Abbas To Press Obama on Two-State Deal
AFP reports:
Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas said on Sunday he will tell US President Barack Obama this month that resuming peace talks with Israel hinges on its approval of a two-state solution.”We will go the Washington on May 28 to talk with the US administration about our conditions to resume peace negotiations with Israel in the future,” Abbas was quoted in a palace statement after meeting with Jordan’s King Abdullah II.
“Our conditions and demands are based on the two-state solution and Israel’s halt of settlement building as well as house demolitions. These are our demands and the demands of the Americans themselves to resume the talks.”
Abbas is lucky: the current occupant of the White House agrees with his conditions. President Obama wants Israel to endorse the founding of a Palestinian state. If not, Tel Aviv’s relationship with Washington may become more troubled than ever before.
New Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has a different take on the matter, however. He believes that Palestinians should be ‘independent,’ but he has yet to endorse any plan that would give them a state of their own. And for good reasons: a Palestinian state could very well be a radical state, in a constant state of war (pun intended) with its neighbor.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
How do we categorize the fighters of the wars of 1775-1783, the wars of American Independence? The forces from the 13 colonies assembled and fought an asymmetric war against the organized forces of England. When the members of these American forces were captured by the English forces, often they were killed and labeled as terrorists.
How do we label the defense-liberation forces of Lebanon and Palestine? Do we call these terrorists because they have been fighting those who have occupied their land, killed their families and children? As Americans would we fight for the defense of our homeland? Those who help the people of Palestine and Lebanon are called the sponsors of terrorists. France helped our forces to fight the British forces. Were French sponsoring the American terrorists?
The success or failure of the administration of President Obama with Israel would determine the nature of future stability for the Middle East. Any rational and humanistic resolution of Palestinian dilemma has been non-starter with Israel. The problems of Palestinian subjugation to Israel occupation are the seeds for an unstable world including the Middle East.
The Palestinian issue, over 40 years of baffling by Israel throwing one excuse after another to derail any prospect, is independent of any other world concern for the US administration. Secretary of State Clinton should not allow Israel to dictate the foreign policy of the United States. USA can?t afford war after war to support failed attempts to stabilize the region. Palestinians have paid a high price for failed attempts to consider the human side of the Palestinians struggle for peaceful life.
An process to stablize the Middle East:
Stable Middle East: Iran, Israel and Nuclear Bomb
http://stmichaeltraveler.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/stable-middle-east-iran-israel-and-nuclear-bomb/
The problem of Iranian nuclear fuel cycle is just a diversion from the real problems in the Middle East, the problem is a humanistic resolution of Palestinian dilemma.
I am sure there have been atrocities and injustices on both sides.
But now is not the time for recriminations, justifications or arguements.
Those have been going on for the past 50 years and here we are today…worse off than before.
The goal is for both sides to find a peaceful solution in order to live side by side.
Anything that detracts from that goal is nothing more than fruitless debate.
If both sides start thinking in terms of what they would be willing to sacrifice for peace instead of making demands of the other side…something might actually happen