What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Israel has committed too many crimes. It’s time to stop supporting them. (1 Viewer)

Couple ways it damages Israel:

- It opens the door to a wide array international punitive measures by other countries.

- It is damaging to the peace process and an orderly progress towards a two state solution.

The Obama administration has had the worst record on the peace process perhaps in history. It's been an unmitigated disaster really. This is just the cherry on top.
I'm really not seeing any of this: 

1. What punitive measures? At the very least since 1967, nearly every nation on Earth other than a small handful has condemned Israel. 50 years and that's changed very little. It's hard for me to see what new punitive measures are going to arise now that didn't before. 

2. I believe in the peace process, and a two state solution. I have no idea what "orderly progress" you're referring to. In the entire 2000 year history of the Middle East there has never been an orderly progress. Hard to see how this damages anything. 

3. In your last sentence, replace the name "Obama" with "Netanyahu" and you'll have something. Obama has been naive in thinking he could work out a deal with the Palestinians (though he is no more naive about this than several other Presidents) but it's really Bibi who has made things impossible in recent years with his intransigence. 

I know that nobody wants to hear her name, but in Hard Choices a certain woman was highly critical of both Obama AND Netanyahu, and is expert as anyone we've got on this issue. If I were President Trump I would appoint Hillary Clinton as a special emissary to try to finally establish a two state solution. I'm dead serious about this. 

 
I have no idea what "orderly progress" you're referring to. In the entire 2000 year history of the Middle East there has never been an orderly progress.
Why d people constantly do this?

For on thing the MEis older than 2000 years,

Secondly what you say is not true, the ME under the Ottomans was largely stable and peaceful and cohesive for several hundred years. The history of mideast discord really ticks upward withe border drawing by the English and French and at first the invasions by the Arab states but then later especially with the active exporting of revolution (terrorism) by Iran.

 
I believe in the peace process, and a two state solution. ... Hard to see how this damages anything. 
You of all people should know better.

US policy since the settlements first became an issue in the late 70s has been to tie th issue directly to the process for negotiating a 2 state solution. That has always been US policy, Doing this is essentially a statement by the US that the 2 state negotiation process is worthless and leaves the issue of settlements to the international wolves. Honestly this is like a pro-Arab version of something Trump would do.

 
You of all people should know better.

US policy since the settlements first became an issue in the late 70s has been to tie th issue directly to the process for negotiating a 2 state solution. That has always been US policy, Doing this is essentially a statement by the US that the 2 state negotiation process is worthless and leaves the issue of settlements to the international wolves. Honestly this is like a pro-Arab version of something Trump would do.
It's just words Saints. As I said I wouldn't have abstained, but it's hardly the big deal you're making it. 

 
What punitive measures? At the very least since 1967, nearly every nation on Earth other than a small handful has condemned Israel. 50 years and that's changed very little. It's hard for me to see what new punitive measures are going to arise now that didn't before. 
This is the first time ever that the UN has done it.

Though now what you say does prove too much. Why did this resolution come out of the blue, out of nowhere? If what you say is the truth why this impetus now, at this particular juncture to bring this resolution? Where did this come from?

Some notes in terms of effects:

- The UN has declared that the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and the Western Wall are actually occupied Palestinian territory. You don't think this will have an effect on future negotiations or provide potential context for future conflict? I do.

- Speaking of a history of 2000 years, do you not see the consequences of condemning Jews living in a city Jerusalem who have lived there for that long - and longer? Treating Jerusalem like every other town or city is a massive act of ignorance.

- This is specifically encouraging to Palestinian terrorists.

- The Oslo Accords are dead. Oslo provided the specific assurance that the West Bank's status would be decided bilaterally.

- This is not a resolution about something Israel did, this is about what Israel is.See point 1 about timing.

- The Israeli claim to the WB is pretty old - Sevres, San Remo, the original mandate. This resolution wipes all that away or tries to. Basically the year of Israel's right to exist could be anything, 1966, 1948, 1946, 1916, it does not matter, it is is an illegal state acting illegally.

- This is a complete reversal and rejection of prior US policy, which has never said that the settlements are "illegal".

- US ME policy was almost entirely wrapped up in the Oslo Accords, now almost every US position viz Israel and the Arab states is null and void, it is set to before 1990 really.

