Commenter Profile

Searching for: right to exist (19 results found)

You can also use % as a wildcard: %ondoweis% will match mondoweiss

Showing comments 19 - 1

  • Obama's November surprise
    • Obama just met with J Street U's national leadership at the White House. Anyone who understands military defense understands how silly it is to say that any US President "doesn't care" about Israel. It's not really a choice.
      And JVP and groups like it, who could care less if Israel dropped off the face of the Earth, can take no credit for the Iran Deal. Radical activists drive people to the right, not the moderate center. In the case of the Iran Deal, which was sold as a benefit to Israel, activists who deny Israel's right to exist are distinctly unhelpful.

  • Everyone's kicking AIPAC now that it's down
    • It's like you either don't know history, or you do know it and you don't care how silly you sound. When AIPAC loses a battle, there is always a followup like this. And it will end (really, it already has) once there is something else to talk about.

      "The reason the media can run these pieces is that AIPAC’s power is now in eclipse. It is no longer the bully-tyrant giant that could deliver a vote overnight on Capitol Hill. The Israel issue has become politicized at last; and AIPAC finds itself walled off within the Republican Party, with the result something AIPAC has always worked against: broad daylight between the Israeli government and the White House."

      No, AIPAC never could deliver a vote overnight on Capitol Hill unless the issue was something Congress already agreed with beforehand. Do you really think that tomorrow, if they wanted to, AIPAC couldn't get every member to vote on a resolution affirming Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state? Or one that called for Iran to stop supporting terrorism?

      "The Israel issue has become politicized at last"

      We'll see. It's more politicized than it was, that much is true. But there's really very little evidence right now that much has changed other than on this issue. There are a lot of hurt feelings. Fortunately, AIPAC didn't start yesterday, and I suspect that on the fundamentals, they'll be able to patch things up. And there's the other problem. There's no alternative to supporting Israel. People are not going to turn around and support the Palestinians. There's nothing to be gained from it, and there are nowhere near enough progressives who care enough about the issue to base their vote on it or to primary candidates who support Israel's right to exist. The anti-Israel movement is still largely a radical movement.

      There is daylight with the White House on one issue, not every issue. And it's far from the first time that's happened. There was daylight between AIPAC and the White House in 1991. There was daylight during the Clinton Administration. There was daylight toward the end of the Bush II Administration. There was daylight between Reagan and AIPAC on AIPAC. There was plenty of daylight between AIPAC and Carter.

      You can't really make a decent argument that there's this tremendous daylight when all anybody is talking about right now is how big a package Israel is going to get.

      "The liberal Zionist group J Street is the white knight of the NPR piece and the New Yorker piece; but as the head of J Street makes clear in NPR’s story, he doesn’t want aid to Israel politicized. Jeremy Ben-Ami is all for more aid to Israel."

      That's no surprise. J Street is an amalgamation of several smaller dovish pro-Israel groups. That's really all it is.

      "The Institute for Research Middle East Policy has filed a request with the Justice Department to regulate AIPAC as a foreign agent."

      Big yawn. Not the first, and will not be successful. The day that happens, NIAC will be next, followed by every organization in the BDS movement, especially since all of them claim to be acting at the direction of the Palestinians, and have never argued, as AIPAC does, that the policies they favor are best for America, as opposed to being best for the Palestinians. Much stronger case there than for registering AIPAC.

      Believe it or not, organizations are allowed to argue that strong support for Israel is in the American national interest without having to register under FARA, and if you understood FARA, you'd not only stop raising this always completely nonsensical argument, but realize that the organizations on your size of the fence are far more susceptible to it than AIPAC is.

  • Understanding the Partition plan
    • "The Arab states have said that they will recognize Israel if there is a peace agreement with the Palestinians. The Palestinians have recognized the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security. The stumbling block is Israel’s refusal to accept Palestinian sovereignty in any part of what they call “The Land of Israel” i.e former Palestine."

      Who cares, David? It's the Palestinians that have to accept Israel's right to exist, not the Arab states. Israel has negotiated for many years, and indicated a willingness to make a deal many times. It's the Palestinians who have routinely walked away from the table, largely because they can't countenance Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East.

  • Israeli leader turns on US Jewish journalists Friedman, Wieseltier, Remnick and Silvers for disloyalty and anti-semitism!
    • "An important polarization will take place. Zionism will be seen by everyone to be what it has worked out to be, a segregationist ideology, and important liberal Zionists led by Peter Beinart will with sadness and sagacity renounce it."

      Beinart will not renounce Zionism, because Beinart is not a self-hating bigot who would deny to his own people what everyone else enjoys. There is zero social science data to support this prognostication. Overwhelming majorities of Americans, including American Jews, support Israel's right to exist and have little sympathy for the Palestinian cause.

  • Closed-door debate on divestment by U of Toledo student gov't to include officials from Jewish Federation
    • "So anti-Zionism is equated with anti-Semitism, when many Jews have long opposed the program of Jewish nationalism on other people’s land."

      Many African Americans, including Malcolm X, opposed integration. Does that mean defending Southern segregation wasn't racist?

      The vast majority of the Jewish community supports Israel's right to exist. Denying that right means opposing the consensus of the Jewish community.

  • A Palestinian defends violent resistance to occupation
    • UNSC 1515 enshrines the 2SS as the solution preferred by the international community, and cites 242 as a basis, and UNSC 1515 was itself cited by the ICJ decision in 2004, which recognized Israel's right to exist, be recognized, and live in security.

  • Israeli Jews must become 'indigenized' to the Arab world, Blumenthal tells Lustick
    • "Zionism as a philosophy that has animated the facts on the ground… is an absolutely failed project."

      I'm sorry. That's back asswards; it's ridiculous. Especially in the context of the Middle East. It's certainly possible to conclude that Zionism is a flawed project, and that Israel is a flawed state. But not a failed one. Because today, Israel is without question the region's most stable state, and it is, for better or worse, a state with a Jewish majority, and will remain so in the future.

      "Because there is absolutely no way for Jewish people in Israel/Palestine to become indigenized under the present order, and that’s really what has to happen. You have to be willing to be a part of the Arab world, because you’re living in the Arab world. "

      That's also ridiculous. In the first analysis, this is a two way street. The Arab world has done less than nothing to welcome the Jewish people into the Arab world. And no, providing them with dhimmi status, or welcoming a few court Jews into the ranks of the leadership, is not acceptance. Arabs have never signaled acceptance of an empowered Jew.

      There is no "Arab world." No people has a responsibility to live according to the norms of others in their region. Especially when those norms are problematic and leave a lot to be desired.

      "And he refers to Israel fencing off Jordan, the Golan Heights, and other borders, to protect its ethnocracy."

      You know, until a few years ago, there was no wall, no fence. Why did it happen? To protect an "ethnocracy" or to protect a citizenry of Jews, Arabs, Druze, Christians, and visiting tourists?

      "All this reflects a 'dystopian future inaugurated by Herzl in his desire to create' Europe in the Middle East."

      When I read things like this, I am reminded again that what really bothers people like Max is not so much the human rights situation. Because there are many other human rights situations that Max Blumenthal could not give a rats' patootie about. It's Europe's colonial sins. And in an act of egregious projection, the victims of European Christian exclusivism are being asked to pay for them, while the Europeans themselves are immune.

      "They must become indigenized, which he says a lot of Israeli Jews would be happy doing. Many of his friends have become attracted to the Arab world, and many Mizrahi Jews identify as Arabs."

      They ARE indigenized. They LIVE THERE. And have for generations. What a racist notion; one can't be indigenized unless what? What is indigenized? Speaking Arabic? Wearing a kheffiyeh? Converting to Islam, maybe?

      You know what's fascist? Telling people that they have no right to exist in a space unless they become "indigenized."

  • Understanding the Holocaust, and the Nakba, in the Jewish narrative
    • I notice you didn't quote this part of Levy's op-ed: " Israel's right to exist, as a birthright of the Holocaust, is stronger than all its deniers, including the president of Iran."

      "Acknowledging our role in human suffering does not undermine the uniqueness and sheer horror of the Holocaust."

      Agreed, but unfortunately, not the view of many here, who do not acknowledge the uniqueness of the Holocaust in the first place.

  • US Jews are so 'polarized' over Israel they can't talk about it to each other, 'Jewish Chronicle' reports
    • I think you're engaging in some wishful thinking here, and part of the problem is that you just don't know the grassroots very well. People like Max Blumenthal may shout loudly, but they continue to represent no meaningful constituency in the American Jewish community. They are merely people of the left who happen to be Jewish. And to my knowledge, they really have no interest in joining the American Jewish community or creating an alternative to it. They'd be happy if organized Jewry disappeared and Jews fully assimilated like most of them have.

