No he does not. Abbas is enticing, encouraging and promoting violence against Israel, as WSJ article is clearly showing.
I accept your concession of the point, that you willfully and intentionally made a statement you knew to be false.
Like the 1988/1991 treaties between Jordan and Israel, where Jordan gave up its territorial claim of the West Bank. Under international law, this treaty law takes precedence over anything from the UN as states are fully free under the UN to make whatever treaties they choose - treaties that do not need approval from the UN to take have effect of international law. At that point, international law -- law dealing with disputes between two states - ceased to apply as no other state laid or lays claim to the west bank. Under international law, the issue is resolved.
He couldn't nullify them, he could only promise to try to nullify them as it took years and a vote by the entire Palestinian congress to allow them to be changed. After they did, it was never ever ever ever changed. Then he needs a better speech writer because that's what he said. And that's what his sidekick said.; It's from 2013. He said it was still relevant and is their most important document. As I said, he's not referring to something ancient but relevant today. Good, he only needs to go to the printer and tell them to make the changes as voted on. His words not mine. If had said something different than I would not have posted it. Frankly your attempts to avoid the reality that he has no intention of changing their hateful charter is disgusting. I am merely quoting the charter of the PA, the words of it's leader and those of it's leaders. Sorry. I don't need to do anything. You might however, face the reality that all that all I have quoted is the PA's actual positions and words.
That goal is quite obvious by looking on the demographic maps of before1947 and 2000. Certainly, the Pals have lost more land in the last 16 years. Benjamin Freedman already revealed this fact to the world in the 1950s. Here is the map that shows from where they came: Khazaria Read letter from Freedman here: http://www.hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/FreedmanFactsAreFacts.html
You simply ignore Hamas existance, very simple. I have no problems with Abu Mazen in the WB but the solution he demands includes a huge chunck of land which he has no control over - a terrorist group called Hamas do hence my direction of argument. What "dead document" ? Oslo ? Oslo my dear is the one and only reason the PA have a seat in the UN, have a leadership and control and income from Pal cities, was Oslo dead Israel would have built all over the WB without a whisper or regard form the world, you again allow emotion to take over your reason. if Oslo dies IDF will get in Pal cities and than you will see real occupation. As long as we have Oslo the Pal's are committed to it but that's impossible when they have two rival heads and ofc Israel has the right to fight and blockade the part that rejects the accords and fight's it......as if we need permission to fight those that fight us... Well Im sorry to bust your bubble but you thought there is an easy solution you were wrong, we are where we are and need to address the topic from this point not from 70 years ago, Im not selling anything here I truly wanted your opinion on a proposal that bypasses the core issues and starts with normalization, if I belived the whole WB should be part of Israel I would simply say so like many posters here. I know both Israeli and Palestinian narratives, each nulifies the other, each narrative means the other side should be thankful if it gets a sandbox to live in and the real messy part - both are correct from their perspectives which is the very definition of a PARADOX, till now the idea was to find a new narrative that both can live with, find a fair way to share and normalization will follow but after decades that's nowhere close to be resolved, question is do we start normalization (so to say) and from there either unite or seperate with buisness terms like 2 companies. All the countries around us had coups, civil wars and genocides due to terror groups going wild, Im willing to live in a war state for lesser reasons than we have today but I didnt give up on peacful agreement yet.
You do know of course that Palestine never existed as a country until 2012 right so what on earth are the green areas in the picture?
Its hard to seek solutions when you keep proving to us you have no interst in respect and co-existance, but I'll excuse it as ignorance and a natural appeal toward Nazi race laws if you are a white western. If it really bugs you than know it makes no diffrence how many of us have direct link to the ancient Israelites and how many joined the nation throu the years - as long as its done according to the ancient laws of joining the nation, as the the Bible said a great many joined up Israel as they left Egypt.
