puts the EU foreign ministers statements completely at odds with the Security Council. That tells me at least that they only give a shit what the SC does when it suits their political purposes.

[shaayecanaan]

34. Complete rubbish...

if states cannot recognise Palestine because its borders are undetermined, surely they cannot recognise Israel for the same reason?

Essentially all countries do not recognise Israel's claim to East Jerusalem, for example, and have refused to move their embassies from Tel Aviv on that basis.

[Mosby]

39. I didn't say countries can't recognize Palestine

I said that they can't recognize Palestine using "1967 borders" Such recognition ignores UN Security Council resolutions on the matter.

[shaayecanaan]

46. Again, that is rubbish

UNSCR 242 calls on Israel to withdraw from territories seized in the 1967 war. There is a debate as to whether it requires withdrawal from "all the territory" or simply "territory". In any event, it does not recognise any claim by Israel to any of the territory seized in that war, and it certainly does not preclude any state choosing to recognise all of the West Bank as Palestinian territory.

[Mosby]

51. there is no debate on the matter

The security council accepted the english version of the resolution and rejected the french version which included "the territories" in the final draft.

Bottom line if the Palestinians cannot accept land swaps with Israel to solve the conflict then there will never be a deal.

[shaayecanaan]

52. That\'s the third lot of rubbish in a row you\'ve posted...

there was never any move by the Security Council to \"reject\" the french version of the resolution. The French and English resolutions are both authoritative. There is a summary of the arguments concerning this textual argument on Wikipedia:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNSCR_242#French_version_vs._English_version_of_text

A compelling argument mentioned there is to compare the following two sentences:-

1. Israel shall withdraw from territories seized in the 1967 war.

2. Dogs shall be kept on a leash in the park.

In both examples, the normal interpretation would be that \"all\" dogs are to be kept on a leash, and all territories seized by Israel are to be returned.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. It should have, and hopefully it will happen sooner rather than later...

Just a minor correction, but the Palestinian leadership gave up dreams of a Palestine that included what is now Israel long ago. What the difference is now from earlier is that the Palestinians have the infrastructure in place that's required to run a state, and the power and influence of the US is on the wane and other countries aren't going to care whether they displease the US or not....

I'm not entirely sure how many states must recognise a new state for the whole thing to reach critical mass and it gets to a point where the recognition is official and the new state gets a seat at the UN, though I suspect that even with the dead certainty that Israel and the US would refuse to recognise the new state, there'd be more than enough states recognising it for those two rejectionists not to matter. It'll be interesting to see what happens, especially now it's being used by the EU as a bit of a big stick to wave at Israel...

:hi:

[oberliner]

10. Just want to correct the misinformation in this post

Specifically:

"The Palestinian leadership gave up dreams of a Palestine that included what is now Israel long ago"

Here is a statement from the Palestinian leadership in Gaza from three days ago:

"We say that Palestine from the sea to the (Jordan) river is fully the land of the Palestinians. We will cede none of it, and we will not recognise the so-called state of Israel," Hamas said in a statement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x340105

[subsuelo]

11. You conveniently left something out

Hamas "will accept the outcome of any referendum even if it contradicts our policies and convictions."

and

"We accept a Palestinian state with full sovereignty on the land occupied in 1967 with Jerusalem as its capital and a solution to the issue of refugees."


(FYI - Hamas has been stating their acceptance of 67 borders for at least a few years now. I don't have time to cite references, but to help you get caught up, I suggest trying some Google searches for Hamas + 67 borders, or something along those lines.)

[shira]

12. What Palestinian leadership says to the Western press in english is different...

...than what they say in Arabic.

This is common knowledge in Israel and why Israelis have a different perspective than some Westerners.

99% of the output in Palestinian institutions - whether on TV, radio, political speeches, religious sermons, textbooks - shows that Palestinian leaders' top priority is total victory and the eventual destruction of Israel.

[subsuelo]

13. Israeli citizenship is hardly a requirement to observe contradictions

A debate can be had over how best to interpret Hamas's widely inconsistent statements. Perhaps Israelis know best on this matter - that part I am open to.

But to leave out one contradictory statement in favor of another, in order to claim that someone else here is posting "misinformation" does not make for very honest debate, in my view.

That is my only point.

[shira]

14. So how else to explain the contradictions, other than Hamas and Fatah singing one tune in english...

...and the opposite in Arabic?

I'd love to be proven wrong. Find for me some signs of peace coming from Hamas/Fatah in Arabic - whether on TV, radio, newspapers, textbooks, religious speeches, etc... that speak of tolerance, peace, cooperation/collaboration with Israel, etc.

Anything.

Let me know when you find something.

[subsuelo]

17. So you are understanding my point, though, right?

Disagreements can be had. What I find dishonest is conveniently leaving out one contradictory statement in favor of another, in order to claim that someone else is posting "misinformation".

