I think it is a pretty reasonable reaction to someone how had just invaded them. You are suggesting that if someone breaks into your house and tosses your kids out on the street you should not refuse there demands, but take them off to the coffee shop to discuss how to achieve love and happiness. Ridiculous .... yet the Arabs did in fact suggest exactly that ... see below (**) They did that (**). Not once, but at least three times. 1) In February 1971 Anwar Sadat responded positively to the UN Special Envoy Jarring's invitation to enter into discussions with Israel based on UNSC 242. Egypt agreed. Israel told Sadat to %#!"& off. It was Golda Meir in fact who booted the opportunity to explore peace. She paid the price 2 years later. And then she blamed the Arabs. 2) In 2002 the Arab states made a similar invitation. Israel told them to %#!"& off. They paid the price since the 2nd intifada continued 3) In 2007 the Arab states repeated the offer for negotiations based on UNGA 242. Israel told them to %#!"& off Why do you Zionists insist that no Arab attempts at peace were made, and that that is all that Israel wants? ----------------------- All of the above have been admitted to by the Israeli ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Shlomo Ben-Ami [Scars of War, Wounds of Peace, pp 407 (2005) Phoenix publishers]. So don't think I made it up. His exact words were: on (1) were (page 134) to call it "Israel's unpardonable short-sightedness". Typically Meir had demanded preconditions. Ben-Ami writes "Golda Meir must take the principal part of the blame for the subversion of a unique opportunity for peace (page 135) But you pretend you didn't just read that and continue to blame the Arabs. On (2) and (3) he wrote in 2008: "The Arab Peace Initiative, first tabled at an Arab League Summit in Beirut in 2002 and reconfirmed in Riyadh in 2007, provides all the parties with a framework to resolve their differences, as well as a political basis for moving forward. Adopting it is essential to moving forward So, sorry, Jonsa, how many more times do they have to try? You are protecting the guilty - see th thread "Who did the Invading, Borat?". And finally you cannot face admitting that a key undertaking of the "Balfour declaration" was not kept, so that you can continue to maintain that the Arabs are losers and not Victims. Join us on http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=355233 to discuss more recent Israeli responses to non-aggression. Can you still see over the heap of evidence that the Hasbara is verifiable crud?
Oh please. Attempting to justify the three noes as a reasonable response instead of absolute intransigence is a losing proposition. Sadat didn't have much choice if he wanted the Sinai back now did he? His statements about co-operation with the UN were predicated on unilateral withdrawal from all territories captured in 67. Yes, in 2002 yet another insincere attempt was made during the intifada. I guess somebody forgot to tell the arabs that no negotations were going to take place as long as the violence continued. Arafat dodged yet another bullet there. Yes, after years of mutual rejection, all of a sudden the arabs, finally realizing that their only hope of resolution while saving face was to accept a 40 year old UNGAR. I wonder why Israel would essentially tell them to stuff it. I suspect that the zionists engage in propaganda for exactly the same reasons as the arabs. Opinions differ amongst democratically free people. How many times do the arabs have to try to attain peace? as many times as it takes. Your insistence that only the Israelis are to blame for lack of peace is ridiculously biased and completely untrue. . And you are protecting the guilty as well. No I agree that the balfour declaration was not kept BY EITHER SIDE. And yes I believe the arabs are the losers not the victims. did the arabs fight a civil war with the jews? did they win that one? did the arabs fight a war after Israel declared independence? did they win that one? In fact, did the arabs win any of the wars they fought with Israel? (lebannon 2 excepted) I can see over the heap of Israeli propaganda just like I can see over the heap of arab propaganda. Its all the same excrement.
