French Government Says That If The Peace Process Does Not Resume , France Will Recognize The Palestinian State

I would like to see a negotiation from the P5+1 on one side, the Palestinians on one side, and Israel on one side. A three sided table. Similar in seriousness to the negotiation over Iran's nukes. There has to be movement on peace and justice in the Israel-Palestine region. 

Typical French surrender reflex. Appeasing terrorists has worked so well in Paris...

Bingo.

And they will reap what they sow.

This type of pronouncement enables the Palestinians further in their quest for statehood without ever having to negotiate.

The Montevideo Convention was instructive on the status of statehood. To actually become a country, a body has to have 4 attributes:

1)a permanent population

2)a defined territory

3)a government and

4)a capacity to enter into relations with other states.

They technically do not pass on any of these attributes.

There have already been a number of overtures to negotiate. Israel has come to the Palestinians a number of times, only to be rebuffed. On the occasions where they have agreed, they become immobilized by the Palestinians' need for preconditions. This will begin and end no differently.

For the record, I'd like to be wrong.

Spot on, Jon. 

you seem to cover a lot of ground when you talk about israel perrie. you criticize netanyahu, up to a point. you call for negotiations, up to a point. you acknowledge a palestinian point of view, up to a point. 

if israel had always been willing to negotiate, to a "permanent" solution, i think it would have happened already. 

Palestinians don't have to be a country in order to enter into negotiations, they have to be a people with a reasonable cause

if israel had always been willing to negotiate, to a "permanent" solution, i think it would have happened already. 

That is an assumption which has been refuted numerous times by neutral parties. Abbas has even admitted to walking away.

It's long past time for Western Europe to put an end to this ridiculous charade so three cheers for France. Israel claims that it wants to negotiate an agreement while simultaneously spreading settlements throughout the West Bank that chop up the land and make a viable Palestinian state virtually impossible. Some Western governments have already insisted that "squatter produce" be so labeled rather than labeled as Israeli produce. That way, those of us outside Israel can boycott produce stolen from the Palestinians. Taking this further and recognizing Palestine as a state may allow Palestinians to sue Israeli squatters in European courts for theft. If France takes this action, and I sincerely hope they do, the entire EU may follow. If I were a Palestinian, I wouldn't even consider recognizing Israel's right to exist until Israel recognizes that Palestinians have the right to a "viable" state, rather than a South African style bantustan under the boot of Israel.

1ofmany,

It is a vicious circle of slapping each other in the face. Abbas could have had a separate Palestine a long time ago. He shuts down the talks. Bibi now feels entitled to go about and build more settlements, since he now feels entitled to. That is why I picked the New Republic article. I am personally not for any more settlements in the West Bank. But on the other hand, to have a true peace agreement giving the Palestinians a true country, stupid things like recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, should not be a road block... Getting a homeland should.

Don't the settlements , and , let's say, aggressive placement of settlements, predate Abbas ?  

Israel has a right wing government now,  do they not ?  Maybe that is part of the problem too. 

Yes, the settlements predate Abbas. But when peace looked like it could happen, Israel physically removed settlements from Gaza. A fact that many seem to forget that. 

Yes the government is very right wing, but they were willing to make an agreement with Kerry's help. It might have not been perfect for Abbas, but it also wasn't perfect for Netanyahu.  That is the meaning of compromise. Get the big picture first, and deal with the little stuff later. 

I am not an expert on it, and certainly don't know as much about it as you do, but I am pretty sure that both sides have had episodes of sabotaging the peace process over the years. 

The hardliner Israelis do not want a two state solution, period. Anyone with the briefest knowledge of this thing knows that. 

The hardliner Israelis do not want a two state solution, period. Anyone with the briefest knowledge of this thing knows that. 

That is true. But most Israelis do. They are tired of war. Netanyahu knows this, and as I just posted, he was willing to make huge concessions. If I was Abbas, I would take the deal first, details later. But that isn't what happened. 

I think it would probably take me about one minute to find examples of Netanyahu and other Israelis refusing to compromise over the years. 

They need to get multiple influential world powers involved in facilitating a deal, not just the U.S. 

The idea that this sort of "standoff" can go on forever borders on insanity. 

I am not an expert on it

DUH ! No kidding !

It is a vicious circle of slapping each other in the face. Abbas could have had a separate Palestine a long time ago. He shuts down the talks. Bibi now feels entitled to go about and build more settlements, since he now feels entitled to. That is why I picked the New Republic article. I am personally not for any more settlements in the West Bank. But on the other hand, to have a true peace agreement giving the Palestinians a true country, stupid things like recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, should not be a road block... Getting a homeland should.

