Mahmoud Abbas and the persistence of Palestinian mythology

In the week that President Obama makes a major new statement on US policy towards the Middle East, and prepares to meet Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, the New York Times provided Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas with a platform to unveil his new strategy. In his 17 May op-ed article in the Times, "The Long Overdue Palestinian State", Abbas laid out his plan to request international recognition of the "State of Palestine" along the Green Line that is commonly referred to as the pre-June 1967 border – that is, to achieve statehood without negotiating with Israel.

Thus, it is his recipe to circumvent negotiations, form a state and retake Jerusalem, without grappling with Palestinian mythology or compromising in any way. In laying out the ingredients of his plan, Abbas reveals that, at the core, the Palestinian struggle is not actually about borders but about Israel's existence. It is the quest for a Palestinian sense of justice at the expense of a negotiated end to the conflict.

In order to make his case, Abbas needed to disguise the historical record for it to resonate with western audiences. Take, for example, his narrative of Israel's independence, which he and most Palestinians today refer to as al-Nakba, the catastrophe. He explains that when the question of Palestinian statehood last took centre stage at the United Nations general assembly, it was to vote on whether the Palestinian homeland should be partitioned into two states. Abbas writes:

"In November 1947, the general assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued."

Cleverly, Abbas has removed Palestinians from the stage of responsible actors. According to him, they played no role whatsoever – they were merely the victims of Israeli actions. Of course, the inconvenient truth is that Israel accepted the partition plan while the Palestinians and Arab states rejected it and, instead, launched a war against the nascent state of Israel. The Palestinian refugee problem – whose fate is central to Abbas's perception of justice – is a direct result of that war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/19/mahmoud-abbas-palestinian-territories

But Israel has existed as a nation for over 60 years, and this is a reality that must be accepted. Destruction of post-1967 settlements and establishing a Palestinian state on 1967 lines could be a survivable, if not acceptable, compromise -- but Israel has consistently refused such an approach. Unless Israel changes its tune, support for the destruction of the State of Israel is the only acceptable, if rather unfeasible, solution.

It's all Israel's fault is it? The fact that the Palestinians started the war that made them refugees isn't their own fault, is it? The fact that the Palestinians for decades refused to compromise, and that their Arab state allies refused to negotiate is Israel's fault, is it? And now the fact that no sane country would take the Palestinians' grudging "peace" offers at face value is Israel's fault, is it? So, gosh, the only thing that the Palestinians can do is continue to seek the destruction of the Jewish state, just as they have for the last 60+ years? Give me a break.

Use it wisely, study up and come at this without the bias.










(as I piss into the wind)

and you think that I'm the one who's biased? Tell you what. So we have some clarity, I'll ask some basic questions.

1. Which side started the war between the Jews of Palestine and the Arabs of Palestine? Why?

2. Have you read Elusive Victory by Trevor DuPuy; Righteous Victims by Benny Morris; War and Peace in the Middle East by Avi Schlaim; or the Israel/Arab Reader?

3. Where do you get your facts? Where do you suggest that I look?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The war began in December, 1947, and the Palestinian Arabs started the fighting. War causes refugees. The Palestinians aren't innocent. Neither are the Israelis, but at least they have come some way to recognizing that. When have the Palestinians ever accepted responsibility for having started the war?

Just evacuate them, and turn them over to the Palestinians to be occupied by re-settled refugees.

Not that that is ever going to happen.

...they did leave the Gaza settlements intact, and they were immediately looted and destroyed.

Most of the buildings were razed when they pulled out. On exception was a synogogue, the one building they could be certain the pissed off Gazans would demolish themselves.

There was debate about whether to leave them. The PA wanted them destroyed and the rubble hauled away. The small-family housing units weren't culturally appropriate, some argued, and by having them destroyed the Israelis would pay for demolition. Others argued that their very existence was hateful, better to build anew than live in what the enemy had built.

Some structures, like the greenhouses, were looted.

The synagogue was a special case. After all the ranting about how tolerant and respectful Muslims are of sacred spaces, they were handed a synagogue. They showed their tolerance and respect, in the same way they had in other places and at other times.

Does that mean you want WAR; because that's what destroying a state generally means?

Reform: YES

Destruction/war: NO

That post is ridiculous and ugly .

Palestinian nationalism initially developed as a weapon to use against the Jewish state of Israel. As a result, the mythos that Palestinians are the innocent victims of Israel's creation and continued existence is a core element of Palestinianism. How can they give that up? If part of their internal definition of themselves is as victims of Israel, how do they admit that they are not Innocent victims and still maintain their sense of identity? Maybe it's possible for a nation to change that way, but I don't see anyone making any serious effort at it. In contrast, Israeli society (and certainly the intellectual elite) has come quite a ways on the road to recognizing Israel's responsiblity for the current situation. When will the Arabs catch on and catch up?

It would be a shame to pollute such a distinguished forum with the vitriol slung at a downtrodden and abused people as what we have to witness here.

Thats a bit like focusing on the millionaires in america to prove theres no poverty.

Watch fox much??

...of the Palestinians you profess to support, right?

....criticizing and condemning Hamas and Fatah? The way you guys react to our criticism is as though we're wrong to do so and Hamas/Fatah are really 100% innocent, nothing is their fault, we should be more concerned about Israel's wrondoings.

Why is that?

turning a blind eye to Israels crimes and responsibilities, while at the same time vastly exaggerating and at times outright fabricating the crimes of the Palestinians. Nobody I'm aware of here has ever supported the policies of Hamas and Fatah

And actually, I've found it's your side vastly exaggerating and fabricating the crimes of Israelis as you guys eat up almost everything Fatah/Hamas claim about Israel.

I have no problem with legit criticism of Israel and its policies.

You say you don't support Hamas/Fatah, but I never see you guys ever holding them responsible for their role in the conflict or WRT what they've done to Israelis or against Palestinians. WHY is it so difficult for you to criticize/condemn such far rightwing hateful warmongers like Hamas/Fatah?

The same goes for claims of Hamas using human shields, and children as suicide bombers. Almost no evidence to support it aside from IDF press statements. In fact, there's much more evidence to suggest Israel uses human shields than the opposite.

By the way, I've never accepted a claim from Hamas, my sources include human rights groups like Amnesty International and the Red Cross. And I'm fine with condemning Hamas, as long as we're condemning them for crimes they actually commit, not fabricating crimes committed by Hamas and ignoring very serious crimes by Israel.

Some background material you need to read on Israel crimes. From Human rights groups, not Hamas or Fatah
Amnesty International accuses Israel of using Human Shields
IDF Shoots at ambulances - BT'Selem
Israel targets medical personnel and hijacks ambulances -BT'Selem
Israel blocks needed construction materials needed to end water crisis in Gaza - BT'Selem
Israel deliberately targets civilians in Gaza - Human Rights Watch
Israel commits various crimes during Cast Lead, including deliberately targeting civilians
Defense for children international - Palestine Division: Israel detains and tortures children
WikiLeaks: Israel aimed to keep Gaza economy on brink of collapse

Oh I know, they're all anti-semites

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4877_62.htm

It's not exaggerated in the least.

The claims of genocidal intentions come from sloppy interpretations of the rhetoric. Ham as blames "the Jews" for this and that in their charter, but thats because they conflate Israel with Judaism, which is while unjustified, is understandable, given that Israel tries to represent itself as a "jewish state"

....I'm scratching my head wondering why you're so desperate to defend their atrociously antisemitic and genocidal views.

•"The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him…"

•"The Nazism of the Jews does not skip women and children, it scares everyone. They make war against people's livelihood, plunder their moneys and threaten their honor … They took advantage of key elements in unfolding events, and accumulated a huge and influential material wealth which they put to the service of implementing their dream …."

•(Jews) control of the world media (and use their) wealth to stir revolutions … They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions."

•"There was no war that broke out anywhere without their (Jews') fingerprints on it."

=======

How are the last 2 items conflating Israel with Judaism? That's ugly, centuries old basic antisemitism 101.

The first item is so ugly you cannot possibly defend it as anything but a call for genocide.

Imagine Jews saying this of Muslims. Now imagine the pro-Israel crowd denying it and trying to whitewash/minimize it.

the Palestinian back into their homes, and replaced them with Jewish refugees from various location non of whom were born in Israel or Palestine, yet we are to believe this was not in any way planned just some shazam serendipity

The Palestinians are victims of a war that they started, that Israel fought, and that the Arab states took advantage of. There's enough blame all around. The only reason for the lie that the Israelis intended to expel the Palestinians is so the Arabs can avoid coming to terms with their own responsibility for the situation.

we see Israel shriven of guilt, the Palestinian Arabs have come to terms as those terms have been forced on them for 63 years now it is time for Israel to come to terms

and are to think that the newly formed Israel was unaware that there were hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees waiting on the doorstep?

