Israel 'saddened' as Brazil recognises Palestinian state

[FarCenter]

AFP - Israel on Saturday said it was disappointed by Brazil's decision to recognise a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, saying it flew in the face of efforts to negotiate a peace deal.

The decision was announced by outgoing Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in a public letter addressed to Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas, which was made public by Brazil's foreign ministry on Friday.

http://www.france24.com/en/20101204-israel-saddened-bra...

[Voice for Peace]

1. boo hoo

here's a hankie

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[shira]

3. LOL! Are they also gassing Palestinians in concentration camps?

[Odin2005]

4. Too obvious, they are simply isolating them Apartheid SA-style.

[shira]

5. Really? Israel must be incompetent b/c the Arab population keeps growing...

...in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank.

They're doing a very shitty job of ethnic cleansing, don't you think?

Actually, the last case of ethnic cleansing occurred 5 years ago when every last Jew left Gaza.

As for South Africa comparisons, Arab citizens of Israel enjoy full equal rights as anyone else. Arab Israelis live in West Bank settlements alongside Jewish Israelis.

Israel can't even do apartheid right, can they?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[shira]

7. So no Arabs are being ethnically cleansed but you claim it's happening somehow...

Are you also aware there are Arab Israeli settlers living with Jews in West Bank settlements?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32702595/ns/world_news-mide... /

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2009/12/28/Je... /

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZyEmn4wjnY

What kind of apartheid style ethnic cleansing is that?

The only people ethnically cleansed recently in that area were the Jews of Gaza in 2005.

[shaayecanaan]

14. So the State of Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing...

by removing the Jewish settlers from Gaza in 2005?

[oberliner]

8. What with the use of the German term "Lebensraum" associated with the Nazi era?

Why ever would you use that particular word?

[shira]

9. This is VERY bad news for peace and human rights advocates

If other countries start following Brazil's lead, the PA will pull out of peace negotiations entirely and take the free state without cutting a peace deal. They'll take this as a reward for not compromising...

Fatah: The Message Remains No and No and No
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

This recognition turns Israel into invaders rather than occupiers ouside the 1967 borders, which means more incitement to violence and terror against Israeli civilians. Israel cannot pull back to exact 1949 armistice lines for fear of a Gaza repeat with rockets this time falling into major population centers (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv). If they did pull back to the '67 borders, they couldn't stop Hamas from taking over the West Bank or the PA inviting Iran's military to settle down in the West Bank. Millions of Palestinian refugees would remain in camps without basic human rights, rotting away for more decades - hoping unrealistically to live within Israel proper.

Wanting Israel out of the West Bank is one thing.

But this will not promote peace, just more war, bloodshed and suffering.

A warmongerer's wet dream.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

11. so what your telling me is that if the palestinian people

wanted Iran to help them with security(or as you put it, have them settle down in the west back), then they should be forbidden to do so?

[shira]

12. Uhh, yeah....what kind of peace do you envision when the Iranian military is welcome to "defend"

...Palestine once a peace deal is cut?

All reasonable peace offers (like the Geneva Accord) include the provision that Palestine will be demilitarized. Inviting Iran at Israel's doorstep (within easy range of Israel's biggest population centers) wouldn't only violate that, but make more war and bloodshed inevitable.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Everyone with an ounce of intelligence knows Israel isn't interested in peace...

I doubt anyone cares all that much what 'saddens' that extreme RW govt...

[Dick Dastardly]

19. As most people learned in elementary school absolute statements are usually false.

Such arguments are usually used by those who lack a legitimate argument or lack the intelligence (an ounce or less) to form one.
Most people people with at least average intelligence which are those with more than an ounce of intelligence know that Israel has always been interested in peace and has made peace with those who were interested in a real peace as well. In order to make a real peace Israel has repeatedly made and has been willing to make hard and risky concessions that most other countries would never make and or would not be expected to make.
Those who claim Israel is not interested in peace do so for a wide range of reasons from pure hatred of Israel and seeking its destruction to just plain ignorance and an inability to view the situation in any realistic manner.

[elias49]

20. If true, why go and make an absolute statement yourself?

"...Israel has always been interested in peace and has made peace with those who were interested..."

[Dick Dastardly]

23. Besides the fact that I said absolute statements are

"usually" false and not always false. The statement you are talking about was not a matter of fact absolute statement as was the one my post was commenting on but was qualified with reasoning, example/evidence and argument to make and support my point. Also my statement did not say "everyone" but said "most people".

