Trending Topics:

Kerry’s framework according to Friedman and Indyk (Updated: Abbas Weighs In)

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 99 Comments
Kerrydoc

This graphic with the text in Hebrew appeared in Ha’aretz on January 30.

Update:  President Mahmoud Abbas, in an interview with the New York Times today (Monday), made the following points about the character of the future Palestinian state that he envisions:

  • American-led NATO security force will protect borders for an indefinite period
  • Palestine will be a demilitarized state
  • Israeli soldiers can remain up to five years
  • Settlements should be evacuated in five years
  • No recognition of Israel as a Jewish state

 

*************************************************

In his column in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman revealed what he expects to be the main U.S. positions contained in the framework accord that John Kerry will present to the Israelis and the Palestinians within the next few weeks.  Although Friedman did not indicate what the sources were for his outline of the Kerry document, the Israeli press is widely reporting his account as true.

At the same time, a description of the framework which was presented in a telephone conference call between Martin Indyk, the U.S. envoy to the negotiations, and leaders of Jewish organizations, has been leaked to the press, adding more details to the speculation about the Kerry proposals.

Here is Friedman in the NY Times on the contents of the Kerry document:

The “Kerry Plan,” likely to be unveiled soon, is expected to call for an end to the conflict and all claims, following a phased Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank (based on the 1967 lines), with unprecedented security arrangements in the strategic Jordan Valley. The Israeli withdrawal will not include certain settlement blocs, but Israel will compensate the Palestinians for them with Israeli territory. It will call for the Palestinians to have a capital in Arab East Jerusalem and for Palestinians to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. It will not include any right of return for Palestinian refugees into Israel proper.

 

Quoting an unnamed participant in the Thursday Indyk conference call, Mark Landler writes in the New York Times:

Indykdoc1

Among the elements under consideration, a participant in the call said, is a plan to compensate descendants of Jews who were forced to flee Arab countries after the State of Israel was created in 1948. That could give Israelis more of a motive to support a new Palestinian state.

The official, Martin S. Indyk, the special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, told the Jewish leaders that if the framework were to be accepted by both sides, the peace talks could be extended beyond the nine-month time frame set last summer by Secretary of State John Kerry. The new goal, he said, would be to sign a treaty by the end of 2014.

The framework, Mr. Indyk said, will not deal specifically with the political status of Jerusalem, which is claimed as a capital by both Israelis and Palestinians.

…the framework foresees the creation of a security zone along the Jordan River that would be fortified with high-tech fences, electronic sensors and unmanned drones, to protect Israel from attacks.

Indyk’s description of what the document will say about the issue of Jerusalem contradicts what were Friedman’s expectations on this crucial issue.

Indyk refused to comment on the conference call and the State Department spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, denied that Indyk had made any statements detailing the contents of the Kerry framework accord.

Another report of the call claimed that Indyk said that according to the framework, 80% of the Israeli settlers would remain in place and the land on which they live would be annexed by Israel.

Not only is the Kerry framework apparently a vague document, which can be open to differing interpretations, but in the conference call Indyk said, “both sides could ‘lay down reservations’ to parts of the framework while agreeing to use it  as a basis for talks.”  Between the reservations and the vagueness it appears that the value of this document serves only to continue the negotiations, but not move them forward toward a final resolution.  The peace process continues….

*************************************************

The table below is adapted from a table published in the Hebrew edition of YNetNews.Com on January 31 outlining John Kerry’s visits to Palestine/Israel.  It begs the question: Is Kerry obsessive or just dedicated and diligent?  And if the latter is the correct answer, than to what is he dedicated?

  Kerry’s visits to Palestine/Israel — ביקורי ג’ון קרי בישראל

  Visit  ביקור בישראל Date תאריך
1. 19-22 במרס March
2. 7-9 באפריל April
3. 23-24 במאי May
4. 27-30 ביוני June
5. 15 בספטמבר September
6. 5-7 בנובמבר November
7. 8 בנובמב November
8. 4-6 בדצמבר December
9. 12-13 בדצמבר December
10. 2 בינואר  January 2014
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:

99 Responses

  1. Cliff
    Cliff
    February 3, 2014, 9:59 am

    So no ROR for the Palestinians.

    But Jews and ‘their descendants’ (recall how Ziotrolls disregard this notion when we talk about Palestinian descendants) get compensation?

    As if the Palestinians are responsible.

    Whereas Zionist Jews are responsible for the Nakba.

    • Obsidian
      Obsidian
      February 3, 2014, 12:17 pm

      “Whereas Zionist Jews are responsible for the Nakba.”

      Didn’t the Arabs play a role in causing the Nakba?

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 3, 2014, 12:54 pm

        Did the Jewish leadership.play a role in how many.people were handed over to the Nazis, Obsidian? Your ratchet was pretty stupid IMO. Do you people ever do accountability?

      • Obsidian
        Obsidian
        February 3, 2014, 1:32 pm

        The Judenrat is a historical fact as is the role played by the Arabs in the Nakba.

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 3, 2014, 9:41 pm

        Obsidian ” historical fact as is the role played by the Arabs in the Nakba”

        What actual historical facts can you produce on the role played by the Arabs in the Nakba?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        February 3, 2014, 2:17 pm

        “Didn’t the Arabs play a role in causing the Nakba?”

        Causing? No. That evil was all on the zios. They are to blame for not fighting enough, and devoting enough of their power, potential and funds to crushing the abomination that is the zionist entity.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        Stephen Shenfield
        February 3, 2014, 2:49 pm

        True. If they had all left Palestine in good time and of their own free will, humbly acknowledging that “the master has returned,” then there would have been no need to expel them by force.

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 3, 2014, 3:15 pm

        @ Obsidian “Didn’t the Arabs play a role in causing the Nakba?”

        No. They didn’t ask strangers to come and colonize Palestine. They didn’t ask the British to occupy it under the Mandate for Palestine. They didn’t ask for it to be partitioned. They didn’t ask Jewish forces to to be outside the territory allotted for the Jewish state at the time Israel was proclaimed per UNGA res 181 .

        They fled a war waged by the Jewish state on what remained of Palestine. They didn’t ask the Jewish state to wage war on them, they didn’t ask to be dispossessed. They didn’t invade Israel, they fled. They had every right to flee and every right to return under the laws Israel agreed to uphold but hasn’t.

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        February 4, 2014, 7:19 am

        They didn’t ask strangers to come and colonize Palestine.

        @talknic, you seem to have a convenient case of amnesia.
        Do you not recall how Emir Feisal spoke in 1919?
        “The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper.”
        as well as the agreement between Feisal and Weizmann.
        Yet it didn’t take long for relations to sour as the Arabs were denied
        their united, independent Arab state because of the selfish, imperial ambitions of the French colonists.

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 4, 2014, 9:36 am

        @Mayhem Feisal didn’t agree to being colonized.

