Arab League rejects Israel as Jewish homeland

[bemildred]

KUWAIT CITY (AP) — Arab leaders said Wednesday they will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, blaming it for a lack of progress in the Mideast peace process.

The statement, which came at the end of a two-summit in Kuwait, also rejected what the Arab League described as the continuation of Jewish settlement building in the West Bank and the "Judaization" of Jerusalem.

The League's announcement that it will not recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people rejects a key demand of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Mideast peace talks.

Netanyahu believes there cannot be peace without such a recognition. The Palestinians oppose this, saying it harms the rights of Palestinian refugees displaced from what is now Israel, as well as those of Israel's Arab minority.

http://www.chron.com/news/world/article/Arab-League-rejects-Israel-as-Jewish-homeland-5350091.php

[Scootaloo]

1. Well, there's a difference between "Jewish State" and "Jewish homeland"

One being a legal entity, the other a cultural one.

That said, parties to talks really don't have to suck down each others' ideologies in order to engage. If the Arab league "rejects" this... well, so what, I don't think it's going to have any impact whatsoever on Israel's policy on the subject, is it? Like Israel was so dependant on clearance from the Arab League.

Which of course makes it a pretty ludicrous thing to "demand" but, well, if you want to scuttle talks, I guess launching a brainless demand you know the other side will reject is a good way to do it.

I hope Israel enjoys its binational future. Netanyahu will go down in history as the dumb hapless bastard who worked as hard as he could to get the exact opposite results from what he desired.

[shira]

2. You & the Palestinians are rejecting peace when you all reject a Jewish State/Homeland...

"The Jewish people around the world and Palestinian people around the world are both indigenous to the Land of Israel/Palestine and therefore have an equal and legitimate right to settle and live anywhere in the Land of Israel/Palestine, but given the desire of both peoples to a sovereign state that would reflect their unique culture and history, we believe in sharing the land between a Jewish state, Israel, and an Arab state, Palestine, that would allow them each to enjoy dignity and sovereignty in their own national home. Neither Israel nor Palestine should be exclusively for the Jewish and Palestinian people respectively and both should accommodate minorities of the other people."

Who else will join us in our journey to find true partners on both sides?

How can any sane, rational, peace-minded individual object to the above? Please explain.

[Scootaloo]

5. One question, Shira, before further response...

Where'd you get that excerpted text from? Did you type it yourself or what?

[shira]

6. From Einat Wilf...

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/tr/contents/articles/originals/2014/03/palestine-israel-mutual-recognition-wilf-dajani-daoudi.html#

[azurnoir]

8. Lot's of sticky sweet goo to mask the poison pill

for Palestinians with Israeli citizenship or Palestinian refugees because at the end of the day that's all it is, no wonder she could only find one Palestinian Professor to go along with it

[shira]

10. What poison pill? Because there's no fantasy of full RoR or a binational Israel?

And to think, you recently said your views on I/P are similar to those of John Kerry.

What a joke.

[azurnoir]

12. I think the recognition of Israel as a Jewish State may well be a poison pill for every non-Jew

in Israel and without a doubt for Palestinian Arabs who would give up not only RoR but any chance of the far more likely to happen monetary compensation which is exactly the point of pushing this

[shira]

14. What's going to happen to every non-Jew in Israel with this recognition statement?

I don't see why this would negate compensation for refugees. The Clinton Parameters called for a $35B compensation package. Of course there were Jewish refugees too, so if the conflict is to really be resolved then they would get compensation from neighboring Arab nations. It's probably a wash.

[azurnoir]

32. ah so Netanyahu has agreed to monetary compensation or the Clinton parameters? Do tell please

otherwise our claims are just that -claims

[shira]

37. Again, do tell what will happen to every non-Jew in Israel once there is recognition....

...of the Jews' right to determination and sovereignty in their own homeland?

[Scootaloo]

9. ah, okay

See, the reason I ask is thee parts;

(...)and therefore have an equal and legitimate right to settle and live anywhere in the Land of Israel/Palestine (...) Neither Israel nor Palestine should be exclusively for the Jewish and Palestinian people respectively and both should accommodate minorities of the other people.

Which seems to paint the author's position as being that Jews and Arabs have equal claim, and should then have equal freedom to live in, either state. I was a little puzzled because I know that while you believe Jews have rights to the West Bank, you don't believe Arabs have any valid claim to any part of the territory (only "long-time residential status&quot much less any part that falls within the boundaries claimed by Israel.

There are a few issues to the statement, though.

- the notion that a Jewish guy, born and raised in the United States, through four generations, traced back to Belgium for another however-many-dozen generations, has "equal right" to territory as the Palestinian who is already living there, or the Palestinian who was driven from it 67 years ago. This is just baffling.

- The idea that Madonna - for example - is indigenous to the southern Levant because she converted.

- The simple reality that while Israel - like you - believes that Jews have ultimate and superior right to the entire territory, it - like you - offers no such considerations for Palestinian Arabs. Mr. Wilf's statement of purpose is not actually being offered by Israel, nor is it likely to ever be. So the whole exercise is ultimately masturbatory.

[shira]

11. Huh? That statement of purpose is exactly what recognition of 2 states for 2 people is about....

You cannot come to grips with the fact that Jews, as a people, have an equal right to their historic homeland. You are therefore in favor of more conflict b/w the 2 nations b/c that's precisely Hamas' position; theirs and other various neighborhood extremists like Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc.. They go further, denying Jewish history in Israel, Jewish peoplehood, etc. The Jews have no rights other than having minority status like christians or bahai (and we know how shitty things are for them in that region). I don't see how your view is any better than theirs.

I doubt you're against any other people's legit rights to what is now their own sovereign homeland anywhere else on the planet. You only oppose the right of Jews to their own homeland. The only way Jews would lose their rights to their homeland is via war. Ergo, you favor more conflict and war.

You're also wrong about Wilf's statement not being offered. That's exactly the formula Israel has been seeking for years. There's nothing in that formula contradicting Israel's position since at least 2000-01.

[Scootaloo]

13. If the rights are equal, why are only Arabs being driven out of their homes?

If they have equal claim, why did you spend so much time absolutely denying exactly that?

If a guy in Florida has equal claim to territory as the person living on it right now, how is that actually equal?

