'Abbas calls on Netanyahu to draw two-state map'

[Jefferson23]

PA president demands map for future state as Hamas official tells 'Al Monitor' they are prepared to accept state within '67 borders

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has demanded a map for a future Palestinian state before the resumption of any peace talks, Palestinian news agency Ma'an quoted an aide as saying on Friday.

Abbas "wants to know, through a map to be presented by Binyamin Netanyahu to [US Secretary of State John] Kerry, what the prime minister's view of a two-state solution would be, especially the borders," Ma'an quoted political adviser Nimr Hammad as saying.

"Any return to negotiations requires Netanyahu to agree on 1967 borders," Hammad was quoted as saying.

The remarks come just days ahead of a scheduled visit by Kerry, who will return to Israel on Monday as part of his efforts to restart negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Abbas-calls-on-Netanyahu-to-draw-two-state-map-308855

[Mosby]

1. More Palestinian pre-conditions for talks

If a were bibi I would copy that map in dennis ross's book and fax it over.

[delrem]

6. Myself, I'd continuing smashing my fist into the $%*#'s face, while demanding "peace talks". nt

[azurnoir]

2. In interesting all around

myself I doubt Netanyahu will agree to 1967 borders, but it's interesting that Hamas would agree to such a thing especially after everything we've been told about how both the4 PLO and Hamas want it all

however a crazy idea occurred to me last night where RoR is concerned instead Land for Peace, how about Land for People-the more of the WB Israel retains the more Palestinian refugees it allows to return?

[Jefferson23]

3. I think you've got that right. But don't forget the Peace Later campaign.

So, we'll see.

[shira]

16. About that Peace later....how do you see Peace Now coming to be?

Holdencaufield wrote the following. Let's see if you have an honest answer to it.

So, let's put this in perspective ... Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the continued economic blockade of Gaza is a bitch of a problem. I -- and I believe the vast majority of Jews and Israelis -- just want it to go away. It comes as close to being insoluble as any problem ever faced. Let's break it down, shall we?

1. Hamas and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the Palestinian Authority, remain an intractable enemy to Israel. These aren't my words, these are their own word. And it's not occupation, this has been going on for decades, before '67, before '48. It's an issue that goes back over a century. Most Israelis believe, and for good reason, that if they packed up and left the West Bank tomorrow -- going back to whatever borders you name '47 partition, '48 post-Independence, '67 armistice, the "armed struggle" would continue.

2. This isn't due to any intractable nature of Arabs or Arab Palestinians. Joe Palestinian in the street doesn't want to be occupied but nor does he want to be at war -- a war that any practical Palestinian will inwardly admit isn't winnable. But, Joe Palestinian doesn't get a say in that. And it's not just the Hamas leadership or the PA Leadership that keeps this going. Iran, Syria and the groups that they sponsor owe their very existence to "the struggle". If, tomorrow, Ghandi took over Hamas and made nice with the PA, the factions inside and outside Hamas wouldn't allow the conflict to stop, there are just that there are lots and lots of political motivations to keep this going. Too much bad blood, too much history.

3. Israel has a problem, while there are factions that want all of the West Bank, they don't represent anything close to a majority. They don't hold political power and they aren't a roadblock to an eventual settlement. Joe Israeli's only motivation for continuing the occupation is to keep the West Bank from becoming Gaza Plus where rockets don't land on Ashdod and S'derot, but on Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

4. But, Israel CAN'T annex the West Bank, anyone who accepts that the Jewish State needs to remain demographically Jewish knows this. It's not nationalism, or racial supremacism that dictates this, it's pragmatism. For better or worse -- mostly worse -- Israel is unique among countries. It doesn't just exist, it NEEDS to exist. For thousands of years, Jews have suffered at the hands of host nations (everyone has their own theory on why this is so, but let's just accept that it's so). The holocaust is just the most recent and egregious of this suffering. Jews aren't the only group who have suffered in History -- no one would ever claim that -- but, you have to admit, being a Jew for the past few thousand years has been a pretty tough row to hoe. Israel's "right to exist" has nothing to do with Torah, or being "chosen", the right to exist springs from the need to exist. It sucks that Israel needs to exist, but I don't think anyone can argue that the need doesn't exist. You can argue till the cows come home about where Israel needs to exist, but that need is real and for all practical purposes, where Israel is today is where it's going to stay.

5. If Israel can't annex the West Bank and the fear that leaving the West Bank will result in an escalated threat to Israel is a real fear -- what to do? Do you have an answer? Does anyone? Does an answer that is equitable to both Israelis and Palestinians really exist? I don't think it does. I would love to see a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but I honestly don't think it's going to happen in the near future. And it has nothing to do with Likud or any other Israeli Party -- right, centre, or left -- they've all come and gone and no one has come up with an answer. Arafat, come and gone, no answer. This is not about personalities, Jewish or Palestinian.