        “Yet it didn’t take long for relations to sour as the Arabs were denied
        their united, independent Arab state because of the selfish, imperial ambitions of the French colonists”

        Odd…. The French didn’t colonize any of Palestine

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        February 4, 2014, 7:57 am

        @talknic, Israel was proclaimed per UNGA resolution 181 as you say, but the Arabs didn’t accept the resolution and threatened bloodshed if the United Nations went ahead with its adoption. By defying 181 and going all out with the co-operation of the surrounding Arab nations to defeat the Jews the Arabs brought the Nakba upon themselves. The Arabs did not show any willingness to accept the Jewish presence as they wanted the entire country to be Arab. (Shows how things haven’t changed with Abbas indicating his refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state.) Resolution 181 followed such
        proposals as the Peel Commission (1937); the Woodhead Commission
        (1938); two 1946 proposals that championed a bi-national state. Every scheme since 1922 was rejected by the Arab side, including decidedly pro-Arab ones merely because these plans recognized Jews as a nation and gave the Jewish citizens of Mandate Palestine political representation.
        “The [British] Government of Palestine fear that strife in Palestine will be greatly intensified when the Mandate is terminated, and that the international status of the United Nations Commission will mean little or nothing to the Arabs in Palestine, to whom the killing of Jews now transcends all other considerations.
        Thus, the Commission will be faced with the problem of how to avert certain bloodshed on a very much wider scale than prevails at present. … The Arabs have made it quite clear and have told the Palestine government that they do not propose to co-operate or to assist the Commission, and that, far from it, they propose to attack and impede its work in every possible way. We have no reason to suppose that they do not mean what they say. Refer United Nations
        Palestine Commission. First Monthly Progress Report to the Security Council. A/AC.21/7, January 29, 1948. See:
        http://www.mefacts.com/cache/html/un-resolutions/10923.htm.
        Funny how in the late 1990s, more than 50 years after Resolution 181
        was rejected by the belligerent Arab world, Arab leaders suddenly
        recommended to the General Assembly that UN Resolution 181 be resurrected as the basis for a peace agreement.

      • eljay
        eljay
        February 4, 2014, 8:21 am

        >> (Shows how things haven’t changed with Abbas indicating his refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state.)

        “Jewish State” is a supremacist construct. No-one – not even the Palestinians – should be expected or required to recognize or accept the existence of a supremacist state.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 4, 2014, 8:27 am

        Israel was proclaimed per UNGA resolution 181 as you say, but the Arabs didn’t accept the resolution and threatened bloodshed if the United Nations went ahead with its adoption.

        False. The Arabs did not even set foot in Palestine until 5 months later, during which time, the Jewish militias had expelled 300,000 Palestinians, destroyed hundreds of villages an committed a number of massacres.

        By defying 181 and going all out with the co-operation of the surrounding Arab nations to defeat the Jews the Arabs brought the Nakba upon themselves.

        False again. Ben Gurioin said the day after 181 was passed that the Zionists had no intention of observing 181 and would abolish it once they had enough arms to do so. He stated openly that he viewed it as a temporary stepping stone toward reclaiming all fo Palestine, so even if the Arabs had accepted 181, the outcome would have been the same.

        The Arabs did not show any willingness to accept the Jewish presence as they wanted the entire country to be Arab.

        False again. As you and your fellow bots keep reminding us, there as always a Jewish presence in the Arab world. As you and your fellow bots keep reminding us, Jews who had lived for many hundreds of years in Arab land fled or migrated to Israel.

        Shows how things haven’t changed with Abbas indicating his refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state

        No state in the world recognizes Israel as a Jewish state. The first time the demands was ever made was when Bibbi came to office in 2009.

        Every scheme since 1922 was rejected by the Arab side

        As well as the Zionists. AS Ben Gurion himself stated, those who rejected partition were right to do so. The only reason the Zionists agreed to UNGA181 is because they had no intention of sticking to it.

        Funny how in the late 1990s, more than 50 years after Resolution 181
        was rejected by the belligerent Arab world, Arab leaders suddenly
        recommended to the General Assembly that UN Resolution 181 be resurrected as the basis for a peace agreement.

        Funny how in the late 1990s, more than 50 years after they claimed they accepted Resolution 181, the Zionists suddenly decided that they could agree to it because ti would change the Jewish character and Jewish majority of Israel – something they never would have had under UNGA181,

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 4, 2014, 9:02 am

        By the time the Zionists proclaimed their provisional government of a new state of Israel they had already terrorized 350,000 natives out of their homes and land of ancestry, and another 350,000 to 400, 000 were dealt with in the same way ASAP after the Zionist “war of independence.” (War of independence from whom? It’s not like the Zionists were Brit colonials fighting King George because the Brit’s were merely administering a UN mandate.)

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 4, 2014, 9:31 am

        Mayhem ” the Arabs didn’t accept the resolution”

        Completely irrelevant. Israel was proclaimed per UNGA resolution 181 MONTHS AFTER the Arabs rejected it.

        Israel was recognized as it asked to be recognized and has not since legally acquired any further territories. Israel has had troops outside the state of Israel in other folks territory for 65 years. In fact Israel has had hundreds of opportunities via UNSC resolutions to adhere to the law. It has failed. Dismally

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        February 6, 2014, 1:56 am

        @eljay, many European and Asian states such as Ireland, Germany,
        Japan, China, Russia, Turkey, Greece, Serbia, and Finland maintain identities based on ethnicity and culture, often providing immigration procedures favoring individuals with ethnic ties to them.
        Israel by being the realization of a home for the Jewish people is only aiming to provide a political, social and culture milieu for Jewish self-determination. There is nothing supremacist about that.
        You may not believe in the concept of Jewish national identity but most Jews do and they have the right to pursue that under the aegis of Zionism.
        If the Palestinians had been willing to accept UNGA 181 and been prepared to live alongside a Jewish state then they would have had a state of their own for the last 66 years. However they have been hoodwinked by their Arab brethren and are paying a huge price for
        their disingenuousness.
        To blame Zionism for the demise of the Palestinians is to play the ‘victim’ game and not acknowledge the dismal failures of the Palestinian leadership.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 6, 2014, 3:03 am

        many European and Asian states such as Ireland, Germany,
        Japan, China, Russia, Turkey, Greece, Serbia, and Finland maintain identities based on ethnicity and culture

        They also maintain identities based on nationality. What’s more, their ethnicity and culture is based arose from the population indigenous to the territory or region. Israel does not recognize Israel as a nationality and it’s ethnicity and culture were imported and foreign to the territory.

        often providing immigration procedures favoring individuals with ethnic ties to them.

        No, they provide immigration procedures favoring individuals who can prove their family ties to the state.

        Israel by pretending to be the the realization of a home for the Jewish people (which is not the case) is aiming to provide an artificial and ethnocentric construct at the expense of the indigenous population. It is entirely supremacist and is a repeat of the racist, supremacist ides of a bygone era of colonialism.

        You may not believe in the concept of Jewish national identity but most Jews do and they have the right to pursue that under the aegis of Zionism.

        They have no such right at the expense of others. If you believe that self determination is a universal right, and if you are not racist or supremacist, then you would have to accept that Jews do not have the right to impose their will on the Palestinians – which is what Israel is doing.

        Jews can excercise self-determination in any country in which they live and do.

        If the Palestinians had been willing to accept UNGA 181 and been prepared to live alongside a Jewish state then they would have had a state of their own for the last 66 years

        False. Ben Gurion made it clear that Israel’s leadership had no intention of sticking to 181 and were planing to abolish it when the time was right. IN any case, if Israel ever intended to respect the principals of 181, they would have no problem doing so today.

        The other fact that blows up your hasbara is that if UNGA181 had been observed by both sides, no Jewish state or Jewish majority would have emerged. Israel’s own argument against right of return is that it would destroy the Jewish majority, which they would never have achieved under UNGA181.