Try again but before you do may I suggest you take a refresher course such as Logic 101 or maybe even something more remedial in the 090's at your local community college.

[elias49]

26. Nice try.

Hoisted by your own petard

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. The current Israeli government does not want to end the occupation.

So, while "Israel is not interested in peace" is a slight oversimplification - there are a few Israelis interested in genuine peace, and a lot interested in peace of the "the Palestinians give up and go home*" variety - it's basically accurate


*Well, not home, of course, because Israel has to maintain its ethnocracy, but somewhere else where they won't both Israel.

[shira]

22. Saeb Erekat claimed Israel agreed to Olmert's offer from 2008, which would end the occupation...

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=187072

That offer is almost identical to the Geneva Initiative, hailed and endorsed by Jimmy Carter, Noam Chomsky, Amos Oz, and Sari Nusseibeh.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. The Israeli govt is NOT interested in peace...

I wasn't talking about some Israeli citizens who are. I was talking about the government of Israel...

[shira]

27. Unlike past Israeli govts, Netanyahu's govt froze settlements and agreed to Olmert's 2008 offer...

...which is almost identical to the Geneva Accord endorsed by Chomsky, Jimmy Carter, Amos Oz, and Sari Nusseibeh - all liberals.

For NOT being interested in peace, Netanyahu's putting on quite a show.

None of Israel's Labour governments under Golda Meir, Rabin, or Barak offered as much as Olmert, let alone froze settlement growth for as many as 10 months.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Olmert's 'offer' was NOT almost identical to the Geneva Accord...

That is as incorrect as claiming that Hamas and Fatah are almost identical or that the stance on women's reproductive rights held by Democrats and Republicans are almost identical.

Here's a link to an earlier thread where another poster corrected the claim that Olmert's 'offer' and the Geneva Accord were almost identical.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Nutty is NOT interested in a peaceful resolution to the conflict. He's an extremist RW bigot and warmonger. Hopefully there will soon come a time when Israel will have a govt that is interested in a peaceful and fair resolution to the conflict where both the Israelis and Palestinians will live in peace. Nutty is most definately not the man who wants to do that...

[azurnoir]

29. I think that last part of the post sums things up IMO

However, for the benefit of lurkers: be aware that what Shira says about Olmert's offer being the same as the Geneva initiative is not "controversial", "disputed", or even a "misrepresentation", it's simply "untrue" - made up out of whole cloth, on the principle that if you lie enough people will start to believe you.

I could not agree more

[oberliner]

30. The Geneva Accord formed the basis of Ehud Olmert’s offer to Abbas

According to the map proposed by Olmert, which is being made public here for the first time, the future border between Israel and the Gaza Strip would be adjacent to kibbutzim and moshavim such as Be'eri, Kissufim and Nir Oz, whose fields would be given to the Palestinians.

Olmert also proposed giving land to a future Palestinian state in the Beit She'an Valley near Kibbutz Tirat Tzvi; in the Judean Hills near Nataf and Mevo Betar; and in the area of Lachish and of the Yatir Forest. Together, the areas would have involved the transfer of 327 square kilometers of territory from within the Green Line.

Olmert presented his map to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in September of last year. Abbas did not respond, and negotiations ended. In an interview with Haaretz on Tuesday, Abbas said Olmert had presented several drafts of his map.

The version being disclosed Thursday in Haaretz is based on sources who received detailed information about Olmert's proposals.

Olmert wanted to annex 6.3 percent of the West Bank to Israel, areas that are home to 75 percent of the Jewish population of the territories. His proposal would have also involved evacuation of dozens of settlements in the Jordan Valley, in the eastern Samarian hills and in the Hebron region. In return for the annexation to Israel of Ma'aleh Adumim, the Gush Etzion bloc of settlements, Ariel, Beit Aryeh and settlements adjacent to Jerusalem, Olmert proposed the transfer of territory to the Palestinians equivalent to 5.8 percent of the area of the West Bank as well as a safe-passage route from Hebron to the Gaza Strip via a highway that would remain part of the sovereign territory of Israel but where there would be no Israeli presence.

Olmert gave Col. (res.) Danny Tirza, who had been the primary official involved in planning the route of the security fence, the task of developing the map that would provide the permanent border between Israel and the Palestinian state. Olmert's proposed annexation to Israel of settlement blocs corresponds in large part to the route of the security fence. In his proposal for a territory swap, Olmert rejected suggestions previously raised involving the transfer to the Palestinians of the eastern Lachish hills, deciding instead to establish communities there for evacuees from the Gaza Strip. He also showed a preference for giving the Palestinians agricultural land over the transfer of the Halutza sands near the Egyptian border.

