Breakthrough: Kerry announces peace talks' resumption

No I didn't. I spoke my opinion. No one elses. So who else feels that. Is this the doubts the ordinary Palestinians have about this? See it is doubts about being conned, not audacity. If you do want peace, best to try and see where they are coming from rather than suggest anything they say is audacity.

well it seemed to me like a bribe at first, though I was not aware at that time that it had been demanded. Israel can arrest them again when the peace process is over...but have they not already been in jail for about 20 years. That's more than most of our prisoners do for murder.

Also see the 972 article. They suspect that the only thing the Palestinians are going to get out of these peace talks are a few prisoners and that the situation they will be left in will be worse than the one they enter the talks. It was from reading that article that I responded. Here specifically is that bit

http://jfjfp.com/?p=46474#negs2

and my response was that it be better the prisoners remain in jail than that outcome - in that way seeing the prisoners as 'a bribe'.

No, you are again imagining I am speaking for the Palestinians. I am only speaking from my own view from what I know at the moment and if a few prisoners are all that the Palestinians are going to get from this peace deal with it leaving them in a worse state after, then I personally would not go for it. I would leave them in jail and take economic hardship in order to work for a proper solution.

I have heard Netanyahu on tv muttering that they are having peace talks because he has heard if he doesn't it is going to result in one state so that is the stance he is taking. Now the 972 article suggests that what is needed is not so much a peace settlement but the appearance on wanting peace. It believes that if the Palestinians go into the talks as they are without the agreement on '67 lines and I will say East Jerusalem if they did not, it is suicide. They that is 972 author believes that if Netayahu can give the impression of wanting peace and get the Palestinians into the peace talks, then he has won and people who were coming on board the boycott boat will get off. Even while the talks are going on. Netanyahu says he is going to build 1,000 new settlement houses. No one does that if they are intending on giving the land over. It appears to be a propaganda trip.

any way from 972

http://972mag.com/the-cost-of-kerrys-breakthrough-part-2/76197/

Obviously he has moved with the prisoners. I am sure you can see annoying though their release is to you, they do nothing for the peace talks. In reality they are an easy thing to give away particularly when it looks like hard in getting Israeli's like yourself so upset. It gives the impression to Israelis that he is giving a lot.

On the level of reality. For a two state, the only thing that works is if the palestinian's get what was promised in Oslo. You know as well as I do that is not going to happen. I have already seen Net say he will not offer '67 borders but as if generously he will offer 84% of the West Bank. He makes it sound like a good offer when it is no acceptable offer. The Palestinians have apparently been threatened financially if they do not go to talks.

You could say that within Netanyahu's own people he is demanding a lot. Offering 84% of the West bank when they want to keep 62% and only give the Palestinians about 10% of their original land. Yes, he sounds good then but that is not what the talks are about. He is negotiating with the Palestinians not the Nat Religious.

Ah, looks like land swaps will not work then. Need to be original 67 boundaries

Can't you see? The deal was done at Oslo. Time for Israel to deliver.

I have found some more to read now. See you later

 

Israel has already offered to return Golan in return for a comprehensive peace agreement, the Syrians rejected this offer and demanded to annex sovereign Israeli territory along the Sea of Galilee in addition to the return of the Golan.

Israel is only required by international law to return it upon a permanent peace settlement with Syria, however, Syria adamantly refuses any negotiations and still stands by the three no's announced in the Khartoum Resolution of the Arab League on September 1, 1967 in response to UNSC resolution 242, "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it." Now does that sound like a "termination of all claims or states of belligerency, and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" to you?

 

Zion is a jewish spiritual aspiration, not a piece of Palestine.

The existence of the Palestinians as a people has been determined by law.

- - - Updated - - -

That comes next.

 

That's better. See how easy it becomes when the law supports what you say ?

Which simply goes to underline that the Zionist claim is illegitimate. Now you're on the winning side.

 

Where in the hell are you getting these figures from? Let's say the 84% figure is correct, where do you get the 10% figure from, you do know that the vast majority of the land partitioned to Israel in '48 were either owned outright by Jews or were British Crown Land right?

Under the original partition plan the Arabs would have been granted appx. 90% of the British Mandate, now they may have to settle for only 85%, poor them.

 

This stuff is a relapse into rubbish.

 

this is a lie.

under 181 the Arabs would have gotten only 40% of Palestine even though they made up 66% of the population!!!!!

 

Um no the '67 borders need to be a guideline for a fair and equitable solution why are you opposed to allowing Israel to keep their settlements while at the same time compensating Palestinian land losses with cultivated lightly populated farm lands which would allow for the contiguous Palestinian state?

Could it be because it could result in a permanent two state solution and normalized relations rather than a destruction of Israel through a demographic shift AKA the one state solution as the BDS authors of your article support?

You are simply making this stuff up as you go along, the Oslo accords left the final border status to future negotiations.

 

Why do you think I regard you as the Palestinain spokeman ? as an Israeli I cany even say i speak for my ppl..

Then why should they get those murderers out for nothing ?? what do you mean "all they get"?, they shouldnt get anything if we dont get this (*)(*)(*)(*)ing "peace" agreemnet. you ask me to see think also from the Palestinian view, are you spending any time thinking on Israeli view ? doesnt look that way.

Fine, another reason to keep them in jail then, appearntly some ppl wont accept the gesture.

For the record, I dont think you speak for the Palestinians,

If all this will leave Israel with nothing and the Palestinains with + 104 freed murderers - than they got too much, not that it will happen but in such case they sould be rounded up and thrown back to jail IMO.