6. So there is this problem with no easy (or even difficult) answer. Palestinians aren't fully to blame, Israelis aren't fully to blame, Global Zionists can't be solely blamed and neither can radical Islamic organizations. Even if the much reviled settler's all packed up and left the West Bank tomorrow, the fighting wouldn't stop. So -- and here is my point -- You have an impossible problem that MOST people would like to see solved but just can't figure out an answer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=35482

[azurnoir]

30. I'll answer what appears to me to be an attempt to dazzle with a windy post

1. Hamas and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the Palestinian Authority, remain an intractable enemy to Israel. These aren't my words, these are their own word. And it's not occupation, this has been going on for decades, before '67, before '48. It's an issue that goes back over a century. Most Israelis believe, and for good reason, that if they packed up and left the West Bank tomorrow -- going back to whatever borders you name '47 partition, '48 post-Independence, '67 armistice, the "armed struggle" would continue.

what becomes apparent is that the concept of peace is foreign to who ever actually wrote that as the OP you r replying shows, the only rally cry you have left is a loud wailing but "but, but, but they want it all" the answer for the author and a number of others here seems to be - so we'll give them nothing

2. This isn't due to any intractable nature of Arabs or Arab Palestinians. Joe Palestinian in the street doesn't want to be occupied but nor does he want to be at war -- a war that any practical Palestinian will inwardly admit isn't winnable. But, Joe Palestinian doesn't get a say in that. And it's not just the Hamas leadership or the PA Leadership that keeps this going. Iran, Syria and the groups that they sponsor owe their very existence to "the struggle". If, tomorrow, Ghandi took over Hamas and made nice with the PA, the factions inside and outside Hamas wouldn't allow the conflict to stop, there are just that there are lots and lots of political motivations to keep this going. Too much bad blood, too much history.

this is rich blame other Arabs and keep on keeping on with the exact same behavior towards Palestinians that keeps the fire burning or I'm sure they're nice people but.......

3. Israel has a problem, while there are factions that want all of the West Bank, they don't represent anything close to a majority. They don't hold political power and they aren't a roadblock to an eventual settlement. Joe Israeli's only motivation for continuing the occupation is to keep the West Bank from becoming Gaza Plus where rockets don't land on Ashdod and S'derot, but on Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

ah the favorite of the Pro's here Hamas and and we do not want all of the West Bank and again the answer is we'll just keep on keepin' on with the status quo it works for us or something

4. But, Israel CAN'T annex the West Bank, anyone who accepts that the Jewish State needs to remain demographically Jewish knows this. It's not nationalism, or racial supremacism that dictates this, it's pragmatism. For better or worse -- mostly worse -- Israel is unique among countries. It doesn't just exist, it NEEDS to exist. For thousands of years, Jews have suffered at the hands of host nations (everyone has their own theory on why this is so, but let's just accept that it's so). The holocaust is just the most recent and egregious of this suffering. Jews aren't the only group who have suffered in History -- no one would ever claim that -- but, you have to admit, being a Jew for the past few thousand years has been a pretty tough row to hoe. Israel's "right to exist" has nothing to do with Torah, or being "chosen", the right to exist springs from the need to exist. It sucks that Israel needs to exist, but I don't think anyone can argue that the need doesn't exist. You can argue till the cows come home about where Israel needs to exist, but that need is real and for all practical purposes, where Israel is today is where it's going to stay.

this one is my personal favorite no Israel can't annex all of the West Bank Oslo prevented that, but in keeping with demographic superiority in Area C or the 61% of the West Bank Oslo put under Israel's temporary custodianship, Israel is quite busily transferring the Palestinian population into Area A the 18% of the West Bank where the PA has complete control and Area B 21% the where Palestinians have civil control and Israel has security control. Then seems to imply that withdrawing from the West Bank will mean the end of Israel

5. If Israel can't annex the West Bank and the fear that leaving the West Bank will result in an escalated threat to Israel is a real fear -- what to do? Do you have an answer? Does anyone? Does an answer that is equitable to both Israelis and Palestinians really exist? I don't think it does. I would love to see a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but I honestly don't think it's going to happen in the near future. And it has nothing to do with Likud or any other Israeli Party -- right, centre, or left -- they've all come and gone and no one has come up with an answer. Arafat, come and gone, no answer. This is not about personalities, Jewish or Palestinian.

It's all so far gone we might just as well keep going there again justifying the status quo

6. So there is this problem with no easy (or even difficult) answer. Palestinians aren't fully to blame, Israelis aren't fully to blame, Global Zionists can't be solely blamed and neither can radical Islamic organizations. Even if the much reviled settler's all packed up and left the West Bank tomorrow, the fighting wouldn't stop. So -- and here is my point -- You have an impossible problem that MOST people would like to see solved but just can't figure out an answer

.

nothing will change so why even try

allvin all a nice wordy attempt to justify the unjustifiable I commend the author on that but astill it doesn't fly

[shira]

35. IOW, you realize the author is right & you have nothing to contribute....

....other than sneering and contempt.

