Fayyad, Ayalon meeting ends abruptly over two-state solution dispute

[oberliner]

A meeting of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee, which coordinates financial aid for Palestinians, ended abruptly Tuesday in New York due to a disagreement between Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon on the terms of a two-state solution.

Ayalon canceled a scheduled joint press conference with Fayyad after the meeting.

"We did not reach an agreement because the Palestinians did not agree to the terms of a two-state solution," Ayalon told Haaretz.

"Israel will continue to ease restrictions imposed on Palestinians," Ayalon said, but stressed that this will only be done within the "confines of the security requirements. We will not gamble with the lives of our citizens."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/fayyad-ayalon-meeting-ends-abruptly-over-two-state-solution-dispute-1.315049

[azurnoir]

1. what were the terms the Palestinians would not agree to ?

from JPost

The Quartet canceled a planned press conference at UN headquarters in New York, shortly after Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad stormed out of a meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon on Tuesday.

Fayyad left the Ad-Hoc Liaison Committee meeting furious due to an argument he had with Ayalon, who refused to agree to a version of the meeting's summary because it included the words "two states."

Ayalon told Ynet that he suggested instead that it read "two states for two peoples - Jewish and Palestinian," and demanded guarantees that committee donations don't go towards incitement or boycotting of Israeli goods.


http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=188879

[shira]

4. And why shouldn't Palestinians agree to this? n/t

[azurnoir]

5. why should they agree to this of what possible benefit is to

any Palestinian living in Israel or any Jew who might chose to live in the state for Palestinians? Why Israel's insistence on ethnocentric countries?

[oberliner]

6. Have a look at Israel's founding documents

Also perhaps look at the UN Partition resolution.

[azurnoir]

7. do those documents state that the Palestinians are required

to recognize Israel as the Jewish State?
if so then why was it enough at Oslo that the Palestinians simply recognize Israel has something changed?

[oberliner]

8. Just that the Jewish State concept is not new

I don't think it should be a stumbling block for negotiations.

[azurnoir]

9. The Jewish state as mentioned in the original partition was

IMO called that as a means of separating the 2 groups the "other" state was to be called an Arab state the term Palestinian applied to both groups at that time as you have pointed out, to at this point in time say that its no big deal or a small thing to recognize Israel as the Jewish State is at best naive considering the current political atmosphere in Israel, IMO such a statement would almost certainly have negative repercussions on Israel's non-Jewish citizens

[regnaD kciN]

2. I assume "the terms of a two-state solution"...

...translates to "an agreement that there won't be a two-state solution."

[azurnoir]

3. see comment 1 it clarifies n/t