Fear of peace will be the death of Israel

[Violet_Crumble]

by Bradley Burston

SHEIKH JARRAH, Jerusalem - As the grandson of anarchists, I've always had a soft spot in my heart for fanatics. Expressions of extremism, and passionately reasoned, exquisitely twisted world views make me feel, how shall I put this, at home.

So it was with a certain relish that I approached the cover story of a recent issue of Commentary, "The Deadly Price of Pursuing Peace," written as it was by a talented colleague and friend, Evelyn Gordon.


<snip>

It was not until I saw the title of the Commentary piece that it all made sense.

The right is terrified of peace. And, in the end, the right's fear of peace will be the death of Israel.

They are afraid of peace, in part, because it threatens the core of what has come to replace other values as the goal of Judaism: permanent settlement of the West Bank. But that is only a part of it.

They are afraid of peace because they are afraid of the world. They dismiss fellow Jews who want to see a two-state solution - a majority of Israelis - as unrealistic, as living in a bubble. The name of the bubble these moderates live in, however, is planet Earth.

The right, meanwhile, wants to wall off Israel as the world's last remaining legally mandated Jewish ghetto. A place where all the rules are different, exit and entry, citizenship and human rights, because the residents within are Jews. A place where non-Jews, dehumanized as congenital Jew-haters, are rendered invisible. A place which, if suffocating and insufferable, still seems safer than the scary world outside.

A place which, because of its walls and its politics and its cowardice, is losing its ability to function as a part of the world, reveling in cheap-shot humiliations of key foreign ambassadors, deliriously proud of its sense that of all the world, including most of its Jews and Israelis - only the right sees the real truth.

This braid of thought was venomously endorsed this week both by an uncharacteristically Kahane-sounding Alan Dershowitz, and the obscenely infantile Im Tirtzu movement. According to them, where Cast Lead was concerned, the real war criminals are Richard Goldstone and Naomi Chazan - two people who are open about their love of Israel, and who have worked their whole adult lives for its well-being.

The fears of the right are not mere devices of rhetoric. The risks of making peace are real. Every bit as real as the risks of failing to make peace.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1147257.html

[babylonsister]

1. Wow. I wish I could recommend this. nt

[stray cat]

2. It will take both sides to choose and ensure peace and to reign in violent extremists

People will have to decide they love their children more than they want to destroy their chosen enemies

[aquart]

4. Both sides NEED their "violent extremists."

They need them to do the killing that will reduce the population of the other side which threatens to overwhelm them. It's sweet to talk about loving their children while the other side eats up all hope those children have.

[Ken Burch]

5. Dear God...dragging out old Golda Meir punchlines?

It's never been all the Palestinians' fault.

[aquart]

3. Population will be the death of Israel.

They are surrounded by larger, more populous nations which need every inch of their own land. Israel is tiny with limited possibilities for expansion. Since the Arab nations won't absorb the Palestinian Arabs, and the Israelis can't, there will be continual bloody clashes over that small amount of territory.

[Kurska]

6. Oh I'm sure Israel is just terrified of peace, they are just holding back the tidal wave of love!

I bet all the little arab state want to just come up and give evil ole israel a hug.

People act as if ending settlements in the west bank and releasing those areas to become a Palestinian state would bring peace. It won't, it was tried in gaza and all Israel got was rockets. Israel has no political will left for sacrifices at the bargaining table, the Israeli people feel they have already given up to much to a process that has produced far less fruit then just ignoring other arab states, building walls has and military means.. Oslo failed, the gaza withdraw failed, every attempt at peace has failed and to describe the Israeli populace as once bitten twice shy is a understatement. Meanwhile the military has consistently done what the diplomats have never even gotten close to, protect Israel's survival.

Who knows what will happen, but as of now peace is out of reach, not matter what Israel does, no credible force on the arab side wants it, it isn't going to happen for now.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. That's nifty how reading and addressing the article can be bypassed...

Just bring up those nasty Ayrabs, pretend that Israel doesn't have an extreme RW govt that makes Bushco look like a bunch of treehuggers, and cling to the illusion that Israel's interested in nothing but peace, even though what was written in the OP should be enough to make anyone sit back and start thinking...

[Kurska]

9. I'm saying Israelis are sick of trying to make peace, that is nothing positive, about them.

Both sides are.

The government is a result of the national zeitgeist, which is nothing good has ever come of peaceful negotiations (atleast lately...) so why continue to burn money, time and effort when all it has ever resulted in lately is backlashes or taking 2 steps forward and 3 steps back. Israelis aren't as much afraid of peace or its uncertainty as they are convinced it isn't even possible right now.

The problem is everyone wants peace, but they want peace on their terms and neither of the side's terms are anywhere close to compatible and both are happier to deal with the status quo then compromise (even if neither side is very happy at all).

I'm not saying the Israelis did everything they could to make peace, we all know they didn't, but they feel like they have done more then enough. The Arabs in general are even less likely to compromise (if only because as unpopular compromise is in Israel, it is even less popular in arab states), so as of now, I personally see very little hope for peace either.

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. withdrew from the Gaza - and the doubled its settlement expansion on the West Bank

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082701113_pf.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/world/africa/26iht-mideast.4024302.html

including a whole new settlement in the West Bank:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6210721.stm

A withdraw from an isolated portion of the Occupied Palestinian Territories while Israel relentlessly consolidates its power elsewhere and massively and relentlessly expands its illegal settlements could hardly be expected to have been seen as a goodwill gesture at all.

As far as the Oslo Accord, the government of Israeli again massively increased its settlements during the entirety of the period - almost doubling the settlements between the time of the signing of the Oslo Accord and the Camp David talks in 2000 - while cutting up the West Bank into multiple cantons and actually making life much, much harder for the Palestinians and a viable economy and a viable state much, much less likely.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/728a69d4-12b1-11dc-a475-000b5df10621,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F728a69d4-12b1-11dc-a475-000b5df10621.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2Fdiscuss%2Fdu

There are approximately 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, (*now closer to 500,000) including East Jerusalem. According to B'tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, " the built-up area of the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank".*

http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp

full PDF map:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/Settlements_Map_Eng.pdf

"“ there is no Palestinian state, even though the Israelis speak of one.” Instead, he said, “there will be a settler state and a Palestinian built-up area, divided into three sectors, cut by fingers of Israeli settlement and connected only by narrow roads."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/world/middleeast/11road.html?_r=13&pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=22948d4799a34065&ex=1187496000&emc=eta1&oref

July/August 2002

The Myth of the Generous Offer:
Distorting the Camp David negotiations

By Seth Ackerman

link:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113


The seemingly endless volleys of attack and retaliation in the Middle East leave many people wondering why the two sides can't reach an agreement. The answer is simple, according to numerous commentators: At the Camp David meeting in July 2000, Israel "offered extraordinary concessions" (Michael Kelly, Washington Post, 3/13/02), "far-reaching concessions" (Boston Globe, 12/30/01), "unprecedented concessions" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). Israel’s "generous peace terms" (L.A. Times editorial, 3/15/02) constituted "the most far-reaching offer ever" (Chicago Tribune editorial, 6/6/01) to create a Palestinian state. In short, Camp David was "an unprecedented concession" to the Palestinians (Time, 12/25/00).

But due to "Arafat's recalcitrance" (L.A. Times editorial, 4/9/02) and "Palestinian rejectionism" (Mortimer Zuckerman, U.S. News & World Report, 3/22/02), "Arafat walked away from generous Israeli peacemaking proposals without even making a counteroffer" (Salon, 3/8/01). Yes, Arafat "walked away without making a counteroffer" (Samuel G. Freedman, USA Today, 6/18/01). Israel "offered peace terms more generous than ever before and Arafat did not even make a counteroffer" (Chicago Sun-Times editorial, 11/10/00). In case the point isn't clear: "At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians an astonishingly generous peace with dignity and statehood. Arafat not only turned it down, he refused to make a counteroffer!" (Charles Krauthammer, Seattle Times, 10/16/00).

This account is one of the most tenacious myths of the conflict. Its implications are obvious: There is nothing Israel can do to make peace with its Palestinian neighbors. The Israeli army’s increasingly deadly attacks, in this version, can be seen purely as self-defense against Palestinian aggression that is motivated by little more than blind hatred.

Locking in occupation

To understand what actually happened at Camp David, it's necessary to know that for many years the PLO has officially called for a two-state solution in which Israel would keep the 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate (as Britain's protectorate was called) that it has controlled since 1948, and a Palestinian state would be formed on the remaining 22 percent that Israel has occupied since the 1967 war (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem). Israel would withdraw completely from those lands, return to the pre-1967 borders and a resolution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee their homes in 1948 would be negotiated between the two sides. Then, in exchange, the Palestinians would agree to recognize Israel (PLO Declaration, 12/7/88; PLO Negotiations Department).

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region's scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new "independent state" would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called "bypass roads" that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.

Violence or negotiation?

The Camp David meeting ended without agreement on July 25, 2000. At this point, according to conventional wisdom, the Palestinian leader's "response to the Camp David proposals was not a counteroffer but an assault" (Oregonian editorial, 8/15/01). "Arafat figured he could push one more time to get one more batch of concessions. The talks collapsed. Violence erupted again" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). He "used the uprising to obtain through violence...what he couldn't get at the Camp David bargaining table" (Chicago Sun-Times, 12/21/00).