I'm not sure you actually grasp the concept of "equality," Shira.

If you truly hold that Jews and Palestinians have equal claim, then I want to see you supporting the full return of all Palestinian refugees, not just the handful left who were directly evicted. After all, if Palestinians and Jews have equal right to Israel / Palestine, then there should be no more barrier for an 18 year old Palestinian "returning" from Beirut than there is for an 18 year old Jew "returning" from Houston, right?

[shira]

15. You're in favor of more war, I get it. That's what right-of-return would all but guarantee...

You're calling for a mulligan, maybe hoping for a reversal of 1948. The wet dream of Arab tyrants since 1948, calling for return in which Israel is destroyed.

But to answer you, just read the statement again:

"The Jewish people around the world and Palestinian people around the world are both indigenous to the Land of Israel/Palestine and therefore have an equal and legitimate right to settle and live anywhere in the Land of Israel/Palestine, but given the desire of both peoples to a sovereign state that would reflect their unique culture and history, we believe in sharing the land between a Jewish state, Israel, and an Arab state, Palestine, that would allow them each to enjoy dignity and sovereignty in their own national home. Neither Israel nor Palestine should be exclusively for the Jewish and Palestinian people respectively and both should accommodate minorities of the other people."

It states that both Jews and Palestinians have rights to settle anywhere in the land, but.... it's best they each have their own sovereignty. This would not mean each state would be exclusively Jewish or Palestinian.

[Scootaloo]

50. Shira, the list of things you "get" is very short, and my stance isn't on it

Your argument is that Arabs and Jews have equal claim to the territory. Okay. That is the base from which you are branching out with this argument.

If that is true - if they have equal claim to the territory - then obviously, a Palestinian Arab who so chooses has as much right to live in Israel, as a Jew has to live in the West Bank. Equal claim.

This argument really has naught to do with sovereign states - an Arab state and a Jewish state can exist, and the people involved still have equal claim and the ability and right to live in either state, as they choose. That's what equality means, after all.

You seem to be trying to have it both ways - arguing that you feel the two people have "equal claim" while still clinging to your belief in Jewish Supremacism. Your position seems to be that both sides are "equal," but only as long as Jews have final say in all things - i.e., only if they're not actually equal. Which isn't too different from why "Separate But Equal" under Jim Crow was anything but - it was white setting the rules, and blacks having to accept what whites set down for them, after all.

I apologize if i'm misreading you here, but it's kind of confusing and really does look like you're trying to have it both ways.

If the goal is two sovereign states, then here's how to do that.

Israel ends its occupation of the west bank, withdraws the Israelis living there illegally. Palestine takes the opportunity to declare itself a sovereign state. A formal peace treaty between the two states is then negotiated with whatever land swaps and Jerusalem finalization are going to go into the pot.

This isn't a "blame Israel" thing, it's an "international law" thing - a state cannot declare itself sovereign while under occupation... since... that's really the exact opposite of sovereign. That's why Crimea's recent vote to secede from Ukraine is legally meaningless, due to the presence of both Russian and Ukrainian soldiers holding territory in the peninsula.

Instead of this plan, we have Israel clinging tooth and nail to its occupation, expanding its settlements, and demanding conditions of Palestine that would, at best, set Palestinian sovereignty back half a century (maintaining an Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley for that period) or annul the very concept of sovereignty altogether (Israel basically calling all the shots for Palestine's economy, elections, defense and police, border regulation, etc.)

I don't know how interested you actually are i nthere being a sovereign Palestinian state, Shira - I certainly have legitimate doubts about your position. But I have none about israel's - it's kinda clear there's next to zero interest in there ever being a sovereign Palestinian state from Israel.

[shira]

53. There you go again with Jewish Supremacism claims.

If that is true - if they have equal claim to the territory - then obviously, a Palestinian Arab who so chooses has as much right to live in Israel, as a Jew has to live in the West Bank. Equal claim.

That's exactly Einat Wilf's statement, which I agree with.

This argument really has naught to do with sovereign states - an Arab state and a Jewish state can exist, and the people involved still have equal claim and the ability and right to live in either state, as they choose. That's what equality means, after all.

You're allowing the possibility of either 5 million Palestinian refugees making Israel into a majority Palestinian state or 5-6 million Jews from overseas flooding Judea/Samaria and making that into a Jewish majority state. That you cannot see the absurdity in that is unreal, as neither state would remain sovereign if either scenario were to play out.

If the goal is two sovereign states, then here's how to do that.

Israel ends its occupation of the west bank, withdraws the Israelis living there illegally. Palestine takes the opportunity to declare itself a sovereign state. A formal peace treaty between the two states is then negotiated with whatever land swaps and Jerusalem finalization are going to go into the pot.

Israel offered exactly that with the Clinton Initiatives of 2000-01 and Olmert's 2008 offer. So....now what?

[Scootaloo]

54. Well, that's certainly what it's looking like, Shira.

That's exactly Einat Wilf's statement, which I agree with.

You're allowing the possibility of either 5 million Palestinian refugees making Israel into a majority Palestinian state or 5-6 million Jews from overseas flooding Judea/Samaria and making that into a Jewish majority state. That you cannot see the absurdity in that is unreal, as neither state would remain sovereign if either scenario were to play out.

You realize that these two statements from you are incompatible, right?

Also, sovereignty has nothing to do with racial demographics, but the rather ability of a state to exercise its own affairs. An Arab-rules Israel would still be a sovereign state, as would a Jewish-ruled Palestine (assuming, of course, that Palestine ever achieves soveriegnty.)

Israel offered exactly that with the Clinton Initiatives of 2000-01

No, Israel offered a plan that would have annexed 20% of the West Bank to Israel, mostly around those illegal settlements (including the whole of Jerusalem) and put the whole Jordan Valley under Israeli control. The Palestinian delegation gave a counter-offer that would have preserved 50% of settlements, though under Palestinian rule, and would negotiate territorial concessions around major settlement blocs in the Western portion of the West Bank, including Jerusalem.

In pictures, this was Barak's offer in 2000:


In 2001:


And Arafat's counter-proposal:


Even so, there was significant progress; Ben-Ami felt that a deal was closer than ever before, and erekat insisted that six more weeks would have gotten them into finalizations.

