Leaked papers show Palestinian concession to Israel

so u would ask that question bare in mind they arnt fools

regionaly israel benefits as it softens an already weak regime in fatah.

but that is actualy bad for israel.as the devil ya know is better than the one ya dont, and fatah being the top dog in the eyes of the palestinians is better than hamas right?

on the world stage it kicks israel in the nuts as it poses them as the roadblock to peace.

but over all i share your position that something is majorly off on this.i call bullshit.not cuz im pro-israel, cuz it just feels like it has too many holes to be an accurate representation of anything meaningfull.

but dont be confused, as this isnt about hamas but fatah.both palestinian but very different groups.

hamas aint coming to the table anytime soon.wich in all reality is probably why fatah did.an attempt to be the greater palestinian authority

is that even possible?
i mean thier are three hamas's who arent in cahoots with one another.the military, the political, and the religious hamas.plus they are a terror organization.it feels more like trying to talk with al-queda than partner gov.

isnt there a hotel in belfast that couldnt be insured bcos it was definitly going to be bombed again

im not as aquanted with the ira as i am with hamas, so let me ask ya, did the ira have an agenda of governance?
were the ira vying for themselves being the government or just trying to take out religious oposition?basicaly im asking if they had the interest of the citizenry at heart.

but did that require the destruction of all opposing religions?
cuz the palestinians dont make a distinction between arab jew and european jew.it isnt like if the 25 percent european jewish population were gone they would be ok with just the arab jews.

there was a religous element prots v caths

right, but what im asking, is thier a seperation between religious leadership ie the church or is every protestant/catholic, viewed as part of the body that is the enemy?

it has always seemed to me the "troubles" were more about leadership and control than a holy war.while the opposing sides are identified by thier religious classification, it never seemed to me as if all the protestants wanted to kill all the catholics.they just didnt want them to rule over them right?or am i missing something?

Of course not, and that's the whole point. It's what made the attack on Lebanon and Gaza such a fucking joke.

They don't give a shit, which is why they support the settlements in the first place.

it begs many questions, with yours just being the overt narrative.

for instance, if the palestinians are willing to give up all but one settlement, why are settlements a point upon wich peace talks hinge?

isnt the reasoning behind the west telling israel to ease up on settlements based on how it pisses off the palestinians?wich now it seems it doesnt?

isnt it wierd (i mean REALLY fuckin wierd) to have anything that makes israel look bad be stated by fatah as lies?

lebanon was israel's vietnam in that they didnt have to get involved, but hezbollah was and is a legit threat to israel.
gaza was not bullshit.8 thousand rocket attacks is reason no?

personaly i agree that the settlements are a dick move on the part of israel a kin to antagonism.but how do you hold the position that israel doesnt want peace as shown by settlement construction when this leak states settlement construction is not a contentious point between the two sides?

i get that the entire conflict revolves around land no matter how ya cut it, and settlement building is directly a means of antagonism in that regard.but if the palestinians arent beholden to those parcels, it would make them not as much of a lynch pin in the conflict as we are lead to believe.
i think this leak is bullshit by omission.but with the info at hand, seeing it as legit, how can israel be guilty of wanting war by building that wich the palestinians dont care that they build?

But I don't buy that for one second. Neither Hezbollah or Hamas are a "threat" to Israel. The country has nuclear weapons and U.S. backing, threats to a position like that are practically nonexistent.

This needs to be made abundantly clear.

They're terrorist organizations who kill a few Israelis a year. Car accidents there have higher mortality rates. And rates of terrorism have been way down compared to previous decades by an order of magnitude, and they never received the kind of backlash Gaza and Lebanon did.

Remember the car bombs that killed dozens that happened in the 80's an 90's? How many of them warranted full invasions?

By comparison, Hamas's homemade rockets killed 8 over their entire existence.

And it's been proven now that the attack on Lebanon was deliberate, not reactionary. They literally wanted to see if they could get away with it, and they did.

