Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Palestinians Demand Full Settlement Freeze
RAMALLAH, West Bank - The Palestinians on Saturday insisted on a full Israeli settlement freeze before renewing peace efforts, putting a damper on a US call to revive talks with no preconditions.
A Palestinian labourer works at a construction site in the West Bank settlement of Beit Arieh. The Palestinians have insisted on a full Israeli settlement freeze before renewing peace efforts, putting a damper on a US call to revive talks with no preconditions. (AFP photo) "A resumption of peace talks requires the complete halt of settlements" in the occupied West Bank, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat told AFP.
Erakat also demanded that Israel comply with its commitment under the 2003 international roadmap for peace that calls for a "halt to all settlement activity including natural growth and Jerusalem."
Negotiations should be picked up from the point they were left when they broke down in December 2008, he said.
So far, there has been no reaction from the Israeli government.
On Friday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Israelis and Palestinians to resume the peace talks without preconditions, in Washington's latest bid to return the sides to the negotiations table.
Clinton backed the key Palestinian aim of creating a state along the borders that existed before the 1967 Israeli-Arab war, but said the lines would be modified through mutually agreed land swaps, presumably to account for some Israeli settlements that would remain.
The Palestinian stand was backed by the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and Germany who met in Riyadh on Saturday.
"The illegal settlements ... constitute a major obstacle to peace talks," Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said in a joint news conference with his German counterpart Guido Westerwelle.
Westerwelle said a settlement freeze was part of the roadmap. "This is ... also the position expressed by the European Union as a whole," he said.
The Palestinians have insisted the borders of their promised state encompass all of their land Israel occupied in 1967, including mostly Arab east Jerusalem -- which Israel later annexed in a move not recognised by the international community -- as their capital.
"Resolving borders resolves settlements. Resolving Jerusalem resolves settlements," the chief US diplomat told reporters after meeting Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh in Washington.
"We are working with the Israelis, the (Palestinian Authority), and the Arab states to take the steps needed to relaunch the negotiations as soon as possible and without preconditions," Clinton said.
The parties can reach a solution that "reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognised borders," she said.
President Barack Obama administration's efforts to revive the peace talks have so far been frustrated despite heavy pressure on Israel, the Palestinians and Arab states to make positive gestures.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced in November a partial suspension of settlement activity in the West Bank but not in occupied east Jerusalem as a gesture ahead of the resumption of talks.
The Palestinians have nevertheless repeatedly insisted on a full suspension of settlement construction in all land occupied in 1967.
Obama's special Middle East envoy George Mitchell, who said earlier this week that peace talks should not last more than two years, is expected to return to the region later this month to push the latest US initiative.
21 Comments so far
Show AllWhat is there to talk about in "peace talks"? All that has to happen is for Israel to give back the land it has stolen, stop killing Palestinians and stealing their land and resources, and move back to (at least) the 1967 borders. And pay the Palestinians reparations for all the damage Israel has done. Israel can do all this without "peace talks." Just as other countries manage to observe international law without having to first call for "peace talks."
Israel just uses "peace talks" as cover as they steal more and more land, and kill and imprison more and more Palestinians. Calling for "peace talks" is like asking the Jews in the concentration camps to hold "peace talks" with the Nazis, as, meanwhile, the gas chambers work around the clock.
Settlement freeze? The Zionists must evacuate all of Palestine. Period.
"Calling for "peace talks" is like asking the Jews in the concentration camps to hold "peace talks" with the Nazis, as, meanwhile, the gas chambers work around the clock."
Beautifully said! Do you mind if I borrow that line?
Thank you, I'd be honored!
What do the Palestinians have to compromise? Their HOPE of not living in a nightmarish hell?
How do people negotiate when one side has all the real estate and resources and control and the other has nothing but devastation. What is there to negotiate?
Exactly. The US has to make a pretense of being neutral; and this pretense has to be repeated over and over (repeat a lie often enough and it will be believed).
Go back to 1947.
Go back to 6000bc. If "historical" borders have so much validity, 6000bc ought to be even more valid than 1947ad.
The Israeli's would argue that, if they actually gave equal rights to Palestinians the Palestinians would murder every Israeli at the first opportunity.
Given the way Israel has oppressed these people and brutalized them over the decades, this fear has a lot of merit.
And from what I've seen of the way Fatah and Hamas behave, even against each other...it doesn't look like 'forgiveness' is big on their agenda either.
There are no good guys.
This is the a hard thing for Americans, who seem to believe Hollywood more than reality, to understand.
In that world only true neutrality and even handed dealing stands any chance of success. Like that is going to happen any time soon!
But more generally:
America squandered her power in the last decade, this next decade will be one of inexorable decline. At best America will intelligently realise she can no longer fund all her wars and 'interests' any more...at worst she will simply collapse when Palin gains the presidency in 2012.
As a result this unsustainable situation will blow up this next decade with Israel finding herself in serious trouble. The worst part is that, no matter how you slice it, a large number of innocent people are going to die.
No offense, but though I don't dispute that there is plenty of blame to go around, there's a glaring fallacy in your lede.
Human rights are theoretically inalienable. Although governments effectively "administer" human rights (or not), they don't "own" them.
My driving instructor used to repeatedly instill what he considered crucial rules for safe driving, e.g. "STOP" means "STOP!", not slow down, then slide through. The relevant one here is "You may 'have' the right-of-way, but that doesn't mean you can TAKE the right-of-way! The OTHER driver has to GIVE you the right-of-way."
It's not an exact parallel, but the seeming common-sense notion that a government or majority "gives" people rights is misguided. The same argument was popular during the US civil rights struggle after WWII. And there were similar fears that if the government "gave" Negroes "their rights", it would be like letting go a tiger one is holding by the tail.