Sadly, the combination of a whackadoodle Christian fundy entering as US president, and... the bloated carbuncle of a human being that was Ariel Sharon assuming office negated any forward movement - both men made it clear they would refuse to be bound to or consider the negotiations achieved by their predecessors. Essentially, Bush / Sharon took Taba out back and shot it in the face before kicking it into the ditch.

Olmert's 2008 offer. So....now what?

According to Olmert, that one was scuttled by Zipper and Barak. Abbas was on the fence, apparently holding out in hope of a more favorable Us position... And considering that Olmert refused to provide a map unless Abbas agreed to whatever it contained beforehand, that's a hell of a thing.

[shira]

57. Well gee, with your open borders policy there's nothing stopping 1 billion chinese....

...from seeking and attaining citizenship in Japan. How nice that would be. Of course, the problem is that Japan is sovereign and they have a say in their immigration policies. They wouldn't allow that anymore than any other country would, as that would change.......everything. You can't expect Israel to accept 5 million Palestinians either, let alone 1 billion or even 5 million chinese. No country would allow for such a scenario. Guess that makes all countries racist supremacists according to your logic, right?



You're confusing Barak's Camp David offer with the Clinton Initiatives which were much more generous.

[Scootaloo]

61. Wilf's claim - and yours - is "equal right."

I'm explaining to you what that means. I have to admit it's a tough job because you clearly have no fucking grasp whatsoever about what the words "equal" or "right" mean, and seem completely baffled when the two are combined. It's like trying to teach math to a cat.

You're confusing Barak's Camp David offer with the Clinton Initiatives which were much more generous.

Clinton parameters Shira. And seeing as both Israel and the PLO accepted the Clinton Parameters, i'm not sure whatyou're getting at. said parameters were simply an outline for further negotiations - in specific, Camp David and Taba, which we have just covered.

[shira]

66. You don't get the part about 2 separate states, do you?

Last edited Fri Mar 28, 2014, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)

While it would be nice for both to be modern liberal western democracies with an open borders policy, the point to 2 separate states is to grant sovereignty and rule to each set of people in their own land, under their own rules and laws. You are against that because you don't recognize the legitimacy of Israel.

If Israel were to become majority Arab or majority Chinese, American, French....then the Jews wouldn't control their destiny in their own homeland any longer. It would cease representing their needs. Imagine that overnight, the new non-Jewish majority (doesn't matter if it's Arab, French, Chinese, or American) rules against the law of return. Jewish refugees would then be fucked. Granting sanctuary to Jews in their historic homeland was the point of Israel from the start & that would be gone. Apparently you'd be for this.

The reason I brought up 1 billion chinese taking over Japan or the USA is obvious. Suppose that once in power, they radically change the laws, constitution, and culture. Why would any sovereign entity volunteer to allow that to happen? Why should Israel allow for any non-Jewish entity to take over and change pretty much everything there, possibly putting Jews back in danger again - into the same helpless situation they were in during WW2?

The problem works both ways. 5-6 million Jews could take residence in Judea/Samaria and then democratically take over, changing the laws, constitution, and culture their way - against the will of the Palestinian people. 2 separate states prevents such a scenario from happening.

[Scootaloo]

75. You don't understand the "equal right" part, very clearly

Shira, the entire argument you are presenting, all the way back to Wilf, is 100% "separate but equal" nonsense. Where racists - Zionists - like you and Wilf get to pretend to be enlightened liberal-minded people by mouthing platitudes about how Arabs and Jews have "equal right to the territory"...

...Just so long as the rights and desires of Jews are held as totally superior to those of Arabs, and the rights Arabs get are determined solely by Jews.

What I'm explaining to you is that "Equal rights to the territory" means exactly that. That both groups have the right to live where the fuck they please in the territory.

As soon as this is pointed out, you start hyperventilating about the prospect of an Arab-majority Israel. And just to preserve the facade you make a decent show of being "concerned" about the demographics of Palestine as well. The trouble is, of course, you are just as ardently opposed to any effort or measure to restrict or remove settlers in the West Bank as you are to the notion of any growth of non-Jewish demographics in Israel.

Which also places you in opposition to the notion of a sovereign Palestinian state.

Which brings us right back to the fact that your argument here is two-faced bullshit. You are not for two states, unless it's perhaps "Israel and Judah" and you certainly do not believe both peoples have "Equal Rights to the territory."

So stop fronting.

[shira]

76. Uhhhhhh.....

[shira]

18. So what's your plan for peace b/w Jews and Palestinians since you oppose 2 states?

How will your plan make life better for both people in that region?

I recall that just the other day, you agreed with Abbas' 3 no's, including his rejection to the end of the conflict. So you're against 2 states and you're against peace, are you not? Otherwise, why would you oppose being against the end of this conflict?

[Scootaloo]

52. I don't oppose two states. Nor do I oppose one state. Or thirty-five.

I feel that under current conditions, two states just isn't going to happen, so there's no harm in exploring a one-state option.If the idea is really so terrifying to race purists like yourself and Hamas, maybe it'll even spur some renewed and serious reconsideration of a two-state plan.

A two-state solution is reliant on actual Palestinian sovereignty and self-determination, together with a territory that is economically viable for its population. As i said, this isn't looking too very likely at the moment, but that's what it's going to take, at a bare minimum.

The three-state idea your buddy Dave fetishizes is even more tenuous; Gaza simply cannot be self-supporting, it's too small and too resource-poor.

A weird but possibly doable idea is to annul the "states" idea wholesale, and instead go with a Venetian model - coalitions of city-states.This would at the least resolve the Jerusalem issue handily - Jerusalem would just be Jerusalem. But like I said, it's really out there, more suitable for an alternate history novel than bringing to the table.

As for Abbas' rejections, you're misrepresenting them.

1) The "end of conflict" demand from Israel - nicely phrased, sort of like "no child left behind" or "right to work" adorable how the far right is so good at framing - would basically annul every claim every Palestinian anywhere has against Israel. No reparations suits. No wrongful death suits. No redress of grievances from settlers or the military. Nothing. Palestinians would get whatever Abbas scratched together at the table, and that's absolutely it. This is perhaps the single most ludicrous demand I've ever seen. Especially coming from Israel, of all nations. I'm certain Israel still carries suits to reclaim wealth stolen from Jews in Europe, yes?