Basically the US has no grounds to speak on its own policy in the future and if a foreign state wishes to invade Israel or sanction it or punish it in some way it has the legal grounds to do so. Most importantly the US has no grounds to try to persuade it to do otherwise.


 


Khaled Abu Toameh Verified account @KhaledAbuToameh


Following #UNSC resolution, Palestinian Authority demands that foreign nationals living in settlements leave. ('Their presence is illegal')
- So this is one possible outcome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's just words Saints. As I said I wouldn't have abstained, but it's hardly the big deal you're making it. 
This is funny, considering the high regard I thought you held Oslo in. What is Oslo now with a statement that Israel is automatically illegal in its presence on the WB?

 
Transcript claims to show US worked with Palestinians on UN resolution



Report published in Egypt has Kerry and Rice advising senior Palestinians on strategy at UN and after Trump takes power


An Egyptian paper published what it claims are the transcripts of meetings between top US and Palestinian officials that, if true, would corroborate Israeli accusations that the Obama administration was behind last week’s UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements.

At the same time, a report in an Israeli daily Tuesday night pointed to Britain helping draft the resolution and high drama in the hours leading up to the vote, as Jerusalem tried to convince New Zealand to bury the Security Council measure.


In a meeting in early December with top Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, US Secretary of State John Kerry told the Palestinians that the US was prepared to cooperate with the Palestinians at the Security council, Israel’s Channel 1 TV said, quoting the Egyptian Al-Youm Al-Sabea newspaper.


Also present at the meeting were US National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and Majed Faraj, director of the Palestinian Authority’s General Intelligence Service.

... Kerry is quoted as saying that he could present his ideas for a final status solution if the Palestinians pledge they will support the proposed framework. The US officials advised the Palestinians to travel to Riyadh to present the plan to Saudi leaders.

... The Egyptian report fits with Israeli claims that it had received “ironclad” information from Arab sources that Washington actively helped craft last week’s UN resolution declaring Israeli settlements illegal.

...According to the Egyptian report, the US diplomats expressed their mistrust of Netanyahu, saying he wanted to destroy the two-state solution and was only interested in maintaining the status quo between Israel and the Palestinians.

The transcript showed Kerry and Rice advising the Palestinians not to make any provocative moves when US President-elect Donald Trump takes office on January 20, calling him dangerous.

They warned against such steps as ending security cooperation with Israel, pursuing legal action against Israeli officials in the ICC, or dissolving the Palestinian Authority.

They also said Trump’s administration was likely to adopt a policy on the Israel-Palestinian conflict that would be totally different to that of previous administrations going back to 1967.

When asked how the Palestinians would react if Trump carried out his promise to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, Erekat reportedly said the Palestine Liberation Organization would rescind its recognition of Israel and ask Arab states to expel their US envoys.

Erekat made precisely that threat in a December 19 conference call organized by the Wilson Center policy forum. He said he would immediately resign as the chief Palestinian negotiator, and that “the PLO will revoke its recognition of Israel” as well as all previously signed agreements with Israel. Furthermore, said Erekat, all American embassies in the Arab world would be forced to close — not necessarily because Arab leaderships would want to close them, but because the infuriated public in the Arab world would not “allow” for the embassies to continue to operate.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/transcript-claims-to-show-us-worked-with-palestinians-on-un-resolution/

- How in the world do Kerry and Obama think the Israelis will arrive at a 2 state solution now that a key leg of the Oslo Accords has become effectively broken?

By the way this is something an administration does in its first 4 months not its last 4 weeks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
3. In your last sentence, replace the name "Obama" with "Netanyahu" and you'll have something. Obama has been naive in thinking he could work out a deal with the Palestinians (though he is no more naive about this than several other Presidents) but it's really Bibi who has made things impossible in recent years with his intransigence. 

I know that nobody wants to hear her name, but in Hard Choices a certain woman was highly critical of both Obama AND Netanyahu, and is expert as anyone we've got on this issue. If I were President Trump I would appoint Hillary Clinton as a special emissary to try to finally establish a two state solution. I'm dead serious about this. 
IIRC Netanyahu ordered a cessation of settlement building in 2010. This lasted 6 months.

