The Jewish Nazis’ refusal to negotiate with Palestinians.

Updated January 18, 2009.

Ever since the foundation of the jews-only state in palestine, through the use of terrorism, jewish leaders, most of whom have been members of terrorist organizations and personally involved in acts of terrorism, have never had any intention of negotiating with palestinians. This article is a compilation of examples showing the jews’ opposition to, or avoidance of, negotiations with palestinians.

Jews’ excuses for avoiding negotiations.
Palestinians don’t exist.
"From its first day, the Zionist movement has lived in total denial of the Palestinian issue. As long as possible, it denied the very existence of the Palestinian people. Since this has become ridiculous, it denies the existence of a Palestinian partner for peace. In any case, it denies the possibility of a viable Palestinian state next to Israel. This denial has deep roots in the unconscious of the Zionist movement and the Israeli leadership. Zionism strove for the creation of a Jewish National Home in a land in which another people was living. Since Zionism was an idealistic movement imbued with profound moral values, it could not bear the thought that it was committing a historical injustice to another people. It was necessary to suppress and deny the feeling of guilt engendered by this fact. The unconscious guilt feelings were deepened by the 1948 war, in which more than half the Palestinian people were separated from their lands. The idea of turning the West Bank over to the Hashemite kingdom was built on the illusion that there is no Palestinian people ("They are all Arabs!"), so it could suffer no injustice." (Uri Avnery ‘An Israeli Love Story’ http://www.antiwar.com/avnery/?articleid=11258 July 9, 2007). After all, how can the jews negotiate with a people which doesn’t exist?

Opposition to Palestinians’ right of Return.
"Few noticed that the Right of Return has served successive Israeli governments as a pretext to reject all peace initiatives. The return of five million refugees would mean the end of Israel as a state with a solid Jewish majority and turn it into a bi-national state, something that arouses the adamant opposition of a minimum of 99.99% of the Israeli-Jewish public. This has to be realized if one is to understand the way Israelis view peace. An ordinary Israeli, even a decent person who sincerely desires peace, tells himself: the Arabs will never give up the Right of Return, therefore there is no chance for peace, and it isn't worthwhile even to start doing anything about it." (Uri Avnery ‘The Sixty Year Wound: To the Shores of Tripoli’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery05302007.html May 30, 2007).

Palestinians refuse to negotiate.
"When I was young, Jewish people in Palestine used to talk about our secret weapon: the Arab refusal. Every time somebody proposed some peace plan, we relied on the Arab side to say "no". True, the Zionist leadership was against any compromise that would have frozen the existing situation and halted the momentum of the Zionist enterprise of expansion and settlement. But the Zionist leaders used to say "yes" and "we extend our hand for peace", and rely on the Arabs to scuttle the proposal. That was successful for a hundred years, until Yasser Arafat changed the rules, recognized Israel and signed the Oslo Accords, which stipulated that the negotiations for the final borders between Israel and Palestine must be concluded not later than 1999. To this very day, those negotiations have not even started. Successive Israeli governments have prevented it because they were not ready under any circumstances to fix final borders. (The 2000 Camp David meeting was not a real negotiation, Ehud Barak convened it without any preparation, dictated his terms to the Palestinians and broke the dialogue off when they were refused.) After the death of Arafat, the refusal became more and more difficult. Arafat was always described as a terrorist, cheat and liar. But Mahmoud Abbas was accepted by everybody as an honest person, who truly wanted to achieve peace. Yet Ariel Sharon succeeded in avoiding any negotiations with him. The "Unilateral Separation" served this end. President Bush supported him with both hands." (Uri Avnery ‘The Palestinian Accords: Facing Mecca’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery02172007.html February 17/18, 2007).

Jews’ pantomime of having no partner for negotiations.
Tony Karon.
"Israel's longstanding, but constantly shifting, argument has been simple enough: It has no Palestinian partner. First that was thanks to PLO leader Yasser Arafat's duplicity; then it was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' weakness; next, it was Hamas' victory in the January 2006 elections (that the Bush administration had sponsored), followed by the decision of Abbas to join it in a "unity" government; now, with Hamas left to starve and die in blockaded Gaza, and Abbas setting up his own unelected government on the West Bank, we're back to Abbas' weakness as an explanation." (Tony Karon ‘Yes, Bush Is Naked, What of It?’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=11317 July 20, 2007).

Uri Avnery.
"After the murder of Yassir Arafat, many Palestinians believed that if they elected Mahmoud Abbas as the new president, he would get from Israel and the US the things they would not give Arafat. They found out that the opposite was happening: No real negotiations, while the settlements were getting larger every day." (Uri Avnery ‘Good Morning, Hamas’ http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1204410372/ March 01, 2008).

