Israel freezes Palestinian tax funds in retaliation for joining ICC

[arkirk]

The 67 borders are indefensible. Were Israel to withdraw to the 67 border it would mean terrorist been able to attack Israeli citizens within their mist. Hamas charter is the genocide of all Jews. Israel has a right to secure borders. Hamas have no intention of dropping their charter or of ever accepting a Jewish state. The past history shows that.

Why should any people Jewish or otherwise be given license to murder and sieze the land of others to form an apartheid religious state anywhere in the world. This right to a Jewish state is pure religion based bullshit. How would you like to live in the United States, a pure Christian State? You don't have the right to wish something on Arabs you would not accept for yourself. That is pure racism. We pretend to believe in democracy and we come up with a "right' to a religious state? Wake up Angelo and smell the putrifying corpses of war and get over this notion of a religious state being a "right" the American people must support.

 

[angelo]

Last time I looked the Knesset was made up of various parties, including one with atheists in it and of course Arabs who also have members in parliament. Like any other party in a democracy there are people in it with extreme religious beliefs. But calling Israel a religious state is like calling Gaza an atheist state. Before 1967 when four Arab armies attacked Israel intending to destroy the Jewish state, the Arabs got their arses kicked and lost territory in the bargain. Now that they lost all their marbles they go screaming to their mummy to get their marbles they lost in a fair and square game back! The game doesn't work that way, although when Egypt was willing to reconise the Jewish state, Israel handed back the Sinai in a show of goodwill. The racists are the Arab states not Israel.

 

[Arctish]

That's bullshit! You are either been selective or don't know that at the Camp David meeting with President Clinton, Israel agreed to 90% of Palestinian demands and still Arafat and his delegation of terrorist walked out on any agreement being settled.

Not true.

The Camp David talks hosted by Bill Clinton were held after Israel reneged on the Oslo Accords following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by an Israeli Zionist, who was pissed off the Palestinians were going to be allowed to claim part of Eretz Yisrael as their own.

All the blather about the Palestinians getting 90% of anything is just propaganda. Barak did not offer the Palestinians anything close to what they had been guaranteed under the Accords, and the Accords themselves were a compromise made up of small steps intended to result in disengagement and a nominal Palestinian State that still had a significant Israeli security presence throughout the West Bank, large Israeli settlement blocks still in place, Israeli control of the borders and airspace, and shared control of the aquifers, mineral deposits, and holy sites.

Here is a first-hand account of what went on during the Camp David talks. IMO it's an interesting and informative read, and provides a lot of insight into what Arafat and Barak brought to the table.

On the contrary, it's the Palestinians who refuse to accept an Israeli state under any circumstances.

Not true. The PLO accepted Israel's right to exist in peace and security when the Oslo Accords were in effect, accepted the 1967 armistice line as Israel's border, and agreed to cede land containing the largest settlement blocks to Israel in exchange for limited autonomy and an end to the Occupation. It was Israel that reneged.

Their charter of it been Palestinian land from the river to the sea means genocide for all Jews in the middle east.

Are you talking about Hamas, the PLO, Fatah, or the Palestinian Authority? Whichever one you mean, it does not prevent Israel from having an internationally recognized border. It does not change the fact that Israelis living outside the 1967 Armistice line are living outside Israel. It does not change the fact that the West Bank is not Israel, no matter how much Zionists might want it to be.

I'm curious about what part of my post you think is bullshit. I said:

And yet, Israel has managed to defend them quite successfully for the past 47 years. But perhaps you're right, that border will prove to be indefensible, in which case Israel should pull back closer to the 1948 borders ASAP.

Were Israel to withdraw to the 67 border it would mean terrorist been able to attack Israeli citizens within their mist.

Terrorists are able to attack any nation's citizens from within their midst. Even the most peaceful and stable societies have this problem. It's not an impediment to having genuine borders.

Also, having thousands of citizens living in hundreds of scattered settlements surrounded by the people whose land was stolen to build them increases the risk of attack. Defending the 1967 border is child's play compared to the difficulty of defending the settlements and the roads leading to them. So if you are concerned about defensible borders, the only sensible position to take is to support a complete withdrawal of settlers from the West Bank and to consolidate the protected area as much as possible. Do you?

Hamas charter is the genocide of all Jews.