2) As we've covered, Abbas cannot sign away anyone's right to return. Nor can he sign it away from people who don't possess it. To quote a Boondocks episode, "I can't give you what I'm not holding!" it's also worth note that Israel is making no distinction on the issue; even you, Shira, of all people, recognize the right of at least those persons displaced in 1948 to return, if they desire. Israel does not, it's demanding a blanket rejection. Also as we've covered, it is Israel's obligation to handle this issue. This whole thing is basically an attempt by Israel to skip out of its obligations and requirements under international law to repatriate the refugees to their homes, and hten say "naaah naah, Abbas said we could!"

3) The "Jewish State" demand is rife with problems. Primarily because it's either a meaningless demand with no legal impact whatsoever -in which case who gives a fuck, it's wasted time - or it's a legal declaration with ramifications, and is thus something that should be negotiated over. Since the phrasing chosen by the Netanyahu government is Jewish state, it's not inconceivable that it's the latter - since a state is a legal entity, as opposed to a term like "homeland." You, among others, insist it's simply a demand for a gesture from the Palestinians... and my response to that is that it's absurd to hold up talks simply because Abbas won't entertain Netanyahu by whistling a tune. Either it's a meaningful demand - in which case Israel should be negotiating for it - or it's a meaningless demand, and is then just an attempt to waste time and shut the process down. Either way, yes, Abbas is right to tell the Israelis to stuff it.

[shira]

56. Two states could happen. The Palestinians don't want that, or peace...

Two fair offers were rejected in 2000-01 and 2008 (Clinton Initiatives and Olmert's plan). Your problem is the same as that of the PA and Hamas. You don't support a sovereign Jewish homeland. Jews simply do not have the right to self-determination in your view. Out of all current nations, only the Jews in your racist view require being dispossessed of their homeland.

1) The "end of conflict" demand from Israel - nicely phrased, sort of like "no child left behind" or "right to work" adorable how the far right is so good at framing - would basically annul every claim every Palestinian anywhere has against Israel. No reparations suits. No wrongful death suits. No redress of grievances from settlers or the military. Nothing. Palestinians would get whatever Abbas scratched together at the table, and that's absolutely it. This is perhaps the single most ludicrous demand I've ever seen. Especially coming from Israel, of all nations. I'm certain Israel still carries suits to reclaim wealth stolen from Jews in Europe, yes?

This is ridiculous. End of conflict means exactly that. It means genuine peace, not a continuation of the conflict. Abbas simply needs to negotiate terms in such a way that Palestinian injustices are addressed. Israeli ones will also need to be addressed as well. Neither side will be happy, but that's that. You may as well be claiming the Axis and Allied powers could never agree to an end of conflict after WW2, for the same absurd reasons. As to wealth stolen from Jews in Europe....WTF? Are the Jews at war currently vs. Europe? Ridiculous comparison.

2) As we've covered, Abbas cannot sign away anyone's right to return. Nor can he sign it away from people who don't possess it. To quote a Boondocks episode, "I can't give you what I'm not holding!" it's also worth note that Israel is making no distinction on the issue; even you, Shira, of all people, recognize the right of at least those persons displaced in 1948 to return, if they desire. Israel does not, it's demanding a blanket rejection. Also as we've covered, it is Israel's obligation to handle this issue. This whole thing is basically an attempt by Israel to skip out of its obligations and requirements under international law to repatriate the refugees to their homes, and hten say "naaah naah, Abbas said we could!"

Abbas and the Arab states are deliberately making the lives of 99% of all Palestinian refugees out there miserable and your crew has no problem with this. I don't get why you all pretend to be concerned about their rights. You're also wrong about my view on the original refugees. While I believe they should be allowed to return, that's not a right they have under law. There is no such law. A UNGAR is not law, but a recommendation, so Israel has no obligations or requirements they're trying to skip out of.

3) The "Jewish State" demand is rife with problems. Primarily because it's either a meaningless demand with no legal impact whatsoever -in which case who gives a fuck, it's wasted time - or it's a legal declaration with ramifications, and is thus something that should be negotiated over. Since the phrasing chosen by the Netanyahu government is Jewish state, it's not inconceivable that it's the latter - since a state is a legal entity, as opposed to a term like "homeland." You, among others, insist it's simply a demand for a gesture from the Palestinians... and my response to that is that it's absurd to hold up talks simply because Abbas won't entertain Netanyahu by whistling a tune. Either it's a meaningful demand - in which case Israel should be negotiating for it - or it's a meaningless demand, and is then just an attempt to waste time and shut the process down. Either way, yes, Abbas is right to tell the Israelis to stuff it.

We went over this stuff with Einat Wilf's statement of purpose. This recognition is simply a concession that once there's a real peace treaty, the PA, Hamas and gang don't get to make continued claims to Israeli land. It means they accept Israel for good, just as Israel won't make anymore claims to Palestinian land. You know damned well this is what they, and you, reject. Like them, you reserve the right after a 2-state deal is signed to work on destroying Israel.

[Scootaloo]

60. Well, there you go, lying about me again

Two states could happen.

This we agree on.

The Palestinians don't want that, or peace...

And there you go again proving you have all the credibility on the issue as the average Hannah Montana fan.

Two fair offers were rejected in 2000-01 and 2008 (Clinton Initiatives and Olmert's plan).

You're wrong. See my post above.

Your problem is the same as that of the PA and Hamas.

What's that; putting ketchup on falafel? Ketchup is fucking gross, and has no place anywhere near chickpeas. Now, sriracha sauce, that's another matter. Do you think Hamas likes sriracha? Hmmm.

You don't support a sovereign Jewish homeland.

Well, that's because the phrase"Sovereign Jewish Homeland" is meaningless. As I point out to you elsewhere, a homeland is not a legal entity, and thus cannot be sovereign. The word you want - and the word Israel is using - is "State." As I point out elsewhere, sovereignty also has bupkiss to do with ethnic demographics. Shit like that is why I call you a racist and a Jewish Supremacist, Shira. And finally, what does "Jewish State" mean? I know what - say - "Islamic state" means, it's a state where the laws of the state are founded on sharia, the laws of Islam. Does a "Jewish state" have a similar meaning, will its laws be based on Halakha?

Out of all current nations, only the Jews in your racist view require being dispossessed of their homeland.

No idea where this claim is coming from. I suspect you're elbow-deep in your own behind, looking for this stuff.

This is ridiculous. End of conflict means exactly that. It means genuine peace, not a continuation of the conflict.

Please stop being wrong. As I just told you, it's a frame term. What it means is this;

And finally, he refused to commit to an “end of conflict,” under which a peace deal would represent the termination of any further Palestinian demands of Israel.

Abbas simply needs to negotiate terms in such a way that Palestinian injustices are addressed. Israeli ones will also need to be addressed as well. Neither side will be happy, but that's that.

"Simply needs to..." There's something simple here alright and it's not what Abbas needs to do I don't think you actually understand how negotiations work. here, let me use your example against you...

You may as well be claiming the Axis and Allied powers could never agree to an end of conflict after WW2, for the same absurd reasons.

Poland and Germany are still engaged in legal disputes over territory and repatriation and restitution for Polish Germans and German Poles. The Czech Republic recently (As in a few years ago, 2006 if I recall) lost a case, resulting in it being legally culpable for the ethnic cleansing of Germans all those years ago (it's trying to appeal the ruling). There's that whole issue regarding reparations owed by Japan towards the Philippines, China, and Korea as well.

As to wealth stolen from Jews in Europe....WTF? Are the Jews at war currently vs. Europe? Ridiculous comparison.

of course they're not. Nor are any of the nations I mentioned just above at war with each other. However had there been demands that absolutely no legal effort be brought forth to settle remaining persistent issues resulting from the war, I suspect a few of them might be!

What Israel is demanding from Palestine as a condition to a peace treaty is exactly the same as if someone were to say Israel has no right to seek redress for remaining grievances towards European nations that harmed Jews over the course of those pogroms and the Holocaust. Of course they have every right to seek such legal redress! But Israel is demanding that the Palestinians give up their right to do so as a precondition - not a negotiated term, a fucking precondition - to a peace treaty.

Abbas and the Arab states are deliberately making the lives of 99% of all Palestinian refugees out there miserable and your crew has no problem with this.

You keep saying this - and you keep using the number "99%" - but so far as i can tell, you expect me to just tkae your assertions as fact. And since you're up to your neck in your own ass with the making shit up today, i don't feel really compelled to take you at your owr.

Maybe try Caroline Glick again, that worked so well last time.

I don't get why you all pretend to be concerned about their rights.

Yes, it's well understood that you can't fathom empathy towards others.

You're also wrong about my view on the original refugees. While I believe they should be allowed to return, that's not a right they have under law. There is no such law. A UNGAR is not law, but a recommendation, so Israel has no obligations or requirements they're trying to skip out of.

That's some mach 4-level stupid right there. We're looking at legally-binding treaties such as the Geneva Conventions ant the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Israel is signatory. The UNGAR's such as the Universal Declaration of Human rights, and the assembled resolutions to the effect of Palestinian Refugees are statements underscoring Israel's existing legal obligations.

I love how your argument is like, "Human rights? Meeeeh, they're more of a guideline really."

We went over this stuff with Einat Wilf's statement of purpose.

Except you very clearly don't understand Wilf's statement. I kind of wonder if he's wrapped his head fully around it himself, to be quite honest with you. if - as per his statement - both Arabs and jews have "equal claim" to Israel / Palestine, and if you - as you claim - support this, then you really have no basis for that sound barrier-shattering load of malarkey you just ame up with as excepted above.

This recognition is simply a concession that once there's a real peace treaty, the PA, Hamas and gang don't get to make continued claims to Israeli land. It means they accept Israel for good, just as Israel won't make anymore claims to Palestinian land.

Is it now? Got an official source to that definition? I mean like, from someone who's actually involved in the negotiations, not John Bolton or Dore Gold or whoever the fuck it is is on the front page of gatestone with an editorial about it.

You know damned well this is what they, and you, reject. Like them, you reserve the right after a 2-state deal is signed to work on destroying Israel.

It seems to me that Isral is the most delicate fucking thing on the planet. I mean I've seen some very fragile calcite cave formations, you know, the sort that crumble if you get to oclose and change hte air pressure near them? Israel's even more frail than that, according to you. So if I understand you right, if I say "Hey! jaffa belongs to Palestine!" poof, there goes israel?

"Jaffa belongs to Palestine!"

...And now, let's turn on CNN and see what happens!

Seriously though. You Ziontologist fundies have got to get over your apocalypse fantasies.

[shira]

67. It's no lie. You should be loud and clear about your views, and proud of them if they're honorable

The Palestinians don't want that, or peace...

And there you go again proving you have all the credibility on the issue as the average Hannah Montana fan.

Peace means no full right-of-return that would make Israel into a binational state with ethnic strife similar to that of Lebanon. This is clearly what the PA wants.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=60865

Arab leaders since the 1948 war have repeatedly stated that the refugees are to be used in order to destroy Israel. Everyone but you knows this. How is that possible? Omar Barghouti of BDS admitted that with full right-of-return there wouldn't be 2 states; there'd be one Palestinian state next to another Palestinian state.

You don't support a Jewish state/homeland in the sense that you would allow for it to eventually become yet another Palestinian state, in which Jews would no longer be safe and refugees would have no law-of-return in order to escape persecution elsewhere.

As to the 99% claim, the US Senate recognizes only 30,000 original 1948 refugees. That makes up less than 1% of the more than 5 million refugees that UNRWA considers legit.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-senate-dramatically-redefines-definition-of-palestinian-refugees/

[Scootaloo]

74. There you go fantasizing about race war again n/t

[Shaktimaan]

25. Are they?

13. If the rights are equal, why are only Arabs being driven out of their homes?

Firstly, are there many Arabs being driven out of their homes currently? Regarding Jews, what about all of the Jewish settlers who lost their homes in 2005 in Gaza and the WB? Not that I'm opposing that action, but it certainly stands in contrast to your assertion.

If a guy in Florida has equal claim to territory as the person living on it right now, how is that actually equal?

The same way a Palestinian living in the US or Jordan would have this same right compared to a Jewish Israeli who was born in Haifa.

If you truly hold that Jews and Palestinians have equal claim, then I want to see you supporting the full return of all Palestinian refugees, not just the handful left who were directly evicted. After all, if Palestinians and Jews have equal right to Israel / Palestine, then there should be no more barrier for an 18 year old Palestinian "returning" from Beirut than there is for an 18 year old Jew "returning" from Houston, right?