Lame.

[azurnoir]

37. No I realize the author is attempting to justify maintaining the status quo

defend that all you wish

[shira]

38. No, you're pretending there aren't real issues that make ending the conflict.....

....damned near impossible.

[azurnoir]

39. well that is your opinion

however I am not that hopeless

[shira]

41. If it's only opinion, then justify YOUR view and make an argument....

...as to why that "opinion" you disagree with is wrong.

[azurnoir]

42. I'll give you another Israeli

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=38494

if Israel continues as you seem to want iit too then what?

[shira]

43. That won't end the conflict. Not even the occupation/settlements.....

....as your side will scream "LAND GRAB", "THIEVES", "RIGHTWINGERS", "THE OCCUPATION/SETTLEMENTS CONTINUE ON STOLEN LAND", etc.

I happen to agree with Pelsar, however. Israel will take 20-40%, annex it, and leave the rest to the Palestinians to sort out for themselves since there's no way the Palestinians will either accept or propose any reasonable deal.

[azurnoir]

44. that Israel would take 20% to 40% was not said in the comment

I linked you to

[shira]

45. Doesn't matter if it's 5-10%, the point stands. n/t

[azurnoir]

47. well that is your opinion isn't it?

you seem to not be able to comprehend peace or something but fine

[shira]

49. Bullshit. You know it's true so the only lame comeback you have....

....is that it's my "opinion".

Again, if that opinion is wrong then explain why it's wrong.

[azurnoir]

51. No I do not know it's wrong and I have to explain why your opinion is just that

your opinion? Believe and parade what you wish but you were already shown why it is wrong and chose to make up something

[shira]

52. LOL! n/t

[Jefferson23]

65. Why ask me, you know the answer you want. This is riddled with propaganda nonsense.

No wonder you have such an affection for his posts..they're exactly like yours.

Zeev Maoz is Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Davis. He is the former head of the Graduate School of Government and Policy and of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, as well as the former academic director of the M.A. Program at the Israeli Defense Forces' National Defense College.

Defending the Holy Land is the most comprehensive analysis to date of Israel's national security and foreign policy, from the inception of the State of Israel to the present. Author Zeev Maoz's unique double perspective, as both an expert on the Israeli security establishment and esteemed scholar of Mideast politics, enables him to describe in harrowing detail the tragic recklessness and self-made traps that pervade the history of Israeli security operations and foreign policy.

Most of the wars in which Israel was involved, Maoz shows, were entirely avoidable, the result of deliberate Israeli aggression, flawed decision-making, and misguided conflict management strategies. None, with the possible exception of the 1948 War of Independence, were what Israelis call "wars of necessity." They were all wars of choice-or, worse, folly.

Demonstrating that Israel's national security policy rested on the shaky pairing of a trigger-happy approach to the use of force with a hesitant and reactive peace diplomacy, Defending the Holy Land recounts in minute-by-minute detail how the ascendancy of Israel's security establishment over its foreign policy apparatus led to unnecessary wars and missed opportunities for peace.

http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Holy-Land-Critical-Analysis/dp/0472033417

Bio: http://psfaculty.ucdavis.edu/zmaoz/


So shira, how is the Peace Later campaign going..what is the latest ?

[Israeli]

14. I have a feeling that

Obama's recent visit is behind this announcement .

[azurnoir]

31. well yes of course it does have to do with Obama's visit and Kerry's upcoming one too

but does that invalidate it?

[Israeli]

32. no it does not invalidate it

and I'm hoping Obama is behind it
we cant do this ourselves azurnoir , you know that much
Obama is our last hope .

[azurnoir]

33. well I can hold out hope that Israel and the Palestinians can do it for themselves

because in the end, that is how it must be. The US can advise and influence, but not force.

[Israeli]

60. I was thinking more along the lines of

gentle persuasion not force

have you read this ?

Can Kerry Rescue a Two-State Peace Accord?

excerpts :

What has prevented it is the policy of Israeli governments headed by
Netanyahu (this is his third), as well as of many previous governments, to prevent Palestinian
statehood at all costs by enlarging the settlement project to the point where Israel`s control of the entire West Bank achieves irreversibility.

Unless Kerry`s strategy for achieving a two-state agreement is absolutely clear-eyed about this reality, he will get nowhere. Its dishonest denial by the U.S. and by other Western countries is the reason the Oslo Accords yielded nothing but a deepening of the occupation it was supposed to end.

Kerry must finally abandon the absurd assumption of former U.S. policymakers of the Dennis Ross era that permanent status issues cannot be addressed before certain confidence-building measures take root. That is unvarnished nonsense.