The implementation of the Olmert plan would require the evacuation of tens of thousands of settlers and the removal of hallmarks of the West Bank settlement enterprise such as Ofra, Beit El, Elon Moreh and Kiryat Arba, as well as the Jewish community in Hebron itself.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-exclu...

[azurnoir]

32. perhaps Olmerts plan could be called 'loosely' based on Geneva

however this is a map of his plan

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/images/iht_daily/D17120...

which shows the comment above to be accurate and Jerusalem seemed missing except for that Israel wanted the protective ring of settlements around it's east side to remain

[Violet_Crumble]

31. I agree. It's totally incorrect to claim the 'offer' was almost identical...

And that's putting aside other things, like Olmert was on his way out and wouldn't have been able to carry any of it out, and that just because something's an 'offer' doesn't make it a good offer or mean people should jump at it...

on edit: Forgot to mention that with one being an 'offer' made by an outgoing PM and the other being an initiative, which is basically a bunch of people getting together and creating a plan that they think will resolve the conflict, but which doesn't have any official authority. It's a guide, which should be used to build on in the future, but it's definately not an 'offer', let alone one that's nearly identical...

[shira]

42. Whether it's an offer or initiative, identical or not to Geneva, Nutty is arguably farther left than

...any Israeli leader WRT the peace process for the past 62 years.

By agreeing to Olmert's concessions AND freezing settlements 10 months (something no other PM has done) Netanyahu is arguably farther to the left than Golda Meir, Yitzak Rabin, and Ehud Barak. If Netanyahu was an advocate for Olmert's concessions and pushed for freezing settlements 10 months in either Meir or Rabin's party, he would have been tossed out as a far 'Leftist'.

If Nutty is as bad as you claim, then all of Israel's past PM's were far worse WRT the peace process, including and especially Yitzak Rabin. Here's Rabin's position (it would now be considered Rightwing) just 1 month before he was assassinated:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

It's fine not to trust Netanyahu, but it's difficult to ignore where he is in relation to all past governments of Israel WRT the peace process. What he has done isn't really very different than if MERETZ were in power right now and had somehow pulled off a 10-month building freeze and offered to Abbas and the PA the Geneva Initiative.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. The name Nutty and Left don't even belong in the same sentence...

He's no more 'further left' than Bush or Cheney were when it came to the war in Iraq. When it comes to the 'peace process', I don't think there has been an Israeli leader yet who has been driven by the desire to see the creation of an independent and viable Palestinian state sitting side-by-side with Israel. The ones to the Right of the Israeli political spectrum are more honest than the Barak's about their support of the settlements and not supporting an independent and viable Palestinian state, but that by no means makes Nutty a 'far Leftist' or anything other than the extreme RW, bigoted intransigent blocker to any real peace process. (keeping in mind that a real peace process isn't him going 'okay, let's get together and talk about talking sometime, but we're going to have to fit it in after my govt expands West Bank settlements and kicks some more Palestinians out of their homes in East Jerusalem, so can we compare our calendars?)

Last time Nutty was PM, he was there on the platform of complete and utter rejectionist opposition to the peace process. This time round he's had to be dragged kicking and screaming to grudgingly and insincerely utter the term 'two-state solution'. He's not made any ground-breaking moves or come up with anything that shows initiative on his part. A 10 month settlement 'freeze'? Apart from the obvious that there shouldn't be any settlement activity at all, the Americans forced it on him, so don't give him credit. All he's been interested in is holding power and keeping his ruling coalition together. He leads a govt that contains in its midst fascists, ultra-nationalist settler extremists, and rejectionists of any peaceful resoltion with the Palestinians. That govt, led by Nutty, has tried to introduce legislation such as the 'loyalty oath' that's both undemocratic and bigoted in nature. If that was a leader in any other country, I doubt any American liberals would be trying to say the leader wasn't all that bad, or trying to tell anyone they're 'further to the left' than someone else...

Above all, what makes Nutty so dangerous and imo so different than most previous Israeli leaders is that he's not all that bright. He focuses on holding power and keeping his govt together at all costs, while not seeing the bigger picture and how current actions will have an effect on things in the future. He lives for the here and now, and doesn't have any sort of strategic vision for the future of his country. The sooner his govt and Hamas are things are the past, the better it will be for all...

[shira]

33. The Geneva Initiative NGO says it's nearly identical, not me...

http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/olmert-s-legacy-a...

