Shalom slams Abbas' stances, compares them to Arafat

[drdon326]

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom Monday slammed Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, saying Israel could not ignore the "harsh statements" Abbas made at campaign kickoff speech at the weekend, and comparing his views to those of the late Yasser Arafat.


Shalom said Israel would do all it could to foster January 9 Palestinian elections to elect a successor to the late Palestinian Authority chairman, but that it would expect immediate action from an elected Palestinian Authority government in curbing terrorism and incitement.

In a Ramallah campaign speech on Saturday, Abbas declared that peace will not come until Israel takes down all settlements, returns to the pre-1967 war borders, accepts a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem, accepts the return of Palestinian refugees and releases all Palestinian prisoners including Marwan Barghouti.

"At a time when there is perhaps a great atmosphere of hope here in the region and in the world as a whole, harsh statements such as these are not encouraging," Shalom told Israel Radio. "This speech does not bode well."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/519199.html
==================================================================

Soooooo....let us review...Israel

takes down all settlements
returns to the pre-1967 war borders
accepts a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem
accepts the return of Palestinian refugees
releases all Palestinian prisoners including Marwan Barghouti

The PA ????.....:shrug:

I was wrong...Abbas is not a jerk...he's psychotic.

[drdon326]

1. Read as : 'Peace will come, when every Israeii just dies'

thanks moran.

[forgethell]

2. Ah, those Palestinian

leaders. They sure are subtle. Offer a nice peace plan like that to the Israelis, then, when they jump with joy and accept it, betray them one more time. I love a good compromise.

[drdon326]

3. Whats he going to do now??

Try to pull that old arafat trick and say something differebt to the

western press and expect he can get away with it ??

[King Mongo]

4. how to avoid equality

Maybe Abbas felt that Arafat made a mistake by negotiating and compromising and felt that Palestinians must define exactly what is needed for a one-state solution with equality for everyone to be avoided?

[forgethell]

9. Maybe what

Arafat was doing was lying his ass off. There will never be a one-state solution that includes any Jews. At least not for very long.

[King Mongo]

22. assumption

This assumption is hardly realistic.

[ashiebr]

5. Or maybe......

....it's what is known as a negotiating position, since by its very nature, negotiation means compromise.

Or is that too diffcult a concept for many to grasp.....especially in Israel?

[drdon326]

6. No.....

thats not a negotiating position....thats a line in the sand.

So whats he going to compromise now that wont lead to hamas putting the holocaust denier in grave risk.

Screw him.....he boxed himself in.....now hes got to live with this.

[ashiebr]

7. Ahhhhhh...........

Dr Don and his amzing mind-reading abilities with Palestinians returns for a re-run!!

thats not a negotiating position....thats a line in the sand.

That's not fact. That's opinion.

I see nothing wrong at all in the position espoused by the moderate Palestinian PM. What is the issue of concern?

[forgethell]

10. Israelis have

compromised and compromised, and always been betrayed by the Palestinian leadership. There is no lesson to be learned from the second kick of a mule. Having shown they were untrustworthy, it is now up to the Palestinian leadership to offer a solution that Israel will accept, and show they can keep it without further violence.

[Walt Starr]

11. Could you supply me with an example of this "compromise"

you're talking about? Thank you.

[forgethell]

12. Tell you what.

Why don't YOU supply me with an example of a Palestinian compromise??

[Walt Starr]

14. I consider what Abbas has offered to be every bit as much a compromise

as the much vaunted compromise Israel made several years ago.

I've also noticed you've redirected once called on to give an example of the "compromise" you claim Israel has made.

[forgethell]

16. That would be because

I've done this before. And found it to be fruitless. And don't care to make a fruitless effort. Unlike the Israelis, my patience is not infinite. There have been numerous instances where Israel has offered 'land for peace'.

But explain to me how calling for the total annihilation of Israel as a Jewish state is a compromise. Or don't..

[Walt Starr]

17. Then please, show me one

Just one. Equivocation is the norm around here. You made the assertion about compromise. Now I'm calling you on it.

[forgethell]

19. Oslo?

Now where's yours?

[Walt Starr]

20. Look no further than the original post

as that offer is of equal value and as much a compromise.

[forgethell]

21. Well, look at the current

situation. As of now, the Palestinians have nothing. Oslo offered them their own state. They actually accepted, yet could not seem to abide by the terms which were basically to end the violence.

Any offer of a state of their own is a compromise for the Israelis. All they would have to give up in return is their fictitious "right of return", which they will never get anyway, and the violence. I notice that Abbas specifically claimed the right of return would never be renounced. Israel simply cannot make peace with these people until they accept that they have lost. This may require severe measures on the part of the Israelis, but it seems to me that they are getting closer and closer to being willing to take some drastic steps.

It's too bad, I do not wish to see anyone die, or oppressed, but, in my opinion, the Palestinians are bringing this own themselves, as a people, not necessarily as individuals, by their reluctance to accept what is offered them. If they risk it all, they may well lose it all with nobody to blame but themselves.

[Walt Starr]

24. I don't see it that way

Offering up less than what is theirs BY RIGHT is not a compromise, it is theft pure and simple.

[King Mongo]

26. Definition of a Likud compromise

Well, to be precise, with Oslo II, Israelis offered Palestinians that they would build more Jewish-only illegal settlements in the occupied territories. For Likud folks, a compromise means removing Palestinians in exchange for taking their land.

[forgethell]

28. Sorry, I don't

see their right to it.

[Walt Starr]

30. They were there first

Their lad was stolen to create Israel in the first place.

Quite frankly, I don't see a right for Israel to have been brought into existance in teh first place!

[forgethell]

31. But the Israelis are

there now. Besides, they claim to have been there first. At any event, the tactics used by the Palestinian 'resistance' is os repugnant that they havcve forfeited any rights to the land, IMO.

[Walt Starr]

34. If the Israeli claims are legitimate

then everybody in the U.S. had better start packing their bags because the Native Americans have a MUCH BETTER case than a moldy old 2000 year old book written by nomadic goatherds!

And the Palestinian resistance are using the tactics they learned from those who became revered leaders of Israel. Israel would not exist if not for terrorist activites against Britain!

[forgethell]

35. Well, finally

you have spoken a true thing. The Israeli leaders WERE terrorists.

[Walt Starr]

36. Which tells you where the Palestinian terrorists picked up their trade.

And I don't like the personal attack against me insinuating I lie.

[forgethell]

37. I insinuated nothing of the sort!!!!.

What I insinuated was that you were ill-informed and mistaken.

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

[Walt Starr]

39. Right here!

Well finally you have spoken a true thing.

Insinuation, all previous things I have said were untrue or "lies".

[forgethell]

40. Or,

ill-informed opinion. Which is also an 'untrue' thing.

Mr. Starr, I have no knowledge of your personal honesty, or lack thereof. Therefore, I would never say, or insinuate, that you were a liar or lying.

I can, however, make judgements about whether your opinions, as expressed in these posts, are correct aka "true", or wrong ("untrue"). Please accept this as an apology for what seems to be an unfortunate turn of phrase.

However, I stand by my insinuation that you don't know what you are talking about.

[King Mongo]

38. Racial cleansing is unacceptable

Incorrect. The practice as racial cleansing is unacceptable. Israel cannot forcefully remove the natives from the "holy land" because that would result in economic sanctions and maybe even war against Israel. Crimes in such a massive scale are simply unacceptable and unthinkable.

Instead of practicing racial cleansing, it makes sense for Israel to practice democracy and equality so that people can use the legal system to fight for their rights instead of relying on tricks.

[King Mongo]

44. Racial cleansing is unacceptable

People live on the land because they live on it and nothing justifies the practice of racial cleansing.

Since Israelis want to have the land, the people who live on the land are Israeli citizens, even if the Israeli government refuses to accept such. Apartheid always collapses, eventually.