Jews’ structural reasons for avoiding negotiations.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi.
"This time, however, with the stakes on Iran relatively higher, the discrete charm of the affable Livni is fully required to pave the way for another disastrous war in the Middle East, since Israel is incapable of peace with the Palestinians and is in dire need of other pretexts to channel public attention away from its oppressive policies against the Palestinian people. In conclusion, the waning months of the George W Bush administration represent a golden opportunity for Israel to ignite another Middle East conflict that, in essence, is rooted in Israel's structural inability to make peace with the Arab and Muslim world." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Israel raises the ante against Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC14Ak02.html March 14, 2008).

Helena Cobban.
"The history of Israel's FRC ("forced regime change") wars deserves close study. All have been "wars of choice" in that the "unbearable" situations that Israeli leaders have cited, each time, as giving them "no alternative" but to fight can all be seen as having been very amenable to negotiation, should Israel have chosen that path instead. Also, all these wars were planned in some detail in advance, with the Israeli government just waiting for, or even, on occasion, provoking, some action from the other side that they could use as a launch pretext. All have received strong financial, re-arming, and political support from the U.S., not least because they were waged in the name of counter-terrorism." (Helena Cobban ‘Israel's Wars of Forced Regime Change’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cobban.php?articleid=14032 January 10, 2009).

Jews provoked the Suez Crisis because Nasser wanted Peace.
Uri Avnery.
"In July 1952, the revolution of the Free Officers took place in Egypt. The appearance of Abd-al-Nasser frightened Ben-Gurion, because here was a new type of Arab: a young officer, energetic, charismatic, striving to unite the Arab world. From his ascent to power until his death, 18 years later, the Egyptian leader sent out feelers again and again to find out if a settlement with Israel was feasible. Ben-Gurion rejected all these efforts and systematically prepared for the war of 1956, in which Israel tried, in collusion with France and Great Britain, then two predatory colonial powers, to overthrow Abd-al-Nasser. Thus he fixed for generations the image of Israel as a foreign implant in the region, a bridgehead of the hostile West." (Uri Avnery ‘Missed Opportunities (Partial List)’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/avnery.php?articleid=9069 May 31, 2006).

Jews invaded Lebanon in 1982 because Arafat wanted Peace.
Alexander Cockburn.
"When Arafat and the PLO gave worrisome signs of being eager for an accommodation Israel's reply was to invade Lebanon." (Alexander Cockburn ‘Palestine: It's All Over’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06062006.html June 5, 2006); "In 1982 Israel had a problem. Yasir Arafat, headquartered in Beirut, was making ready to announce that the PLO was prepared to sit down with Israel and embark on peaceful, good faith negotiations towards a two-state solution. Israel didn’t want a two-state solution, which meant, if UN resolutions were to be taken seriously, a Palestinian state right next door, with water, and contiguous territory. So Israel decided chase the PLO right out of Lebanon. It announced that the Palestinian fighters had broken the year-long cease-fire by lobbing some shells into northern Israel. Palestinians had done nothing of the sort. I remember this very well, because Brian Urquhart, at that time assistant secretary general of the United Nations, in charge of UN observers on Israel’s northern border, invited me to his office on the 38th floor of the UN hq in mid-Manhattan and showed me all the current reports from the zone. For over a year there’d been no shelling from north of the border. Israel was lying. With or without a pretext Israel wanted to invade Lebanon. So it did, and rolled up to Beirut. It shelled Lebanese towns and villages and bombed them from the air. Sharon’s forces killed maybe 20,000 people, and let Lebanese Christians slaughter hundreds of Palestinian refugees in the camps of Sabra and Chatilla. The killing got so bad that even Ronald Reagan awoke from his slumbers and called Tel Aviv to tell Israel to stop. Sharon gave the White House the finger by bombing Beirut at the precise times, 2.42 and 3.38, of two UN resolutions calling for a peaceful settlement on the matter of Palestine." (Alexander Cockburn ‘Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel: Everything You Need To Know’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Cockburn07212006.html July 21, 2006).

James Bovard.
"In June 1982, a terrorist organization headed by Abu Nidal (the Osama bin Laden of the 1980s) attempted to assassinate the Israeli ambassador in London. Nidal’s forces had previously killed many Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) officials in numerous bomb and shooting attacks, since they considered Yasir Arafat a traitor for his stated willingness to negotiate with Israel. Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel exploited the shooting in London to send the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) into Lebanon to crush the PLO. Yet, as Thomas Friedman noted in his book From Beirut to Jerusalem, "The number of Israeli casualties the PLO guerrillas in Lebanon actually inflicted [was] minuscule (one death in the 12 months before the invasion)."" (James Bovard ‘A Legacy of Anti-Terrorist Failure in Lebanon’ http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0610c.asp January 29, 2007).

Norman Finkelstein.
"Although Israel (backed by the U.S.) persistently opposed this two-state settlement, the PLO signaled support for it in multiple venues long before the first intifada (let alone the 1993 Oslo Accord). Indeed, it was because the PLO sought "the establishment of a state next to Israel rather than in place of Israel" already in the early 1980s that Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982. "Destroying the PLO as a political force capable of claiming a Palestinian state on the West Bank," Israeli strategic analyst Avner Yaniv concludes, was "the raison d'être of the entire operation."" (Norman Finkelstein ‘Pre-Packaged Opinions on Israel and Palestine: Jeffrey Goldberg's Prison’ http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein10062007.html October 6/7, 2007).

Madrid Peace negotiations, 1991.
The madrid conference was initiated after the west’s war with iraq over kuwait as a gesture to the arab world for its support of the war.

Jews’ sabotage Camp David Peace negotiations, 2000.
Jim Lobe.
"Now, let us recall what One Jerusalem stands for and who its founders were, at least according to its website last June. It was founded during the Camp David negotiations in late 2000 to rally public opinion in Israel and in the United States, in particular, against any peace deal, indeed, any negotiation, that could conceivably result in ceding any part of Jerusalem, including Arab East Jerusalem, to the Palestinians. It is thus opposed to the official policies, at least in principle, of both the current Israeli and U.S. governments. Indeed, in the run-up to last November’s Annapolis summit hosted by Bush himself, One Jerusalem ran a well-financed (thanks to Netanyahu buddy, Ronald Lauder), public campaign designed to discredit and undermine it in advance. One Jerusalem’s founders included Sharansky, Netanyahu adviser Dore Gold, Feith (who even opposed the original Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt), David Horowitz (of Islamofascism Awareness Week); and David Steinmann, the former chairman of the ultra-hawkish Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), among other hardline Likudists." (Jim Lobe ‘Is the Pentagon Policy Shop Funding Likudist Fronts?’ http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=118 March 18, 2008).

Uri Avnery.
"In 2000, Barak persuaded President Bill Clinton to convene a conference at Camp David, and Clinton pressured Yasser Arafat to attend. The whole initiative was a mixture of arrogance and ignorance as far as the Arab world was concerned, two of Barak's most obvious traits. Nothing was prepared in advance, no committee sat to identify the areas of agreement and disagreement, nobody even bothered to set an agenda. Yossi Sarid, then a minister in Barak's government, confirmed this week what I asserted then: Barak had brought with him an offer that he believed the Palestinians would not be able to resist. But in fact it was far from the minimum any Palestinian leader could possibly accept. To cover his shame, Barak invented the pretext that his real aim all along had been to "unmask" Arafat. Barak's real crime was not his conduct during the conference, but what he did afterwards. When he came home, he propagated a mantra consisting of five sentences: "I made unprecedentedly generous offers /I turned every stone to achieve peace /The Palestinians refused everything /There is nobody to talk with /We have no partner for peace." This mantra, repeated by the media thousands of times, is easy to absorb and frees one from any obligation to make concessions or efforts. It destroyed, in the hearts of the people, any belief in peace and caused terrible damage to the Israeli peace camp. The peace camp was turned into an arid desert, with only a few small oases left. This has not changed to this very day." (Uri Avnery ‘Nothing Succeeds Like Failure: On Generals and Admirals’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery06022007.html June 2 / 3, 2007).

Norman Finkelstein.
"The record shows that in every crucial issue raised at Camp David, then under the Clinton parameters, and then in Taba, at every single point, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. Israel didn’t make any concessions. Every concession came from the Palestinians. The Palestinians have repeatedly expressed a willingness to settle the conflict in accordance with international law." (Norman Finkelstein ‘Seeing Through the Lies: The Facts About Hamas and the War on Gaza’ http://www.counterpunch.com/finkelstein01132009.html January 13, 2009).

Ira Chernus.
"All of the suffering in Gaza, indeed, all of the suffering endured by Palestinians under Israeli occupation for the last eight years, could have been avoided if Israel negotiated a peace agreement with Yasser Arafat when it had the chance, in 2001." (Ira Chernus ‘Does Israeli Intelligence Lie?’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/chernus.php?articleid=14070 January 15, 2009).