Of course. But the idea is that Palestinians would go to Palestine while Jews to Israel. Why would that be problematic?

[hack89]

3. That is rich coming from countries that self identify as Islamic states. nt

[azurnoir]

33. But you see that's the point they "self identify" Israel is free to do that

but Israel is requiring the Palestinians to that for them for 'some' reason

[hack89]

35. And what is the harm in it? Nt

[azurnoir]

44. No harm in Israel self identifying as the Jewish State n/t

[shira]

51. You're misrepresenting the PA's rejection of a Jewish homeland and you know it.

Your problem is with 2 states for 2 people. You're against Jews' rights to sovereignty. The Jews aren't a people/nation worthy of self-determination in your view. This is why you reject the following statement:

"The Jewish people around the world and Palestinian people around the world are both indigenous to the Land of Israel/Palestine and therefore have an equal and legitimate right to settle and live anywhere in the Land of Israel/Palestine, but given the desire of both peoples to a sovereign state that would reflect their unique culture and history, we believe in sharing the land between a Jewish state, Israel, and an Arab state, Palestine, that would allow them each to enjoy dignity and sovereignty in their own national home. Neither Israel nor Palestine should be exclusively for the Jewish and Palestinian people respectively and both should accommodate minorities of the other people."

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/03/palestine-israel-mutual-recognition-wilf-dajani-daoudi.html#ixzz2xD4YXUlZ

[Scootaloo]

55. A "state" is a legal entity. A "homeland" is not

Israel is demanding recognition of the former, not the latter.

[shira]

58. Israel is demanding that once there's a deal, all Palestinian claims to Israel end.

That's something they and you reject, as you all believe Jews should just agree to become a minority within Israel and accept a return to the same desperate situation they were in prior to 1948 when they were fair game for all the planet's racists and bigots.

You don't really get it. It's not that Israel is opposed to 5 million Palestinians coming into Israel. Israel is also opposed to 5 million chinese or 5 million non-Jewish Americans flooding into Israel. In any one of these scenarios, Jews once again become a minority in the land where they live. They're all unacceptable situations.

[Scootaloo]

63. if you're done twitching and frothing?

Israel is demanding that once there's a deal, all Palestinian claims to Israel end.

The trouble you're having is that you don't understand what this means. You're trying hard - so very, very hard - to cast it as a means to prevent Palestinians from "laying claim" to Israel.

Trouble is, that makes no sense whatsoever; The peace treaty itself would settle the issue you describe, and after that, Palestinians can say whatever the fuck they want, and it doesn't change a thing. What, do you imagine the treaty would be anulled if some twerp claimed, ahem, "Jaffa is part of Palestine"? Because that's... silly.

No, what the "end of conflict" demand is, is a demand that Abbas sign away the rights of individual Palestinians, as well as the state of Palestine, to seek further legal redress for unaddressed issues. You know, things like monetary recompense for seized land and property, Israeli use of Palestinian water supplies and land, damages incurred to civilian infrastructure during Israel's election-cycle bombing runs, suits against Israel's military by abductees, torture victims, and those wrongfully imprisoned, that sort of thing. That unless Abbas can scratch all this out in negotiations - and no, he won't be able to, it's an utter impossibility - all such claims get flushed down the memory hole.

You will not find any instance where a wronged party agrees to give up their right to seek redress against the person who wronged them, as a precondition for talking about the subject at all.

It's a psychopathic demand, just about on the level of the refugee shakedowns you are o proud to support.

[shira]

64. From 2011: Pal. Ambassador in Lebanon says Pal. state doesn't mean end of conflict....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=60865

In that same article, the Palestinian Ambassador to Lebanon states clearly that refugees will not be accepted into Palestine once a state is established. They want to keep working towards changing Israel demographically. IOW, they want their own exclusive Jew-free Palestine as they reserve the right to force Israel into becoming a binational state.

You support that, don't you? It's why you don't see a problem.

[shira]

72. Abbas must be a slow learner WRT end of conflict b/c here's Abbas in Aug 2013

Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian President, Says Signing Peace Agreement Will End The Conflict With Israel
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/mahmoud-abbas-mideast-peace-talks_n_3801887.html

“You have a commitment from the Palestinian people, and also from the leadership, that if we are offered a just agreement, we will sign a peace deal that will put an end to the conflict and to future demands from the Palestinian side,” Abbas said,

So he's a liar and perhaps a slow learner, finally coming to yr way of thinking about signing off on rights, etc.

And here you are, defending Abbas' call to many more decades of war...

[King_David]

41. Wow , what a huge major distinction .

What Name is Iran registered at the UN?

[azurnoir]

45. and Israel can register at the UN as the same if it wants n/t

[Jefferson23]

4. Time to pay up, Netanyahu. n/t

[azurnoir]

7. Interesting to what happens the next prisoner release is slated for Saturday

will Netanyahu stay true to his word about releasing prisoners?

[King_David]

16. Hopefully murderers are not in the release package.

I'm not sure why anyone would want murderers released from Israel so that these psycho killers can live among themselves....

[azurnoir]

17. well Israel didn't seem to mind Yitzhak Shamir or Menachim Begin or Yitzhak Rabin

all of whom in their youth during the British colonial occupation were considered terrorists, in fact Begin was declared an enemy of the Jewish People by Ben-Gurion, however once Israel became a reality they all changed in their later years to one degree or another with Begin and Rabin becoming peace makers- do you believe Palestinians incapable of the same?

[shira]

20. Don't be ridiculous. How many of these current prisoners truly regret what they did?

As far as we know, they're still proud of their deliberate murder of innocents, and they will be celebrated precisely for those acts by Abbas.

This is what you favor, correct?

[azurnoir]

22. Did any of those mentioned regret their actions while the British still occupied Palestine?

only much later after Israel was a state did they change their tactics

[shira]

24. You didn't answer. And the 3 leaders you mentioned did not get off on or celebrate....

...the deliberate murder of innocent children or civilians. Your comparison is vile.

You probably believe that all Presidents, at least from Truman to Obama, are all terrorists for the decisions they've made. Under Obama, there have been more civilians killed by drones than under Bush.

