Palestinians to seek full UN membership Sept. 23

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I know that. I have went to Fatahs site and wiki and it says on there that Fatah's goals and aims are for no Israel and Palestine to be as one.

[luckytxn 2,264]

There already is a Palestinian Basic Law which serves as the temporary constitution until the establishment of the independent Palestinian state, and it already provides for elections. (However some shenanigans went on when the U.S. and Israel would not recognize the results of the 2006 elections.)

I wouldn't expect Palestinians to choose their elected representatives based on the preferences of a foreign power any more than I would expect Israelis to.

Yes and the Palestinians voted in who they wanted to represent them in elections. They voted in a group that refused to recognize Israel's right to exist. Israel will not and I even wonder why they should try to deal with a group and people who say they are for two states but who's stated aims are the opposite. They could have gotten a dialogue going before now that possible could have led to two states but they chose to elect people that will not allow that possibility.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Yes and the Palestinians voted in who they wanted to represent them in elections. They voted in a group that refused to recognize Israel's right to exist. Israel will not and I even wonder why they should try to deal with a group and people who say they are for two states but who's stated aims are the opposite. They could have gotten a dialogue going before now that possible could have led to two states but they chose to elect people that will not allow that possibility.

No other country in the world has ever demanded that another state be forced to recognize its "right" to exist - this is unprecedented in political history. In particular for the Palestinians, it would mean agreeing that the Zionists had a "right" to expel them and seize their property.

In fact, both Fatah and Hamas have recognized that the State of Israel exists based on the 1967 lines - essentially agreeing to cede more than half the territory that had been designated as the Arab State. And it's still not enough for Tel Aviv....

[luckytxn 2,264]

I did like this too.

The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism

• WIKIPEDIA

• Print
• Cite
• Share

The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism

Mahmoud AbbasAuthorMahmoud AbbasOriginal titleal-Wajh al-Akhar: al-'Alaqat as-Sirriya bayna an-Naziya wa's-SihyuniyaCountryJordanLanguageArabicSubject(s)HistoryPublisherDar Ibn RushdPublication date1984Pages253The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism (Arabic: al-Wajh al-Akhar: al-'Alaqat as-Sirriya bayna an-Naziya wa's-Sihyuniya. Publisher: Dar Ibn Rushd, Amman, Jordan. 1984) is the title of a book by Mahmoud Abbas,^[1] published inArabic.^[1] It is based on his CandSc thesis,^[2] completed in 1982 at Patrice Lumumba University (now the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia) under the title The Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement (Russian: Связи между сионизмом и нацизмом. 1933–1945), and defended at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

In the book, Abbas argues that the Nazi Holocaust had been exaggerated and that Zionists created "the myth" of six million murdered Jews, which he called a "fantastic lie".^[3] He further claimed that those Jews which were killed by the Nazis were actually the victims of a Zionist-Nazi plot aimed to to fuel vengeance against Jews and to expand their mass extermination.^[4] The book also discussed topics such as the Haavara Agreement, in which the Third Reich agreed with the Jewish Agency to facilitate Jewish emigration from Germany to Mandate Palestine.^[2]

Portions of The Other Side have been considered as Holocaust denial by critics,^[5] especially the parts disputing the accepted number of deaths in the Holocaust as well as the accusations that Zionist agitation was the cause of the Holocaust ^[6][7] a charge that Abbas denies.^[8]

When Abbas was appointed the Palestinian prime minister in 2003, he wrote that the "Holocaust was a terrible, unforgivable crime against the Jewish nation, a crime against humanity that cannot be accepted by humankind" and that he does not deny it^[9], and said that "When I wrote The Other Side … we were at war with Israel. Today I would not have made such remarks".^[10]

Contents

• 1 Study at Patrice Lumumba University
• 2 Content of the thesis and book
• 3 Political controversy and Abbas' clarifications
• 4 References

Study at Patrice Lumumba University

Abbas attended at Patrice Lumumba University to prepare and present his doctoral thesis. The institute's director at the time, Yevgeny Primakov, appointed a Soviet-Palestine scholar, Vladimir Ivanovich Kisilev (: ) as Abbas's dissertation adviser; he communicated with his student mostly in English and Arabic. In an interview with the magazine twenty years later, Dr Kisilev remembers Abbas as well-prepared graduate student, who came to Moscow with an already chosen research topic and a large amount of already prepared material.