        So the blame lies entirely at the feet of Zionism, whi’s ideology from the time of Herzl required the demise of the Palestinians and Palestine.

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 6, 2014, 5:20 am

        Mayhem If the Palestinians had been willing to accept UNGA 181 and been prepared to live alongside a Jewish state then they would have had a state of their own for the last 66 years”

        They had a state already. It had provisional recognition under the LoN covenant (Art 22), reaffirmed in the Lon Mandate for Palestine (first line) and Jews could attain Palestinian citizenship and live anywhere in their historic homeland in Palestine as Palestinian Jews ( Art 7 LoN Mandate for Palestine ).

        The Palestinians weren’t asked if they wanted to give more than half of their state away to strangers. The Zionist Federation’s idiotic demand for a separate state now prevents Israeli citizens, Jewish or non-Jewish from settling in the historic homeland in Palestine. They can go settle in Israel instead of being complicit in crime after crime against the Palestinians.

        BTW There are no UNSC resolutions against the Arabs. It has been Israel beyond its borders who has accumulated hundreds of UNSC resolutions and has failed to take the opportunities they offered. Not the Arabs

        You are part of the problem pal.

        “Funny how in the late 1990s, more than 50 years after Resolution 181
        was rejected by the belligerent Arab world, Arab leaders suddenly
        recommended to the General Assembly that UN Resolution 181 be resurrected as the basis for a peace agreement”

        You stupid person. Israel is responsible for having proclaimed itself in accordance with the recommended boundaries of UNGA res 181. Furthermore it is Israel who is responsible for never having legally acquired any further territory and Israel who is responsible for illegal annexation, illegal settlements and for illegally preventing RoR.

        The Arabs VERY generously agree to give, completely gratis, 56% of pre 00:01 May 15th 1948 Palestine to Israel, per UNGA 181 and; the Palestinians have agreed to give another 50% of their territory for peace with Israel, leaving them with only 22% of what rightfully remained Palestinian after Israel was proclaimed by the borders of UNGA res 181.

        Like a fat bloated diabetic kid with their hand stuck in the cookie jar, unwilling to let go of any cookies, Israel is trapped by its own idiocy. Now unable to afford to abide by the law without being sent bankrupt for decades. Too stupid to take the opportunities it has been offered.

      • xanadou
        xanadou
        February 3, 2014, 4:59 pm

        Tsk, tsk, obsidian. That’s anti-semitic ground you’re treading on: didn’t the Jews play a role in causing the holocaust?

      • eljay
        eljay
        February 6, 2014, 7:17 am

        >> @eljay, many European and Asian states such as Ireland, Germany,
        Japan, China, Russia, Turkey, Greece, Serbia, and Finland maintain identities based on ethnicity and culture, often providing immigration procedures favoring individuals with ethnic ties to them.

        Okay, so make Jewish the bureaucratic nationality of “Jewish State” and grant it to all citizens of, people born in, immigrants to and refugees and ex-pats from the geographic region comprising “Jewish State”. Until then, Israel as a “Jewish State” remains a supremacist construct.

        >> If the Palestinians had been willing to accept UNGA 181 and been prepared to live alongside a Jewish state then they would have had a state of their own for the last 66 years.

        The indigenous population of Palestine was under no obligation to accept a partition of its territory, most certainly not so that part of that territory could be converted into a supremacist “Jewish State”.

      • K Renner
        K Renner
        February 3, 2014, 5:11 pm

        They didn’t engage in ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and didn’t say “Palestinian property and towns and villages belong to the Jews now”–

        so no, they didn’t. Nice try, though– I know it’s fun to try and say that “they (Palestinians) brought it on themselves” or “Arabs are responsible for the Palestinian exodus”, but saying it doesn’t magically make it come true.

      • Dutch
        Dutch
        February 3, 2014, 7:02 pm

        @ Obsidian
        ‘Didn’t the Arabs play a role in causing the Nakba?’

        No. You’re welcome.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        February 6, 2014, 6:00 am

        “You may not believe in the concept of Jewish national identity but most Jews do”

        Lots of people believe nonsense.

        “and they have the right to pursue that”

        Rights are not derived from crackpot beliefs.

  2. eljay
    eljay
    February 3, 2014, 10:14 am

    Any proposal that…
    – requires recognition or acceptance of Israel as a supremacist “Jewish State”;
    – uses ’67 lines rather than Israel’s / Partition border as a starting point for territorial negotiations;
    – absolves Israel from having to repatriate refugees; and
    – refuses to permit full Palestinian autonomy (including its own military and full control of all its borders and airspace, etc.);
    …is a bad joke.

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew
      February 3, 2014, 6:52 pm

      eljay- I understand where you are coming from, but to label anything a bad joke that: uses ’67 lines rather than Israel’s / Partition border as a starting point for territorial negotiations; is a true departure from Resolution 242 and thus totally off base for this phase of history. You can certainly propose such a basis for negotiations, but to label anything that does not agree with your proposal a bad joke is solipsistic.

      • eljay
        eljay
        February 3, 2014, 9:29 pm

        >> yonah fredman @ February 3, 2014 at 6:52 pm

        I understand where you are coming from, too, but:
        – acquisition of territory by war is illegal;
        – Israel acquired by war the territory it continues to this day to occupy and colonize;
        – Israel was required by Resolution 242 to remove itself from the territory it acquired by war; and
        – taking advantage of its superior military and political position, Israel has spent 40 years moving its citizens into non-Israeli territory, deliberately creating illegal infrastructural and demographic “facts on the ground” that it can use for leverage.

        It is a bad joke – at the very least, it is astoundingly unjust – to suggest that territorial negotiations should begin at ’67 borders.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 4, 2014, 12:28 am

        @ yonah fredman
        No way the Palestinians are getting a decent deal. Squatters get most all the land to the detriment of the natives, who get a crumb of their land and no military force of their own on land, sea, or air. And the US led-military border patrols will be an arm of Israel, making sure no black-market weapons get through the new borders. No ROR for refugee Palestinians, but compensation for Jews who fled Arab countries to live on stolen land, Israel’s.

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 5, 2014, 12:44 pm

        yonah fredman ” to label anything a bad joke that: uses ’67 lines rather than Israel’s / Partition border as a starting point for territorial negotiations; is a true departure from Resolution 242″

        Problem with your theory is UNSC resolution 242 doesn’t say ANYTHING about Israel’s borders being the ceasefire lines of ’67. It also doesn’t mention any negotiations over borders or Palestinian statehood. It was a resolution to end the “recent hostilities” between Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Israel.

        Subsequent resolutions (UNSC res 252 and its EIGHT reminders) were opportunities or Israel to comply with the binding laws those resolutions re-affirm and emphasize, tell us Israel was to withdraw from ALL the territories captured in those “recent hostilities”

        UNSC Res 476

        Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,

        Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in the city,

        Reaffirming its resolutions relevant to the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular resolutions 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980,

        Recalling the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,

        Deploring the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,

        Gravely concerned over the legislative steps initiated in the Israeli Knesset with the aim of changing the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,

        1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

        2. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;

        3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East ;”

  3. Justpassingby
    Justpassingby
    February 3, 2014, 10:26 am

    This isnt kerry’s propasal this is netanyahu’s proposal.
    Of course there is no peace when a clown like Kerry rules over the “process”.
    Another clown in abbas that want a NATO US force in palestine!