Aaron David Miller.
"And in 2005, former U.S. peace negotiator Aaron David Miller complained that "many American officials involved in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, myself included, have acted as Israel's attorney, catering and coordinating with the Israelis at the expense of successful peace negotiations."" (Daniel Luban ‘Olmert's Claims Revive Israel Lobby Controversy’ http://www.antiwar.com/ips/luban.php?articleid=14061 January 14, 2009).

Jews’ sabotage agreement between Arafat and Hamas to stop suicide attacks, 2001.
"The asymmetry of conquest and terror is clear. Plan D is now "Operation Cast Lead," which is the unfinished "Operation Justified Vengeance." The latter was launched by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001 when, with Bush's approval, he used F-16s against Palestinian towns and villages for the first time. In the same year, the authoritative Jane's Foreign Report disclosed that the Blair government had given Israel the "green light" to attack the West Bank after it was shown Israel's secret designs for a bloodbath. It was typical of New Labor Party's enduring, cringing complicity in Palestine's agony. However, the 2001 Israeli plan, reported Jane's, needed the "trigger" of a suicide bombing which would cause "numerous deaths and injuries [because] the 'revenge' factor is crucial." This would "motivate Israeli soldiers to demolish the Palestinians." What alarmed Sharon and the author of the plan, General Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli Chief of Staff, was a secret agreement between Yasser Arafat and Hamas to ban suicide attacks. On 23 November, 2001, Israeli agents assassinated the Hamas leader, Mahmud Abu Hunud, and got their "trigger"; the suicide attacks resumed in response to his killing." (John Pilger ‘Holocaust Denied’ http://www.antiwar.com/pilger/?articleid=14015 January 8, 2009).

Jews want further delays before ruling out Peace Negotiations.
"Ten days ago, Washington voted for the first time ever against a UN General Assembly resolution that called on Israel to repeal the "Jerusalem Law" that declares that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel". In the past, Washington has abstained on the issue, consistent with its long-held stand that Jerusalem's status must be determined by negotiations between the parties. More important, efforts by "the Quartet", the European Union, the UN, Russia and the United States, to produce a "road map" leading to the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state in 2005 have come to a screeching halt since Abrams' appointment. Over the strenuous objections of the State Department, as well as other Quartet members, the White House has decreed that work on the roadmap will remain frozen until at least after the elections in Israel January 28. The decision represents a total caving in to demands by Sharon, who stands to profit tremendously by the fact that international pressure on him to move toward renewed peace talks or accept a peace plan will now be nil, at least until the elections are finished." (Jim Lobe ‘Bush's trusty new Mideast point man’ Asia Times Online http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL19Ak01.html 19.12.2002).

Jews’ refusal to negotiate over the Arab League deal, 2002.
"Now, a revolutionary development has taken place. The Arab League has offered Israel a peace plan: all 22 Arab states would recognize Israel and establish diplomatic and economic relations with it, in return for Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state. The offer did not ignore the refugee problem. It mentioned UN resolution 194, but added a qualification of fundamental importance: that the solution would be reached "by agreement" between the two parties. In other words: Israel would have the right of veto over refugees returning to Israeli territory. This put the Israeli government in a difficult position. If the Israeli public understood that the entire Arab world was offering a comprehensive peace agreement without the actual realization of the Right of Return, they might accept it gladly. Therefore, everything was done to obscure the decisive word. The guided (and misguided) Israeli media emphasized the plan's mention of Resolution 194 and played down the talk of an "agreed upon" solution. The government treated the Arab offer with manifest disdain, but nevertheless tried to derive advantage from it. Ehud Olmert announced his readiness to talk with an Arab delegation, provided that it did not consist of Egypt and Jordan alone. This way, Olmert and Tzipi Livni hope to attain an important political achievement without paying for it: to compel Saudi Arabia and other states to enter into relations with Israel. Since there are "no free lunches", the Arabs refused. Nothing came out of the whole affair." (Uri Avnery ‘The Sixty Year Wound: To the Shores of Tripoli’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery05302007.html May 30, 2007).