Expanding the settlements is, in my opinion, evidence of bad faith on its face. The issue here is land. I would never sit down to seriously negotiate a demarcation of land with someone who is actively stealing it as we negotiate. 

Would you negotiate with someone actively trying to kill your civilians instead?

The Palestinians will not negotiate in good faith.

Would you negotiate with someone actively trying to kill your civilians instead?

Yes, I think the Palestinians should negotiate even though the Israelis are trying to kill them. 

I expected that. Denying Israel the right to self-defense is an example of antisemitism. Apparently building a house is a more heinous crime that dropping bombs in Israeli neighborhoods. To you.

I expected that. Denying Israel the right to self-defense is an example of antisemitism. Apparently building a house is a more heinous crime that dropping bombs in Israeli neighborhoods. To you.

I didn't say anything about Israel's right to self-defense. I was talking about land; you brought up killing. And the Palestinians have as much right to self-defense as the Israelis.

It's not self-defense if you are the agressor. It's not self-defense to knife civilians in the street. It's terrorism. 

It's not self-defense if you are the agressor. It's not self-defense to knife civilians in the street. It's terrorism.

Same goes for aiming a fucking guided missile at civilian structures in Gaza.

Where weapons or fighters are based... No, it's not the same.

Where weapons or fighters are based... No, it's not the same.

Like indiscriminately shelling residential areas with imprecise explosive weapons as documented by Amnesty International. 

Lol. Amnesty is a branch of Hamas. Their fatwas are not fact. Even the UN admitted finding weapons in bombed schools. Israel does not bomb indiscriminately. Hamas does.

Lol. Amnesty is a branch of Hamas. Their fatwas are not fact. Even the UN admitted finding weapons in bombed schools. Israel does not bomb indiscriminately. Hamas does.

And the UN condemned Israel for bombing a UN designated shelter after they told Israel 15 times that it was a shelter. Even if Amnesty were a branch of Hamas, which it is not, I find them far more reliable than Netanyahu.

"Same goes for aiming a fucking guided missile at civilian structures in Gaza."

dailymail.co.uk

Where anti-Semitism here is obvious, is that if the opposing parties do not restart the peace process, then it is Israel that is made to suffer by losing a negotiating point.

You should def move to "palestine' 1ofmany . You would soon discover that the greater danger to your life comes from Hamas not Israel .

You should def move to "palestine' 1ofmany . You would soon discover that the greater danger to your life comes from Hamas not Israel .

Maybe you should move to Palestine Petey so you can be on the receiving end of Israeli collective punishment as were the innocent civilians killed as they huddled in a UN shelter. Or maybe your children can be imprisoned or killed for throwing a rock at a tank.

I note that Islamic movements were not rooted in Palestine until Israel deliberately helped create Hamas as a counterbalance to the secular PLO . . . and the PLO came into being originally to resist the Israeli occupation. The Palestinians are not obligated to be a docile ghetto or Bantustan living under the heel of an Israeli boot. It's obvious to me that Netanyahu is a liar and that negotiations with him are pointless because, while he negotiates, he simultaneously expands colonies over Palestinian land for the express purpose of making any future Palestinian state geographically non-viable. I fully support the French initiative to recognize Palestine as a state and urge other countries to do the same.

Meaningless distraction from my point . I know better than to join up with a dangerous 3rd world country . They would be dangerous to be around even if there was no Israel that needed to defend itself . So expanding on my point : would you move to Gaza if there was no Israel ? Of course not !

Expanding the settlements is, in my opinion, evidence of bad faith on its face. The issue here is land. I would never sit down to seriously negotiate a demarcation of land with someone who is actively stealing it as we negotiate. 

I agree, but that could have all been taken care of with this... again from the New Republic article:

By late January, the Americans believed that their strategy of patient engagement with Netanyahu was finally paying off. After months of painstaking negotiations over every word in the framework, the prime minister had accepted once-unthinkable language. On refugees, the document would promise monetary compensation to Palestinians displaced in Israel’s War of Independence (and, separately, to Jews who left their homes in the Arab world). It also stated clearly that “the Palestinian refugee problem” would be solved within the new Palestinian state. But, in a groundbreaking departure from Israeli policy and his previous statements, Netanyahu agreed to a mechanism whereby Israel—at its sole discretion—would admit some refugees on a humanitarian basis. The more dramatic Netanyahu concession, however, concerned borders. After decades of railing against any mention of the 1967 lines, Netanyahu accepted that “[t]he new secure and recognized border between Israel and Palestine will be negotiated based on the 1967 lines with mutual agreed swaps.” Said one Israeli official: “If the Israeli public knew back in February that Netanyahu agreed to include this sentence in the framework, it would have created a political earthquake.”