I do not propose that Secretary of State Kerry engage Netanyahu and his government in tired polemics. But any new U.S. effort that leaves Israeli interlocutors believing that America still has not caught on to their annexationist goals and remains prepared to provide American cover for these goals can only end in disastrous failure. America should act as the true friend of Israel it has not been. It should finally tell it the truth.

http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=58897

I'm not very optimistic but I will keep on hoping .

[azurnoir]

62. well what you call gentle persusasion I called advise

I'm not holding out much either though, if George Mitchell could not do it, I'm not sure Kerry can either, and still at the end of the day it has to be Israeli's and Palestinian's together

[Israeli]

63. best bet is to wait and see

only time will tell .

Could end this way tho :........

But the truth is that Israel has never been alone; it has always enjoyed the support and assistance of a powerful state. Be that as it may, behind those three words lurks a warning: if you carry on like this, you will end up alone, and even America will not help you.

Even before Obama’s plane landed in Jordan, the television and radio studios were full of settlers and their supporters trying to play down the visit and pour cold water on the speech as “Israel-hating left-wing”. The settler and terrorist Hagai Segal, who to our shame broadcasts from the Knesset channel and writes a column in the highest-circulation newspaper in Israel, wrote that Obama’s plan is a disaster and will not be implemented. The irony is that it is precisely the generous financing and arming that Israel receives from the US that allows Israel to build settlements and Segal to disparage a friend.
When it finally dawns on Obama that even this charm-offensive will not derail Israel from the track of rejecting peace, he will begin to wonder whether the investment of billions of dollars in Israel is not a bottomless pit and whether he should continue to finance a state whose policies he disagrees with.

http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=58894

[Jefferson23]

4. The Palestinians are not suppose to be suspicious of Abbas? Fat chance:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to suspend unilateral moves at UN to give U.S. mediation a chance

Palestinians say they will resume unilateral moves if no breakthrough is reached in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

By Barak Ravid | Apr.04, 2013 | 3:54 AM

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is to suspend all unilateral measures vis-à-vis the United Nations agencies to give U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry time to jump-start a new round of Israeli-Palestinian talks. This, according to one high-level official on each side. Both men asked not to be identified.

Abbas passed a resolution to this effect at Tuesday's Fatah Central Committee meeting in Ramallah.

"For a limited and specified period of time a new opportunity will be given to international efforts under way to break the deadlock in the peace process," the resolution read. It went on to say, "In the event Israel thwarts such efforts, we will again turn to international organizations."

Both sources gave the timeframe of the suspension of the Palestinian Authority's efforts to secure member-state status in various UN agencies as around eight weeks starting on March 22, when U.S. President Barack Obama concluded his visit to the region, with a possible four-week extension.

After the final deadline the Palestinians will assess the prospects of the U.S. efforts. The Israeli source noted that Kerry has said he would allocate three to six months to the process, suggesting that Abbas might agree to an additional extension.

The Palestinians have also decided to put off applying to the International Criminal Court in The Hague to sign the Rome Statute and thus obtain standing in the court as a state.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/palestinian-president-mahmoud-abbas-to-suspend-unilateral-moves-at-un-to-give-u-s-mediation-a-chance.premium-1.513306

[shira]

17. Okay then, if Abbas sucks then Hamas should do the peace talks - right? n/t

[holdencaufield]

5. Apparently, Mister Abbas doesn't understand the concept of negotiation

Coming back with the same demand that was rejected multiple times before isn't negotiation, it's petulance.

[azurnoir]

9. and Israel doesn't understand the concept of internetional law

that's more than petulance

[holdencaufield]

13. If you think "internetional" law has been broken ...

... call an international cop.

In fact, while many folks have offered opinion, no court with jurisdiction has ruled one way with another on the subject of Israel and the West Bank. What you call International Law is simply impotent pontification with a serious anti-Israel bias.

[shira]

18. +1. I'm enjoying your posts. See above where I quoted you. n/t

[azurnoir]

68. I'll bet you are at that

but seeing as how you apparently scoff at international law, why is it that you level war crimes accusations at Palestinians and/or their supporters?

It is that same international law that defines war crimes

[aranthus]

61. +1

Couldn't have said it better. This one's a keeper.

[Jefferson23]

64. They very well may call a cop..so to speak. Impotent pontification..that's a new one but hardly the

case.

You also claim serious anti- Israel bias yet produce nothing to substantiate your claim.

You miscalculate as a poster here, Israel's government has been more than worried about this
possibility for a long time and more so now.

Why Palestine Should Take Israel to Court in The Hague

snip* LAST week, the Palestinian foreign minister, Riad Malki, declared that if Israel persisted in its plans to build settlements in the currently vacant area known as E-1, which lies between Palestinian East Jerusalem and the Israeli settlement of Maale Adumim, “we will be going to the I.C.C.,” referring to the International Criminal Court. “We have no choice,” he added.

snip* Israel’s frantic opposition to the elevation of Palestine’s status at the United Nations was motivated precisely by the fear that it would soon lead to I.C.C. jurisdiction over Palestinian claims of war crimes.

