Abbas Asks U.N. for International Mideast Conference Next Year
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas appealed Friday to the United Nations to arrange an international conference early next year on the peace process, in the wake of two Gulf Arab states' recognition of Israel.
"The conference should have full authority to launch a genuine peace process based on international law," Abbas told the UN General Assembly in a recorded address.
25 September 2020, 18:16
15
There is no chance in a million years that Abu Mazen will agree to a Palestinian State at the side of Israel. All he is interested in is a Palestinian State instead of Israel.
For over 30 years Israel has offered to sit down with the Palestinians, but first Arafat and later Abu Mazen refused to discuss Israeli offers of over 90% of the territory. Instead of putting in a counter-offer at these meetings the Palestinians just picked themselves up and left, blaming the Israelis for the breakdown. I presume that it is also the Israelis fault that for 5 years, Abu Mazan, (who has illegally kept hold of the reins of the Palestinian Presidency since his term of office ended more than 10 years ago) has refused to talk with the Israelis.
26 September 2020, 07:15
20
You are full of lies phillipo... the PLO recognized Israel as a state. Israel continues to refuse recognizing the rights of Palestinians to a state. The Palestinian authority support international law as an basis of a just peace. Israel does not. You are not interested in dialogue or the truth. You are a dishonest propogandist who continues to state lies. The Palestinians have all along stated that a solution must be based on the 1967 border and a just solution to the Palestinian refugees. Their position is supported by international law. This Israeli government reject any Palestinian state in the west bank and stated repeatedly its intention never to withdraw.
26 September 2020, 17:49
20
The rubbish is what you are writing. Israel never accepted a peace that is based on international law which is Resolution 242 and the just resolution of the Palestinian issue. The closest that the Israeli government came what under the last few days of Barack. This current government is dedicated to colonizing and annexing much of the occupied territory and a perpetual control of the territory. The reason Abu Mazen rejected to meet with the Israeli government is that they keep building illegal settlement while refusing to honor previous commitments. Anyone that claims to follow the situation knows this but you are a dishonest actor who lies and obfuscate.
26 September 2020, 17:51
21
Patriot - Please explain to me when the Palestinian were greedy! I am really interested to see if you are simply repeating false stock Israeli propaganda or you actually know what you are talking about. It is about time to bury is falsehood once and for all.
27 September 2020, 08:23
00
So according to you, Eritrea and Ethiopia should not have sat down to reach a peace agreement, neither should Sudan and South Sudan, France and Algeria, and many others we can name.
27 September 2020, 13:55
11
Everyone should seek peace. Land expropriation, illegal settlements, and ethnic cleansing is not seeking peace.
26 September 2020, 12:34
02
Bigjohn "The Palestinian nation is the ONLY nation in the world where the majority of millions of people are not allowed to go back to their country"
You are completely wrong.
To their country? Whenever did they have their own country?
Not allowed to go back - Try being a Pakistani or Bangla Deshi Moslem trying to return to India, a Rohingya Moslem trying to return to Myanmar, a Turkish Cypriot Moslem trying to return to the south of the island.
Why aren't you complaining about all these millions of MOSLEMS who became refugees since 1947 and aren't allowed to return to their homes?
There are also millions of non-Moslem refugees who have become integrated in their new countries without any problems, Tibetans in India for example.
26 September 2020, 18:12
11
Phillipo - Whataboutisms is a monstrous argument used by immoral actors.
Rohingya Moslems are driven from their homelands, it is ok that WE drive Palestinians out of their homeland! So what about Lebanese? What about you Phillipo!
For these immoral actors, the solution is to either accept injustice or seek the instruments of power and do upon others what was done to them.
26 September 2020, 18:24
11
And for the record, The Israeli parliament, the Knesset, has rejected few days ago a bill presented by Yousef Jabareen on behalf of the Arab Joint List intended to ensure full equality for all of Israel’s citizens, regardless of their ethnicity or religious affiliation.
26 September 2020, 12:40
13
"Israel is an Apartheid and ethnic cleansing state".
Is this why there are 15 Arab Members of the Parliament, A Judge on the Supreme Court and many more on lower courts, Senior officers in the Army and Police Force, thousands of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers etc.
So bigjohn, you should finally stop talking a load of nonsense and learn the actual facts.
26 September 2020, 12:44
12
"Two state solution separate and unequal without the right of return is APARTHEID."
So in your opinion, this is the situation in India and Pakistan where millions were forced across the borders in both directions.
DBS is such a joke, Even though they have been told this many times, why are they continuing using their telephones and computers, medicines and medical equipment, when they know that many of the components are produced in Israel.
26 September 2020, 17:57
10
What happened in India and Pakistan was horrific and would not want to use it as example of how to settle a conflict. As for BDS, if it was a joke, the Israeli government and its supporters would not have dedicated so much resources to fighting it.