A bird in the hand 1 and this would have been it, but it was rejected by Abbas. 

For the most part I'm a pretty reasonable person and try and be as objective as I can about issues but whenever I hear anything to do with Israel I just see red.  I cannot look at anything related to that country objectively because of my complete and utter disdain and hatred for Mr. Netanyahu.  He is a liar and a greedy frocking bastard and I don't trust anything he says.  If I could ensure that Israel never sees another penny of my money I would but unfortunately I don't get that choice so I'm forced to accept that my money is going to a country I do not respect. 

Pj,

This is the first time I have ever seen such a visceral response from you. I am no fan of Netanyahu, but I don't condemn a whole country and it's people over it. I feel the same way about Abbas, but I still believe that the Palestinians should have a homeland. So I am curious how you came to this point. 

Yes, my reaction surprises me also because I think I'm a pretty fair minded person and I openly admit that I am irrational when it comes to Mr. Netanyahu.  I have always thought Mr. Netanyahu did things in the best interest of himself first then Israel.  I pretty much didn't have an opinion one way or the other until he came here and spoke in front of Congress spouting his lies and his stale old gloom and doom tale (of which he's NEVER been correct) trying to influence our foreign policies.  Then he continued his blatant disrespect during his own campaign.  I'm also pretty peeved at his backdoor dealings with the traitors in Congress and his attempt to derail the agreement with Iran (not that I supported the deal but who the hell is he to tell us what to do).   I tried to overlook the fact that Israel intentionally bombed a US ship making every effort to murder every American on board.  I love when people say that they said they were sorry and they paid the US for those murders.  Really......well, thanks for giving us back our own money as restitution for murdering our servicemen.  So, naturally I believe since the people of Israel voted him back in they obviously support his positions and his hate for America minus our money of course.  I'm just surprised that so many Americans still think Israel is one of our closest allies (until the money dries up).  Israel was damaged in my eyes after Mr. Netanyahu's trip to the US behind our President's back.  It was an open snub and I took it personally. 

I tried to overlook the fact that Israel intentionally bombed a US ship making every effort to murder every American on board.

Whatever you do , don't consider extenuating circumstances . That incident happened to an unmarked ship during a shooting war against multiple hostile countries . BTW it happened about a half century ago . But no need to let go of a grudge ... right ? That BTW is exactly what is wrong with most of the Arab countries . All they have to hold onto from the past is old grudges ...

Petey - How long ago it happened is irrelevant to me.  As far as it being unmarked, yes it was unmarked but the Israeli pilots were able to ascertain it was American and when they reported that information back they were told to keep bombing.  Israel was trying to get rid of the evidence.  I would rather you just say that you don't think it's important than to try and convince me it was an accident.  It wasn't.  Let me save you some time.  I'm a woman and when we've made our mind up about something very rarely can we be swayed.  It's best just to say "your right dear" and save yourself some heartache. 

How long ago it happened is irrelevant to me.

So you should also be holding a grudge against Mexico ? Remember the Alamo !!!!

Good point.  It was a mistake for me to share how I felt.

Hey Pj, I hate the Jews, because they killed Jesus. And they DIDN'T apologize or pay reparations.

Hey Pj, I hate the Americans, because they bombed and killed Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

Hey, Pj, I hate the Americans, because their President turned away the S.S. St. Louis filled with Jewish refugees.

Hey, Pj, I hate the Canadians, because their Prime Minister when asked how many Jewish refugees he would allow into Canada at the end of WWII said: "None is too many."

I'm a really intelligent and very good person who is proud of himself.

By the way, it was eventually reported in the New York Times that Obama's administration WAS given notice of Bibi's intention to address Congress, but of course you didn't know that.

Buzz - I respect your opinion and position whatever it may be.  In my posts on this article I did not once try to belittle or disagree with someone in a condescending manner.  In fact, I didn’t disagree with anyone’s position at all.  I simply stated my feelings with a caveat that I realized my opinion of Mr. Netanyahu was irrational and for that reason I couldn’t look at it objectively.  I don’t need you to start each declaration off with my name to understand that you’re not happy with what I shared.  Even so I respect your position on this issue. 

I think the point I was trying to make is not to be influenced by specific circumstances without taking into consideration the "big picture", meaning the whole of the circumstances.  Sorry if I was being a little heavy. I also think that Ecclesiastes is a good guide, in that there is eventually a time to forgive and forget.

"How long ago it happened is irrelevant to me".

