From Newsgroup: nz.general

It seems our Government's decision not to recognise a Palestinian
state has got up some peoples noses. Personally I believe we have
taken a principled position for the reasons Peters gave.

Other countries have chosen to recognise a Palestinian state, but
their reasons for doing so are to give Israel a poke in the eye for
the treatment they are giving to those on the Gaza strip, and in
Lebanon in the past. There is, in fact, no such thing as the state of Palestine unless it is considered that the West Bank is such (ie
excludes Gaza). To form a Palestinian state would require the
Palestinian Authority to cede the West Bank and for Hamas to cede
Gaza.

If this were to happen then I would expect our Government to recognise Palestine.
--
Crash McBash
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: nz.general

Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

It seems our Government's decision not to recognise a Palestinian
state has got up some peoples noses. Personally I believe we have
taken a principled position for the reasons Peters gave.

Other countries have chosen to recognise a Palestinian state, but
their reasons for doing so are to give Israel a poke in the eye for
the treatment they are giving to those on the Gaza strip, and in
Lebanon in the past. There is, in fact, no such thing as the state of >Palestine unless it is considered that the West Bank is such (ie
excludes Gaza). To form a Palestinian state would require the
Palestinian Authority to cede the West Bank and for Hamas to cede
Gaza.

If this were to happen then I would expect our Government to recognise >Palestine.

--
Crash McBash

Exactly Crash.
Also, the recognition by Australia and some of the other countries comes with strong conditions that render their recognition pointless.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: nz.general

Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

It seems our Government's decision not to recognise a Palestinian
state has got up some peoples noses. Personally I believe we have
taken a principled position for the reasons Peters gave.

Other countries have chosen to recognise a Palestinian state, but
their reasons for doing so are to give Israel a poke in the eye for
the treatment they are giving to those on the Gaza strip, and in
Lebanon in the past. There is, in fact, no such thing as the state of >Palestine unless it is considered that the West Bank is such (ie
excludes Gaza). To form a Palestinian state would require the
Palestinian Authority to cede the West Bank and for Hamas to cede
Gaza.

If this were to happen then I would expect our Government to recognise >Palestine.

Yes the hate spewed forth by the NZ media on Saturday nite was
predictable. One maori breakfast was still carrying on with it this
morning.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: nz.general

On 2025-09-29, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

It seems our Government's decision not to recognise a Palestinian
state has got up some peoples noses. Personally I believe we have
taken a principled position for the reasons Peters gave.

Other countries have chosen to recognise a Palestinian state, but
their reasons for doing so are to give Israel a poke in the eye for
the treatment they are giving to those on the Gaza strip, and in
Lebanon in the past. There is, in fact, no such thing as the state of >>Palestine unless it is considered that the West Bank is such (ie
excludes Gaza). To form a Palestinian state would require the
Palestinian Authority to cede the West Bank and for Hamas to cede
Gaza.

If this were to happen then I would expect our Government to recognise >>Palestine.


--
Crash McBash

Exactly Crash.
Also, the recognition by Australia and some of the other countries comes with
strong conditions that render their recognition pointless.

This is an important point and tell us which Governments are woke. Suddenly following along after the crowd given a complex situation is some what idealistic.

From memory Palestine and Isreal both what the same chunk of land and have
been unable to come to some agreeemnt in a civil discussion. So it is not
going to be easy for Isreal and Palestine to co-exist peacefully next to
each other.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: nz.general

On 29 Sep 2025 04:22:25 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

From memory Palestine and Isreal both what the same chunk of land and have >been unable to come to some agreeemnt in a civil discussion.

The last "civil discussion" was when Clinton brought them together in
the Camp David talks of Y2000. Barak offered Arafat basically 100% of
the West Bank and still Arafat would not agree. Clinton said
afterwards that Arafat had made Clinton into a "colossal failure". https://www.newsweek.com/clinton-arafat-its-all-your-fault-153779

There will never be another such "civil discussion".

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: nz.general

Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

On 2025-09-29, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

It seems our Government's decision not to recognise a Palestinian
state has got up some peoples noses. Personally I believe we have
taken a principled position for the reasons Peters gave.

Other countries have chosen to recognise a Palestinian state, but
their reasons for doing so are to give Israel a poke in the eye for
the treatment they are giving to those on the Gaza strip, and in
Lebanon in the past. There is, in fact, no such thing as the state of >>>Palestine unless it is considered that the West Bank is such (ie
excludes Gaza). To form a Palestinian state would require the >>>Palestinian Authority to cede the West Bank and for Hamas to cede
Gaza.