Netanyahu accomplished Oslo and his legacy was tied to it. What has Abbas done?

The reference to Hillary is pretty ironic since Accord is was a signature foreign policy accomplishment of Pres. Clinton's. What would she negotiate on now? Dust? I bet there isn't a single Clinton era diplomat supporting this move.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't like it at all. But will it really make a difference in 3 years? 5 years? I strongly doubt it. All the issues preventing (or pointing to) a 2 state solution remain the same. Jerusalem isn't any more threatened than it was before. 

I will say this: has Hillary won this would not have happened as I suspect she would have had veto power. This abstention represents a victory for the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party which has been trying to sever somewhat our alliance with Israel. 

So just as American politics has become extreme in every other way, so it is on this issue as well: from now on the main divide will be between the Sanders-Ellison wing of the Democrats, hypocritically leftist and pro-Palestinian, and the Republicans from Trump on down who will blindly swallow whatever Netanyahu tells them. The reasonable, thoughtful person who supports Israel but is looking for a reasonable way out of this mess and to preserve long term American interests? She lost the election, and her voice will no longer be heard.

 
We just gave Israel huge military aid - $38 billion over 10 years. Even 40% of Republicans think we give too much aid to Israel. I'm not sure what the best strategy is for the US regarding a long-term peace deal, but most Americans think the check to Israel is not cart-blanche. 

Why has Trump openly criticized the economics of military support to NATO, Japan, Korea and Saudi Arabia but not Israel?

 
We just gave Israel huge military aid - $38 billion over 10 years. Even 40% of Republicans think we give too much aid to Israel. I'm not sure what the best strategy is for the US regarding a long-term peace deal, but most Americans think the check to Israel is not cart-blanche. 

Why has Trump openly criticized the economics of military support to NATO, Japan, Korea and Saudi Arabia but not Israel?
Take your pick with Trump, it's open to speculation why he does what he does.

As has been the case for decades, the American public expresses more sympathy toward Israel than the Palestinians. Just over half of Americans (54%) say that in the dispute between the two they sympathize more with Israel, while 19% sympathize more with the Palestinians; 13% volunteer that they sympathize with neither side and 3% sympathize with both.
- Pew Research Center.

I think most politicians line up with American support for Israel. What is weird is Trump's taking the extra extreme step of supporting the move of the embassy to Jerusalem, which I suspect is at the bottom of all this.

 
It is pretty amazing when you think about it: we've won the Cold War, fought wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, saw the end of the Soviet Union, opened up China, seen the rise and fall of al-Qeada and the rise of ISIS, peace in Northern Ireland, and now we're even talking to Cuba. 

And yet this Israel-Palestinian thing never changes. It just goes on and on defying anybody who tries to stop it. The characters change over the years but the storyline is essentially the same as it ever was. 

 
Secondly what you say is not true, the ME under the Ottomans was largely stable and peaceful and cohesive for several hundred years
I just gotta comment on this. Yeah it was stable and peaceful because it was a barren wasteland (particularly Palestine). The Ottomans kept the entire region desolate with no sanitation or governance of any kind. It was a land of starvation and disease- these things are good for stability and peace! 

 
I just gotta comment on this. Yeah it was stable and peaceful because it was a barren wasteland (particularly Palestine). The Ottomans kept the entire region desolate with no sanitation or governance of any kind. It was a land of starvation and disease- these things are good for stability and peace! 
It actually works the opposite, starvation, disease and other deprivations usually lead to conflict, and yet the ME was not the place of conflict it is today for most of its history.

 
So Kerry just gave a long speech, and despite certain nuances it wasn't much different from any other speech given in the last 40 years: America wants a 2 state solution. America wants a nation of Palestine. America wants Israel protected from all threats to her security. America wants the holy sites of the 3 religions in Jerusalem protected. Etc, etc. Naturally there were very few details offered.

No doubt Trump will come in and repudiate Obama's policy on this issue. But the "repudiation" will again be all for show, because in the end Trump will also call for a 2 state solution, since there really is no alternative viable solution. 

 
It actually works the opposite, starvation, disease and other deprivations usually lead to conflict, and yet the ME was not the place of conflict it is today for most of its history.
This is generally true in big populations, but when the population is sparse these deprivations create...nothing. 