So therefore you must hate the U.S. (& by extension the Obama administration) because of the horrendous war we started with Iraq.

And just because the U.S. did in fact start that war, (even though it was started under the Bush administration), we must hate Obama for it... after all he is president of the country that started that war?

Okay - so this is kind of like the Kevin Bacon theory......Everything leads back to President Obama.  I guess if it fits the narrative you can blame my dislike for Mr. Netanyahu on President Obama.  

"Okay - so this is kind of like the Kevin Bacon theory......Everything leads back to President Obama.  I guess if it fits the narrative you can blame my dislike for Mr. Netanyahu on President Obama.".

You totally missed the point of my comment!

"  I pretty much didn't have an opinion one way or the other until he came here and spoke in front of Congress spouting his lies and his stale old gloom and doom tale (of which he's NEVER been correct) trying to influence our foreign policies."

I totally agree! After all, the United States has never, ever tried to influence the foreign policies of other countries-- so what right does Israel have to do that?

"Then he continued his blatant disrespect during his own campaign."

Well stated!

And again--obviously the U.S. is not-- and has never-- engaged in blatant disrespect of other countries-- so what right does israel have to do that? Seriously...think about it a minute... 

I agree with you about Netanyahu interfering with American policy... not that we have ever done that, LOL. 

But as for the Israelis... that isn't a fair assessment. They have a coalition government. So while the bulk of israelis are secular, and vote among the varied parties, the right wing stays cohesive, hence his hold there. By that rationale, the world should hate us for the mess in the M/E and two terms of GB. 

As for the Liberty, if the Israelis:

intentionally bombed a US ship making every effort to murder every American on board.  

If that was their intent they would have, since they could have, but they didn't. So your response there is not quite accurate. And while I don't excuse the Liberty, it was wartime, and here is a list of our "Friendly Fire" that was never compensated:

en.wikipedia

From the entire content of what you wrote, I would say your feelings go a bit deeper than just a snub  Mr. Netanyahu's trip to the US behind our President's back. 

It may go deeper and that's why I admit when it comes to Mr. Netanyahu I'm not rational.  As I mentioned, even knowing some of the history between the US and Israel I never gave it too much weight until recently.  Maybe that was the straw for me.  I hear your argument and agree with much of it but it doesn't change my feeling towards him or Israel even though I'm sure it is unfair to Israel as a whole. 

Pj,

Smiling at your rational self articulating and acknowledging your irrational self!  I appreciate your honesty and have nothing but utmost respect for you as an individual.

Thank you Lynne - That's a very kind way of saying "You're a hot mess but at least you know it".  hahaha

:o) 

"I agree with you about Netanyahu interfering with American policy..."

Is attempting to establish one's position considered interfering? Taking that to an extreme there are bigots who feel that Israel is the tail that waves the American dog - through AIPAC for example.

What if there was a ''two state solution''. Palestine becomes a country and still doesn't recognize Israel right to exist?

What has been accomplished? Will Palestinians stop the attacks on Israel, now that they are a country?

It would accomplish a valid reason for Israel to invade their new state. That would accomplish no change in what is happening anyway.

"What if there was a ''two state solution''. Palestine becomes a country and still doesn't recognize Israel right to exist?

What has been accomplished? Will Palestinians stop the attacks on Israel, now that they are a country?"

Exactly. 

Actually, Palestinian propaganda has been successful at promolgating an amazing hoax-- that they are occupied, and do not have self rule. The fact is: Palestine has been divided into 4 parts-- two are them are ruled by Arabs:

1. Israel. An independent country-- not a "Palestine" as Arabs constitute a minority of the population.  

2. Judea/Samaria (AKA "The West Bank"): previously occupied Jordan, control changed over to the Israelis in '67.  Not an independent country as its still an occupied area.

(cont'd in next comment)

(cont'd from previous comment):

3. Jordan. An independent Arab country, formerly part of Palestine. Total Arab (but not Palestinian) self rule.

Which leaves the fourth entity that was formerly part of "Palestine"-- Gaza.

4.  Gaza. Like Jordan, Gaza also has total self rule. But unlike Jordan, Gaza is totally ruled by Palestinians!  It is a defacto independent Palestinian state-- but they don't admit it for propaganda purposes. 

So one of the four parts of what was previously "Palestine" is already actually an independent Palestinian state! And so we already now how they act,  and what their goals are. (Not only by what we see-- heck, they've even told us what their goals are.)

Thumbs up for that comment, Tai-Lopez...

That was strange, the window for my reply to Tai-Lopez... said it was a reply to Solidarity Night.

Well, I do try my best to attempt to generate an air of mystery around my being...