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      February 3, 2014, 10:56 am

      “This isnt kerry’s propasal this is netanyahu’s proposal.”

      Well, of course it is. Maybe one day real Americans will get their country back from the zionists who are running the place now.

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby
        February 3, 2014, 11:33 am

        I begin to wonder actually, it goes the other way IMO.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 3, 2014, 1:30 pm

        Netanyahu wants to propose a deal the Palestinians can’t accept and blame them for intransigence. Very strategic except the time to string everyone along is gone. Sanctions look inevitable.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        February 3, 2014, 6:32 pm

        With you Seafoid. “Palestinians can’t accept and blame them for intransigence” Again. Game over. ICJ …sanctions.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 3, 2014, 6:39 pm

        AIPAC won’t be able to do anything

        “Now they can’t tell me nothing
        We give it to the people,
        Spread it across the country
        Can we go back, this is the moment
        Tonight is the night, we’ll fight ’til it’s over
        So we put our hands up like the ceiling can’t hold us”

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      February 3, 2014, 4:22 pm

      Netenyahu would never have agreed to EJ being the capital of Palestine.

  4. seafoid
    seafoid
    February 3, 2014, 10:40 am

    80% of settlers and THEIR Land
    FFS.

    How does Kerry define settlers? East Jerusalem or just WB minus al quds ?
    Israel definition or international definition.

    I am guessing that Kerry’s “Palestinian capital” will be a Burger King stand rented from Im Tirtzu in Abu Dis. But that even this will be impossible for Netanyahu to sell to his people.

    Indyk says al quds off the table. No deal then.

    Jews DO NOT understand how important al quds is to the Palestinians.

    They can build a wall around it (and they have) and they can deny access for the next 300 years but Al Quds is the heart of Palestine

    Jawaal the Palestinian mobile company had a campaign a few years ago called Al Quds fil baal – Jerusalem in your mind. It was a sticker book aimed at all the Palestinian kids who had never been to the city because Israel won’t let them.

    Old fellahi ladies will walk all the way from ar ram in their beautiful Palestinian dresses on Friday just to be in the city.

    -Cheef Haalich
    wayn rayeh ?
    -Al ‘uds
    Allah ya’teeki al afya

    Because it is part of who they are and what the Germans did 1939-45 does not change that and never will.

    While Ashkenazi Jews were figuring out the best ways to smoke fish in the forests of northern Europe, Palestinians were minding Jerusalem.

    So Jews prayed about it in the cold north.
    Palestinians fucking LIVED there, took care of it, spent their own money on it, developed the city’s culture and made it what it was before the bots turned up and fucked everything up.

    And it’s off the table? Fuhgdaboutit.

    • xanadou
      xanadou
      February 3, 2014, 5:56 pm

      “Jews DO NOT understand how important al quds is to the Palestinians.”

      They do. Consider their own age-old prayer uttered at a Pesach dinner: “next year – Jerusalem”, likely coined by descendants of Antiquity’s Palestinian (pagan) converts to Judaism who had elected to flee Judea around 1CE. The majority of the remaining Palestinian Jews, with the passage of time and mores converted to Christianity, then to Islam. Kind of like the Palestinian Jewish emigrants who were joined by S/W Asian and European converts to Judaism with no affinity with and for the real Palestine and Jerusalem. Was then the invocation a mindless repetition of texts written a long time ago in the Middle East for a very different people and purpose? Or the effect of mass illiteracy? Or something else altogether?

      I do wonder, tho’… The Ottoman empire was tolerant of Jews. Why then did those who prayed for the return to Jerusalem/Al Quds not pack up and… make aliyah? Instead, the majority of the miserable supplicants had chosen to stay, and suffer, in Europe. Eventually, the empty “Jerusalem” rhetoric gave fuel to the emerging wealthy, 19th century, zio fanatics with a dream for an oversize ghetto for their confraters… in Palestine. Does anybody know? (Hasbara trolls need not reply.)

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 3, 2014, 11:54 pm

        “Why then did those who prayed for the return to Jerusalem/Al Quds not pack up and… make aliyah? ”

        Because there was a religious prohibition against doing so. Jerusalem is a Judische Schnappsidee. The old rabbis understood that.

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra
        February 3, 2014, 11:56 pm

        *xanadou … next year -Jerusalem….
        This parting in Goodbye was first done by the descendents of the Judeans, who migrated voluntarily under Macedonian/Ptolomy rule ca. 200BC to Greece.
        It was handed down thru the Generations of eclectic euro jews & even Khazar converts.
        Isn’t it ironic that an actual voluntary return only occured with the Spanish & Portugese expulsions of 1492.
        Historically only Bride Seekers in the ME & No. Africa kept channels open to Europe. Ask any Temanin, Karaim, Magreb, Mizrahi (Irak, Iran).
        Euro Jewry only move around within Europe having no desire to return to Jerusalem knowing it was ruled by other powers.
        ziusudra
        PS It was a romantic, but hollow departure.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 4, 2014, 4:12 am

        @xanadou:

        Why then did those who prayed for the return to Jerusalem/Al Quds not pack up and… make aliyah?

        Why those people, when they decided to make aliyah chose Palestine? Why not better place with, for instance, diamonds, oil, gold, water, forests, etc.? Why to Palestine?

        Hasbara trolls need not reply

        I appreciate if only xanadou will reply, not all the rest with the tired distorted arguments and not Hasbara trolls, please.

      • Whizdom
        Whizdom
        February 4, 2014, 9:12 am

        “next year in Jerusalem” entered the liturgy in the Middle Ages. In Europe.
        It really isn’t a supplication for repatriation, but an acknowledgement of the duty to make annual pilgrimage and sacrifice (and pay taxes at the temple).

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        February 4, 2014, 5:01 pm

        “next year in Jerusalem” entered the liturgy in the Middle Ages. In Europe.

        The earliest known source for the phrase is a liturgical poem (Yedidekha meʼemesh) attributed to Rabbi Judah Halevi (1075-1141), once recited at the end of the closing service (Ne’ilah) on Yom Kippur in a number of traditions in Europe and the Arab world, retained today only in the Yemenite tradition — although the single phrase “Next year in Jerusalem” was retained in Eastern European tradition at the end of the Ne’ilah service (and on the eve of Yom Kippur in some North African traditions). The custom of reciting the phrase at the end of the Passover Haggadah was introduced in the late 15th century.

        In Halevi’s poem, it is actually God who is supplicated to utter the phrase to his people, ushering in the era of messianic redemption. The stanza in question reads as follows (translation mine):

        Draw us up from sin / You who reside in Heaven
        When the sun sets declare / to those who go through fire and water
        Next year / in Jerusalem!

  5. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka
    February 3, 2014, 10:49 am

    Well, it looks like all that money that the zios used to destroy the US political system, by making it subservient to a racist alien state is paying off…

  6. BillM
    BillM
    February 3, 2014, 10:50 am

    This report leaves out key details I need in order to evaluate the plan. Will Abbas be required to give Bibi piggy-back rides, or will his time be spent shining Bibi’s shoes? Will Palestinians be allowed to look up at the settlements in awe, or must they keep their eyes downcast at all times? How can I evaluate the plan without the details?