The result does not prove intent. If that were true then the US is at fault for World War Two. It's nonsense. And no, Israel is not shriven of guilt. They have their responsibility. Why do you continue to whitewash what the Palestinians did? What the Arab states did? The Palestinians have come to terms? Now that's just not an intellectually honest statement. They have continued to maintain that they are 100% innocent victims, and that it's all Israel's fault. How is that coming to terms at all?

and I whitewash nothing both sides are at fault and what do other Arab States have to do with this? I know the deep desire to see 'other Arab States' take those bothersome Palestinian Arabs off Israel's hands but that will not happen just because Israel welcomes virtually all Jews in way translates into all Arabs no matter what nationality in the rest of the world it simply doesn't work that way Japan does not welcome all Asians nor does Poland welcome all Europeans

What shazam serendipity? (serendipity, by the way, is the finding of something useful while looking for something else, so I don't understan your use of the word in this context). The Palestinians started a war to drive out the Jews and take all of Palestine for themselves. The Arab states joined in that war, in part to destroy the Jewish state, and in part (Jordan especially) to destroy any possible Palestinian state. The Arabs lost. The war resulted in refugees (as most all wars do). That doesn't mean that the Jews intended from the outset to expel the Arabs even if there had been no war. So where have the Palestinians ever taken responsibility for starting the war? Where have the Arabs states taken responsibility for supporting the Palestinian agression and for destroying the Palestinian state?

in to their homes? Israel it seems is never responsible for it's own actions it is always well they made us do it, well it's time to grow up

People who start wars lose certain rights. Among them is the right to return to territory conaquered by the people they attacked. Why should the Israelis take back people who were part of the war against them? In fact, the Israelis did allow about 100-150 thousand to return. But they shouldn't have to take back all of the Arabs.

That's what happens when you throw away your chance at a state of your own in order to deprive the other side of their state.

If I invade your house, demand you cede 55% of your house to me, and you refuse to give it to me, do I have a right to kick you out of your house by force and ban you from ever returning?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but you're never going to get an honest answer to it from the Hasbara crowd.

eom.

Your argument makes no sense. The "Arabs" didn't start any wars. It was a mutual conflict, provoked by Zionists who were attempting to partition up land that didn't belong to them. The Palestinians overwhelmingly didn't support the terrorist actions of the Arab paramilitaries. How do the attacks by a few extremist justify the ethnic cleansing of an entire nation?

Your argument makes no sense. It's a sick and demented apologism of the worst sort

The Mufti of Jerusalem (the acknowledged leader of the Palestinian Arabs) was just an extremist? The ALA, a force of almost 8,000, which conducted pitched battles against Jewish settlements, were just a few terrorists. They'd be insulted if you called them that. They were an army fighting a civil war. Virtually every reputable historian cals the period from December, 1947 to May, 1948, a civil war. The Arabs started it. Either you're bloody ignorant or else you'll just say whatever.

Page 74

... sufficient evidence has filtered out to verify that the majority of Palestinian Arabs did not want an escalation of violence into total war. This is confirmed by the official History of the Haganah, which was edited by authoritative Haganah leaders, including Shaul Avigur and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (Ben-Gurion’s close associate who was to become Israel’s second president). The movement to sign nonaggression pacts with Jewish neighbors spread all over the country, embracing most of the Arab villages in the Sharon area, in the vicinity of Jerusalem, including Dir Yassin and Silwan, in the upper Galilee, and in the Negev. Similar initiatives were taken in Haifa and Tiberias.

...

In a cable on December 2, 1947, Eliyahu Sasson informed Sharett that all of the terrorist activities up to then had been carried out by the mufti’s hirelings – AGAINST the wishes of the majority of Palestinian Arabs – in order to prove at the forthcoming meeting with Arab League that a military confrontation with Zionism was inevitable and that therefore the Arab states were bound to provide the Palestinians with moral, political, and military support.

...

The opinions of Ben Gurion and Danon quoted at the beginning of this chapter were shared by others, including Yaakov Shimoni, of the Jewish agency’s Arab Department, and the UN military expert Col. Roscher Lund. Yisrael Galili, the head of the Haganah, similarly indicated that apart from a few hundred supporters of the mufti, the majority of Arabs in Palestine did not want war.


Besides, you can only call the Arabs the aggressors if you ignore the fact that the Zionists invaded their land first and tried to unilaterally annex it. Much like you can only call the Native Americans aggressors if you ignore the same thing

It was against the idea of a Zionist state, or even large Zionist presence. Until there was a need to be differentiated from other groups, there wasn't any urgency in ethnogenesis.

Hence the anti-Jewish riots in 1921 and 1929, including a massacre in Safed. The first intifada lasted a few years and was decidedly anti-Jewish in nature, even before there was an Israel. In some cases, the riots' targets were Mizrahi, so it wasn't even anti-European (or anti-Zionist, since many of the Mizrahi weren't especially Zionist.

IMO an avoidance of a Palestinian State along the 1967 borders which could mean Israel giving up some its settlement blocs but of more importance the lands Israel is occupying along the Jordan River, it would seem that Israel with a population that grows by about 100,000 a year has become quite dependent on the resources of the land it's occupying

...the Jewish state in order to have their own nation based on Barak 2000 and Olmert 2008 offers.

No protests needed, no UN vote in September.

Why aren't you demanding they do that and end the conflict?

they recognized Israel, it was Netanyahu who threw in Jewish State recently, IMO to deny RoR and possibly expel Israeli Arabs,
they also renounced violence and terrorism
Hamas has not as of yet at least according to the spokesman of choice today however September is 4 months away and things are changing whether or not it suits some

http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=709&fld_id=709&doc_id=457
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=670

And starting Intifada II after steady terror attacks ever since "renouncing terror" some 16 years ago is quite meaningless.

You're once again defending the indefensible, obnoxiously rightwing actions of the PLO/PA.

---------

Lastly, Palestinian recognition of a Jewish State dates AT LEAST as far back as the Geneva Initiative of 2003.

as far as defending the so called rightwing PLO/Fatah is it a liberal value to deny an entire people self determination and their own country because almost your every word is leads to doing just that, if not what is your point? Also you tend to remouth every demand and talking point the current Israeli government is spouting, the lone exception I remember was when Netanyahu loosened up on what goods were allowed into Gaza then he was supporting Hamas or some such by allowing macaroni and crayola's into Gaza

And you believe that by legitimately criticizing the PLO/Fatah, that equates to denial of a Palestinian state?

Abbas: "It is not required of Hamas, nor of Fatah, nor of the Popular Front to recognize Israel. Every person has the right to say 'I do not recognize,' okay? It's your right. It is the right of any organization. But the government which will be formed, and which will function opposite the Israelis on a daily basis, how can this government, or these ministers, not recognize their counterparts, and then solve people's problems? The Palestinian finance minister has to come to an agreement with the Israeli finance minister about the transfer of the money. So how can he make an agreement with him if he does not recognize him? So I do not demand of Hamas nor any others to recognize Israel. But from the government that works with Israelis in day-to-day life, yes."


I think that's a desperate attempt to screw words and in fact he makes the point that Israel has been recognized

now as for Dahlan who is under going treatment in Israel for wait for it......... mental illness

but if you want I will cut and paste Dahlan's words which are plainly available at your link
one must you did not do that yourself took me less than 1 minute could it be that hmmmm.......

...and remain in peace alongside a Palestinian state.

And he says there's no reason Fatah or Hamas should recognize Israel.

That's a warmongering position and you don't appear to have any problem with it whatsoever, for if you did you might not be able to pin 100% of the blame for everything on Israel.

Seriously, what kind of future peace do you envision when you're okay with Abbas having such views?

....Abbas' words in a meaningful way that corresponds to the 1993 letter.

September 9, 1993
Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,
The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era...I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself...to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations...the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators...the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Sincerely,
Yasser Arafat.
Chairman: The Palestine Liberation Organization.


September 9, 1993
His Excellency: Johan Jorgen Holst
Foreign Minister of Norway.

Dear Minister Holst,

I would like to confirm to you that, upon the signing of the Declaration of Principles, the PLO encourages and calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic development and cooperation.