So is Obama as big a terrorist in your view as Rabin, Shamir, or Begin?

[azurnoir]

26. sorry but your comparing what a sitting POTUS did or does as leader of a sovereign country

to what was done by then terrorists in an occupied country but who later after the fact became leaders of a sovereign country is inaccurate at best and I'm being polite

[shira]

38. You're comparing unrepentant terrorists in favor of murdering more innocents....

...to people not at all of that mindset.

[Israeli]

34. good lord shira ....

how simple it must be to live in your world ....

we dont celebrate our own murders of innocents ?

sure we do ....

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/03/incitement-palestine-abbas-netanyahu-yaalon-peres-har-zion.html

The incitement paradox

While Israel complains about Palestinian incitement, the political class pays tribute to IDF warrior Meir Har-Zion, omitting mention of his responsibility for the death of four Bedouin youths in 1955.

[shira]

36. Israel doesn't celebrate, praise, honor, & reward the sadistic murdering of innocents.

The future Palestine that you support does precisely that.

And your friends here say Rabin is a terrorist piece of shit. How far you've fallen since the Oslo days...

[Israeli]

40. Does to ....

What does Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas feel in the company of murderers released from prison, when he hugs and kisses them and praises them to the skies? After all, he himself was never actually involved in terror and certainly despises those who spill innocent blood.

This week we got the answer, when the state’s top echelons gathered at Meir Har-Zion’s Shoshana Farm to take shelter in the shadow of the deceased and his legacy. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saluted “the legendary warrior who will always serve as a model for the Israel Defense Forces.” President Shimon Peres mourned the man who was “a legend in life and death, who became one with the battle cry, ‘follow me.’” Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said, “Thank you for being what you will continue to be — a role model for soldiers and commanders.” Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz lamented the loss of “the compass.”

Zion, give thought to the quality of the example set by Har-Zion, that young adventurer from way back, who ignored military orders and visited the forbidden Petra. Numerous innocents followed him to that place from where the living have never returned. Follow him, say the old goats to the new ones; this is your compass.

After he managed to reach the Red Rock, a disaster occurred: His sister, Shoshana, and her boyfriend, Oded, were murdered in cold blood when they were innocently hiking in the desert. The country boiled and the heavens thundered; I was a child at the time and I still remember the disgrace. So Meir, her brother, gathered some comrades from his unit and in the dead of night they attacked the Bedouin tribe from which the killers had presumably come, murdering four of its members. David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan were called upon to cover for them, and the four were freed without punishment. Thus was the “price tag” precedent set. Because he was so exalted that after him we can only descend, we follow him. In unfortunate incidents of an eye for an eye, it’s best to keep your eyes closed.

Your Honor, won’t you consider the torn Israeli heart or the boiling Palestinian one? Will the law ignore the Arab-Jewish tradition of retribution? Does his honor not know that hot blood rises to the head? Due to our sins, these are our heroes, these are the people we admire and reward, and we have to find extenuating circumstances for them: The blood calls out to us and drives us crazy, and the law and the regime must hear it. This is the reality in which we live, and in which we die – what’s so hard to understand here, Your Honor?

Har-Zion in old age did not embarrass his youth. He remained true to himself and to us until the end. The young adventurer became a bit of a racist: “We have to make it difficult for Israeli Arabs, so that they won’t want to live here and will leave,” he said not long ago. Who this week didn’t praise his skills in navigation and reaching the target; follow him!

“There hasn’t been such a brave soldier since Bar Kochba,” said Dayan. Well, 580,000 Jews were killed in the insane revolt led by Bar Kochba, whom Jewish sages throughout the generations regarded as an arrogant and false messiah. Some 950 villages were destroyed, and the survivors were sent into exile and sold into slavery. Unbridled courage is sometimes an outlet for depression and compensation for suicidal tendencies. O My Land, do not cover your blood with more blood.

So how does Mahmoud Abbas feel in the company of murderers? The same way Ben-Gurion felt in the company of war criminals from the retaliatory attack at Qibya and the massacre at Kafr Qasem; the way Peres stood up for the Shin Bet’s skull-splitters in the Bus 300 affair; they way Chaim Herzog felt when he showed mercy to the terrorists from the Jewish Underground; and the way Netanyahu, Ya’alon and Gantz felt at Har-Zion’s funeral this week: a mild tremor at the end of the eulogy that immediately passes.

And from here at the Shoshana Farm our broadcast goes straight to Mount Herzl in Jerusalem, where the entire A-Team is going to participate in the torch-lighting ceremony. This year, on Israel’s 66th Independence Day, 14 women will stand alone on the central stage, as separated as they are at the Western Wall Plaza or the women’s section of the synagogue, or in religious schools or on ultra-Orthodoxy’s dream bus. Another state demonstration of the glory of the State of Israel.

Yossi Sarid .


http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.581112

[shira]

42. Seriously, the Qibya 'massacre'? That's not a valid comparison to Palestinian terror.

The Qibya 'Massacre'
While Makdisi paints the 1953 Qibya killings as a deliberate, indiscriminate massacre of innocent Palestinians, this was not the case. Qibya, then under Jordanian control, had been a base for terrorist acts against Israel. The immediate provocation for the reprisal against Qibya was an attack on October 12, 1953 in which Arab terrorists from the area of Qibya killed a young Israeli mother, Susan Kanias, and her two children, aged one and three. Having demobilized after the War of Independence, thanks to expectations of peace with its Arab neighbors, Israel's army had shown itself incapable of stopping terror attacks against its civilians, or even of launching effective retaliatory strikes against terror bases. Sharon, then studying law, was recalled to duty by the chief of the Israeli army. He was asked to form a special counter‑terror unit that could strike the terrorists where they lived and thereby disrupt and prevent future attacks.

Qibya was the unit's first action ‑ the soldiers crossed the border and arrived at the town under cover of darkness, intending to drive off the town's defenders and residents and blow up its main buildings. As Sharon's men took control of the town, scouts reported that hundreds of villagers were seen streaming away from the area. After allowing the few people they found still in the buildings to leave, the soldiers set their charges. When the mission was complete, Sharon and his men reported that they had destroyed 42 buildings and killed 10 to 12 people, all soldiers or guards.