If this were to happen then I would expect our Government to recognise >>>Palestine.


--
Crash McBash

Exactly Crash.
Also, the recognition by Australia and some of the other countries comes >>with
strong conditions that render their recognition pointless.

This is an important point and tell us which Governments are woke. Suddenly >following along after the crowd given a complex situation is some what >idealistic.

From memory Palestine and Isreal both what the same chunk of land and have >been unable to come to some agreeemnt in a civil discussion. So it is not >going to be easy for Isreal and Palestine to co-exist peacefully next to
each other.

The entire debate is one of profound bias. The fact is the attacks that started
this particular element of a long running conflict were horrendous and the response by Israel equally so. To take one side without acknowledging the other
side is just politics or nonsensical bias.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: nz.general

On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 05:10:39 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:

The last "civil discussion" was when Clinton brought them together
in the Camp David talks of Y2000. Barak offered Arafat basically
100% of the West Bank and still Arafat would not agree. Clinton said afterwards that Arafat had made Clinton into a "colossal failure".

From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit>:

Israeli diplomat Gilead Sher would later write, "the most serious
shortcoming of the American team was that some of its members
appeared to be less knowledgeable than the president in the
details and implications of the process."[12] Yasser Abed Rabbo,
member of the Palestinian negotiating team, recalled: "It was
chaos. Every day a different meeting, committee and issue. We
didnrCOt know what were our aims, to succeed, to fail, to
escape."[12]

Also

The Palestinian negotiators indicated they wanted full Palestinian
sovereignty over the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip, although
they would consider a one-to-one land swap with Israel. Their
historic position was that Palestinians had already made a
territorial compromise with Israel by accepting Israel's right to
78% of "historic Palestine", and accepting their state on the
remaining 22% of such land. This consensus was expressed by Faisal
Husseini when he remarked: "There can be no compromise on the
compromise".[15] They maintained that Resolution 242 calls for
full Israeli withdrawal from these territories, which were
captured in the Six-Day War, as part of a final peace settlement.
In the 1993 Oslo Accords the Palestinian negotiators accepted the
Green Line borders (1949 armistice lines) for the West Bank but
the Israelis rejected this proposal and disputed the Palestinian
interpretation of Resolution 242. Israel wanted to annex the
numerous settlement blocks on the Palestinian side of the Green
Line, and were concerned that a complete return to the 1967
borders was dangerous to Israel's security.

Fragmentation of West Bank lands:

The Palestinians reacted strongly negatively to the proposed
cantonization of the West Bank into three blocs, which the
Palestinian delegation likened to South African Bantustans, a
loaded word that was disputed by the Israeli and American
negotiators.[24] Settlement blocs, bypassed roads and annexed
lands would create barriers between Nablus and Jenin with
Ramallah. The Ramallah bloc would in turn be divided from
Bethlehem and Hebron. A separate and smaller bloc would contain
Jericho. Further, the border between West Bank and Jordan would
additionally be under Israeli control. The Palestinian Authority
would receive pockets of East Jerusalem which would be surrounded
entirely by annexed lands in the West Bank.[25]

And, of course, Arab-dominated East Jerusalem:

One of the most significant obstacles to an agreement was the
final status of Jerusalem, especially the status of Temple Mount,
known to Muslims as Al-Aqsa or Haram al-Sharif. Clinton and Barak
insisted that the entire area be placed under Israeli sovereignty,
while Palestinians could have "custodianship". Arafat insisted on
Palestinian sovereignty over the Haram. As this deadlock could not
be resolved, the summit ended.[2]

Leaders were ill-prepared for the central role the Jerusalem
issue in general and the Temple Mount dispute in particular
would play in the negotiations.[26] Barak instructed his
delegates to treat the dispute as "the central issue that will
decide the destiny of the negotiations", whereas Arafat
admonished his delegation to "not budge on this one thing: the
Haram (the Temple Mount or Al-Aqsa mosque) is more precious to
me than everything else."[27] At the opening of Camp David,
Barak warned the Americans he could not accept giving the
Palestinians more than a purely symbolic sovereignty over any
part of East Jerusalem.

YourCOd think at least some things could have been settled as a basis
for further talks, but no:

The negotiations were based on an all-or-nothing approach, such
that "nothing was considered agreed and binding until everything
was agreed."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2