Debatable, but irrelevant to the subject of Israel's refusal to recognize a border with the not-Israel part of the West Bank, or to even admit such a place exists.

Israel has a right to secure borders. Hamas have no intention of dropping their charter or of ever accepting a Jewish state. The past history shows that.

Yes, Israelis have a right to live in peace and security, as do the Palestinians. At the moment, Israel has no intention of accepting a Palestinian State in Palestine, as past history and current events show. But that doesn't mean there can't be a border that the international community and the Palestinian leadership recognizes as the place where Israel ends and not-Israel begins. That border is the 1967 Armistice Line, and every single Israeli living outside it is living outside of Israel.

What part do you think isn't true?

 

[angelo]

Palestinians and propaganda go hand in hand. They sacrifice their own civilians if there's propaganda to be had.

 

[angelo]

That Palestinians are willing to negotiate. It's just a front to the West. Different for local consumption.

 

[laughing dog]

That Palestinians are willing to negotiate. It's just a front to the West. Different for local consumption.

The same can be said for the current gov't of Israel.

 

[Davka]

That's bullshit! You are either been selective or don't know that at the Camp David meeting with President Clinton, Israel agreed to 90% of Palestinian demands and still Arafat and his delegation of terrorist walked out on any agreement being settled. On the contrary, it's the Palestinians who refuse to accept an Israeli state under any circumstances. Their charter of it been Palestinian land from the river to the sea means genocide for all Jews in the middle east.

That was the result of the USA meddling ignorantly in the region. Arafat was an asshole ex-pat who had been living in Tunisia and slipping into obscurity at the time. The Intifada was all about raising up actual Palestinians living in the region as new leaders, so as to bypass the increasingly irrelevant PLO. Clinton stupidly resurrected Arafat's political career. My Palestinian friends at the time were groaning in frustration over the whole deal - not one of them had any respect for Arafat.

So yeah, Arafat and his murderous greedy thugs would never, ever have reached an agreement with Israel. But he's dead, and the PLO is dissolved. The P.A. is made up of Palestinians who actually live there, and under Abu Mazen (Abbas), the P.A. has since agreed to 90% of what Israel wants. Unfortunately, they are no longer dealing with Rabin, who actually wanted a peace deal, but with Netanyahu, who has nothing but disdain for the P.A., and wants to simply annex the West Bank

Both sides have been willing to reach a deal at different times. Both sides have been intractable at different times. Now both sides are pointing at the other and saying "they refuse(d) to negotiate in good faith!"

I was living over there during Rabin's presidency, and I was furious with Clinton for propping up that asshole Arafat. I interviewed some of the leaders of the Intifada, along with numerous members of Rabin's coalition. The whole cluster-fuck was completely avoidable, but Clinton took the easy road to a Presidential legacy instead of the harder road to actual peace. He fucked Israel and the Palestinians in the ass, all for the sake of a photo-op on the White House lawn.

- - - Updated - - -

That Palestinians are willing to negotiate. It's just a front to the West. Different for local consumption.

The same can be said for the current gov't of Israel.

No, it cannot. Bibi has no intention of negotiating in good faith. He's a Greater Israel proponent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not true.

The Camp David talks hosted by Bill Clinton were held after Israel reneged on the Oslo Accords following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by an Israeli Zionist, who was pissed off the Palestinians were going to be allowed to claim part of Eretz Yisrael as their own.

The Palestinians were only paying lip service to Oslo from day 1. Israel eventually quit being a sucker.

 

[Jayjay]

The 67 borders are indefensible.

In a small country like Israel, it's a relative concept. However it's clear that 1967 border is hell of a lot more defensible than the ridicuously squiggly line of the separation wall:

Also, we know that Israel was quite capable of defending the border in 1967 and 1948.

Were Israel to withdraw to the 67 border it would mean terrorist been able to attack Israeli citizens within their mist. Hamas charter is the genocide of all Jews. Israel has a right to secure borders. Hamas have no intention of dropping their charter or of ever accepting a Jewish state. The past history shows that.

While Israel certainly wants to portray Palestinians like they were the monsters from the movie Mist, it's nonsense that Palestinians cannot attack Israel in their midst any more effectively than they do now. The reduction in attacks was not due to the border, it was due to limiting Palestinian movement and building the wall, both of which can be done just as well on the 1967 border.