Sharon delays peace negotiations further by insisting on reforms of Palestinian political Institutions.
Ariel sharon insisted that before he would be willing to discuss peace with the palestinians there should be widespread reforms of palestinian political institutions and the election of a new democratic palestinian leader. "Asked to outline the plan, Mr Sharon restated his position that Yasser Arafat had to be stripped of power, a prime minister should be appointed to head a Palestinian administration and there should be fundamental reform of security organisations." (Chris McGreal ‘Sharon derides EU peace efforts. Israeli leader says only the US view is relevant’ The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,878272,00.html January 20, 2003); "Sharansky's emphasis on "democracy" provided the ideological rationale for ending any Israeli negotiations with the Palestinians. His idea was straightforward: no concessions, funds, or legitimacy for the Palestinians unless they first adopted "democracy." The Israeli policy of disengagement with the Palestinian government would induce the United States to act likewise and demand that Palestine must first establish a democracy before there could be talks with Israel. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote: "By coincidence (or something more) the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan Sharansky published in the Jerusalem Post on May 3 [2002] sounds a lot like the peace proposal Bush delivered in the Rose Garden on June 24." The wording was so similar that Milbank asked, "Is Natan Sharansky working in the White House speechwriting office?" Sharansky was not; his neocon clones, however, were. And they were involved not just in speechwriting but in the actual making of American policy for the Middle East, though "involved"' is an understatement." (Stephen j. Sniegoski ‘Sharansky, Weissglas, and the Inaugural address: The Israeli connection continues’ February 2, 2005).

Sharon’s demands for palestinians to develop democratic institutions were purely a delaying tactic whilst the jews continued to steal palestinian land and resources. The national elections that sharon demanded led to the election of abbas. Sharon ignored him once in office. When Hamas won palestinian national elections the jews immediately denounced the result, declared the election illegitimate, forced the western nations to ostracize the hamas government, and soon after imposed a blockade on gaza.

Jews’ withdrawal from Gaza was never supposed to lead to Peace, April 2004.
Sharon negates Bush’s Peace plan and substitutes it with his own.
Sharon was a terrorist, mass murderer, war criminal, and a state terrorist. He believed there was only a military solution to the palestinian problem. If he’d wanted peace he could have negotiated with arafat and the rest of the palestinian leadership but he consistently refused to do so. Sharon feared that after america’s second proxy zionist war against iraq there would be severe international pressures on him to reach a peace agreement with the palestinians: as had happened after the west’s first proxy zionist war against iraq in 1991 when the zionists were dragged to the madrid conference. So sharon came up with the idea of a peace plan of his own which was designed solely to pre-empt any international peace plan involving negotiations with the palestinians.

Sharon’s unilateral peace plan was to withdraw the jewish military and jewish squatters from gaza in exchange for major political concessions from the bush regime concerning the jews theft of palestinian lands. He presented the plan to bush on april 14, 2004. In return for the withdrawal of zionist squatters from the gaza strip, sharon demanded that the bush regime, firstly, end its support for palestinian refugees’ right of return to their homeland and, secondly, legitimize zionist settlements in the west bank. "Bush outraged Palestinians last month when he gave Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon letters saying Israel could not be expected to give up all its settlements or accept the return of Palestinian refugees." (‘UN rebuke for Bush over Israel’ Aljazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C8617BFB-0B0A-49C5-9021-97DCD5D3F5DF.htm 07.05.2004).

The gaza withdrawal plan was a stroke of political genius. Firstly, it sabotaged an international peace negotiations between jews and palestinians. Secondly, it sabotaged bush’s ‘road map’ peace agreement. Thirdly, it allowed sharon to jettison the settlements in gaza because they were a huge financial, and military, burden on the zionist state. Fourthly, it demanded huge political concessions from america in return for a zionist promise to carry out a future plan of action. In other words, sharon knew he would be able to bank bush’s concessions without having to keep to his side of the bargain. (This is exactly like all the loans that the americans give to the zionist state on the understanding that the jews won’t have to repay the loans). So, for the sake of promising to sacrifice settlements which he wanted to get rid of anyhow, sharon obtained two huge political concessions from the bush regime. Fifthly, the political concessions sharon received from the bush regime were a huge political benefit to the zionist state because they made peace with the palestinians even less likely than before. In effect, sharon was negotiating with america over its stance towards the palestinians in order to avoid any negotiations with palestinians themselves. The palestinians lost out fundamentally as a result of these negotiations it had no influence over.

It was staggering that bush acceded to sharon’s plan even though it had fundamental repercussions for american foreign policies in the middle east and was agreed upon without any prior discussion either with the american congress, the american public, the international community let alone the palestinians. "According to the New York Times, Sharon threatened not to come to Washington unless Bush, in advance and in writing, agreed to capitulate. "In a moment of diplomatic brinkmanship," writes James Bennet, Sharon threatened to cancel his trip if Bush refused to give him "the guarantees he wanted in exchange for his plan to withdraw settlers from the Gaza Strip." Sharon's ultimatum: In return for giving up Gaza, Bush must give him title to more desirable Palestinian lands on the West Bank. What did Bush give up? None of the Palestinians driven out of their homes by the Irgun massacre at Deir Yassin and during the 1948 war will ever be allowed to return. Palestinian rights in that 78 percent of Palestine that is already Israel, and in the sectors of the remaining 22 percent Sharon plans to annex, are forfeit forever. Second, major Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank, planted by Sharon in violation of international law, which every U.S. president has called "obstacles to peace," are now deeded to Israel. Like Lord Balfour, Bush is surrendering title to Arab lands he does not own and surrendering Palestinian rights that are not his to give up. As for the Sharon Wall that snakes in and out of the West Bank, incorporating Palestinian fields, olive groves, homes and villages, Bush no longer insists it be confined to Israeli territory." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Bush Outsources Mideast Policy’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2350 c.May 2004).

