Pressure mounts but gaps remain on trilateral summit

[bemildred]

The United States is applying heavy pressure on Israel and the Palestinian Authority to bring about a trilateral summit next week with U.S. President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly session in New York.

---

Mitchell went to Jordan yesterday, to ask King Abdullah to pressure Abbas to attend the summit. According to senior officials in Jerusalem, the disagreements between Israel and the U.S. are still substantial and center around several issues:

1. The Americans continue to demand that Israel freeze construction in the settlements for a year, while Netanyahu has only agreed to six months. The American demand for a yearlong freeze follows Palestinian refusal to attend a summit without such a freeze.

2. Israel opposes any future statement by President Obama that the border between Israel and the Palestinian state will be based upon the 1967 borders, with adjustments. Netanyahu is demanding an American commitment to defensible borders for Israel.

3. Netanyahu is also demanding that the framework for negotiations be consistent with the content of his speech at Bar-Ilan University in June, in which he spoke of a demilitarized Palestinian state; a Palestinian declaration acknowledging Israel as the state of the Jewish nation; and an understanding that any agreement would bring an end to claims and the end of the conflict.

4. Israel is concerned that a future public statement by Obama on the Middle East could erode the provisions of a letter from President George W. Bush in which Bush stated that large settlement blocs would remain part of Israel in any final-status agreement, and that Palestinian refugees would not return to Israel.

5. Israel objects to setting a two-year time frame for a final-status agreement and in particular any provision that at the end of the two years a Palestinian state would be established. Netanyahu believes this would predetermine the results of the talks.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115219.html

[Kurska]

1. I don't get the obsession about the 1967 borders.

They don't make sense geographically, demographically or militarily, for either the Israeli's or the Palestinians, Arab instances on using them as a negotiating starting point just comes off as a attempt to poke Israel in the eye to me.

[bemildred]

2. Yeah, better to go with one democratic state for all its citizens. nt

[Kurska]

3. Sounds great,lets go ask Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia for pointers.

Oh and before you say anything, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were both at one point democracies.

[bemildred]

4. Or the USA or Canada. nt

[Kurska]

5. The USA and Canada are made up of a smattering of nationalities.

None of which are numerous enough to come close to developing a plurality or have strong enough historical ties to the land to really claim the right to exist as a separate nation (with the exception of Native American who are compensated for this with Tribal sovereignty).

Although, even with the even spread out and non-dominating nature of the nationalities, the lack of ties to the land older then 300 years and a long history of peaceful democratic transitions of power both America and Canada were almost split into smaller countries at one point or another in their history.


You're of course not going to respond to this in any meaningful way, you've made your false anaology and don't care to actually converse with someone of a differing opinion.

However, I would be pleasantly surprised if you did.

[bemildred]

6. Smattering? The US is a "smattering" of nationalities?

We are one of the most polyglot countries in the world. However, all US citizens have the same nationality, that is the point.

It is not a false analogy, it is not an analogy at all, it is two examples of countries that are democratic and "multi-ethnic" or whatever one wants to call it, and of the fact that such countries can work, and work well, in fact they work better than ethnic mono-cultures or wannabe mono-cultures.

[Kurska]

7. We ae a multi-ethno, multi-national state.

It isn't at all weird for people to love the united states and still hold some reverence for their home country or even follow the customs and religion of the old country (though this fades with time).

Which is exactly the point, even if it made up of many different people from many different places, the United states and Canada still have a dominant Anglo culture that most immigrants tend to adopt. If you plan to have a state modeled after that in Israel/Palestine, either the jewish identity and language or the Palestinian identity and language are going to have to become dominant.

Neither side would accept this, clashing cultures, languages and a desire for self determination is ultimately why countries like Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia are gone or even why the FSU became so fractured after the fall of Communism.

Please tell me what exactly is going to happen to this state when the Zionist/Arab nationalist parties unite against the opposing bloc and one manages to take control of the government by virtue of having a larger voting base.

[bemildred]

8. We are not a multi-national state, you are simply wrong about that.

There is one nationality for all citizens of the USA, by law, by custom, by common consent. The fact that some attempts to form multi-ethnic states/empires fail does not mean they all must fail, that is why I provided a couple counter-examples. The principle requirement for multi-ethnic states to have a chance to succeed is equality before the law. It is precisely the attempt of one part to "dominate" the other that causes them to fail, but there is nothing inevitable about that, and the prejudices and fears of one generation do not bind the next.

[Kurska]

10. I was under the impression that not only are there people who hold their non-american nationality

very close to their heart while still living in america, but also honest to god foreign nationals living and working in the united states by the millions right at this moment.

But hey, I'm obviously not as smart as you are.

Also are you saying some sort of American, English speaking identity isn't the dominant culture of the united states, that also comes also comes as a surprise to me.

[bemildred]

15. Learn to read:

"There is one nationality for all citizens of the USA".

Nationality is the relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state.

By custom, it is the right of each state to determine who its nationals are. Such determinations are part of nationality law. In some cases, determinations of nationality are also governed by public international law—for example, by treaties on statelessness and the European Convention on Nationality.

The word citizenship is often used in a different sense from nationality. The most common distinguishing feature of citizenship is that citizens have the right to participate in the political life of the state, such as by voting or standing for election. The term national includes both citizens and non-citizens. Alternatively, nationality can refer to membership in a nations (collective of people sharing a national identity, usually based on ethnic and cultural ties and self-determination) even if that nation has no state, such as the Basques, Kurds, Tamils and Scots.

Individuals may also be considered nationals of groups with semi-autonomous status which have ceded some power to a larger government, such as the federally recognized tribes of Native Americans in the United States. Spanish law recognises the autonomous communities of Andalusia, Aragón, Catalonia, Valencia, Galicia and the Basque Country as "nationalities" (Nacionalidades).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality

All citizens of the USA are "nationals" of the USA, and their primary allegience is supposed to be to the USA, not somewhere else. The fact that you have some particular ethnic background has nothing to do with it. You become a citizen, you become a "national" too. Ethnicity can be tied to nationality, but there is no rule to that effect, and in the USA ethnic affiliations are often encouraged, but your nationality is still and always "American". I would think you would be familiary with "dual loyalty" slurs and the like.

[Kurska]

16. Oh so we're only talking about citizens now?

Because there are no people in America without citizenship non the less pursuing the american dream right? There aren't illegal aliens who desperately want citizenship, there are not foreign nationals here on work visa and there most certainly aren't people in America working toward their citizenship through naturalization. These people obviously aren't living in our borders despite being foreign nationals and little slice of the earth most certainly couldn't be called a multi-national piece of land.

And all of these people, especially the one trying to get citizenship hold their primary allegiance elsewhere even if they haven't seen their mother country in years right, love america and want to remain here.

Why don't you learn to act with a measure of civility and not slur the millions of foreign nationals who live and work in our country?

I've been trying to say this whole time that citizens aren't the only people who matter in this country, why don't YOU learn to read aswell while you're learning some manners.

Just a suggestion.

[bemildred]

18. Ah, you are learning to read.

You still don't seem to think so good though.

Having you berate anyone for a lack of civility is most amusing.
:rofl:

[Kurska]

19. You act in the obvious manner of man who realizes his position isn't worth defending.

I don't think I have ever seen you keep up a exchange with anyone, including me, that doesn't eventually result in childish name calling that you seem to invariably start.

Unless of course that person agrees with you, then you're all smiles.

You're utterly transparent.

[bemildred]

20. I refer you to post #5:

You're of course not going to respond to this in any meaningful way, you've made your false anaology and don't care to actually converse with someone of a differing opinion.

However, I would be pleasantly surprised if you did.

You seem to have had your preconceptions re-confirmed once again. But one never tires of being correct, eh?

[Kurska]

23. Oh yes, You've acted in this thread exactly how you always act.

Sniping one or two line responses to attempts to think out a reasonable argument, rude argumentative behavior characterized by personal insults while you make maybe one long post where you excessively quote a long outside source hoping the other side won't bother to read it and you get the last word.

Like I said, you're transparent and on the whole one of the least worthwhile people to communicate with on this entire discussion board.

Exactly the reason I like talking to people I disagree with is it gives me perspective, with you all I've ever gotten in regards to perspective is that you think you're much smarter then you are.

Anywho, I'm done wasting my time here.

[bemildred]

25. Well, it's been a pleasure talking with you anyway.

:hi:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. A better model might be Northern Ireland.

For what it's worth, I don't think a one-state solution is feasible, but I don't think a two-state solution is feasible either; I'm not convinced that two-state is any less of a pipe dream.

[Kurska]

11. What do you think would work? n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. I don't.

I cannot see any path to any kind of peaceful end to the conflict from here.

I expect that in another couple of generations Israel's borders will have expanded - quite possibly stretching from the Jordan to the sea, quite possibly not - it will still be stable and prosperous, there will still be attacks on it from its neighbours, most of the Palestinians will have left, and the ones who remain will be even more impoverished and oppressed than at present.

I think the only think that might conceivably lead to an end to the conflict is sustained heavy American and international pressure on Israel make an offer to the Palestinians including withdrawal to the Green Line and Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem, but probably not more than symbolic concessions on the right of return.

But, sadly, putting pressure on Israel is taboo in US politics; much as Obama might like to I don't think he will be able to do more than express verbal disapproval, which won't have any effect.

[Kurska]

13. "most of the palestinians will have left"

How do you suppose that would happen, by choice or by force?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. Somewhere inbetween seems least unlikely to me.

My guess is that - continuing current trends - Israel will make living standards in the Palestinian areas so low that people will choose to leave, nominally of their own free will.

That said, I'm not Nostradamus...

[Kurska]

17. You don't think Israel will go through with further road block removals

or economic improvements that it has pledged to bring to the west bank?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. I think it will continue to take one step forwards and two back.

While drawing attention to the one and trying to cover up the two.

At the moment, for example, we're seeing headlines reading "Israel removes 100 roadblocks" rather than "Israel leaves 85% of roadblocks in place".

[Kurska]

24. Well 15% is still 15% no?

I guess if more roadblocks are put up in the near future instead of being taken down, you'll proven right in atleast in that regard.

I'm tending more towards the optimistic side on that matter.

[bemildred]

22. King of Jordan urges Israel not to obstruct peace

AMMAN (Reuters) - Jordan's King Abdullah called on Israel on Thursday not to block moves to relaunch Middle East peace talks by continuing to build settlements in the West Bank.

The king told U.S. envoy George Mitchell that Israel should not miss the opportunity to make peace with its Arab partners, state news agency Petra reported.

"There is a need to prevent any Israeli plan that seeks to disrupt the launch of peace talks by imposing facts on the ground and continuing settlements and unilateral measures that end the chances of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state," he was quoted as saying.

Jordan and its pro-U.S. Arab allies, led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, hope U.S. President Barack Obama will continue to pressure Israel to freeze settlement construction on West Bank territory, which Arabs say is a prerequisite for negotiations.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE58G6FS20090917