Palestinian Leaders Find Yet Another Reason to Balk

[Timber Loftis]

Okay, I'm no fan of the Israeli settlements. But, Palestine is saying it demands a 100% return of ALL lands. Well, (A) it ain't gonna happen, and (B) that's not what we call "compromise." If Palestine is demanding full Israeli withdrawal, then its leaders are right -- there will be no peace process. But, note that it isn't the USA that has ended it. Bush just recognizes a reality. If the Palestinians refuse to compromise any at all, then isn't that the same as just making demands? Why bother trying to "negotiate" at all?
__________________________________________________ ___________________

Palestinians and Other Arabs Assail Bush for Stand on Israel
By GREG MYRE

Published: April 15, 2004


ERUSALEM, April 14 — Palestinian leaders were sharply critical of President Bush on Wednesday, saying his support for Israeli positions dealt a crippling and perhaps fatal blow to what remains of current Middle East peace efforts.

The Palestinian prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, and other prominent Palestinians said Mr. Bush had now gone further than any American president in backing Israel on the most contentious issues — Jewish settlements, future borders and the fate of Palestinian refugees.

Advertisement


"I believe President Bush declared the death of the peace process today," said Yasser Abed Rabbo, a former Palestinian information minister.

Mr. Bush met with Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, at the White House and afterward reaffirmed his support for an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

But Palestinians focused on new positions that Mr. Bush articulated: that Israel should not have to return to borders it held before the 1967 war, suggesting it could retain some settlements built on West Bank land, and that Palestinian refugees should be settled in a future Palestinian state, which would undercut their demand to return to their former land, which is now part of Israel.

President Bush "is the first president who has legitimized the settlements in the Palestinian territories," Mr. Qurei said in Abu Dis, just outside Jerusalem. "We as Palestinians reject that, we cannot accept that."

Reactions elsewhere in the Arab world were also hostile to Mr. Bush.

In Syria, Imad Fawzi Shueibi, a professor of political sociology at Damascus University, called Mr. Bush's statements "a bad declaration, especially at this time."

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, who arrived in Texas last week to visit President Bush, spoke Wednesday at Rice University. Though his remarks were warmly supportive of Mr. Bush, he was critical of the president's support of Israel's plans, saying, "Unilateral steps can't be substituted for international solutions."

Palestinians said Mr. Bush's comments broke with longstanding United States policy not to prejudge such sensitive issues. "For the first time, American policy violates the basic conditions for peace," said Hanan Ashrawi, a leading Palestinian legislator and spokeswoman.

Mr. Abed Rabbo contrasted Mr. Bush's statements with a letter that George H. W. Bush sent to the Palestinians when he was president in 1991. "The letter contained a very clear statement that key issues would be determined through negotiations, and not through unilateral Israeli decisions," Mr. Abed Rabbo recalled. Palestinians said Mr. Bush's remarks would encourage Mr. Sharon to continue building settlements in the West Bank. They say large clusters of Jewish settlers will make it difficult, if not impossible, to create a viable Palestinian state.

Another sensitive issue for the Palestinians is the status of Palestinian refugees who fled or were driven from their homes in the 1948-49 war, which erupted just after Israel's founding. Along with their descendants, they now total some four million.

Israel says a flood of refugees would undermine the Jewish character of the state, and has always firmly resisted any large-scale return.

Mr. Bush sided with the Israelis, saying the refugees should be accommodated in a Palestinian state.

Mr. Bush "wants the refugees to return to a Palestinian state that will not exist," said Mr. Abed Rabbo.


Neil MacFarquhar contributed reporting from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for this article and Ralph Blumenthal from Houston.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Okay, I'm no fan of the Israeli settlements. But, Palestine is saying it demands a 100% return of ALL lands. Well, (A) it ain't gonna happen, and (B) that's not what we call "compromise." If Palestine is demanding full Israeli withdrawal, then its leaders are right -- there will be no peace process. But, note that it isn't the USA that has ended it. Bush just recognizes a reality. If the Palestinians refuse to compromise any at all, then isn't that the same as just making demands? Why bother trying to "negotiate" at all?