Sincerely,
Yasser Arafat.
Chairman: The Palestine Liberation Organization.


September 9, 1993
Yasser Arafat
Chairman: The Palestine Liberation Organization.

Mr. Chairman,
In response to your letter of September 9, 1993, I wish to confirm to you that, in light of the PLO commitments included in your letter, the Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process.

Yitzhak Rabin.
Prime Minister of Israel.


This page was last modified on 8 March 2010 at 09:55.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_%E2%80%93_Palestine_Liberation_Organization_letters_of_recognition

Sort of hypocritical to ask that of the Palestinians then

Seems the Palestinians aren't too desperate for the occupation, settlements, and conflict to end.

Why?

The offer made at Camp David was completely unacceptable. The media watchdog group FAIR describes the offer here: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region's scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new "independent state" would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called "bypass roads" that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.

Some maps of the offer, showing how much the Palestinians were expected to give up, from the Israeli group Gush Shalom: http://www.mediamonitors.net/gushshalom1.html

The Taba summit in 2001 came very close to resolving the conflict and offering the Palestinians a viable state, but Barak walked away from the negotiations. No clue what you're talking about with 2008

How can you have "no idea" what someone is referencing with respect to 2008?

You even repeat at the end of your post that you have "no clue" what the other poster is talking about.

For someone who reads so many websites, that seems bizarre.

Abbas and Erekat admitted it was a serious offer.

They rejected it.

WHY?

And how is it that someone as outspoken as yourself on I/P knows nothing about it?

http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122114239940577.html

The Palestine Papers include two renditions of the napkin map, one showing Israel’s proposed swaps in the Jerusalem area, another showing all of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Israel would keep all of its major West Bank settlements – Ma’ale Adumim, Ariel, Kedumim and others – none of which were included in the Palestinian offers.

... So apparently not the return to the 1967 borders that we'd like to see. Israel proposes annexation of land that threatens s contiguous palestinian state. It also happens to be some of the most fertile land. In other words, not at all a generous offer and further proof that your more interested in apologizing for Israel than presenting an accurate view of it's policy

...who regretted turning it down when he did.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/22/israel

So there were 2 serious offers that would have ended the conflict a decade ago. No more settlements or occupation and Palestine would be a state already.

You're just excusing Palestinian leadership for choosing perpetual war and misery for their people b/c you'd rather blame Israel 100% and pretend Palestinian leaders are innocent victims.

Barak walked away from Taba, not Arafat. There were still negotiations going on, and a deal was very close to being struck, but Barak obviously didn't want it. Neither Camp David, nor the plan outlined on the napkin map proposed a viable, contiguous palestinian state. I'm sure they were both 'serious' offers compared to the outright rejectionism that Israel has insisted on for the majority of the peace process. That doesn't mean they were generous, or even viable.

And Erekat admitted Olmert was serious.

Why aren't you critical of the PA for rejecting both offers without so much as making even a counterproposal WRT the Olmert offer? I thought your side was for peace and an end to the conflict, settlements, and occupation. Both deals would have ensured that.

If it had been up to YOU, you would have opted for at least another decade of war rather than celebrate Palestine's 10th anniversary? You would have rejected Olmert's offer too, in order to perpetuate more Palestinian misery, more occupation and settlements?

Erekat 'admitting' the offer was 'serious' means nothing, the offers were not in line with the geneva accords. The PA did have a counter proposal at Camp David, and they certainly made one in 2008. At Camp David it was the same counter-proposal that has always been offered. A return to the 1967 borders.

...he regretted rejecting them.

And what makes you think the PA is okay with the Geneva Accord when they're against the Geneva Accord's recognition of Israel as a Jewish State with no Right of Return?

Palestinian Refugees: The Parties recognize that, in the context of two independent states, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace, an agreed resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem is necessary for achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace between them. The Parties recognize that UN General Assembly Resolution 194, UN Security Council Resolution 242, and the Arab Peace Initiative concerning the rights of the Palestinian refugees represent the basis for resolving the refugee issue, and agree that these rights are fulfilled under the Accord.

All Palestinian refugees shall be entitled to compensation for their refugeehood and for loss of property.