Freedman : Sennacherib's Annals 690 BC (that's prior to 1775 AD..) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sennacherib%27s_Annals Exact text here .pp 31 https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/oip2.pdf The exact Assyrian word is "Ia-u-da-ai" which in semetic lang (Hebrew) means exactly "the Jew"- Ha Yehudi The Book of Jeremiah 52 : 28 - 30 : (prior to 1775 AD as well) I would give the Hebrew origin word but you can't read it, clearly states "Yehudim" - "Jews" There are more examples in the Bible but my point is proven, Mr. Freedman is an educated man but is wrong and probebly motivated by some agenda, during the 40's many Jews tried to hide their identity or reject teh concept of "Jews" to avoid anti-sematism.
Substantially I can share this analysis adding some points. If we pass from considering the roots of the context to the development of the processes, it's quit evident that while the British Empire was disappearing and UK was going to leave the Middle East, since the region was and is extremely strategical, the two emerging blocks tried and have an ally or at least a friendly country in the area. This potentially friendly country was the new Israel. It's interesting to remind that with US, USSR recognized Israel immediately, followed by Turkey. The meaning, political meaning of such a quick recognition was clear: to kick UK out of Middle East and find a way to influence the area. Furthermore, we should keep in mind that early Israel was quite Socialist as country and it was near to USSR as well. And this is a pivotal particular. In fact, when US realized that the mess was getting worse and worse, Washington imposed an embargo about selling weaponry to Middle East countries involved in that ongoing conflict ... Israel smuggled weaponry from USSR through Czechoslovakia, a clear evidence of good relationships between Tel Aviv and Moscow.
Then we've got the most sensitive point: the immigration of "foreign Jews" to Palestine. Here probably a more comprehensive historical perspective can help: it wasn't the British Empire to begin to allow this. Simply London allowed the continuation of a process in progress. Jews were migrating [returning, in depends on the viewpoint ...] to the Land of Canaan since late 19th century and Ottoman authorities were allowing their immigration. The first Aliyah [the so called "agricultural Aliyah"] happened between 1882 and 1903. The numbers were already interesting: about 30,000 [may be 35,000] Jews arrived from Eastern Europe and Yemen. And they settled in dozens of colonies ... The second Aliyah happened again during the Ottoman period [1904 - 1914] and it saw about other 40,000 Jews reaching the Land of Canaan. A note: this second wave saw even the creation of a defensive organization [the HaShomer].
It has been regrettably established that the above positive inclination does not substantiate enough the return of JEWS to their ancient land. Why is it that a conqueror of the <Land of Israel>, why is it that the conquests of the seventh century manufactured Islam, why is it that all the conquerors that came after i.e. the Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire have more rights now than the original owners of the land ??? Think a little bit more!
According to the Bible (Torah)? You're aware of the fact that in establishing Eretz Israel the Jews committed the genocide of the Canaanites. Is that on the agenda for today's Zionists? The genocide of the Arabs living in Palestine. Sorry but citing a religious text of dubious origins as an authority to violate the rights of others is unacceptable by any modern standard. From an ideological standpoint there isn't any fundamental difference between a nation based upon the Aryan Race (Nazism) and a nation based upon the Jewish race/religion (Zionism). Both establish a nation based upon an invidious criteria of "Supremacy" that separates the people into the "preferred" and the "disparaged" and the "disparaged" people always suffer the tyranny of the "preferred" people. To my knowledge not a single Jew living today can trace their family lineage back over 2,000 years to establish any direct link with ancient Israel. That claim is made but I seriously doubt that it's true because the family records of births and marriages over the past 2,000 years simply don't exist. In the end it doesn't matter anyway because a person doesn't have any rights associated with their ancestors. My mother's family immigrated from England in the mid-1700's due to religious persecution but I have no claim to England nor do any of the early American families that fled religious persecution in England. . . In any case the European (Ashkenazi) Jews that immigrated to Palestine under Zionism, for the most part, didn't come from the Middle East to begin with. They can't even claim to be of Middle Eastern descent much less of being directly linked to ancient Israel. http://www.livescience.com/40247-ashkenazi-jews-have-european-genes.html On a final note the claim that I don't seek a peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and the Palestinians is blatantly false. I have repeatedly called for the: "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of (Israel and Palestine) and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." If Israel is to respect the "territorial