TV report: Abbas said ‘no’ to Obama on 3 core peace issues

[Mosby]

On his trip to Washington this week, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rejected US Secretary of State John Kerry’s framework document for continued peace talks with Israel, and issued “three no’s” on core issues, leaving the negotiations heading for an explosive collapse, an Israeli TV report said Friday.

Abbas “went to the White House and said ‘no’ to Obama,” Channel 2 news reported, quoting unnamed American and Israeli sources.

Specifically, the report said, Abbas rejected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s demand that he recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He also refused to abandon the Palestinian demand for a “right of return” for millions of Palestinians and their descendants — a demand that, if implemented, would drastically alter Israel’s demographic balance and which no conceivable Israeli government would accept. 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.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/tv-report-abbas-said-no-to-obama-on-3-core-peace-issues/

Releasing those Palestinian criminals was a mistake, these talks are going nowhere.

[Scootaloo]

1. He said "no" to three things that make perfect sense to say no to

1) Netanyahu's nonsense stalling tactic.

2) A demand to forfeit a right that Abbas has no power to forfeit, as it is an inherent right to individuals

and

3) an effort to squirm out of Israel's obligations to the people it has exiled and oppressed for sixty-six years.

Yes indeed, the talks are going nowhere. Which is how they've always gone. Because Israel has no interest in peace (it is, after all, winning) and the US has no real interest beyond awarding its politicians medals for "handling the issue."

[aranthus]

2. Enjoy the war. n/t

[Scootaloo]

3. Israel's going to start shooting over this, you think?

I don't. Nor does it seem likely that Palestinians will, either.

As I said, Israel is winning. It wants to maintain the status quo, whereby it uses police force to seize territory for the favored race. Why engage in war to do what it's already doing without war? And if Israel is winning that means the Palestinians are losing - it's binary, after all. They have pretty much nothing left to fight with.

Enjoy your binational state and / or ethnic cleansing. I know you'll favor the latter, but I think Israel has more sense than its supporters.

[aranthus]

6. The Arabs will eventually.

And since you support them in their war to destroy the Jewish state, I figure you should enjoy it. You certainly don't want any reasonable peace.

[Scootaloo]

9. Well, that's an interesting statement

1) "The Arabs?" Who's that? Is Tony Shalhoub gonna take up arms to "destroy the Jewish state?"

2) The "Jewish State" - I assume you mean Israel - is self-destructive, as we are witnessing. its own bad policy undermines the principles of being a modern state. The demand to be an ethnically-defined state, while also demanding to absorb and annex reams of territory filled with another ethnicity is just asking for trouble, don't you think? Either you have to purge the peopel you're amoeba-ing into yourself, or you have to expend enormous resources to keep them from becoming restive, or you have to abandon the pretense of being defined by ethnicity. Guess which of hte three is easiest and more in line with modern democracy?

3) I don't give a damn if Israel exists or not, any more than I give a damn if any other nation exists or not. My opinion here is well-recorded. States exist until they don't. No one cries for Yugoslavia, Rhodesia, South Vietnam, or the United Arab Republic.

4) My definition of a reasonable peace does not revolve around that every demand the Israelis make needs to be acceded to and every demand of the Palestinians must be denied. That's your definition. Right now Israel's fascist leader is using a smokescreen to try to cover for his own untenable demands. Notice how the story isn't about Israel's demand for more settlement expansion and fifty yers control over th Jordan Valley, but rather about Abbas "refusing" to define Israel for Israel at Israel's demand.

[Mosby]

7. its interesting how you frame it as a zero sum game

Wouldn't a permanent settlement that deals with most of both sides concerns be a win for Israel and Palestine?

And why won't abbas agree that the agreement be the final resolution? Doesn't that say an awful lot about his real goals?

[Scootaloo]

10. War generally IS a zero-sum game

And the two sides are indeed legally at war (thus the need for a peace treaty). When one side of a war is winning, the other is by definition losing. Don't you agree?

Wouldn't a permanent settlement that deals with most of both sides concerns be a win for Israel and Palestine?

And why won't abbas agree that the agreement be the final resolution? Doesn't that say an awful lot about his real goals?