Israeli leaders are unnerved for good reason. The I.C.C. could prosecute major international crimes committed on Palestinian soil anytime after the court’s founding on July 1, 2002.

Since the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada in 2000, the Israel Defense Forces, guided by its military lawyers, have attempted to remake the laws of war by consciously violating them and then creating new legal concepts to provide juridical cover for their misdeeds. For example, in 2002, an Israeli F-16 dropped a one-ton bomb on an apartment building in a densely populated Gaza neighborhood, killing a Hamas military leader, Salah Shehadeh, and 14 others, including his wife and seven children under the age of 15. In 2009, Israeli artillery killed more than 20 members of the Samouni family, who had sought shelter in a structure in the Zeitoun district of Gaza City at the bidding of Israeli soldiers. Last year, Israeli missiles killed two Palestinian cameramen working for Al Aksa television. Each of these acts, and many more, could lead to I.C.C. investigations.

snip* The former head of the Israeli military’s international law division, Daniel Reisner, asserted in 2009: “International law progresses through violations. We invented the targeted assassination thesis and we had to push it. At first there were protrusions that made it hard to insert easily into the legal molds. Eight years later it is in the center of the bounds of legitimacy.”

Colonel Reisner is right that customary international law is formed by the actual practice of states that other states accept as lawful. But targeted assassinations are not widely accepted as legal. Nor are Israel’s other attempted legal innovations.

No doubt, Israel is most worried about the possibility of criminal prosecutions for its settlements policy. Israeli bluster notwithstanding, there is no doubt that Jewish settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are illegal. Israeli officials have known this since 1967, when Theodor Meron, then legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry and later president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, wrote to one of Prime Minister Levi Eshkol’s aides: “My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

in full with embedded links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/opinion/why-palestine-should-take-israel-to-court-in-the-hague.html?_r=0

[holdencaufield]

69. Submitted for your disapproval ...

... the following abstract on ICC jurisdiction on this case

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2230987

As you can see, the author points out there are "difficulties" with defining the jurisdiction of the ICC in this matter. I disagree with the author's assertion that the ICC will not take this up because settlements are not "grave violations" of the GC (the ICC has never taken a case of this nature unless hundreds or thousands of deaths were involved). I believe not only will the ICC make an exception in this case, I believe that the European judges of the ICC are absolutely salivating at the chance to take this case because of the "ethnic makeup" of Israeli society. If they do, however, make an exception to that long-standing policy, it won't be difficult to understand their motivation.

However, even if they do take up the case, the article clearly points out that, if they follow their own charter, the ICC will have a very difficult time trying to define their jurisdiction over the specifics of occupation and settlements and an even harder time enforcing any jurisdiction they ultimately claim to have.

Anyone who believes going to court is a better solution than negotiation has never been through a divorce. I seriously wouldn't want to go to court against the Israelis -- they have Jewish lawyers.

[Jefferson23]

70. I do appreciate the paper, his thoughts to consider. His opinion carries the idea that

or seems to, that the 2004 advisory ruling has not already made a great deal very clear.
The findings will not be abandoned, I do not see why they would. Israel was advised in that
ruling to remove the settlements, period.

You persist invoking motivation to be anti-semitic in nature and with this court it is offensive.
You have not brought anything in support of such a claim, other than to say the ICC requires a
threshold of a number of dead bodies, or they do not hear the case. Where is this long standing
policy written..this is the only means by which the ICC agrees to hear a case...is that your
claim?

Considering how hard Israel's government fought to keep the Palestinians with the help of the
U.S. from declaring statehood at the UN...that was their top legal advice at work right there.
Great lawyers are always pro-active..the last thing Israel wants is a legal fight at the ICC.

[azurnoir]

76. the ICC/ICJ took the case involving the security wall

without there being hundreds of thousands of deaths involved

[azurnoir]

67. interntional cop would that bbe the ICC? might yet happen too

as to international law Israel's transfer of Palestinian civilians out of West Ban Area C while transferring Israel citizens into Area C is against international law
but really I'd like you to come back and expound on this allegation you aimed at me here

But, I know how you feel about those of a "certain" ethnicity and I'm not going to change that. So, attribute all the evil motivations to this you choose.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/113438516#post29

[delrem]

10. Those petulant Palestinians. Always asking asking asking, never giving. nt

[holdencaufield]

11. Always demanding ...

... getting .. and demanding more.

[delrem]

12. Yes, demanding access to e.g. water. I kid you not! What next?

I can totally understand your frustration with those ingrates.

