I don’t see how borders and security can be discussed without getting into all the issues. But what can be discussed is what settlements go, what settlements stay and which will remain undetermined. Ted Belman
JPOST reports:
-
[Kerry said it was] “crucial to first tackle the issues of security and borders. The reason, he said, was that once this issue was resolved, the settlements would no longer be a point of contention because it would be agreed where Israel could, and could not, build.”
[..]
Despite the loud and angry protestations from the PA over the past three days regarding announcements on the eve of the talks concerning plans to build housing units in east Jerusalem and the major settlement blocs, Kerry said the move took neither the US nor Abbas by surprise.
Kerry said Netanyahu had been “completely upfront with me and with President Abbas that he would be announcing some additional building that would take place in places that will not affect the peace map, that will not have any impact on the capacity to have a peace agreement.”
What this meant, Kerry explained, was that the building would take place in the “so-called blocs in areas that many people make a presumption – obviously not some Palestinians or others – will be part of Israel in the future. [Netanyahu] has specifically agreed not to disturb what might be the potential for peace going forward.”
Kerry said the US viewed all settlements as “illegitimate” and that it would be better were these construction announcements not made.
But, he added, “there are realities within life in Israel that also have to be taken into account here going forward.”
Abbas, Kerry stated, “understood that coming into these talks.”
Dandaman Said:
I am describing what I believe is happening, not what I think should happen.I support the annexation of C with A and B remaining as they are now. Then we offer parts of C to the Arabs so they have more contiguity. If they won’t make a deal, which is likely, then we just continue with all of C. This means that we end the peace process which gives too much power to the US and the EU and we end Oslo. We also offer the Arabs compensation to leave. If enough of them go , say 50%, then we annex A and B if it makes sense at that time.
I don’t see how borders and security can be discussed without getting into all the issues. But what can be discussed is what settlements go, what settlements stay and which will remain undetermined. Ted Belman
Ted, I can’t escape the impression you’re advocating for the TSS, land for peace, the ‘67 borders with swaps and for the “success” of the current “peace” talks. If I’m misinterpreting your position, please let me know.
@ drjb:
This is the part that makes me scream. The ‘ smile’ being on netanyahu’s face, as half of the territory is being lost…. I could understand. But were the smile to be on ‘Israel’s’ face as in the people of Israel….that is where you,lose me….
When will this nation wake up from its slumber?.
I hope that like the sacrifice of Isaac, thwarted in the last minute, so too now, a miracle will happen.
As I read on all the pronouncements of all parties involved, it is crystal clear to me that, under Israel’s present leadership, Israel is about to get screwed!
Israel is about to lose half its territory and will do so with a smile on its face. Hard to believe, but true.
Very sad.
Whenever I hear John Kerry speak, the following Yiddish phrase comes to mind, “Noch a chocham! – Another scholar!”.
See entry Chochem
When I hear John Kerry speak, the Yiddish phrase “Noch a chochom – Another scholar!” comes to mind.
The Palestinians have the delusion that any Israeli government will uproot every single Jew from Judea and Samaria and east Jerusalem – you’re talking about one in ten Israelis!
That is a non-starter and the Arabs have to accept Jews living where they are as a fact of life. If they don’t want to accommodate Israel on the matter, the prospects of an agreement will be still-born.
It takes two sides to make peace. We have yet to see ANY indication at all the Arabs want peace.