As for the settlements not being contentious, you'd have to be nuts to think that. The politicians at that meeting do not represent the people who have to deal with settler aggression on their own land. In addition, more than being not contentious, it clearly shows the lengths to which Israel isn't willing to negotiate. Even when they're offered everything they're wanted, they decide that they'll just take it instead.

As Saladin suggests, you seem to conflate the position of Fatah and the Palestinian people very unevenly. I've rarely heard of Palestinian people, or I should say more accurate those of the West Bank having great faith in their government. I've only heard of notable contention and poor representation. These documents echo that to an unforeseen degree.

If the conflict centers around land, as you say (I would argue there's more to it but that's not for now), isn't settlement building a little more than antagonizing? It's a slow and stead continuation of the so-called main problem, as in, it's the main problem continuing to happen. It's the primary non-murderous course of violence Israel can take.

"but with the info at hand, seeing it as legit, how can israel be guilty of wanting war by building that wich the palestinians dont care that they build?"
by not accepting peace in the face of mass concessions?

"But I don't buy that for one second. Neither Hezbollah or Hamas are a "threat" to Israel. The country has nuclear weapons and U.S. backing, threats to a position like that are practically nonexistent."
so does Britain who are essentially on a constant terror alert these are not enemies to be fought in a war

Terror alerts are bullshit, and terrorism is never a "threat."

The very nature of it is designed to encourage fear and overreaction. This is not to say that it's not an effective tactic, but its actual viability in terms of military victory is rather limited.

In that sense, Israel is not in danger, at all. Hasn't been for decades.

Neither Hezbollah or Hamas are a "threat" to Israel

are you crazy? hamas is the most viciously aggressive palestinian organization yet, and have successfully radicalized millions into a jihadi stance that requires around the clock defense from.take down the blockade wall and israel is in some serious shit.
hezbollah is better armed than most nations.im not talking just about third world nations.hexbollah could give us a run for our money.nukes dont matter in close quarter warfare.dropping a nuke against hamas or hezbollah is akin to suicide, so it is moot.

terrorism is down for a variety of reasons, none of wich deminish the threats these grous pose.

Remember the car bombs that killed dozens that happened in the 80's an 90's? How many of them warranted full invasions?

does a standard exist for such a thing?personaly i see an attack as an attack as an attack.each attack is emblematic of what will follow if not adressed.

like i said this wikileaks drop seems sketchy.not a lie as it is all quite plausable, but it feels like massive elements are missing that are germain to the events that happened and why.i wouldnt be surprised that israel didnt take peace in regards to the settlements as they arent a big issue from the israeli perspective.but wtf is up with you calling out settler aggression.the numbers of dead from rocket attacks is way more than 8.even if ya dont trust any sources you can youtube "sderot" and get a myriad of compilation videos of the dead.it isnt just 8 kids.the aggression from settlers exists, but to not pose it side by side with palestinian agression wich is more frequent and severe?wtf man?

yes the palestinians have never ever had any leadership that they reveared.i agree and think that is well known, wich makes the banks feelings of fatah really no different than the palestinian status quoe.plus fatah was elected, so to some degree they are representative.

I've only heard of notable contention and poor representation. These documents echo that to an unforeseen degree.

doesnt an already existing narrative being re-enforced seem suspect?who the fuck knows what is going on, as no conflict has more layers of unseen depth as this one.

while of course a bazillion points of contention exist (religion/politics/ect) they all circle around the aquasition of the land in the region was my point.all points of conflict have the land as the goal in the end.so yes building settlements on israels part is an overt aggressive act, and i have absolutely no excuse for it, as it can only serve to hurt not help.but with that being said, this document(s) seems to indicate it isnt as aggressive an act as it seems.being that fatah is willing to give the settlements up, they arent that bothered by them.at least not to the degree that it is publicaly presented.

but remember the settlements are an issue for the palestinians not israel.the settlements are something the palestinians have been hanging thier agenda upon.so far as to refuse talks based on them.israel on the other hand has a completely different set of interests that place the settlements far less important.