No offense but your presentation of Palestine as a place of stability under the Ottomans is totally false. It was a provincial backwater, filled with countless assassinations of leaders, savagery and barbarism. The world paid no attention, because it was not important and filled with too few people to matter. Until the Zionist movement reclaimed the land in the late 1800s, you're talking about some the poorest land mass on Earth, with almost no agriculture to speak of, most of it a useless disease ridden swamp. It was not a place of MAJOR conflict because nobody wanted it.

As for the rest of the Middle East, the same can be said for most of it prior to the discovery of oil (and it's value to industrial society.) The Islamic world tends to focus on the Crusades as the reason for their hardships, and this is so they can eternally blame the west. But it's not true; the Crusades were a mixed bag in terms of the growth of civilization. What really destroyed Arabic culture came AFTER the Crusades: the Mongols. The Mongols tore through the Middle East destroying everything in sight, and the Middle East has never recovered. 

 
This is generally true in big populations, but when the population is sparse these deprivations create...nothing. 

No offense but your presentation of Palestine as a place of stability under the Ottomans is totally false. It was a provincial backwater, filled with countless assassinations of leaders, savagery and barbarism. The world paid no attention, because it was not important and filled with too few people to matter. Until the Zionist movement reclaimed the land in the late 1800s, you're talking about some the poorest land mass on Earth, with almost no agriculture to speak of, most of it a useless disease ridden swamp. It was not a place of MAJOR conflict because nobody wanted it.

As for the rest of the Middle East, the same can be said for most of it prior to the discovery of oil (and it's value to industrial society.) The Islamic world tends to focus on the Crusades as the reason for their hardships, and this is so they can eternally blame the west. But it's not true; the Crusades were a mixed bag in terms of the growth of civilization. What really destroyed Arabic culture came AFTER the Crusades: the Mongols. The Mongols tore through the Middle East destroying everything in sight, and the Middle East has never recovered. 
I think you need to back up to your original claim about the Mideast not knowing peace or stability for thousands of years. You and I might disagree as to 'why things fall apart' but it doesn't really matter that Palestine was a Bedouin backwater, it wasn't a place of raging conflict until relatively recently.

 
Netanyahu's response speech was angry and resentful. First he accused the US of being behind the UN resolution and claimed he has absolute proof which he will present to the Trump administration. Second he focused, as he always does, on the refusal of the Palestinian Authority to recognize Israel, and made no comment about the settlements which he is increasing. Sounds ominous! The rift between the US and Israel is deeper than it's ever been! 

Don't be fooled, this is all for show. Nothing has changed. Netanyahu, for all his bluster, was right about a key point- peace is essentially up to the Palestinians. The Israelis make things worse with these settlements, but they can't make things better. We (the United States) argue with Israel because we can reason with them, and we can't reason with the Palestinians. 

 
I think you need to back up to your original claim about the Mideast not knowing peace or stability for thousands of years. You and I might disagree as to 'why things fall apart' but it doesn't really matter that Palestine was a Bedouin backwater, it wasn't a place of raging conflict until relatively recently.
OK, this appears to be a debate about terminology, and it's not really relevant to the current conversation. We'll agree to disagree and move on. 

 
Meanwhile Trump is texting his disagreement with the Obama Administration on this issue: 

Stay strong Israel, January 20 is fast approaching! 

This is very bad form. For one thing, it violates (at least in spirit) the Constitution, which states that we only have one President at a time. For another, so much for Trump being unpredictable! 

 
Meanwhile Trump is texting his disagreement with the Obama Administration on this issue: 

Stay strong Israel, January 20 is fast approaching! 

This is very bad form. For one thing, it violates (at least in spirit) the Constitution, which states that we only have one President at a time. For another, so much for Trump being unpredictable! 
Violates the Constitution? Sorry but :lmao:

 
Netanyahu's response speech was angry and resentful. First he accused the US of being behind the UN resolution and claimed he has absolute proof which he will present to the Trump administration. Second he focused, as he always does, on the refusal of the Palestinian Authority to recognize Israel, and made no comment about the settlements which he is increasing. Sounds ominous! The rift between the US and Israel is deeper than it's ever been! 