Refugees will be given the choice to (1) move to the new Palestinian state, including areas formerly in Israel , (2) remain in the countries where they currently reside or move to a third country , or (3) move to Israel . In determining its numbers, Israel will consider the average of the numbers submitted by other countries. Refugees who opt to remain in countries where they now reside will also receive prompt and extensive development and rehabilitation programs for their communities.

An international commission and international fund will be established to deal with implementation of these residence options and compensation. Funds will be disbursed to refugee communities in the former areas of UNRWA operation, and will be at their disposal for communal development and commemoration of the refugee experience. Israel will contribute an agreed amount based on the value of the loss of property resulting from the refugees' displacement. Refugee status of individual Palestinians will be terminated once a permanent residence option has been realized.

there is quite a lot of daylight between the Geneva accord and what was offered by Olmert (the napkin map) in 2008.

Which of the two do you consider to be more reasonable?

Are you for that?

I'm for Geneva and Olmert's offer. It's not because Olmert's offer came short of Geneva that the PA refused the offer and you know that. The PA won't abide by Geneva b/c they don't want to recognize a Jewish state and renounce RoR, for starters.

Netanyahu through in Jewish State to deny all RoR

The Geneva Initiative - Summary and Key Points
By
Gidon D. Remba, President, Chicago Peace Now
and
Marc Swetlitz


"We, the undersigned, a group of Palestinians and Israelis, endorse, on this day October 12, 2003, a model draft framework final status agreement between the two peoples. At this point in time, after the Palestinian government and the Israeli government have accepted the Road Map, which includes reaching a final-status settlement by 2005, based on a two state solution, we consider it to be of the utmost importance to present to the two peoples and the entire world an example of what such a final status agreement could include. This is proof that despite all the pain entailed in concessions, it is possible to reach a historical compromise which meets the vital national interests of each side." From the cover letter signed by Israeli and Palestinian participants

Principal Palestinian signatories:
Former Minister of Information and Culture Yasser Abed-Rabbo; Former Minister of Tourism Nabil Qassis; Palestinian Legislative Council members Qadoura Fares and Mohamed Horani, associated with the Fatah/Tanzim; Samih al-Abed; Bashar Jum'a; Dr. Nazmi Shuabi; Gheith al-Omri, from the PLO Negotiations Support Unit; Jamal Zakut; Prisoners Affairs Minister Hisham Abdel Raziq; Ghadi Jarei, member of the Prisoners Committee and Fatah; Nazmi Jub'a; General Zoheir Manasra, former governor of Jenin and head of Preventative Security in the West Bank.

Principal Israeli signatories:
Former IDF Chief of Staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak; Brigadier General (res.) Giora Inbar, a former division commander in Lebanon; Brigadier General (res.) Gideon Sheffer, former director of the IDF Personnel Branch and deputy director of the National Security Council; Brigadier General (res.) Shlomo Brom, former head of the strategy staff; Colonel (res.) Shaul Arieli; former Justice Minister Yossi Beilin; Member of Knesset (Labor) Amram Mitzna; Member of Knesset (Labor) and former Speaker of the Knesset Avraham Burg; Former Minister of Immigrant Absorption and Member of Knesset (Labor) Yuli Tamir; Member of Knesset (Meretz) and former Minister of Agriculture Haim Oron; Member of Knesset (Meretz) and former Minister of Education Yossi Sarid; Professor Aryeh Arnon (a leader of Peace Now); former Member of Knesset (Likud) Nehama Ronen; authors Amos Oz, David Grossman, and Zvia Greenfield; Jerusalem expert Dr. Menachem Klein; and economist Yoram Gabay.

The following is a summary of key points in the Geneva Initiative:

Preamble: This agreement marks the recognition of the right of the Jewish people to statehood and the recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to statehood, without prejudice to the equal rights of the Parties' respective citizens. The Parties recognize Palestine and Israel as the homelands of their respective peoples.

Article 1 - Purpose: The implementation of this Agreement will settle all of the claims of the Parties arising from events occurring prior to its signature. No further claims related to events prior to this Agreement may be raised by either Party.

