danivon wrote:The PA and Hamas have entered into what is in effect a peace deal, but that doesn't mean that the PA is ruled by Hamas policy. The actual transitional government agreed to is made up of 'technocrats' and is primarily responsible for setting up the elections next year (if they happen). What happens after the elections may well be salient, but they haven't been held yet. In the meantime, Abbas is still there to be talked to and is not Hamas at all.

And no, I would not. If I were Israel's PM, I'd crack down on illegal settlement activity, and open channels to the PA and anyone interested in peace.

It looks like excuse-making. Someone at some point has to agree to at least talk. Just because you (and Binyamin) equate dialogue with surrender doesn't make it so.

Edit - by the way, what was Netenyahu's excuse before the agreement? That was only arranged in the last few months, but the man has had longer than that.

US and Israel have been negotiating a settlement freeze for several months. The Obama administration demanded a complete settlement freeze but Israel would only agree to a freeze limited in time and scope.

A senior Israeli diplomat said Israel agreed to not building any new settlements, no outward expansion of existing growth and to only build for “natural” growth within existing settlements. He said Israel also agreed not to encourage Israelis to move to settlements, which would increase the population.

“A complete settlement freeze wasn’t physically or politically possible, especially in the absence of any Arab or Palestinian concessions,” the Israeli diplomat said. “There was a time the gaps had significantly narrowed, but now they were starting to widen. The administration recognized, rather than have them widen further, we should start negotiating.”

The Palestinian aide to Abbas said President Obama’s failure to secure a settlement freeze has weakened him in the eyes of the Palestinian delegation, because it casts doubt on his ability to move Israel during final status negotiations. The aide said that while Abbas would continue to push for a complete freeze, the Palestinian leader understands it likely will not happen and will begin “climb down” from his insistence for one before talks can resume.

The Palestinians did win an important point, however, with Obama making clear that the peace talks would not start from scratch, which Netanyahu had favored. Rather the talks would take into account progress made in previous negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, the sources said.

The Israeli diplomat said that Israel would “take into account” the previous negotiations, but stressed his country’s longstanding position that “nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to.”

Obama also addressed Abbas' desire to have the terms for negotiations more clearly defined, asking Israeli and Palestinian negotiators to come to Washington next week for further talks.

Ray Jay wrote:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MF08Ak03.html

Has anyone else seen this? Somehow this publication has all sorts of interesting tidbits on what is going on that I haven't seen elsewhere. There are interesting tidbits on indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas, on how Egypt is playing this, on splits between Hamas and Syria, etc.

Press Statement, Victoria Nuland, State Department Spokesperson, June 24, 2011

Last month marked the one-year anniversary of the confrontation between Israeli forces and activists when a flotilla attempted to break Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza on May 31, 2010. The United States deeply regrets the tragic loss of life and injuries suffered among those involved in that incident aboard the Gaza bound ships.

We are concerned that a number of groups are organizing a one year “anniversary” flotilla to commemorate the incident by sailing from various European ports to Gaza in the near future. Groups that seek to break Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza are taking irresponsible and provocative actions that risk the safety of their passengers. Established and efficient mechanisms exist to transfer humanitarian assistance to Gaza. For example, humanitarian assistance can be delivered at the Israeli port of Ashdod, where cargo can be offloaded, inspected, and transported to Gaza. We urge all those seeking to provide such assistance to the people of Gaza to use these mechanisms, and not to participate in actions like the planned flotilla.

Recent seizures by Israel and Egypt of advanced military systems, weapons, and ammunition bound for terrorist groups in Gaza, as well as periodic rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza against Israeli civilians, highlight the continuing problem of illicit arms smuggling to Gaza. These seizures underscore the vital importance to Israel’s security of ensuring that all cargo bound for Gaza is appropriately screened for illegal arms and dual-use materials.

The United States remains concerned by conditions in Gaza, but notes that the humanitarian situation has significantly improved over the last year, including a marked increase in the range and scope of goods and materials moving into Gaza, an increase in international project activity, and the gradual expansion of exports. The United States will continue to work with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, donors, and the international community to do more and ensure that the needs of the people of Gaza are being met.

We also continue to call on Hamas to play a constructive role by renouncing violence, recognizing Israel’s right to exist, and accepting past agreements. We underscore that delivering or attempting or conspiring to deliver material support or other resources to or for the benefit of a designated foreign terrorist organization, such as Hamas, could violate U.S. civil and criminal statutes and could lead to fines and incarceration.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we do not believe that the flotilla is a necessary or useful effort to try to assist the people of Gaza. Just this week, the Israeli Government approved a significant commitment to housing in Gaza. There will be construction materials entering Gaza and we think that it’s not helpful for there to be flotillas that try to provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves.

Neal Anderth wrote:I'm one of the few that consistently renounces violence topic after topic and you're trying to attach the word 'gleeful' to me? Don't bother answering as I've no intentions of discussing that aspect with you further.

I'm not a leftist, so I can't say that I relate to any notion of wanting to get roughed up by security forces. So this flotilla is a bit of a strange concept to me.

Obviously they are out to upset the status quo, they had some measure of success last time. I'm not sure in the bigger picture it helps. As long as Iran can use Gaza as a proxy there's just no getting around the rocket attacks and the accompanying retaliation.

I no longer believe that either side wants peace and equality for all concerned. Outsiders keep projecting their own values on the problem and insist that a proper meeting of the minds will fix this, it won't.

Ray Jay wrote:In addition, Turkey is trying to mend relations with Israel because of the Syrian unrest. Israel is more than willing to do what it has to for some friendship in the Muslim world.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPoliti ... 38855&R=R1

69% of Israelis say they would accept a UN recognized Palestinian state.