 

[Jayjay]

Palestinian ICC membership was accepted:

Palestine to become member of International Criminal Court

The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, has confirmed that Palestine will officially become a member of the International Criminal Court on 1 April, the UN press office said on Wednesday.

The Palestinians delivered documents to UN headquarters on Friday documents to join the Rome Statute of the ICC and other international treaties, in a move that has heightened tensions with Israel and could lead to cuts in US aid.

The official announcement of the date of the Palestinian accession to the ICC, in the form of a letter from Ban, was posted on a UN website.

This is huge. This means that appropriate starting from April Fool's Day, Israeli individuals may be investigated for war crimes. Palestine very likely will try to call for investigations on everything possible, starting from last summer's flare up, but the court is not very likely to start fudging rules of jurisdiction on their favor. I would be interested to see an investigation as to whether the occupation in West Bank and blockade of Gaza in general are in violation of the Fourth Geneva convention, in particular articles 49 regarding civilian population transfers, and article 53 on collective punishments.

Israeli and US tantrum over this is totally uncalled for.

 

[maxparrish]

Not true.

The Camp David talks hosted by Bill Clinton were held after Israel reneged on the Oslo Accords following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by an Israeli Zionist, who was pissed off the Palestinians were going to be allowed to claim part of Eretz Yisrael as their own.

All the blather about the Palestinians getting 90% of anything is just propaganda. Barak did not offer the Palestinians anything close to what they had been guaranteed under the Accords, and the Accords themselves were a compromise made up of small steps intended to result in disengagement and a nominal Palestinian State that still had a significant Israeli security presence throughout the West Bank, large Israeli settlement blocks still in place, Israeli control of the borders and airspace, and shared control of the aquifers, mineral deposits, and holy sites.

Here is a first-hand account of what went on during the Camp David talks. IMO it's an interesting and informative read, and provides a lot of insight into what Arafat and Barak brought to the table.

The PLO accepted Israel's right to exist in peace and security when the Oslo Accords were in effect, accepted the 1967 armistice line as Israel's border, and agreed to cede land containing the largest settlement blocks to Israel in exchange for limited autonomy and an end to the Occupation. It was Israel that reneged.

What part do you think isn't true?

I am harder pressed to identify what parts of your narrative honor the truth, other than words "a" and "the". An honest account is provided by legendary historian Benny Morris.

First, a prelude to the Camp David talks, the Israeli- Palestinian negotiations on a final status agreement "resumed in March 2000 , and Israel agreed, in fulfillment of the terms of the Sharm ash Sheikh accord, to carry out a further handover of territory— 6.1 percent of the West Bank. Some 341 square kilometeers around Jericho, Ramallah and Jenin were handed over to the Palestinians." and in the process of handing over large chunks of land Barak "hinted that intended to make further, perhaps large, concessions".

Second,

on July 5th, President Clinton announced that Barak and Arafat would meet at Camp David, starting on July 11, for the “make or break” summit. During July 11– 26, Barak and Arafat, with Clinton (assisted by Albright) playing a crucial mediating role, tackled the major issues dividing Israel and the Palestinians: The refugees, Jerusalem, the borders between a future Palestinian state and Israel, the Israeli settlements, and the problem of water supplies and pollution....A crucial sticking point was Jerusalem. Barak, breaking a long-held, consensual Israeli taboo, agreed to a division of Jerusalem, with the Palestinians to receive sovereignty over most of the Arab-populated neighborhoods in the eastern part of the city." None the less, "Arafat stuck firm to his demand that the Temple Mount and the whole of the Old City come under Palestinian sovereignty; he rejected President Clinton’s last-minute proposal that the Old City be divided between Israel and the Palestinians, with the Temple Mount to be governed conjointly by the Security Council, Morocco (the permanent president of the Islamic states’ “Jerusalem Committee”) and the Palestinians. Major disagreement also surfaced over the Palestinian demand for recognition and implementation of “the right of return” of the refugees (based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194, from December 1948) to their homes, villages and towns in Israel (Israel rejected this “right” and the return of millions of refugees, though it agreed to absorb “several thousand” refugees over ten years as part of a “family reunion scheme” and to participate in paying compensation for the refugees’ lost property). There was also contention over the Palestinian demand that Israel hand over all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to Palestinian rule (Barak was willing to concede 84 –90 percent of the West Bank and almost all of the Gaza Strip). The summit collapsed, with both the Israelis and Palestinians letting fly with recriminations. In private, Barak (and, to a degree, Clinton) expressed astonishment and anger at the Palestinian rejection of the most far-reaching Israeli concessions ever offered. Arafat, for his part, lambasted the Israeli proposals as inadequate— in his view, they awarded the Palestinians the trappings rather than the reality of sovereignty and, besides, Israel would continue to rule large chunks (the Jordan Valley, the area around East Jerusalem) of the West Bank. The Americans blamed Arafat for the collapse of the talks, charging that, unlike Barak, he had failed to offer any concessions on the important issues.

Third, continued efforts failed. Arafat refused to budge on the substantive issues, even after the new Israeli foreign minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, proposed that the Temple Mount be placed under UN Security Council control in a final settlement and that 90– 95 percent of the West Bank would be handed over to Palestinian sovereignty.

The PA launched four months of Intifada and Clinton launched a new effort.

Following weeks of behind-the-scenes diplomatic footwork, President Clinton dispatched a set of proposals for a comprehensive, final status Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement to Barak and Arafat. Dated December 23, the Clinton proposals called for a hand-over of “94– 96 percent” of the West Bank to Palestinian sovereignty and Israeli territorial compensation to the Palestinians elsewhere (presumably in the northwestern Negev, adjoining the Gaza Strip) for the 4– 6 percent it would retain; the evacuation of most Israeli settlements; an international force to secure the new borders, particularly between the West Bank and Jordan; early warning stations in the West Bank; the demilitarization of the Palestinian state; the division of Jerusalem according to demographic concentrations, with the Arab districts under Palestinian sovereignty and the Jewish districts under Israeli sovereignty; and some form of Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount and Israeli sovereignty over the Wailing Wall “and thearea sacred to the Jews” or “the holy of holies” (meaning the area under the two mosques). As to the refugees, Clinton somewhat confusingly proposed that Israel agree to recognize the physical and moral suffering caused the Palestinian people as a result of 1948; a return of Palestinian refugees to the Palestinian state while Israel might absorb some of them; at the same time, both states should recognize the refugees’ “right of return,” either to “their homeland” or “historic Palestine”; and he called for international aid for rehabilitating the refugees.

Israeli critics charged that Clinton— and, by extension, Barak—had in effect accepted “the right of return”; Barak countered that Israel had agreed only to a refugee “return” to the prospective West Bank– Gaza Strip Palestinian state, alongside a token return of refugees to Israel proper. At the end of December the Israeli government formally accepted Clinton’s proposals as a basis for a settlement; Arafat responded with a long list of questions and objections, amounting to a rejection . 23 As Yasser Abd Rabo, one of Arafat’s ministers and peace negotiators, put it: “Clinton’s proposals are one of the biggest frauds in history, like the Sykes-Picot Agreement.” 24 During the following weeks, with Washington mediating, the Israelis strove to reach a peace agreement while at the same time to obtain at least a reduction in Palestinian violence so as to make the continued negotiations with the Palestinians palatable to the Israeli public. Israeli officials tried to project optimism (“ the two sides have never been closer to agreement”) but either there was too little time to make the necessary compromises or the Palestinians were simply uninterested in reaching an agreement that would include their effective abandonment of “the right of return”— which Jewish Israelis almost unanimously agreed would spell suicide for the Jewish state— and of full sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem.

Palestinian and Israeli delegations met for a last effort on January 21– 27 but the talks were continuously undermined by Palestinian acts of terrorism (such as the execution-style murder of two unarmed Israeli civilians by Tanzim operatives in Tulkarm on January 23) and by Palestinian unwillingness to budge from their fixed positions on Jerusalem, the borders, and the refugees. The talks broke up on January 27 with a joint statement that in effect conceded that nothing had been concluded or agreed,...

There is only two conclusions: either Arafat was always playing Israel OR Arafat did not have sufficiently secure political power to make any agreement that would offend folks even more radical than he. In any event, Arafat made a hate filled speech and on the 28th Barak called a halt to all talks.

Quotes from one of his books: Morris, Benny (2011-05-25). Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001

 

[Arctish]

I am harder pressed to identify what parts of your narrative honor the truth, other than words "a" and "the".