integrity" of Palestine then obviously it requires the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from (Palestinian) territories occupied" during the 1967 6-Day War. To secure this peace during it's fragile implementation period and to provide for the mutual national security of both Palestine and Israel I've also supported the Palestinian Authority proposal for a strong international military (not peacekeeping) force to occupy a buffer zone between Israel and Palestine to ensure against any acts of aggression by either side. This international military force would remain in place so long as either nation deemed it necessary to ensure their own national security. This is a "Win-Win" situation for both the Israelis and the Palestinians that would permanently end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So don't give me this crap that I'm not interested in the peaceful coexistence of the Israelis and the Palestinians because I've been advocating that for the last 20 years. The problem is that both sides must agree to the above conditions, that are basically outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 242. Finally the Palestinians are in agreement with those principles and it's up to Israel to accept the very same principles if a lasting peace is to be established. http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/un security council resolution 242.aspx
In short the establishment of modern governments in the provisionally recognized sovereign nations established under the provisions of Article 22 of the League of Nations was cast to the wind for political reasons. Basically it was "F*** the Arabs" that had a right to their own homeland in the provisionally recognized Nation of Palestine. The alternative would have been the US, USSR, and the other members of the UN Security Council complying with the original charter of the League of Nations and it's continuation in the UN Charter by intervening to suppress an insurrection by foreign born Zionist Jews that tore the Nation of Palestine in half violating the sovereignty of the native population of Palestine. . I don't disagree with that assessment. I would also add that I can't think of a single action by Israel since it's creation as a nation that would justify calling Israel an ally of the United States. It's very existence goes against everything established by the American political ideology of secular government where "all men (people) are created equal" and there would be no invidious national division based upon race, religion, ethnic heritage or other invidious criteria that divides the people into the "preferred" and "disparaged" people of a nation.
Dont twist it to religous fanatism, you were "telling" us Jews what Jews really are - I gave you the only accreditable source about Jews as counter, take a cold drink and read what I wrote again. From an ideological standpoint there isn't any fundamental difference between NATIONALITY and NAZISM because NAZISM is NATIONLISM on hyper drugs. No that's just Arab propaganda, what happened in 1948 had much to do with Arab nationality as well that opossed Jewish immigration. No one can trace 2000 years, we can trace family names to about the same time but no one can prove blood links, but we know there were Jews then and now and at no point was there a period of no Jews - so to claim they all died out when no one noticed and were replaced by wannabies - again with no evidance to support - is just plain stupid. What you feel toward England is your personal affair, facts are Jews have and had diffrent feelings toward Zion throu the ages as can be read in texts and let's not ignore the fact that regardless of the "evil" deeds of Zionists leaders - its Jews that came to Zion, otherwise there wouldnt be a country, so you can argue all you want but reality is what it is. They belong to the nation of Israel and the tribe of Judea according to Jewish laws, dont concern your pretty head about it. You support the Pal narrative that ignors any Arab responsibilty to the events that led us this far, you ignore their refusal up to the late 80's to negotiate with Israel, today you come as if this fued started 5 years ago and say let's open a new page, sorry, we lived during these 70 years, we didnt wait for the Arabs to wise up, we can talk about the future from this point in time or from the 90's but not from 1948 or 1967. You assume there is an agreement around some topic and its just a matter of implementation, there are none that's why I think this proposal is a new refreshing option. I wouldnt expect a Palestinian will shake hands under the headline "You are Muslim occupiers, your home is the desert, be thankful we dont kick you over the river" - but you expect me to accept your Arab definition on who is really a Jew ? Both side do not agree and cannot agree, none will say the sacrifices they made till now were wrong or based on a lie, you cling to a UN resolution instead of understanding the probelm and seek a solution.
To understand why US and Israel are allies is not that difficult: Israel is the only Western democracy in a very strategic region of the world. So, with a natural motivation based on affinity, which is valid also for Europeans [we are Westerns as well], there is also a clear mutual interest related to the geopolitical equilibrium of Middle East.