I know just what you mean.
Every time someone gets their car stolen and the thief and location of the vehicle are identified, the owner has this annoying habit of demanding that the entire vehicle is returned!
I mean, jeez, don't they realise that the garage that the car was stored in costs money? And the thief spent a lot of time casing the car - and time is money. Then there's that extra gas that he put in the tank...He has expenses and the owner ought to recognise that.

You know, if the owner of the stolen car was willing to allow the thief to keep the steering wheel, tyres and CD player, then it would end a lot of aggravation.
But those car owners can't recognise reality - don't they realise that possession is 9/10ths of the law? Can't they just accept that might is right?

So what if the car is no longer viable without the steering wheel and tyres? They'll get the car back won't they? People can so unreasonalbe. Burn 'em all, that's what I say! If you can't accept that theft is acceptable, you just don't belong in civilised society.

[Timber Loftis]

Your smartass-ness aside, skunk, your simple points and analogy don't bear out in this instance. I agree that Israel should have never taken the land, and I have been quite vocal about the settlements and the walls.

However, once it's been done, once that harm has occurred, negotiations are about repairing as much of that as is possible.

Here's the better analogy, one I see every day. Let's say I harm you. Steal your car and wreck it, punch your 2 front teeth out, kick you in the shins, make tennis string from your cat, whatever. Now, you sue me. Okay, now you sit down to negotaiate with me to try to reach a settlement -- because litigation is so expensive everyone loses.

Okay, you say you want your teeth back, your cat back, a new car, and some shin guards for good measure. Well, (1) you can't have all that stuff back -- I sold your teeth and used your cat to string my tennis racket, so you'll never get them back. The best you can get for them is some sort of compensation that is *not* what you originally lost, but is a surrogate for what you lost. We have that problem in Palestine.

Additionally, (2) I point out to you that if you want 100% of your loss back, I'll take my chances with the jury. Tell you what, I'll give you some money for your teeth, get you a new cat from the pound, and pay 1/2 of what your car was worth -- oh, and I'll buy the frikkin shin guards. See, that's not 100% of what you lost -- it's much less in fact. That's why it's called a NEGOTIATION. If you want the whole shebang back, well, go get it for yourself -- you ain't ever gonna get me to just GIVE it to you. I'm the guy who stole your car, killed your cat, sold your teeth, and kicked your shin, after all. How agreeable to you expect me to be?

So, on the one hand, we can sit atop our moral high horses and make moral absolutisms while we scowl and the unwashed evildoers of the world. However, if we want these people, niether of whom has clean hands, to work together, we need to let them know that each side has to give a little. Negotiation is about sharing the pain.

[Davros]

It just sounds like you are saying we should negotiate to appease agressors TL. The argument that they guys have been occupying the land that is not rightfully theirs for a while now so why not give it to them is a "might is right" one.

Do I think that Palestine have been doing the right thing in this endless headache either - no. Do I think that the US taking this stance is going to stop another endless stream of desperate suicide bombers into Israel - no. Do I have a solution - no. Is this stab at the ouija board by GW going to make things worse - yes.

[Skunk]

Oh come on TL - we are not talking about property that can not be recovered because it's been sold on to persons unknown and can't be found. We are not talking about property that has been irreversibly damaged either.

The LAND is still there, in the hands of those that stole it. Why does the rightful owner have to negociate and allow the thief to keep a part of it?
Yes, we can talk about damages - but the Palestinians are prepared to drop the damages claim for the destruction of their remaining property, immense loss of life and severe damage to their economy. They were even prepared to drop the claims of those whose property was forcibly taken from them during the pogroms before the 1967 land-grab.

If you come back from work one day to discover that someone had broken in and was living in one of the bedrooms - would you say to him: "If you move to the smaller bedroom you can stay" - or would you not rest until he was removed from YOUR property?