[shira]

19. Swiss graduate in thesis : PA uses water as a political weapon

The full text of Burkart’s dissertation can be uploaded below this article. The thesis includes many original documents.
Among them the minutes of JWC meetings and signed JWC agreements.

http://missingpeace.eu/en/2013/01/swiss-graduate-in-thesis-pa-uses-water-as-a-political-weapon/

Conclusions
Here are some of the most important conclusions in Burkart’s thesis.

The goals of the Oslo 2 water agreement have been reached regarding the quantities of water provided to the Palestinian population (178 mcm/year in 2006). The Oslo water agreement estimated that the needs would eventually be 200 mcm a year. The Joint Water Committee functioned well in the first years following signature of the agreement, but since 2008 cooperation has come to a halt

The facts disseminated by the Palestinians, international organizations and donors about the root causes of the water scarcity in the West Bank are incorrect.

Burkart writes: ‘It is not the Israeli occupation policy but the Palestinian political resistance against joint management and cooperation that is responsible for the relatively slow development of the Palestinian water sector and the deteriorating human rights situation in the Palestinian Territories’ and ‘There is convincing evidence of mismanagement within the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA).’

He cites the pro-Palestinian NGO AMAN who concluded that there is ‘no clear legal separation between the political and executive levels within the Palestinian water institutions. To date there is no real functioning water law. Furthermore the National Water Council is not meeting and not functioning well’.

Although the PWA embarked on an institutional reform process in reaction to international critics such as the World Bank this did not solve the issue of mismanagement within the institution. The head of the Palestinian Hydrology Group called the reform a ‘fundraising mechanism’. The PWA also did not manage to gain control over many municipalities (where Israel has no control) due to the autocratic and undemocratic manner in which they are managed. These power holders did not want to lose control of the water systems since it was one of the main services provided by the municipalities. As a result the water supply is not centralized and illegal drilling is rampant.

The fact that the PA pays for most of the water bills of the Palestinian population gives no incentive for saving and leads to an unreasonable use of water in the domestic sphere as well as in the agricultural sector.....

[delrem]

29. That thesis sure went viral among hasbarist sites.

Nice for purposes of habara that this instantly viral thesis finds the Palestinians responsible for the "slow development of the Palestinian water sector" (haha - what a cute and politically correct way of putting it) and for the "deteriorating human rights situation".
Like the occupied Palestinians have some kind of self-determination and can decide how much water the settlers and IDF take for settlements and "military" diversions vis a vis how much is left "to be developed" by the confined Palestinian citizens.

I'll give this thesis the benefit of the smallest doubt in hell that its objective, to blame the caged victims of the occupation for their plight, their "deteriorating human rights situation" (a people under the military occupation of a racist regime for generations has "rights" left to deteriorate?) in the Israeli controlled occupied and besieged zones, is objectively fair. OK, no, I gave that proposition too many seconds of consideration and I can't give even the smallest doubt in hell to such an absurdity. When something smells of that level of putrefaction it's because behind the greenish yellow slime a suppurating putrescence is bubbling - and it ain't "water".

[shira]

36. So you reject it just because.... Because you don't like it.

No amount of evidence would suffice for you.

Actually, the PA has control of lots of things due to Oslo. They have their own government, police, media, etc. Ask yourself why in Gaza and the parts of the W.Bank the PA controls there are still refugee camps where Palestinians have been rotting for the past 65 years. It's because the Palestinian leadership cares so much for its people, right? You think a leadership committed to using its own people as human shields, or its own children as militants cares about keeping the people happy WRT water?

Cute.

[delrem]

46. Have you actually read it? I'm reading it now.

But I don't think I want to discuss this with you, even if you did read it (which I doubt you'll have the patience to do), because even here you can't resist smearing, smearing, smearing with words of absolute hatred for the Palestinian people.

You are a Pamela Geller clone, shira, and to read your paragraphs is like trying to wade through a sewer.

[shira]

48. It's more like hatred of extremists freaks controlling Hamas and the PLO....

I realize you believe all Palestinians are one and the same with the extreme leadership that abuses them, but you should realize that's quite the bigoted opinion you and those like yourself here hold. The moderates can use a helping hand vs. the extremists in Gaza and the W.Bank.

Maybe you should quit supporting the extremists, who make Pam Gellar look sane in comparison.

[delrem]

50. you just can't stop that mouth, can you? nt

[azurnoir]

71. so Pam Gellar looks "sane" in comparison to Abbas? n/t

[shira]

72. Abbas calls for kids to become militants (rock throwers) who sometimes....

...kill civilians (a war crime).

On Abbas' media, the Jews are always attacked as apes and pigs, terror vs. innocents is promoted and glorified, and the holocaust is denied.

Does that sound sane to you?

Or is it justified?

