Blair: Israel-Palestinian peace talks to resume

Interestingly, Mr. Blair does not mention how to get Hamas on board. That's a pretty big elephant in the room.

Don't turn your back on Israel. That's about how long it takes them to renege of their agreements.

I'd like to say I have high hopes, but... < :-)

adaydream: That's about how long it takes them to renege of their agreements.

Why don't you list the agreements you're referring to and explain how they reneged.

"Quite correctly, the Palestinians say there is no point in negotiating while Israel expands the settlements. By the time all these settlement are built on stolen land their "country" will be as big as a postage stamp. Saaid Hariri, "Israel can't claim to be interested in the peace process without doing anything tangible in this regard," (Hariri said,) noting that the Israelis were currently gripped with division. The Lebanese prime minister, who was taking part in an interview with Italian channel RAI News 24 on Friday, added that while "Arabs want peace," Israel only seeks war with "Lebanon, Syria and Iran."

Meh, how many settlements are in Gaza now? How many in the Sinai? If the Palestinians get a peace deal going with Israel, the present settlements won't have made any difference as they will have been dismantled. However, Hamas is not willing to talk about real peace, not 'truces' and 'ceasefires' and no one seems to ever talk about this. Claiming 'Arabs' want peace while at the same time ignoring Hamas' stated position on the matter is pretty unrealistic.

Hamas' stated position is that Palestinian land has been stolen, and its return non-negotiable, and a prerequisite for any deal with israel. Syria has the same position on Golan. Hamas is the legitimately elected government. Why is it unrealistic? It's no different than Japan's claim to the four Northern islands, or Takeshima? Why is it, just because it is a Palestinian claim, is it unrealistic? Justice is justice is justice, not just because Tel Aviv or Washington graciously concedes it. To even utter that sentence is to betray the lie behind it.

ALL land that was taken on and since 1967 is Palestinian. They are not "disputed" territiries, they are Occupied Palestinian Territories according to the International Court of Justice. Not only should Israel stop building settlements, Israel must return to its pre-1967 borders before any negotiation start.

Israel will never give back Jerusalem, any peace agreements must acknowledge that fact. Anything else is blah, blah, blah...

My gut tells me that Tony Blair will have little progress to show for his efforts. The Palestinian people are experiencing their 42nd year of military occupation. The siege by the Israeli army and the economic blockade have devastated their daily lives so that ‘normal’ life is impossible. Israel operates an entrenched system of racial Apartheid against its own non-Jewish citizens and has been illegally occupying Palestinian land in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights since 1967. It has sought to further annex these lands and has systematically transferred its own civilian population into these occupied territories in contravention of international law. Israel continues to build the illegal Apartheid wall, annexing vast swathes of Palestinian land in the West Bank and creating Palestinian ghettos, despite the ruling of the International Court of Justice that it is illegal. 180 Palestinian organisations and unions, in response to Israeli onslaught, have called for a campaign of Boycott, Divestment and

I reckon israel-Palestinian Peace Talks will only succeed when israel feels it has too much to lose.

libertas: Israel operates an entrenched system of racial Apartheid against its own non-Jewish citizens

More neo-Marxist nonsense. Israel has a diverse population. Muslim Arabs living in Israel have one of the highest standards of living in the ME. They are Israeli citizens, vote and are represented in the government. They receive access to the same public education and medical care. There are no state-sponsored segregation laws and they can pray freely wherever they are. Everyday Muslim Arabs line up at the Israeli borders to get in, not out.

But if you want to talk about apartheid, then you needn't look further than the women of the Muslim world. They represent half the population and are treated like third class citizens. They are denied an education, voting rights, representation in government, fundamental liberties, etc. Apparently there's no political gain for the neo-Marxists to concern themselves with this true definition of apartheid.

Hamas' stated position is that Palestinian land has been stolen, and its return non-negotiable, and a prerequisite for any deal with israel.

Hamas believes the state of Israel is part of that land aobut which you are talking.

To even utter that sentence is to betray the lie behind it.

Hamas needs to be willing to discuss peace before they get land. They are not. Peace is not truces and ceasefires. Peace is real peace.

The Palestinian people are experiencing their 42nd year of military occupation.

Yeah, sure. Let's just forget (as everyone does) that the same lands were occupied by Egypt and Jordan and the only chance the Palestinians have had for getting it back was when they were occupied by Israel.

Israel must return to its pre-1967 borders before any negotiation start.

With no guarantees of a real peace? Unilaterally? Hmmm...they did that in Gaza in 2005. Did not get them real peace. Peace talks, then there will be a Palestinian state.

A couple of points regarding efforts to ignite peace talks. I have noticed an odd coincidence in which those who believe Israel does not have a right to exist in any form also believe Israel should give back land before negotiations even start. Hamas is in this camp as are those who support Hamas' position. Expecting Israel to be willing to take a large risk on the very existence of their country is, in fact, unrealistic.

As to the comments (completely off-topic, BTW) about Israel's domestic situation. These comments are made by the same people who praise Iran's domestic situation. So, I think one may be excused for taking them as mere rhetoric designed only to blast Israel with little regard for the actual content of the comments themselves.