Do you think a comprehensive solution to most of the issues can be reached in a single agreement, Mosby? 'Cause if so, I suggest you contact the state department and tell them your secret for that shit, because you will revolutionize diplomacy as the world knows it.

[shira]

4. Come on Scoot, now you're going backwards. You just agreed that descendants of refugees....

...are not entitled to any right-of-return b/c they are not refugees themselves. Only the original 1948 refugees who number around 30,000 total out of the original 700,000.

You're not even consistent with yourself.

[azurnoir]

5. oh shira would you say these children are refugees? They are Afghani born in Pakistan

?6

?6

[Scootaloo]

8. Not at all

My statement is that Abbas does not have authority to sell off someone else's rights. Which is what Israel is asking him to do.

But thanks for highlighting the point that the plan is to hope all those old people die off so the issue can be swept under the rug. You'd think they were Armenians or something.

[shira]

11. So u changed yr mind & now the descendants of refugees have right-of-return?

Yes or No? Are they legally refugees with a right-of-return?

[Scootaloo]

12. No, I didn't

I said Abbas has no authority to sell off peoples' rights. I understand why you might not want to understand the statement, but it is not in and of itself difficult to understand.

[shira]

13. Well he did sell off their rights in Syria last year when he chose....

...for them and decided they'd be better off dead than renounce their right-of-return. They're still dying in Syria and there are literally no anti-Israel, pro-BDS activists out there who are bothered by this. Talk about sanctimonious compassion abuse.

Let's see if I understand you:

Abbas cannot sell off the rights of the original refugees (maybe 30,000 total worldwide). Do you agree or not?

[Scootaloo]

14. You've got that backwards

Israel demanded that Abbas coerce all those people into giving up their rights as a condition to territory that is not even Israel's. No, most of those people don't have the right that would have been signed over, but in the case of those who do, Abbas cannot demand that they do so - and you can't tell which is which just at a glance, you know.

Abbas refused to meet that demand - one, it's a disgusting demand and two, he doesn't have the authority anyway. And so Israel refused to permit refugees into Palestinian territory. And so now here you are, taking so much joy in demanding shakedowns from people fleeing for their lives, and expressing such satisfaction in their brutalization when the mugging doesn't happen. Which frankly makes you look like some sort of walking talking caricature out of Der Stürmer. Seriously you might want to do some self-examination on shit like that.

No, he can't sell off the rights of the refugees who have them. Nor can he sell off rights from people that don't have them (can't sell what's not there, after all.)Thing is Israel doesn't seem to be making a difference between the two at all - and as I've pointed out to you Israel could (and probably should) unilaterally make it a moot point by offering to process all who have valid claim to the right.

[shira]

15. Save the sanctimony. Abbas and the rest of the leadership in the mideast have been...

...using and abusing the refugees as nothing more than political pawns since 1948. This isn't news. They and all their descendants for over 6 decades now have been utterly dehumanized in apartheid conditions as part of some ridiculously stupid plan to attack Israel. They're all dying for a lie.

An UNRWA official by the name of Galloway wrote of this back in 1952:

The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don't give a damn whether the refugees live or die.

That was 1952 and it's as true now as it was then. Don't even pretend otherwise in your repeated attempts to slam Israel and its supporters. The Israel hating BDS movement supports what Galloway said in 1952. They hate Palestinians every bit as much as mideast Arab leadership, so be real - okay? Where are the BDS human rights phonies regarding Abbas on Syrian refugees? Why the silence? None of the BDS Israel hating crew gives a flying shit about refugees, whether in apartheid conditions in Lebanon or the killing fields of Syria.

I know you won't acknowledge a damned thing above and that goes to show where you're really coming from.

=======

As to the original refugees, Israel has offered a fair resolution since 1949:

In July 1949, Israel made an offer to accept the return of 100,000 refugees (sometimes referred to as "The 100,000 Offer&quot to Israel, contingent upon Arab agreement to a comprehensive peace, and to resettlement of the remaining refugees in Arab countries.[2] Israel also put forward a proposal called the "Gaza Plan," whereby Israel would repatriate some 200,000 refugees and 70,000 Arabs in Gaza as citizens if Egypt would relinquish control of Gaza Strip to Israel, and the international community would provide aid for refugee resettlement.[3]

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/lausanne-conference-1949#ixzz2wjRohNme

Deal with the reality, Ace.