[azurnoir]

73. aren't war crimes part of international law?

something you've said you believe in, or is it only when applied to Israel that you don't think it applies

btw got that PMW vid all queued up let's see it ya know you want too

and I appreciate your answer truly I do

so tell us do you think the POTUS and SoS should have met with Gellar rather than Abbas 'cause afterall you beleive she's more sane

[shira]

74. Yes, they are. But obviously, war crimes are a political charge in your view....

Only Israel commits war crimes, even when it tries harder than any other nation to prevent civilian casualties WHILE the Palestinians are using human shields and child militants.

You pretend that's a war crime, as if Israel deliberately goes after civilians due to being bloodthirsty SOB's.

[azurnoir]

75. so are we to assume that prior to the partition and Israel being declared a state

Jewish Palestinian subjects of the British crown never ever not even once used children?

well I'm sure you'd luv us to just assume right?

[shira]

77. War crimes are war crimes, no matter who commits them....

You're consistent. Rather than comment on Palestinian child militants, you have to bring up Israel to show some kind of idiotic moral equivalence. It's your tactic every time....

Now what kind of dirt do you have to throw at the Jewish homeland, pre-1948, WRT child militants?

[azurnoir]

78. yes or no shira did Jewish groups in British occupied Palestine ever use children? n/t

[Israeli]

15. could you please

pursue the aims of Gush Shalom :

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/about/aims/

and let me know exactly what you think is " petulance " about them
and also tell me what exactly you disagree with within our aims ?

Its not just Abbas its also President Obama and most of the international community holdencaufield.
The occupation has to end and we need final borders .
Bibi has stalled negotiations at every turn and he will continue to do so unless he has pressure from on high ....

[shira]

20. All of us want peace, an end of occupation, settlements, 2 states....

How do you expect that to happen any time soon? See post #16 above addressed to Jefferson23.

I would very much appreciate a serious reply from you after you read it.

Thanks.

[Israeli]

21. I dont understand the term

... " all of us " could you please qualify ?

" How do you expect that to happen any time soon? "

Easy :

Putting an end to the occupation,

Accepting the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent and sovereign State of Palestine in all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967[*],

Reinstating the pre-1967 "Green Line" as the border between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine (with possible minor exchanges of territories agreed between the parties); the border will be open for the free movement of people and goods, subject to mutual agreement.

Establishing Jerusalem as the capital of the two states, with East Jerusalem (including the Haram al-Sharif) serving as the capital of Palestine and West Jerusalem (including the Western Wall) serving as the capital of Israel. The city is to be united on the physical and municipal level, based on mutual agreement.

Recognizing in principle the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees, allowing each refugee to choose freely between compensation and repatriation to Palestine and Israel, and fixing by mutual agreement the number of refugees who will be able to return to Israel in annual quotas, without undermining the foundations of Israel.

Safeguarding the security of both Israel and Palestine by mutual agreement and guarantees.

Striving for overall peace between Israel and all Arab countries and the creation of a regional union.

[*] This refers specifically to all the parts of former Mandatory Palestine occupied by the Israeli army in 1967 - not to parts of Syria or Egypt.

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/about/aims/

Now you tell me what you dont agree with in the above shira , seriously , and why .
Thanks , much appreciated.

BTW these have been our aims since 1992 .

[shira]

22. There's no one here against peace, 2 states, end of occupation, settlement building....

The Olmert offer of 2008 is basically the same thing as the gush-shalom proposal.

So why do you think Abbas turned it down?

[Israeli]

23. If you say so shira

"The Olmert offer of 2008 is basically the same thing as the gush-shalom proposal.

So why do you think Abbas turned it down?"

He did not turn it down shira .

Ref :
http://forward.com/articles/164262/abbas-olmert-was-close-to-peace-deal/

Dont you read the threads that you are involved in ?????

See :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=36040

So my turn to ask you a question , nu ?

Why dosnt Bibi make the same offer as Olmert ?

[shira]

25. Abbas walked away from it, without a counter-offer

From 2009...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/ehud-olmert-still-dreams-of-peace/story-e6frg76f-1225804745744

"He (Abbas) promised me the next day his adviser would come. But the next day Saeb Erekat rang my adviser and said we forgot we are going to Amman today, let's make it next week. I never saw him again."

Olmert believes that, like Camp David a decade earlier, this was an enormous opportunity lost: "I said `this is the offer. Sign it and we can immediately get support from America, from Europe, from all over the world'. I told him (Abbas) he'd never get anything like this again from an Israeli leader for 50 years. I said to him, `do you want to keep floating forever - like an astronaut in space - or do you want a state?'

"To this day we should ask Abu Mazen to respond to this plan. If they (the Palestinians) say no, there's no point negotiating."

Olmert is right to paint this offer as embodying the most extensive concessions, and the best deal, ever offered to the Palestinians by an Israeli leader. But his very experience with this offer raises several questions. Could he have delivered its terms if the Palestinians had accepted it? Perhaps international momentum would have enabled him to do so, and, in fact, Olmert's Kadima party did remarkably well in the election which followed his prime ministership. Could any Israeli government today realistically make such an offer? The answer would seem to be no.