With no guarantees of a real peace? Unilaterally?

We went over that already. Decades ago, when Israel learned that Arafat was ready to accept real peace, the Israelis went after him with a vengeance. The Israelis do not want real peace. Peace is the last thing they want.

I have noticed an odd coincidence in which those who believe Israel does not have a right to exist in any form also believe Israel should give back land before negotiations even start.

Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land according to the International Court of Justice. Not only is Israel still illegally occupying Palestinian land, it is expanding and stealing more. Israel must return to its pre-1967 borders before any negotiation start, that part is not negotiable.

We went over that already.

Yes, and you were mistaken. Arafat was not ready to accept any deal.

Israel must return to its pre-1967 borders before any negotiation start, that part is not negotiable.

Then there were never be negotiations. However, the fact remains that those who believe Israel does not have a right to exist in any form also believe Israel should give back land before negotiations even start.

I would like to be clear. I believe both Palestine and Israel have a right to exist. I further believe all sides, including Hamas, should start negotiating for peace immediately.

sabi: when Israel learned that Arafat was ready to accept real peace

It was Arafat who turned down the Camp David peace agreement. The "Palestinians" accepting peace with Israel would mean accepting its existence, which they refuse to do. They could have had their own state many times, but as it's said "the 'Palestinians' never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

Israel must return to its pre-1967 borders before any negotiation start, that part is not negotiable.

Then there were never be negotiations

Exactly, because Israel does not want to negotiate. Returning to its pre-1967 border is the minimum Israel must do. In fact it should be forced to return to its pre-1967 border through sanctions and if necessary military force.

Every year, the entire UN General Assembly vote for resolutions that say exactly, a two-state solution with the pre-1967 borders. All member nations vote for such resolutions, except for the US and Israel plus, in recent years, a few tiny pacific islands. Even the International Court of Justice ruled that the land taken in 1967 belongs to the Palestinians; it is not disputed land, it is Occupied Palestinian Territory, it belongs to the Palestinians.

Not only is Israel still illegally occupying Palestinian land, it is expanding and stealing more because they do not want peace.

Hamas has signaled that it is willing to recognize Israel within its pre-1967 border.

It was Arafat who turned down the Camp David peace agreement.

There are no serious scholars who support that. I suggest you have a listen to an interview with Norman Finkelstein and Shlomo Ben-Ami (he was there). You can find it on YouTube.

Exactly, because Israel does not want to negotiate

Please re-read what I wrote. Negotiations first, then the Palestinians get their state. If what you say is true and that it is not negotiable that they should get land first, then there will be no negotiations. However, this will not be because Israel does not want to negotiate. It will be because the Palestinians share your opinion and do not want to negotiate.

Returning to its pre-1967 border is the minimum Israel must do.

No, it is not the 'minimum'. It is not even decided that they must return to the exact borders. That is not what the resolution says.

Even the International Court of Justice ruled that the land taken in 1967 belongs to the Palestinians;

Ironically, before that when it was occupied by Jordan and Egypt, no one said anything. So, because of Israel taking over those territories, the Palestinians have their first chance at a nation. Thanks to Israel.

it is expanding and stealing more because they do not want peace.

The borders of the area have not changed. Settlements in Gaza and Sinai have been dismantled and given back in return for peace deals. Since the Palestinians, as a united people, cannot manage to negotiate for the same kind of peace, they have not gotten land nor have they gotten the settlements dismantled. History shows us clearly that Israel has been willing to trade land for peace and that peace continues to this day.

Hamas has signaled that it is willing to recognize Israel within its pre-1967 border.

They have also signaled an unwillingness to recognize Israel within its pre-1967 borders. In addition, they have never said they would be willing to have a true peace, instead they merely bleat on about 10 year truces that they would only consider after getting all the land they desire back. After 10 years, it would then be open season on Israel again. I know this policies causes salivation amongst some. However, it is not a way toward peace. It is a continuation of what we have had so far.

There are no serious scholars who support that.

It is a fact. Arafat never was ready to accept a peace deal.

If what you say is true and that it is not negotiable that they should get land first, then there will be no negotiations.

Its not a question of getting land. It IS their land, Israel is illegally occupying it. The UN, International Court of Justice, and every country in the world (except Israel, US, and a few tiny pacific Islands) all agree that it is Palestinian land.

The things that must be negotiated are things like the right of return and compensations.

Arafat wanted to make peace, but Israel would not let him. That is a fact.

Its not a question of getting land.

Of course it is. Fatah would like the West Bank and Gaza. At this point, Hamas would like that plus all of Israel.

What the international community, the UN, the International Court of Justice and the rest of the world understand is that there must be negotiations towards peace. The idea is not new: Land for Peace.

You seem totally against this idea. However, that is the Palestinians' only choice. Make peace and get their country or don't make peace and things stay the way they are. Details of the arrangement would need to be decided during negotiations.

Arafat wanted to make peace, but Israel would not let him.

Incorrect.

That is a fact.

No, it is not.

Israel has made peace and traded land for peace. The prececent is there. It is up to the Palestinians to take advantage of this precedent.