Netanyahu: Let's start peace talks immediately

[Fozzledick]

By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday called on Palestinian leaders to restart Middle East peace negotiations without preconditions, in a highly anticipated foreign policy address at Bar Ilan University.

"I call on you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority: Let us begin peace negotiations immediately, without preconditions," he said. "Israel is committed to international agreements and expects all the other parties to fulfill their obligations as well."

In an apparent reversal of Israeli policy, Netanyahu also declared that he was prepared to see the creation of a Palestinian state, so long as the international community can guarantee that it not have any military capabilities.

"Israel cannot agree to a Palestinian state unless it gets guarantees it is demilitarized," Netanyahu said. He also said that Jerusalem must remain the unified capital of Israel.The prime minister said he was prepared to meet with the leaders of neighboring Arab countries at any time, to promote regional peace and to gain their contribution to the Palestinian economy.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1092710.html

[ashling]

1. Yes, let's get started right away

just let me sign this request for government assistance for the new settlements :sarcasm:

[Sezu]

2. Didn't take long for the Israel can do nothing right

remarks to begin did it? No wonder there's no peace.

[cali]

3. because it's not a serious proposition. And Netanyahu is a far right

nutcase.

[Sezu]

4. Seems pretty much like the propositions

offered by the left in Israel too. Are THEY far right nutcases too? You sound like all the other skipping records.

[shira]

5. Netanyahu is basically calling for the Clinton Parameters again, which Arafat ACCEPTED...

...almost 2 years later.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/22/israel

[Malikshah]

10. Really? Where is the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state with a delimitarized Palestinian

state? Read the article and don't see these two mentioned in it...

Stop putting BS in the form of evidence.

Enough with the obfuscation and lies.

Ignorance is no longer an excuse. Nor is willful spreading of fallacies.

[shira]

11. it's basically the Clinton Parameters.........extremely close actually.

CLINTON PARAMETERS
http://www.peacelobby.org/clinton_parameters.htm

1. Clinton recognized Barak's call then for a demilitarized state and called for a compromise instead.

"I understand that the Israeli position is that Palestine should be defined as a "demilitarized state" while the Palestinian side proposes "a state with limited arms." As a compromise, I suggest calling it a "non-militarized state."

2. Clinton's proposal would have led to 80% of settlers being absorbed into Israel (which settles the 'freeze' dilemna in the major settlement areas - one of which, the Etzion bloc, home of ~ 15000 settlers - Jimmy Carter agrees should remain Israel's).

"It gives the people of Israel a genuine end to the conflict, real security, the preservation of sacred religious ties, the incorporation of 80% of the settlers into Israel, and the largest Jewish Jerusalem in history recognized by all as its capital."

3. Clinton on the "Jewish" character of the state AND right of return:

The Israeli side could not accept any reference to a right of return that would imply a right to immigrate to Israel in defiance of
Israel's sovereign policies and admission or that would threaten the Jewish character of the state.

Any solution must address both needs.

The solution will have to be consistent with the two-state approach that both sides have accepted as a way to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: the state of Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people and the state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

4. An undivided Jerusalem is a different issue, but not unresolvable. It can remain undivided yet still be regarded as the capital of both states. All it takes is some creativity and good faith between the 2 sides. Obama even called for an undivided Jerusalem before correcting himself, but that didn't mean initially that he was giving the middle finger to Palestinians when he called for a unified Jerusalem.

5. Arafat accepted the Taba/Clinton Parameters in 2002.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/22/israel

[Malikshah]

12. Semantics that would make Bibi, Barak, and Sharon quite proud. In other words

more of the same BS that will provide nothing toward a solution of any merit.

Just to add, Camp David II and what followed is rife with revisionist history--using it as an example does little to further productive discourse.

[shira]

13. right......Bill Clinton's parameters were really sucky for Pal'ns but Arafat accepted anyway

it's so good that the neo-con, Palestinian hating, likudnik Bill Clinton is out of office so that a REAL deal can be cut. Hope he has ZERO influence on Hillary.

:sarcasm:

[Malikshah]

15. Sarcasm? Scary thing is you're closer to reality than you realize

Read O'Malley's review of Camp David II--

Nice op-ed that shows that Bill was no friend of Arafat-- lied to his face and went back on promises made before Camp David II

Of course, that would entail looking beyond the "official party line"...

Never mind..

[shira]

16. O'Malley is pretty biased

he did, however, admit to Clinton officials that Arafat was trying to embarass the Israelis at Camp David II, and that Arafat never made one counter-offer (meaning Arafat didn't go to negotiate anything at CD).

[Violet_Crumble]

6. You seem to have trouble reading the post you were replying to...

Cali said the proposition wasn't a serious one. She then said Nutty was a far right nutcase. She did not say that the lack of seriousness of the proposition made him a far right nutcase, which is how you've chosen to read it. What Nutty is is a far right nutcase whose proposition isn't serious.

[shira]

7. my post was really in response to Sezu, but thanks for trying to help me out

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Huh? I replied to Sezu, not you n/t

[Sezu]

9. Actually most of your replies are to yourself

and the other usual suspects.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. No, all of my replies are to other posters...

In this case Shira for whatever reason thought I was replying to a post of hers when it was a post of yrs. That's why they put a little thingy up the top right hand corner of a post like the one that appeared in my reply to you 'Response to Reply #4' It's not rocket science to work out who's replying to who, but it doesn't surprise me that a basic thing like that's beyond yr capability to grasp...