    The “plan” is a joke of course. But Abbas will agree to it all, and the “negotiations” will drag on for another year until, at the end, we’ll discover as always that the plan is something no Palestinian leader could sign ansd survive, and no Israeli leader would ever bother signing since they always know the US will give them more. But it’ll at least waste another year.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      February 3, 2014, 1:34 pm

      “But it’ll at least waste another year. Yes, & Dick & Jane will pay for it without knowing it.

  7. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    February 3, 2014, 10:58 am

    This is a great framework — sort of like a scaffold. But some good can come from it. If the PLO/PA/Abbas crowd — those, in short, who claim to represent the Palestinian people and are widely so treated — can just hold out and call it unjust, unworkable, and not-gonna-happen, with minute and explicit criticisms, explanations, etc. then * * *

    * * * then the latest 9 month alarm clock will go off, and the second scene of the current act of the world’s longest running greatest-show-on-earth, humorously titled “peace process”, will begin.

    The BDS and other criticism of Israel and its actions and policies will continue, Palestine may possibly find its way to join ICC, and the lovely unfolding of the ORATORIO “Israel in Palestine in the World” will continue.

    Some will call it “delegitimization” of Israel. Obama will squirm. Some will attempt to further “delegitimize” AIPAC. Palestinians will suffer. A little bit more news will escape from behind the iron-curtain imposed on most of the world by Israel and its supporters. Governments will make tepid statements of disapproval of the settlement project, sounding like “tut-tut”. Israeli trade will suffer.

    So, we’ll see.

  8. ckg
    ckg
    February 3, 2014, 11:28 am

    Abbas has previously sought support for negotiating positions with the PLO Executive Committee, the Fatah Central Committee, and the foreign ministers of the Arab League. I can’t imagine their concurrence on the framework as presented by Indyk, especially without addressing the plight of the refugees or the permanent status of Jerusalem. At best, they may grant him more time to negotiate.

    • Walid
      Walid
      February 3, 2014, 4:44 pm

      “Abbas has previously sought support for negotiating positions with the PLO Executive Committee, the Fatah Central Committee, and the foreign ministers of the Arab League.

      ckg, with exception to the Fatah Central Committee, those other ones are a running joke. The first is under the total control of Abbas and the last under the total control of the zios. As to the Central Committee, one of its senior members is Abbas Zaki, an outspoken close associate of President Abbas but a die-hard revolutionary that wouldn’t go along with any nonsense by either Abbas or by Israel. Every other day he’s making noises on how Palestinians should drop the talks-charade and go straight to the UN and the ICC. It was also a revolt within the Central Committee that was triggered by Israel announcing settlements expansions as pre-agreed with the Palestinian negotiators as a condition to kick off the negotiations that caused Erekat to resign one more time and in his own words, “to relieve the pressure being brought on the negotiating team by the Central Committee.”

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 3, 2014, 6:43 pm

        Looking at your watch a third time
        Waiting in the station for the bots
        Going to a place that’s far
        So far away and if that’s not enough
        Going where nobody says hello
        They don’t talk to anybody they don’t know

        You’ll wind up in some Maaleh Adumim factory
        That’s full-time filth and nowhere left to go
        Walk home to an occupied house
        Sit around outside all by yourself
        I know it might sound strange but I believe
        You’ll be coming back before too long

        Don’t go back to the process, don’t go back to the process
        Don’t go back to the process and waste another year

  9. amigo
    amigo
    February 3, 2014, 11:40 am

    1S 1P 1V.

    If not then BDS until Israel caves in and makes a deal.

    • Walid
      Walid
      February 3, 2014, 4:29 pm

      “If not then BDS until Israel caves in and makes a deal.”

      Amigo, I saw Omar Barghouti in a short news clip today: he was describing how much the settlements’ economy is already taking a beating since the start of the new year with the European boycotts and he’s predicting overall economy downturn for the settlement enterprise of not less than 30 to 35%.

      That’s what these settlers get for living in sin. Their woes should have a direct effect on Israel’s economy too.

      • amigo
        amigo
        February 3, 2014, 5:22 pm

        “That’s what these settlers get for living in sin.”Walid

        Let, also hope the mehanes and the yrns and obsidians get their comeuppance for supporting the illegal squatters.

        Let,s put clan mehane out of the potato business.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 3, 2014, 6:47 pm

        A bond run where investors dump Israeli government bonds and the finance minister is forced to jack up interest rates would be the icing on the cake

        Yossi Israeli likes his property boom.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 4, 2014, 12:37 am

        @ seafoid
        Not to worry, the US will continue to underwrite Israel’s debt, no matter how deeply in debt the US is. We Americans like to put Israel on our charge cards and suck up that interest with minimum payments every year to China.

  10. American
    American
    February 3, 2014, 11:54 am

    Nothing new in that plan …same old.

    ” for Palestinians to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people”

    Go ahead Palestine —bend down and recognize the dwarf. What harm can it do, the dwarf will always be a dwarf anyway.

    “Just as the dwarf is obsessed with height in a way people of normal size can hardly imagine, the Tribe is obsessed with its marginal minority status, which it experiences as victimization, imagining slights and insults.”…..J. Sorban

    • Walid
      Walid
      February 3, 2014, 4:17 pm

      “What harm can it do”

      Huge and irreparable harm, American. The designation once accepted by Abbas on behalf of the Palestinians would be the final nail in the coffin of the Palestinian-Israelis currently living inside Israel proper. Gone will be Arabic education in schools, in whatever bilingualism or multilingualism currently existing in the state apparatus, and you’d see the introduction of the oath of allegiance so dear to Lieberman’s heart by which Palestinians would have to forego their culture or be expelled. That designation doesn’t yet exist and already the Palestinian-Israelis are treated as a lesser people, it’s illegal for them to commemorate the Nakba and they are no longer allowed to pick the wild zaatar (oregano) plant, a Palestinian cultural staple.

      Big big harm. BTW, a couple of years back, Palestine Papers released another gem:

      “… According to the papers, when the Israelis demanded that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Saeb Erekat said “call it what you want… it’s their issue, not mine”.

      Today, Erekat is shouting to any who would hear that he’d never accept to recognize Israel as Jewish state.

      So which was the real Erekat talking, the one in the Palestine Papers or the one that’s been talking to the press in the last few days?

      • tree
        tree
        February 3, 2014, 4:28 pm

        So which was the real Erekat talking, the one in the Palestine Papers or the one that’s been talking to the press in the last few days?

        There isn’t really a conflict between the two statements. Erekat was acknowledging that Israel can call itself whatever it chooses, but that the Paletinians are not required to recognize Israel’s self-chosen moniker as a legitimate one, nor will they “recognize” Israel as such.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 4, 2014, 12:39 am

        Demand to recognize that America is a white Christian state. No problem.

      • American
        American
        February 3, 2014, 8:59 pm

        Walid says:
        February 3, 2014 at 4:17 pm
        “What harm can it do”

        Huge and irreparable harm, American
        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

        Walid….I was being snarky.

      • Walid
        Walid
        February 4, 2014, 11:15 am

        O00000ps; sorry, American, got carried away.

    • tokyobk
      tokyobk
      February 4, 2014, 10:40 am

      American: that’s Sobran, you “urbe”. And he was the one obsessed, like you, about the Joooooooos.
      He was also a speaker at the IHR conference with David Irving, Holocaust denier.
      William Buckley finally acknowledged that there was no way to defend him from a charge of anti-semitism. And, it has nothing to do with his politics on Israel. At all. Or yours.