But the Intifada actually did not start for another two months. In the meantime, there was relative calm in the occupied territories. During this period of quiet, the two sides continued negotiating behind closed doors. Meanwhile, life for the Palestinian population under Israeli occupation went on as usual. On July 28, Prime Minister Barak announced that Israel had no plans to withdraw from the town of Abu Dis, as it had pledged to do in the 1995 Oslo II agreement (Israel Wire, 7/28/00). In August and early September, Israel announced new construction on Jewish-only settlements in Efrat and Har Adar, while the Israeli statistics bureau reported that settlement building had increased 81 percent in the first quarter of 2000. Two Palestinian houses were demolished in East Jerusalem, and Arab residents of Sur Bahir and Suwahara received expropriation notices; their houses lay in the path of a planned Jewish-only highway (Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 11-12/00).

The Intifada began on September 29, 2000, when Israeli troops opened fire on unarmed Palestinian rock-throwers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, killing four and wounding over 200 (State Department human rights report for Israel, 2/01). Demonstrations spread throughout the territories. Barak and Arafat, having both staked their domestic reputations on their ability to win a negotiated peace from the other side, now felt politically threatened by the violence. In January 2001, they resumed formal negotiations at Taba, Egypt.

The Taba talks are one of the most significant and least remembered events of the "peace process." While so far in 2002 (1/1/02-5/31/02), Camp David has been mentioned in conjunction with Israel 35 times on broadcast network news shows, Taba has come up only four times--never on any of the nightly newscasts. In February 2002, Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz (2/14/02), published for the first time the text of the European Union's official notes of the Taba talks, which were confirmed in their essential points by negotiators from both sides.

"Anyone who reads the European Union account of the Taba talks," Ha'aretz noted in its introduction, "will find it hard to believe that only 13 months ago, Israel and the Palestinians were so close to a peace agreement." At Taba, Israel dropped its demand to control Palestine's borders and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians, for the first time, made detailed counterproposals--in other words, counteroffers--showing which changes to the 1967 borders they would be willing to accept. The Israeli map that has emerged from the talks shows a fully contiguous West Bank, though with a very narrow middle and a strange gerrymandered western border to accommodate annexed settlements.

In the end, however, all this proved too much for Israel's Labor prime minister. On January 28, Barak unilaterally broke off the negotiations. "The pressure of Israeli public opinion against the talks could not be resisted," Ben-Ami said (New York Times, 7/26/01).

Settlements off the table

In February 2001, Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister of Israel. Sharon has made his position on the negotiations crystal clear. "You know, it's not by accident that the settlements are located where they are," he said in an interview a few months after his election (Ha'aretz, 4/12/01).


They safeguard the cradle of the Jewish people's birth and also provide strategic depth which is vital to our existence.

The settlements were established according to the conception that, come what may, we have to hold the western security area , which is adjacent to the Green Line, and the eastern security area along the Jordan River and the roads linking the two. And Jerusalem, of course. And the hill aquifer. Nothing has changed with respect to any of those things. The importance of the security areas has not diminished, it may even have increased. So I see no reason for evacuating any settlements.


Meanwhile, Ehud Barak has repudiated his own positions at Taba, and now speaks pointedly of the need for a negotiated settlement "based on the principles presented at Camp David" (New York Times op-ed, 4/14/02).

In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02).

Ariel Sharon responded by declaring that "a return to the 1967 borders will destroy Israel" (New York Times, 5/4/02). In a commentary on the Arab plan, Ha'aretz's Bradley Burston (2/27/02) noted that the offer was "forcing Israel to confront peace terms it has quietly feared for decades."

The Arab Peace Initiative, 2002

The Arab Peace Plan - unanimously supported by the entire Arab League and endorsed by the PLO (No it does not call for flooding Israel with millions of Palestinians. It calls for a mutually agreed upon negotiated solution to the refugee problem.)

http://www.al-bab.com/Arab/docs/league/peace02.htm

Official translation of the full text of a Saudi-inspired peace plan adopted by the Arab summit in Beirut, 2002.

The Arab Peace Initiative

The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session,

Reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government,

Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which his highness presented his initiative calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel,

Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3./b] Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighbourliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity.

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organisations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union.

[Kurska]

10. Yeah gotcha buddy, never did anything to try for peace, it was all a big joke.

You sure like the word relentless, it makes the other side look less like humans, more machine like or absolutely evil I suppose. Justifies your absolutely black and white view of the conflict.

I've read most of what you posted, all of that has been debated to near sickening levels on this very forum so I don't feel like going into how the arab peace initiative was a nonstarter or how restrictions on movement or economic freedom in the west bank has loosened in recent years. Old song, old dance, no desire to take part in that.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. the Palestinian have already acknowledged their willingness to renounce their claim on

78% of their homeland and accept a tiny little state only slightly larger than one fifth the size of Israel. If israel cannot remove the majority of the settlers so that a truly independent and viable state is physically possible - the alternative is a single state. 2-1 = 1. Many Israeli leaders and even the U.S. State Department considered the Arab Peace Plan a positive development and a possible basis for a negotiated peace. Simply loosening restrictions does not change the fact that there are still enormous restrictions. A slightly more gentle military occupation is still an occupation.

Meron Benvenisti - former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem

And there's a fourth model, which can be called "undeclared binationalism." It's a unitary state controlled by one dominant national group, which leaves the other national group disenfranchised and subject to laws "for natives only," which for the purposes of respectability and international law are known as laws of "belligerent occupation." The convenience of this model of binationalism is that it can be applied over a long period of time, meanwhile debating the threat of the "one state" and the advantages of the "two states," without doing a thing. That's the situation nowadays. But the process is apparently inevitable. Israel and the Palestinians are sinking together into the mud of the "one state." The question is no longer whether it will be binational, but which model to choose ".

link to full article:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=363062&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

[Kurska]

12. Which groups of Palestinians said that?

When was that offer made and by who? Who is going to ENFORCE PEACE?

Hamas, Hezbollah, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, who is going to disarm them? When are the arab states going to announce peace with Israel? How about Iran? Do you really believe if Israel uprooted all the settlements there would be peace?

The naivety you're speaking with is the very reason most people grow so tired of this conflict and this debate, neither side is willing to acknowledge the efforts of the other side and both claim that the other is the only barrier to peace. No one is willing to take responsibility, no one wants to compromise and there are so many questions that any objective observers notice that when the political will isn't there for something do able, it certainly isn't there for something neigh impossible.

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. the PLO and the Palestinian Authority have all stated clearly and unambiguously

that the are prepared to recognize the 1967 border in exchange for a Palestinian state based in the West Bank and the Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. That comprises approximately 22% of 1948 British Mandate Palestine. This is the same position unanimously endorsed by the Arab League and the 57 member nation states of the The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) - link: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/world/10604381.asp?gid=244

BTW: No I do not think of Israel as evil except to the extent that all states are evil. I think they hold the lop sided balance of power and are thus far more demanding and less willing.

Frankly, I believe that only a comprehensive peace involving the whole region will bring a more stable peace. As the Arab League League Peace Plan states, they will in a comprehensive peace agreement:

" II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.


Such an agreement would greatly reduce the influence of those who would want to disrupt any negotiated peace.

I believe a comprehensive peace agreement with Syria, which may seem like a side issue to many, would be an essential element.

Bill Clinton: Israel-Syria peace deal could be reached within 35 minutes

"A peace agreement between Israel and Syria could be reached within 35 minutes, former U.S. president Bill Clinton told the Lebanon-based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper in an interview published Sunday.

Clinton said Israel and Syria were very close to reaching an agreement in 1998, adding that an accord could be reached assuming Iran does not play a role in the issue."


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/848517.html

I can think of five very real incentives for Israel to normalize relations with Syria:

1. A broad regional peace agreement would be impossible without it.

2. It would greatly weaken the influence of Iran. Syria is Iran's only state allie in the Arab world.

3. It would mean the end or at least dramatic reduction in Syrian support for Hamas and Hezbollah including much Iranian support via Syria for Hamas and Hezbollah.

4. It could also likely, in fact probably mean the normalization of relations with Lebanon.

5. Syria is still a pivotal and influential country in the Middle East. Normalized relations between Syria and Israel would have the potential for opening up a great deal of commercial exchange and open movement of goods services between not only Israel and Syria, but Israel and the wider Arab world including the much more prosperous Gulf states.


===============


I believe that it would be only about a three or four hour drive between Jerusalem and Damascus or Jerusalem and Beirut for that matter - if such movement was allowed. The commercial implications of this would be enormous.

It is accepted as a given than a withdrawal from the Golan would include a network of early warning systems and international monitors along with a workable arrangement on water usage.

There is no way that the Gulf states such as Kuwait, the UAE or Bahrain would ever normalize relations before Syria does. These are all places only about a one to one and a half hour flight from Tel Aviv or about twelve hours by land travel, small but wealthy countries with enormous economic resources and their own gateway free trade zones. Again the commercial implications of this would be enormous.

Syria is to a large degree still stuck in a Soviet era time warp, They very much do want to join the international world. They have a very strong incentive for wanting to make a peace agreement - however it would be unthinkable that Syria would agree to this without an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan. They have a very strong domestic state security apparatus. They would have both the incentive and the ability to control anyone from within their border who might want to disrupt a peace agreement.

[Kurska]

14. Which is lovely, except neither side is even at the negotiating table.

Israel clearly doesn't accept the deal, just like the PA didn't accept the deal of most of the West bank, no east jerusalem and land swaps to even it out and balance demographic that Olmert made. Neither side is happy with what the other is offering and they won't even meet to engage in dialog to try and work it out, because they have done that hundreds of times before and got absolutely nowhere with it.

Even if that deal happened tomorrow, there are still right of returns issues, Hamas, Hezbollah and a myriad of other things that would need to be worked out. You already seem very aware of the difficulties with syria, so I don't need to mention those, but Israel isn't going to give up huge chunks of land unless all those issues can be worked out and Israel feels it is finally safe.

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. I agree that a two-state solution is unlikely to happen

No Arab leader can or ever will accept any agreement that does not include Occupied East Jerusalem - which is after all, Occupied Territory under international law. Jerusalem is absolutely a central issue. Even the most moderate and compromising Palestinian, Arab or Muslim leader would never agree to a two-state solution that did not include Occupied East Jerusalem; not now, not a thousand years from now, never. Still there are proposals that do offer a plausible solution to the Jerusalem issue under a two-state plan, such as the Geneva Initiative:

Article 6 – Jerusalem

1.Religious and Cultural Significance:

i.The Parties recognize the universal historic, religious, spiritual, and cultural significance of Jerusalem and its holiness enshrined in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In recognition of this status, the Parties reaffirm their commitment to safeguard the character, holiness, and freedom of worship in the city and to respect the existing division of administrative functions and traditional practices between different denominations.

ii.The Parties shall establish an inter-faith body consisting of representatives of the three monotheistic faiths, to act as a consultative body to the Parties on matters related to the city’s religious significance and to promote inter-religious understanding and dialogue. The composition, procedures, and modalities for this body are set forth in Annex X.

2.Capital of Two States

The Parties shall have their mutually recognized capitals in the areas of Jerusalem under their respective sovereignty.

3.Sovereignty

Sovereignty in Jerusalem shall be in accordance with attached Map 2. This shall not prejudice nor be prejudiced by the arrangements set forth below

link to full text: http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/english

Equally, no Palestinian leader can or will ever accept a settlement that does not remove the vast majority of illegal settlers and illegal settlements from the Occupied Territories. Because without this, a Palestinian state would be divided up into multiple cantons and would not be a real state with genuine independence and sovereignty, much less continuity. A simple glance at one of the maps above will explain why. Israel would certainly never agree to an arrangement like that for themselves. No nation would.

So, if the removal of most of the nearly half million illegal settlers and illegal settlements from the Occupied Territories so that a plausible Palestinian state would have genuine viability and Independence and if Israel is unwilling to compromise on Jerusalem - then a two-state solution will not happen. With continued relentless settlement and infrastructure expansion in the Occupied Territories (which Mr. Netanyahu has promised the settler movement) a two-state solution will even be much, much less likely in the future than it is now.

Without a two-state solution, which I agree is unlikely, ten years from now Palestinians will be a solid majority of the population living under Israeli sovereignty. Twenty years from now they will be the overwhelming majority. By this time a two-state solution will simply be physically implausible, if not physically impossible. The implications of this are very clear. There will in fact by default be a single state. 2-1=1. The only question is whether it will be a democratic state, perhaps a binational state or an apartheid state.

[Kurska]

17. Hardly, Israel could always unilaterally withdraw from most of the west bank, keeping the settlement

blocs and eastern Jerusalem for themselves. Infact Lieberman was floating the idea around almost word for word a little while back. I do think it is very strange to assume that if the Palestinians just wait it out, they will win either way, how is that attitude even slightly conductive to peace making? Especially because neither of us have a crystal ball and the status quo has been maintained since 1967 without any sort official Israeli annexation of the westbank.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. a unilateral withdraw from the West Bank that left Israel

in control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem - given that the distribution of the settlements and the infrastructure to support the settlements would still be defined as a belligerent occupation under international law - given that Israel would control virtually all access to Palestinian population centers, air space, borders and most likely the water supply and access. The state of Israel will still be the occupying power and recognized by the entire world as such.

It is not a matter of the Palestinian waiting it out. It has always been crystal clear what Israel needs to do if it is serious about achieving a settlement. It is is essentially defined by the minimal requirements of international law. Every single inch of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem occupied after June 4, 1967 is occupied territory. Not one single inch of it is any way, shape or form legally part of Israel. This is not a matter of interpretation. There is nothing ambiguous about it. There never has been. Minor mutually agreeable exchanges might be the practical thing to do for everyone concerned - such as some exchanges for some settlement blocks that border the green line for a land passage linking Gaza to the West Bank would probably be practical.

The future viability of the Israeli state simply requires a peace settlement. Those who genuinely care about Israel's future should be in the forefront pushing Israel to dismantle the settlements, end the occupation, comply with international law and accept a peace settlement based on international law. No amount of military power can forever out muscle geography and demographics. It can for awhile, but not forever.

[Kurska]

19. "The Entire world" see, this is why I have a problem taking you seriously, hyperbole.

You're making very broad sweeping predictions on things that are right now very murky, analyzing everything through a ideological lens that proclaim victory inevitable to your side. All the while proclaiming that things like

"Not one single inch of it is any way, shape or form legally part of Israel. This is not a matter of interpretation. There is nothing ambiguous about it. There never has been. Minor mutually agreeable exchanges might be the practical thing to do for everyone concerned - such as some exchanges for some settlement blocks that border the green line for a land passage linking Gaza to the West Bank would probably be practical."

Okay, good luck with that, because Israel isn't giving up east Jerusalem. Israel doesn't agree and many countries don't agree, even countries that disagree have done jackshit about it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. December 2009 U.N. General Assembly vote was 163 to 7

But even the U.S. acknowledges that all land occupied after June 4, 1967, including East Jerusalem is occupied territory along with every single international legal body and every single credible international human rights organization that deals with this issue -every single one without one single exception all hold this position.

By a recorded vote of 163 in favour, to 7 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States), with 5 in abstention (Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Tonga), the Assembly then adopted the resolution on Jerusalem (document A/64/L.24) (Annex V), by which it expressed grave concern at any action taken by any body -- Governmental or non-governmental -- in violation of resolutions 181 (II) (1947), 36/120 (1981), 56/31 (2001) and 478 (1980). It expressed grave concern at Israel’s continuation of illegal settlement activities, including the so-called E-1 plan, construction of the wall around East Jerusalem and restricted access to and residence in East Jerusalem.

Further by the text, the Assembly reiterated its determination that any actions taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on Jerusalem were illegal and, therefore, null and void. It called on Israel to immediately cease all such illegal measures and stressed that a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of Jerusalem should take into account the legitimate concerns of both Palestinians and Israelis and should include internationally guaranteed provisions to ensure freedom of religion of its inhabitants. Finally, it requested the Secretary-General to report back to it at its sixty-fifth session on the implementation of the resolution.

Next, by a recorded vote of 116 in favour, to 7 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 51 in abstention, the Assembly adopted a resolution on The Syrian Golan (document A/64/L.25) (Annex VI), by which it declared that Israel had failed to comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981) and that the Israeli decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void. It reaffirmed

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/ga10896.doc.htm

What I think doesn not matter. I simply want to see a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians and the Arab world. A lot of good will come of that. The Israelis would also greatly benefit if normal relations could be established with the Palestinians and all of Israel's Arab neighbors. After all if peace were to come, someone living in Tel Aviv could be able to drive to either Beirut or Damascus in the morning and have lunch and come back the same day. Just imagine a world in which that became the reality of ordinary daily life. To reject a settlement on Jerusalem is to reject the two-state solution. Everyone knows this. Even at the Taba talks of January 2001, both sides including the Israeli Foreign Minister and the Israeli negotiating team acknowledged the need to settle the Jerusalem issue:

2. Jerusalem

2.1 Sovereignty

Both sides accepted in principle the Clinton suggestion of having a Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods and an Israeli sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods. The Palestinian side affirmed that it was ready to discuss Israeli request to have sovereignty over those Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem that were constructed after 1967, but not Jebal Abu Ghneim and Ras al-Amud. The Palestinian side rejected Israeli sovereignty over settlements in the Jerusalem Metropolitan Area, namely of Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev.


The Palestinian side understood that Israel was ready to accept Palestinian sovereignty over the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, including part of Jerusalem's Old City. The Israeli side understood that the Palestinians were ready to accept Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and part of the American Quarter.

The Palestinian side understood that the Israeli side accepted to discuss Palestinian property claims in West Jerusalem.

2.2 Open City

Both sides favored the idea of an Open City. The Israeli side suggested the establishment of an open city whose geographical scope encompasses the Old City of Jerusalem plus an area defined as the Holy Basin or Historical Basin.

The Palestinian side was in favor of an open city provided that continuity and contiguity were preserved. The Palestinians rejected the Israeli proposal regarding the geographic scope of an open city and asserted that the open city is only acceptable if its geographical scope encompasses the full municipal borders of both East and West Jerusalem.

