“It certainly doesn’t make any sense at all for the
Palestinians to demand withdrawal before negotiations, since that’s one of the subjects that negotiations would presumably address.”

Actually, the fact that the matter is being negotiated at all is a farce.  Israel are obliged to withdraw under the Geneva Conventions and international law.

In any case, the Palestinians are not making any such demand, but demanding that settlement construction stop.  Perfectly reasonable seeing as the settlements are illegal anyway.

“But it certainly makes sense for Israel to demand formal recognition before negotiations.”

That’s putting the cart before he horse for a number of reasons.

1.  Recognition is mutual.  Israel has no right to demand recognition until it recognizes Palestine.
2. Israel has no right to demand recognition until it defines it’s borders.

“Otherwise there simply is no legal basis for negotiating.”

You’re right, there is no legal basis for negotiating.  On legal grounds alone, Israel is obliged to withdraw from the occupied territories.

“You can’t negotiate with somebody who doesn’t acknowledge that you represent the people you’re negotiating with.”

Visa versa.

“Not true at all. Al Christians and Jews in Muslim states were forced to declare their allegiance to their Muslim rulers, and accept Islamic supremacy”

Absolutely false.  Islam was the first religion that tolerated other religions and and religious freedom.

“As far as the percentages goes, who cares?”

Apparently Israeli propagandists care, which is why they continue to perpetrated the lie that Arabs flocked to Palestine after the European immigrants began arriving.

“It may not have been Jewish territory in the
past, but it sure as hell is now.”

False, it is not Jewish territory, it is Israeli territory and Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel.

“After all, they still have a homeland east of the Jordan, if they can get the Jordanians to stop occupying it.”

Absolute rubbish,  Jordan is not Palestine.  That is a lie that Likud came up with in 1977.

“What was the demographic before the 86% Muslims got there, say in the year 600?”

Seeing as Israel came to an end in 70AD, it’s a certainty that Jews were not a majority.

“And did that 86% immigrate to Palestine (from where), or were they locals who converted?”

Good question.  They were locals who converted.

“Maybe we need a term to describe the obverse of “Zionism”. Maybe “sharia” will do.”

Why, was Nazism replaces by Communism in Germany?

Hmmm, I thought that was supposed to be the goal of the negotiations and not a pre-condition for them.

Top Ten Reasons East Jerusalem does not belong to
Jewish-Israelis

March 23, 2010 by Juan Cole

“Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the
American Israel Public Affairs Council on Monday that
“Jerusalem is not a settlement.” He continued that
the historical connection between the Jewish people
and the land of Israel cannot be denied. He added
that neither could the historical connection between
the Jewish people and Jerusalem. He insisted, “The
Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago
and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today.”
He said, “Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our
capital.” He told his applauding audience of 7500
that he was simply following the policies of all
Israeli governments since the 1967 conquest of
Jerusalem in the Six Day War.

Netanyahu mixed together Romantic-nationalist cliches
with a series of historically false assertions. But
even more important was everything he left out of the
history, and his citation of his warped and
inaccurate history instead of considering laws,
rights or common human decency toward others not of
his ethnic group.

So here are the reasons that Netanyahu is
profoundly wrong, and East Jerusalem does not belong
to him.

1. In international law, East Jerusalem is occupied
territory, as are the parts of the West Bank that
Israel unilaterally annexed to its district of
Jerusalem. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and
the Hague Regulations of 1907 forbid occupying powers
to alter the lifeways of civilians who are occupied,
and forbid the settling of people from the occupiers’
country in the occupied territory. Israel’s expulsion
of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem,
its usurpation of Palestinian property there, and its
settling of Israelis on Palestinian land are all
gross violations of international law. Israeli claims
that they are not occupying Palestinians because the
Palestinians have no state are cruel and
tautological. Israeli claims that they are building
on empty territory are laughable. My back yard is
empty, but that does not give Netanyahu the right to
put up an apartment complex on it.

2. Israeli governments have not in fact been united
or consistent about what to do with East Jerusalem
and the West Bank, contrary to what Netanyahu says.
The Galili Plan for settlements in the West Bank was
adopted only in 1973. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin
gave undertakings as part of the Oslo Peace Process
to withdraw from Palestinian territory and grant
Palestinians a state, promises for which he was
assassinated by the Israeli far right (elements of
which are now supporting Netanyahu’s government). As
late as 2000, then Prime Minister Ehud Barak claims
that he gave oral assurances that Palestinians could
have almost all of the West Bank and could have some
arrangement by which East Jerusalem could be its
capital. Netanyahu tried to give the impression that
far rightwing Likud policy on East Jerusalem and the
West Bank has been shared by all previous Israeli
governments, but this is simply not true.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Click on link for the other 8 top reasons:

http://www.juancole.com/2010/03/top-ten-reasons-east-jerusalem-does-not.html

john from ojai:

What was the demographic before the 86% Muslims got there, say in the year 600? And did that 86% immigrate to Palestine (from where), or were they locals who converted?

Maybe we need a term to describe the obverse of “Zionism”. Maybe “sharia” will do.

****************

This smells more like an izraeli win-win-win
situation where upon izrael will get what they
want and palestinians will have to give up what
they should have and the u.s. pays netinyahoo
another $100,000,000,000.00 for shits and
giggles.

There is only one pre-condition that merits discussion: that Israel withdraw completely to the 1967 borders.  The Palestinians are under no obligation to recognize Israel, nor should they.