Don't be fooled, this is all for show. Nothing has changed. Netanyahu, for all his bluster, was right about a key point- peace is essentially up to the Palestinians. The Israelis make things worse with these settlements, but they can't make things better. We (the United States) argue with Israel because we can reason with them, and we can't reason with the Palestinians. 
If we can reason with Israel why have they built and continue to build settlements? We've told them a thousand times to stop.

Netanhahu knows if he stops the settlements he loses the PM job as he has to placate the wack-jobs in his coalition.

 
If we can reason with Israel why have they built and continue to build settlements? We've told them a thousand times to stop.

Netanhahu knows if he stops the settlements he loses the PM job as he has to placate the wack-jobs in his coalition.
We can't reason with Netanyahu it seems. 

 
I really don't see how Kerry's speech today could be viewed as a positive in terms of a potential peaceful resolution.  This Administration has just poisoning the well for Trump and it is shameful after 8 years of ineffective leadership related to this conflict they choose to go out like this in their final lame duck days.
It's not a positive but it's not a negative either. It won't make any difference. 

 
I really don't see how Kerry's speech today could be viewed as a positive in terms of a potential peaceful resolution.  This Administration has just poisoning the well for Trump and it is shameful after 8 years of ineffective leadership related to this conflict they choose to go out like this in their final lame duck days.
It's not a positive but it's not a negative either. It won't make any difference. 
Then why do it?

23 days left and they roll this out with zero cooperation from the Israelis?

 
It's not a positive but it's not a negative either. It won't make any difference. 
Sure it does.  These speeches are studied in policy graduate schools for future policy experts to base their opinions and expertise on.  It's just like when various House committees bring people in to question them.  Most of the time, each party knows what's being said.  It's for future reference and record.

 
We can't reason with Netanyahu it seems. 
As Rice tells the story, Olmert developed a comprehensive plan, which he presented secretly to Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, in the summer of 2008. By September, the details of Olmert’s offer included:

● Israeli transfer of sovereignty of 94.2 percent of the West Bank to the new Palestinian state. He offered additional swaps of land, and a corridor linking the West Bank and Gaza, that would bring the total Palestinian land area to 100 percent of the pre-1967 borders of the West Bank.

● A formula for dividing Jerusalem that would give Arab neighborhoods to the Palestinians and Jewish neighborhoods to Israel, with negotiators working out the status of mixed neighborhoods. Each country would have Jerusalem as its capital; there would be a joint city council with an Israeli mayor and a Palestinian deputy mayor.

 
● The Old City would be administered by an international committee with representatives from Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the European Union and the United States. Questions of sovereignty in Jerusalem would be fudged, with each side rejecting the other’s claims.

● The “right of return” for Palestinians would be limited to about 5,000. To compensate other Palestinian refugees, a fund of several billion dollars would be created, under Norwegian administration.

● The United States would protect Israel’s security not just with U.S. power but by training a reliable Palestinian security force.

And what happened to this miraculous package? Because it’s the Middle East, you know the answer: It died, with the United States on the sidelines hoping and praying but Olmert and Abbas too weak politically to take the leap.

The collapse came the moment it seemed to become real. In September 2008, Olmert showed Abbas a map charting the boundaries of the new state. According to Rice, he asked Abbas to sign the deal on the spot, but the Palestinian leader balked and asked to consult his experts first. Olmert wouldn’t let him take a copy of the map, and the follow-up meeting never happened.

President Bush tried to revive the deal when the leaders separately visited Washington in November and December, but by then Olmert was under investigation for corruption charges, and Abbas apparently decided he could get a better deal with a Democratic president. “The conditions were almost ripe for a deal on our watch, but not quite,” writes Rice.

What followed this near-miss? That’s the most depressing part of the story. Rice kept mum, but she gave the new administration details of Olmert’s offer, including a State Department version of the map. She hoped the United States would use Olmert’s plan as a building block for negotiations — and perhaps even submit it to the U.N. Security Council.