      It must be very, very sad to have the center of your life, the subject of most of your waking thoughts, a group that you despise.

      Alex and Phil and I assume the others here are basically nice people with a focus on a particular subject and not particularly sensitive to this type of whistle (actually shout). I understand the reasons why but it still always amazes me.

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 4, 2014, 11:46 am

        @tokyobk – Don’t deviate the topic, please.
        How exactly does that invalidate the short statement? You may not like its author and it “amazes” you, but that’s totally irrelevant.

      • American
        American
        February 4, 2014, 12:14 pm

        Dont know who Sorban is or was and dont care, the dwarf quote thing was funny so I used it…so sue me.

        “the Joooooooos” ….nasty term thing you use is a dead giveaway to what your obsession is ……

        You’re a dwarf…hiding under Jewish skirts….no use—we still see you.

  11. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    February 3, 2014, 12:00 pm

    This is the ‘classic’ 2ss, isn’t it?
    There is obviously some equivocation about what ‘Jerusalem’ means but that equivocation is not unusual. It means drawing a line in a fashion that permits Israel to say ‘Jerusalem is undivided’ and Palestinians to say ‘Some of Jerusalem is ours’. These two things can be said about any conceivable borderline so long as people have enough desire to say them. I think that the remaining substantial problem will be the Temple area, though I think that the status quo can continue under some pretext since the refoundation of the Temple is not currently within the realms of possibility, considering the theocratic implications it would have.
    The plan is unfair and cruel in almost every respect, economically and symbolically. Still, I am in the minority here in thinking that it is likely on balance be put into effect if Obama puts his weight behind it, because I think that world public opinion will form a steamroller that no one can easily resist. The shift we are detecting in western public opinion is essentially a demand to be rid of the problem by making a few, just a very few, concessions to the Palestinians. The likes of us, the ragged, argumentative, divided, much mocked band of (in western terms) moral misfits who do think that the Palestinians deserve justice will have to think very carefully how we can keep the argument when everyone is celebrating Peace in our Time and the champagne corks are popping.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      February 3, 2014, 6:35 pm

      “If Obama puts his weight behind it” Do you really think the majority of Palestinians really care about what Obama thinks?

      • hungrydave
        hungrydave
        February 3, 2014, 7:51 pm

        do you really think Abbas cares what the majority of Palestinians think?

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        February 4, 2014, 11:22 am

        I think that all parties, from Likud to Hamas and round and back again, will find it difficult to resist pressure from the President of the United States, still the world’s most respected office for all the failings of its holders, to put any proposal to referendum. I don’t that the mass of people will necessarily go with the Prez but they would, if it came to the point, be influenced by world opinion – and I think world opinion would form a tidal wave in support of what would be called Peace. Not, as I said, because world opinion is on our side but because it wants not to have to think about the whole rotten business and the ever present threat to the price of a gallon of fuel. I agree with Citizen (below) that it would be an unfair, cruel parody of ‘peace’ or ‘settlement’ though it would give the Palestinians one valuable thing, the acknowledged right to be there. That would be like a slow puncture in the balloon of Zionism, which denies that right.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      February 4, 2014, 12:42 am

      @ McHughes976
      I agree with your take on this. I think it will happen, and the Palestinians will be basically finished off. It will be a great Zionist victory thanks to 98% goy superpower USA. And the Zionists will remain totally ungrateful and continue to screw the natives in everyday they can imagine with their only imagination.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        February 4, 2014, 11:45 am

        ‘Mc’ Hughes? I may be a bit Welsh – therefore, by some standards, I and those of my race, mainly expelled in the fifth century, may claim all of what is now England as exclusively ours and the rest, on that showing, should of course be made to ‘live like dogs’ until they leave. But I’m definitely not Scottish. I was reluctant to wear a kilt at a friend’s wedding.

  12. seafoid
    seafoid
    February 3, 2014, 12:02 pm

    Kerry has to triangulate between the settlers and Galut

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PiiJ22rRfA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd3gxF5b3_Y

    Best of luck to him. Dealing with the Tea Party is a picnic by comparison.

  13. Abdul-Rahman
    Abdul-Rahman
    February 3, 2014, 1:41 pm

    The one thing that really caught my eye here was on the issue of refugees (that is the real refugee issue of course; the Palestinian refugees). When will the international community finally fulfill its’ obligations to the Palestinian refugees?!

    http://al-awda.org/facts.html

    UN General Assembly Resolution 194 has been affirmed by the UN over 110 times since its introduction in 1948 with universal consensus except for Israel and the U.S. This resolution was further clarified by UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 which reaffirms in Subsection 2: “the inalienable right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return.”

    And then I see that this article notes a Zionist propagandist like Indyk may try to trot out, the old/already dealt with nonsense of supposed “Jewish refugees from Arab countries”

    See: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General/Story2126.html

    One of the best responses to this particular Zionist propaganda was authored by Professor Yehouda Shenhav in his classic Haaretz essay entitled “Hitching a ride on the magic carpet”

    http://www.haaretz.com/hitching-a-ride-on-the-magic-carpet-1.97357

    The organization’s claims infuriated many Mizrahi Israelis who defined themselves as Zionists. As early as 1975, at the time of WOJAC’s formation, Knesset speaker Yisrael Yeshayahu declared: “We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations.”

    Shlomo Hillel, a government minister and an active Zionist in Iraq, adamantly opposed the analogy: “I don’t regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.”

    In a Knesset hearing, Ran Cohen stated emphatically: “I have this to say: I am not a refugee.” He added: “I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee.”

    The whole claim of supposed “Jewish refugees” is in stark contradiction with that other core mythology the Zionist movement is always constantly spewing. That whole “Jews ‘returning’ to their ‘homeland'” mythology. In fact what these Zionist propagandists are doing here is actually (unwittingly) voicing what could be termed either an anti-Zionist or a “post-Zionist” argument.

    And then to close, I think Professor Ilan Pappe also did a good job succinitly dealing with this specific “Jewish refugees” Zionist myth:

    http://newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2011/04/01/palestine-israel-interview-pappe/

    Speaking about the aftermath of WW2 in Europe, Pappe states: “The Jewish community in the world preferred to go to Britain, the United States or stay in Europe despite the Holocaust. Only a very tiny minority came to Israel, and that’s why, contrary to their earlier wishes, the Zionist movement decided to bring Jews from the Arab world and de-Arabize them so they would become Jewish and not identify with the Arab population.”