Patrick J. Buchanan.
Sharon was jubilant when he returned to the zionist state after his meeting with bush. "Speaking of the Palestinians, they were dealt a lethal blow," exulted a jubilant Ariel Sharon, "It will bring their dreams to an end." Sharon bragged about his trip to Washington where he’d bullied Bush into selling out the Palestinians as thoroughly as Neville Chamberlain sold out the Czechs at Munich. "Sharon Got It All" blared a banner headline in Israel. Indeed, he did. And Raging Bull celebrated his diplomatic victory by ordering up a Saturday night hit on Abdel Rantisi, the Hamas leader who replaced Sheik Yassin, whom Sharon had assassinated by Apache gunship in March as the crippled sheik was being wheeled out of a mosque after dawn prayers. As he surely intended, Sharon left the Arab world with the clear impression that the Americans had given a green light to his "extrajudicial" killings. Sharon seeks to make his war on the Palestinians America's war. If Bush lets him succeed, we are finished in the Middle East." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Bush Outsources Mideast Policy’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2350 c.May 2004).

Rachelle Marshall.
"Having decided that using the army to guard a few thousand settlers in Gaza was becoming too risky and too expensive, Sharon had found a way for Bush to claim credit as a peacemaker and still allow Israel to retain control of the area. As the Israeli leader hoped, Bush gave him everything he asked for. In doing so Bush defied U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for Israel’s return of the occupied territories, ignored international laws declaring Israel’s settlements illegal, scrapped his own "road map to peace," and reversed longstanding U.S. Middle East policy. Bush not only approved of Sharon’s land grab, but praised it as "historic and courageous," citing Israel’s willingness to leave Gaza and dismantle a few West Bank settlements. In reality, Israel will keep permanent control of Gaza’s borders, seaport and airport, and widen the security strip between Gaza and Egypt. The 1.2 million Arab residents of Gaza will be locked inside a prison guarded by the Israeli army. The four West Bank settlements to be dismantled house a total of no more than 500 Israelis, a fraction of the 400,000 settlers who will remain. After his meeting with Bush, Sharon said the Palestinians "were dealt a lethal blow."" (Rachelle Marshall ‘The Fact Behind the Fictions: the U.S. and Israel Plan Permanent Occupations’ Washington Report on Middle East Affairs June 2004, pages 6-8).

Avi Shlaim.
"To the world, Sharon presented the withdrawal from Gaza as a contribution to peace based on a two-state solution. But in the following year, another 12,000 Israelis settled on the West Bank, further reducing the scope for an independent Palestinian state. Land-grabbing and peacemaking are simply incompatible. Israel had a choice and it chose land over peace. The real purpose behind the move was to redraw unilaterally the borders of greater Israel by incorporating the main settlement blocs on the West Bank to the state of Israel. The withdrawal from Gaza was thus not a prelude to a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority but a prelude to further Zionist expansion on the West Bank. It was a unilateral Israeli move undertaken in what was seen, mistakenly in my view, as an Israeli national interest. The withdrawal from Gaza was anchored in a fundamental rejection of the Palestinian national identity, and part of a long-term effort to deny the Palestinian people any independent political existence on their land." (Avi Shlaim ‘Israel and Gaza: rhetoric and reality’ http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/israel-and-gaza-rhetoric-and-reality January 07, 2009).

Uri Avnery.
"President Bush's famous Road Map is dead. (I can hear him exclaiming: "Road Map? What Road Map? The only Map I need is of the road to the White House!")." (Uri Avnery ‘Drought in Texas: Israel and the American Elections’ CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08182004.html August 18, 2004).

Juan Cole.
"Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in remarks on Wednesday repudiated the American-sponsored "road map" to a peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Sharon insists on acting unilaterally, intends to occupy the Palestinian population indefinitely, and intends to permanently incorporate much of the West Bank, conquered in 1967, into Israel, while leaving the Palestinian population stateless. They lack so much as a passport or a country, many of their children are hungry, unemployment is astronomical, and their lives are ruined by a dense network of Israeli roads and checkpoints that make it difficult even just to go to the hospital." (Juan Cole ‘Sharon Repudiates the Road Map’ http://www.juancole.com/ September 17, 2004).