Land swap was what the Arabs propossed so some of those settelmenst are known to remain.

WE the ppl are giving alot not Bibi, he lives in a palace HIS kids are safe, WE pay for it, the PARENTS of the muredered children pay for it. just keep that in mind.

 

and they agreed at Oslo to accept only 22%. Netayahu expects them to be happy with 16% of that 22% removed.

 

No it is not a lie, you must just be under the false impression that the British Mandate of Palestine did not include Trans-Jordan! The Arabs had already been granted all of the British Mandate east of the Jordan river prior to UNGA resolution 181, resolution 181 only dealt with the remaining land of the mandate west of the Jordan river, so again resolution 181 would have left 90% of the British Mandate of Palestine in Arab hands.

Furthermore; in the mandate lands west of the Jordan river the Arabs would have been granted 56% not 60% and within these lands Jews held a majority; furthermore, the vast majority of these lands were either owned outright by Jews or were public British Crown Lands and of those lands 70% of those partitioned to the Jews were in the arid lightly populated Negev desert regions of the Beersheba district.

 

Again you are pulling these figures out of the ether as Oslo left all permanent border settlements to future negotiations!

 

Historic Palestine doesn't include Jordan. Jordan was only included as part of the original Palestine Mandate for purposes of convenience and administration.

Jordan was a seperate protectorare after 1922 and was administered seperately from Palestine.

In the Sykes-Picot Agreement and maps, Jordan isn't part of Palestine.

Nevermind the fact that the vast majority of Mandate Palestine's population was WEST of the Jordan river. In 1950 there weren't even half a million people in Jordan.

 

Once the Palestinian issue is over - its all over.

 

Well, fighting will never give them what they want,
cooperation is the key for harmony,and it's not unusual, almost every nation now is a composite of races and religion.
Human tendency to thrive peacefully should be upheld, a key part in bringing forth well being for everyone involved.

 

lol funny then that the Palestinians compose the majority population within Jordan to this very day.

So then you are not denying that the British Mandate of Palestine included Trans-Jordan as well as the lands west of the Jordan river.

Apparently granting the Arabs 90% of the total Mandate of Palestine was not enough, they required it all.

Yes the Arabs were already granted the vast majority of the British Mandate of Palestine long before the partition plan.

Show me this map, regardless trans-Jordan was in fact part of the British Mandate of Palestine. By your reasoning we could show maps placing Jordan as part of greater Syria as if these divisions under the Ottoman Empire have any relevance to the formation of the nation states which were set along the Mandate lines following the Ottomans defeat in WW1.

And furthermore, any maps used during the Sykes-Picot Agreement were superseded by the mandate allocations agreed upon at the First Conference of London and ratified at the San Remo Conference.

Only because they did not count Palestinians as citizens and would not have counted them in their census.

Furthermore; in the mandate lands west of the Jordan river the Arabs would have been granted 56% not 60% of the territory and within these lands partitioned for the state of Israel Jews held a majority; furthermore, the vast majority of these lands were either owned outright by Jews or were public British Crown Lands and of those lands 70% of those partitioned to the Jews were in the arid lightly populated Negev desert regions of the Beersheba district.

 

I fully expect Israel to concede Golan and Shaaba Farms shortly after accepting the Palestinian State on the pre-1967 borders. Otherwise it's no peace for occupiers, old chap. The Syrians and the Lebanese also have the law on their side.

 

listen buddy, you don't have to give the West Bank to the Arabs.

you can annex it and make it part of Israel.

but then 40% of Israel will be non-Jewish. And Arabs have twice the birthrate as Jews, so in a generation the Arabs will be the majority of Israel.

 

You were arguing that Jerusalem is Arab under international law which is blatantly false. So I reiterate my question of what makes Arab claims to Jerusalem any more legitimate than that of the Israelis who have held sovereignty over West Jerusalem since their defensive war of independence of '48 due to the Arab rejectionist stance on partition, and have held sovereignty over East Jerusalem since their defensive war of '67 after which the aggressor state of Jordan renounced all claims of sovereignty over it?

 

I support the two state solution with a basis in the '67 borders which would entail land swaps to allow Israel to keep their settlements and grant a contiguous Palestinian state between Gaza and the West Bank.

 

Of course it is- so I would never argue that. Jerusalem is occupied, illegally, by Israel. So-called ' Israel law ' there has been declared void by the UN.

 

A) International law recognizes the Shebaa farms as Syrian and has fully recognized Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territory.

B) Israel has already offered to return Golan in return for a comprehensive peace agreement, the Syrians rejected this offer and demanded to annex sovereign Israeli territory along the Sea of Galilee in addition to the return of the Golan.

Israel is only required by international law to return Golan upon a permanent peace settlement with Syria, however, Syria adamantly refuses any negotiations and still stands by the three no's announced in the Khartoum Resolution of the Arab League on September 1, 1967 in response to UNSC resolution 242, "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it." Now does that sound like a "termination of all claims or states of belligerency, and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" to you?

 

Except that you did just a few short posts ago:

"The Palestinian claim to Jerusalem is recognised by international law-" -- Moon

 

You're out of date- as I've told you before. Syria has conceded that the Shaaba Farms are Lebanese and that has been confirmed by UN cartographers. Your second claim is, therefore, moot.

 

That means that the arab claim is equal under law to the jewish claim- not that the arabs are grasping and brutal ethnic cleansers who want it all.