But governments can only "take", or seek to repress and deny, inalienable rights.
So your first sentence should read more like, "The Israelis would argue that, if they discontinued repressing and denying rights to Palestinians the Palestinians would murder every Israeli at the first opportunity."
The prospect of retaliation, or "blowback", is genuine, but it's at best an invalid circular argument to justify continued oppression on the grounds that ending it will mean trouble for the oppressor.
I do agree that Israel may eventually reap the whirlwind sowed by the Western hegemony that created it. I prefer that outcome to the intolerable status quo.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Why is it that the truth and history is forgotten? Israel was recognized by the UN in 1948. Israel became a nation and set up borders. Israel was constantly under attack by her neighbors. None of these neighbors wanted the Palestenians in their countries, hence this war continues. The Palestenians are the ones who are the aggressors. And no-Israel should not even consider returning land gained in 1967, after they were attacked and defended theirself. I am constantly amazed that people do not like to go all the way back to the origin of this problem, but rather claim the villain is the victim. Only Israel, the smallest nation on earth, is expected to share her land with another 'nation'. That idea in and of itself is ludicrous. What do you think Americans would say if all the Palestenians came to America and demanded that this nation is as much theirs as Americans? The fact that Israel is willing to share their nation is commendable. Instead 'give them an inch and they will take a mile' is proven to be more than just an old saying.
Louise talks about truth and history and then in the very second sentence lies and obfucates the facts.
"Why is it that the truth and history is forgotten?"
Have you any clue as to the massacres that took place in 1947? Do you know anything about the Balfour declaration and how the Colonial enterprise that is Israel has set up shop in a land that wasn't theirs to begin with?
Just read the entries by Jewish Americans currently in the "holyland" and you're bound to learn the truth, unless of course you've got your head set on "denial":
http://mondoweiss.net/
Do you know anything about Israeli historians who themselves speak of such ethnic cleansing? Do you even speak Hebrew? Are you Israeli, or just another American Zionista?
Go peddle your lies elsewhere.
I am not peddling lies. I read your opinions. You know what is said about opinions I am sure, so I acknowledge that you have your opinion, yet don't trace back to the beginning. I am a Christian. And I do not deny Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He is the Greatest Jew that ever lived. Israel had belonged to the Jews since the time of Abraham. I know the truth. It is all in the old Testament of The Holy Bible, King James Version. Israel does belong to the Jews.
This is propaganda nonsense.
• In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.
• Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become policy, unless approved by the Security Council.
• The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the U.S. knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force given the extent of Arab and other Muslim opposition to it; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.
• So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away, effectively surrendering to Zionist terrorism – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the U.S. was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence – actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.
The truth of the time was that the Zionist state, which came into being mainly as a consequence of pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist UNLESS … Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.
And that legitimacy was the only thing the Zionists could not and cannot take from the Palestinians by force.
No wonder Prime Minister Netanyahu is more than a little concerned on this account.
That's why we have these constant demands for Palestinians to "recognise" the state of Israel which of course they do BEHIND THE 1967 BORDERS.
"And from what I've seen of the way Fatah and Hamas behave, even against each other...it doesn't look like 'forgiveness' is big on their agenda either."
-------------
If you were the Palestinians, the victim of genocide, opressed, repressed, invaded, brutalized, raped, robbed, demonized, pitied against each other, starved, bombed, imprisoned, driven from their land, I'm sure that you would even eat your young. By turning against each other, they're only doing what they have been conditioned to do. It's very difficult to succeed when one has been set up to fail.
Hey, physicscitizen,
That old and tired meme that "they both suck" is such a trite piece of propaganda. I often see it employed by either those who are clueless about the situation, but they have some affinity toward Israel, while at the same time they consider themselves to be "progressive" so they sleep well at night knowing they are being "even handed".
Or, that propaganda tool is employed by those who seek to blur the lines between victim and victimizer so as to absolve Israel of the apartheid and colonialist labels.
The poor Palestinians...as if they were in a position to make demands. Still, you have to admire their spirit, their will to survive, their determination. Gotta love these brave people!
Wow, 'Calling for "peace talks" is like asking the Jews in the concentration camps to hold "peace talks" with the Nazis, as, meanwhile, the gas chambers work around the clock', is a very good way of sizing up this situation. The evil hatred the Palestinians have for Israel is unbelievable. And in reading some of the comments I see that the hatred has spread. Really like that analogy 'Calling for "peace talks" is like asking the Jews in the concentration camps to hold "peace talks" with the Nazis, as, meanwhile, the gas chambers work around the clock', though!!!
No one buys that old and tired shtick anymore.
תסתלקי מכאן
And while you're at it, go spend a week in Hebron with your favorite colonialists who shoot at will at Palestinians while the Israeli military stands by and does nothing. Except, when the Palestinians fight back, the military starts shooting at the Palestinians and protects the Israeli fanatics.
You talk about hate. You wouldn't know hate if you were staring it in the mirror.
Wow - your "views" are crashingly, breath-takingly, monumentally stupid and ill-informed. There is no help for you. Take up needlepoint or some other hobby that will keep you out of people's hair.
i need some help... i've tried for several years now... but pre 1947 is unclear to me...
going backwards from 1947 (or the UN resolution)...
who "owned" "israel"?
what "was" israel" and "pelestine" prior to 1947... and prior to that...?
everything i read swerves off into a bloody discussion of who did what to who... ok... i get it... they've been killing themselves for centuries... and who "deserves"... who "suffered more"... who's "entitled"...
so if one group (I) or (P) was there "first"... who came "next"... and how did they get there...?
pre 1947 only... i've read the history since as nauseum... i've been able to follow it back to the late 1800's...