    • Walid
      Walid
      February 3, 2014, 3:54 pm

      Abdul-Rahman, the fantasy about the Jewish refugees having offset the claims by Palestinian refugees has already been bought into by the US House of Representatives when it threw a monkey wrench at UNSC Resolution 242 on April 1, 2008 in passing HR 185 that recognized the rights of Jewish refugees from Arab states. It was resolved that,

      “”… (1) for any comprehensive Middle East peace agreement to be credible and
      enduring, the agreement must address and resolve all outstanding issues relating to
      the legitimate rights of all refugees, including Jews, Christians, and other
      populations, displaced from countries in the Middle East; and

      (2) the President should instruct the United States Representative to the United
      Nations and all United States representatives in bilateral and multilateral fora to–

      (A) use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to ensure that any
      resolutions relating to the issue of Middle East refugees, and which include a
      reference to the required resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue, must
      also include a similarly explicit reference to the resolution of the issue of
      Jewish refugees from Arab countries; and

      (B) make clear that the United States Government supports the position that,
      as an integral part of any comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, the issue of
      refugees from the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf must be
      resolved in a manner that includes recognition of the legitimate rights of and
      losses incurred by all refugees displaced from Arab countries, including Jews,
      Christians, and other groups. ”

      http://www.icsresources.org/content/primarysourcedocs/HouseResolution185.pdf

      A couple of months back, Israel took its road show to a conference at the UN to start lobbying members there to give equal attention to the “plight” of Jewish refugees from Arab countries:

      “9 November 2013

      NEW YORK – The “forgotten refugees” of the Arab-Israel conflict – Jews forced from their homes in Arab countries – will gain a hearing at the United Nations on 21 November 2013 at a conference convened by Israel’s Mission to the United Nations, the World Jewish Congress and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and Justice for Jews from Arab Countries.

      … The conference will hear presentations from Israeli Minister of National Infrastructure Silvan Shalom, Israeli Permanent Representative to the UN Ron Prosor, WJC President Ronald S. Lauder, Conference of Presidents Executive Vice Chairman Malcolm Hoenlein, and Co-President of Justice for Jews from Arab Countries Sylvain Abitbol. The film ‘The Forgotten Refugees’, a documentary by Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa (JIMENA), will be screened. Other speakers will include Lucette Lagnado, the author of two memoirs about her Egyptian Jewish family; Linda Menuhin, a Middle East commentator who is the daughter of Iraqi Jewish refugees; and Levana Zamir, president of the International Association of Jews from Egypt.”

      http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/14149/conference_at_un_in_new_york_to_highlight_plight_of_jewish_refugees_from_muslim_countries

      Al this to say, Abdul-Rahman, is that the Zionists having working earnestly at preparing the ground for the RoR showdown in the US Congress, at the UN as well as with other countries, as you read in Shenhav’s piece of a few years back. WOJAC may have been shut down years ago, but the efforts never stopped. And the Palestinians have done absolutely nothing to snuff out this absurd claim or I should say gimmick by Israel to defraud the Palestinians of their rightful return to their land.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      February 3, 2014, 6:37 pm

      And then that bit about compensating descendants of Jews thrown out of Arab countries? Nothing about Palestinian compensation for being thrown out of their homes, lands, olive trees….what a sham.

  14. ToivoS
    ToivoS
    February 3, 2014, 1:48 pm

    I guess if Abbas signs off on this deal he and the Palestinian 1% will be handsomely rewarded. The questions then becomes: What happens to the Palestinian movement for full membership in the UN and will they still be able to use the ICC? The second question concerns how this would affect the BDS movement? It seems that if Abbas signs then it would make it much easier for European governments to resist demands to sanction Israel.

    It is very difficult to see how this framework will not severely under cut the Palestinian movement for justice. It will be a big win for Israel and rich Palestinians but a big loss for the Palestinian people.

    • Walid
      Walid
      February 3, 2014, 3:01 pm

      Betcha the bungalows in Connecticut are already purchased because after the deal is signed, these guys could never set foot in the ME again. One has to think back to July 1951 when a Palestinian took out Jordan’s King Abdullah in Jerusalem for simply having been “suspected” of trying to cut a deal with the Zionists. Palestinians are not the forgiving kind.

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 3, 2014, 10:16 pm

        “Palestinians are not the forgiving kind”
        Or, in other words, they already forgave a huge lot of transgressions. Problem is all the people who are making so-called concessions in their name, selling off the Palestinian people’s birthright: their Oslo-imposed Israeli puppet administrations, their representatives in Israel in addition to those in the West Bank, the Arab League dictatorships, with a special mention to Saudis and the Sheikdoms, part of the Palestine solidarity movement leaders, also part of the leadership of the BDS movement.
        Would be nice to be able to force through an unhindered general vote just to learn how much of their rights the people agree to give away or not, in terms of RoR, territorial integrity, coexistence, immigration and citizenship, armed sovereignty and –why not?– the legitimacy of even the first Zionist invasion and the Zionist state itself.

    • piotr
      piotr
      February 6, 2014, 11:01 am

      The little problem with that fine plan is that Abbas seems to be paid only for the duration of the peace process. Someone forgot to make incentives for him to sign a deal.

  15. annie
    annie
    February 3, 2014, 2:19 pm

    including ” compensate descendants of Jews who were forced to flee ” formally elevates this on a par with, and as if it was connected with the nakba, that is a huge win for israel and something that cannot be withdrawn once it’s included in this ‘framework’.

    it’s BS and should be dealt with completely separately. completely. it’s an insult to palestinians for it’s not their responsibility and does not take into account the responsibility zionist leaders and forces had, often initiated with intent, to get arab jews it immigrate. it’s disgusting.

    just the idea this is shoved into an agreement palestinians are supposed to endorse is a farce. it should be withdrawn, hands down. if the US wants to sign onto some agreement w/israel over this that is one thing, but keep it out of any agreement between israel/palestine.

    of course i have more to say, just had to get that out of the way.

    and thanks Ira.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      February 3, 2014, 2:59 pm

      You’re right about it being BS. First, as you say, it has nothing to do with the Palestinian issue, except to racists who treat one set of Arabs as being interchangeable with another. But second, the reality is that there were many of those Jews who chose to left their home countries to take part in the theft of Palestine and who voluntarily chose to a part of that crime against humanity. Certainly if an Arab state forced out Jews, then those Jews should have recourse, but not those who freely chose to cast their lot with the zionists in the rape of Palestine.

      • mcohen
        mcohen
        February 3, 2014, 3:59 pm

        Woody Tanaka says:
        February 3, 2014 at 2:59 pm

        “Certainly if an Arab state forced out Jews, then those Jews should have recourse,”

        Woody please explain……recourse for what.not sure what point you are trying to make.it is a well known fact that hardly any jews live in arab countries.egypt has one or two and morocco a smattering but thats it.not sure what point you are trying to make but it equates to #HASBARA FAIL

      • Dutch
        Dutch
        February 3, 2014, 7:22 pm

        @ mcohen

        I guess the point Woody is making is that many Jews left the Arab countries of free will. Most of them were stimulated by Israel to go live (work) in that country, that lacked labour force.

        I have been involved in interviewing Jews in Egypt and Morocco about the actual happenings and their choices. Surely in Egypt Jews were forced out (others left long before that out of free will), but in Morocco that didn’t happen. I was surprised to learn that Moroccan Jews who left for Israel return every two years to their original villages on vacation.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        February 3, 2014, 8:39 pm

        Dutch- I have not read enough regarding the aliya of the Jews from Arab countries, but I doubt that Ben Gurion was encouraging that aliya because Israel lacked a labor force. (It was primarily to bolster the Israeli Jewish population and to justify the raison d’etre of a Jewish state.) If you have a link that asserts that Israel needed a labor force, please include it.

      • mcohen
        mcohen
        February 4, 2014, 12:31 am

        Dutch

        which times do you refer when jews were expelled from egypt.in the time of the pharoahs or recently.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        February 4, 2014, 10:20 am

        “which times do you refer when jews were expelled from egypt.in the time of the pharoahs or recently.”

        Given that the story of bondage in egypt is fairy tale and myth, I’d imagine he was talking about the recent one.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        February 4, 2014, 10:23 am

        “Woody please explain……recourse for what.not sure what point you are trying to make.”