The outcome of the Gaza withdrawal was the Gaza blockade.
Sharon faced considerable opposition from members of his likudnik government and party to his plan for the gaza withdrawal. In the end he left the likud party and created a new one, kadima, and formed an alliance with the labour opposition party to carry through his plan to withdraw the jewish squatters from gaza. However, what he always knew was that once the jews-only state had withdrawn from gaza it could easily impose a blockade and reinvade and reoccupy it if necessary. In other words, he could bank bush’s major political concessions and then recover all that he’d seemingly given away by decimating gaza. Although sharon suffered a stroke after the withdrawal from gaza he almost certainly would have decimated gaza in the same way that olmert did once the gazans began their protests against the blockades imposed upon them.

Jews’ refusal to negotiate through the Quartet's Road Map.
The views of Dov Weisglass.
"I heard a tremor of crisis in Ben-Ami's voice. The question of the hour was: What is the role of the U.S.? "Here too Ben-Ami broke ground. He said that some agreements, like the Quartet's Road Map, which Israel committed itself to following, are mere "shelf agreements." He explained that this means that the Israelis sign agreements and put them on the shelf, with no intention of following through. Dov Weisglass, a former Sharon aide, once said that Israel will begin implementing the Road Map "when the Palestinians become Finns." i.e., Never. Annapolis is going nowhere fast. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has told Ben-Ami that right now the discussions are purely "academic."" (Philip Weiss ‘Barring 2-State Solution, Israel Becomes South Africa: Without South Africa's 'Solution', Israeli Minister Warns’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/03/israeli-ministe.html March 19, 2008).

Jews’ refusal to negotiate with Hamas even though Hamas wanted a Ceasefire.
Avi Shlaim.
"Hamas, like other radical movements, began to moderate its political programme following its rise to power. From the ideological rejectionism of its charter, it began to move towards pragmatic accommodation to a two-state solution. In March 2007, Hamas and Fatah (the secular-nationalist movement led by Yasser Arafat until his death in November 2004) formed a national-unity government which was ready to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with Israel. Israel, however, refused to negotiate with a government which included Hamas. The problem with Israel's concept of security is that it denies even the most elementary security to the other community. The only way for Israel to achieve security is not through shooting but through talks with Hamas which has repeatedly declared its readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with the Jewish state within its pre-1967 borders that would last twenty, thirty or even fifty years. Israel has rejected this offer for the same reason it spurned the Arab League peace plan of 2002 which is still on the table: it involves concessions and compromises." (Avi Shlaim ‘Israel and Gaza: rhetoric and reality’ http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/israel-and-gaza-rhetoric-and-reality January 07, 2009).

Uri Avnery.
"Several months ago Hamas proposed a cease-fire. It repeated the offer this week. A cease-fire means, in the view of Hamas: the Palestinians will stop shooting Qassams and mortar shells, the Israelis will stop the incursions into Gaza, the "targeted" assassinations and the blockade. Why doesn't our government jump at this proposal? Simple: in order to make such a deal, we must speak with Hamas, directly or indirectly. And this is precisely what the government refuses to do. Why? Simple again: Sderot is only a pretext - much like the two captured soldiers were a pretext for something else altogether. The real purpose of the whole exercise is to overthrow the Hamas regime in Gaza and to prevent a Hamas takeover in the West Bank." (Uri Avnery ‘The Blockade of Gaza: Worse Than a Crime’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery01272008.html January 26/27, 2008).

Norman Finkelstein.
"And the second main reason for the attack is because Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border. That is to say, Hamas was signaling they had joined the international consensus, they had joined most of the international community, overwhelmingly the international community, in seeking a diplomatic settlement. And at that point, Israel was faced with what Israelis call a Palestinian peace offensive. And in order to defeat the peace offensive, they sought to dismantle Hamas. We have the Arab League, all twenty-two members of the Arab League, favoring a two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. We have the Palestinian Authority favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. We now have Hamas favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. The one and only obstacle is Israel, backed by the United States. That’s the problem." (Norman Finkelstein ‘Seeing Through the Lies: The Facts About Hamas and the War on Gaza’ http://www.counterpunch.com/finkelstein01132009.html January 13, 2009).

Eric Margolis.
Israel's security establishment is committed to preventing the creation of a viable Palestinian state, and refuses to negotiate with Hamas. Unable to kill all of Hamas' men, Israel is slowly destroying Gaza's infrastructure around them, as it did to Yasser Arafat's PLO." (Eric Margolis ‘Israel's 'Fait Accompli' in Gaza’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis131.html January 5, 2009).