Yediot Aharonot's cover story on Thursday, January 29th presents Olmert's promises to the Palestinians in the context of final status negotiations—promises nearly identical to the solutions offered in the Geneva Accord: Israel shall withdraw to the 1967 borders with 1:1 land swaps to maintain the large settlement blocks; Jerusalem will be the capital of both states, with the Arab neighborhoods becoming Palestinian and the Holy Sites under International control.

They're the ones best suited to judge whether Olmert's offer was close enough or nearly identical.

Interestingly enough, many of the strongest and most extreme critics of Israel are against the Geneva Initiative and for a one-state solution that would result in a massive bloodbath and turn liberal Israel into yet another failed regressive regime in the Mideast. Whatever Netanyahu is, he's not nearly as bad as those types.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. You've been saying constantly it's nearly identical...

And just because an article is posted on a blog, doesn't mean a blog said it nor mean it's correct. The person who wrote that is a journalist who's not one of the Israeli or Palestinian figures behind the Geneva Initiative. I've gone into some detail as to why an 'offer' can't be 'nearly identical' to an initiative. Please read it.


Nutty is every bit as warmongering, full of hate and bigotry, and against a peaceful and fair resolution to the conflict as all other extremists. Extremists don't become more acceptable because they're on one side and not the other. Also, just because someone is opposed to the Geneva Initiative, it doesn't make them extremists or worse than Nutty....

[azurnoir]

35. or make one in favor of a one state 'solution' either

as I have stated in the past I do have issues with Geneva and Olmert,s plan the settlement blocs ringing Jerusalem's east side will IMO be used to 'hamper' access to Jerusalem via the methodology that is currently in use and in Olmert's plan the fingers of land projecting strategically into the WB will be used to keep an IDF presence there permanently

all that being said I will admit at this point in time I am not all together sure that any peace plan and withdrawal from settlements will happen peacefully or without blood shed, there are IMO too many extremists on both sides to think that will happen

[Violet_Crumble]

36. I remember disagreeing with some of what I read when I read through it...

It was one of those things where I agreed with more than I didn't, and totally agree with the overall concept while thinking it needs lots more work in the future. When it boils down to it, it's merely a bunch of suggestions that have no official or legal standing, and aren't set in stone.

Yep, the extremists have been in the ascendancy for a fair while now. I remember only a few years ago thinking things couldn't get worse than Sharafat. How totally wrong I was...

[shira]

37. The Geneva Initiative people say it, not me...

In fact, they had Olmert as keynote speaker at their most recent conference.
http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?...

There's no reason to believe that article on the GI website does not represent the views of the Geneva Initiative NGO. Uri Avnery does not claim Olmert's proposal fell short of the Geneva Accord in his article.

Lastly, those opposed to the Geneva Accord tend to be against 2 states and for one-state or a binational state, which would result in a very bloody war. Such a position is far worse than what Netanyahu is offering.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. No, you've been saying it, and that journalist you linked to isn't the Geneva Initiative....

That the people involved with the initiative had Olmert as a keynote speaker has nothing to do with whether the claim you've been regularly making is true or not. Or does Olmert speaking at something mean they MUST agree with what you say? Because Uri Avnery doesn't say 'Olmert's 'offer' wasn't nearly identical to the Geneva Initiative' means that he MUST think it's nearly identical? That's not logical at all.


There's no reason to believe that the people responsible for the Initiative must believe every single word a journalist writes in an article that they post on their site. I've posted articles on my blogs in the past and I'd be really bothered if people thought I must then agree with every single word the article says, because that's a really ridiculous and absolutist way to think.

For something to be 'nearly identical' to something else, it has to have so little in the way of differences that they're barely noticeable. An example is if I were to offer you $75 for a used car, that's not a 'nearly identical' offer to someone who's come along earlier, taken a look, written a maintenance plan, and then gone 'if the circumstances are right, I'd give you $750 for it and ensure that yr compensated by that wanker who came along and knocked down yr letterbox while test driving it'. I hope that example makes it easier for you to understand why something that's quite different can't be called 'nearly identical'.

Sorry, but supporting one binational state with equal rights for all regardless of whether they're Jewish or Arab, does not make someone an extremist, and most definately doesn't make them worse than a murdering scumbag RW bigot like Nutty...

[oberliner]

39. Supporting one binational state means supporting the end of Israel as it currently exists

That is pretty extreme.

[shira]

40. And there is very little support for that by Palestinians and Israelis.

It's pretty extreme to force a situation (that will likely result in a lot of bloodshed) on people who don't want it.

[Crunchy Frog]

45. It's sad that the settlers are making it a virual inevitability.

Sort of ironic that it's the most extreme "Zionists" who are working the hardest at ending the Israeli state as it is currently envisioned. Not that they understand that's what they're doing. Just that it's an unwitting byproduct of their actions.

[shira]

46. That's not true. There have been no new settlements built since the mid 90's....

There has been building WITHIN existing settlements, many of which will remain in Israel in any deal. The others will be swapped.

Settlers aren't making one state inevitable.

Olmert offered a deal in 2008 based on land swaps similar to the 1999 deal which Arafat rejected. Settlement growth was a non-factor.

[shira]

41. I'll email the Geneva Initiative NGO official website and ask them what they think of that article

We'll see if they agree that Olmert's 2008 proposal was an adoption of - or nearly identical to their 2003 Geneva Accord.

I'll wait a few hours before sending it. That will give you a chance to help craft the question, if you'd like.

Should I wait for your input?

[Violet_Crumble]

44. If yr interested in finding out, I guess you could...

I'm not sure what that would prove, though....

I'll take you back to the example of two things not being 'nearly identical' that I gave you yesterday:

'if I were to offer you $75 for a used car, that's not a 'nearly identical' offer to someone who's come along earlier, taken a look, written a maintenance plan, and then gone 'if the circumstances are right, I'd give you $750 for it and ensure that yr compensated by that wanker who came along and knocked down yr letterbox while test driving it'.'

If I were to ring the person who'd come along earlier and ask them if they thought the latter offer was 'nearly identical' and they said they thought it was, it still doesn't mean that they're correct and that's the end of it. It doesn't make their earlier offer or their motives for doing it suddenly become garbage either just because they called it wrong on being 'nearly identical'...

[shira]

47. Here's the response from the Director of Foreign Relations (Geneva Initative)

Hi Shira,
On September 19th, the Geneva Initiative held a conference entitled "Israel
and the Palestinians - decision time". Former PM Olmert was the key note
speaker. In his address, he presented his peace plan which is very similar
to the Geneva Initiative and includes the following principles:
. "We need to quickly reach a territorial agreement with the
Palestinians based on the 1967 borders"
. "There is no alternative but to adopt the Clinton Parameters
according to which all the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem will be
under Israeli sovereignty and the non-Jewish neighborhoods under Palestinian
sovereignty. Jerusalem will be divided into two capitals"
. "A special regime in the Holy Basin"
. "The issue if Refugees will be solved in the framework of the Arab
League Initiative. The solution won't be within the borders of Israel. We
will be ready to absorb, within the state of Israel, a certain number of
refugees on an individual basis, whereas most of the refugees will be
absorbed in the Palestinian state or in other countries"
. "We formulated an 'eight-point document' which includes the
necessary elements to ensure Israel's security including a solution to the
border between Jordan and the future Palestinian state".

Best regards
Michal


Michal Radoshitzky
Director of Foreign Relations
Geneva Initiative
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
www.geneva-accord.org

[Violet_Crumble]

48. That's nice, but just because he says it's similar doesn't mean it's nearly identical...

I'll refer you back to my previous post and the example I used. If you ask the person who came along first and made an offer on my car whether their offer was nearly identical to the clearly different offer someone else made later and they say they think it is, that doesn't mean they're right and that's the ultimate word. It doesn't.

Here's why the Geneva Initiative is nowhere near being nearly identical to Olmert's 'offer'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Olmert's 'offer' can be read here: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-exclu... That is what was offered to Abbas, and there's nothing that was missed that should have been included?

So, let's run through what the Geneva Initiative covered...

• Mutual recognition
  
• Borders and settlements
  
• Jerusalem
  
• International supervision
  
• Refugees
  
• Security
  

Now, let's look at what Olmert's 'offer' covered

• Borders and settlements
  

That's not nearly identical at all. And when it comes to borders and settlements, while the Geneva Initiative allowed Israel less than 3% in land swaps, Olmert's was 7% and took the best land for Israel...

Just an fyi for any future email replies you get from organisations - when publicly posting the contents of emails, it's not a good idea to post someone's phone numbers, especially their mobile, out of consideration for their privacy. Mr Radoshitzky may not mind, but unless he's given his permission for his sig block containing his mobile number posted publicly, the best thing to do is to remove contact phone numbers from yr post...