[Scootaloo]

16. Stop gloating over the suffering of other people, and I will

Abbas and the rest of the leadership in the mideast have been using and abusing the refugees as nothing more than political pawns since 1948.

I'm sorry, but aren't you the one high-fiving about demanding refugees give up their rights as a condition to not being killed by cannibal maniacs? Seeing as how you are indeed praising this notion, I don't think you have the least room to say someone is using refugees as "political pawns,"

Don't even pretend otherwise in your repeated attempts to slam Israel and its supporters.

Israel could resolve the issue with a single statement. It is the only nation or entity in the region that is able to do so. It could do so unilaterally, no problem. However, it absolutely refuses to do so, unless some pounds of flesh are carved out of the refugees' hides, or the hides of other Palestinians. This isn't a "slam," it's a statement of fact.

As to the original refugees, Israel has offered a fair resolution since 1949:

- Israel's obligation was to the full body of refugees. Not a token 100,000. The "Offer" was Israel trying to shirk its obligations under international law.

- The proposal was conditional on the Arabs agreeing to recognize Israel's annexation of territory outside of Israel's borders.

- Further the agreement would carry the demand that the total number of Arabs in the state of Israel "not exceed 250,000" - including the newly-returned refugees. Which ironically would have meant more ethnic cleansing as a term of reconciliation for ethnic cleansing.

- Those returned refugees would be resettled and placed according to Israel's economic and security desires, not returned to their rightful property.

- The "Gaza Plan" also called for the annexation of all the Palestinian territory behind the armistice lines, as well as Israeli Annexation of Gaza, and carried no specifics on how refugees would be handled... together with the demand that the UN pay for the resettlement process.

The conciliation commission - consisting of the United States, Turkey, and France - rejected these "offers" because, well... they were bullshit offers.

We already covered this ground Shira. You can't claim ignorance.

[shira]

18. That's what you're doing w/ yr compassion abuse. I'm pointing out yr hypocrisy...

1. No one here is high-fiving Israel's demand that the refugees sign a waiver before entering the W.Bank.

2. The point is that you're not bothered in the least about the fact that 99.9% of refugees have no legal right of return under international law and that they've been suffering over 6 decades for nothing but a myth - a lie. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but here you and yours are "high-fiving" and cheering on mideast leadership for the past 6 decades subjecting these people to hell in their war against Israel. Millions of refugees (or their descendants) have been used as instruments for war, and you're all for it. It's unreal that you project your loathing of Palestinians onto others here. Let's pause to consider the irony, shall we? Abbas could save thousands of Palestinians in Syria right now if he wanted, and the most you'll do as the refugees' greatest advocate is yawn in response. I'm telling you, it's hard to hate Palestinians more than you folks here do.

3. You're still pretending Israel tossed out 700,000 Arabs out of sheer malice and that their misfortune was not the result of a war the Arabs started against Israel. Israel had no obligation to all the refugees, no more than the Czechs and Allied Powers from WW2 had an obligation to all 12 million Germans they ethnically cleansed from the Sudetenland during the same time period. Given Galloway's statement in 1952 about refugees being used by their cynical leaders as war pieces against Israel, why would you expect Israel to treat all the refugees as perfectly innocent and peaceful victims wishing Israel no harm in their return?

[Scootaloo]

19. Good to see you're still a hot mess after your vacation, Shira

1. No one here is high-fiving Israel's demand that the refugees sign a waiver before entering the W.Bank.

I was under the definite impression that you think it's a good idea, since you keep using it as an example of Israel's magnanimous behavior and Abbas' apparent depravity. I admit I could be misreading your very direct and supportive statements of this mind-boggling idea, and your sniffy lambasting of my concern over it... But I really don't think I am. Maybe you could clear it up. Show me some posts from you where you're taking Israel down a peg for this demand, please.

2. The point is that you're not bothered in the least about the fact that 99.9% of refugees have no legal right of return under international law and that they've been suffering over 6 decades for nothing but a myth - a lie.