[oberliner]

18. The statement to which I was responding contains misinformation.

The misinformation is:

"The Palestinian leadership gave up dreams of a Palestine that included what is now Israel long ago"

This is simply not true.

The evidence of that statement not being true is found in the quote I provided from Hamas.

Namely:

"We say that Palestine from the sea to the (Jordan) river is fully the land of the Palestinians. We will cede none of it, and we will not recognise the so-called state of Israel."

There is no quote that you can find on Google or anywhere else that supports the claim that "the Palestinian leadership gave up dreams of a Palestine that included what is now Israel long ago".

It is a false statement (misinformation) and needs to be corrected.

At last year's rally, Mr. Haniyeh expressed his sentiments very clearly.

From Mr. Hanieyh:

"This movement, with the help of the militant factions liberated the Gaza Strip, and we say, brothers and sisters, we will not be satisfied with Gaza. Hamas looks toward the whole of Palestine, the liberation of the strip is just a step to liberating all of Palestine.

We will never give up on Palestine from the river to the sea.

It is not enough for Hamas to liberate Gaza, nor to establish an emirate in Gaza, nor a state, nor an independent entity... Hamas strives to liberate all of Palestine."

http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=3883
http://kuwaitobserver.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=312051

[subsuelo]

19. The problem is, it can go either way because of past contradictory statements

Yet rather than acknowledging these contradictions, you selectively choose from one group of statements and conveniently ignore the others, in order to make a case that someone is posting "misinformation".

It doesn't make for very honest debate in my view.

[oberliner]

20. No, it can't "go either way" and there are no past contradictory statements

I am happy to have an honest debate on this subject.

The statement made was:

"The Palestinian leadership gave up dreams of a Palestine that included what is now Israel long ago"

I assert that this statement is demonstrably false, and is therefore an example of misinformation.

I am attempting to provide evidence to support my claim.

I feel that the remarks that I have cited make it very clear that the Palestinian leadership has not given up on those dreams.

Year after year, the Palestinian leadership in Gaza has reiterated its dreams of a Palestine that includes what is now Israel. There are direct statements to this effect by Ismail Haniyeh himself, as well as others. These remarks have been made as recently as last Tuesday.

I feel that the evidence I've provided is sufficient to disprove the statement in question, and I said at the outset, I would be happy to have an honest debate on this topic.

What is it exactly that you are claiming?

[subsuelo]

24. Wow. That is a horrible argument. n/t

[oberliner]

25. Again, I welcome an honest debate

I believe I have provided evidence that supports my claim and that clearly demonstrates the inaccuracy of the statement that I am asserting is false.

I welcome your counter-evidence and look forward to discussing whatever points you would like to raise.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Hamas? If someone's claiming Hamas are the Palestinian leadership, they're wrong...

I'm assuming that's why the discussion suddenly veered to Hamas for. While Hamas currently control Gaza, they are not the Palestinian leadership, as that's the PA, led by Abbas. And what's a fact is that the Palestinian leadership gave up any dream of a Palestine that included what's now Israel long ago, long before Hamas took control of Gaza. For anyone confused as to who the Palestinian leadership are right now (there should be none when it comes to decades ago, as it was the PLO), the PA is the entity that Israel and other states deal with, not Hamas....

[oberliner]

29. Hamas are not the democratically elected leaders of Palestine?

Interesting.

[jimmie]

31. Hamas was "democratically elected"

and are not very democratic.

and they don't follow orders of the PA or fatah.

and they've done some rather horrible things.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. That's nice, but as I pointed out already Hamas aren't the Palestinian leadership..

The Palestinian leadership is the same one that the US was trying to get together with Israel. It'd be that entity that has Abbas as its leader. And the Palestinian leadership has long ago given up hopes of a Greater Palestine, in fact, they did that far earlier than Israel ever gave up hopes of a Greater Israel....

If you want to talk away about Hamas, that's fine, but they're not the Palestinian leadership and I thought it was clear by the OP and by the posts by myself and The Magistrate that it's not Hamas either of us were referring to...

[oberliner]

36. Virtually everything in your post is incorrect

Hamas are the Palestinian leadership. They won the election. Folks can read about it here:

Hamas wins Palestinian election

This morning, Hamas leaders announced that they had an "outright majority" in the 132-seat Palestinian Legislative Council. "Hamas has won more than 70 seats in Gaza and the West Bank, which gives it more than 50 percent of the vote," said Ismail Haniyeh, a leader of Hamas.

In order for Hamas to have a majority, they needed at least 67 seats. Ismail Haniya, a senior Hamas leader, said they "expected to win at least 70 seats."

Just hours after the statement, and based on results that Hamas supplied from representatives at polling stations, Prime Minister, Ahmed Qurei of Fatah and his cabinet submitted their resignations. "This is the choice of the people. It should be respected. If it's true, then the president should ask Hamas to form a new government," said Qurei. "For me, personally, I sent my resignation."