The Israeli side raised the idea of establishing a mechanism of daily coordination and different models were suggested for municipal coordination and cooperation (dealing with infrastructure, roads, electricity, sewage, waste removal etc). Such arrangements could be formulated in a future detailed agreement. It proposed a "soft border regime" within Jerusalem between Al-Quds and Yerushalaim that affords them "soft border" privileges. Furthermore the Israeli side proposed a number of special arrangements for Palestinian and Israeli residents of the Open City to guarantee that the Open City arrangement neither adversely affect their daily lives nor compromise each party sovereignty over its section of the Open City.

2.3 Capital for two states

The Israeli side accepted that the City of Jerusalem would be the capital of the two states: Yerushalaim, capital of Israel and Al-Quds, capital of the state of Palestine. The Palestinian side expressed its only concern, namelythat East Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine.

Beilin stressed that the Taba talks were not halted because they hit a crisis, but rather because of the Israeli election. At the time, the two sides were discussing arranging a Barak-Arafat meeting in an effort to close the gaps; they had also discussed continuing the talks the day after the election, independent of the outcome. Beilin himself continues to talk with the Palestinians about ways to solve the various issues that remain open. From his perspective, the basis for negotiations was, and remains, the proposals made by former U.S. president Bill Clinton.

link to full document: http://prrn.mcgill.ca/research/papers/moratinos.htm

[Kurska]

22. Yes, I'm ware of how lopsided the view is.

I'm also aware that you said every single nation, which according to your own sources isn't true. All of this hardly matters, given that no nation is going to force its will upon israel on this issue. So if Israel withdrew to the areas I previously stated and built a second wall around it, who is really going to be do anything about it, atleast the Palestinians would have a state.

As already said you say Israel not giving up east Jerusalem dooms the peace process and Israel says demanding East Jerusalem dooms the peace process. The big and the small of it is the peace process is doomed until someone blinks.

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. that is not what I said, I certainly didn't use the phrase, "every single nation"

Many Israel leaders most certainly do recognize the imperative of settling the issue of Jerusalem and there are plausible arrangements. Some were under discussion at Taba and many details were worked out in the Geneva Initiative with the participation of a number of Israelis leaders. But unilateral disengagement that does not address the issues including Jerusalem will not bring peace. A series of disconnected cantons in which the Palestinians have little or no control over their situation and is surrounded by Israel who does exercise real control - will not be a state. Israel will still be recognized under such a prescription by the world community as the occupying power. This will certainly not bring peace nor will it afford Israel the opportunity to establish normal relations and be accepted into the region or decrease the Iranian threat or reduce the threat of terrorism. It would in all probability do quite the opposite.

There is a formula that can achieve peace, bring more stability to the region, decrease the threat of international terrorism and decrease the influence of Iran; a settlement leaving Israel with normalized relations with most of the Arab and Islamic world. and it is a settlement based on International Law.

[pelsar]

24. do you believe

that without the IDF, abbas and the PA can maintain control of the westbank....or is there a possibility that hamas will do a repeat of gaza and take it over...

and is that relevant to you?

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. as far as the West Bank is concerned yes

but let me again state that I believe the most stable peace requires a broad peace agreement that especially includes Syria. As Bill Clinton once said, he is confident that Israel and Damascus can reach a peace agreement within 35 minutes. To truly make the two-state solution work, it is essential from my point of view that the Arab states are on board. They would have considerably more ability to neutralize any disruption from non-state players. Syria is really a pretty miserable place these days and facing a lot of domestic dissatisfaction. They are frankly stuck in a kind of Soviet era time warp. They really do want to join the international community. But the issue of the Golan simply makes it impossible for any Syrian leader to have the domestic backing to make peace with Israel and thus fully normalize relations with the United States and be a full participant in the world economy. An additional benefit of this, besides reducing the influence of Hamas and Hezbollah, is that it could likely shift Syria away from excessive Iranian influence.

The Iranian threat does on one level offer a unique opportunity. In my opinion this opens the doors for the possibility of normalizing relations between Israel and the Arab world. The Arab states are truly scared to death of Iran and though they wouldn't say so publicly, they probably for the most part consider Iran far, far more a real threat than Israel. However, without a resolution to the Israel/Palestine conflict including a resolution to the Jerusalem issue, the Arab state leaders would simply not be in a position to move toward normalization given the pressures coming from the "Arab Street".

I do believe that a broad agreement that moves toward normalizing relations between Israel and the Arab world would greatly neutralize the influence of Hamas or anyone else who would wish to disrupt a peace agreement. Furthermore, a real Palestinian state established under an agreement that addressed the most contentious issues would also do much to neutralize any disruptive influence from the likes of Hamas.

[pelsar]

28. so its not up to the Abbas and Palestinians....

your saying the process must include: Egypt, syrian, Jordan, etc...i.e. all of the arab states outside of Iran, who is quite busy with Hizballas and taking over by proxy lebanon and feeding hamas.

and given that in the west bank hamas is armed and with influence, the second the IDF leaves how are the "arab countries" going to prevent a hamas take over physically?..will they send in troops to protect the PA?

The hamas if you recall gaza was and is not the majority, they're just highly motivated.....and ruthless

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. I think they can control the situation and Fatah's base of support is considerably stronger in the

West Bank than in the Gaza. However, as the Arab Peace Plan states, " 4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.

Having an end to outside support for anyone inclined to disrupt the peace settlement would do a lot to stabilize the situation. A broad agreement in which the Arab world was fully on board and normalizing relations with Israel along with a truly viable Palestinian state would remove many of issues that empower those who would be inclined to disrupt the peace. Hamas was empowered to be disruptive when people saw no progress in matters of every day life, when they saw relentless expansion, when the whole peace agreement started to look like one big hoax. A real peace with a real state with independent economic and political viability would offer something very different.

[pelsar]

40. your belief..is on shaky grounds...

Hamas was empowered to be disruptive when people saw no progress in matters of every day life,

the PA is corrupt as they come, and independant Palestine with the present PA is no guarantee for a better life.....it has potential, but weak abbas, a corrupt PA lends itself to more of the same.....

and you wrote it clearly, if they can't/don't progress, hamas will simply have all they need to do a repeat.

how much of a gambler are you?

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. that status quo of occupation is obviously not acceptable

Especially with relentless expansion would make a future viable Palestinian state all the less plausible.

The basic social dynamics in the West Bank, as I'm sure you know are very different than the dynamics in the Gaza. There really is little to no possibility of a Hamas takeover. The basic frame of mind in the West Bank would not allow it. The institution of small independent business is much stronger. Fatah and other secular parties are much stronger. Even stable family units are much stronger. The mix of the people is more heterogeneous I really don't think a Hamas takeover of the West Bank is plausible at all.

The door of opportunity for the two-state solution will not stay open forever. There will never be a perfect time for a peace agreement. But the more it is delayed, the more expansion continues unabated, the less possibility for a viable two-state solution.

If there is not an agreement on a two-state solution in the next few years, expect support for the two-state solution to wane. Then expect the Palestinian movement to transform into more of a South African style single-state anti-apartheid struggle.

I will still repeat that the best hope for everyone concerned is a full comprehensive peace involving Israel and the Arab world. That will do a lot to open the doors to greater commerce and more prosperity and stability in the region; for the Israelis as well as the Palestinians and the broader Arab world.

If, God forbid things heat up even worse with Iran - an unresolved Israel Palestine conflict and an unresolved status of Jerusalem and the Golan will further destabilize the region and strengthen the hands of the Iranian state.

[pelsar]

44. i'm not arguing for continued occupation...BUT

i am arguing for an intelligent way of removing it.......gaza was an object failure not because of israel just leaving, but because the PA was not just corrupt but weak as well (fatah by day, hamas by night), The institutions of democracy of the "people" having a belief in their local govt was non existent.

that also exists in the westbank....low confidence in the PA..and that is where the problem lies. The idea of the status quo/occupation being unacceptable so therefore lets do anything to remove it, works as long as one really doesn't care if the Palestinians are ruled by hamas or the PA..civil rights etc will not be an issue. The PA may be secular, but they are as corrupt as they come (think shah of iran for a similar environment of the society-educated, secular, heterogeneous)

i think that attitude will doom the Palestinians to be living iike those in gaza and iran for a very long time, if your "plan" would go through.......and i find that very sad, because if and when that happens, beside the "blame israel" for something or other, their actual lives will be worse than it is now even with the occupation.

[Douglas Carpenter]

48. the entire third world is full of blatant corruption

as opposed to the more latent corruption of Western society which tends to enshrine it into law and have a more presentable appearance.

I doubt very much that the PA is particularly exceptional in regards to corruption. Democratic institutions usually develop and corruption usually decreases with economic growth, independence and viability. No military occupation will ever bring that about.

Most states start out weak and develope their strength over time. Again, I see nothing exceptional and certainly nothing that a foreign military occupation will help facilitate. The longer it is delayed, the problems are likely to only get worse.

There is simply no reason whatsoever to think it likely that Hamas will take over the West Bank, none.

But to be perfectly honest, Netanyahu has already ruled out any possibility of removing any settlers or dealing with East Jerusalem. He has also stated clearly and unambiguously that following a limited temporary freeze on settlement expansion, the settlements will again continue to expand, expand and expand.

So it is fair to say that the occupation will not end nor will there be a two-state solution in the foreseeable future.