No, I'm not even implying anything about what the "Jews" believe but instead I'm referring to Zionist beliefs when they cite the Torah as a justification for their ideology because it's clearly written that in the establishment of Eretz Israel the Jews resorted to genocide of the Canaanites and that ideology is no better than the genocide of six million Jews (and 5 million others) under the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler. The Zionists have never been the representatives of the Jewish people or their beliefs. I'm actually a supporter of "open borders" between all nations where people, based upon their individual Right of Liberty, can freely relocate from one nation to another for peaceful purposes. Of course as an advocate for the Right of Liberty of the Person I'm a distinct minority and most nations establish strict limitations on immigration. We can note that under the British Mandatory the people of Palestine opposed the immigration of European Jews to Palestine that the British authorized in violation of principles of Article 22 of the League of Nations. How would Israel like it today if the US mandated the immigration of Arabs into Israel and backed it up with the US military? That was no different than what was happening to Palestine from 1922 until the Israeli revolution. The European Jews had no right to immigrate to Palestine against the will of the Palestinian people. They had no more right to immigrate to Palestine than Arabs have a right to immigrate to Israel today. As noted though I'm opposed to any immigration restrictions especially if they're based upon an invidious criteria, either expressly or by any other means (e.g. limitations on non-WASP immigration to the United States under our immigration laws), but as long as Israel has immigration restrictions then the Palestinians had the same right to oppose the immigration of European Jews under the British Mandate for Palestine. No one claimed that the Jews died out but as you accurately note there's no direct connection between the European Jews of the 20th Century that immigrated to Palestine under Zionism and the ancient Jews that lived in Israel. Obviously the existing Jews living in Palestine at the end of WW I had a direct connection to Palestine and they were "Palestinians" that had every right to be there. I'm addressing the Zionist political ideology that's an ideology of tyranny and oppression and not a vague reference to Zion that only relates to the root word for Zionism. We can also note that less than 1/2 of the world's Jewish population even lives in Israel and not even Israel represents the Jewish people. Finally Zionism is not limited to the Jewish people and is embraced by tens of millions of non-Jews. All indications are that there are more non-Jewish Zionists in the United States alone than the total number of Jews (14.2 million) in the world. While I doubt your claim religious laws of tyranny have no justification in the modern world. I oppose tyranny regardless of the rationalizations for that tyranny. No, I don't support the "Palestinian" (I won't use a racist slur in addressing the issue) narrative nor do I ignore the past. First and foremost we need to understand that at the conclusion of the 6-Day war that Israel had no justification for not withdrawing to it's own territory. Israel started the war against Egypt when we know from history that Egypt was not going to attack, and was incapable of attacking, Israel. Israel did not go to war against the Palestinians in 1967 so there was no justification for Israel subjecting the Palestinians to Israeli military rule after the conclusion of the hostilities. The national right of self-defense does not justify the military oppression of another people in their own land. No, there isn't an agreement so obviously I don't make that assumption. There should be but there isn't. But let me ask a question that relates to this. How does Israel lose anything if the Palestinians agree to the "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Israel and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" and to ensure that this is not violated by a Palestinian act of aggression and international military force, such as NATO, is established along the border of Palestine and Israel to prevent any act of aggression. This includes both the "promise" and the "enforcement" necessary to ensure that there are no future hostile actions against Israel by the Palestinians. The peace agreement has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of Arab or Jew but instead relates explicitly to two independent nations living in peace with each other. It doesn't require admissions of previous guilt or assignment of blame related to the past but is about the future where the past is accepted and two people move forward in establishing a peaceful relationship between their two nations. Most importantly it also includes a provision to prevent any hostile act of aggression by either nation against the other so that time can pass and old memories can fade away. There can be no war between Israel and Palestine so long as a superior military force, such as NATO, occupies a buffer zone between the two nations. Neither Israel or Palestine is going to attack NATO because NATO, backed by the US military, could kick both of their asses at the same time. Both Israel and Palestine are very puny nations militarily when compared to the United States military. So please tell me what does Israel really have to lose based upon the provisions of UNSC 242 with the addition of a strong military force separating Israel from Palestine to prevent any acts of aggression? Israel doesn't have any right to any of the Palestinian territory and it will have it's national security problems resolved because the Palestinian would never be able to attack Israel again. Israel loses nothing but gains peace and security by agreeing to the provisions offered over the last few years by the Palestinians. In fact Israel could gain even more because by the Palestinians accepting Israel's right to exist as a nation other Muslim nations, such as Iran, could also agree to accept Israel's right to exist as well. It would establish a precedent that would be hard to ignore by other Muslim nations because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has existed since the creation of Israel would be officially ended.