The Russian title of Abbas' thesis is "Связи между сионизмом и нацизмом. 1933–1945", orThe Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement.) In 1984, the book based on Abbas's doctoral dissertation was published in by Dar Ibn Rushd publishers in , , under the title The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between and.

Content of the thesis and book

In the doctoral thesis, Abbas describes the Nazi Holocaust as "the Zionist fantasy, the fantastic lie that six million Jews were killed."

The thesis also discussed topics such as the , by which the Third Reich agreed with the to facilitate Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine,.

In the book, he wrote:

"It seems that the interest of the Zionist movement, however, is to inflate this figure [of Holocaust deaths] so that their gains will be greater. This led them to emphasize this figure [six million] in order to gain the solidarity of international public opinion with Zionism. Many scholars have debated the figure of six million and reached stunning conclusions—fixing the number of Jewish victims at only a few hundred thousand."

Additionally, he claimed that the much smaller number of Jews which he admitted that the Nazis did massacre were actually the victims of a Zionist-Nazi plot. "The Zionist movement led a broad campaign of incitement against the Jews living under Nazi rule to arouse the government's hatred of them, to fuel vengeance against them and to expand the mass extermination."

In the book, he wrote:

"Following the war, word was spread that six million Jews were amongst the victims and that a war of extermination was aimed primarily at the Jews . . . The truth is that no one can either confirm or deny this figure. In other words, it is possible that the number of Jewish victims reached six million, but at the same time it is possible that the figure is much smaller, below one million."

Abbas misquoted historian to support his claim that fewer than one million Jews were killed, and quoted on the nonexistence of gas chambers.

A global survey of Holocaust denial, published by in 2004 describes the book as "denying the Holocaust".

of the Wyman Institute denied the assertion by Abbas that "The historian and author, Raoul Hilberg, thinks that the figure does not exceed 890,000", and said this is "utterly false". He wrote that "Professor Hilberg, a distinguished historian and author of the classic study, has never said or written any such thing."

Political controversy and Abbas' clarifications

As Abbas was appointed prime minister in 2003, the <a href="http://www.enotes.com/topic/Israel_Defense_Forces" title="Israel Defense Forces" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: none !important; background-attachment: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-color: initial !important; color: rgb(88, 105, 128) !important; text-decoration: inherit !important; background-position: initial initial !important; background-repeat: initial initial !important; ">Israel Defense Forces removed excerpts from the Abbas book from its website, including quotes questioning the use of gas chambers and talking of less than one million victims.^[4] According to Knesset member Aryeh Eldad, speaking at the time of Abbas' appointment, the Simon Wiesenthal Center was asked to "conceal its information on Abu Mazen's Holocaust-denial writings" prior to the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, by the Israeli Foreign Ministry and the American State Department.^[24]

According to the Anti-Defamation League, the Simon Wiesenthal Center called for Abbas to clarify his position on the Holocaust in 1995, but he did not do so at that time.^[25] Abbas' reported defence when asked about the book was telling: "When I wrote The Other Side…we were at war with Israel. Today I would not have made such remarks…Today there is peace and what I write from now on must help advance the peace process."^[26][10]

In his May 2003 interview with Haaretz, Abbas stated:

"I wrote in detail about the Holocaust and said I did not want to discuss numbers. I quoted an argument between historians in which various numbers of casualties were mentioned. One wrote there were twelve million victims and another wrote there were 800,000. I have no desire to argue with the figures. The Holocaust was a terrible, unforgivable crime against the Jewish nation, a crime against humanity that cannot be accepted by humankind. The Holocaust was a terrible thing and nobody can claim I denied it."

^[9]

First this was his assertion

In the book, Abbas argues that the Nazi Holocaust had been exaggerated and that Zionists created "the myth" of six million murdered Jews, which he called a "fantastic lie".^[3] He further claimed that those Jews which were killed by the Nazis were actually the victims of a Zionist-Nazi plot aimed to to fuel vengeance against Jews and to expand their mass extermination.^[4] The book also discussed topics such as the Haavara Agreement, in which the Third Reich agreed with the Jewish Agency to facilitate Jewish emigration from Germany to Mandate Palestine.