Patrick J. Buchanan.
"It is preposterous that, at the behest of Israel, we do not talk to a Palestinian Authority led by Hamas, after an election in which Bush himself demanded Hamas be included." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘On Talking With Terrorists’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=9480 August 5, 2006).

Hamas and Fatah peace offer, March 2007.
"In fact, the situation took another turn for the worse in March 2007, when Fatah and Hamas came together to form a national unity government. Hamas’s stature and political power were growing, and Israel’s divide-and-conquer strategy was unraveling. To make matters worse, the national unity government began pushing for a long-term ceasefire. The Palestinians would end all missile attacks on Israel if the Israelis would stop arresting and assassinating Palestinians and end their economic stranglehold, opening the border crossings into Gaza. Israel rejected that offer and with American backing set out to foment a civil war between Fatah and Hamas that would wreck the national unity government and put Fatah in charge." (John J. Mearsheimer ‘Another War, Another Defeat’ http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/jan/26/00006/ January 26, 2009)

Hamas peace offer, 2008-9.
"Hamas responded by continuing to fire rockets and mortars into Israel, while emphasizing that they still sought a long-term ceasefire, perhaps lasting ten years or more. This was not a noble gesture on Hamas’s part: they sought a ceasefire because the balance of power heavily favored Israel. The Israelis had no interest in a ceasefire and merely intensified the economic pressure on Gaza." (John J. Mearsheimer ‘Another War, Another Defeat’ http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/jan/26/00006/ January 26, 2009); "Tell that to Ehud Barak, the defense minister, and Matan Vilnai, his deputy. This pair were plotting an invasion of Gaza throughout the six-month ceasefire with Hamas, and in fact much earlier. In truth, they ignored every diplomatic overture from Hamas, including offers of indefinite truces, while they invested their energies in the coming ground invasion. In particular they worked on plans, noted in the Israeli media back in spring 2008, to "level" Gaza's civilian neighborhoods and create "combat zones" from which civilians could be expelled." (Jonathan Cook ‘Israeli Assault Injures 1.5 Million Gazans’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=14082 January 17, 2009).

Hamas observes Ceasefire but Jews still refuse to Negotiate.
""But what choice did Israel have?" say those in its amen corner in the U.S. "No normal society would tolerate rocket fire on its territory. Hamas left it no option." Well, actually, as Jimmy Carter explains from first-hand experience, Israel had plenty of alternatives and chose to ignore them, because it remains locked into the failed U.S.-backed policy of trying to overturn the democratic verdict of the 2006 Palestinian election that made Hamas the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority. The primary Israeli-U.S.-European strategy here (tacitly backed by Arab autocrats from Mubarak to Mahmoud Abbas) has been to apply increasingly strict economic sanctions, in the hope that choking off the chances of a decent life for the 1.5 million people of Gaza would somehow force them to reverse their political choice. Collective punishment, in other words. So, even when Hamas observed a cease-fire between June and November, Israel refused to open the border crossings. When the exchange of fire began again on November 5 when Israel raided what it said was a Hamas tunnel, Hamas escalated its rocket fire but made clear that it would restore and extend the cease-fire if Israel agreed to open the border crossings. Israel’s answer, Carter explains, was if Hamas ceased firing, Israel would allow 15% of the normal traffic of goods into Gaza. And it’s any surprise that Hamas was not prepared to settle for just a 15% loosening of the economic stranglehold?" (Tony Karon ‘The War Isn’t Over, But Israel Has Lost’ http://tonykaron.com/2009/01/09/the-battle-isnt-over-but-israel-has-lost-the-war/ January 9, 2009).

Conclusion.
The examples outlined above clearly show that the jews-only state in palestine has never had any intention of negotiating with palestinians. Much more importantly, however, these examples constitute proof that, since its inception, the racist state has been engaged in a policy of ethnically cleansing palestinians from palestine and that it has successfully deceived the entire world, including many palestinians, about this objective. It will negotiate with palestinians only once it has forced the overwhelming bulk of them out of palestine.

The jews refuse to negotiate, or implement any temporary agreements, with palestinians because firstly they oppose a palestinian state and, secondly, and more importantly, they oppose palestinians living in palestine. The jewish racists’ point of view is what is the point of negotiating with people you wish to exterminate? "Unless Israel can make 5 to 7 million Palestinians disappear, it must find some way to coexist with them." (Eric Margolis ‘Israel's 'Fait Accompli' in Gaza’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis131.html January 5, 2009). The fact that for the last sixty years the jews have refused to negotiate with palestinians means that they refuse to co-exist with palestinians and that they are intent on ethnically cleansing palestinians from palestine.