26 September 2020, 17:55
20
bigjohn - the "go back" stand is not sustainable nor is it acceptable. A solution must be for the current inhabitant of Palestine and their descendants are able to live in peace and equality.
26 September 2020, 18:00
11
bigjohn - you cannot honestly state that Syrian refugees can go back home with a regime that will torture and kill at will. You cannot honestly defend the Syrian regime while condemning the Israeli ones. Yes - there are differences. But both are despicable regimes in their own ways.
26 September 2020, 18:06
11
Israel conducted an ethnic cleansing that eliminated the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian population and was it not for a Jewish Canadian commander who refused instructions, the rest of the Palestinian population in Galilee would have been expelled as well. Those expelled were never allowed to return and had their home, lands and property stolen by Israel. Even many of those who were able to stay had their homes and land expropriated.
26 September 2020, 21:20
01
ArabDemocrat.com - You talk about Resolution 242. Please read that - it states specifically "withdraw from territories" NOT "withdraw from all the territories".
Israel in the 4 rounds of talks was willing to offer the Palestinians over 90% of the territories, but they refused. They didn't even put in a counteroffer other than their demand for all the territories.
I have a feeling that even if Israel offered them ALL the territories, they would refuse it as it would mean having to live side by side with Israel. Then when the first rockets from Gaza land in Israel, the Israeli Army would have full legal rights to retaliate in force against an attack from an internationally recognised independent country.
27 September 2020, 00:51
11
Phillipo - your feelings are irrelevant. Let us be clear here. Israel is formed on 78% of Palestine and at their most generous offer they want another 10% of the West Bank! In addition, the Israeli government wanted the Palestinian authority to extinguish the rights of refugees. Palestinians did not walk away from negotiations. Israel did. The Palestinian said they want 100% of the territories occupied in 1967 (which is 22% of their historic homeland) but they were open to some land swaps that is acceptable to both sides. As for the refugees, the Palestinian authority stated that they did not have the right to extinguish the legal rights of refugees to return to homes they were driven from but were open to negotiate a limited form of return.
27 September 2020, 00:57
11
(2) According to Secretary of State Dean Rusk commented "There was much bickering over whether that resolution should say from "the" territories or from "all" territories. In the French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning "the." We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be "rationalized"; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties. We also wanted to leave open demilitarization measures in the Sinai and the Golan Heights and take a fresh look at the old city of Jerusalem. But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war"
27 September 2020, 00:58
11
As for resolution 242, let us burry this once and for all even though Phillipo will repeat his lies again:
(1) The preamble of the resolution states "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security."
27 September 2020, 01:02
11
This current government DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY OF this. They are maximalists and they are committed to the continuing settlement and annexation. Anyone interested to know about Israel annexation plans can go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Israeli_annexation_of_the_West_Bank
27 September 2020, 08:33
00
If the French version was the correct one it would have said "tous les territoires", (all the territories) not "des territoires" (from territories).
"We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation"
but Arafat and Abu Mazen wanted at least all of that.
One can't count the number of border changes that have taken place as a result of wars even since the start of the 20th Century, so why should this one be different, especially taking into account that this would involve establishing a new country that had never existed before.
27 September 2020, 14:04
00
Phillipo ... please stop the dishonesty... the Palestinian authority is open to mutually agreed upon adjustment and swap of land which is consistent with the original intent of the agreement. Secretary of State Rusk interpretation is supported also by France. The I urge everyone to examine the link I supplied to see that the Israeli position is a wholesale annexation of large areas of the West bank and the rendering of Palestinian controlled areas to patchwork of prisons surrounded by Israel. Israel occupies 78 percent of Palestinian land and now they want more of the 22 percent. That will not stand. Israel need to decide if it truly wants peace or a period of calm before the next war. The Arabs will eventually amass the instruments of power and if there is no true peace, the balance of power will dictate new borders and new realities on the ground.
27 September 2020, 14:05
00
Also the preamble of the resolution clearly state the inadmissiblity acquisition of land by force.
27 September 2020, 14:14
00
The difference between the two versions lies in the absence of a definite article ("the") in the English version, while the word "des" present in the French version in the expression "des territoires occupés" can only mean "from the occupied territories" (the "des" in front of "territoires occupés" can only be the contraction "from the" because of the use of the word "retrait" which entails an object – "des forces israéliennes" where the "des" is the contraction of "of the" (of the Israeli forces) and a location "des territoires occupés" where "des" is the contraction of "from the" (from the occupied territories)). If the meaning of "from some occupied territories" were intended, the only way to say so in French would have been "de territoires occupés".
27 September 2020, 05:47
10
You are a Zionist shill. You post such absurd claims so as to make Israel look good in comparison to your claims.
