Why peace eludes Israel

[shira]

Excerpt:

Namely, why does peace elude Israel? Why all the bad press? Other than what has come to be an irrational hatred of the Jewish State on the part of certain self-styled “progressives,” and, of course, the ever-continuing, protean phenomenon of anti-Semitism, I can think of two contributing factors.

One factor has been a corruption in the practice and language of human rights by organizations and their advocates, along with the use of international law as tool of politics; the second factor, related to and influenced by the first, has been the corruption of diplomacy, or what is referred to as the “peace process.”

much more...
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-peace-eludes-israel/

[aranthus]

1. Interesting, but I like the article he's responding to better.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-truth-about-the-nakba-is-irrelevent/

[shira]

2. I don't get the point of that article he's responding to...

He seems to be saying that if Israel only ends the occupation....

What does that mean other than complete 100% withdrawal to the green line, which won't happen?

Let's say that does happen (and it won't). Then what? All that Palestine will have to do is fire rockets and Israel will be blamed for defending. More lives will be lost. Nothing will be resolved. The same delegitimization process will continue while Israelis are more vulnerable to attack.

But at least some people will feel better that the occupation is over.

So what? That was the thinking leading up to the Lebanon and Gaza withdrawals of 2000 and 2005. "Surely the world will understand if we pull out. If they attack us then, the world will be with us". How'd that work out?

[aranthus]

4. He's saying make the deal you can make.

Israel isn't going to get a peace deal from the Palestinians. They really believe the Nakba narrative despite that it's mostly false. Hamas is only going to give Israel at best a Hudna in exchange for withdrawing. It may not be even half a loaf, but it's better than nothing. You're right that the world won't care. You're right that nothing will be resolved. It doesn't matter. The playing field will have been changed. Israel won't have the material, political and psychological burden of the settlements. If Israel holds out for the agreement it deserves, then there is never gong to be an agreement. Make the deal you can make.

[bemildred]

5. Correct.

The appearance of having a deal is better than the appearance of not having a deal (I submit that's obvious), and since neither side will keep the terms of the deal, unless they feel like it, regardless of what deal is made, it's better to make the deal. Insisting on everything you want or nothing is a recipe for nothing, or in this case less than nothing, since Israel is clearly losing the PR war, and nothing will reverse that faster than a deal, any deal.

Edit: I know, that is really too many "nothings" in that sentence, but I don't care enough to recast it to some better form.

[aranthus]

6. No it's about substance.

It's about making a real deal that actually makes things better. Which is why Israel will keep the agreement, becasue they really want a peace agreement. So will the Palestinians until they think they are strong enough to resume the war.

[shira]

7. Do you believe....

....that if Israel mostly withdraws but keeps almost all the settlements, that would do it?

[aranthus]

8. No.

If by "do it" you bring about the end of immediate hostilities. I think that if Israel kept the settlements near the Green Line, that would work. The rest would have to move.

[bemildred]

9. Well, one would hope so, but I'm not at all optimistic. nt

[shira]

3. The fundamental misconception about Arab-Israeli peace

The “peace process” between Israel and the Arabs, touted as part of a “two state” plan, failed not because of disagreements over settlements and boundaries, but because of a basic false assumption: that Palestinianism could be fulfilled in a Palestinian state alongside Israel. It failed not because Israel did not give enough, but because nothing would have been enough.

Paradoxically, the more people urged Palestinian statehood as part of a two-state plan, the less relevant it became. This is because the issue was not about Palestine, but Palestinianism. This explains why all diplomatic negotiations and proposals not only did not work, but could not work.

The dispute is not over territory, but ideology – Palestinianism, the basis of their nearly hundred-year war against Zionism and the State of Israel, the national historic homeland of the Jewish People. For Arabs, Palestinians and most Muslims, that struggle is jihad against the infidel.

Since a “peace process” requires Arabs to give up their opposition to a Jewish state, it contradicts their basic principles and historic mission. While some might make temporary concessions, the goal is the same. It explains not only why the “peace process” failed, but why that failure was and is inevitable.

The primary goal of Palestinian nationalism is to wipe out the State of Israel, not to legitimize its existence.

more...
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?ID=270896&R=R1