About a year ago Amy Goodman asked Robert Fisk about the prospects of the two-state solution. Mr. Fisk just bluntly stated, "It's not going to happen. There is not going to be a two-state solution." Perhaps he was right. But the implications for this are not very pretty. The possibility of avoiding a very long and very protracted struggle over a single state along with further destabilization in the Middle East is still in my mind still preferable to the alternative of accepting it as the inevitable price - which perhaps it is.

[pelsar]

51. the third world is not the example to use...

you have to look closer to home...gaza and iran...those i believe are are more accurate, given the culture and history of the region...... A weak PA will not stay weak and develop over time...Hamas will move in quickly...why is that not part of your thesis? why is that not an scenario your looking at?..given gaza, lebanon (hizballa) i would say its not very smart to ignore that possibility as a real and threatening.

why do you think the PA is now working hand in hand with the IDF?...sudden love for them?

[Douglas Carpenter]

53. that is where a broad international agreement between Israel and the Arab world comes in

A full peace which includes a resolution of the Golan issue with Syria will neutralize many of these forces, Open trade and diplomatic relations with Syria and the other Arab states will completely change everything while it provides real economic growth and political development in a new Palestinian state.

If I saw a less than rosy scenario, it would not be a Hamas takeover. It's not going to happen. They simply do not have that kind of mechanism nor do the social dynamics exist in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Furthermore, as advocated by former Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Shlomo Ben-Ami and a whole host of others, it would be far more prudent to bring Hamas into the political process and accept their role as a legitimate political party. They would hardly be the first armed movement with a revolutionary agenda to become part of a political process.

[pelsar]

54. Douglas....you assuming that the arab world is interested in a solution....

lebanon is great example of 'bringing in a militia into the process"...or of having the arab league involved in a country. That country has been torn apart by internal and external forces, and lot has to do with the surrounding arab countries and their own agendas.

do i really have to remind you of the "intense pressure' on Egypt by the arab countries to help the Palestinians by opening up their border just a little bit?

I'm afraid in you quest for establishing a Palestinians state you get to ignore the elephant in the room called hamas, and their cousins hizballa and their patrons in iran. Your belief that hamas is not a danger in the westbank is not shared by the PA...i assume your aware of this as they are working with israel to keep them down.......working with the devil to retain their hold on power.

so what is your less than rosy scenario..with all the factors and competing agendas, some are going to lose and some are going to win......and its not always the "good guys" that win.....

[Douglas Carpenter]

67. I believe that for the most part they are

Syria, for example really does want to pull out of its Soviet style time warp and become more integrated into the world economic and political community. Other states are deeply concerned about Iranian intentions and very much would like to defuse whatever mileage that regime can milk out of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. The kind of visceral reaction toward the Israel/Palestine conflict is simply not what it used to be. The self-interest of more open trade and mutual relations is just too obvious. Most in the Arab world have grown tired of the Israel/Palestine conflict and would prefer to put it in the past.

[pelsar]

69. then why are they not helping the Palestinians right now?

for the first time in the conflict via egypt the whole arab world has direct access to the Palestinians in Gaza...and you know what?..there is not a a god damn peep out of them. There is zero pressure on egypt to help the gazans.

Jordan? Syria? Lebanon? etc where are they? Your right in that they've tired of the conflict and it maybe a real drag on them, but its not the center of the political ambitions. There is no question that without the Palestenian problem trade relations would be a lot more obvious and stronger, but i simply disagree with you that an israeli pull out...and suddenly all the arab countries with their various agendas, that conflict with one another would suddenly forget those agendas, join hands and sing.

but you still havent answered the real tough question...what if your wrong...or even a little bit wrong and they all dont fall in line, Iran, hizballa, hamas, muslim brotherhood are not neutralized but feed the extremists within the PA...threaten the govt.....

then what?.......that is a scenario is it not? (reading the future as your doing, usually doesn't work as planned-ask any political leader all over the world from time immoral....)....

[Douglas Carpenter]

71. Frankly the Egypt government has its own agenda and concern for the Palestinians

is not at the top of their agenda nor has it been for the a long time, if ever, Actually, the independent or semi-independent media in the Arab world has been highly, highly critical of Egypt and its relationship with the border of Gaza. To what extent, Egypt and Jordan act independently on these matters or with influence from Washington, I honestly don't know. But I would have to agree that they can and should do a lot more and this is one of the reasons why at the street level, the Jordanian and Egyptian governments receive a great deal of criticism and a fair amount of opposition.

There will never be a perfect time for peace. You know, all the time people ask me the same question you are asking from the opposite side. "What if we make peace with Israel and it turns out that my prediction that the Israelis can deal fairly with the Arab world and accept real independence for Palestinians and really stop the settlements and deal fairly on Jerusalem, what if I am wrong, and we were all taken for a ride?" And just like many Israelis and many Israeli supporters, they will site examples to prove their point.

There never, ever be a risk free time for peace. The alternative and risk of continuing down the same road is simply far, far greater.

I am simply advocating that the Arab world and Israel bury their hatchets. As utopian as that may sound, when one looks at the outstanding issues, I don't see any that are unresolvable. I don't see any where the gap is so wide there is not point where negotiations are beyond achievable. It is possible. And not doing it would entail, far, far greater risk then doing it.

[pelsar]

79. yes.....its those different agendas you keep ignoring...

if the arab countries can't get it together on something so simple as helping the gazans via egypt, i hardly see a "single mindset" on the far more complex issues that would involve each and every arab state involving both israel and Palestine.

as far as time goes.....its against the Palestinians as far as i see it..just by looking at the map and the history......Of course nothing is unresolvable but it involves few players not more......every time you toss in another player their agenda is not going to be similar to that of the others, and that only complicates things...thats also been the history.

Now its my turn for the solution:
The PA is turned in to a real democracy, starting with freedom of expression, freedom of speech. I doubt you want a repeat of gaza, but you yourself admitted (took a while) but a failed PA that doesnt not improve things may have a hamas style take over (that is their plan isn't it). Even though the advocates of the "remove the settlements first" always seem to ignore that scenario and its implications, both to israel and to the Palestinians, gaza is staring us right in the face. Of course this requires many to put civil rights first before nationalism, and thats a tough one in these parts. Still the ground work is there, the Palestinians are very aware of what a democracy looks and feels like. Those nice volunteers from the nice western countries and all those nice NGOs should be instructed that their number one mission is to spread via education, discussion what democracy is about, and how it will lead to a strong rep govt and peace and stability with its democratic neighbor (underground newspapers, printed in israel, blogs on western servers, etc)...and how it will keep hamas and friends at bay.,even when the PA throws them out, threatens them, etc

They (the Palestinians) can have real discussion about their past methods...work or not work, they can make movies of the folly of targeting children, of the indoctrination of their suicide bombers, of arafat as corrupt leader who stole the leadership from the locals of intifada I. They've got tons of material to discuss, explore......make movies out of, books, myths to destroy, new myths to make. And israel?....there would be confidence that their neighbor, with a real democracy, really has had enough of war and prefers crass materialism, tatoos, piercing and other western values that puts nationalism a second to the more important values of civil rights.

there i believe is your solution....but it starts from the ground up, its not romantic, its not "fun" (as tossing rocks at the IDF), you wont get your volunteers to "protect" the Palestinians...but you will get peace and stability...and this forum will die a quiet death.......

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. Fortunately there are a number of Palestinians leaders right now working on creating stronger

democratic institutions. Mustafa Bargouti and the Palestinian National Initiative, Hanan Ashrawi and the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy, Bassem Eid and The Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, the work being done by Sari Nusseibeh as President of Al Quds University and many, many others. People and organization are working to promote democracy, human rights, rule of law and nonviolent solutions and opposing extremism.

The one point all these people and organization do share in common along with their commitment for a democratic Palestinian society is a commitment to ending the settlements and ending the occupation, establishing a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem and seeing a broad peace agreement between Israel and the Arab world.

However, continued relentless expansion undermines any confidence that Israel is serious about peace . Especially when the current Israeli Prime Minister has promised the settler movement that any delay or partial freeze is temporary, one time only and will continue again at full steam in the near future and has already promised that there will never again been any evacuations of settlements. And he is the moderate voice of reason compared to his Foreign Minister.

Very few Palestinians have ever thought that targeting children was a good thing. As long as far, far more Palestinians die by absolutely lopsided proportions at the hands of Israeli weaponry than the other way around, as long as Palestinian children watch their parents and elderly grandparent humiliated at checkpoints, as long as Palestinians watch their own family's or neighbor's lands being confiscated and homes being demolished by Israeli forces, as long as Palestinians watch relentless expansion that makes a truly viable state less likely as it makes their lives more and more difficult, as long as Palestinians watch settlers violently assault them and their property - frequently with the IDF either standing aside or protecting their attackers, as long as Palestinians watch journalist who report their story being arrested, detained or deported, as long as Palestinians watch thousands of their fellow countrymen arrested and detained under terrible conditions for months and months on end without charge under administrative detention - they are going to have trouble understanding why Israel feels entitled to lecture them.

[pelsar]

81. you dont get it...its not about israel....

A Palestinians democracy, based on civil rights has ZERO to do with israel, to do with settlements, with israel "lecturing" about democracy.

it doesnt matter what the "foreign policy" of the PHR groups are in regards to the settlements, jersualem.....the focus should be on Ahmed Palestinian in relationship to the govt in Ramallah, that restricts his free speech, civil rights etc.

