Reply #106: They accepted it in 1947

[whosinpower]

But they do not accept it now.

Olmert's deal was by far the fairest of them all - that is truth. It is also truth that Netanyahu declared any possible agreement between Olmert and Abbas would of been invalid.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/04/19/Netanyahu-Olmert-deal-would-be-invalid/UPI-54961208624528/

Also - And Martin Indyk, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel, said last month that then-foreign minister Tzipi Livni told Abbas not to make a deal with Olmert.

When asked by Channel 2 reporter Udi Segal, who was hosting the panel, whether the Palestinians missed an opportunity when they rejected Olmert's proposal, Indyk had reportedly replied that "the prime minister was about to have an indictment filed against him and the foreign minister herself specifically told both the Americans and the Palestinians: Don't you dare sign the agreement."

Abbas denies that Livni had anything to do with it - however, it was clear to all that Olmert was in political trouble...and Livni/Netanyahu would be the ones he would have to negotiate with.

Come on Shira - you said - It's false to assert that due to settlement expansion there is less land available in the future for a Palestinian state.

And we both know that there has been the ongoing issue of "future natural growth".

I ask it again - if the tables were completely reversed - and it was Israeli's who were negotiating a future state, do you think they would accept the exact 60 percent that is being offered? Really?