Try.

Try hard if need be.

Don't just blurt out a wall of text that does not address the subject of this thread or any specific claims I made. Identify the passages you think do not "honor the truth" and address them.

Here, I'll help you get started. This is the first paragraph of my post:

The Camp David talks hosted by Bill Clinton were held after Israel reneged on the Oslo Accords following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by an Israeli Zionist, who was pissed off the Palestinians were going to be allowed to claim part of Eretz Yisrael as their own.

What part of this do you think does not "honor the truth"?

 

[maxparrish]

Try.

Try hard if need be.

Don't just blurt out a wall of text that does not address the subject of this thread or any specific claims I made. Identify the passages you think do not "honor the truth" and address them.

Here, I'll help you get started. This is the first paragraph of my post:

The Camp David talks hosted by Bill Clinton were held after Israel reneged on the Oslo Accords following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by an Israeli Zionist, who was pissed off the Palestinians were going to be allowed to claim part of Eretz Yisrael as their own.

What part of this do you think does not "honor the truth"?

Smearing without offering supporting evidence beyond generalized assertions cannot "honor" truth.

- "All the blather about the Palestinians getting 90% of anything is just propaganda. Barak did not offer the Palestinians anything close to what they had been guaranteed under the Accords."

You have not specified what the Palestinians were "guaranteed" under the accords that Barak did not offer, what you mean by "anything close", and proclaim 90 percent as "just propaganda". Evidence?

- "The PLO accepted Israel's right to exist in peace and security when the Oslo Accords were in effect, accepted the 1967 armistice line as Israel's border, and agreed to cede land containing the largest settlement blocks to Israel in exchange for limited autonomy and an end to the Occupation. It was Israel that reneged."

So you keep saying. But as the Benny Morris extracts provide evidence that he did make 90 percent (and more) as a serious offer, until such time as you can back up pronouncements and explain how the Israeli closing offers were "reneging" we will await for your demonstration of "honoring the truth".

 

[Arctish]

Try.

Try hard if need be.

Don't just blurt out a wall of text that does not address the subject of this thread or any specific claims I made. Identify the passages you think do not "honor the truth" and address them.

Here, I'll help you get started. This is the first paragraph of my post:

The Camp David talks hosted by Bill Clinton were held after Israel reneged on the Oslo Accords following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by an Israeli Zionist, who was pissed off the Palestinians were going to be allowed to claim part of Eretz Yisrael as their own.

What part of this do you think does not "honor the truth"?

Smearing without offering supporting evidence beyond generalized assertions cannot "honor" truth.

I provided a link to a first hand account of the Camp David talks, which apparently you didn't bother to read. Let me know when you are prepared to "honor the truth" by at least reading what a participant and witness had to say about the talks, and to admit I did provide evidence in support of my claims.

The rest of your post skips right over the paragraph I quoted so as to provide a starting point. Does that mean you have no objections to, quibbles, qualms, or other semantic differences of opinion with what I wrote, and we can move on to the second paragraph?

 

[Arctish]

Getting back to the topic of punishing the Palestinians for seeking to join the International Criminal Court, Rand Paul has shed his father's Golden Rule foreign policy legacy and gone full neo-con:

Rand Paul introduces bill to defund Palestinian Authority

Sen. Rand Paul introduced legislation on Wednesday aiming to block U.S. funding to the Palestinian Authority until its leaders withdraw their request to join the International Criminal Court.

“Certainly groups that threaten Israel cannot be allies of the U.S. I will continue to do everything in my power to make sure this President and this Congress stop treating Israel’s enemies as American allies,” Paul said according to a press release.

The “Defend Israel by Defunding Palestinian Foreign Aid Act of 2015” calls for an immediate halt on U.S. aid after Palestine’s President Mahmoud Abbas requested to join the ICC on Dec. 31.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...an-authority-defund-114031.html#ixzz3OIfeBet2

 

[tupac chopra]

Getting back to the topic of punishing the Palestinians for seeking to join the International Criminal Court, Rand Paul has shed his father's Golden Rule foreign policy legacy and gone full neo-con:

I'd love to hear him explain why.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Factually incorrect. Several small Palestinian militias began launching small rockets and mortars in response to the burning attacks on Palestinian teenagers. Israel's response was to hold Hamas DIRECTLY responsible for those attacks and retaliated by launching air strikes against Hamas leaders. It was at THAT point that Hamas' rocket teams began to open fire, using weapons far more powerful than the small garage-made shit that had been fired previously.

You don't have several small groups launching from Gaza without Hamas agreeing.

Of course you do. It takes a lot more effort to PREVENT rocket attacks than it does to approve or promote them (primarily because most of those small groups avoid having any contact with Hamas at all and would actually be fighting AGAINST them if they didn't have a common enemy in Israel).

Hell, the U.S. government can't even prevent amateur rockets from breaching VFR altitudes limitations, and U.S. citizens actually launch more illegal rockets per year than Palestinians do. What makes you think Hamas -- which entirely lacks aerial surveillance and whose communications infrastructure is decrepit even by Palestinian standards -- can do better?

Hamas funded them.

So what? The U.S. government funds my high school. Should Obama be impeached if one my my teachers commits a homicide?

The de-facto line is the fence. They were within it.

The fence was built in the first place to protect those illegal settlements. There is NO support for the claim that the settlement land legitimately belongs to Israel, nor is there international support -- even in the U.S. -- for Israel's annexation of the land behind the fence. Objectively speaking, ANY Israeli who is outside of the 1967 border is trespassing on Palestinian land and I unequivocally support the Palestinians' right to treat them as such. Just as they should ALSO prosecute members of their own society who act outside the law by responding to those trespassers with vigilante justice and/or murder.

Actually, at this point the only thing left to negotiate between Israel and the Palestinians is "When are you going to retreat to your own borders?" Israel's proposal is "Never". The Palestinian proposal is "Now." The U.S. position is "Let's negotiate a compromise between 'Now' and 'Never.'"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You don't have several small groups launching from Gaza without Hamas agreeing.

Of course you do. It takes a lot more effort to PREVENT rocket attacks than it does to approve or promote them (primarily because most of those small groups avoid having any contact with Hamas at all and would actually be fighting AGAINST them if they didn't have a common enemy in Israel).

Hell, the U.S. government can't even prevent amateur rockets from breaching VFR altitudes limitations, and U.S. citizens actually launch more illegal rockets per year than Palestinians do. What makes you think Hamas -- which entirely lacks aerial surveillance and whose communications infrastructure is decrepit even by Palestinian standards -- can do better?

Those amateurs have plenty of wide open spaces with nobody around to launch from.

Hamas funded them.

So what? The U.S. government funds my high school. Should Obama be impeached if one my my teachers commits a homicide?

Obama didn't hire the teacher to commit a crime. Hamas did.

The de-facto line is the fence. They were within it.

The fence was built in the first place to protect those illegal settlements. There is NO support for the claim that the settlement land legitimately belongs to Israel, nor is there international support -- even in the U.S. -- for Israel's annexation of the land behind the fence. Objectively speaking, ANY Israeli who is outside of the 1967 border is trespassing on Palestinian land and I unequivocally support the Palestinians' right to treat them as such. Just as they should ALSO prosecute members of their own society who act outside the law by responding to those trespassers with vigilante justice and/or murder.

The 67 "borders" aren't any more real.

Actually, at this point the only thing left to negotiate between Israel and the Palestinians is "When are you going to retreat to your own borders?" Israel's proposal is "Never". The Palestinian proposal is "Now." The U.S. position is "Let's negotiate a compromise between 'Now' and 'Never.'"

First is the question of whether the Palestinians will abide by their agreement. Since they never have agreed with any concessions and they have repeatedly stated that they will not stop fighting if they get the 67 borders I think this is a very important issue.

 

[Togo]

Hamas funded them.

Israel funds the settlers who lynched a Palestinians teen.

First is the question of whether the Palestinians will abide by their agreement.

No, there isn't. Israel's occupation is illegal, the legality or continuation of Israelies in Palestine has nothing whatsoever to do with Palestinian actions. The two are unrelated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel funds the settlers who lynched a Palestinians teen.

First is the question of whether the Palestinians will abide by their agreement.

No, there isn't. Israel's occupation is illegal, the legality or continuation of Israelies in Palestine has nothing whatsoever to do with Palestinian actions. The two are unrelated.

The deal should be 67 borders in exchange for peace.

The Palestinians want 67 borders and no peace. Of course Israel won't agree to that.