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Hamas_wins_Palestinian_election

The entity that has Abbas as its leader is one that Abbas himself has discussed disbanding as recently as a few weeks ago:

Abbas threatens to disband Palestinian Authority

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, has said that if no peace agreement with Israel can be brought and the international community can’t approve a Palestinian state, he may disband his governing body. Abbas said in a television interview yesterday that if Israel continued to build settlements on occupied West Bank, the Palestinian Authority would be dissolved. "I cannot accept to remain the president of an authority that doesn't exist," Aljazeera.net quotes Mr. Abbas as saying

http://www.arabinform.org/news/abbas_threatens_to_disband_palestinian_authority/2010-12-04-476

The Palestinian leadership has never given up hope for liberating all of Palestine. This is clear from the numerous quotes made by that leadership on that subject just over a week ago. And over and over again before that.

[azurnoir]

48. who is the currently recognized Palestinian Prime Minister?

seeing as how your nearly 5 year old wiki piece states that Ahmed Qurei quit? Is it Ishmail Haniyeh or is it someone else?

.Since his appointment as prime minister of the Palestinian National Authority in 2007, following the Fatah-Hamas civil war that led to Hamas' takeover of Gaza, Salam Fayyad has completely transformed the West Bank from an immiserated backwater into a thriving, integrated society. Ramallah, the capital, where not too long ago Yasser Arafat's compound was encircled by IDF tanks, now resembles an embryonic Tel Aviv, featuring state-of-the-art office buildings, expensive boutiques and shopping malls, and ads for imported luxury goods. The casbahs of Nablus, once the cynosure for the second intifada, are busier than ever, and one can even mark the improved quality of life by the criminal indicators: This year Nablus saw its first arrest for drunken driving. Better that than suicide bombings.

http://www.slate.com/id/2255903/

now as to Abbas threatening to disband the PA your post would infer that the West Bank would if such a thing were to occur be then turned over to Hamas however that was not Abbas's intent as clearly stated here

Abbas threatens to dissolve PA, let Israel take over West Bank

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has warned he may dissolve his self-rule government and ask Israel to resume full control of the West Bank if troubled peace talks fail.

Dismantling the Palestinian Authority would be a last resort, Abbas told Palestine TV in an interview broadcast late Friday. However, his comments marked the most explicit warning yet that he's considering a step that could crush lingering hopes for a Mideast peace deal.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/abbas-threatens-to-dissolve-pa-let-israel-take-over-west-bank-1.328834

it should also be noted Abbas has made other similar threats in the past including to resign but none have come fruition

[oberliner]

50. 23% of Palestinians say Haniyeh, 29% say Fayyad, and 34% say neither are legit

Those numbers are from a survey from December 16-18 of 2010.

What is indisputable, however, is that Hamas won the most seats in the last Palestinian legislative elections by a very wide margin.

At the very least, they make up a significant part of the Palestinian leadership, would you not agree?

Edit to add:

Note the fluctuations in the polling numbers between the Palestinian perspective on the legitimacy of Haniyeh vs. Fayyad as PM:

From March of this year:

28% believe that Haniyeh’s government is the legitimate one and only 26% say that Abu Mazin’s and Fayyad’s government is the legitimate one, and 31% say both governments are illegitimate. Three months ago, 26% said Haniyeh’s government was the legitimate one and 30% said Fayyad’s government was the legitimate one.

Margin of error is 3 percent.

[LeftishBrit]

43. Agreed.

[shaayecanaan]

5. I agree that this is the only way forward

If this takes place then the only large countries to not recognise Palestine will be Canada, the US and Australia.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Now that would be plain embarressing...

Being in the same company as the highly biased US, and a Canada that's got a conservative govt would be pretty embarressing. Not that the Gillard govt isn't expert on making cringeworthy moves as exhibited by Gillard's bullsit about Julian Assange...

[aranthus]

49. An alternative.

The problem I have with the EU recognition and that by South American countries is that it recognizes a specific set of boundaries, when those are supposed to be negotiated between the parties. It prejudices the negotiations at best, and takes sides in the dispute. Instead:

Suppose the Palestinians (through Abbas, or better yet, the National Council) made a declaration along the following lines:

1. They declare a State of Palestine in the territory they now control.
2. They declare that Israel is the State of the Jewish people contingent on Israel recognizing Palestine.
3. They maintain their claim to the remainder of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, said claims to be settled by negotiations with Israel, along with all other issues.

Would such a declaration be helpful or not? Why? Would you want your government to recognize the new state or not? Why?

[shaayecanaan]

54. That proposal was already put to the Palestinians...

The Palestinians rejected it out of the perfectly reasonable fear that the pro forma boundaries of the new state would become permanent.

[kayecy]

55. Perhaps it would help if Israel were to state what it believed its Eastern borders were.....

Perhaps it would help if Israel were to state what it believed its Eastern borders to be.....It must be the only state in the world which neither has internationally recognised borders and refuses to say what it claims are its borders....