Afterwards, when it became known that some civilians had remained hidden and were killed unintentionally, the likeliest explanation seemed to be that previously ineffectual Israeli raids had lulled the victims into thinking they would be safe hiding in their homes. Had it been the Israeli intention to kill civilians, as Makdisi suggests, the defenseless villagers fleeing Qibya would have been prime targets ‑ instead Israel allowed them to leave unharmed.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=2&x_outlet=33&x_article=1056

[Shaktimaan]

28. That really makes sense to you?

First of all, Rabin wasn't considered a terrorist at any point. Shamir and Begin were undeniable terrorists, as were leaders of the Palestinian independence movement like Arafat. Does the pardoning of certain specific individuals negate the ethical and practical reasoning behind the imprisonment of violent criminals everywhere?

[azurnoir]

29. Rabin was a member of Palmach which for a time was considered a terrorist organazation

by the British

I pointed out a fact which apparently makes some here umm uncomfortable

[Shaktimaan]

30. Yeah?

What'd Rabin do exactly?

[azurnoir]

31. Israel agreed to the prisoner release are you justifying the possible reniging of that agreement?

It could seem so, or merely arguing minutia for the sake of arguing

Does it really matter he was a member and was arrested and detained by the British

[shira]

39. Prisoners get released when there's progress in the negotiations. That's the deal...

What progress can possibly be made when the Palestinians say they won't agree to an end of the conflict?

[azurnoir]

43. No thanks the the buzz phrase for us should Israel refuse to stick to it's agreement

the Palestinians will not bow to Netanyahu's demands so they don't want peace? quite an eloquent statement

[shira]

46. And here you are defending the PA in its refusal to negotiate an end of conflict. How nice. n/t

[azurnoir]

47. that could very easily be turned around Israel won't negotiate for "end of conflict" because

insert give up East Jerusalem, evacuate all of the settlements, remove all IDF from the West Bank.........

if this is some kind of pre-spin in-case Israel does not go ahead with the already agreed to prisoner release-it's just not working

[shira]

48. Well gee Az...all the PA has to say is that once they get X,Y, & Z, that ends the conflict.

They won't even go that far. They're not interested in an end of conflict.

[azurnoir]

68. so Israel will give up East Jerusalem or remove all settlers or remove all IDF from the WB

if the Palestinians say that'll be the (buzz phrase of the week) "end of conflict" do you have a link for that

[shira]

70. You're for peace later, not peace now. It's why u defend the PA rejecting....

...and end to the conflict (peace).

When do u think it would be okay for the PA to agree to negotiate genuine peace?

[azurnoir]

77. shira your response has nothing to do with your previous comment or my reply nada nothing zero

here is the comment in case you forgot

shira (20,727 posts)
48. Well gee Az...all the PA has to say is that once they get X,Y, & Z, that ends the conflict.

They won't even go that far. They're not interested in an end of conflict.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=60853

[shira]

73. Abbas in Aug 2013, promising an end of conflict...

Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian President, Says Signing Peace Agreement Will End The Conflict With Israel
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/mahmoud-abbas-mideast-peace-talks_n_3801887.html

“You have a commitment from the Palestinian people, and also from the leadership, that if we are offered a just agreement, we will sign a peace deal that will put an end to the conflict and to future demands from the Palestinian side,” Abbas said,

Guess he just changed his mind, hmm?

You don't have to always defend the indefensible.

[azurnoir]

78. and nothing has changed

now we're being told Israel might release 400 prisoners but IMO Naftali Bennett is being more frank than Netanyahu might appreciate

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-offers-to-free-400-more-prisoners-if-abbas-extends-talks/

Bennett: Let Abbas go to the UN already

Israel need not concern itself with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s threat to turn to the United Nations for assistance in establishing a Palestinian state, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett said on Sunday.

“There is this threat that he will go to the UN,” the head of the right-wing Jewish Home party told Israel National News radio. “Let him go to the UN already. Let him do what he wants and we will know how to handle it.”

Regarding the bid for international support for the Palestinian state, Bennett maintained Abbas would be “the first to be damaged” from the move, and that “he has a greater interest in continuing talks than we do.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/bennett-let-abbas-go-to-the-un-already/

[shira]

19. With Abbas rejecting an end-of-conflict resolution, what's the point of a prisoner release?

What's there to negotiate?

The whole point to the negotiations is to end the conflict, right? Not to take it to another level once there's a Palestinian state?

[azurnoir]

21. Abbas in reality isn't bowing to Netanyahu's demands but I'll give ya credit for spin

also that caveat was added only recently, why should Abbas give more to get what the Palestinians were already promised, the prisoner release was part of the agreement for the talks in the first place

[shira]

23. So negotiating for an end-of-conflict is a bad demand?

Really now, what's the point of ongoing negotiations if it doesn't result in an end-of-conflict?

[azurnoir]

27. you seem to be the one against the talks continuing

I pointed that the prisoner release was agreed to prior to the talks

[shira]

49. Huh? What's the point of continued "peace" talks if the result isn't peace?

Peace isn't on the agenda according to the PA.

So what is on the agenda? Inquiring minds would like to know...

[azurnoir]

69. a rehash of "we have no partner for peace"

shouldn't be writing the POTUS and John Kerry with that

[shira]

71. Peace Later? That's what you're pushing. Pal. state 1st, then peace later.

So when? How many more decades of conflict are you championing?

[Scootaloo]

62. As I said, it's amazing to see how right-wingers glom onto framing like that.

Can't blame you. it just sounds so much better than "Demand that Palestinians abrogate their legal claims in exchange for negotiating a peace treaty."

[shira]

65. See #59 below. n/t

[shira]

59. From 2011: Pal. Ambassador in Lebanon says Pal. state doesn't mean end of conflict....

The right of return that Abdullah says is to be negotiated would not only apply to those Palestinians whose origins are within the 1967 borders of the state, he adds. “The state is the 1967 borders, but the refugees are not only from the 1967 borders. The refugees are from all over Palestine. When we have a state accepted as a member of the United Nations, this is not the end of the conflict. This is not a solution to the conflict. This is only a new framework that will change the rules of the game.”

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2011/Sep-15/148791-interview-refugees-will-not-be-citizens-of-new-state.ashx#ixzz2xD3W9Q3X

This is apparently the PA position and it's supported by all western BDS'ers.