The Home of Atilla

“Politics should be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage.” Dwight D. Eisenhower

Peres: “It would be very hard to reach an agreement”

Posted by Atilla89 on July 6, 2008

Yes this is your one-time burst of sanity from the Israeli government. Shimon Peres, the peacenik that everyone believes he is, actually said something that might be considered intelligent today. He decided that he agreed with ‘…a well-known “dovish” attorney, who said Israel had no chance of reaching an agreement with the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas’ leadership.’ How could this happen to the most famous of all Oslo participants? Maybe he is becoming a little more realistic in his political views?

Well you would be half-right if you believed that. Peres, however, ignores the elephant in the room once again and dismisses the Palestinian Authority National Charter, which believes that:

‘The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif).’

And instead of bringing this up, Peres said ‘…Abbas had no support among his people, no power to carry out security agreements and that any agreement Israel and the PA made crumbled a day later due to the PA’s weakness.’ These reasons that are suggested are all true, but it would not be correct to say that they are the main stumbling blocks in the many negotiations that happen between the PA and Israel. What Peres is missing is the fundamental reason why these negotiations will fail. It is not because the PA has no security forces they can deploy in the West Bank or any other similar problems, this can be fixed. It is because their fundamental beliefs and ideals are against it.


2 Responses to “Peres: “It would be very hard to reach an agreement””

  1. markus said

    You basically argue in favour of Israeli vs. Palestines. Which you basically say, they are to be denied of a state (since you agree with Peres insofar that the palestines do not want peace, because their “fundamental beliefs and ideals are against it.”

    Then, it would be best to stop negotiation, as you don’t believe there can be any agreement whatsoever. So why discussing it?

    The best way would be a new state which does away with the idiotic separation between Israeli and Palestines, and to instead work out ways how a mutual existance can be possible in such a new state.

  2. Atilla89 said

    I discuss it because its interesting and I want to hear what other people, such as yourself, think.

    At the moment, I truely believe that creating another state is pointless. Why? Well one would only have to look at the unilateraly withdrawel of Israel from the Gaza Strip. As soon as the IDF leave, a terrorist organisation takes over with the aim of destroying Israel. I think that would be the most likely outcome if the US and Israel stopped propping up Abbas in the West Bank. Mutual existance can only occur when both sides are prepared to stop killing each other, the emphasis at this point is on the Palestinians, however this is difficult because Abbas has virtually no power of his terrorist gangs in the West Bank.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: