Trending Topics:

Israeli report: Kerry proposed long-term Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 145 Comments
Kerry

Headline: The United States Agreed to a Long-Term IDF Presence in the Jordan Valley

The Americans have moved significantly toward the Israeli view in regard to security arrangements in any future Palestinian state.  According to an unnamed Israeli diplomat, the American view of a post-settlement Israeli presence in  a future Palestinian state, as presented this week by John Kerry, is very close to that of the Israelis.  In fact, Kerry has explicitly agreed to a long-term Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley, according to an unconfirmed report in the Israeli daily Ma’ariv on Friday.

In a press conference at Ben Gurion Airport upon leaving Israel yesterday, Kerry said that he believes that a negotiated settlement is closer than it has been in many years.  The U.S Secretary of State made this optimistic assessment despite the many leaked opinions from Palestinian and Israeli officials that the current talks are going nowhere.

Kerry modestly stated that he presented “some thoughts” on post-agreement Israeli security deployment in the West Bank to both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas.  These “thoughts” were developed with the assistance of no less than 160 American officials and government employees who were led by retired Marine General John Allen.  According to the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, what Kerry characterized as “some thoughts” is actually a very detailed draft plan which General Allen has put together after a series of meetings with Israeli military officials during the past few months.   Allen accompanied Kerry to Israel and participated in explaining the American security proposals to both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

After three separate meetings with Netanyahu which together lasted 12 hours, and a four-hour meeting with Abbas, there were no official reactions to the draft proposal.  The parties have agreed to maintain secrecy during the negotiations.  However, Ma’ariv reports that the Israelis are very satisfied with the U.S. proposals, which they claim represent a significant movement from previous positions of the Obama administration. Despite reported leaks from unnamed Palestinian officials that Abbas had summarily rejected Kerry’s ideas, Saeb Erekat, the lead Palestinian negotiator, denied that there was any rejection.

After their meeting in Ramallah, Prime Minister Abbas did not join Kerry at the post-meeting press conference, which could be interpreted as the Palestinian leader showing his displeasure with the American presentation.

Kerry has publicly accepted the Israeli position that its security arrangements with regard to any future Palestinian state should be agreed upon before the parties commence talks about borders, Jerusalem, refugees, land swaps and the disposition of the settlements.  The Palestinians prefer to discuss Israeli security simultaneously with the other core issues.

The Jerusalem Post quotes Kerry as stating:

If Israel’s security cannot be increased through this agreement, it is very difficult to make an agreement … so we are making certain that we are addressing each and every one of those questions.

The Israelis are insisting on a long-term military presence in the Jordan Valley, control of the border between a future Palestinian state and Jordan including authority over who enters the territory, early warning towers in Palestinian territory, and a demilitarized Palestinian state.  The Palestinians view most of the Israeli security demands as limiting their sovereignty.

The Palestinians have stated that they would consider an international peace- keeping force in the Jordan Valley, but will not agree to any Israeli presence there.

Update:  1:45 PM EST —  President Obama is being questioned by Haim Saban at the Saban Forum in Washington.  The President spoke directly about the collaboration between Gen. Allen and the Israelis about ensuring Israeli security in the event of a settlement with the Palestinians.  It sounded very much as if the U.S. was trying to obtain an agreement with the Israelis which would then be presented to the Palestinians as a kind of joint proposal.

Saban asked about Netanyahu’s reaction to the U.S. security proposals.  Obama said that he did not know and that Saban should ask Kerry or Netanyahu.  It had been reported that Kerry would attend the forum, so it is possible that Saban would get an answer to his question.

Isn’t it amazing how the Obama administration has to report to Israel or its representatives after each diplomatic event?  Remember how Wendy Sherman traveled directly to Jerusalem in order to brief Netanyahu after nuclear talks in Geneva?

Update 2:  According to Israel News 1 (Hebrew only),President Obama specifically stated that he supports a continued Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley.  I did not hear this, but I only listened to the last 15 minutes of Obama’s presentation.

Update 3: Ha’aretz has confirmed the report here (English) under the title, “U.S. Security Proposal Includes Israeli Military Presence In the Jordan Valley.”

Ira Glunts
About Ira Glunts

Ira Glunts is a retired college librarian who lives in Madison, NY. His twitter handle is @abushalom

Other posts by .


Posted In:

145 Responses

  1. flyod
    flyod
    December 7, 2013, 2:30 pm

    no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it…. or something like that.. orwell?

  2. Walid
    Walid
    December 7, 2013, 2:45 pm

    “Saeb Erekat, the lead Palestinian negotiator, denied that there was any rejection”

    That says that now it’s for sure that something had already been agreed-to between the Israelis and the Palestinian negotiators even before the talks started, but that time and a few showbiz antics were needed to break the news gently to the Palestinian people. Netanyahu had been categoric about never leaving the Jordan Valley. This Kerry hocus-pocus about some long term presence is a gimmick to make the Palestinians swallow it. Another super wrong concession in the works by the Palestinians.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      December 8, 2013, 9:07 pm

      “The Palestinians have stated that they would consider an international peace- keeping force in the Jordan Valley, but will not agree to any Israeli presence there.a’

      Totally reasonable. How many times has the U.S. vetoed sending in international peacekeeping forces into the conflict along internationally recognized borders.

      So clear that Israel does not want international eye witnesses to their war crimes.

      Why would Palestinians agree to this?

  3. Hostage
    Hostage
    December 7, 2013, 2:50 pm

    The Americans have moved significantly toward the Israeli view in regard to security arrangements in any future Palestinian state.

    To be fair, Netanyahu already had a letter of assurance in hand from the Clinton administration to that effect before he ever agreed to ratify the Hebron Agreement – and he made certain that Arafat was given a copy:

    Narrator: The Oslo Accords stated at the time that Israel would gradually hand over territories to the Palestinians in three different pulses, unless the territories in question had settlements or military sites. This is where Netanyahu found a loophole.

    Netanyahu: No one said what defined military sites. Defined military sites, I said, were security zones. As far as I’m concerned, the Jordan Valley is a defined military site.

    Woman: Right [laughs]…The Beit She’an Valley.

    Netanyahu: How can you tell. How can you tell? But then the question came up of just who would define what Defined Military Sites were. I received a letter — to me and to Arafat, at the same time — which said that Israel, and only Israel, would be the one to define what those are, the location of those military sites and their size. Now, they did not want to give me that letter, so I did not give the Hebron Agreement. I stopped the government meeting, I said: “I’m not signing.” Only when the letter came, in the course of the meeting, to me and to Arafat, only then did I sign the Hebron Agreement. Or rather, ratify it, it had already been signed. Why does this matter? Because at that moment I actually stopped the Oslo Accord.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaIQHWfj5f4

    The Palestinians view most of the Israeli security demands as limiting their sovereignty.

    Just to clarify, the USA was one of the 19 High Contracting States that championed the doctrine of the sovereign and juridical equality of states contained in the Montevideo Convention, the Charter of the Organization of American States, and the UN Charter. It is supremely ironic that our government is trying to repeal what Wilson’s 14 points had say about neutralized or demilitarized states, like Belgium, and resurrect the idea of sovereign states that aren’t free to defend themselves, approach international organizations, or conduct their own foreign relations. In the mid-19th Century stronger states frequently controlled the foreign and domestic policies of their weaker neighbors. But even then, those situations were recognized as a flagrant abuse of power. See for example § 9 on pages 187-188 of Henry Wager Halleck, International Law, D. Van Nostrand, 1861. link to books.google.com

  4. just
    just
    December 7, 2013, 2:53 pm

    Sounds like the never-ending Occupation and Nakba continues apace…….

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      December 7, 2013, 4:00 pm

      Sounds like the never-ending Occupation and Nakba continues apace…….

      Exactly. The Obama and Clinton administrations don’t own any territory in the Jordan Valley they can cede to Israel and the nutcases in the Knesset who claim it is an internal Israel matter just need to be put on trial in the Hague.

      Netanyahu sure as hell isn’t delaying calls for sanctions or admitting that they will disrupt talks with Iran.

      Even the folks at Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have given up on futile diplomatic talks with Israel and are asking that Abbas and the Palestinian leadership explain what they are doing to see to it that Israel is held legally accountable in the International Criminal Court. e.g.
      * Bill Van Esveld, Why Palestine Should Seek Justice at the International Criminal Court, December 6, 2013 http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/12/06/why-palestine-should-seek-justice-international-criminal-court
      * Rights groups urge state of Palestine to join ICC
      http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=543701

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        December 8, 2013, 9:08 pm

        thanks for those links

    • Justpassingby
      Justpassingby
      December 7, 2013, 4:41 pm

      Sounds like US dont care one bit about law nor peace for palestinians.

  5. Blownaway
    Blownaway
    December 7, 2013, 3:02 pm

    Any doubt that Abbas doesn’t have the stones necessary to avoid selling out “his” people?

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      December 7, 2013, 3:25 pm

      Any doubt that Abbas doesn’t have the stones necessary to avoid selling out “his” people?

      He does have a record of publicly rejecting all of the proposals made to date that have suggested Israeli peacekeepers be employed on the territory of the Palestinian state.

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        December 7, 2013, 4:40 pm

        Hostage

        Not at all, read the “leaks” from the these talks that Aljazeera brought some years ago, Abbas is a sell out. Period.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 7, 2013, 4:49 pm

        Not at all, read the “leaks” from the these talks that Aljazeera brought some years ago, Abbas is a sell out. Period.

        Unlike most readers who settled for the summaries published by AJ and the Guardian I actually did read the Palestine Papers. I agreed with the views expressed by Diane Mason in “The Palestine Papers As Theatre,” http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2011/02/the-palestine-papers-as-theatre.html

        For example: I think the reason I find it difficult to get too exercised over the Palestine Papers is probably because the first exposure I had to them was through a breathless, dramatic video clip I saw from al-Jazeera English (entitled Creative Solutions, no long available at A.J.E. on-line) in which journalist Clayton Swisher dramatized in graphic detail the P.L.O.’s “unprecedented compromises” to Israel over the holy sites of East Jerusalem. Even while I was watching the video, the chasm between what was actually said in the documents, and what Clayton Swisher was claiming them to say, was so great that it left me looking at the later Palestine Papers coverage with enormous cynicism.

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        December 8, 2013, 4:12 am

        Hostage

        I dont think you have read the leaks since you still claim Abbas isnt a sell out.

        Example 1
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Papers#Jerusalem
        Example 2
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Papers#Napkin_map

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 8, 2013, 11:12 am

        I dont think you have read the leaks since you still claim Abbas isnt a sell out.

        I don’t think you are very smart to suggest that I’m lying. The agreements you mentioned involved quid pro quos from Israel and they were never concluded. In any event, the actual minutes of the Palestine Papers said that Abbas (aka “AM”, Abu Mazen) had stipulated that the entire final agreement, including the specific provisions on territory and refugees, would have to be approved by a national referendum, including a vote conducted in the diaspora.

        See the private discussion between Abbas and the PLO Negotiation Support Unit where he actually spelled out that the final agreement would have to be decided by a national referendum and that compensation would be required in any event (and the fact the Guardian and AJ don’t ever mention that fact in their summaries or coverage):

        Sharif Hamadeh: asked about the remaining elements of the refugee issue, and whether a referendum will be held that includes Palestinian refugees in the diaspora.
        AM: The referendum would be on the whole agreement. Given that the issues relate to all Palestinians, not only those in the West Bank and Gaza, it should be for all Palestinians.
        On numbers of refugees, it is illogical to ask Israel to take 5 million, or indeed 1 million – that would mean the end of Israel. They said 5000 over 5 years. This is even less than family reunification and is not acceptable. There also has to be compensation, which should come from the the Absentee Property fund. We would like you to follow up and ask about this fund and get as much information as possible. And there needs to be compensation to host countries.

        link to static.guim.co.uk
        See page 3 @ link to theguardian.com

        So the claim that he sold anyone out is a propaganda talking point. None of these negotiations ever resulted in a deal with the Israelis.

      • Taxi
        Taxi
        December 8, 2013, 12:44 pm

        “In any event, the actual minutes of the Palestine Papers said that Abbas (aka “AM”, Abu Mazen) had stipulated that the entire final agreement, including the specific provisions on territory and refugees, would have to be approved by a national referendum, including a vote conducted in the diaspora” – Hostage.

        I’m not a fan of “AM” but I agree here with Hostage. Any agreement made between “AM” and any israeli PM will be subject to a double-referendum (local and diaspora Palestinian) before a final agreement with israel becomes binding.

        This is not new, but is kinda common knowledge.

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        December 8, 2013, 1:49 pm

        Hostage

        First of all, its quid pro quo. Its latin.
        Second it wasnt Israel but Abbas that offered Israel to keep settlers inside a palestinian state likewise it was Abbas not Israel that offered Israel to keep settlers in Jerusalem.

        The fact that a deal hasnt been made or that there will be a referendum has nothing to do with the discussion at all, contrary, if Abbas think palestinians would accept israeli settlers he and yourself are dead wrong.

        You have alot to explaining to do why you support this sell out Abbas.

      • Walid
        Walid
        December 8, 2013, 3:09 pm

        “(Abu Mazen) had stipulated that the entire final agreement, including the specific provisions on territory and refugees, would have to be approved by a national referendum, including a vote conducted in the diaspora. ”

        Looks like another fast one is being planned by the Abbas-Erekat tag team. Abbas is contradicting an eralier Erakat statement, so if we go by the Palestnian Papers on past negotiations, and we know that Israel never backtracks on any agreed concessions obtained from Palestinians, there’s a good chance what Abbas is saying about the diaspora vote will never happen. This is what was reported by Jazeera:

        “… According to the documents, not only did Palestinian officials offer a low figure of returnees, the chief negotiator of the PLO, Saeb Erekat, said that refugees would not have voting rights on a possible peace deal with Israel.

        Notes of a meeting on March 23, 2007, between Erekat and then-Belgian foreign minister Karel De Gucht, reveal that Erekat said, “I never said the Diaspora will vote. It’s not going to happen. The referendum will be for Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Can’t do it in Lebanon. Can’t do it in Jordan.”

        http://www.aljazeera.com/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011124123324887267.html

        If Erekat said something that refutes his 2007 assertion, I’d be very happy to be told of it; at least it would make Abbas’ promise more credible.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 8, 2013, 3:25 pm

        Hostage First of all, its quid pro quo. Its latin.

        Yes, but when you are discussing more than one in English, involving territory and refugees, the plural form is quid pro quos. See for instance The Cambridge dictionaries online http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/quid-pro-quo

        Second it wasnt Israel but Abbas that offered Israel to keep settlers inside a palestinian state

        LoL! As I recall that offer stipulated that they would be citizens of Palestine, not Israel, and subject to existing Palestinian laws and sovereignty.

        You have alot to explaining to do why you support this sell out Abbas.

        Because the PLO serves as the provisional government of the State of Palestine according to the terms of the 1988 Algiers Declaration. Abbas got 60 percent of the vote in the Palestinian Presidential elections and did better than that when he was re-elected as Chairman of the PLO in 2009.

        Resolution ES-10/15 specifically required the Palestinian authorities “to undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks”. Abbas catches hell for doing that, but he is really only complying with the applicable decisions adopted by an Emergency Special Session of the General assembly convened under the terms of the “Uniting for Peace” resolution. link to unispal.un.org

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        December 8, 2013, 3:40 pm

        Hostage

        Again read the links I provided, Abbas offered Israel to keep the settlers.

        From wikipedia:

        ” During the first of several meetings, the Palestinian Authority proposed a land swap, offering Israel the opportunity to annex all of the Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem in return for land concessions by Israel. ”

        Well of course Abbas get 60% when hes the only contender allowed to win in a election by Israel and the US.
        Gosh, did you support Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan too? After all they won all the elections too.

        Again where does your support for Abbas come from, this is getting interesting.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 8, 2013, 4:06 pm

        Abbas is contradicting an eralier Erakat statement, . . . If Erekat said something that refutes his 2007 assertion, I’d be very happy to be told of it; at least it would make Abbas’ promise more credible.

        Abbas has the necessary power to contradict anything said by Erekat. I just cited the subsequent statements made on the record by President Abbas during a meeting with Erekat’s Negotiations Support Unit when he was specifically asked about the subject of the referendum.

        The last time I checked, Erekat takes his marching orders from Abbas when he is acting as President of Palestinian Authority, President of the State of Palestine, or as the Chairman of the PLO.

        so if we go by the Palestnian Papers on past negotiations, and we know that Israel never backtracks on any agreed concessions obtained from Palestinians,

        I think you can only be talking about concessions that were part of a formal agreement. Netanyahu explicitly rejected the idea of using previous negotiations as the starting point for renewed talks. The idea that Israelis can hold other parties to the terms of unratified concessions or agreements is far-fetched. It makes for good hasbara talking points, but they really aren’t enforceable.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 8, 2013, 4:22 pm

        gain read the links I provided, Abbas offered Israel to keep the settlers.

        From wikipedia:

        ” During the first of several meetings, the Palestinian Authority proposed a land swap, offering Israel the opportunity to annex all of the Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem in return for land concessions by Israel. ”

        You can’t seriously accuse Abbas a “selling out” anyone if the proposal in question was going to be subject to a national referendum – including the diaspora. FYI, if the Palestinian people agree to a compromise that ends the conflict, it really isn’t anyone else’s business.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 8, 2013, 4:27 pm

        Well of course Abbas get 60% when hes the only contender allowed to win in a election by Israel and the US.
        Gosh, did you support Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan too? After all they won all the elections too.

        There were other contenders, including Mustafa Barghouti, who received the remaining 40 percent of the vote. The Palestinian elections were not conducted by Israel or the US.

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        December 8, 2013, 6:50 pm

        Hostage

        “You can’t seriously accuse Abbas a “selling out””
        Thats because he is a sell out, its nothing complicated. You are dead wrong if you think palestinians would accept the israeli settlers on their land.

        “There were other contenders”
        Which of course also was accepted as a contender by Israel and the US.
        PA is funded and armed by Israel and the US.
        Also in the latest election Mustafa didnt get 40% but 19% of the votes.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 8, 2013, 9:49 pm

        You are dead wrong if you think palestinians would accept the israeli settlers on their land.

        Nothing Abbas has ever said or done would obligate them to accept Israelis on their land, since he has made the final settlement and cessions of territory subject to a national plebiscite.

        See Abbas says peace with Israel will be brought to a referendum for Palestinians ‘everywhere’ 09/02/2013. http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Abbas-says-peace-with-Israel-will-be-brought-to-a-referendum-for-Palestinians-everywhere-325023

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        December 9, 2013, 12:22 am

        Hostage:

        You can’t seriously accuse Abbas a “selling out” anyone if the proposal in question was going to be subject to a national referendum – including the diaspora.

        Why not? He makes the “sale”, then asks for approval, having precluded any possible better terms. The choice: this deal or continued occupation (or annexation) with all the blame going on the Palestinians for rejection.

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        December 9, 2013, 3:54 am

        Hostage

        Again I showed you that Abbas have offered Israel to keep settlers, that is a sell out, this is the sell out proposal you think palestinians would say yes to.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 9, 2013, 6:06 am

        Why not? He makes the “sale”, then asks for approval, having precluded any possible better terms.

        That sounds like pilpul. Abbas has never accepted terms for the final settlement, including the ones that justpassingby, the Guardian, and AJ pretend that he has. The Palestinians can simply refuse to accept them if he ever does. They started the first intifada without the help of the government in exile. For their own part, the Israeli officials and voters are employing their own referendum to preclude better terms. If everyone had listened to the leadership of the Palestinian Solidarity movement, there wouldn’t have been a UN statehood bid or any legal alternatives like the ICC, ICJ, and treaty bodies. So this bullshit about selling out works both ways.

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        December 9, 2013, 6:37 am

        Hostage

        Because, just as Sibiriak said, this is the type of sell out deals Abbas seek approval on by the palestinians. Again you are dead wrong if you think palestinians would like israeli settlers to take even more of their land.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 9, 2013, 9:53 am

        Again I showed you that Abbas have offered Israel to keep settlers

        All I see is that you keep pointing to certain negotiating proposals that were never incorporated in an agreement and speculating that Palestinians would have turned down the land offered in exchange for the existing settlements.

        There were also other proposals that would have allowed some of the settlers to remain as citizens of Palestine, subject to Palestinian laws and sovereignty:

        Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad: There is no need for an evacuation; settlers who are interested may stay where they are after an Israeli withdrawal and live as a Jewish minority in a Palestinian state. Israel will have sovereignty on one side of the border and the Palestinians on the other – over everyone living there. There will be no evacuation, and Israeli soldiers won’t have to take people from their homes. They will simply retreat to the new border.

        http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/comment-settlers-can-stay-but-only-as-citizens-of-palestine-1.265552

        None of those trial balloons were ever incorporated in an agreement, or put to a vote. So it’s nonsense to say that they are tantamount to someone being sold out. You might be surprised by the terms the Palestinians are willing to accept in order to get the IDF on its own side of the Green Line. Abbas was elected to represent the Palestinians and the PLO, you weren’t.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 9, 2013, 3:17 pm

        Again where does your support for Abbas come from, this is getting interesting.

        It may be interesting to you. Here’s the latest proposal from the real world:

        PLO: Palestinians won’t accept current proposals from Israel 12/09/2013

        The Palestinians can’t accept any proposals or plans like the ones that are being suggested today; that solidify occupation and legalize the division of the Palestinian territories, the PLO Executive Committee announced Sunday.

        The announcement, which was issued to mark the 26th anniversary of the first intifada that began in 1987, was referring to recent security arrangements between Israel and the Palestinians, as proposed by US Secretary of State John Kerry.

        The PLO warned that there could be no deal with Israel that excludes the Jordan Valley, and Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.

        The PLO also expressed opposition to the presence of any settlement blocs in the West Bank in the context of a future deal with Israel. “We can’t accept that the airspace, borders and border crossings remain under the control of the occupiers,” the PLO said.

        Meanwhile, the ruling Fatah faction – the PLO’s largest group – vowed to pursue “popular resistance” against Israel until Palestinians fulfill their rights.

        http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/PLO-Palestinians-wont-accept-current-proposals-from-Israel-334379

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        December 9, 2013, 3:21 pm

        Hostage

        Yes? Thats what I have been saying all long, palestinians wont accept any settlers on their land, apparently you disagree.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 9, 2013, 5:33 pm

        Hostage Yes? Thats what I have been saying all long, palestinians wont accept any settlers on their land, apparently you disagree.

        No, try reading that again. Abbas is the Chairman of the PLO and the Fatah faction. His organizations are saying there will be no agreement on settlements, the Jordan Valley, & etc. like the one you keep describing.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        December 9, 2013, 7:00 pm

        Accepting the illegal settlers, subject to conditions, might make it easier to defend the Green Line as the border of Palestine.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        December 9, 2013, 7:34 pm

        Accepting the illegal settlements as part of Palestine, with continuing presence of Jews in Palestine (provided they adhere to laws of Palestine), might well work to advantage of Palestine.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 9, 2013, 9:38 pm

        No, you haven’t connected the dots. The notion that there must be a final resolution to the conflict, coupled with the requirement that the Palestinians accept israel as a “Jewish state” coupled with Lieberman’s statement that israelis will transfer all the israeli Palestinians and the latest revelation that there won’t bd a real state means that the US and the zios are angling to get the Palestinians to agree to be a permanent underclass in a Judeo-supremacist set up.

      • Walid
        Walid
        December 10, 2013, 12:58 am

        James, not that they are right or that it’s justified, but Israel will never ever leave the Jordan Valley. It started a war in 1967 and has been occupying lands since then all because of the water that originates in it. With the Golan, Israel now has full control of all the water originating or flowing through the valley that is Israel’s lifeline. The Palestinian question for Israel is secondary to the question of water and since there is no solution in sight on the water issues, Israel will continue holding on to the control of the water in the area. Water was the Zionists main concern back in 1919 and full control over it was their prime objective and now they have it, they won’t let go of it and probably never will, unless militarily made to do it. So all the Abbas talk of this and that about the Jordan Valley is part of his snake oil stuff intended for the Palestinian people. The Jordan valley, like a good part of the WB is not going anywhere; the few Palestinians still remaining there are going to be moved out.

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        December 10, 2013, 4:12 am

        Hostage

        Yes? Thats what I have been saying in all my comments that palestinians wont accept israeli settlers in their state, dont you understand? You are the one that said that palestinians would accept such sell out proposals.
        According to your quote they now say they wont and that is no surprise. That however doesnt change other proposals Abbas have made. He is a sell out and it doesnt have to do only with the proposals in the talks but his policies in general.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 10, 2013, 12:13 pm

        Hostage Yes? Thats what I have been saying in all my comments that palestinians wont accept israeli settlers in their state, dont you understand?

        I understand that you are a political neophyte who ignorantly suggests that Abbas has committed to every proposition brought up during the internal discussions of the NSU or during talks conducted between the intermediaries and the Israelis. That’s not how agreements are concluded in the real world. You can see from this public statement that he isn’t committed to those positions as you had repeatedly claimed.

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        December 10, 2013, 1:15 pm

        Hostage

        I havent spoken of any agreements at all, I have spoken of the sell-out proposals Abbas have made, proposals that you think palestinian people would accept.
        When proven wrong you then post a quote (http://mondoweiss.net/2013/12/proposed-military-presence.html/comment-page-1#comment-618762) saying the exact thing I have told you from the start and then trying to use that argument against me?

        Sorry but your support for the corrupt Abbas and your support for his selling out proposals is wide open for anyone to see now Hostage.

      • annie
        annie
        December 10, 2013, 1:39 pm

        When proven wrong you then post a quote (link to mondoweiss.net) saying the exact thing I have told you from the start and then trying to use that argument against me?

        i am a little confuse jpb. as hostage pointed out Abbas is the Chairman of the PLO and the Fatah faction. the quote (“PLO: Palestinians won’t accept current proposals from Israel “) you say you agree with– is their position.

        so are you saying you agree with their position but not abbas and fatah? please explain.

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        December 10, 2013, 1:56 pm

        Annie

        Ive simply said that palestinians wont accept the proposal Abbas have made (the one offering Israel to keep settlers) and they obviously have no positions, they do as told by US and Israel.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        December 10, 2013, 2:16 pm

        The Palestinians may well prefer to have the Green Line as their border with Israel, even if this means a few hundred thousand Jews live in Palestine.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        December 10, 2013, 2:35 pm

        In your view, the Palestinians will not accept Jewish settlers within the borders of Palestine? Even if this tends to force a change of borders of their country?

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        December 10, 2013, 4:09 pm

        James [email protected];

        Both Abbas and Mustapha Bargouti have said they would not allow Jews holding Israeli citizenship to remain.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 10, 2013, 5:06 pm

        When proven wrong

        The only thing you’ve proven is that you can post a bunch stupid of rants.

        You claimed that I hadn’t read the Palestine papers, but in fact I have read and inspected their contents a little better than you have, I pointed out that they prove Abbas said that any proposed final settlement would have to be okayed by a national plebescite, including the diaspora. I gave you another link that illustrates he has said the same thing about the current talks. None of these proposals were ever accepted or acted on by either side. They are just like a number of other informal ideas that have gone nowhere, including the one made by Prime Minister Fayyad that settlers could choose to remain and become citizens of Palestine.

        In other words, Abbas has always agreed to give the whole Palestinian people the final say on any agreement concluded with Israel. There’s never been one of those based upon the discussions or ideas contained in the so-called Palestine Papers.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 10, 2013, 5:37 pm

        In your view, the Palestinians will not accept Jewish settlers within the borders of Palestine? Even if this tends to force a change of borders of their country?

        I imagine that Palestinian economists and lawmakers already know how to collect business license fees, property taxes, income taxes on foreign income, and the various ways they can employ their own and other courts to return stolen assets.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        December 10, 2013, 7:36 pm

        @Walid – – I continue to think Israel can be forced out of the West Bank and the Golan Heights. But I think accepting Jews as residents of Palestine would help. (Assuming compensation is paid, etc)

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        December 11, 2013, 3:06 am

        Hostage

        Yes I claim that because you havent read them its obvious to anyone here.
        As usual you quote me selectively and refuse to deal with the issue. Namely the proposals, not agreements/”final settlements” as you over and over again rant about.
        Also, we have no idea if these sell out proposals have been accepted or not or as you claim “gone nowhere” since there is no agreements made. However the recent leaks give me right again since US push for just this type of sell out deal where Israel will keep its settlers on the 67-land.

      • Walid
        Walid
        December 11, 2013, 4:48 am

        “@Walid – – I continue to think Israel can be forced out of the West Bank and the Golan Heights. ”

        The problem as far as I’m concerned is not about the Jews being there but rather about the Palestinians being kept out. As long as the Israelis continue with their acrobatics to keep them out and increase their numbers by expelling other Palestinians, there will never be a solution. Everything else is about details that could be worked out.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 11, 2013, 4:53 am

        Yes I claim that because you havent read them its obvious to anyone here. . . . Namely the proposals, not agreements/”final settlements” as you over and over again rant about.

        What’s obvious is that you can’t provide any examples of Abbas actually surrendering the rights of any Palestinian to backup your claim.

        Some of the most stupid analysis and commentary about Abbas selling out were based upon idle chatter, speculation, and discussions in private meetings with his own staff, when no Israelis were even present.

        The discussion with the NSU staff that I cited above is a perfect example of that sort of thing. Abbas wasn’t talking to any Israelis, and didn’t agree to give-up anybody’s right of return, despite the suggestion in the Guardian’s headline.

      • Taxi
        Taxi
        December 11, 2013, 5:02 am

        Justpassingby,

        “Yes I claim that because you havent read them its obvious to anyone here.”

        Erm, best speak for yourself, buddy.

        From the immense and prolific number of documentation that Hostage usually puts out here on MW, I’d say your claim is skating on thin ice – you’re talking about your personal perspective on Hostage, not presenting facts. For what it’s worth, I think Hostage would have undoubtedly read the papers, important as they are – and his summations are no different to what I’ve read other expert analysts conclude.

        Abbas can make all the promises to israel he likes at the negotiating table. The point is, he does not have the final say in the negotiations, the referendum does, therefore the Palestinian people will ultimately decide whether to go along with Abbas ‘promises’ to israel or not. Therefore, Abbas cannot technically shaft the people of Palestine behind closed doors.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        December 11, 2013, 5:04 am

        Israel is going to collapse, Walid. They can’t keep selling smoke to the West, even if the US MSM are bought and paid for.

        That Theresienstadt video is very apt. The Nazis tried the same schtick and the truth came out in the end.

        Zionism is a sickness, not a sustainable system. It’s driven by Jewish trauma. It’s what the masris call a lakhbatah gaamidah. Shufti baqa.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 11, 2013, 5:28 am

        Both Abbas and Mustapha Bargouti have said they would not allow Jews holding Israeli citizenship to remain.

        Miriam, I just gave you links to interviews where Abbas’ handpicked Prime Minister and handpicked Negotiator said that Jews were welcome to stay and hold Palestinian or dual citizenship. The bottom line is that they have to subject to Palestinian law.

      • talknic
        talknic
        December 11, 2013, 5:37 am

        @ miriam6 “Both Abbas and Mustapha Bargouti have said they would not allow Jews holding Israeli citizenship to remain”

        Why lie? A) It’s against the most basic of Judaisms tenets, so its rather bizarre that you do in defense of the so called ‘Jewish’ state, B) ever heard of a search engine? Anyone can check your inane bullsh*t

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        December 11, 2013, 6:18 am

        Hostage

        I have posted links from Wikipedia showing that Abbas offered Israel to keep settlers. You are denying facts now. Not pretty.
        If you read the link you see that Olmert actually rejected Abbas offer, so much for your “private talks” argument…

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        December 11, 2013, 6:23 am

        Taxi

        It is not palestinian people BUT Abbas that decide what palestinian people could vote on, and as I said, if you or anyone else think that palestinian people would accept israeli settlers on their land, you are dead wrong. Abbas is no different from his fmr. allied Mubarak or his new sicko, Al-Sisi in Egypt that you also have given support to.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 11, 2013, 6:56 am

        I imagine that Palestinian economists and lawmakers already know how to collect business license fees, property taxes, income taxes on foreign income, and the various ways they can employ their own and other courts to return stolen assets.

        If the Palestinians are governing the settlement blocks they are going to be governing a people that all have military training, have arms (and likely much better arms), have strong ties to a foreign power. What makes you think they will ever submit to a confiscatory tax regime? Heck I have serious question whether they would ever submit to any Palestinian tax regime.

        Those Jewish areas are going to be part of Palestine in the same dejure but not defacto way that western Pakistan territory is under the sovereignty but not control of the Pakistani (Eastern Pakistan) government.

      • Taxi
        Taxi
        December 11, 2013, 7:15 am

        I give support to what the people want, be they in Palestine, in Egypt or in Bora Bora – unlike you and your incessant uncalled-for hostility, mister know-it-all: you who gives support only and exclusively to your own version of reality.

        It’s like you’ve got rocks in your ears and salt on your tongue. Relax. That you should think that Abbas can actually force the Palestinians into a situation that would entrap them, again demonstrates that you completely do NOT understand how these negotiations work.

        Anyway, the negotiations are what they are: a charade. So who gives a foof about them?! Not me.

        You can pick up your inconsequential argument with someone else who cares about ‘the negotiations’.

      • annie
        annie
        December 11, 2013, 7:15 am

        Annie

        Ive simply said that palestinians wont accept the proposal Abbas have made

        actually you said more than that. i was specifically referencing what i blockquoted above. you claimed you ‘proved hostage wrong’ and then linked to hostage’s link (“PLO: Palestinians won’t accept current proposals from Israel “) and claimed it was “exact thing I have told you”.

        so does that mean you are in agreement with the plo’s (abbas/fatah) position in the article.

        I have posted links from Wikipedia showing that Abbas offered Israel to keep settlers. You are denying facts now. Not pretty.

        why don’t you do more than link. why don’t you blockquote the segment from wiki you think ‘proves’ hostage wrong. post something that directly contradicts his links, words and evidence. frankly, you’re sounding more attached to making him wrong than making your point.

        and i’m when taxi wrt your claims about what’s “obvious to anyone here”.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 11, 2013, 8:05 am

        “If the Palestinians are governing the settlement blocks they are going to be governing a people that all have military training, have arms (and likely much better arms), have strong ties to a foreign power. What makes you think they will ever submit to a confiscatory tax regime? Heck I have serious question whether they would ever submit to any Palestinian tax regime.”

        Which is why they all have to behind the green line or be disarmed. Otherwise, the solution is to blockade them and starve them into submission.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 11, 2013, 8:54 am

        Hostage I have posted links from Wikipedia showing that Abbas offered Israel to keep settlers. You are denying facts now. Not pretty.

        Your Wikipedia articles simply link to Al Jazeera articles that sensationalize the contents of the documents in question.

        In the first meeting Abbas wasn’t even present. In the second you are trying to misrepresent Olmert’s packaged deal, involving the napkin map, an offer of a vaguely worded apology for Israel’s role, and to repatriate 1,000 refugees per year for 5 years, as if it was an offer made by Abbas or one that he accepted. I already gave you a link to the meeting between Abbas and the Negotiation support unit in which he ruled out acceptance of Olmert’s token offer to repatriate 5,000 refugees, and said that a much higher number and compensation would need to be provided in any event.

        In the first document that Wikipedia cites, Ahmad Qurei pointed out that there are no draft proposals and that they were only in the brainstorming stage and not at the practical stage where Olmert and Abbas could sit together and discuss formal proposals :

        As for the negotiations, we have talked about all the issues and focused on three main issues. We agreed to start drafting the Palestinian and the Israeli position regarding each issue. Then Abu Mazen, Olmert, Livni and I will sit together. We will also ask for your help to fill in gaps.
        If we started drafting, then we would move from the brainstorming stage to the practical stage.

        http://transparency.aljazeera.net/files/2825.PDF

        As for the settlements he proposed the removal of some, annexation of others, and keeping the remainder under Palestinian sovereignty. He refused to accept the annexation of Ma’ale Adumim, Ariel, Giv’at Ze’ev, Ephrat and Har Homa settlements. Contrary to the press reports, he demanded several things in return for the concessions including: an end to the continuous settlement activities and efforts to connect-up the Jewish settlements in Jerusalem, a corridor for safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank; a 1:1 ratio on land swaps – with all swaps to be located on the 67 borders, not in the desert; a cap on swaps to 1.9 percent of the total area of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, & Palestinian control of their underground water aquifers. He also made it clear that the brainstorming offer was contingent upon Israeli agreement on all of those key concepts.

        FYI, even Jimbo Wales has admitted that people shouldn’t be citing Wikipedia, they should be using it to do further study.
        http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-12-13/wikipedia-a-work-in-progress

        That goes double for any article that remotely touches upon the I-P conflict. They are the subject of more sanctions than the Iranian economy.

        Here is another link from 2009 where Qurei publicly rejected the idea of Israel annexing all of the settlements. He stated that the settlers were welcome to stay as Palestinian citizens or dual nationals under Palestinian jurisdiction, but that the settlements must be part of the Palestinian State. See PA: Settlers can become Palestinian citizens: Negotiator Ahmed Qureia tells Haaretz that Ariel, Ma’aleh Adumim must be part of Palestinian state. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/pa-settlers-can-become-palestinian-citizens-1.276727

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        December 11, 2013, 9:27 am

        Map/Settlements

        “Your Wikipedia articles simply link to Al Jazeera articles that sensationalize the contents of the documents in question.”

        Its not Al Jazeera its Erakat himself from an interview look here:

        http://www.aljazeera.com/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122114239940577.html

        There Ereakat spoke the meetings, the offer, and the “map”, so one cant deny this didnt take place.

        Refugees:

        Yes he denied 5000 but apparently accepted 10000 refugees, 10000 of 5 million – a sell out proposal.

        “As for the settlements he proposed the removal of some, annexation of others, and keeping the remainder under Palestinian sovereignty. He refused to accept the annexation of Ma’ale Adumim, Ariel, Giv’at Ze’ev, Ephrat and Har Homa settlements.”

        That wasnt the issue, the issue was that he offered Israel to keep the settlers/land in East jerusalem settlements, none of the areas you mentioned are located in East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem belongs to palestinians. Offering Israel to keep that land is a sell out proposal.

        “FYI, even Jimbo Wales has admitted that people shouldn’t be citing Wikipedia, they should be using it to do further study.

        I agree, however all the stuff I have linked to on Wikipedia have been sourced.

        “Here is another link from 2009 where Qurei publicly rejected the idea of Israel annexing all of the settlements.”

        I havent said that palestinians have offered Israel “all of the settlements”.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 11, 2013, 9:47 am

        Taxi . . . It is not palestinian people BUT Abbas that decide what palestinian people could vote on, and as I said, if you or anyone else think that palestinian people would accept israeli settlers on their land, you are dead wrong.

        You keep making nonsensical or tautological arguments. The Palestinian people can’t fit in a room with the Israeli negotiators. They and the PLO elected Abbas to the positions and offices that are responsible for conducting the foreign relations on behalf of the PA or Palestinians. Negotiations with Israel were never an extra-curricular activity.

        You keep saying that Palestinians want to get rid of some of the settlements in Jerusalem so badly that they would turn down a deal that 1) ends the IDF occupation; 2) provides for safe passage for commerce and travel between Gaza and the West Bank; 3) an immediate end to all settlement activity and attempts to connect-up a band of settlements that would encircle Jerusalem; 4) control of their water resources and underground aquifers, 5) a restriction to 1.9% of the Palestinian territory that Israel could retain in return for 1:1 land swaps; 6) a requirement that all swaps be located on the 67 borders; 7) Palestinian sovereignty over Ma’ale Adumim, Ariel, Giv’at Ze’ev, Ephrat and the Har Homa settlements; 8) compensation for all of the refugees and repatriation for more than the token numbers that Israel has suggested to date; and 9) retains Jerusalem as its capital and continued control over the key Muslim and Christian holy sites of Palestine, with international supervision.

        In the same meeting you are complaining about, Ahmad Qurei said “Palestine will be an independent state, with limited militarization but not limited dignity, and it will have sovereignty and full control over its land, airspace and regional water.” and be “a state capable of providing security for its citizens and controlling its air space and borders.”

        I think that many Palestinians would have accepted that deal, if it had ever gotten beyond the brainstorming stages.

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        December 11, 2013, 10:00 am

        Hostage

        “You keep making nonsensical or tautological arguments. The Palestinian people can’t fit in a room with the Israeli negotiators. “

        I havent said that 5 million palestinians could fit in a room. What I said was that its not up to palestinian people to decide, WHAT to vote on as you seems to imply with your “referendum”-talk. Its Abbas that decide WHAT proposal palestinian could vote on. Thats the issue because Abbas doesnt seems to understand what kind of proposals palestinians would agree to in the first place.
        Or do you think that palestinian people would accept Israel taking even more land from the palestinians in Westbank and East Jerusalem?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 11, 2013, 10:50 am

        they are going to be governing a people that all have military training, have arms (and likely much better arms), have strong ties to a foreign power.

        None of that has ever stopped a government from killing its citizens in the past. There aren’t any peace proposals that would restrict the arms needed by the Palestinian Security forces for local law enforcement, prevention of terror attacks, maintenance of public order, or putting down a tax revolt.

        The settlers may have military training, but that doesn’t mean they have any of the organizational equipment they’ve trained on at their disposal. They don’t have an air force or army with aircraft, APVs, tanks, or the heavy artillery support they’ve grown accustomed to. You can also assume that any peace agreement will require the IDF to collect the small arms and equipment it has issued to the settlers and turn over its bases to the Palestinians.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 11, 2013, 11:09 am

        Its Abbas that decide WHAT proposal palestinian could vote on.

        You are complaining about negotiations that he supervised before there was ever any question that his term in office had expired. In short, he had a legal mandate from the Palestinian people and the PLO to do exactly what he did.

        You still haven’t addressed the fact that Al Jazeera and the Guardian didn’t even try to describe all of the terms and conditions that were attached to the offer you keep bitching about.

        I’ve spelled them out for you here and pointed out that many Palestinians just might accept a deal like that if it were ever offered to them (and there was no danger of that ever happening in the first place, as Taxi pointed out). http://mondoweiss.net/2013/12/proposed-military-presence.html/comment-page-1#comment-619353

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 11, 2013, 6:18 pm

        @Hostage —

        None of that has ever stopped a government from killing its citizens in the past.

        Yes it has and quite often. Governments that have tried to take on powerful well armed minorities have generally suffered devastating defeats.

        And moreover here is where the support of a foreign army comes in. The Palestinians can’t win a hard fought battle. They win a battle and it becomes a massacre for Israel which then has no choice but to intervene. Remember the Alamo?

        . They don’t have an air force or army with aircraft, APVs, tanks, or the heavy artillery support they’ve grown accustomed to.

        Why wouldn’t they? They would have excellent smuggling operations. Remember they are literally bike riding distance from a friendly army, whose members are going to be leaking arms to them, probably with full support of their government. They have a huge support network in the United States. They have support networks with other people like the Kurds. The Israelis know how to do this. Under much worse conditions they did it in the 30s and 40s facing a full on arms embargo that was widely support, and they did it to great success.

        You can also assume that any peace agreement will require the IDF to collect the small arms and equipment it has issued to the settlers and turn over its bases to the Palestinians.

        What agreement? In your hypothetical there was no agreement the Palestinians were just governing the Jewish residents after some sort of magic UN sanctions got the Israelis to withdraw.

        You can’t have it both ways. This hypothetical there is a hostile withdraw forced by some world power (let’s say the USA). Palestine is next to a country that despises them. Before it was merely a land war, now the Israelis really hate the Palestinians. Israel views itself as defeated in your hypothetical and lusts for revenge. They are going to be doing everything they can to destabilize the situation. Think at the very least what Iran was doing to the USA in Iraq or what Pakistan does in Kashmir. You can’t assume the IDF is helping, they are harming.

        You can assume the IDF is being monitored by say the USA with a peacekeeping force. But tick-tock-tick-tock the US population doesn’t like long occupations. You only have a decade or so before they leave.

        If there is an agreement, the Palestinians are not going to be crazy enough to try and govern an armed hostile population with a foreign sponsor who is far more powerful than their state. The agreement is going to be stuff like safe passage for Palestinian officials, and agreements against downing Palestinian aircraft. Not right to tax.

        The Palestinians in your scenario get to be the colonizers with all the problems colonizers have in the very worst circumstances.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        December 11, 2013, 7:47 pm

        Of course the Jews in Palestine would have to submit to laws of that country. Which would likely address weapons.

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        December 12, 2013, 4:29 am

        Hostage

        You are complaining about negotiations that he supervised before there was ever any question that his term in office had expired. In short, he had a legal mandate from the Palestinian people and the PLO to do exactly what he did.

        Which of course have nothing to do with him carrying the will of the palestinian people. Obama is also elected, does that mean that Obama do what the american people will on lets says Palestine? Go figure.

        You still haven’t addressed the fact that Al Jazeera and the Guardian didn’t even try to describe all of the terms and conditions that were attached to the offer you keep bitching about.

        “I’ve spelled them out for you”

        And I have spelled out the answer reply which you havent responded to yet..
        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/12/proposed-military-presence.html/comment-page-1#comment-619347

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 12, 2013, 1:33 pm

        nd moreover here is where the support of a foreign army comes in. The Palestinians can’t win a hard fought battle. They win a battle and it becomes a massacre for Israel which then has no choice but to intervene. Remember the Alamo?

        You are making the usual bellicose statements. Anything that can be accomplished during six days of war can be undone during six days of war – and Israel only has to loose once.

        Israel’s policy of strategic deterrence and preemptive strikes has always been based on the certain knowledge that it can hurt the Arab neighbors for a while, but that it can’t win a long drawn-out conventional war against their much larger numbers. In the past, the US has played the brinks-man to resupply Israel. But it could never rely on the acquiescence of others to simply let its lumbering cargo planes and surface ships travel to their destinations unmolested. If the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven anything, it’s that the other forces in the region are no longer afraid of engaging the US military and that they have the capability to prevent or delay it from carrying out its missions.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 7, 2013, 8:08 pm

        “Israeli peacekeepers”

        LMAO. There’s an oxymoron. A peculiar way of describing this group of terrorist, thieves and war criminals.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 7, 2013, 9:23 pm

        “Israeli peacekeepers”

        LMAO. There’s an oxymoron.

        I agree. Abbas wasn’t laughing about it. The trolls here at MW tried to claim he was declaring Palestine would be Judenrein, but he was only talking about the Israelis and the IDF, not Jews. See Abbas: No Israeli presence in future state: During tour of Ramallah, PA leader says will not agree to IDF positions along borders of Palestinian state and will not accept Israeli troops as part of international force. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4004200,00.html

        I’ve seen reports of a US bridging proposal to replace the IDF on a 3-4 year timetable with US or international peace keepers, but that would prolong the occupation and rely upon insincere assurances from Netanyahu & Co.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 8, 2013, 6:45 pm

        I’ve seen said reports too; some say Israel won’t even consider international and/or American peace keepers unless Israel is in charge of them.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        December 8, 2013, 9:12 pm

        good one Woody

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        December 10, 2013, 4:15 pm

        [email protected]:

        The trolls here at MW tried to claim he was declaring Palestine would be Judenrein, but he was only talking about the Israelis and the IDF, not Jews. See Abbas: No Israeli presence in future state

        Sure enough no to residency for Israeli citizens – but do you have proof Abbas would allow Jews who have relinquished Israeli citizenship to reside in an independent Palestine?

        Do you have links proving that is so?

        Presumably that would also mean no Palestinians holding Palestinian citizenship would be allowed to reside in Israel then?

        I mean fair’s fair right ?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 11, 2013, 5:18 am

        Sure enough no to residency for Israeli citizens – but do you have proof Abbas would allow Jews who have relinquished Israeli citizenship to reside in an independent Palestine?

        Do you have links proving that is so?

        His hand-picked Prime Minister, Fayyad, and members of the PLO Executive Committee, and the PA’s Negotiation Support Unit gave many interviews over the years to the Israeli and international wire services which explicitly advocated that proposition, e.g.:

        Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad: There is no need for an evacuation; settlers who are interested may stay where they are after an Israeli withdrawal and live as a Jewish minority in a Palestinian state. Israel will have sovereignty on one side of the border and the Palestinians on the other – over everyone living there. There will be no evacuation, and Israeli soldiers won’t have to take people from their homes. They will simply retreat to the new border.

        link to haaretz.com

        Here is another example from an article “PA: Settlers can become Palestinian citizens: Negotiator Ahmed Qureia tells Haaretz that Ariel, Ma’aleh Adumim must be part of Palestinian state”:

        Qureia: “Negotiating the annexation of Ariel to Israel is a waste of time. Ma’aleh Adumim and Givat Ze’ev must also be part of Palestine. Any agreement must guarantee our territorial contiguity; leave historical sites in our hands, especially Jerusalem, as well as natural resources, especially water.”

        Do you believe Israel would agree to evacuate Ma’aleh Adumim’s 35,000 residents?

        Qureia: “[Former U.S. secretary of state] Condoleezza Rice told me she understood our position about Ariel but that Ma’aleh Adumim was a different matter. I told her, and Livni, that those residents of Ma’aleh Adumim or Ariel who would rather stay in their homes could live under Palestinian rule and law, just like the Israeli Arabs who live among you. They could hold Palestinian and Israeli nationalities. If they want it – welcome. Israeli settlements in the heart of the territories would be a recipe for problems. Israel evacuated all the settlements in Yamit and in the Gaza Strip. All the prime ministers who negotiated with Syria, including Netanyahu, agreed to evacuate all the settlements from [the Golan] Heights. So why is it so difficult for you to evacuate the settlements in the West Bank?

        http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/pa-settlers-can-become-palestinian-citizens-1.276727

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 11, 2013, 5:24 am

        Presumably that would also mean no Palestinians holding Palestinian citizenship would be allowed to reside in Israel then?

        I mean fair’s fair right ?

        No, for the simple reason that the Palestinians living in Israel are NOT illegal settlers who are violating international law, the armistice agreements, and the customary prohibition against pillage.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 11, 2013, 6:26 pm

        I’ve seen said reports too; some say Israel won’t even consider international and/or American peace keepers unless Israel is in charge of them.

        You don’t need to look at reports, that’s been Israel’s position for decades. That’s why the UN hasn’t sent in peacekeepers already. UN peacekeepers are not peacemakers, while they have light arms they aren’t setup to fight an actual army that opposes their presence. So the first step in a peacekeeping presence is asking local armies if they agree to the peacekeepers. Israel on the record has been saying “no” for decades.

        They will not tolerate a UN force on their territory or near their territory. I don’t blame them. I live in New Jersey I wouldn’t want a UN force in Pennsylvania if there is an army there I want the US army. They might tolerate a USA army. That’s one of the carrots the USA has. The USA is one of the only possible peacekeeping force that is strong enough to scare the IDF and at the same time one they won’t find so threatening that Israel would still be capable of moving in a peaceful direction.

        OTOH to make that happen means the US has to have strong domestic support for this peace deal which can’t happen with a UN deal….

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 12, 2013, 12:24 pm

        They will not tolerate a UN force on their territory or near their territory.

        Jeff there comes a time when nobody will care about the opinions of this lawless society and they will be subjected to crippling economic and military sanctions as a result. The UN Charter doesn’t allow attacks on other UN member states in an attempt to maintain “a qualitative edge” in conventional weapons technology so that an aggressor state, like Israel, can continue to routinely violate its neighbor’s airspace and even carry-on bombing campaigns to prevent them from obtaining game changing anti-aircraft technology. Even Zionist commentators have admitted as much. http://972mag.com/israeli-aggression-in-syria-is-provoking-a-war/70471/

        Netanyahu’s propaganda talking points are already falling on deaf ears in the EU, where their own commanders of the UN peacekeeping forces in Lebanon have requested the deployment of anti-aircraft systems to prevent Isreali overflights and any repeat of the infamous “accidental” Israeli bombing of fixed UN positions:

        Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussed the issue with European foreign ministers in May. “If the missiles are provided and become operational Israel’s entire airspace will become a no-fly zone,” Netanyahu told the European foreign ministers. “The missile transfer is a significant security challenge to Israel and we will not be able to stand idly by.”

        http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.546418

        An Emergency Session of the UN General Assembly abhorred and condemned continued US arms sales to Israel in violation of UN resolutions years ago. Most governments would welcome the creation of an no-fly-zone in Israeli airspace as a step toward a peaceful solution to the armed conflict in the region.

  6. amigo
    amigo
    December 7, 2013, 3:46 pm

    Time to hand back the Keys and go to the ICJ and file charges against Israel,s main war criminals.

    Let Israel and it,s citizens pay for the occupation while their heroes get what,s due them.

    Pity the Death Penalty is not in the cards for these slime.

  7. amigo
    amigo
    December 7, 2013, 3:55 pm

    It,s very simple.Israel,s security can only be secured when all non Jews are out of the Greater Israel.

    Why can you anti semitic Jew haters not see this.

  8. Obsidian
    Obsidian
    December 7, 2013, 4:01 pm

    According to Yediot’s Ron Ben Yishai, Kerry is moving away from the Israeli position. American troops, not the IDF, will be stationed in the Jordan Valley.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4461847,00.html

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      December 7, 2013, 7:51 pm

      Oh, great, so we can go from American kids dying in Iraq for the greater glory of the zionist Empire to the actually committing the war crimes in Palestine. The to get all the zio trash out of Washington and take back America for the sake of Americans.

    • Ecru
      Ecru
      December 8, 2013, 5:58 am

      Given the almost absolute control the Jewish Lobby (yes Jewish. If it’s OK for Israel to use the term I don’t see how it can be barred to anyone else) has over the USA when it comes to the Middle East posting American troops there will amount to the same thing as posting Israeli troops. It’s just Israel outsourcing its war crimes to their vassals in Washington.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      December 8, 2013, 11:06 am

      I read that even if Israel agreed to US troops as border patrol between a Palestinian state and Jordan, those US forces, or a combo with US and EU forces–would be led by Israel’s military leaders. Apparently nobody in the world has a right to complete sovereignty except Israel.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      December 8, 2013, 1:45 pm

      Kerry should get Israeli army out of the West Bank. Or at least tell Israel the Israeli army will have to get out entirely, at some point.

  9. Justpassingby
    Justpassingby
    December 7, 2013, 4:37 pm

    Is it this that they spend time on?! To argue where Israel could have forces in Palestinan state?

    What a dofus Kerry is! And what a sellout Abbas is!

  10. Balfour
    Balfour
    December 7, 2013, 4:51 pm

    Israelis to be permitted a military presence in Palestine, and at Palestinian borders, Israel to control all Palestinian air space, and Israelis to also determine the flow of water emanating from aquifers and rivers located in Palestine- would the Jews accept this offer if the roles were reversed? If not, why not?

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      December 8, 2013, 11:09 am

      @Balfour
      I guess the Israeli Jews-AIPAC would answer, “Holocaust!” But, then, can’t the Palestinians counter with “Nakba”?

      Sure, they can, but you don’t see the US negotiation team saying anything about assuring Palestinian state’s security needs, do you? (Not to mention the issue of sovereignty.)

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      December 8, 2013, 1:44 pm

      I regard it as outrageous for Israel to try to keep control of water in Palestine.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        December 8, 2013, 9:16 pm

        Israel has, are and will try their best to continue to control the water. A crime against Palestinians. Why is it that Jordan tolerates Israel taking 50% of the Jordan River flow, Jordan gets 1/4th and 5% makes it to the West Bank. Why does Jordan go along with this?

      • Walid
        Walid
        December 9, 2013, 3:38 am

        “Why is it that Jordan tolerates Israel taking 50% of the Jordan River flow, Jordan gets 1/4th and 5% makes it to the West Bank. Why does Jordan go along with this?”

        Kathleen, for one thing, Israel occupied by invading the WB, Syria and Lebanon, the headwaters that flow into and control the Jordan. For another, Israel had the bigger stick and with a minor temporary exception at the time of Eisenhower, the full backing of the US and UK. But Israel’s theft of water is a crime not only against the Palestinians but also against the Jordanians, the Syrians, the Lebanese, and of course the the Palestinians that are the most affected by the ongoing theft.

        David Paul, documents librarian at Harvard wrote about the chronology or anatomy of Israel’s theft:

        “The theft was planned by the Zionists as far back as 1919 when Chaim Weizman wrote Lloyd George about the “minimum requirements essential to the realization of the Jewish National Home” promised in the Balfour Declaration two years previously, which geographically included parts of Syria and Lebanon, Weizman wrote:

        “… “The whole economic future of Palestine is dependent upon its water supply for irrigation and for electric power, and the water supply must mainly be derived from the slopes of Mount Hermon, from the headwaters of the Jordan and from the Litany [sic] river [of Lebanon]… [We] consider it essential that the Northern Frontier of Palestine should include the Valley of the Litany, for a distance of 25 miles above the bend, and the Western and Southern slopes of Mount Hermon… ”

        “Early Development Schemes
        1) British Mandate:

        1. The northern borders of Palestine were fixed by Britain and France after World War I in a manner that gave the Zionist movement potential access to, but not direct control over, much of the Jordan headwaters, including the Hasbani, Banias and Yarmuk rivers and Lake Tiberias but no access to the Litani.

        2. The British authorities made agreements with the Zionists regarding water resources-
        • 70 year concession to Rotenberg Co. to exploit waters of the Jordan and Yarmuk rivers and to generate electricity
        • concessions to Jewish companies to exploit inland rivers of Palestine
        • concession to drain and exploit the lands of Lake Huleh

        Walter C. Lowdermilk water development proposal (1944):
        (Lowdermilk was an engineer who had worked at TVA.)

        1. was to be modeled on the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in the US
        2. would allow the development of farms, industry, and provide security for at least 4 million Jews from Europe in addition to the 1.8 million Arabs and Jews already living in Palestine and Transjordan
        3. called for-
        • irrigation in the Jordan Valley
        • diversion of the waters of the Jordan and Yarmuk rivers for hydroelectric power
        • diversion of the water from northern Palestine to the Negev desert
        • use of water from the Litani River in Lebanon

        2) The Hayes Plan (1946):
        1. The World Zionist Organization asked James B. Hayes, an American engineer who helped develop the TVA to translate the Lowdermilk outline into a detailed and solid plan.
        2. His plan called for-
        • exploitation of waters outside Israeli territory: a dam on the Hasbani River in Lebanon, and diversion southward through Israel of the Jordan headwaters bordering on Syria and Jordan
        • half of the water of the Yarmuk to be diverted into Lake Tiberias to replace water lost by diversion of the upper Jordan River, as called for in the Lowdermilk plan
        • the other half of Yarmuk waters to be allotted to Transjordan

        Note: According to Hayes this allocation “must await the completion of the previous irrigation works and diversions for the River, which will enable a more accurate determination of what is left in the Jordan.”

        Thus the needs of the future Jewish state would take precedence over those of the Arab population of the region. ”

        In the early 50s, Moshe Sharett, Israeli Prime Minister wrote :

        “According to him [Dayan] the only thing that’s necessary is to find an officer, even just a major. We should either win his heart or buy him with money, to make him agree to declare himself the savior of the Maronite population. Then the Israeli army will enter Lebanon, will occupy the necessary territory, and create a Christian regime which will ally itself with Israel. The territory from the Litani southward will be totally annexed to Israel and everything will be all right.”

        David Ben-Gurion commented,”push Lebanon, that is, the Maronites in that country, to proclaim a Christian state.”

        Between 1951 and 1956, there was a succession of stunts and gimmicks by the Zionists that succeeded in ethnically cleansing the demilitarized zone at the headwaters of the Jordan within Syria by the setting up of Zionist settlements followed by their expanding planted areas and vast irrigation projects and other actions that the UN observers could no longer control the Zionists from doing.

        UNTSO Chief of Staff, Canadian general E.L.M. Burns wrote:

        “… The Israelis claimed sovereignty over the territory covered by the DMZ . . . They then proceeded, as opportunity offered, to encroach on the specific restrictions and so eventually to free themselves, on various pretexts, from all of them. Thus, Israel immobilized the MAC. Further, Israel refused to allow UN observers to demarcate the line of the DMZs and thereby no one was ever sure exactly where the line lay. ”

        On October 26, 1956, Israel launched it first armed raid into Lebanon and destroyed three water reservoirs in a Lebanese border town. Water pumps and pipelines were frequently the target of Israeli strikes into Jordan and Syria at this time.

        On June 9, 1967, Israel broke the cease-fire then in effect and seized the Golan Heights. About a quarter of the 139,000 Syrians living in the captured areas fled.

        Tabitha Petran (historian) wrote:
        “… In the next 6 months Israel expelled 95,000, demolishing villages, cutting off water and food supplies, and by threats reinforced by torture and execution of those who refused to leave. Expellees were compelled to leave behind everything they owned- shops full of goods, sheep and goats, clothes and household possessions, as well as lands, homes, vineyards and apple trees. ”

        In the end there were only about 6,000 Syrians left- mainly Druze. On 15 July 1967, Israel established its first settlement on the Golan.

        For the rest of the detailed long and infamous history of Israel’s theft of water by David Paul:
        http://www.bintjbeil.com/water/david_paul.html

      • Taxi
        Taxi
        December 9, 2013, 5:54 am

        Thanks, Walid.

        More often than not, we forget the plight of the Golani Syrians and their ethnic cleansing. Right now I’m watching a documentary on Almayadeen TV, a great documentary with much black and white footage about a Golani Syrian man who refused to leave when the israelis invaded. He tells stories of israeli terrorism, cruelty, theft, ethnic cleansing, desecration of cemeteries, throwing sick Syrians out on the street so the idf can use the hospital they’re in as ‘operations headquarters’, bombing villages then looting all the wrought iron gates and selling them to Palestinian refugees back in the holy land, etc. etc. etc. Unbelievable!

        Eff israel!

      • Walid
        Walid
        December 9, 2013, 1:48 pm

        Taxi, those 100,000 or so Syrian refugees from the Golan are now over 400,000. It’s no longer a secret that Israel’s attack was premeditated to steal the water. The above report by David Paul spells out how the Zionists had been planning to grab the Golan for decades before actually doing it in 67. You probably got a good laugh how they had been planning and plotting to grab Lebanon’s Litani from as early as 1919 . These guys never quit. This essay or the one I posted yesterday outlines how Israel has succeeded in grabbing all the water they’ve had their eyes on, on the WB, in Jordan and Syria. Lebanon’s Litani remains Israel’s big failure. Israel’s foundation is built on thievery.

      • Taxi
        Taxi
        December 9, 2013, 2:25 pm

        Didn’t Nasrallah, in one of his ’06 victory speeches, declare that israel has now forever lost the “Litani Wars”? That Hizbollah had completely destroyed the zionist’s decades-old Litani project?

        Hizbollah really sucker-punched the devil on the chin.

        Ma-shallah, (like seafoid likes to say).

  11. Erasmus
    Erasmus
    December 7, 2013, 6:42 pm

    Lot of Balooneys and unsubstantiated Spinning by Israeli Media around these days

    Especially Maariv Newspaper has a formidable record of fake or “misrepresenting” reports.

    Until proven to the contrary i take such news with a POUND of SALT.

    • Ira Glunts
      Ira Glunts
      December 7, 2013, 7:14 pm

      I know that Ma’ariv has not won any awards for reliability, but in this case I think they got the scoop.

      Ha’aretz confirms the report under title, US Security Proposal Includes Israeli Presence in the Jordan Valley.

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.562242 (Paywall)

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 8, 2013, 11:12 am

        @ Ira Glunts
        I read in Israeli media a week ago that the Palestinians told Kerry IDF presence in the Jordan Valley amounted to continued Israeli occupation, and they would not agree to it.

      • Ira Glunts
        Ira Glunts
        December 8, 2013, 3:35 pm

        @Citizen I believe what you read is basically true. The Palestinians have been saying that they would not accept any IDF presence in the Jordan Valley all along. However, they also said they would not negotiate unless there is a settlement freeze.

        According to the Ha’aretz article I linked to in Update 3 (which seems to now be behind a paywall) the Palestinian reaction to the Kerry/Allen proposal was mostly negative, but it was not rejected. The sweetener is that the length of the Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley is four years as opposed to up to 30 that the Israelis talked about before. Also according to Ha’aretz, the Kerry plan supposedly prohibits Israel from crossing the borders in circumstances which it deems necessary to defend itself, like hot pursuit.