99.9%? Even Saddam Hussein didn't try to make up numbers like that. Try again please.

If you want to say "a majority" then just say "a majority." You don't need to come up with overinflated numbers. Take a deep breath Shira, you're not on Fox news, you don't have to flip your blonde hair over your gaunt neck and scream hyperbole and invective over the liberal as loudly and quickly as you can.

I'm curious about the basis of your claim that i'm "not bothered in the least." You keep making it, but you have yet to substantiate it.

I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but here you and yours are "high-fiving" and cheering on mideast leadership for the past 6 decades subjecting these people to hell in their war against Israel.

"We" are? (who are "mine" by the way?)

Millions of refugees (or their descendants) have been used as instruments for war, and you're all for it.

You seem to operate under the belief that hte very existence of Arabs is itself an act of war. Unsurprising, given what I know of your stances, but still. If this is your thesis, you're going to have to expand on it, and pelase, not just go "This other person said it, it's gotta be true!"

Also do pleasee back up the "you're all for it" claim. i hate to be a broken record, but really, all you've got is a bad tu quoque argument here, which is even worse than Daveykins' bandwagoning. C'mon, prove to me you're not some comet-snorting fundie hillbilly Shira. Put some brain cells into it!

It's unreal that you project your loathing of Palestinians onto others here.

I... Wow... Really? That's what you want to go with here, Shira? Really? 'Cause, uh... Wow.

Just wow.

Let's pause to consider the irony, shall we?

Oh yes, I'm fucking basking in the irony of that one Shira.

Wow.

Abbas could save thousands of Palestinians in Syria right now if he wanted, and the most you'll do as the refugees' greatest advocate is yawn in response.

As we've covered, he can't. it's not in his power to strip individual rights. Do note that it is Israel making the demand, and Israel that controls the border of the west bank. Pinning the onus on Abbas for not doing something he can't do, because Israel won't do something they can do is kinda... stupid.

Especially if you're going to shout to the heavens what a great and humanitarian nation Israel is.

I'm telling you, it's hard to hate Palestinians more than you folks here do.

But lord knows, you pull it off in spades. Your effort is impressive, but I have to admit, not greatly appreciated.

You're still pretending Israel tossed out 700,000 Arabs out of sheer malice and that their misfortune was not the result of a war the Arabs started against Israel.

Malice? I dunno if there was malice or not. I know that the only way to institute a Jewish majority in the territory claimed was to get rid of a shitload of Arabs. I know there were plenty of civilian populations cleared out - some even wholly massacred, which I would class as malice, and this had the effect of making people run like hell when the Jewish militias approached for fear of, y'know, being forcibly converted from Muslims to corpses.

Also, you might want to look at the timeline again, and the documents involved. Most of the purges were the result of the Palestinian Civil War, which occurred before the Arab League's involvement. Also you might want to have a look at the Arab league's declaration to intervene in the civil war in Palestine. It's actually rather fascinating!

Israel had no obligation to all the refugees, no more than the Czechs and Allied Powers from WW2 had an obligation to all 12 million Germans they ethnically cleansed from the Sudetenland during the same time period.

2.2 million, actually. Also, are you sure you want to compare Israel's position to this? I mean... really sure? 'Cause uh... yeah, that was a pretty nasty crime against humanity itself.

And the UN has found the Czech Republic in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by the by. the Czech Reoublic was ordered to return property to claimants.

Given Galloway's statement in 1952 about refugees being used by their cynical leaders as war pieces against Israel, why would you expect Israel to treat all the refugees as perfectly innocent and peaceful victims wishing Israel no harm in their return?

Remember how, last time we went over... Oh who am I kidding, you have a memory like a sink drain.

Israel has the right to screen individual applicants seeking to return. If they are a danger, it gets to tell them no.

[shira]

20. Seriously? You keep claiming Abbas has no right to strip individual rights....

Last edited Tue Mar 25, 2014, 06:17 AM - Edit history (5)

But once again, and we've been over this twice before, the descendants of refugees have no individual right-of-return. Abbas would NOT be stripping their rights when they have none to begin with. Yet you keep repeating this lie over and over again. So WTF?