[Timber Loftis]

Look, I'm not talking about what is right or just. Negotiation isn't about that. I'm talking about getting each side to make concessions. It's quite simple. Israel isn't going to give 100% back, period. As a mediator, one must convince both sides to see the weaknesses of their case and make concessions -- share the pain.

As for the "someone's been sleeping in my bed" analogy, like all the analogies my answer is the same: I would get everything I possibly could. If faced with insurmountable odds in getting my full apartment back, I would at least try to salvage what space I could. I'd let him keep one bedroom if that result was better than the best I could make him do otherwise -- especially considering the costs of making him do it. I certainly wouldn't say "this is the end of negotiations," leaving him with the bigger bedroom -- unless I had a real hammer to crush him with.

It's a common sense statement, guys.

[Skunk]

I think that we're seeing a cultural difference in attitudes here.

In the US the 'Plea bargaining' system is considered to be normal and good practice - for most of the rest of the world, 'plea bargaining' is about letting criminals off the hook to save the state money with justice taking a back seat.

I don't believe in negociating with criminals, whether they are terrorists, kidnappers or thieves. When you allow the perpetrator to gain from the crime, you only encourage more of the same, and add insult to the injuries of the victims . That's an attitude of this 'old european' that no-one can change.

[Timber Loftis]

It's not "plea bargain," which applies in the criminal context. It's negotiation, and it's the way negotiation works the world over. It's the way a French company I work for negotiates, and it's the way British companies I work for negotiate. This is not a situation where both parties can be made whole.

Here's the cultural difference I see. Because Europeans can't climb out of the ivory towers or off their moral high horses long enough to see that absolutes and the "just" answers don't work many times in practice, they are left hamstrung to do nothing other than argue something to death. This insistence on doing things THEIR way and taking FULL action prevents them from taking any action whatsoever. There's a (US) football metaphor that comes to mind -- at least move the ball forward. You may not get 100 yards down the field, but 70 yards is better than 0. There's always the next play.

Sharon/Israel ain't giving up all the land. And, while Palestine whines and hollers over this fact, Israel is scooping up more land daily, or at least building walls to cordon off the land it's already scooped up. Faced with the choice of NO land as opposed to SOME land, I'd think they'd be smart enough to take what they can get. There's always tomorrow's negotiations.

To use another metaphor -- you don't always just get one bite at the apple. And, you got to take bites at it when you can.

I don't believe in negociating with criminals, whether they are terrorists, kidnappers or thieves. When you allow the perpetrator to gain from the crime, you only encourage more of the same, and add insult to the injuries of the victims . That's an attitude of this 'old european' that no-one can change.

So, we should abandon all negotiations with Palestine? I kinda agree with that though, but I think it's not what you meant. Please say what you meant.

[Skunk]

Saddam wasn't giving up any of the land in Kuwait when he invaded - were Kuwait's supposed to just give up? After all, they had no hope of achieving freedom by themselves.

What is different about the two occupations? NOTHING - so this must mean that you were not in support of the international community kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. correct?


Oh and another thing - those generalisation about europeans amounts to country-baiting. Please clarify the statement or apologise.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Skunk: Saddam wasn't giving up any of the land in Kuwait when he invaded - were Kuwait's supposed to just give up? After all, they had no hope of achieving freedom by themselves. What is different about the two occupations? NOTHING - so this must mean that you were not in support of the international community kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. correct? Oh and another thing - those generalisation about europeans amounts to country-baiting. Please clarify the statement or apologise.

Are you not up to snuff today, skunk. This Kuwaiti argument is waaay out there -- you may as well argue kumkwats against me. The differences are: (1) Saddam was in Kuwait for all of, what, a few months, and (2) Saddam didn't have the might to resist being kicked out. Israel, on the other hand, has the capacity to do whatever the hell it pleases in the region, and has been on the land in some places for 40 years. Oh, and the whole world don't see it as enough of an issue to build a coalition and send troops to kick him out.

As for an apology about country-bashing, you started it. So stick it. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.