[The Magistrate]

42. A Couple Of Points, Mr. Starr

The creation of Israel was wholly legal in foundation. Even should one choose to regard the original Zionist enterprise as an exercise in colonization, at the time it began, such exercises were customary practice, and far from being even disreputable, were generally looked as the highest expression of nationality on the part of the colonizer. The organization embodying international law in the years after the Great War, the League of Nations, flatly directed the creation of a "Jewish national home" in the territory it gave rule over to England in its Palestine Mandate. Its successor organization, the United Nations, after World War Two, directed this territory be divided into two zones, one for a Jewish state and one for an Arab state. The Zionist leadership accepted this, and went on to proclaim a state, the state of Israel; the Arab Nationalist leadership did not accept it, and as one means of demonstrating this lack of acquiesence, refused to declare a state on the territory alloted. Prior to the war in '48, all land owned by the Zionist organizations, and by any Jew in Palestine, had been purchased from a willing seller in a wholly legal transaction.

[King Mongo]

45. Partition Plan

Furthermore, being fair for both sides, Palestinians were not required to accept the partition plan. Palestinians rejected the Arab Partition because they wanted a federation, kind of like America.

Unfortunately, the League of Nations ignored democratic practices and did not ask the people what they wanted.

[The Magistrate]

46. Niether Of Those Things Really Matter, Your Grace

The League of Nations was the organ of international law in its day, and it is, after all, very common for some portion of people to dislike law in any day.

For the other, the Arab Nationalists consistently refused throughout the period after the Great War to acceed to any arrangement that gave any official status to any Jewish presence in Palestine. A principled stand, perhaps, but a very poor position to hew to as matters developed....

[King Mongo]

25. Something not mentioned...

I was unaware that Palestinians were behind the illegal settlement construction activities. But, if you say that Palestinians are responsible for such, then it accurate to blame Palestinians for making a one-state solution unavoidable. According to what you say, it's only a matter of time that everyone in Eretz Israel will enjoy the benefits of citizenship and equality. Those tricky Palestinians sure did trick the Israelis by building those Jewish-only illegal settlements.

[forgethell]

29. Geez!!! n/t

[King Mongo]

33. Puzzling illegal settlements

Well, yes, illegal settlement constructions activities are very puzzing indeed.

Illegal settlement construction activities mean that Palestinians will never have their own State. This means that they will be a part of Israel for all eternity, unless....

....unless people are racially cleansed or slaughtered.

Yet, this was tried in the past and created many problems for Israel, who had to explain to the international community why it did these things.

Thus, it's only a matter of time that Israel will practice citizenship, equality and democracy for everyone because illegal settlements require such.

[forgethell]

13. I expect so.

He has a lot of willing stooges in the Western press.

[Walt Starr]

8. Of course they compare Abbas to Arafat

IMO, the Israeli government is not interested in peace any more than the Palestinian Authority is.

[The Magistrate]

15. There Is, Doctor

Nothing particularly troubling to me about these statements of Mr. Abbas quoted here, and denounced by Mr. Shalom. They are not too different from my own views, stated here often.

Israeli is going to have to liquidate by far the greatest proportion of the settlements, and the '49-'67 boundaries are going to have to be the approximate final borders. Some formula that includes an Arab Palestinian official presence in Jerusalem is going to have to be found. A general amnesty is both a likely and desireable feature in any settlement, though it would be well accompanied by a Truth Commission on the South African line, with amnesty conditional on testimony before it under oath.

An insistance on repatriation en masse as the meaning of "right of return", of course, is a sticking point that is going to have to be abandoned: compensation is all that can be gotten, or given, and to insist on anything else is futile and self-defeating. It is, at this point, not even good negotiating to claim to insist on it: it is much too clear the other side neither will, nor can be forced to, acceed to that demand, and so rather than provide groundwork for making a concession, it simply allows the other side to claim you are not serious about negotiating. Since there will be no negotiations unless the state and people of Israel are convinced the other side is serious about entering into them, adopting a position that contains any element that must convince them otherwise is extremely ill-judged.