        What I am reading today is that both sides are totally mystified that Kerry and Obama are saying that an agreement is in sight, since they are so so far apart. One thing that I noticed was yesterday at the Saban Forum President Obama talked about obtaining a “framework agreement.” A framework agreement probably would be meaningless in the current I/P context, but it sounds good. Oslo 1 was called a framework agreement.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 8, 2013, 4:16 pm

        However, they also said they would not negotiate unless there is a settlement freeze.

        They agreed to the Quartet demand that the opposing sides meet and present their maps of the proposed borders. They also agreed they would delay taking Israel to the ICC over the settlements for nine months, while talks are going on, with the exception of any construction undertaken in E1.

        I don’t see much evidence that the Palestinians are negotiating as opposed to simply listening to the various Israeli and US proposals and rejecting them. Everything I see from their side says they are ready to go ahead in the ICJ and ICC and are simply waiting until March in line with the private assurances given to Kerry.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 8, 2013, 6:58 pm

        @ Ira Gluntz

        I’m mystified by what Kerry and Obama are saying too. Then I think, what else can they say? They certainly can’t be honest about the matter, including what Kerry has faced, encountered, in this latest peace endeavor. America’s AIPACed Congress would not stand for it a minute. And what POTUS would dare take this so key geopolitical matter over the head of Congress directly to the American public? We will see how free a second term POTUS is, who’s got to curb himself for his (expensive) post-POTUS dreams. Maybe Obama should talk to Carter about this matter?

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 8, 2013, 7:02 pm

        @ Hostage

        Any “framework” agreement will be made of rubber band words encircling nothing.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        December 8, 2013, 9:19 pm

        Abbas seemed so committed to not returning to negotiation tables until hell freezes over and Israel stopped building illegal/illegitimate settlements.

        “I don’t see much evidence that the Palestinians are negotiating as opposed to simply listening to the various Israeli and US proposals and rejecting them. Everything I see from their side says they are ready to go ahead in the ICJ and ICC and are simply waiting until March in line with the private assurances given to Kerry.”

        Let’s hope this is truly the case. Way over due

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 8, 2013, 9:24 pm

        Any “framework” agreement will be made of rubber band words encircling nothing.

        I wasn’t talking about framework or interim agreements. The Palestinians already have one of those in the form of the Quartet Road Map.

        I was talking about the letters of assurance from the State Department that were used to get this and other rounds of the peace talks started. It’s doubtful the Palestinians would agree to wait nine months for the US to yet again stonewall its UN membership application (in violation of the US Phase II obligations). Kerry and Obama have been talking about concluding a final Phase III settlement in that same time frame.

        I imagine the Palestinians have written assurances that the administration will step aside and let the Palestinians pursue actions in the UN and ICC when the period for the talks expires in March.

  12. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    December 7, 2013, 7:23 pm

    RE: “The Israelis are insisting on a long-term military presence in the Jordan Valley… According to Israel News 1, President Obama specifically stated that he supports a continued Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley.” ~ Ira Glunts

    MY COMMENT: It’s not really about Israel’s “security concerns”. That is just a pretext for anotrher land grab*

    * FOR THE “INSIDE SKINNY”, SEE: “Land Theft in the Jordan Valley”, by Uri Avnery, CounterPunch.org, 12/06/13

    [EXCERPTS] So here comes John Kerry again, for the umpteenth time (but who is counting?) to make peace between us and the Palestinians.
    It is a highly laudable effort. Unfortunately, it is based on a false premise. To wit: that the Israeli government wants peace based on the two-state solution.
    . . . Unwilling – or unable – to recognize this simple truth, Kerry looks for a way around. . .
    . . . So here he comes with a new idea: to start by solving Israel’s security problems and doing away with its worries.
    Let’s not talk for now about the other “core problems”, he says. Let’s look at your concerns and see how to meet them. I have brought with me an honest-to-goodness combat general with an honest-to-goodness security plan. Have a look at it!
    This approach is based on the false premise – the offspring of the overall premise – that the “security concerns” cited by our government are genuine. Kerry is expressing the basic American belief that if reasonable people sit around a table and analyze a problem, they will find a solution. . .
    . . . The following account is simplified, but not far removed from what actually happened.
    Immediately after the June 1967 war, when all the Palestinian lands had fallen into Israel’s hands, groups of agricultural experts swarmed over the West Bank to see what could be exploited.
    Most of the West Bank consists of stony hills
    , very picturesque but hardly suited to modern agricultural methods. Every inch of arable land was used by the Palestinian villages, using terraces and other ancient methods. No good for new kibbutzim. Except the Jordan valley.
    This valley, part of the huge Syrian-African rift, is flat. Lodged between the river and the central Palestinian mountain ridge, it also has ample water. For the trained eye of a kibbutznik, it was ideal for agricultural machinery. It was also sparsely populated.
    Almost all important Israeli leaders at the time had an agricultural background. . . The Minister of Labor, Yigal Allon, was not only a renowned general of the 1948 war but also a leader of the largest kibbutz movement. . .
    . . . It was Allon who provided the military pretext for keeping possession of the Jordan valley.
    He devised a security plan for the post-1967 Israel. Its central plank was the annexation of the valley.
    Known as the “Allon Plan”, it had – and still has – a strong hold on Israeli political thinking.
    It was never officially adopted by the Israeli government. Nor does there exist an authorized map of the plan. But it has been endlessly discussed. . .

    SOURCE – http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/06/land-theft-in-the-jordan-valley/

    • DICKERSON3870
      DICKERSON3870
      December 7, 2013, 7:35 pm

      P.S. RE: “This approach is based on the false premise – the offspring of the overall premise – that the ‘security concerns’ cited by our government are genuine.” ~ Uri Avnery (from above)

      FROM JOEL KOVEL, 1-20-13:

      . . . As with everyone I know of in official political culture, [Thomas] Friedman [probably like Kerry and Obama – J.L.D.] assumes that Israel is a rational actor on the international stage who will obey the calculus of reward and punishment that regulates the conduct of normal states.
      The presumption is that if you tell it the truth, and even pull back US support, it will get the message, reflect, and change its ways. But Israel is not a normal state, except superficially. It will make adjustments, pulling back here, co-operating there, making nice when necessary, crafting its message using a powerful propaganda apparatus employing the most up-to-date social science. But this is simply tactical and no more predicts or explains the behavior of the Zionist state than an individual sociopath can be explained by the fact that he obeys traffic signals while driving to the scene of his crime. . .

      SOURCE – http://mondoweiss.net/2013/01/israel-nominaton-hagel.html

    • DICKERSON3870
      DICKERSON3870
      December 7, 2013, 7:44 pm

      P.P.S. ALSO RE: “This approach is based on the false premise – the offspring of the overall premise – that the ‘security concerns’ cited by our government are genuine.” ~ Uri Avnery (from above)

      MY COMMENT: A long-term military presence for Israel in the Jordan Valley is a modern-day equivalent of the Trojan Horse! ! !

    • DICKERSON3870
      DICKERSON3870
      December 7, 2013, 8:01 pm

      P.P.P.S. ALSO RE: “This approach is based on the false premise – the offspring of the overall premise – that the ‘security concerns’ cited by our government are genuine.” ~ Uri Avnery (from above)

      FROM WIKIPEDIA [Benjamin Netanyahu]:

      [EXCERPT] . . . Netanyahu opposed the Oslo accords from their inception. During his term as prime minister in the late 1990s, Netanyahu consistently reneged on commitments made by previous Israeli governments as part of the Oslo peace process, leading American peace envoy Dennis Ross to note that “neither President Clinton nor Secretary [of State Madeleine] Albright believed that Bibi had any real interest in pursuing peace.”[98] In a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: “They asked me before the election if I’d honor [the Oslo Accords],” “I said I would, but … I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ’67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I’m concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue.”[99] However, this is clearly consistent with Yitzhak Rabin’s October 1995 statement to the Knesset on the ratification of the interim Oslo agreement: “B. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”[100][101] . . .

      SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu

  13. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka
    December 7, 2013, 7:55 pm

    So now American taxpayers are wasting money to come up with plans to continue the war crimes against the Palestinians? It’s so past time to clean up Washington and get the zio money out of our politics so we can stop acting as the zionists’ puppet.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      December 8, 2013, 7:06 pm

      @ Woody
      The latest bills to reform campaign finance are collecting dust in congressional committees.

  14. ritzl
    ritzl
    December 8, 2013, 12:59 am

    Since we aren’t supposed to know specifics at this point, if this joint US/Israel “security” proposal is real it will be interesting to see what the command structure is.

    There was a big (Republican-led) furball about US troops under UN/foreign command before Iraq (2001). It will be interesting to watch Congress, particularly Republicans but generally, publicly twist on this given the competing influences of it being the only way to an Israel-centric/forced two-state outcome and direct US military involvement in same.

    First vid of a US soldier/marine rifle-butting a Danish protester, or demolishing a Jordan Valley Palestinian cistern under Israeli command would be the end to that folly.

    • K Renner
      K Renner
      December 8, 2013, 4:20 am

      It’d be especially interesting to see how it played out if the American soldiers under hypothetical Israeli command refused direct orders to do something that was obviously illegal or otherwise egregious in its irrationality/thuggishness.

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        December 8, 2013, 5:04 pm

        And… considering Israel’s “life threatening” harassment of US Marines in Beirut:

        http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/p-neff.html

        …There was, he [General R.H. Barrow, Commandant of the Marine Corps] wrote, a systematic pattern of harassment by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) that was resulting in “life-threatening situations, replete with verbal degradation of the officers, their uniform and country.”

  15. amigo
    amigo
    December 8, 2013, 6:14 am

    This from the full text of Obama,s donkey fellating session at the Saban forum.Everyone having a splendid time laughing and joking about the I/P issue.Full text available at:

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.562259

    “MR. SABAN: Good. Thank you. Should we move to these Israeli-Palestinians —

    THE PRESIDENT: We should.

    MR. SABAN: Okay. (Laughter.) Very obedient President I have here today. (Laughter.)

    THE PRESIDENT: This is the Saban Forum, so you’re in charge. (Laughter.)

    MR. SABAN: I wish. (Laughter.)

    THE PRESIDENT: Or Cheryl is in charge.

    MR. SABAN: You’re more on now, Mr. President. It is Cheryl who is in charge.

    THE PRESIDENT: That’s exactly right.

    MR. SABAN: Anyway. (Laughter.) First of all, before I ask the first question, I would be remiss if I didn’t, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for your continuous effort to achieve peace in the Middle East. Thank you so very much. (Applause.)”