As to the actual number of original refugees still around, I've posted this for you also but you "forget"...

According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency – the main body tasked with providing assistance to Palestinian refugees – there are more than 5 million refugees at present. However, the number of Palestinians alive who were personally displaced during Israel’s War of Independence is estimated to be around 30,000.

Read more: US Senate dramatically scales down definition of Palestinian 'refugees' | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-senate-dramatically-redefines-definition-of-palestinian-refugees/#ixzz2wmK3td8F

The US Senate says the Palestinian refugee claim is 160X too high. So yeah, 99% are not refugees at all. Excuse me for typing 99.9%.

The point being you're advocating refugee rights for those who have nothing more than a mythical right-of-return. They are literally dying for a lie & being used cynically as political pawns. It's still happening, Abbas is allowing it, and you guys sit on your asses screaming at Israel while yawning at Abbas. You have no right to act as an advocate for refugee rights when it's clear you support their ongoing misery with your repeated attempts to use that misery to slander and attack Israel. IOW, like those who deliberately keep them in misery to attack Israel, you do the same.

I showed you before how refugees have been cynically used by their leaders the last 6 decades when I quoted UNRWA's Galloway from 1952. You ignored that b/c it's an inconvenient fact and in no way bothers you. The refugees and their descendants have been cynically used as weapons to destroy Israel. They're in misery just for that purpose. This is a fact. Countless Arab leaders since 1948 admit it....

“In demanding the return of the Palestinian refugees the Arabs mean their return as masters, not slaves, or to put it more clearly – the intention is the extermination of Israel.”
- Salah al-Din, Egyptian Foreign Minister

“If the refugees return to Israel – Israel will cease to exist.”
- Gamal Abdel Nasser

“The day on which the Arab hope for the return of the refugees to Palestine is realized will be the day of Israel’s extermination.”
- Abdallah al-Yafi, Lebanese Prime Minister

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/israel/quotes.html

Galloway had it right back in 1952. He knew the game that was being played. Ergo, the ongoing misery for Palestinians in Arab lands today. Their leaders don't give a damn whether they live or die, so long as they can be used as weapons to destroy Israel.

“I DO NOT BUY INTO THE TWO STATE SOLUTION. It is not just pragmatically impossible it was never a moral solution.. The first issue would be the right of return but if the refugees were to return you cannot have a two state solution like one Palestinian commentator remarked, YOU WILL HAVE A PALESTINIAN STATE NEXT TO A PALESTINIAN STATE RATHER THAN A PALESTINIAN STATE NEXT TO ISRAEL”
-Omar Barghouti, Leader of BDS

How are you and the movement against Israel that you represent any different than the leaders Galloway was slamming back in 1952? You're all amazingly silent about refugees in Lebanon and Syria. You pretend you don't know that they're being callously used and abused. You only find your voices and your poutrage about refugees if you can find a way to attack Israel. Reminds me of the silence following Kuwait expelling 300,000 refugees during the Gulf War. The Israel bashers didn't give a shit about that. Residents of Balata Refugee Camp within the W.Bank are still prohibited from building homes outside the refugee camp. Cue the yawning from Israel bashers worldwide. These people are nothing more than pawns to the Israel bashers, not humans. They mean absolutely nothing. In fact, they're lower than nothing. And you guys pose as their human rights champions. How utterly detestable and shameful.

Now you see why I believe Israel bashing BDS goons are fanboys who cheerlead continued Palestinian misery. They're useful political pawns and nothing more than that to the Israel bashing crew. You'd be hard pressed to find Kahanists who loathe Palestinians more. They can't possibly hate Palestinians more than you guys who purport to care about them. Indeed, with friends like you the refugees don't need enemies.

[shira]

22. ...And finally, he refused to commit to an “end of conflict”

You agree with Abbas on that one?

Really?

If so, what's the point of peace negotiations in the 1st place?

This means you support the continuation of the conflict, more war.

[Fozzledick]

17. Condensed version: Abbas said ‘no’ to peace

The rest is just hot air.

[fnctel]

21. Abbas said ‘no’ to peace

Dog Bites Man?

When was the last time he said, "Yes"?