      It is not commonplace to hear Jews in the grassroots refer to Israel as a racist rightwing policy. It is common to hear criticism of Israel's policies in the West Bank. It is also common, to the extent that people care, to hear criticism of some internal Israeli policies toward Israeli Arabs and especially common to hear criticism of Israel's haredi population. But Newmark and Blumenthal continue to be outliers.

      "There is good evidence for these claims in a Jewish Chronicle piece on a Jewish Council for Public Affairs survey of rabbis showing 'that as many as half of the respondents feel that they are restricted in some ways in speaking about Israel in their congregational and other settings.'

      I.e., those rabbis want to raise gentle criticisms of Israel, but they feel they can't "

      It is true that many rabbis, particularly the younger ones, are on the liberal side of the political spectrum, and that many of them, particularly in more liberal synagogues, serve memberships that are much older and more conservative than they are. But they are not anti-Zionists. They are liberal Zionists. They strongly believe in Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. And they feel constrained to bring up Israel not because they want to voice anti-Zionist views, but because they don't want fighting within their synagogues and they don't want to lose their jobs.

      Unfortunately, all of this infighting ignores the elephant in the room, which is that support for Israel in the Jewish community is concentrated in the Orthodox community today. They are basically of one mind about Israel.

      So you're deluding yourself if you think that the fact that young liberal rabbis, who are increasingly irrelevant to begin with, and outliers like Max and Marilyn, who represent fringes who have no grassroots support in the Jewish community and no demonstrated interest in remaking Jewish communal institutions, are going to lead to the redefinition of Jewish communal institutions. Survival of these institutions is much more dependent on incorporating right-wing voices on Israel, not left-wing voices.

      Most Jews, I predict, will avoid the issue of Israel before they will speak out on it. And that is human nature and also reflect the stands of most Americans. I don't see Arabs speaking out in any organized way against human rights abuses in the Arab world or Muslims speaking out against the the destabilization of several countries by Islamic fundamentalist movements. You're not going to get an anti-Zionist wave, just as you never got a pro-USSR wave and you never got an anti-War on Terror wave or even an end-to-Iraqi-sanctions wave. Most Americans do not criticize the United States in harsh terms. The best you can hope for is a shouting battle, which more and more defines American political debates, and you'll most likely lose it, even if you gain a few easy European victories here and there.

      Liberal Zionists, by and large, do not do shouting debates; they are moderates. And unfortunately, moderates don't do well in this age.

  • Hiroshima epiphany
    • "What you want most hoppy is for no one to discuss this issue except Zionists.

      You’re the racist and bigot – not us."

      Spoken like the guy who never leaves the safe room. MJ actually lives in the real world. In the real world, Cliff, your views are offensive.

      "MJ, you’ve got a guy agreeing with you who has said that the Irgun was fighting imperialism by using terrorism. And that the Palestinians were Hitler supporters. And that hypothetical Palestinian violence is more important than actual Israeli violence with its vastly higher civilian casualty rate."

      I agree with MJ on many things, though I'm critical of his use of terms like "Israel-firster," which I think is unhelpful. But both of us are liberal Zionists who favor a two-state solution. We know there's nothing you hate more than people with nuanced opinions, Cliff. We also know that your tired line claiming I said that the Palestinians were "Hitler supporters" is the same lie today as it was yesterday, and that on a site where 95% of the regular commentators agree with most of what you say, you are so insecure, that you feel the need to trot out lies like this nearly every day.

      "This character who is agreeing with you has said that our fixation (his characterization; because we were just discussing a topic that arose organically in the comments section) on the history of the Mandate and Jewish terrorism is not ‘helpful’ to the Palestinian cause."

      Yes, I definitely believe that talking about a Jewish guerrilla group that ended in the 1940s, condemning everything they did as if you were Ernest Bevin, and asserting that they were crypto-Nazis (while condemning any reference to the Mufti's relationship with Hitler) is not especially helpful to the Palestinian cause. People are generally sympathetic to the facts on the ground. They don't especially enjoy hearing the entire conflict relitigated. That's true whether you're pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel. Angry, rabid, hating people like you do not tend to help the downtrodden. They hurt them by identifying their cause with angry rabid hating people.