Article 4 - Borders & Settlements: The border between the states of Palestine and Israel shall be based on the June 4th 1967 lines with reciprocal modifications on a 1:1 basis. Approximately 97.5% of the West Bank and 100% of Gaza will become part of Palestine, plus 2.5% of Israel from two areas: one area near Gaza to widen the Gaza Strip by 90 square kilometers, and another area adjacent to the southern West Bank. All of the 2.5% of West Bank territory that will become part of Israel comes from around Jerusalem. (See below for more on Jerusalem)

The state of Israel shall be responsible for resettling the Israelis residing in Palestinian sovereign territory outside this territory. Israel shall keep intact the immovable property, infrastructure and facilities in Israeli settlements to be transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. The value of Israeli fixed assets that remain intact shall be deducted from Israel's contribution to the International Fund established to compensate Palestinian refugees (see below). In addition to evacuating settlers from most smaller settlements, a number of large settlements will also be left for the Palestinian state, including Ariel, Efrat, Kiryat Arba, Ofra, Elon Moreh, Bet El, Eli and Har Homa. Israel will absorb settlement blocs that contain 110,000 settlers, in addition to the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem which include 200,000 Israelis. 110,000 Israelis living in 120 out of 140 West Bank settlements, and all settlements in the Gaza Strip, will be evacuated.

The states of Palestine and Israel will establish a corridor linking the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The corridor, which will traverse Israeli territory, will be under Palestinian administration and under Israeli sovereignty, and it will be permanently open.

Articles 3 & 5 - Implementation & Security: An International Implementation and Verification Group (IVG) - including the US, Russia, the EU, the UN and others - and a Multinational Force (MF) in Palestine will be established to provide security guarantees to both parties, act as a deterrent, and to help insure implementation and to monitor compliance by both parties to the terms of the agreement.

Palestine shall be a non-militarized state, with a strong security force. The MF will protect the territorial integrity of the state of Palestine and oversee the Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territory. The MF will help enforce anti-terrorism measures, monitor Palestinian security compliance, and train the Palestinian Security Service. The force cannot be withdrawn except by consent of both Israel and Palestine.

Existing irregular forces and armed groups shall be disbanded and prevented from reforming at any future date. A Trilateral Security Committee - including Israel, Palestine, and the US - shall develop comprehensive policies and guidelines to fight terrorism and violence. Israel and Palestine will promulgate laws to prevent incitement to irredentism, racism, terrorism and violence and vigorously enforce them and the IVG shall monitor compliance.

Israeli military forces and settlers will be removed from Palestinian territory within 30 months.

Israel will maintain a small military presence in the Jordan Valley under the authority of the MF for an additional 36 months. Israel may maintain two Early Warning Stations (EWS) in the northern and central West Bank at locations specified in the Agreement. The EWS will be staffed by the minimal required number of Israeli personnel and will use the minimal amount of land necessary for their operation. The MF will monitor and verify that the EWS is being used for purposes recognized by the Accord.

All border crossings in the State of Palestine will be monitored by joint teams composed of members of the Palestinian Security Force and the Multinational Force. There will be no Israeli forces at border crossings between the state of Palestine and the Arab world following the 30-month Israeli withdrawal process; during the 30-month withdrawal period, Israel will be able to maintain only an unseen presence at a designated facility in passenger and cargo terminals.

The Palestinian state will enjoy sovereignty and security control over all roads in its territory.

The state of Palestine will enjoy sovereignty over its own airspace. The Israeli Air Force will be entitled to use the Palestinian sovereign airspace for training purposes.

Article 6 - Jerusalem: Israel and Palestine shall have their mutually recognized capitals in areas of Jerusalem under their respective sovereignty.

Israel will receive sovereignty over the "Wailing" Wall, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, and Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, including Givat Ze'ev, Ma'aleh Adumim, and the original historically Jewish area of Gush Etzion. Israel shall administer the Tower of David, the Western Wall tunnel, and the Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

Palestine will receive sovereignty over al-Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount (the "Compound"), the Muslim, Christian, and Armenian Quarters of the Old City, and the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.

An International Group, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, will be established to monitor, verify, and assist in the implementation of the terms of the agreement regarding the Compound. The Compound will be open to people of all faiths, with the Multinational Force ensuring freedom of access to the site. In view of the sanctity of the Compound, and in light of the unique religious and cultural significance of the site to the Jewish people, there shall be no digging, excavation, or construction on the Compound, unless approved by the two Parties.