Then he changed

When Abbas was appointed the Palestinian prime minister in 2003, he wrote that the "Holocaust was a terrible, unforgivable crime against the Jewish nation, a crime against humanity that cannot be accepted by humankind" and that he does not deny it^[9], and said that "When I wrote The Other Side … we were at war with Israel. Today I would not have made such remarks"

[Golden Gate 530]

Yes and the Palestinians voted in who they wanted to represent them in elections. They voted in a group that refused to recognize Israel's right to exist. Israel will not and I even wonder why they should try to deal with a group and people who say they are for two states but who's stated aims are the opposite. They could have gotten a dialogue going before now that possible could have led to two states but they chose to elect people that will not allow that possibility.

My link

Most Palestinians Believe Hamas Should Change its Position on Eliminating Israel

March 2, 2006

Contrary to Hamas Position, Majority Supports Two-State Solution

Hamas Victory Driven By Desire To End Corruption

By Angela Stephens

The decisive victory of the militant Islamic group Hamas in last month’s Palestinian legislative elections (winning 74 of 132 parliamentary seats) has raised the question of whether the Palestinian public has become aligned with Hamas’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist and its stated goal of creating an Islamic state covering all of historic Palestine, including what is now Israel. Hamas has come under increasing pressure to renounce its goal of eliminating Israel, but Hamas leaders have refused.

However, new polling following the election indicates that two-thirds of Palestinians believe Hamas should change its policy of rejecting Israel’s right to exist. Most also support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Post-election polls indicate that Hamas’ victory is due largely to Palestinians’ desire to end corruption in government rather than support for the organization’s political platform.

Most Palestinians agree that Hamas should recognize Israel’s right to exist. Two-thirds (63 percent) of those polled Jan. 27-29 by Near East Consulting said Hamas should change its position calling for the elimination of Israel. Even among those who voted for Hamas, only 37 percent support Hamas’ position that Israel does not have the right to exist.

A majority of Palestinians also supports the two-state solution. In a Feb. 8-12 poll by the Jerusalem Media & Communication Center (JMCC), 58 percent of Palestinians said they favor the two-state solution, while 22 percent favor “a bi-national state on all of historic Palestine.” Three percent said they want an Islamic state (a volunteered response, not included in the list of choices given to respondents).

Apparently the vast majority of Palestinians did not vote for Hamas because of its political goals but because of their desire to rid the Palestinian Authority of corruption, a theme Hamas campaigned on. Among those polled by JMCC who said they voted for Hamas, only 12 percent said they did so because of Hamas’ political agenda. A plurality of 43 percent said they voted for Hamas because they hoped it would end corruption.

Fighting corruption was cited as the most important priority for the new government by 30 percent of respondents in the Near East Consulting poll—more than any other priority. The extent of the problem was highlighted earlier this month when the Palestinian Authority attorney general announced that some $700 million has been stolen from the authority’s coffers. Two-thirds (65 percent) in the Near East Consulting poll said they believe corruption will decrease under a Hamas-led government.

After fighting corruption, internal security and unemployment/poverty are the top priorities, cited by 13 percent and 12 percent, respectively, of those polled by Near East Consulting. Only 7 percent cited a peace settlement with Israel as the top priority.

Thus, Hamas’ success is largely a rejection of prior governments, rather than an affirmation of Hamas’ approach to dealing with Israel. Three out of four Palestinians (72 percent) said in the JMCC poll that they consider the performance of the previous Palestinian Legislative Council “bad” or “very bad.” Expectations are high that the new council will do better—77 percent expect its performance will be “good” or “very good.”

Furthermore it should be noted that Hamas did not receive the majority of the popular vote. With the Palestinians’ mixed system of proportional representation according to party support for half the seats and district seats based on population for the other half, Hamas was able to take 58 percent of all seats with only 45 percent of the overall popular vote (the 58 percent includes three independents who campaigned with Hamas).

It is common after elections for some people to shift their views to align with the winning party. But in the JMCC poll, only 41 percent said they would vote for Hamas if the election were held again—down from the 45 percent who voted for Hamas. This suggests that rather than consolidating their position with the Palestinian electorate, some may now be feeling uneasy about the outcome, suggesting that some may have voted for Hamas as a kind of protest vote rather than out of a desire or expectation that Hamas would win. Indeed, the JMCC survey found that 74 percent of those polled did not expect Hamas’ overwhelming victory.