      "You will find that all Zionist commentators past and present will want to shut down MW. Without the comment section you won’t have a MW."

      Spoken like a self-interested commentators whose views are so extreme that he's frequently censored even here.

      For the record, I've argued many times that the comment section, and its population of angry, sometime antisemitic people, greatly damages MW, an argument that Phil is quite receptive to.

      "You’re must have missed the lip service MJ paid to Islamophobia in his comment."

      I didn't miss it at all. As a long-time campaigner against Islamophobia in my own community, I strongly support it. See, I don't especially see the point of hanging out in places where everyone blows smoke up my ass so I never have to examine my assumptions nor they theirs.

      You do seem to be under the misimpression, however, that MJ was complaining about Islamophobia here. He wasn't.

      What have you done to convince your fellow pro-Palestinian campaigners that antisemitism is wrong, Cliff?

      "I think hoppy is in love with you now, MJ."

      I'm not "in love" with MJ. Boy, are you childish.

      And yes, I still have a major problem with MJ's use of terms like Israel-firster, which I find to mimic old antisemitic tropes about dual loyalty. MJ could criticize the ECI neo-con types like Bill Kristol on the merits, rather than relying on terminology like this. I have long criticized Kristol and the Emergency Committee on Israel for their politics, but I observe the basic rule of not questioning that they sincerely believe the policies they favor are in the best interests of the United States. Indeed, the term Israel-firster has hardly caught on in the mainstream, while Beinart's views are now commonly heard in the discourse. In truth, MJ doesn't really question it either; he just expresses his disagreement differently than I do.

      For the record, the quote you took out of context this time was a response to a post quoting Jerry Haber's piece supporting MJ's use of the term and placing MJ in a category of "real liberal Zionists" along with Beinart, Grossman, Oz, and others that were distinguishable from "faux-liberal Zionists" like Abe Foxman, Alan Dershowitz and others. I distinguished MJ from this group because Beinart, Grossman, and others are generally not known to engage in name-calling and generally do not associate themselves with hardcore anti-Zionist sites like this one.

      Indeed, people like you, Cliff, are the reason why. MJ may use the term "Israel-firster" as a rhetorical flourish to denigrate his political opponents, as is common in American political discourse. Unfortunately, because there are people like you out there, it is misinterpreted and used to constitute an attack on any Jew who believes Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. So I criticize MJ for that; it's irresponsible and unhelpful.

      Your bringing up my past criticism of MJ only makes you look unsophisticated, childish, and dumb Cliff. Maybe this is a good time for you to learn that most people think in more complex terms than "hate" and "love." We can like some things, and dislike others.

  • 'Do you know any Arabs in London?' Israeli airport authorities grill British photojournalist before kicking him out
    • "So yea, if you’re a new commentator just glance through hoppy’s comment history."

      Cliff is very hung up on the idea of taking me down. It's flattering to get all of this attention. Annoying and amusing, but flattering.

      If you're interested in getting an idea of Cliff's contribution to the site, you're welcome to review his many comments. You'll see that virtually all of them contribute nothing to any discussion and are filled with ad hominem vitriol. All in violation of stated comment rules. Cliff is a great example of a political cultist who could not survive outside of this site.

      There are so many classics, like:

      "You're a fascist, nut."

      and the always amusing:

      "In short, I'm too sarcastic for Zionist bottom-feeders."

      And there is the always reliable no-one-cares-but-me:

      "What do you care about dead Syrians? You're a Zionist Jew and a settler."


      "I never thought human beings could be so bleak and apathetic and hypocritical until I began reading Liberal Zionists and Liberal Jews who support Israel's 'right to exist.'"

      and then there's "Cliffy history"

      "The Jews who left the Arab world were not terrorized into doing so."

      Cliff apparently fancies me because I'm "Phil Weiss's favorite Zionist troll and has a lengthy comment history full of Holocaust denial type intellectualism."

      Of course, any claim about someone else's thinking is always interesting coming from a guy who has complained:

      "Why does **** like this make it through moderation?

      Holocaust denial and antisemitism are censored by this ****ing Jewish supremacist **** gets through every single day and in every single thread. "

      That's just the last month (mostly the last four days), but it goes on like that for another 4600 scintillatingly similar comments.