        How much more plain do you need it to be? If an Arab state forced a Jew to leave and the Jew lost property, he should be entitled to compensation, just as the Palestinians are entitled to compensation from the israelis for all the israelis crimes since 1947. However, if a Jew voluntarily left an Arab state in order to live in israel, so as to be part of the zionist project, then he should be entitled to no compensation, because any losses he suffered were the result of his own free choice.

        “not sure what point you are trying to make but it equates to #HASBARA FAIL”

        I would recommend you get some help with reading comprehension. The only “FAIL” here is your inability to understand simple English (and your disgusting punctuation habits.)

      • Dutch
        Dutch
        February 4, 2014, 3:52 pm

        @ Yonah
        I have no idea about Ben Gurion. The lack of workers is the central story I have been told over and over again. People were promised jobs, houses, etc. if they were prepared to settle in Israel. Many did, others didn’t. It’s economically driven. No, I have no link. We never published any results, as we’re only halfway.

        @ mcohen
        Modern times. BTW – as far as I know the pharaonic story is phantasy and never happened.

  16. Walid
    Walid
    February 3, 2014, 2:39 pm

    There is no more shame in Israel and the Palestinian “negotiators” openly floating that there will be no return. This was revealed in the Palestine Papers and Abbas quickly swept it under the rug. Also swept under by Abbas was Erekat’s statement that Palestinians in the diaspora especially those in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan (meaning the camp refugees) contrary to what they have been promised for decades to keep their hopes up, will not be voting on the acceptance of the final offer.

    • ckg
      ckg
      February 3, 2014, 10:50 pm

      Walid, I appreciate your insights into Palestinian politics. Can you help me understand why the camp refugees in neighboring states lack political power in the PLO Executive Committee? At least nominally they are represented, I think.

      • Walid
        Walid
        February 4, 2014, 1:35 pm

        ckg, the Executive Committee functions as a private club of PLO oldies presided over by Abbas. The camps are run by popular committees that don’t go anywhere near the PLO EC whose 18 members don’t speak with one voice. But Abbas is the big boss.

  17. Stephen Shenfield
    Stephen Shenfield
    February 3, 2014, 3:01 pm

    The current Israeli governing coalition is so extreme it is bound to reject even the modest concessions implied in this account of Kerry’s plan. Keeping the land occupied by 80% of the settlers sounds a pretty good deal for Israel, but Netanyahu has promised not to uproot even a single settler. And only a minority of Israelis are willing to accept a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem — unless East Jerusalem is to be interpreted as meaning the village of Abu Dis (the devil is in the details).

    So if Abbas plays his cards right, he should for once be able to make Israel take the blame for saying no.

    What bits of pre-1967 Israel would the Israelis contemplate giving up? It must mean the Triangle. I can’t think where else.

    • Rusty Pipes
      Rusty Pipes
      February 3, 2014, 4:20 pm

      “if Abbas plays his cards right, he should for once be able to make Israel take the blame for saying no.” That’s how I’m reading Abbas’ recent interview in the NYT.

      Where he is differing with Kerry, he asks: why should Palestinians be held to conditions that Egypt and Jordan were not held to in their treaties with Israel? In inviting NATO to send peacekeeping troups, he’s asking, what more could Israel ask to feel safe than the presence of the troops of its allies? (while emphasing their role in blocking weapons smuggling, rather than their role in protecting Palestinians from settler violence.) Netanyahu, of course, claims that Israel trusts only its own army.

      Abbas has also offered to extend his timeline from what he mentioned last week, three years — the same amount of time that Israel was able to fully withdraw from Sinai. Perhaps, wanting to appear amenable to American requests (if the unnamed official is accurate), Abbas has extended his timeline a bit — but still insists on a timeline. Netanyahu is resisting any timeline at all.

    • MHughes976
      MHughes976
      February 4, 2014, 7:23 am

      Israeli politicians will certainly talk against it since it would end their policy ‘of live without a solution’ – the policy pursued by all governments, I think. Still, could they refuse to put it to referendum and will the voters, weary of conflict and under enormous international pressure, take the risk of saying No?

  18. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    February 3, 2014, 8:58 pm

    Ira Glunts writes: “Is Kerry obsessive or just dedicated and diligent? And if the latter is the correct answer, than to what is he dedicated?”

    (Aside from the spelling mistake: It should be spelled, “then to what is he dedicated”?

    Glunts shows that unless you agree with him (Glunts) then somehow your motivations are impenetrable. Kerry is dedicated to getting a piece of paper signed ending the conflict. He feels that such a piece of paper will lead to the end of the conflict and thus the damage done to US world position as a supporter of Israel the occupier will be lessened by the US as a supporter of Palestine and Israel and the end of the occupation.

    Certainly the widespread feeling among supporters of the Palestinians is that the piece of paper one can anticipate from this stage will not supply the Palestinians with true justice. Thus Kerry is not seeking justice. But he is seeking the end of the conflict.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      February 4, 2014, 1:08 am

      I agree from the outline of the outline of the plan as leaked intentional, Kerry’s obsession is to end the conflict by basically doing the 1s-1 rump state finish. And, as Walid points out above, the Palestinian refugees will not be voting in any Palestinian referendum. Also, the Palestinians had nothing to do with Arab Jews who volunteered exodus to the new Zionist Israel, nor did they force any Arab Jews from Arab lands.

      More on Kerry’s framework specifics, such as they appear at this time: http://www.thenation.com/blog/178198/kerrys-israel-palestine-plan-will-challenge-aipac

      Kerry doesn’t care about justice, but he wants his name of the peace deal, just as Obama wants his on the Iran deal. Justice is simply a collateral damage in both cases.

  19. Daniel Rich
    Daniel Rich
    February 4, 2014, 1:30 am

    But then there’s still dessert desert left to ‘hand out’ … Americans[sic] offer parts of Negev to Palestinian refugees.

  20. NickJOCW
    NickJOCW
    February 4, 2014, 4:21 am

    It seems to me Abbas demonstrates an acute sense of what the US (rather than Netanyahu) might accept. No way would they tolerate a militarised Palestine, better be like Costa Rica and dispense with armies altogether. In any event there would be little point in having an army since it would hardly be, or be allowed to be, a threat to neighbours, or much of a deterrent for that matter; the Palestinians have always done better with attrition. The biggest trump Abbas holds is the ICC but at this particular stage it’s probably more useful in his hand than on the table. I somewhat admire Abbas, not least because he is the same age as me.

    • Justpassingby
      Justpassingby
      February 4, 2014, 7:34 am

      nicjocw
      Palestinians been occupied for 60 yrs and you say they dont need an army?
      ICC? Get real abbas isnt going there.

      • piotr
        piotr
        February 6, 2014, 11:16 am

        Costa Rica has a better chance of repelling invasions from Panama and Nicaragua with their police then Palestinians versus IDF. A NATO force is actually a good deal, and this is exactly the reason right-wing Zionists are against it.

        I am curious how flexible Abbas is on issues of borders, the civil rights of Palestinian citizens and residents in Israel etc. One thing is clear: the chance of the current government of Israel to agree to anything palatable to Palestinians is remote, so he should structure his flexibility in such a way that Israel will look bad, at least as seen from countries other than USA, Canada, Palau and Commonwealth of Northern Marianas.

Leave a Reply