But in one of President Obama’s biggest mistakes, he decided to start negotiations all over — and to demand an Israeli settlement freeze as a test of wills. What a mistake. He was outfoxed by Benjamin Netanyahu, the new Israeli prime minister. Three years later, the peace process is a lifeless corpse.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-mideast-deal-that-could-have-been/2011/10/25/gIQAxaREKM_story.html?utm_term=.a2fc28380386

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, the Israelis today really want peace (where they actually give something up)

This deserves a :lmao:

And the Palestinians will compromise also. :lmao:

 
Yeah, the Israelis today really want peace (where they actually give something up)

This deserves a :lmao:

And the Palestinians will compromise also. :lmao:
This is how close they were in 2011 - close:

To this day, Abbas still expects America to put the deal over. The gaps appear so pitifully small: Ariel and a couple of other settlements, the question of whether parts of Silwan would be a part of the holy basin, a compromise number on refugees? “We still want bridging proposals,” Abbas told me, adding, “we want America to be a strong broker.”
- They were down to specific neighborhoods in Jerusalem and a couple very recalcitrant towns on the WB.

They were close.

It is Obama's policy to disengage the US from the mideast which is telling here. This is a total break in US policy in that this has been done completely unilaterally apart from the Israelis.

 
Yeah, the Israelis today really want peace (where they actually give something up)

This deserves a :lmao:

And the Palestinians will compromise also. :lmao:
The Israeli population has demonstrated again and again that they are willing to make major land concessions for real peace. But at this point they don't believe it will happen. Can you blame them? 

 
This is how close they were in 2011 - close:

- They were down to specific neighborhoods in Jerusalem and a couple very recalcitrant towns on the WB.

They were close.

It is Obama's policy to disengage the US from the mideast which is telling here. This is a total break in US policy in that this has been done completely unilaterally apart from the Israelis.
Yep, they were so close that neither party wanted to compromise JUST A LITTLE BIT to get the deal done.

Fabulous, Let's blame it on the third party at the table that neither the Israeli nor the Palestinians could move the final inch (or half inch each)

Makes perfect sense!

 
Yep, they were so close that neither party wanted to compromise JUST A LITTLE BIT to get the deal done.

Fabulous, Let's blame it on the third party at the table that neither the Israeli nor the Palestinians could move the final inch (or half inch each)

Makes perfect sense!
Well, it speaks to how fragile negotiations are when a conflict has lingered so long.  It also underscores how big of a mistake Obama has made on his way out.

 
The Israeli population has demonstrated again and again that they are willing to make major land concessions for real peace. But at this point they don't believe it will happen. Can you blame them? 
Yep. For up to six months last time. Then the construction crews went out again.

It's the Israeli population that keeps voting nutjobs to the Knesset. 

What does that tell you?

And conversely for Abbas/Hamas (in so far the Gaza strip ever will have elections again).

Neither side wants peace on a compromise.

Leave them to their own devises

 
Yep, they were so close that neither party wanted to compromise JUST A LITTLE BIT to get the deal done.

Fabulous, Let's blame it on the third party at the table that neither the Israeli nor the Palestinians could move the final inch (or half inch each)

Makes perfect sense!
Maybe read the articles and rest on facts?

It was Obama who 'reset' the negotiations throwing away what Condi Rice and Bush had done and insisted that the Israelis freeze settlements.

That was not on the table when Obama came in, he did that.

 
This is how close they were in 2011 - close:

- They were down to specific neighborhoods in Jerusalem and a couple very recalcitrant towns on the WB.

They were close.

It is Obama's policy to disengage the US from the mideast which is telling here. This is a total break in US policy in that this has been done completely unilaterally apart from the Israelis.
They were never close. This isn't just about Isreal's relationship with the Palestinians. It's about their relationship with the entire M.E. And there are major forces in the M.E. whose only acceptable resolution is the destruction of Israel.

 
They were never close. This isn't just about Isreal's relationship with the Palestinians. It's about their relationship with the entire M.E. And there are major forces in the M.E. whose only acceptable resolution is the destruction of Israel.
You're not basing that on the reporting and the actual events.

Look at the Oslo Accords, if what you say is true that would have never happened.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Israel froze settlements building for 10 months in 2010.

The result?

Having offered the freeze unilaterally 10 months ago to coax the Palestinians back to the negotiating table and satisfy U.S. demands for an Israeli good-will gesture, the Israeli government sees itself as the accommodating party whose gesture was never reciprocated. Rather, it took the Palestinian nine months to agree to resume negotiations, leaving virtually no time for substantive progress before the freeze expired.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top