Israpundit Digest

Blog Traffic

Pages

Pages|Hits |Unique

  • Last 24 hours: 21,538
  • Last 7 days: 165,282
  • Last 30 days: 624,353
  • Online now: 59
fabricant de lanterneaux

Chit Chat

Recent Comments

Sponsors

.

Sponsor

.

Dry Bones
Dry Bones

Advertisments

.
”souvenirs”

Monthly Archives

December 2014
S M T W T F S
« Nov    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Archives

LIVE HEADLINE NEWS FEEDS
THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION

SUPPORT ISRAPUNDIT

 Donate USA  Donate
ISL
 Donate
CAN
  • January 31, 2013

    ‘PM said he’d okay provisional Palestinian state’

    By SAM SOKOL, JPOST
    01/29/2013 03:20

    While not ready to sign a comprehensive peace deal, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is willing to establish an interim Palestinian state without a final agreement, former deputy foreign minister Yossi Beilin said on Monday.

    Speaking during a debate with outgoing settlement council head Danny Dayan, Beilin stated that he had heard from Netanyahu that he would be ready for establishing a “provisional border with the Palestinians.”

    “This is something that I heard from him that he would be ready to do it,” he stated.


    The debate, held at the David Citadel Hotel in Jerusalem, was organized by the American Jewish Committee.

    “Both sides prefer a permanent agreement but are not ready for it under either’s current leadership,” Beilin continued.

    Beilin, who was one of the primary architects of both the Oslo Accords and the Geneva Initiative, a framework for peace negotiated outside of official government channels, noted that “what can be done is an interim agreement which establishes a Palestinian state in provisional borders so that Netanyahu will not have to negotiate now about Jerusalem.”

    “Netanyahu, far from being a warmonger, is a very cautious person and therefore not the one [to sign] a permanent agreement. This is not because he doesn’t want it but because he is not ready to pay the price.”

    Beilin negated the possibility of an accord such as his Geneva Initiative being workable in the current political climate or with the “current government.”

    He also asserted that instead of the prime minister being forced to deal with the issue of forcibly evacuating settlements, any settlers who would wish to remain in their homes under Palestinian sovereignty would be allowed to do so. Those not wishing to live within a Palestinian state would be resettled, Beilin said, possibly even in other areas over the green line that Israel would retain.

    “Knowing Bibi,” he said, using Netanyahu’s nickname, “I believe an interim solution could be realistic.”

    However, the Prime Minister’s Office denied Beilin’s statements. Speaking to The Jerusalem Post in response to Beilin’s comments, PMO officials noted that Netanyahu “believes in direct negotiations with the Palestinians with no preconditions that would lead to, as described in the Bar-Ilan speech, a two-state solution based on a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes Israel.”

    Settlement council head Dayan also had an alternative peace plan on hand.

    Currently, he said, Israel and the Palestinians “are devising a modus vivendi that is moderately satisfying for everyone. It’s not idyllic or what we or Palestinians want, but it’s moderately satisfying, and in this region it’s a hell of an achievement.”

    There is currently no long-term solution, he said, but should Jordan experience regime change, it may be possible to push the idea of Jordan as a Palestinian state.

    “There is a significant chance for two states, Israel west of the Jordan River and Palestine to the east, with joint functional control over Judea and Samaria, although not shared sovereignty,” he speculated. “That will be the beginning of serious negotiations, in which Israel [eventually] rules the Jewish population there and Palestine rules the territory in which their people live there.”

    The debate was held during a dinner for the Board of Governors Institute of the AJC, which is currently in Israel as part of a regional tour.

    AJC director David Harris, whose staff organized the debate, noted that members of the board were granted an audience with King Abdullah of Jordan in Amman on Sunday and had met with both President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Netanyahu on Monday.

    “This evening is sort of quintessential AJC,” Harris noted. “We always have a major debate as part of our programming. We invite people who are thoughtful and reasoned but have certain perspectives on key issues. We listen to them respectfully and we process the information. Tonight’s debate was very much in that spirit.”

    Share Button
  • Posted by Ted Belman @ 11:20 am | 58 Comments »

    58 Comments to ‘PM said he’d okay provisional Palestinian state’

    1. Canadian Otter says:

      My comment was held for moderation

    2. the phoenix says:

      @ Canadian Otter:

      There’s a strongly-worded article on the PM and the land for peace issue. http://i-ari.org/

      Dear otter thank you so much for posting this link it is saved in my favorites.
      :)

    3. uzitiger says:

      What will all those who voted for this traitor Pipi Netanyahu (Peres Jr.) say now?

    4. Bernard Ross says:

      yamit82 Said:

      dweller Said: So, while it’s undeniably true that the world DOESN’T give a rip about the law— it’s equally true that the Jews, for better or for worse, DO. THAT, and nothing else, is why the law matters.

      On this,I must agree. In my opinion many Israeli Jews appear to believe that Jewish settlement in YS is illegal and do appear not to be motivated enough by religious and historic arguments.
      yamit82 Said:

      The Only Law a Jew need consider and uphold is the Law which assigns THE ENTIRE LAND OF ISRAEL TO THE JEWISH PEOPLE, ALONE. There are no other legitimate claimants.

      and yet the majority of Israelis are willing to settle for far less, somehow believing the other has a claim.
      yamit82 Said:

      “If you carefully safeguard and keep this entire mandate that I prescribe to you today,….”

      to carefully safeguard means to do ones best, not to sit back and do nothing. If there is an avenue, tactic or strategy that can counter enemy attacks and awake Jews to fight why should this battle not be undertaken. Cyberwar is a strategy in the battle and so is hasbara and lawfare. If we always express futility then we have no faith. If we think it is enough to do nothing and G_d will decide to give us what we want we may be unpleasantly surprised. When war is thrust upon the Israeli he fights; he does not stand still and hope that G_d will do all. One learns how to fire weapons and how they function and the same is true of Law, PR and cyberwar.
      yamit82 Said:

      “No Jew is at liberty to surrender the right of the Jewish Nation and the Land of Israel to exist…. This right is reserved to the Jewish People throughout the generations….we shall never yield this historic right.

      Meanwhile, it appears that a large majority of Israeli Jews are willing to cede this historic right for themselves and the Jewish people with the apparent consent of the diaspora Jews.

    5. Bernard Ross says:

      comment 4 to Yamit in moderation

    6. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “So, while it’s undeniably true that the world DOESN’T give a rip about the law — it’s equally true that the Jews, for better or for worse, DO. THAT, and nothing else, is why the law matters.”

      “You have used the above argument a myriad of times with little or no deviation but in none of the instances where you have used such a categorical hypothesis/contention have you shown it to be true even likely by attempting to give any support…”

      I could ALSO go out of my way to support the assertion that “the sky is blue” — but only a cretin would require it.

      — Rational persons are comfortable with conceding omnipresent realities.

      “I… reject out of hand the validity of your belief, therefore it is your opinion alone…”

      Of course it’s my opinion. [Du-uh!] “My opinion alone“? — You don’t know that.

      — Indeed, that’s YOUR opinion.

      “The Only Law a Jew need consider and uphold is the Law which assigns THE ENTIRE LAND OF ISRAEL TO THE JEWISH PEOPLE, ALONE.”

      This does not discredit (or even discount) a smidgeon of what I said above.

      The issue I was addressing (in the post that prompted yours) was not WHICH law is, or isn’t, ‘valid’ for a Jew to consider

      — but, rather, the fact that the Jew is peculiarly oriented toward relating to law for his sense of rectitude.

      The fact is that whether you (or for that matter, I) like it or not, most Jews don’t relate to the scriptures (or the Oral tradition) — yet they DO relate to civil law wherever they live.

      Moreover, insofar as they identify as part of an international ethnicity (the Jewish People) — they relate, in consequence, to international law.

      “Ben-Gurion the secular, socialist atheist understood Jewish Law and principles better than you dweller when he stated for posterity… etc… ”

      David Ben-Gurion, First Prime Minister of Israel, speech to the 21st Zionist Congress, Basel 1937

      Typically, you’re off-point again, Yamit, and simply seeking an opportunity to get in a dig to soothe your fragile ego. B-G’s understanding of “Jewish law & principles” is thoroughly immaterial to the point I was making in the thread at post #32 above — which was solely in response to Irving Weisdorf’s reply to Bernard about the relevance of law.

      Nonetheless, if you’re going to quote B-G in re that post-Peel, prewar speech, then you need to cite it ACCURATELY. I’ve corrected you before with regard to that common error [post #12, in that thread]:

      “…‘No Jew is at liberty… we shall never yield this historic right.’

      David Ben-Gurion, First Prime Minister of Israel, speech to the 21st Zionist Congress, Basel 1937?

      “The quote, date and speaker are correct, and the address was indeed to the Zionist Congress, but the number and location are WRONG. Don’t know why it keeps coming up faulty this way; somebody apparently made an error early in the ‘online era,’ and there’s been lots of copying of the error from one website to another ever since, such that a lot of websites get it wrong.

      “The citation SHOULD read:
      ‘Speech to the 20th Zionist Congress, Zurich 1937.’

      The 21st Zionist Congress was held in Geneva in 1939.

      The 22nd Zionist Congress was held in Basel [“Basle”] in 1946, viz., after the war.”

    7. yamit82 says:

      @ dweller:

      Nonetheless, if you’re going to quote B-G in re that post-Peel, prewar speech, then you need to cite it ACCURATELY. I’ve corrected you before with regard to that common error [post #12, in that thread]:

      dweller I don’t know that your correction is true. You have a habit of bending truth and reality narratives. Second I don’t take orders from you and I need not do anything of the sort. In any event I was quoting Ben Gurion not the congress and as per your habit if changing direction of the discussion and obfuscating my point from a quote to a discussion of an apparent typo.

      In the end dweller;

      Except for sickoos like YOU (dweller), who gives a flying__&^&*((*&^%%%$)@#!_??????

    8. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “Nonetheless, if you’re going to quote B-G in re that post-Peel, prewar speech, then you need to cite it ACCURATELY. I’ve corrected you before with regard to that common error…”

      “I don’t know that your correction is true.

      You have a habit of bending truth and reality narratives.”

      If you REALLY believed that (you don’t, but even if you DID), then there was nothing to keep you from checking it out for yourself.

      “Second I don’t take orders from you and I need not do anything of the sort.”

      Of course not. If you want to insist on digging the hole you’re in so it’s deeper yet, who am I to object?

      The problem, however, is that that is precisely how pieces of misinformation like the one I identified get passed on to the unsuspecting.

      — And as I noted in the PREVIOUS correction of your error, it’s probably how this PARTICULAR error acquired purchase to this day.

      “In any event I was quoting Ben Gurion not the congress”

      The erroneous cite [repeated here, below] wasn’t part of YOUR post?
      “David Ben-Gurion, First Prime Minister of Israel, speech to the 21st Zionist Congress, Basel 1937″

      If it wasn’t part of your post, then who put it there — the Tooth Fairy?

      “… and as per your habit if changing direction of the discussion and obfuscating my point from a quote to a discussion of an apparent typo.”

      MY habit of “changing direction”? — That’s rich.

      Your allusion to the post-Peel, Ben-Gurion speech was ITSELF an obfuscation from the point regarding the Jewish propensity toward law as security.

      — Your only objection to the content of my reply was in my refusing to be distracted by your perennial (and here, irrelevant) claim that ‘only Jewish law counts for anything in the matter.’

      What’s more, had it been my intent to ‘obfuscate’ your point, I sure-as-blazes wouldn’t have waited — as I surely did — to bring up the matter of your erroneous cite until AFTER addressing the substance of your post.

      Instead, I’d would’ve gone after it right away; would’ve jumped on it like a dog on a bone.

      You know: kind of, like. . . .the way YOU always do; right, Little-man-who-loves-to-play-one-up?

      “In the end dweller; Except for sickoos like YOU (dweller), who gives a flying__&^&*((*&^%%%$)@#!_??????”

      “Who”? — well, yourself, obviously: or you wouldn’t have responded to my post.

    Site Membership



    Editor


      Ted Belman

      tbelman3- at- gmail.com

    Search

    Polls

    Why doesn't Bibi want to go "all the way"

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    MANTUA BOOKS (recommended)




    Tolerism2

    RECOMMENDED BOOKS


    Iran islam


    apes

    LOVE


    Sharing

    mandate4

    Selected Israpundit Articles

    Miscellaneous Info

      All Politic Sites