Good, so you do not disagree that the Arabs made at least three peace initiatives to Israel, but Israel told them to #&%" off. In fact Sadat made a 4th just before the Yom Kippur war. Again he was told to to #&%" off. We know what happened then. ----------------------------------------------------- In that case you might enjoy an American perspective on Israel's borders Source: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/rte.html [with brevity edits]
Funny how you completely ignore little things like sincerity and unreasonable and intractible demands from losers as no good reason to tell the demanders to shove it. I'm aware of "if americans knew" and have been for a decade or so. Great country america, allowing for a diverse range of perspectives and opinions. Could an "ifpalestiniansknew" organization exist in Gaza or the WB? Or perhaps an "If<insert arab nation name here>knew"? for sure there are "ifIsraelisknew" type sites in Israel, despite your frequent and repeated attempts to paint them all with the same brush.
And what exactly was insincere and unreasonable about Sadat's demands? Israel did not bother negotiation with him at the time because it felt it was invincible.
Good, so you still are not refuting the established facts that the Arabs made at least three peace initiatives to Israel, but Israel told them to #&%" off. In fact Sadat made a 4th just before the Yom Kippur war. Again he was told to to #&%" off. We know what happened then. You have also not refuted the fact that it is an illogicality to require that anyone accepts Israel as a Sate, when the territory that would constitute that State is continuously growing; i.e. we don't have a clue what the borders of that State are.
nonsense. I deem any "offer of peace" where one side REFUSES to negotiate directly (guess who) with their enemy as an insincere offer. I deem any "offer of peace" where the offerer makes speeches (after the supposed offer) that clearly states an overarching goal of liberating all of palestine to be insincere. this offer was actually merely a response to Jannings letter to both Egypt and Israel. BOTH Egypt and Israel reponded with acceptance of Jannings proposal with some more clearly defined conditions. This myth that Sadat offered peace and Israel rejected it is a distortion of the facts.
Sadat did not make an offer, he responded to Jannings letter AS DID ISRAEL. Other attempts were made, all of them non-starters because they were ALL predicated on the pre-condition that Israel return to the 48 armistice line. Everyone on the planet knew that Israel was not going to unilaterally end the occupation without their security concerns and strategic vulnerabilities being addressed. Everyone that is except Israel's enemies. It is not illogical in the least. Recognition of the State of Israel with the right to live in peace is NOT predicated on accepting its borders. Her argument is simply a justification for the "no recognition" policy that has prevaded arab/israeli relations since the 40's. The Palestinians have ALREADY both de facto and de jeure recognized the existence of the state of Israel, and while the Israelis would vehemently deny it, Israel has ALREADY both de facto and de jeure recognized the existence the state of palestine. Ain't that ironic.
You are splitting hairs. According to Ben-Ami (Israeli foreign minister) in his book Scars of War; Wounds of Peace, page 134: It seens, Jonsa, that the Israeli ex-minister for Foreign affairs differs wholeheartedly with you. You miss the point completely by this reiteration of Israels denial to comply with UNSC 242 and 338, but it is interesting that you are willing to document what we all know. Instead all of these offers could have been seen as opening gambits and not as final positions. McHugo makes this point very clearly, as does John Quigley, both foremost legal experts on international treaty law. When someone offers to sell you their gullwing Mercedes for 750 000 you know two things; 1) they are willing to sell, and 2) that 750 000 is the maximum price, but you dont know what the minimum acceptance level would be. I cannot believe that a good Jewish girl like Golda did not know this first principle of negotiating. The fact is that Israel already had the plan never to comply with UNSC 242, and to reject everything remotely approaching a fair settlement, and then to claim that a mutually acceptable compromise could not be achieved so she was entitled to continue occupying Palestinian territory and building settlements. And THAT tactic is still firmly in place today. And the West closes its eyes, opens its mouth, and swallows
Yes as do you. So Ben Ami blames Golda for not taking the opportunity to engage thru Janning. because he considered Sadats response to be a huge diplomatic breakthrough, regardless of his motivations. Of course Sadat's refusal to negotiate face to face, his speeches to the egyptian parliament and to the egyptian people claiming liberation of palestine as a prmary objective, and his absolute insistence that Israel withdraw to 48 armistice lines as a condition of negotiation were not exactly small indications of ihismotivations and should have been ignored. And you seem to completely ignore Israel's response to Jannings letter and to Sadats response. since you think Ben Ami was right in his assessment, do you also think he was right in his dealings with arafat at camp david? Seems he squarely blames Arafat for failure in 2000. http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/comartin/israel/ben-ami.html So you deny that the palestinians and their arab allies also rejected 242 for some 50 years or so? Excuse me, but you seem to want to totally ignore the PRECONDITIONS of negotation that both sides laid down. When teh preconditions are immediately rejected and neither side will move off them, then I don't care what foremost legal experts think. gotta love your absurd and spurious analogy. Imagine thinking that negotiating the purchase of a car is like negotiating peace between two belligerent opponents. No, that is not a fact. The Israelis fully believed that they could use 242 to negotiate a peace in 67, but the arabs undercut them by rejecting 242 and announcing the three noes. But if one wishes to reject chronology in making ones arguments concering a decades old conflict, then fillyour boots. yes of course which is the reason why there is not peace. Its not the palestinians, nor their purported arab allies, its the west and those damn jews who control them. Nothing like playing the perennial victim when the palestinians are as much the architect of their misery as their ostensible arab leaders/allies and the Israelis.
On the contrary; I have read Israels response in detail. As I am sure Shlomo Ben-Ami did. What is your point? Firstly, I agree with you that either Ben-Ami is to be believed or not. So you need to understand fully what he said. You can cherry-pick left and right, but it is clear that Ben-Ami believed that Olso was doomed to failure, not because of Israel or Palestine, but because of Arafat AND Barak (and let us not forget Bibis self-professed role in that failure which Ben-Ami never mentions). His book is far more expansive and clear on this matter than the interview. Oslo couldn't have worked. So yes, I believe Ben-Ami regarding Oslo. Now enough strawman deflections; do you believe him regarding Meir in 1971? Absolutely!!! You have provided nothing to show that to be the case. I do not play hasbara games. See below regarding the falsity of your 50 years. What were Sadats conditions? Please compare the pre-conditions, like how was Sadat's 'pre-condition' documented? I don't respond well to pie-in-the-sky debating. Again you chose to miss the point. The analogy was to illustrate a principle of negotiation that Golda chose to forget. Interestingly Arafat is accused of exactly this in Olso. There was no 50 years of Arab rejection!! At best there were 4 years. You missed Ben-Amis very logical point that Arafats response to Jarring cancelled the 3 Khartoum nos or did you? Instead of preaching to the strawman, why dont you provide your evidence and reasoning? Your pie in the sky style of debate doesnt cut the mustard.
So you agre that the Arabs made the peace initiatives. Why do you keep protesting? The rest of your post is a classic strawman discussion. I'm aware of "if americans knew" and have been for a decade or so. Great country america, allowing for a diverse range of perspectives and opinions. Could an "ifpalestiniansknew" organization exist in Gaza or the WB? Or perhaps an "If<insert arab nation name here>knew"? for sure there are "ifIsraelisknew" type sites in Israel, despite your frequent and repeated attempts to paint them all with the same brush.[/QUOTE]
my point is that Israel exactly the same way as Sadat did. It was a response to Jarring and you seem to completely ignore the fact that Sadat REFUSED to negotiate face to face. You seem to completely ignore the fact that immediately AFTER he wrote to Jarring, he made a number of speeches that made clear that along with getting back the Sinai AND Gaza, the liberation of palestine was a national priority. Kind of a strange stance for a supposed peace offerer. But Oslo did work to an extent, now didn't it? Or do you think that the establishment of the PA and the return of Arafat were merely incidental to the process? Oh? I have history to show that the arabs and the palestinians rejected 242 for decades. You want to quibble about the term of that rejection. To my mind it is from 48 to 93 and Oslo 1. (nothwithstanding egypt agreement) (you don't seem to respond well to any differing opinion) so you read Israel's reply to Janning and didn't read Sadat's? Here's all three. http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/28%20The%20Jarring%20initiative%20and%20the%20response-%208%20Febr.aspx and here is the responses to Jarring list of 14 questions submitted to Egypt, Jordan, Israel, lebannon et.al. in 69, which provides a fascinating snapshot of then contemporary thinking. http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocuments/yearbook1/pages/27%20the%20jarring%20mission-%20phase%20ii-%20report%20by%20secret.aspx http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/28%20The%20Jarring%20initiative%20and%20the%20response-%208%20Febr.aspx and here is the REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL ON THE ACTIVITIES OF HIS SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE MIDDLE EAST (covering the Jan to Nov 1971) http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/b792301807650d6685256cef0073cb80/ab4e84c20927cc8185256a780064642f?OpenDocument The analogy was spurious. That you would make such a condescending assertion that Golda Meir didn't know basic negotiation tactics is a cheap shot and nothing more. Arafat wasn't accused of poor negotiation skills he was accused of intransigence, which is substantially different. You mean Sadat's response. And yes, I am aware that it was the first break in the three noes. It indicated Sadat's strong desire to get back the Sinai, but again, in keeping with the three noes, he refused to negotiate face to face as did Jordan and Lebannon. You should look up the definition of strawman and "pie in the sky" before using them in the future. I have no problem with providing evidence and never have in any of our interactions. What doesn't "cut the mustard" are specious personal accusations.
I agree that there were offers of peace, all predicated on certain conditions like withdrawal to the armistice line. I am not protesting, at all. I am merely pointing out that you holding out these offers as an indication of the arabs willingness and Israel's rejection as being great propaganda fodder, but that's about it. You might want to look up the meaning of the term pre-condition. I am not dumbing down your argument nor am I misrepresenting it. Look up what the strawman fallacy actually means before using it.
That was not why Israel did not accept Sadat's offer. Rather, P.147 See above. I'm not talking about Janning's initiative, but the offer that Sadat proposed to Israel after Janning's attempt had failed. p.142.
Let's get something clear. It was not "SADATS OFFER", he responed to jarring's letter as did Israel. As far as Meir not acceping, it was far more complex that a simple rejection. You have read the book haven't you? For instance, Why wouldn't Sadat agree to an indefinite ceasefire during the term of an interim settlement? After all the haggling to get 242, it was clear to the arabs and the UN and the US that Israel was not prepared to return all of the territories, since that did not satisify its grave security concerns. That is why 242 is worded as it was, a documented historical fact that many wish to ignore. But the chronology clearly shows that Sadat made those pronoucements AFTER his letter to Jannings AND AFTER the Isrealis responded. Maybe you can explain that little anomoly. Surely you are not suggesting that the Rogers Plan was an offer by Sadat for peace, are you? Regardless, it is moot, since after the Yom Kippur war and Sadat once again got Egypt's arse kicked badly, an historic peace agreement was eventually arrived at. Its signing got Egypt back the Sinai and Sadat assassinated.
The question is really sensitive and the approach is appreciable. Actually [and this is valid also on the Israeli side] Palestinians and Israelis to concede a recognition of the state of the others, should at least have a clear idea of what they have to recognize. So that, since complaints about all UN resolutions related to borderlines are still in progress, my personal opinion is that the two sides should agree on a "recognition in principal". Borderlines should be the second step [a very long, long step!]. Entering in detail: my opinion is that the borderlines between two countries should be a matter of those countries, so that the steps would be ... * recognition in principal of the existence and independence of Israel by Palestinians Palestine by Israelis * constitution of the State of Palestine and its UN recognition [if on the other side there isn't a state entity it's difficult to discuss borderlines!] * negotiation about the choice of the capital of Palestine and mutual acceptance of it [whichever will be this capital, and we know this is a very heavy matter to develop] * beginning of bilateral negotiations about temporary borderlines and delimitation of eventual "disputed areas" [with indications about the administration of these areas] * after [a long time, I'm afraid!] definition of definitive borderlines.
It's clear that the same method can be applied [but without the steps about recognition, of course] also to the definition of the Israel - Syria and Israel - Lebanon borderlines.
I fully appreciate your strategy for phased mutual recognition and border definitions. I sincerely view it as a praiseworthy idea. My problem is, as we have seen in the past, once an early outcome favourable to a certain party is achieved, the associated/attached consequences are ignorred. We saw this in 1949 with the UN resolution authorising UN membership. The rest was ignored. The same occurred with Oslo II. It is quickly pointed out that Israel is allowed occupational control over a large portion of the West Bank, but the prohibition on new settlements is brushed aside. I have no clue how one caters for this type of bad faith.
Settlements would become argument for the period of the temporary borderlines [guessing that many of them would be in the "disputed areas", btw]. But probably, we should note that every time a serious process of negotiation seems to start ... extremists jump into the context making tense arise. Tense is useful for extremists [on both sides, I remind to myself that it wasn't a Palestinian to assassinate Rabin]. This is the key problem.
None of this really matters. The fact is that Sadat was interested in peace. He drew up proposals, and was flexible in his demands. This is contrary to Israel, which wasn't keen on giving back the Sinai any time soon. American pressure failed to work on Israel, and the US eventually stopped trying to return to the peace talks: Israel, as Kissinger said, wanted to keep the status quo. So the claim that poor Israel wanted peace and the Arabs wanted to push the Jews into the sea is a complete myth.
But the facts were the Sadat couldn't convince the rest of the arab world, to the extent that the UAR disintigrated. What he wanted was the return of the Sinai. But he refused to negotiate face to face and while supposedly working night and day for peace was making rather provocative speeches to his egyptian and arab brothers about liberation of palestine (meaning the destruction of Israel in the process). Not that any of that is pertinent either since supposedly he was so frustrated at not getting a peace agreement he went to war and once again got his butt seriously kicked. Only then was he willing to meet face to face and make the necessary concessions. You'll note that when he signed the historic peace agreement he wanted no part of gaza, figuring that he'd leave that mess to the Israelis. It is not a myth that the Arabs stated their intentions to push the jews into the sea in 1948.
So what? Like Kissinger said: no Egypt, no war. Indeed, and Israel did not intend on giving it back to him. I already dealt with this. Israel was interested in keeping the status quo (a ceasefire and in control of all the Sinai) despite failed US pressure to have it return to the peace talks. What Sadat says to rile up the masses is irrelevant. Despite his actions to pressure America to force Israel be more flexible (like expelling Soviet troops and experts from Egypt), war was Sadat's only choice. Even Israeli intelligence believed this. He may have lost militarily, but he won politically and dealt a psychological blow to Israel. The country knew that it could no longer maintain the status quo, and realised the importance of making peace with Egypt. The war made Israel realise that it wasn't invincible. Naturally, as it was their land.
No israel, no war. d'uh. Not without him paying a price. No, you didn't deal with this. You ignored it. I guess refusing to deal face to face isn't a big deal when negotiating peace. I guess warlike rhetoric is just hot air and should be ignored. so, whatever a president says is irrelevant. What a marvellously dumb observation. Your view of Sadat's "expulsion" of Soviets is naive. The flow of military equipment did not stop and the various "advisors" stuck around. About 20,000 regular forces left the country in the first wave of "expulsions". The cold war was played on a far bigger scale and both egypt and Israel were merely pawns, not remotely the "main event". He lost militarily. The psychological blow to Israel was rather minimal and confined to a "mea culpa by the intell community" for not accurately predicting the attack. Your attempted spin yet another a total and complete arab military defeat despite superior numbers, and the element of surprise is laughable. What that little miscalculation by Sadat did was pave the way for peace. He knew he'd have to "settle" instead of demand. And sure enough he did settle only to be assassinated for his "traitorous" behaviour. Not according to the UN. Not according to the British. Not according to the Jews. But you knew that. I must say tho, your casual dismissal of a very real arab desire for genocide of the jews is duly noted.