Article 7 - Palestinian Refugees: The Parties recognize that, in the context of two independent states, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace, an agreed resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem is necessary for achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace between them. The Parties recognize that UN General Assembly Resolution 194, UN Security Council Resolution 242, and the Arab Peace Initiative concerning the rights of the Palestinian refugees represent the basis for resolving the refugee issue, and agree that these rights are fulfilled under the Accord.

All Palestinian refugees shall be entitled to compensation for their refugeehood and for loss of property.

Refugees will be given the choice to (1) move to the new Palestinian state, including areas formerly in Israel , (2) remain in the countries where they currently reside or move to a third country , or (3) move to Israel . In determining its numbers, Israel will consider the average of the numbers submitted by other countries. Refugees who opt to remain in countries where they now reside will also receive prompt and extensive development and rehabilitation programs for their communities.

An international commission and international fund will be established to deal with implementation of these residence options and compensation. Funds will be disbursed to refugee communities in the former areas of UNRWA operation, and will be at their disposal for communal development and commemoration of the refugee experience. Israel will contribute an agreed amount based on the value of the loss of property resulting from the refugees' displacement. Refugee status of individual Palestinians will be terminated once a permanent residence option has been realized.

Article 10 - Sites of Religious Significance: Israel and Palestine shall establish special arrangements to guarantee access to agreed sites of religious significance, which will apply, inter alia, to the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Rachel's Tomb, and Nabi Samuel.

Article 11 - Palestinian Prisoners & Detainees: All Palestinian and Arab prisoners detained in the framework of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict prior to the date of signature of the agreement shall be released according to a three-phase plan as outlined in the agreement-some immediately, some within 18 months, and "exceptional cases" in 30 months.

Article 17 - End of Conflict: The Parties agree that the Geneva Accord will replace and supplant all UN resolutions, including those dealing with refugees, as well as other previous agreements. The Parties request that the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly endorse the Accord and declare that it supercedes all previous UN resolutions.

"For the first time in more than a 100 years of conflict a detailed and comprehensive solution was agreed upon which settles the most critical issues to the conflict, such as borders, ending occupation, the future of Jerusalem and its holy places, and the Palestinians refugees, thus addressing the roots of the conflict, and leaving no room for further claims by the parties in the future….The participants have proven by this draft agreement that there are partners for peace on both sides and that a peace agreement is possible. These understandings can radically change the mood of pessimism and despair, create emotional and political momentum and bring into every Israeli and every Palestinian home the sense of hope, confidence, security, and human dignity. With this agreement years of conflict can finally give way to the dawn of a new era." From the participants' press release, Oct. 11, 2003



http://www.chicagopeacenow.org/Geneva-Summary.html

Preamble: This agreement marks the recognition of the right of the Jewish people to statehood and the recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to statehood, without prejudice to the equal rights of the Parties' respective citizens. The Parties recognize Palestine and Israel as the homelands of their respective peoples.

it simply repeats the UN, but do reinterpret as you wish, you seem to believe people need to be told what they're reading

What he is quoted as saying shows he hasn't come anywhere close to recognizing Israel as a nation that should exist in perpetual peace alongside a future Palestine.

And you damned well know it.

Your attempts to minimize and ignore that which doesn't fit your anti-Israel narrative are becoming more lame by the day.

Facts are worthless if they can't be used to demonize Israel, right?

you wild eyed claims about Abbas reveal much though

Yes, he recognizes Israel for business/political purposes only.

He does NOT recognize Israel's fundamental "right" to exist in peace among its mideast neighbors. You damned well know it as you're utterly incapable of interpreting Abbas' words any differently. Not that it's even possible to do so.

Who do you think you're fooling?

"I do not intend to compromise in any way over the issue of the Jewish state. This will be a condition for our recognition of a Palestinian state."

is that still the case?

The Palestinian position is that recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is a matter for final status negotiations. They have opposed it being made a precondition of negotiations, which is what Netanyahu is seeking to do.

"I'm for Geneva and Olmert's offer."

That is impossible. They are vastly different beasts. You would need to prefer one or the other.

Under the Geneva plan, Ariel and Har Homa would be given back to the Palestinians, for a start.

The Geneva Plan proposes that Ariel be returned to the Palestinians explicitly because the settlement severely impedes the contiguity of a future Palestinian state.

Do you agree with that assessment?

I'm for every single peace offer from the partition plan to Geneva and Olmert if it would result in genuine peace, not just bullshit on paper.

Can you say the same?