A Palestinians democracy is not a favor for israel, its for the Palestinians, Your whole post is about evil israel and not a word about the PA govt...nothing!

lets clarify- just a hypothetical to understand your values:

your preference: a hamas style govt in the westbank with an independent PA tomorrow
or a much longer tortured route to democracy that involves a longer occupation.

[Douglas Carpenter]

82. If the occupation continues a lot longer - the window of opportunity for the two-state solution will

close. Your hypothetical is like asking if you want your child to get involved with some serious crime and end up in prison for a long time (it is "possible" you know) or do you want him to acquire a serious illness that last several years - but he eventually recovers and things kind of improve enough for him to hold a job. Fortunately, though both are possible, I sincerely hope I can assume neither are at all likely.

Unfortunately,there is going to be a much longer occupation whether I like it or the Palestinians like it or not. The Israeli Prime Minister's promises to the settler movement have already made that clear. Still there would not be a Hamas takeover in the West Bank if the occupation did end tomorrow - which the Israeli Prime Ministers commitment to the settler movement has assured won't happen anyway. Still fortunately, the political and social dynamics of the West Bank make a Hamas takeover implausible, especially in the context of a broad international agreement between Israel and the Arab world.

A longer occupation is much more likely to cause the loss of faith in the two-state solution. It might even make it completely implausible, especially if the Prime Minister keeps faith with those who he owes his position to. This window of opportunity is not going to stay open if things stay on their current course for a whole lot longer.

There are those who for ideological reasons want the occupation to continue much longer so that the two-state solution will be abandoned and the single-state concept will come to dominate and eventually prevail - even if it takes a long time. If I was a purest ideologue, that would be my preference. But I'm not. The instability and resentment caused by delaying the two-state solution is simply not worth it. Every day the occupation continues and every day the two-state solution is delayed is another day in which the seed bed of terrorism is watered, not only in Israel/Palestine but also throughout the region and the Arab/Islamic world. Every day the occupation continues and the two-state solution is delayed, finding the least contentious means to ending the conflict is further complicated.

But in fairness to your hypothetical, I feel an element of confliction, but I would if those were the two choices prefer to wait. But those are not the two choices. They simply are not. Waiting is far more likely to mean the end to the two state solution and further instability in the region. That's why I want the occupation to end and the two-state solution to prevail - soon. But I may not get my wish.

(BTW: Evil Israel? that's not what I think. Israel is doing what occupying powers have to do sooner later if they want to keep occupying. I'm against occupation and oppression. Whatever happened in the past and however it came about, Israel is now a reality that I would like to see achieve acceptance and become integrated into the region. According to Shlomo Ben-Ami, the late Yitzak Rabin once floated the deal that Israel might consider joining the Arab League. I hope it does.)

[pelsar]

83. of course you are conflicted..the choices are not simple....nor clean cut in reality

But in fairness to your hypothetical, I feel an element of confliction, but I would if those were the two choices prefer to wait. But those are not the two choices. They simply are not. Waiting is far more likely to mean the end to the two state solution and further instability in the region. That's why I want the occupation to end and the two-state solution to prevail - soon. But I may not get my wish.

i fear for the long term.....is gaza now lost for the next 20-40-100 years doomed to live as people do in iran, syria? Constantly at war within and without? I get your concern, the longer we wait the more the settlers advance and take over more land. The problem being the israeli electorate has no stomach for fighting them, for what? a gamble....and who is going on bet on abbas and his friends?

and if there is a westbank withdrawal and if its not perfect, there will always be those that explain how it wasn't good enough (gaza anybody?) hence that is why the missiles started up from there (i.e. it israels fault).....Israelis in general have had enough. You may not like the results of the gaza withdrawal, and like many pretend its not relevant to the westbank...but that is because it was such a failure: 8000 missiles defined as "fire crackers" for 6 years that really "didn't hurt anybody". All the israeli pre invasion attempts to limit the missiles were all considered war crimes nor to mention the invasion itself. For us it was very significant..... At least the settlers and their settlements aren't considered war crimes......

nor are our soldiers, since any military action in the westbank will get lots of fanfare and accusations....
thats the rule of unintended consequences.....why should we risk a repeat of the whole gaza experience, from kassams and mortars from those who want more (islamic jihad etc), and the massive condemnation that will come when we attempt to stop them?

Its a scenario that cannot be ignored, look at Hizballa, look at gaza..both are significant.


(I don't buy your kumbaya vision of the arab states, arab league all getting together, thats far too utopian for me)

[Douglas Carpenter]

84. I suppose we are debating about how well would angels dance if angeles danced on the head of a pin

There is nothing kumbaya about Israel and the Arab world achieving mutual acceptance. It a matter of self-interest, viability and even survival.

But when all is said and done, the current Israeli government has already pledged to continue settlement expansion and will not evacuate any recognized settlements in the Occupied Territories - at any place or anytime - ever - no matter what - Even if a new government were elected tomorrow, there is no sign or reason to believe that the peace block would be large enough to overcome the power of the settler movement to such an extent to make negotiating a two-state solution even plausible. Demographic changes within Israel itself are even less likely to imagine a scenario of a government willing and able to negotiate a viable two-state solution or achieve a less belligerent relationship with the Arab world. This all does not bode well for the stability and security of the region.

former Israeli Foreign Minister Ehud Olmert

"Outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday time was running out for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

At an annual memorial ceremony for Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli prime minister killed by an ultranationalist Jew in 1995, Olmert again advocated a peace deal under which Israel would withdraw from nearly all of the occupied West Bank.

"If God forbid, we procrastinate, we could lose support for a two-state solution," he said, referring to the creation of a Palestinian homeland alongside Israel, a concept at the foundation of U.S.-sponsored peace negotiations.

"The decision must be taken now, without hesitation, before ... the narrow window of opportunity to plant (that) solution in the consciousness of our people and the nations of the world vanishes in front of our eyes," Olmert said.


http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36431420081110

[pelsar]

86. your skipping most of the israeli population...

netanyaho govt like all are temporary...hes not the problem. I realize because gaza was such a failure many do not like looking at it...or learning from it, yet there is much to be learned.

first and foremost was the total lack of support for the settlers of gaza.. the protests on the right was rather pathetic given all the noise before and if you noticed god didnt interfere. The settler movement does not have such wide active support when it comes down to it. Its that what you and many others seem to miss.

And then comes the question if they don't have any support, why isn't there any pressure from those israelis.

the explanation lies first and foremost in understanding their (our) concerns, dismissing those concerns as per the many examples see here in this forum: ( kassams are "nothing more than noise makers etc) is where you and others failure lies.

failure to even address the possibility of incoming kassams and mortars from the westbank and what is the Israeli population supposed to do would be a good start in respecting the concerns of the those very israelis who have no need for the settlers and prefer a Palestinians state.

After all, the the Palestinians and their supporters realistically need the support of the israeli population for the creation of Palestinian state. Pretending that we have nothing to worry about, is kinda absurd given the results of gaza and lebanon pullouts.....

[Douglas Carpenter]

87. again that is why I speak of a broad international agreement that can

bring the 22 members of Arab League and the 57 members of the OIC on board - at least most of them. This is not kumbaya. It is raw realism in its crassest form - to Machiavellian levels. People are scared of the current Iranian regime. There is an opportunity now. Resolving the Palestinian issue, including East Jerusalem and the Golan issue will so utterly rewrite the political realities of the region. In such an atmosphere issues of terrorism can be dealt with. Unresolved, efforts will only produce temporary reprieve an be ultimately futile. It is a hell of a lot less risky than the alternative. As long as Palestine, East Jerusalem and the Golan continue to remain unresolved, the hands of extremist and the hands of those lunatics in the current Iranian regime will only get worse and worse.

[pelsar]

88. 22 arabs states??????

what do that actually agree on today?...anything?

be realistic...iran feeds the asssam kikur group (a new one) and they start launching, doesnt take much.

then what? is your suggestion that israel just accept the missiles? again it a realistic scenario that every israeli sees as possible, its impolite to ignore the issues that one sides sees as important. Will there will be a peace keeping corps of 22 arab nations patrolling ramalla?


as far as being scared of iran, yes i too see certain advantages for one it rather dismisses the I/PA conflict as core of all the problems in the middle east, and it may put it into its proper perspective.

[Douglas Carpenter]

89. with Syria and Israel normalizing relations and the Arab states giving their backing to

the agreement - it is the best possible opportunity. No, the Israel/Palestine conflict is not the only problem in the Middle East; far from it. But its continuation complicates everything.

With Syria on board and the other nations in the region on board, the ability of Iran or other disruptive influences will be greatly reduced. Any ability to aid and supply disruptors will be reduced greatly. Again, whatever risk it may entail are far, far less than the alternative.

[pelsar]

90. i simply disagree.....

a real risk, that you simply ignore time and time again are the potential for kassams and mortars falling on jerusalem, the intl airport etc..(and the israeli reprisal.)

your plan may be the "best opportunity" but the fact that you ignore the most blatant concern that every israeli has is most telling

at least give us the minimal respect of addressing it, the acceptable amount of damage in israeli lives in both disruption of daily lives, econ cost, etc that you would declare acceptable if such attacks would occur

i cant believe you have not once addressed it.....it strikes as a form of demonization to ignore a most basic concern of one of the populations involved in your plan....

its like me ignoring Palestinian history and pretending they have no national identity or history.....