[Walt Starr]

18. Now there is a sensible postion!

Unfortunately, I don't see any sense being expressed by either side in this dispute, so your sensible solution will probably never be enacted.

[King Mongo]

23. Unavoidable one-state solution

Well, in this case, it seems like a one-state solution is unavoidable.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. You and me both, sir...

What was denounced by Shalom as 'harsh' and by drdon as reading as: 'Peace will come, when every Israeii just dies' are to me reasonable stances to take, and in the case of at least three of them, have the full backing of international law. Strangely enough, the Israeli people strike me as a reasonably resilient people, and the vision of them keeling over dead as Israel dismantles settlements in the West Bank and allows the occupied parts of Jerusalem to become the Palestinian capital in the process of reaching a fair and just settlement to the conflict may be the wet-dream of extremists, but as with all extremist wet-dreams it's lame...

On the Right of Return - compensation is definately not the only, nor the main thing that can be given. What has to be given is an acknowledgement from Israel of the part it played in the dispossession of the refugees, allowing for some refugees to return (even the intake of a symbolic number would be seen by some as Israel fulfilling its obligations), and of course compensation. But by itself, compensation wouldn't be enough, as far as I'm concerned. Another thing too about the statement of Abbas. He's running an election campaign right now and his words would be aimed at the people who can vote for him and he'd be catering to what they want to hear. The PA has shown in the past that while mouthing something aimed at domestic consumption, it will either piss away the Right of Return (Camp David), or come incredibly close to what a fair resolution would be (Taba). A problem with both Israeli and Palestinian leaderships is that they don't seem to be aware or care that their words aimed to please their domestic populations can have the opposite effect on the other population...

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

32. Your Last Point, Ma'am, Has Some Interesting Features

A general airing out of dirty laundry would go far towards settling many people's minds, and there are ghastly and foolish things on both sides of this conflict. A "Truth Commission" on South African lines would be of great beneifit, in my view, to a final settlement. All should admit wrongs done, and forgiveness be extended.

[Elise]

41. On the Right of Return: Part II

The right of return was embodied in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel of May 14, 1948: "The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the ingathering of the exiles..."

Since the founding of the State of Israel, millions of Jews from all over the world have availed themselves of the law of return. These include: the surviving victims of the Holocaust, many of whom were interred in displaced persons camps in Europe after World War II and later in Cyprus when the British Mandatory government refused them entry; and the North African and Arab Jews of the Middle East who fled discrimination and at times persecution at the hands of Arab governments, particularly after the founding of the State of Israel, and Russian Jews, who left Russia and Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union, seeking a better standard of living.

As codified in Israeli law as the Law of Return 1950 (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1950_1959/Law%20of%20Return%205710-1950) passed on July 5th, 1950. The law was amended in 1970 to grant the right to immigrate to Israel to non-Jews who are either children or grandchildren of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew or the spouse of a child or grandchild of a Jew. The amendment was intended to accept in Israel families, mainly from Eastern Europe, where mixed marriages were abundant, and where individuals and family members not considered Jews under the traditional definition might still be subject to anti-Semitism.

The Israeli Law of Return does not categorically exclude non-Jews from immigrating to Israel. Any person who wishes to settle in Israel, may do so, at least in theory (in practice, Palestinians, including former residents, are excluded, see below). That person must meet the requirements set forth in the Law of Entry to Israel (1952) and the Law of Citizenship (1952), regarding naturalization. These requirements are similar to those stated in the laws of most countries such as: they must have resided in Israel for three years out of five years preceding the day of submission of the application; they are residing legally in Israel and have settled permanently or intend to settle permanently in Israel; they have renounced their prior nationality, or have proved that they will cease to be foreign nationals upon becoming Israeli citizens.


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

[King Mongo]

43. Natives & citizenship

It's confusing why the native people must apply for citizenship, especially when Israel is building cities and walls all around them and destroying their homes.