[shira]

49. The Geneva Initiative people say it's very similar and nearly identical.

The only real difference is in the percent of land. Olmert's plan is otherwise the same.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/what-happe...
http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/olmert-s-unpreced...
http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/haaretz-exclusive...

Only you and Donald are for some reason arguing otherwise.

When the people behind an initiative enthusiastically back another plan they say is nearly identical or very similar to their own, there's a reason for it.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. I just addressed that in the post you replied to, so I'll repeat it again...

Sorry, I don't know how to reword it so that it's clearer, so I'll just repeat it: 'I'll refer you back to my previous post and the example I used. If you ask the person who came along first and made an offer on my car whether their offer was nearly identical to the clearly different offer someone else made later and they say they think it is, that doesn't mean they're right and that's the ultimate word. It doesn't.'

I also took time to compare the Geneva Initiative and Olmert's offer side by side and show that they're not nearly identical or 'very similar' at all for anyone who takes the few minutes required to compare both. I'll repeat that information again..

Here's what the Geneva Initiative covered...

• Mutual recognition
  
• Borders and settlements
  
• Jerusalem
  
• International supervision
  
• Refugees
  
• Security
  

Here's what Olmert's 'offer' covered. Notice the difference?

• Borders and settlements
  

That's not nearly identical at all. And when it comes to borders and settlements, while the Geneva Initiative allowed Israel less than 3% in land swaps, Olmert's was 7% and took the best land for Israel...'

When two things are very different, it's totally incorrect to say they're 'nearly identical'. It doesn't matter who it is that's saying it, if it's shown that comparing them side by side they're in fact not nearly identical at all, if it's the person who created one of those things being compared, they're still wrong.

on edit: I've had a look at all three links you added to yr post. None of them say or support yr claim that the Geneva Initiative and Olmert's 'offer' were 'nearly identical'. In fact, the first article adds yet another major difference between the two, and that's the Geneva Initiative is documented, while Olmert's 'offer' wasn't documented and it's people's accounts of meetings that they later put down on paper themselves. Add that to the major differces I've already identified, and it's clear that it's totally incorrect to say that both were 'nearly identical'...

[shira]

51. I just added sources showing how close Olmert's plan was to Geneva. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

52. I just added my response to them n/t

[azurnoir]

53. and the part that seems to get left out

Olmert's proposal for a land swap introduces a new stage in the arrangement: Israel would immediately receive the settlement blocs, but the land to be transferred to the Palestinians and the free passage between Gaza and the West Bank would only be delivered after the PA retakes control of the Gaza Strip. In this way, Olmert could tell the Israeli public that Israel is receiving 7 percent of the West Bank and an agreed-upon border, while the Israeli concessions will be postponed until Hamas rule in Gaza has ended.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/pa-rejects-olmert-s-offer-t...

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Thanks for pointing that one out. I'd missed it...

It really does get a bit tedious to read of 'offers' where a way to renege on it is built so blatantly into it....

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Unless they're absolute statements about the Palestinians, then it's okay...

I've spotted a lot of comments floating around making the absolutist statement that Hamas aren't interested in peace. There's nothing absolutist about pointing out the bleeding obvious fact that the current hardline RW Israeli govt isn't interested in peace. Maybe yr definition of peace differs somehow from the one where both Israelis and Palestinians live in peace in two viable and independent states? Because the current Israeli govt most definately isn't interested in that peace. The current Israeli govt isn't even prepared to make the 'hard concession' to continue the settlement freeze for even another month, despite being offered massive incentives by the US. That's what people get when extremist right-wingers are in power...

Oh, just thought I should check. Is pointing out that apart from being as stupid as Sarah Palin, Bush wasn't interested in peace or multilateralism considered an absolute statement and therefore a clear sign of low intelligence?

[azurnoir]

15. Argentina follows Brazil, recognizes Palestinian state

Argentina announced on Monday that it has decided to recognize a "free and independent" Palestinian state, just days after Brazil said it would do so, unleashing sharp criticism from the US and Israel, reported AFP.

Argentine President Cristina Kirchner wrote a letter to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas saying her country recognizes a Palestine as defined by the 1967 borders, AFP cited officials as saying Monday.

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=198279

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. boo hoo

[cali]

17. tough. live with it.

[Jefferson23]

18. Of course the government of Israel is sad over the decision

but who the fuck cares. In the up is down world of, hey..we don't have to stop settlements for peace. The nerve to warn anyone
that a unilateral step would harm attempts to build trust??? Settlement expansion, now there is a plan for building trust!

Good for you Lula.