[Douglas Carpenter]

91. ignoring the Israeli population? I'm advocating the most plausible means of bringing the conflict

to an end in a way that will make a peace agreement that will stick and stop attacks on everyone; a real settlement that is far, far less risky than continuing the conflict; an agreement that will establish mutual relationships between Israel and the entire Arab world.

If I wanted to demonize Israel, I sure the hell wouldn't be advocating an agreement that would bring Syria and other Arab states on board to help prevent attacks, weaken the influence of Hamas and Hezbollah, weaken the influence of Iran and would culminate in opening several Israeli embassies throughout the Arab capital.

[Kurska]

56. You said every nation, do you honestly deny that?

Again, you're playing the part of some kind of spiritual mystic, predicting things no one could possibly be sure of.

Enough of this already, I can't argue with prophecy.

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. There is such a thing as recognizing predictable consequences. This has nothing to

do with mysticism and prophesy.

The expression, "the entire world" speaks of the vast majority or a very significant portion. If someone said, "the entire world mourned the death of Michael Jackson", That would not be literally true. But people would understand the point.

On this issue of Israel/Palestine, international law and Jerusalem, there is such a huge international consensus and it is so overwhelming, I think the term "the entire world" should be understood.

[Douglas Carpenter]

85. to quote the current Israeli Defense Minisister Ehud Barak, from this very same article posted above

Things have reached such a devastating point, that for the first time in recent memory, even Ehud Barak is beginning to get it: "The simple truth is, if there is one state" including Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, "it will have to be either binational or undemocratic," Barak told the Herzliya Conference Tuesday.

"If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1147257.html

and former Israeli Foreign Minister Ehud Olmert

"Outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday time was running out for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

At an annual memorial ceremony for Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli prime minister killed by an ultranationalist Jew in 1995, Olmert again advocated a peace deal under which Israel would withdraw from nearly all of the occupied West Bank.

"If God forbid, we procrastinate, we could lose support for a two-state solution," he said, referring to the creation of a Palestinian homeland alongside Israel, a concept at the foundation of U.S.-sponsored peace negotiations.

"The decision must be taken now, without hesitation, before ... the narrow window of opportunity to plant (that) solution in the consciousness of our people and the nations of the world vanishes in front of our eyes," Olmert said.

Olmert has said that failure to establish a Palestinian state could lead to pressure on Israel to agree to a binational state including the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in which a higher Arab birthrate would eventually ensure Jews became the minority."

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36431420081110

[Ken Burch]

27. There is no possible way that East Jerusalem could be worth having the war never end.

At some point, having a life lived in peace has to come first.

East Jerusalem is Arab. It's time to admit that.

[pelsar]

29. E jerusalem is arab? from what year?

does your history start at a certain year?..just curious

1948? 1967? 1800? 1200?

as far a your title goes.....it goes both ways doesnt it.....do the arabs really want continual war just so they can fly a flag over some old city? How much blood is that worth (or are you really a secret nationalist that believes land and land ownership is far more important than human lives...as per your post?)

[Ken Burch]

33. No, I am not a secret nationalist.

I'm just saying that it's hard to see how a situation that has the Israeli government evicting hundreds, maybe thousands of people from their homes when those people did nothing wrong, all in the name of something from the dead past, is not an honorable thing to place before achieving peace.

And it would be entirely possible to negotiate full access to the handful of historical sites that control of East Jerusalem is about. You can't assume that Palestinians would be as bloody-minded about that as the Jordanians were.

Israel isn't giving away anything it HAS to have if it gives up East Jerusalem. What can possibly there that could be worth not having the war end? How can anything, in the end, be that much more important than knowing your children won't have to wear uniforms?

It goes without saying that the Arab/Palestinian position on that point can never be changed by anything. Why not just do the sensible thing, accept this, and accept that 78% of the lands of the Mandate is enough?

[pelsar]

37. your wrote it.....

There is no possible way that East Jerusalem could be worth having the war never end.

and you added this:

What can possibly there that could be worth not having the war end?

just pass that on to the arabs.....


of course then you go and just make up something out of the clear blue sky and pretend its some kind of fact:
It goes without saying that the Arab/Palestinian position on that point can never be changed by anything.

so now tell me...and explain to me in very very very simple english

why does it go without saying...and why cant there position be changed by anything...from where do you get this information from?

Im rather curious....

or are you saying that the arabs are just too dumb to realize that a bunch of old rocks in an old city are not worth human lives?...is that what your hinting at?

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. International Law declares East Jerusalem to be occupied territory

I don't have any personal nationalist or religious requirements about East Jerusalem. It does not matter one iota what I think. But I know that even the most moderate Arabs will never accept any agreement without it; ever. Furthermore international law is absolutely clear about this. The question of Jerusalem, more than any other issue is what internationalizes the conflict and makes it an issue throughout the entire Islamic world and Arab world.

Many Israeli leaders do understand this too. That is why it was such an important part of the talks at Taba in January 2001 and why Palestinian and Israeli leaders gave it such special consideration in the Geneva Initiative.

Article 6 – Jerusalem

1.Religious and Cultural Significance:

i.The Parties recognize the universal historic, religious, spiritual, and cultural significance of Jerusalem and its holiness enshrined in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In recognition of this status, the Parties reaffirm their commitment to safeguard the character, holiness, and freedom of worship in the city and to respect the existing division of administrative functions and traditional practices between different denominations.

ii.The Parties shall establish an inter-faith body consisting of representatives of the three monotheistic faiths, to act as a consultative body to the Parties on matters related to the city’s religious significance and to promote inter-religious understanding and dialogue. The composition, procedures, and modalities for this body are set forth in Annex X.

2.Capital of Two States

The Parties shall have their mutually recognized capitals in the areas of Jerusalem under their respective sovereignty.

3.Sovereignty

Sovereignty in Jerusalem shall be in accordance with attached Map 2. This shall not prejudice nor be prejudiced by the arrangements set forth below

link to full text: http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/english

[pelsar]

41. i was just responding to:

There is no possible way that East Jerusalem could be worth having the war never end.

If one believes the above...then that goes both ways doesn't it?....

[17breezes]

21. Yes. And does anyone really think that

some power is gonna go in and FORCE Israel to? Won't ever happen.

[Ken Burch]

26. The Gaza withdrawal was NEVER a meaningful concession.

And as it was happening, Sharon kept making it clear that, as far as he was concerned, Gaza was all Palestinians were going to get. It was done as an insult and a provocation.

Please stop pretending the Gaza withdrawal was about peace. Nobody believes that anymore.

[pelsar]

30. the poor Palestinians....sharon said...

and the Palestinians were insulted....WOW! that REALLY DID IT NOW!...

Sharon had the gall to INSULT THEM! and worse by destroying settlements and leaving gaza he PROVOKED the Palestinians into trying to kill even more israelis.

can you image the insult if israel would leave the westbank?..my god, the Palestenians would go nuts over such insults and provocations!!!!! Who knows what they would do?

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. the departure from Gaza included an expansion of settlements in the West Bank

[pelsar]

38. sorry douglas...thats just some attempt to some how blame israel....

the expansion in the west bank was continuous ......it didn't "speed" up nor slow down with the withdrawal from gaza.

I'm afraid you going to have to find something else to blame the failure of gaza on israel, as if it was some kind of devious trick...i like the concept that sharon insulted the Palestinians and ever since then, they've been paralyzed....thats holds as much water as the

"well they expanded the settlements on the westbank, therefore the gaza withdrawl doesn't count syndrom"

[Douglas Carpenter]

43. oh nonsense

When Sharon withdrew from the Gaza, the strategy of increasing and consolidating power in the West Bank was made very clear. No one seriously viewed this as a concession for peace. Simply breaking off and isolating a portion of the Occupied Territories was certainly not a move for peace. No one expected it and it did not happen. But it did create enough drama so that Netanyahu can now promise the settler movement that there will be no more future evacuation of settlements.

I really do not think it is not helping the future viability of Israel by opposing the two-state solution.

Whether you realize it or not, you and others are inadvertently working to promote the eventual single-state solution.

[pelsar]

45. what consolidation of power ?

what the hell does that mean?

When Sharon withdrew from the Gaza, the strategy of increasing and consolidating power in the West Bank was made very clear

what strategy..i sure didnt notice any changes in the westbank.....what exactly are you talking about?

and i'm sorry if giving some of the Palestinians control over their own society isn't considered a move toward peace..a dramatic move to change the status quo.....i guess it was just some trickery to get hamas to take over, because, removing settlements (hasn't that been the cry for years) giving the Palestenians a chance to govern their own society without the IDF everywhere, just HAD to be a trick.....

actually if you want a conspiracy...then go for the PA wanting hamas to take over gaza so that they could work with the IDF to keep the locals down and stay in power...with the hamas as the boogyman just around the corner. Now that is a conspiracy/trick that at least holds some water.
-----


i prefer to avoid a war in the westbank..which is where i believe you would be taking us...gaza II

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. Sharon has repeatedly said the withdrawal would help consolidate Israel's control over large settlem

Officials: Robust Growth in W. Bank Settlements

Friday, August 26, 2005

JERUSALEM — An Israeli government official said Friday the population in its West Bank settlements has grown by more than 12,000 in the past year, reinforcing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's goal of strengthening large settlement blocs while withdrawing from the Gaza Strip.