      Are guys like Cliff helpful to your cause, Annie and Phil?

  • Double standard
    • Some. Most find Israel's right to exist in the ashes of Holocaust and international law. No Talmud required.

  • 'J Street' leader hints that 2013 is make-or-break for two-state solution
    • "But political parties that deny the existence or territorial integrity of “the Jewish state” are illegal."

      Yes, they're illegal. So are Kahanist parties. But just as people who sympathize with Kahanist views serve, so to do people who sympathize with those who deny Israel's right to exist.

      "But I doubt that you support that right return or the equitable demand that Israel repatriate 1 Palestinian refugee for every illegal Israel settler living on Palestinian territory captured since 4 June 1967, i.e. 600,000 plus and counting."

      Most of those 600,000 would be incorporated into Israel in the context of a peace agreement, so it's a straw man. I'd support a 1:1 swap for those Jews remaining over the Green Line. That seems perfectly fine.

  • J Street sells its soul, completes evolution to AIPAC lite
    • I'm not really interested in continuing this discussion with you, Sean. It's a waste of my time. As I've told you many times before, at the base of every question you ask is a set of false assumptions.

      One is that Israel is nothing more than an ethnic cause. It isn't. Most Americans support Israel because it is the only stable democracy in the Middle East, because it is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, because it is the most reliable US ally in the Middle East, and because the alternative is to support people who evince open hatred of the United States.

      The second is that supporting Israel as a Jewish state is un-American or anti-American. Every poll taken on the issue proves you wrong. Every poll shows Americans overwhelmingly support Israel's right to exist and that more Americans support the Israeli than they do the Palestinians. There is no poll showing that Americans reject the concept of a Jewish state. There isn't a poll that I've seen showing that Americans reject the concept of an state with a predominant ethnicity as a prescription for all of the countries of the world. None. No matter how many times you repeat it, it's not going to be true.

      The third is that all the Jews you keep mentioning care about Israel and nothing else. They don't. Just about every pundit on that list talks more about domestic issues than they do about Israel.

      The fourth is that Israel has some responsibility to act like or be like America. It doesn't. There are, in fact, no states in the world quite like America. In the Middle East particularly, the culture is based around ethnicity, tribe, and religion. In Europe, those ideas have receded somewhat, on the surface, but they are far from exhausted, as we see today with Europe's treatment of its Muslims and the inability of the Europeans to integrate Muslims into their societies.

      No country but this one has a First Amendment. Of the countries in the Middle East, there is only one that bears any resemblance to America in terms of racial diversity and the protection of civil liberties and what some call individual rights for its citizens. That country is Israel.

  • Fighting Jews-- then and now
    • "about that well-organized pressure group..i don’t believe they have wide support in america "

      They do. Polling shows that most Americans support Israel's right to exist and a strong US-Israel relationship.

      "i don’t even believe they represent most american jews"

      It depends on what aspect of the policy you're talking about. Most American Jews do not support settlements. But they do support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

      "i think they are bullies and that’s why they have so much influence and people are afraid to stand up to them for fear of loosing their careers and other kinds of intimidation. "

      They are a lobby. They're no different from any other lobby; if you don't support their agenda, they will not give you money. That's not bullying. That's American politics. If you're from certain parts of the South, you're not going to win an election if you don't support gun rights. That doesn't make the NRA a bully. If you're from certain parts of Florida, you're not going to win an election if you don't support Medicare. That doesn't make the AARP a bully.

      "i also think they lie a lot, and don’t really believe lots of the stuff they say because if they did believe it, they would be sending their own kids off to war in greater numbers. "

      Most the hawks say that the US should let Israel take care of Iran, not that the US should get involved.

      Even if they did believe that the US should get involved, why, in your estimation does a person who favors military action, have an obligation to send his child into harms way? Isn't that first of all up to the child, and second of all, beside the point?

      Do we now have a civic obligation to encourage our children to fulfill our foreign policy objectives?

  • '60 Minutes' profiles Palestinian Christians, Michael Oren falls on his face
    • Ethnic nationalists? I believe most Irish people believe Ireland has the right to exist as a state, and when the situation in Northern Ireland was in the news, I'm sure you had a lot of Irish people writing about it.

      I won't dignify your nonsense about how Jews are pushing us toward war in Iran or your nonsense about the ringleaders for a war that was overwhelmingly supported by the American people when it started.

  • David Remnick erases Norman Finkelstein
    • I'm sure we're aware of the Neturei Karta view that Jews should live in exile until the coming of the Messiah.

      Unfortunately for Hostage, who operates under the assumption that the more obscure his references, the less chance someone will check, wikipedia does cover this subject.

      It's amazing that Hostage would even cite this stuff in the first place; in doing so, he finds common cause with those antisemites who believe it is the lot of the Jews to be persecuted until the coming of the Messiah.

      It is ironic that he cites Maimonides' opinion on this issue. Iggeret Teiman was essentially a responsa written by Maimonides to the Jews of Yemen, who asked whether they could leave because they were . . . wait for it . . . undergoing forced conversion at the hands of their Islamic rulers. So Hostage would have had them stay put rather than save themselves.

      "The Oaths also require the consent of all the nations. This explains the Israeli obsession with obtaining recognition from others of the right for the State to exist. "

      A silly conjecture with no actual basis in truth. Hostage would have us believe that Israel's demand that other nation recognize its right to exist is some legalistic formula to which Israel isn't entitled. It is not that. It is simply a demand borne of decades in which the rest of the countries of the region refused to establish diplomatic relations with Israel and supported an insurgency against it. When those things stop, Israel won't care about recognition of its right to exist.

      Your condescension and your inherent disingenuous are once again on display, Hostage.

  • Finkelstein thinks shift in young Jewish opinion means there will be 2 (viable) states. Mearsheimer doesn't
    • "And, again, the error in his thinking was taking the supposed Israeli “needs” seriously. "

      So Mearsheimer is apparently good enough when it comes to criticizing the Zionists, but not good enough when he recognizes that they have legitimate security interests.

      "If Israel can only exist by oppressing the Palestinians in the manner it has for generations, then it has no right to exist and should be destroyed."

      If Palestine can exist only by replacing the Jewish state, it should not be permitted to come into being.

      "LOL. Says the anti-Arab bigot."

      LOL, I'm no anti-Arab bigot. And I'm not the one celebrating the release of child-killers.

      It takes a special breed of blindness to see my repeated and documented calls for the full human, political and social rights and full equality of everyone in the region as a “callous disregard for Israeli lives.” "

      It takes a large amount of self-righteous smugness to ignore the fact that your "call" is not likely to play out that way.

  • Obama's impossible dilemma--and ours
    • "Therefore, I don’t see any alternative to what Obama is doing: right now it is this country that needs to be saved from itself."

      This is the price of taking a cartoonishly demonic view of Israel and ignoring all complexity in favor of simplistic sloganeering that passes for thought in your movement.

      In the last few months, there have been massive social protests. Labor is experiencing a resurgence. Israelis support the two-state solution, as do American Jews.

      In fact, BDS has no significant victory to its name. That's because the entire movement is based on faulty premises. The first is that Israel is like South Africa - a state with no right to exist ruled by a people with no right to be there. In fact, Israel is the internationally recognized Jewish homeland. It has a population that is in large part from the Middle East. It has ruled democratically. It is respected throughout the West, if not loved.
      It has also dealt with genocidal terrorists for nearly all of its existence, on its own. At the core of the "Palestinian-led" but Western-controlled BDS movement is an overwhelming hatred that mimics the antisemitic hatred that prevails in the Arab world. BDS is paternalistic neo-colonialism, yet another manifestation of Western activists doing for the Palestinians what they cannot or will not do for themselves. The idea that BDS is "Palestinian-led", as if it wouldn't exist if the Palestinians hadn't asked for it, is uber-silly. BDS is a one-state solution show, an attempt by Western activists to impose an unpopular utopian solution on a faraway land.

      BDS will continue to fail, just as political Naderism, based on the same premise that putting the population through suffering vis-a-vis a Republican President would lead to revolution and socialism.

      The domestic political constraints faced by Obama are the result of Palestinian irredentism. The US Congress would not work against a solution if the parties were talking. One side has repeatedly agreed to talks in the last two years. That side is the Israeli side. The Palestinian side has insisted on new concessions that were never part of Oslo, and have little to do with real final status issues.

      One day, both sides will come to an agreement, but it will not be due to the misguided efforts of the people here.

Showing comments 19 - 1