And most important, if the Palestinian leadership cannot accept that offer, can they accept any realistic offer? Do they have the machinery to run a state? Is their society too dysfunctional and filled with anti-Semitic propaganda to live in peace next to the Jewish state? Could they ever deliver on any security guarantees?

I put these questions to Olmert and his response to them is perhaps the most lukewarm part of our interview: "It's certainly a legitimate concern, since I never received a positive response from them. I think it's up to them (the Palestinians) to prove the point. I hope they will rise to this."

Olmert still believes the Palestinians should respond to the deal he offered them. If they did so, this would open the way to peace, but only if Palestinian society is reconciled to living in peace next to Israel as it really exists.

[Israeli]

27. From 2012...

Former PM Ehud Olmert tells CNN extreme right-wing elements in United States helped derail his peace plan, invested millions to topple him

Ynet Latest Update: 05.05.12, 17:09 / Israel News

Olmert said he believes his peace plan failed because it was up against much more that his government's own Opposition. Much of the blame, he told CNN, lies with the political Right in the United States.

"I had to fight against superior powers, including millions and millions of dollars that were transferred from this country (the US) by figures which were from the extreme right wing, that were aimed to topple me as prime minister of Israel. There is no question about it."

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, he added, never actually agreed to his 2008 proposal, "But he never said no. So why not reintroduce this plan again and present the challenge to the Palestinians?"

"My dream is that Netanyahu will adopt my plan, and will introduce it, but the fact is that we don’t negotiate with the Palestinians, and the fact is that we have not proposed anything," he told CNN.

"Peace is important for Israel. We want peace. We need peace," he continued. "We want to separate from the Palestinians. We don’t want to control the life of the Palestinians. We want them to have their own separate state."

But will Netanyahu pursue such peace? "I certainly pray that he will," Olmert said. "But I doubt that he will."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4224851,00.html

[shira]

40. What makes you think Abbas will accept what he walked away from in 2008?

Let's suppose Netanyahu puts that offer once again in front of Abbas. When Abbas says no, then what? You'll keep blaming Jewish rightwingers for no peace and continued occupation?

All Abbas has to do is say no again and you'll keep blaming the Jews for no deal.

[Israeli]

24. BTW

you never answered me this shira :

Now you tell me what you dont agree with in the above shira , seriously , and why .
Thanks , much appreciated.

[shira]

26. Who says I don't agree? I'm for the Taba 2001 offer, Olmert 2008....

....and Geneva. All different but similar. As long as the deal results in peace.

Why are you against the 3 offers?

[Israeli]

28. so you agree with us at Gush Shalom

and with our aims as listed here :

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/about/aims/

good to know shira

[shira]

34. Pretty much....

In principle, I don't personally have a problem with anything there, but as we both know I'm not Israeli so my opinion doesn't count much.

I wonder how RoR could be worked out, however. Let's say all refugees (millions of offspring) are pressured not to receive compensation but instead demand return inside the '48 borders. What do you think is a fair annual quota for return? 5,000? 25,000? 100,000? Even if 250,000/year, it would take decades to complete, no one in Israel would be for that, and it would eventually undermine (end) Israel.

[azurnoir]

53. up thread you were cheering Israel keeping 20% to 40% of the West Bank

is that what you think Gush Shalom is advocating? Is that your idea of minor?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=38688

also when should this happen?

[shira]

54. You even attribute opinions to me I don't hold....

Your smoke and mirror show WRT see no evil where it is, attribute evil where it's not.....is old.

Not getting old.

Stale.

[azurnoir]

55. don't like having your hubris pointed out to you I take it?

it was your quote no smoke and mirrors involved here it is


I happen to agree with Pelsar, however. Israel will take 20-40%, annex it, and leave the rest to the Palestinians to sort out for themselves since there's no way the Palestinians will either accept or propose any reasonable deal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=38688

which is all well and good except pelsar didn't say that

[shira]

56. I wrote I agree with Pelsar....

And reality dictates that Israel will take what it needs for security purposes, all high ground, Jordan Valley, etc.

That doesn't mean I'm cheering it on.

It's reality.

Another FAIL for you.

=================

Maybe next time you can ask me my opinion (which I'll gladly share) before you tell me what my opinion is.

[azurnoir]

57. Not a fail at all as your comment shows and once again that was not said that in the post

we're speaking of and here is the link to again just in case

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=38494

then you first say it is reality that Israel needs to take this

then whimper but I really don't like it- puleez

[shira]

58. I think you live in your own little world. n/t

[azurnoir]

59. well you go right on thinking that :)

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

66. Caught on brambles again brer rabbit?

[delrem]

7. I like that Abbas is welcoming the return of the US as "fair broker".

[azurnoir]

8. Isn't that more like fare broker?