I don't feel that current information being re-enforced should require any more suspicion than something that is completely dichotomous. So these documents should receive real scrutiny as all others from Wikileaks or wherever should. I have not yet seen evidence that contradicts these reports, and I admit that its adherence to my position has me running with it, but for the time being, I would rather discuss what is here than wait out for more confirmation, since it's not realistic to do so, and their contents really aren't that unexpected, though still surprising.

I don't think the aggression of the act is listened when the unaccountable government of a people is found to be unaccountable. I feel like this document, assuming it is true, reveals to things plainly

1) PA has been driven to the brink of accepting settlements as part of the peace process to due Israel's refusal to leave the West Bank, or PA has never truly be representational of the will of Palestinians in the West Bank and made this concession against their desires for the get-go
2) Israel has pressured PA to the point that the settlements will always remain, or still refuses to move towards piece even if PA unilaterally gives us the current central issue of peace.

Either way, the primary group painted in a bad light is Israel. Israel has not taken this secret leaked deal. Their plan to slowly take the land from under those in the West Bank while keeping hands tied up at the diplomatic table is ludicrously out in the open.

how much proliferation of death is required to meet your defenition of a threat?

was alqueda a threat on 9-11?

i respect your position despite mine directly opposing yours, but you start off wanting to only adhere to what is known not what is supposed and then you make claims based on your spectulation outside of the information at hand.

israel may very well be employing a strategy of slowly taking land, but that is your deduction not an explicit fact.personaly these leaks dont really state that much that is shocking.call me a debbie downer but the fact that these two sides sat down and accomplished nothing is just the status quoe.the only thing that is unique and interesting outside of the standard, is that israel walked away from a fairly sweet peace deal.

but as always, even in light of these documents, a slew of variables are still not understood or adressed.thus not really being anything really other than geo-political gossip.israeli silence and fatah backtracking makes it even worse and further conveluded.

both sides are dicks, and that isnt news lol.

Why must everything be set in stone to be commented on? Information can be compared and contrasted and ideas not explicitly stated can be inferred. It's the process of understanding.

This IS news. Israel could have got everything PA could have possibly offered them and they didn't take it. What the hell could they possibly want then? Only one thing. All of the land. What other complications haven't been addressed? This is the most important thing to be widely known and understood. Nothing will satisfy. International and external pressure must be placed. Israel cannot be left to act as if it will inevitably get everything it wants. That is not how negotiation or dialogue works.

terror is the basis for the existance of the USA and many other countries like ireland dont say its not effective

Why must everything be set in stone to be commented on

in my opinion that is the responability we have in respect to free speech.i mean we can say what ever we like about what ever we like, but it doesnt mean we should just cuz we can.i mean if we all did that what would fox do, as they are the leaders of speculating on speculation.

im all for inferrence as i agree it is paramount to the process of understanding, but i also feel that is more of a personal matter than something that should be public.10 people can read the same thing and walk away with 10 different views, with none being any more valid than the other.if we stick to only what "is" as opposed to what "could be", we remove the grey area that clouds substative exchanges.just how i try to approach things initialy.

here is the prime example of how theory breeds contention.of course nothing factual supports your feeling that israel wants all the land but you feel that way none the less.in putting that notion into the public theater you are adding an element that blurs the reality of events.such realities as israel gave up sanai to egypt, and gave gaza up in 2005.directly countering your position that israel's end game is land.

what other complications havent been adressed?
that is my point, that so much exist in the world of the dark we should be cautious when making claims.from israel working with the pakistanis on behalf of the afghanis in the 80's, to the alleged mosaad assassination play in dubai.as time passes we keep learning more and more about events that we thought we knew backwards and forwards.in the 80's the notion that israel was working with pakistan would seem an impossible absurdity, yet that is what was happening.

the only inferrence i am willing to make about these documents is that they seem to have massive gaps, as they dont make full sense with both israel and the palestinians coming badly.they play israel as unappeasable wich runs counter to everything israel has been over the last 62 yrs, and claims the palestinians are willing to give up massive territories wich is the basis for thier aggression all this time.something crutial seems to be missing in this.

But it's also not like my inference is unique to me. I reached the same conclusion that, as news and internet searches have yielded, is quite widely held. I can't tell where you would possibly draw the line on this point. You seem to be saying I shouldn't infer because anyone can do it and I'm adding to thought pollution. I measure that in a different way. The act of inference shouldn't be what's on trial here, at least not beyond checking that such an inference isn't based on some rational grounds. It should be the validity of what was infered.

Yes my remark was far too glib, though I was referring more to West Bank alone. At the same time, is there any conceivable way Gaza could ever be a viable state or a part of one? Or that such a regimented control on what is allowed in and out of the area really makes it autonomous in any respect?

You seem to be conflating the position of governments versus the people they govern. The acts of aggression you refer to would hardly be considered government-led on Palestine's part, and as reports state was only in the minds the PA, which once again alligns with the idea that they do not represent the people of the West Bank too accurately. Though the same thing could be said about Israel's government, I haven't heard of much internal protest against the expansion of settlements.

Yes both sides of the bargaining table look bad. But the PA was willing to give up almost all they had to try to negoiate peace and it wasn't enough. The question still remains, what is enough? What does the Israeli government want? Perhaps there ARE hidden reasons behind their refusal. Because the only one I see is that they just want to take the land under the table. So maybe at very least these documents might pressure Israel to quell this bad press and answer the question. And if they don't, the speculation will just continue, to the benefit of the status quo: Israel taking land.

you have a far better poetic pen/keyboard than i do, but you nailed it right on the head.thought pollution is exactly what i was going for.but i also respect that it is part of the thought process and evolution of ideas.i concede that my feelings about inference in this regard is a result of a stringent adherance to the literal, born out of personal sensativity.wich i cant really expect anyone else to honor above thier own perspective.i still maintain it is more damaging than helpfull, but i have to accept that i guess.

gaza could be what ever they like to be.regardless of personal opinions or perspectives, israel is susceptible to public opinion.the majority of this conflict is played out in that realm.gaza can play this game how ever they like to what ever end they like.if they abandon the "destruction of israel" as a base policy, they can pretty much do what ever they want.dont forget israel is just one of the nations at play in regards to them.for every element that israel stiffles in regards to gaza, they have an alternative option in egypt.not to mention regional support from every arab nation to varying degrees.if they choose actual pacivity, not try to sell pacivity whilst employing jihadism, they can surpass israel in all regards.

the actions of the palestinian people unfortunately do represent that of thier governments positions.sure they have the occassional rogue element we all do, but by and large the people are functioning as the government decrees.remember these arent free speech places, and they are propagandized to obscene levels.i mean look at this objectively.
a west bank palestinian born in ramallah in 1980 is now 31 yrs old.his/her entire life has been lived in the west bank, left wanting for nothing as the blockade is new and the jordanian border is wide open.where does the idea that the land next door to his/her land belongs to them, despite never stepping foot on it?where does the consuming passion towards gaining land they have lived with out thier entire lives come from?when palestinians come here to the west they dont feel a need to kill jews, despite still identifying with the palestinian plight that results in aggression.the only difference is the society at large.

we dont hear shit about israeli's protesting on behalf of the palestinians jst as we dont hear much about the palestinian propaganda campaigns, as they are too comon place to rank news worthy.just like ted williams made news cuz he was a unique example of the homeless, while the millions of homeless are ritualy ignored.every day israelis are protesting for your positions (and ill never understand why) and every day palestinians are told they must destroy israel.

i understand where you are coming from with the land grab stuff, but based on israel's actions over the last 62 yrs it just doesnt seem plausable.yes of course israel does have particular land interests, and the settlements are part of that, but that is one small part of it.the palestinians have made the settlements central to thier criteria for peace, but israel hasnt.

if you equate peace deal with land, then yes it looks like israel is asking for way too much, as the palestinians all but offered them the keys to the kingdom.but if you look as security as the israeli equivilant to the palestinians settlements issue, then it makes more sense.and that has been the unwavering narrative from israel all along.the palestinians can have what ever they like, as long as it doesnt allow for the destruction of israel.i just dont see any territory in the bank being so important to israel.especialy as they gave up sanai, wich holds more meaning in every way than any part of the bank.