    Note that circa 95%of the session was devoted to Iran and 2 to 3% to the I/P issue.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      December 8, 2013, 11:23 am

      The Kerry-Obama plan is the same re Iran & Palestine: How to finesse into reality in each case a solution that will basically be Israel’s. Israel to give a little, get a lot–with the USA bribing both the Iranian and Palestinian leaders with $/ecconomic carrots simultaneously with the threat of the USA’s big stick. Israel will get lots of carrots, no sticks at all from the Americans.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      December 8, 2013, 1:42 pm

      I welcome the good cheer, but would be happier if Obama said Israel will eventually have to get out of the West Bank.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      December 8, 2013, 9:25 pm

      Fellate..breathe… speak..””this is the Saban Forum so you’re in charge” laughter.

      Mr. Saban “I wish”
      The President: fellate, beathe, speak “that’s exactly right”

  16. Sycamores
    Sycamores
    December 8, 2013, 10:00 am

    “The Palestinians have stated that they would consider an international peace- keeping force in the Jordan Valley, but will not agree to any Israeli presence there.”

    there’s the deal breaker no israeli presence but will consider an international peace- keeping force.

    this will lead to a similar situation as the UN Peacekeepers in Lebanon, The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNIFIL.

    interesting to note that the US is not one of the contributing countries for UNIFIL as far as boots on the ground is concern.

    israel and the UN peacekeepers in Lebanon relationship is rocky at the best of times both sides view each other with suspicion.

    so the question is will israel agreed a United Nations Interim Force in Palestine?

    i think not and i doubt it will be force on to them. so the latest peace talks will end up the same way as the dodo.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      December 8, 2013, 11:23 am

      there’s the deal breaker no israeli presence but will consider an international peace- keeping force.

      this will lead to a similar situation as the UN Peacekeepers in Lebanon, The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNIFIL.

      The Palestinian and US proposals have always been for a NATO peacekeeping force or a UN force with delegated Chapter VII power for the Security Council to enforce the terms of any agreement.

      • Walid
        Walid
        December 8, 2013, 2:25 pm

        “The Palestinian and US proposals have always been for a NATO peacekeeping force or a UN force with delegated Chapter VII power for the Security Council to enforce the terms of any agreement.”

        Part 2 was left out: Israel has always flatly rejected having any peacekeepers on the scene. Much too embarrassing for Israel to have outsiders watching what is being done to the Palestinians. In both Lebanon and Syria, the UN observers are not on the Israeli side of the border.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 8, 2013, 3:37 pm

        Part 2 was left out: Israel has always flatly rejected having any peacekeepers on the scene.

        The “scene” lies outside the 67 armistice borders and are not strictly a matter subject to Israeli approval.

        Israel and the Lobby have always employed the formula that Israel has to be able to defend itself, by itself. They have no similar concern for the ability of Palestine to defend itself, by itself. But Article 51 of the UN Charter makes it clear that is an inherent right of every state.

        While the US government has endorsed the right of Israel to defend itself, by itself, it has never recognized the Jordan Valley, East Jerusalem, and etc. as part of Israel or the right of Israel to continue to occupy Palestine as part of a final settlement, as an act of self-defense, & etc.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 8, 2013, 7:12 pm

        @ Hostage
        So, why don’t Obama or Kerry flatly tell Israel it’s not in a position to decide what peace-keeping forces be maintained on land not belonging to Israel? Or at least point this out? Think Kerry has?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 8, 2013, 9:36 pm

        So, why don’t Obama or Kerry flatly tell Israel it’s not in a position to decide what peace-keeping forces be maintained on land not belonging to Israel? . . . Think Kerry has?

        I imagine so. Netanyahu has claimed that he has a letter of assurance from Secretary Warren Christoper that allows him to designate settlement and security zones under the interim agreements. I imagine Kerry either has, or will explain, that doesn’t mean that Israel can retain either under Phase III of the Road Map endorsed by the Security Council.

        The MKs are already shreying that Netanyahu needs to tell the US that Israel has other claims to the Jordan Valley beside those based upon security concerns. See Coalition Head Warns Against Jordan Valley Concessions http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/174917#.UqUsCENxOuI

    • Walid
      Walid
      December 9, 2013, 7:12 am

      “i think not and i doubt it will be force on to them. so the latest peace talks will end up the same way as the dodo.”

      Not really, Sycamores, while you’re right that the Palestinians would be getting absolutely nothing out of the talks, you can be sure that the Israeli will still end up with least a couple of concessions out of the Palestinians. Negotiations always end that way. They’re great for Israel but never for the Palestinians.

  17. Citizen
    Citizen
    December 8, 2013, 11:26 am

    Israel will not trust the USA because the latter went over Israel’s head already to temporarily solve both the Iran and Syrian crisis. Add the Arab Spring possibly reaching Jordan and Palestine.

    • Walid
      Walid
      December 8, 2013, 2:37 pm

      “Israel will not trust the USA ”

      Citizen, Israel is never a loser in any US-sponsored deal; there’s always a payoff in favour of Israel somewhere down the road for whatever concession it may be asked to make by the US and there will surely be something in it for Israel for the Syria and Iran floor shows. That was my first impression when the Jordan Valley balloon was floated today. Keep in mind how Israel had spilled the beans on the pre-arranged agreement between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders about the announcements on the settlements during the negotiations. I don’t think the Israelis were lying about it. Don’t be surprised if the Jordan Valley thing has been agreed-to way back before the current negotiations even started.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 8, 2013, 3:42 pm

        Keep in mind how Israel had spilled the beans on the pre-arranged agreement between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders about the announcements on the settlements during the negotiations.

        I remember the Palestinians said they had agreed to wait 9 months before taking those responsible for those announcements and the settlements to the ICC.

      • Walid
        Walid
        December 8, 2013, 3:58 pm

        “Palestinians said they had agreed to wait 9 months ”

        I think they’d look silly if the Israelis pulled out a document in which the Palestinians had agreed to these settlements.

        The Palestinians more or less conceded that there was such an agreement in place but that the Israelis cheated on the actual numbers announced. I think they were supposed to be much smaler than the ones in the announcements. The hocus-pocus resignation by Erekat was a bit of a floor show that was put on to minimize the embarrasment to the Palestinian negotiating team.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 8, 2013, 4:32 pm

        I think they’d look silly if the Israelis pulled out a document in which the Palestinians had agreed to these settlements.

        Only the lunatic fringe has ever suggested that they did. Kerry has pointed out that the Palestinians knew the Israelis would not agree to a complete settlement freeze, but that they did not agree to any such settlement construction. The Palestinians only agreed to wait 9 months before taking that and other issues to the ICC.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 8, 2013, 4:39 pm

        The Palestinians more or less conceded that there was such an agreement in place but that the Israelis cheated on the actual numbers announced.

        No they didn’t. The Palestinians conceded that Netahyahu could have an unofficial freeze or that there wouldn’t be a total freeze and that the quid pro quo was a letter of assurance from the US that cleared the way for unilateral Palestinian action 9 months down the road.

        The Palestinians can’t evict the IDF from the Jordan Valley in any event. So its replacement by a NATO or UN force on a date certain in four years time would be a political victory. The same thing applies to US opposition to unilateral Palestinian action in UN or the ICC.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 8, 2013, 7:33 pm

        @ Walid
        I agree there’s no rational reason for Israel not to trust the USA. Israel is not a rational actor, especial under Netanjahu. In fact, they take pride in it, both as a tactic and long term strategy. Never Again!

  18. Citizen
    Citizen
    December 8, 2013, 11:32 am

    Rep Chris Van Hollen (budget committee ranking member) says re Iran & Syria that S Arabia & gulf states, that they came around, after initial balking at US treatment so far as to these to those states’ WMD, and so did, e.g., Israel’s former IT chief, so maybe therefore, I deduce, he at least thinks Israel will come around too re the I-P solution steps US is taking. Van Hollen likes a US “calibrated” response to such issues, including Egypt.

  19. James Canning
    James Canning
    December 8, 2013, 1:40 pm

    I continue to think the Palestinians should put their greatest effort into protecting the borders of Palestine, with expectation all Israeli troops etc eventually will leave the country.

    • Walid
      Walid
      December 9, 2013, 7:00 am

      James and Kathleen, sadly one has to sadly conclude that they can’t negotiate their way out of a closet. The illustrious negotiating team that included Abbas and Erekat, didn’t have a single lawyer present with them during the Oslo negotiations, while the Israeli group had legal advisors Rosen and Rubinstein looking out for Israel’s interests and we saw what monster the Oslo became for the Palestinians. Now just about the same team is back to more negotiations; heaven help the Palestinian people.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 9, 2013, 7:45 am

        James and Kathleen, sadly one has to sadly conclude that they can’t negotiate their way out of a closet.

        The five year interim agreement was only supposed to facilitate the implementation of UN resolutions 242 and 338. So, why did the Israelis ever need to declare the Oslo Accords null and void? Why did Netahyahu need to circumvent the Accords, instead of simply enforcing them?

        The Mitchell report recognized the fact that the dramatic increase in the size of the settler population and the construction of additional units in the existing settlements was a unilateral action taken in bad faith by the Israelis and that it violated the principles contained in Accords. That had nothing to do with Palestinian negotiating skills.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        December 9, 2013, 7:22 pm

        Cheating is simply par for the course, on the part of Israel. But Palestinians should insist borders do not change no matter how many illegal Jewish settlers get planted in the WB.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        December 9, 2013, 7:25 pm

        I think it will help the Palestinians if a deal is made on Iran’s nuclear programme.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        December 9, 2013, 10:11 pm

        Sure it won’t. Who is going to stop the iterations of YESHA ? Iran is a pantomime. The name of the game is all of the land. And , er, Redemption. the Messiah. Happily ever after.

        What a mess.

  20. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    December 8, 2013, 9:02 pm

    “The Palestinians prefer to discuss Israeli security simultaneously with the other core issues.”

    Totally reasonable

  21. Talkback
    Talkback
    December 9, 2013, 8:27 am

    Kerry would be not the first to support a Vichy like solution. We all have to understand the occupier’s need for security or “military necessity”, right?

  22. Citizen
    Citizen
    December 9, 2013, 11:52 am

    Is anybody watching CSPAN now–it’s Monday morning, and Israel’s FM Avigdor Lieberman has been, is being questioned about US-Israel relations for about an hour, so far?

  23. Citizen
    Citizen
    December 9, 2013, 11:57 am

    Lieberman says in Israel there are two camps, those looking for war, those looking for peace. Question to him re Gatekeepers’ showing occupation is eroding moral fiber of Israel? Is PA lambs comparing to what could happen. He says to speak about “occupation” is to not understand the history of the region. No Palestinian state has ever existed. Israel gave up lots of land, proving our desire for peace. It’s not a problem of territory. Talk of occupation is ignorant.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      December 9, 2013, 7:14 pm

      “Talk of occupation is ignorant.” Rubbish. There needs to be more talk, and still more talk. About the occupation.

  24. Citizen
    Citizen
    December 9, 2013, 12:48 pm

    Anybody catch Kerry speaking last Saturday at the Saban forum on US-Israel relations?

Leave a Reply