Though other priorities are at the forefront for most Palestinians, a strong majority supports a peace agreement with Israel in principle and majorities want the new government to continue political negotiations with Israel and to honor the Oslo Accords signed with Israel in 1993, which included Palestinian self-government and mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization as the representative of the Palestinian people. The Near East Consulting poll found that 80 percent support a peace agreement. The JMCC poll found that two-thirds (66 percent) want the new government to continue political negotiations with Israel, and 52 percent said that Hamas “has to go on with” the Oslo Accords, while 42 percent said it does not. Palestinians were divided in that poll on whether peace negotiations will improve under a Hamas-led government (41 percent no, 36 percent yes, 22 percent did not answer yes or no).

While Hamas has rejected negotiations with Israel, claiming that armed struggle is the only way to achieve Palestinian aspirations, most Palestinians do not support this position. Only 18 percent said in the JMCC poll that armed struggle is the best way to achieve Palestinian national goals, while 39 percent said the best way is “through negotiations” and 40 percent said “through negotiations and armed struggle.” Thus, while 58 percent do support armed struggle as part of the approach to Israel, only 18 percent support Hamas’ position of rejecting negotiation.

Though a majority of Palestinians support armed struggle, a modest majority feels that Hamas, in its new position leading the government, should refrain from engaging in it. The JMCC poll found 52 percent saying “Hamas has to stop its operations” in Israel and the occupied territories.

The high level of support for a national coalition government and for President Mahmoud Abbas remaining in power also indicate that most Palestinians do not offer blanket support for Hamas’ goals. Fifty-eight percent of those polled by JMCC said they hope to see a national coalition government established, while 24 percent prefer a Hamas government and 14 percent want a “technocrat government.” The long-ruling Fatah party, which won the next largest bloc of parliamentary seats (45) after Hamas, announced days after the election that it is not willing to join Hamas in a coalition government. Two-thirds of Palestinians (64 percent) oppose this decision, Near East Consulting found. That poll also found that 73 percent do not want Abbas, a Fatah leader, to resign from the presidency.

Polls:

Near East Consulting http://www.neareastconsulting.com/plc2006/results/index.html

JMCC http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2006/no57.pdf

Edited September 19, 2011 by Golden Gate

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I know that. I have went to Fatahs site and wiki and it says on there that Fatah's goals and aims are for no Israel and Palestine to be as one.

I take it you have not read the Likud charter.

[luckytxn 2,264]

No other country in the world has ever demanded that another state be forced to recognize its "right" to exist - this is unprecedented in political history. In particular for the Palestinians, it would mean agreeing that the Zionists had a "right" to expel them and seize their property.

In fact, both Fatah and Hamas have recognized that the State of Israel exists based on the 1967 lines - essentially agreeing to cede more than half the territory that had been designated as the Arab State. And it's still not enough for Tel Aviv....

Actually throughout history there has been calls for recognition's of many forms. Even the U.S, demanded of the U.S.S.R. to be recognized when they said their goal was to bury us and have world domination. It is not unprecedented in the least.

OK the elections happened and told Israel that we have elected who we want. Our government wants your total destruction and we agree so now come and talk to us. Talk to us about what? Our destruction?

Edited September 19, 2011 by luckytxn

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Actually throughout history there has been calls for recognition's of may forms. Even the U.S, demanded of the U.S.S.R. to be recognized when they said their goal was to bury us and have world domination. It is not unprecedented in the least.

OK the elections happened and told Israel that we have elected who we want. Our government wants your total destruction and we agree so now come and talk to us. Talk to us about what? Our destruction?

"Recognition" that a state exists is not the same thing as recognizing a state's "right" to exist.

Please read the Likud charter (Likud being the ruling party in Israel and the party of the Prime Minister.)

[luckytxn 2,264]

My link

Most Palestinians Believe Hamas Should Change its Position on Eliminating Israel

March 2, 2006

Contrary to Hamas Position, Majority Supports Two-State Solution

Hamas Victory Driven By Desire To End Corruption

By Angela Stephens

The decisive victory of the militant Islamic group Hamas in last month’s Palestinian legislative elections (winning 74 of 132 parliamentary seats) has raised the question of whether the Palestinian public has become aligned with Hamas’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist and its stated goal of creating an Islamic state covering all of historic Palestine, including what is now Israel. Hamas has come under increasing pressure to renounce its goal of eliminating Israel, but Hamas leaders have refused.

However, new polling following the election indicates that two-thirds of Palestinians believe Hamas should change its policy of rejecting Israel’s right to exist. Most also support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Post-election polls indicate that Hamas’ victory is due largely to Palestinians’ desire to end corruption in government rather than support for the organization’s political platform.

Most Palestinians agree that Hamas should recognize Israel’s right to exist. Two-thirds (63 percent) of those polled Jan. 27-29 by Near East Consulting said Hamas should change its position calling for the elimination of Israel. Even among those who voted for Hamas, only 37 percent support Hamas’ position that Israel does not have the right to exist.

A majority of Palestinians also supports the two-state solution. In a Feb. 8-12 poll by the Jerusalem Media & Communication Center (JMCC), 58 percent of Palestinians said they favor the two-state solution, while 22 percent favor “a bi-national state on all of historic Palestine.” Three percent said they want an Islamic state (a volunteered response, not included in the list of choices given to respondents).

Apparently the vast majority of Palestinians did not vote for Hamas because of its political goals but because of their desire to rid the Palestinian Authority of corruption, a theme Hamas campaigned on. Among those polled by JMCC who said they voted for Hamas, only 12 percent said they did so because of Hamas’ political agenda. A plurality of 43 percent said they voted for Hamas because they hoped it would end corruption.

Fighting corruption was cited as the most important priority for the new government by 30 percent of respondents in the Near East Consulting poll—more than any other priority. The extent of the problem was highlighted earlier this month when the Palestinian Authority attorney general announced that some $700 million has been stolen from the authority’s coffers. Two-thirds (65 percent) in the Near East Consulting poll said they believe corruption will decrease under a Hamas-led government.

After fighting corruption, internal security and unemployment/poverty are the top priorities, cited by 13 percent and 12 percent, respectively, of those polled by Near East Consulting. Only 7 percent cited a peace settlement with Israel as the top priority.

Thus, Hamas’ success is largely a rejection of prior governments, rather than an affirmation of Hamas’ approach to dealing with Israel. Three out of four Palestinians (72 percent) said in the JMCC poll that they consider the performance of the previous Palestinian Legislative Council “bad” or “very bad.” Expectations are high that the new council will do better—77 percent expect its performance will be “good” or “very good.”

Furthermore it should be noted that Hamas did not receive the majority of the popular vote. With the Palestinians’ mixed system of proportional representation according to party support for half the seats and district seats based on population for the other half, Hamas was able to take 58 percent of all seats with only 45 percent of the overall popular vote (the 58 percent includes three independents who campaigned with Hamas).

It is common after elections for some people to shift their views to align with the winning party. But in the JMCC poll, only 41 percent said they would vote for Hamas if the election were held again—down from the 45 percent who voted for Hamas. This suggests that rather than consolidating their position with the Palestinian electorate, some may now be feeling uneasy about the outcome, suggesting that some may have voted for Hamas as a kind of protest vote rather than out of a desire or expectation that Hamas would win. Indeed, the JMCC survey found that 74 percent of those polled did not expect Hamas’ overwhelming victory.

Though other priorities are at the forefront for most Palestinians, a strong majority supports a peace agreement with Israel in principle and majorities want the new government to continue political negotiations with Israel and to honor the Oslo Accords signed with Israel in 1993, which included Palestinian self-government and mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization as the representative of the Palestinian people. The Near East Consulting poll found that 80 percent support a peace agreement. The JMCC poll found that two-thirds (66 percent) want the new government to continue political negotiations with Israel, and 52 percent said that Hamas “has to go on with” the Oslo Accords, while 42 percent said it does not. Palestinians were divided in that poll on whether peace negotiations will improve under a Hamas-led government (41 percent no, 36 percent yes, 22 percent did not answer yes or no).

While Hamas has rejected negotiations with Israel, claiming that armed struggle is the only way to achieve Palestinian aspirations, most Palestinians do not support this position. Only 18 percent said in the JMCC poll that armed struggle is the best way to achieve Palestinian national goals, while 39 percent said the best way is “through negotiations” and 40 percent said “through negotiations and armed struggle.” Thus, while 58 percent do support armed struggle as part of the approach to Israel, only 18 percent support Hamas’ position of rejecting negotiation.

Though a majority of Palestinians support armed struggle, a modest majority feels that Hamas, in its new position leading the government, should refrain from engaging in it. The JMCC poll found 52 percent saying “Hamas has to stop its operations” in Israel and the occupied territories.

The high level of support for a national coalition government and for President Mahmoud Abbas remaining in power also indicate that most Palestinians do not offer blanket support for Hamas’ goals. Fifty-eight percent of those polled by JMCC said they hope to see a national coalition government established, while 24 percent prefer a Hamas government and 14 percent want a “technocrat government.” The long-ruling Fatah party, which won the next largest bloc of parliamentary seats (45) after Hamas, announced days after the election that it is not willing to join Hamas in a coalition government. Two-thirds of Palestinians (64 percent) oppose this decision, Near East Consulting found. That poll also found that 73 percent do not want Abbas, a Fatah leader, to resign from the presidency.

Polls:

Near East Consulting http://www.neareastc...ults/index.html

JMCC http://www.jmcc.org/...s/2006/no57.pdf

And I read that too. They refused. I have to give them credit though that they stuck with their stated aims and did not waver. Fatah has renounced terrorism for sure. Their stated aims is close to Hamas though but they have said publicly that they could endure a two state solution and recently a return of the 1967 borders but their stated goals say otherwise.

I take it you have not read the Likud charter.

I can only read so much here. I will find the Likud charter and try to rad sometime.

"Recognition" that a state exists is not the same thing as recognizing a state's "right" to exist.

Please read the Likud charter (Likud being the ruling party in Israel and the party of the Prime Minister.)

I will do that but my questions are still unanswered.

[luckytxn 2,264]

AND?

Charter

• The 1999 Likud charter emphasizes the right of settlement.

"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."^[11]

Similarly, they claim the Jordan River as the permanent eastern border to Israel and it also claims Jerusalem as belonging to Israel.

"Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem, including the plan to divide the city presented to the Knesset by the Arab factions and supported by many members of Labor and Meretz."^[12]

• The 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform rejects a Palestinian state.

"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."^[11]

With Likud back in power, starting in 2009, Israeli foreign policy is still under review. Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, in his "National Security" platform, neither endorsed nor ruled out the idea of a Palestinian state.^[13] "Netanyahu has hinted that he does not oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, but aides say he must move cautiously because his religious-nationalist coalition partners refuse to give away land."^[14]

In June 2009 Netanyahu outlined his conditions for the eventual creation of a Palestinian state, including the state being demilitarized, without an army or control of their airspace.^[15]

[luckytxn 2,264]

From the Likud charter says what you do not want them to do nor I. Now why should ANY Israeli party negotiate with any Palestinian party that has as stated aims their destruction?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Self-Rule

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.

...

The Jordan River as a Permanent Border

The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan is a desirable partner in the permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians in matters that will be agreed upon.

http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

And yet the Palestinians are fully expected to negotiate with this regime.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I believe we covered this in an earlier thread. There is, indeed, no "right to exist" for a nation. That would complicate too many other areas of international law, and would be impossible to enforce (as so many things about international law are).

No other country in the world has ever demanded that another state be forced to recognize its "right" to exist - this is unprecedented in political history. In particular for the Palestinians, it would mean agreeing that the Zionists had a "right" to expel them and seize their property.

In fact, both Fatah and Hamas have recognized that the State of Israel exists based on the 1967 lines - essentially agreeing to cede more than half the territory that had been designated as the Arab State. And it's still not enough for Tel Aviv....

[luckytxn 2,264]

I believe we covered this in an earlier thread. There is, indeed, no "right to exist" for a nation. That would complicate too many other areas of international law, and would be impossible to enforce (as so many things about international law are).

OK. Thanks.

[luckytxn 2,264]

And yet the Palestinians are fully expected to negotiate with this regime.

No they are not because the regime does not want to negotiate with the Palestinians. So my original question was what would be different with what we have now if they are granted statehood. It seems nothing to me but the best answer I think I received was that the Palestinians would be able to argue their case now as a recognized state. That is good. Never mind that there is still a cross roads. Thank y'all for letting me know.