Sharon has repeatedly said the withdrawal would help consolidate Israel's control over large settlement blocs in the West Bank, where the vast majority of Jewish settlers live. New figures from the Interior Ministry show robust growth in these blocs.

Gilad Heiman, a ministry spokesman, said the settler population in the West Bank grew to about 246,000 in June, an increase of 12,800, or 5 percent, over the previous year.




http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167143,00.html

[pelsar]

52. and what was done?

on the ground? what changed?

i shall enlighten you, it had nothing to do with additional settlers, new buildings etc, which had no significant change...nada, nothing zippo, that growth figure had nothing to do with leaving gaza, as if was for the whole year.

the consolidation had everything to do with the Palestinians in gaza screwing up, he believed they would and hence took a chance...and he was right. Leaving gaza and the subsequent thousands of kassams and mortars made it clear to most israelis what was waiting for us when we leave the westbank....and hence the internal pressure to leave the westbank, and the settlements dropped off to almost zero.

that was the consolidation...the israeli left theory of "its the settlements" was simply proven wrong...there was no major physical change in the westbank BECAUSE of the gaza withdrawl.

you want to blame someone for the consolidation....look at the govt of gaza.....they had the "power" to enlarge the split between the left and right in israel and force the issue, but they didnt, did they?

[Ken Burch]

35. No. Not in the slightest

Because Israel was only pulling out of Gaza in order to avoid pulling out of the West Bank.

Letting Palestinians have all the lands that were stolen from them in 1967 wouldn't possibly be considered an insult.

[pelsar]

39. lets clarify...

sharon insulted the Palestenians...which paralyzed them from taking advantage of the israeli withdrawl...

more so because sharon some how implied that, this was the last withdrawal...the Palestinians were so shocked that they forgot that israel has elections where different govts change policies..

the consequence of this paralyzation combined with being shocked was that, they could do little but rage about, burn down the greenhouses, shoot each other and finally let hamas take over.....

did i get that right?

interesting point of view, but i wouldn't mention it to any Palestinians, they might take it as a bit insulting to their intelligence.

[pelsar]

55. i wonder if you realize that outside of impressive imagination....

you've never ever backed up anyone of your claims with any additional information, though i will give you credit for imaginative claims.

a suggestion, perhaps start off all of your posts with the preface: I believe...

that way none of us will confuse what you write as to having any basis in history or facts....

[TomClash]

15. A beautiful piece of writing but

I'm skeptical that Israel is going anywhere anytime soon. And I'm skeptical that you'll see a Palestinian Ghandi, Christ or King rise in Ramallah.

The two-state solution is only workable in a confederation with a formula for right of return. The current balance of power makes that solution nearly impossible.

[Ken Burch]

36. What right does anyone have to demand a Palestinian Gandhi

As long as the IDF keeps acting like His Majesty's Imperial Indian Army?

Even in that case, while it was nice that India gave the world Gandhi, it didn't OWE it to the world to do that.

Nor did African Americans owe it to be nonviolent in their liberation struggle. They did(mainly)but white people had no right to demand it of them.

[TomClash]

47. Other than you, who said anybody "owes" anything?

The point of my comment is not that anyone owes it to anyone else to be nonviolent, it's that nonviolent resistance would be more effective than, say, killing yourself and little Jewish children.

[azurnoir]

57. Killing little Jewish children?

where in NYC or Chicago? Did you mean little Israeli children I always find that conflation oh so telling of the real attitude concerning Israeli Arabs

[TomClash]

62. Ok, Israeli children

The point is that this tactic has not worked. The suicide bombings, rocket attacks and assorted other bombings have no coherent political end in sight.

I understand why they do it, and I might do the same but that does not mean it is smart or right. Congratulations on the continued support for pointless killing of innocents with no end in sight.

[Ken Burch]

63. It's not SUPPORT, it's acknowledgement of the fact

that, as a citizen of the country that arms their oppressors, there are severe limits on the degree to which I'm entitled to judge these people.

It's enough to say that it's not the tactics that I would use. But then, I live in comfort and safety, so I can't really get inside the heads of those who DO choose them.

And if you really wanted them to stop using those methods, the best thing you could do would be to devote most of YOUR energy to calling for the end of the Occupation and the dismantling of the illegal West Bank settlements. If you defend the Occupation in any way, you forfeit any right to condemn Palestinians for what they do in response.

[TomClash]

66. But I have never defended the Occupation

It has been my position for years that Israel does not have any legal right to land beyond Resolution 181. I have stated that clearly in this forum on many occasions.

You completely missed my point. Perhaps I articulated it poorly. I don't condemn the Palestinians for using those tactics; I am all too aware of why they use those means. But it is obvious that the intifada, suicide bombings and indiscriminate rocket launches have been an abject failure. They have not achieved any significant political objective but have caused the deaths of thousands needlessly.

[Ken Burch]

72. OK. Fair enough.

I do wish they would use other tactics. And it has to be noted that they might be, had not Israel deported for several years a man named Mubarak Awad, who was advocating and employing Gandhian methods. If you're going to insist(as that government does)that Palestinians give violence, than you have to make it possible for them to use non-violent methods without retribution or punishment.

[azurnoir]

64. So pointing out conflation in terms means I support killing?

do not worry you are not the only one here that seems to think that
Israel = Jews only and the rest do not count for much or is it that killing Jewish children sounds more ominous, in any event there was nothing in my post that supported killing

[TomClash]

65. So let's be direct and have a discussion

Don't "conflate" the point into some other meme. Answer this question: do you support some further intifada or do you support nonviolent resistance?

I don't want Palestinians or Israeli Arabs or anyone else killed. I support nonviolent resistance because it makes strategic sense.

By the way, if I get flamed here it is for supposedly being "anti-Jewish" (If I recall correctly Behind the Aegis and Shaktimaan both believe this).

[azurnoir]

70. I was quite direct

your question is not worthy of an answer, if you believe that my post indicates a support of terrorism alert it or stop trying to create a false distraction as to your claims of being flamed I have been here quite regularly for 4 years and have not seen any indication of it.

[TomClash]

74. You cannot answer a simple question

Why not answer my question instead of faking pious outrage and pompously declaring "unworthiness?"

[Ken Burch]

73. The other thing that makes the use of the term "Jewish children" so offensive

is that it is part of the subtle implication that Palestinians are the moral equivalent of Nazis.

They aren't. They never have been.

Palestinians want self-determination. They aren't seeking a Judenrein world.

If you want to say they aren't saints, well fine(oppressed people generally aren't...and neither is anyone else), but it's demagoguery to say that it's worse for them to cause casualties against their opponents in a war than it is for anyone else to cause casualties among the other side in any other conflict.

[TomClash]

75. Hmmm . . .

I already acknowledged that I should have said Israeli children. No one is comparing the Palestinians to Nazis.

Now I know why I post here less and less often and this forum is mired in the dungeon. :eyes:

[Ken Burch]

76. I wasn't saying YOU yourself consciously made the comparison

It was about how that phrase gets used. I accept that you didn't mean it that way. It was just about explaining how the phrase can be misused. OK?

[TomClash]

77. Yes, that works for me

We are on the the same side.

[Ken Burch]

78. Glad to hear it.

No offense was ever intended.

[Ken Burch]

59. The whole "Palestinian Gandhi" meme has been about the idea

that the oppressor has the right to judge the tactics of the oppressed.

And nice little snark about "little Jewish children". This has never been about nobody caring if those kids were hurt. But may I ask...did you ever give a damn about what the IDF has done to little Palestinian children?

[TomClash]

61. Yes, long before you did nt

[LeftishBrit]

49. Well, Gandhi WAS resisting His Majesty's Imperial Indian Army...

and succeeded where violence might not have.

I think it is right to demand of any group that they be nonviolent *toward civilians*. For the rest, I think that nonviolent liberation movements often are more effective long-term than violent ones. Overall, the Palestinians in particular tend to have had more (if limited) success when using nonviolent than violent resistance.

PS I consider the violent tactics of the *Israelis* to be wrong and counterproductive.

I think the world *should* be demanding nonviolence from both sides. And for that matter from everyone else.

[Ken Burch]

60. Nonviolence SHOULD be respectfully asked of both sides

To demand a Palestinian Gandhi in the present situation is the same as if the Raj had demanded an INDIAN one in the original situation(not that the Raj responded well to the original Gandhi...it took several decades and the election of the first majority Labour government for Britain to finally do the right thing and get out of India. And a horrible event at Amritsar happened during that time, as well as many other lesser-known incidents of violent suppression of the nonviolent cause(a pattern that would be repeated when DR. King used the same methods in the U.S.)

What I object to is the assumption(which I agree that YOU don't make)that Israeli violence is somehow always morally priveleged over Palestinian violence. Violence is violence, and what the IDF does, on a daily basis, is just as bad as what Hamas does. Or worse, really, if you consider the "kill ten for one" rule.

[LeftishBrit]

50. Great article!

[azurnoir]

58. The article sums it up well

how long can military might sustain Israel and at what cost to it's people?