Israel is NOT a Western democracy because almost 5 million Palestinians are being subjected to the tyrannical military rule of Israel. In a democracy all of those subjected to the rule of government have a right to vote for the members of that government that imposes jurisdiction over them but the Palestinians that are subjected to Israeli rule cannot vote for the members of the Israeli government. Since it's founding Israel has done nothing to deserve being called an ally of the United States and has blatantly refused to comply with international laws and UN resolutions that the US supports. In a limited respect Iran is closer to being an ally of the United States than Israel because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons while Israel does. If Israel wanted to even show a sign of wanting the be a US ally it would join the NPT, like Iran, and dismantle the nuclear weapons it has but can't use and has demonstrated it doesn't even need. It would also agree to peace with the Palestinians based upon UNSC 242 that the US supports. Israel has had a "F-You" attitude towards the United States since it was founded.
Mah ... you see, I would recall that what is presented in the OP is even in agreement with what Abbas was going to suggest at UN in 2014, but Hamas disagreed ... [http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4606977,00.html]. Then this year Fatah has showed diplomacy at international level ... Oh my! Have commented Hamas leaders ... [article: https://www.maannews.com/Content.aspx?id=771310]. These are just two examples of the matter of fact that if you don't consider Israel a Western democracy, don't expect Westerns to consider this Palestine a democracy. With Hamas occupying a region of Palestine after a real civil war between two factions. Were they doing the interests of the Palestinian People? I don't think. And we come back to the usual point: Israel is not going to concede nothing to Palestinians until factions of the Palestinians will be allowed to use violence and terrorism. But this time we are seeing something new: Israelis could be ready to concede something, to take the first step. And this is extremely annoying for who wants Jews in general, and in particular Israeli Jews, look like bad bullies. Now it's on the side of the Palestinians to show good will.
Israel needs to pound the Hamas lovers into the ground. End the Palestinian fight against jews with their rocket launches from Schools, Hospitals, Playgrounds... Savages. Give em hell Israel!
Hamas has always been a legitimate concern for Israel but that issue was resolved in 2010. http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...nian-referendum-on-peace-with-israel-1.328234 Yes, it does require a referendum vote of the Palestinian people but that's a fair requirement for implementation once an agreement i principle between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is reached. Given the choice of getting out from under the boots of the Israeli military and having their own country free from acts of aggression by Israel it's arguably in the best interests of the Palestinian people to vote overwhelmingly for an actual peace agreement. Israel concedes nothing by agreeing to peace based upon the principles established by UNSC 242. It has no right to be in the Palestinian territory to begin with. Simply agreeing to withdraw from a territory where you don't belong can't be considered a concession. If Israeli Jews didn't want to look like bad bullies then they shouldn't be militarily occupying the Palestinian territories which is a tyrannical occupation. They would look like "good guys" by agreeing to end the tyranny. The Palestinians are not imposing tyrannical control of Israel and instead are the victims of Israeli tyranny. They actually have a right under the Geneva Conventions to take up arms to oppose a foreign military force of occupation. It is the right of all people to oppose any foreign military occupation of their country. Are you aware of that fact? If there is a need for "good will" then that's Israel's responsibility because it's the one imposing tyranny and not the Palestinians. The "victim of tyranny" doesn't need to show good will toward the tyrant. It's the tyrant that needs to show good will to the victim.
Israel has been at war with Gaza since 2007 when the land, air, and sea blockade on the Gaza Strip was imposed by Israel and Egypt. A blockade is an act of war under international law.
The terrorists in "Palestine" have been slaughtering Israelis long before that. Here's an example of "Palestinian" politics by a terrorist group loved by Hamas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre
