Thanks for the information on pre-1947 relations between Jews and Arabs . History tends to be more complex than is usually summarized, and it is good to get the details.
You have critiqued RJ for using Arabs in place when Arab governments would be more appropriate and Arabs to stand for all Arabs when of course the term cannot accurately stand for all the different people that comprise that group . Fair enough. I think RJ had a good discussion earlier in this discussion regarding agency and how some members of a group , who have no culpability, including children, many women, and even men to a certain extent suffer for the actions of some members of a group.
How are we to talk about Palestinians or Arabs with regard to their views about Israel? (Or, for that matter, about Israelis?). We'll stipulate that any time we say Arabs are this or that we are necessarily making an inaccurate statement. The issue is not whether who is to blame for the bad blood between Israelis and Palestinians --the issue is whether there are enough Israelis today who would be willing to tolerate a Palestinians state on the West Bank if that state recognized Israel's right to exist. ( and pre-1967 borders) and renounced terrorism and whether most Palestinians would agree to the same terms. Now of course a lot of details would need to be worked out but just in theory agreement to those terms.
I just don't see that a predominant, or significant or controlling group of Palestinians are willing to agree to those terms. I would be happy to be proven wrong, based on polls of Palestinians or statements of major Palestinian leaders. And, acceptance of certain things without renouncing the ultimate goal of getting all the land back does not count.
I think that a predominant number of Israelis are willing to grant a Palestinian state. Maybe that is just bias towards Israel. Maybe. But my position is that lumping Israel and Palestinians and saying they are both at fault is not helpful. The Palestinians need to agree (actually, first they just need to be willing to say) that Israel is entitled to pre-1967 borders. Until that happens there can be no peace.
Ricky has argued that Israel needs to treat Palestinians better for there to be peace. But if Israel treated the Palestinians better would the Palestinians be more or less likely to give up their dream of having the land that presently constitutes the land of Israel?

Well, some Palestinians have already expressed that they do support the 1967 borders. In fact, a major point of contention is that the Israeli government does not:

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=622963

The PLO position in negotiations is based on international recognition of 1967 borders, senior PLO official Hanan Ashrawi said Tuesday.

If Israel were to do this, not only would they have to abandon the expanding settlements in the West Bank, they would also have to give up East Jerusalem (which they consider separate from the West Bank but the Palestinians in general do not).

So, given that the PLO (who until the rise of Hamas were the umbrella for Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation) are not just saying that Israel is 'entitled' to pre-67 borders, they are demanding that be the case...

...and let us assume for the sake of argument that the PLO would also commit to stopping terrorism from it's own members, and trying to combat it from Hamas if those borders were agreed as a the starting point by Israel...

Would the Israeli government do what you think the people of Israel would actually want?

So far they are not really indicating that they will.

danivon

It is not more or less incumbent on one 'side' to solve the problem. It is incumbent all all sides to solve the problem

If a man is seen kneeling on another man and beating him, with the man on the bottom occassionally kicking, or hitting back ....
Does a bystander yell, "hey, you two stop fighting!" or
"Get off him".
The conflict is uneven. The occupation is uneven. And the cost of the occupation (I include the emprisoning of Gazans in the occupation" ) is uneven.
If you want to live in peace equally with a neighbor, you first have to allow a more equal relationship.
Although it is incumbent on both sides .... one side has most of the power if the current situation.With greater power comes greater responsibility.
Below is an interesting review of the unequal nature of the relationship.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/daily_life.html

rickyp wrote:danivon

It is not more or less incumbent on one 'side' to solve the problem. It is incumbent all all sides to solve the problem

If a man is seen kneeling on another man and beating him, with the man on the bottom occassionally kicking, or hitting back ....
Does a bystander yell, "hey, you two stop fighting!" or
"Get off him".

Occasionally?

Say the guy on top lets up, and the guy on the bottom then takes advantage to get some revenge in, restarting the fight? Then we would say "hey, you two stop fighting!", right? And if this keeps happening, we either have to go in and break it up, or leave the idiots to it.

The conflict is uneven. The occupation is uneven. And the cost of the occupation (I include the emprisoning of Gazans in the occupation" ) is uneven.
If you want to live in peace equally with a neighbor, you first have to allow a more equal relationship.
Although it is incumbent on both sides .... one side has most of the power if the current situation.With greater power comes greater responsibility.
Below is an interesting review of the unequal nature of the relationship.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/daily_life.html

I get that the conflict is uneven. Which means those on the 'losing' end of that uneven balance should be careful not to make things worse, because they ought to know that they will get hit harder.

ray

However, it's never been attacked on all sides by 5 different countries with numerical superiority at the same time whilst it was experiencing an arms embargo and had a width of 9 miles.

To me its amazing how well Israel has always controlled the message, the portaryal of the historic record, and the attitudes of westerners Forinstance, you mentioned at some point in our debate the problem of the Arab populace overwhelming the Jewsish populace and asked if Canada would allow 22 million immigrants into the country to change the nature of the country... (I'm sorry I can't find the reference and I hope I am paraphrasing reasoanably correctly.
However this is exactly what happened to Palestine. From the 1880's on... the character of Palestine was changed by outside forces as immigrants changed the nature of the country. And yet Arabs were expected to accept this then and now. .
Here's another view of the first war that challenges some of the perceptions...

While it is widely reported that the resulting war eventually included five Arab armies, less well known is the fact that throughout this war Zionist forces outnumbered all Arab and Palestinian combatants combined – often by a factor of two to three. Moreover, Arab armies did not invade Israel – virtually all battles were fought on land that was to have been the Palestinian state.

Finally, it is significant to note that Arab armies entered the conflict only after Zionist forces had committed 16 massacres, including the grisly massacre of over 100 men, women, and children at Deir Yassin. Future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, head of one of the Jewish terrorist groups, described this as “splendid,” and stated: “As in Deir Yassin, so everywhere, we will attack and smite the enemy. God, God, Thou has chosen us for conquest.” Zionist forces committed 33 massacres altogether.

By the end of the war, Israel had conquered 78 percent of Palestine; three-quarters of a million Palestinians had been made refugees; over 500 towns and villages had been obliterated; and a new map was drawn up, in which every city, river and hillock received a new, Hebrew name, as all vestiges of the Palestinian culture were to be erased. For decades Israel denied the existence of this population, former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir once saying: “There is no such thing as a Palestinian.”

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/

danivon wrote:Well, some Palestinians have already expressed that they do support the 1967 borders. In fact, a major point of contention is that the Israeli government does not:

And looking at some history (but not as far back as pre-47), we find that UN resolution 242 gets quite a lot of focus. The premise of 242 was 'land for peace' - Israel pulls back to the pre 1967 borders (the "Green Line"), and the opposition agrees not to continue war. Since 1993, the PLO has signed up to the use of resolution 242 as the basis for negotiations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... lution_242

And given that we often hear that Arafat and the PLO were hasty to walk out on the Camp David negotiations, let's look at what they rejected, in comparison with a return to pre-1967 borders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_ ... #Territory

The Israeli proposal planned to annex areas which would lead to a cantonization of the West Bank into three blocs, which the Palestinian delegation likened to South African Bantustans, a loaded word that was disputed by the Israeli and American negotiators.[6] Settlement blocs, bypassed roads and annexed lands would create barriers between Nablus and Jenin with Ramallah. The Ramallah bloc would in turn be divided from Bethlehem and Hebron. A separate and smaller bloc would contain Jericho. Further, the border between West Bank and Jordan would additionally be under Israeli control. The Palestinian Authority would receive pockets of East Jerusalem which would be surrounded entirely by annexed lands in the West Bank.[7]

So the PA would get a lot less than the 1967 borders.

The Palestinian negotiators indicated they wanted full Palestinian sovereignty over the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip, although they would consider a one-to-one land swap with Israel. They maintained that Resolution 242 calls for full Israeli withdrawal from these territories, which were captured in the Six-Day War, as part of a final peace settlement. In the 1993 Oslo Accords the Palestinian negotiators accepted the Green Line borders for the West Bank but the Israelis rejected this proposal and disputed the Palestinian interpretation of Resolution 242. Israel wanted to annex the numerous settlement blocks on the Palestinian side of the Green Line, and were concerned that a complete return to the 1967 borders was dangerous to Israel's security. The Palestinian and Israeli definition of the West Bank differs by approximately 5% land area as the Israeli definition does not include East Jerusalem (71 km2), the territorial waters of the Dead Sea (195 km2) and the area known as No Man's Land (50 km2 near Latrun).

I wish it were as simple as accepting the pre-1967 borders (or borders based on land swaps starting at those borders). East Jerusalem in particular is a really thorny issue.

A particularly virulent territorial dispute revolved around the final status of Jerusalem. Leaders were ill prepared for the central role the Jerusalem issue in general and the Temple Mount dispute in particular would play in the negotiations.[12] Barak instructed his delegates to treat the dispute as "the central issue that will decide the destiny of the negotiations" whereas Arafat admonished his delegation to "not budge on this one thing: the Haram (the Temple Mount) is more precious to me than everything else."[13] At the opening of Camp David, Barak warned the Americans he could not accept giving the Palestinians more than a purely symbolic sovereignty over any part of East Jerusalem.

And when Camp David turned to security:

The Israeli negotiators proposed that Israel be allowed to set up radar stations inside the Palestinian state, and be allowed to use its airspace. Israel also wanted the right to deploy troops on Palestinian territory in the event of an emergency, and the stationing of an international force in the Jordan Valley. Palestinian authorities would maintain control of border crossings under temporary Israeli observation. Israel would maintain a permanent security presence along 15% of the Palestinian-Jordanian border.[22] Israel also demanded that the Palestinian state be demilitarized with the exception of its paramilitary security forces, that it would not make alliances without Israeli approval or allow the introduction of foreign forces west of the Jordan River, and that it dismantle terrorist groups.[23] One of Israel's strongest demands was that Arafat declare the conflict over, and make no further demands. Israel also wanted water resources in the West Bank to be shared by both sides and remain under Israeli management.

Some of that seems reasonable, others less so. Perhaps many Israelis would be less demanding.

I know that the bit I skipped was on the right of refugees to return - that is another aspect that freeman didn't mention, but is also something that needs to be resolved in some way and where these is some gap between the parties. If anything I think the Palestinian position less viable for the ideal case (any refugee who wants to should be able to go to Israel), but the private concessions were a good step and perhaps the gap could be bridged. Seems to me that the main sticking point really is territory, and the extent to which it is actually controlled.

While some Palestinians do want more - and potentially no more Israel - there certainly were (and I suspect still are) many who would accept the 1967 borders for a sovereign state. It is has not been on offer at Camp David or any time since.

A couple of points:

(1) Israel made an offer at Camp David--what was the Palestinian counter-offer ? I don't consider private conversations to be meaningful because the reluctance to even consider publicly compromising on the Right of Return is telling;

(2) on Palestinians saying they are willing to negotiate based on pre-1967 borders -- what does that mean? Israel is demanding that the Jewish state be recognized by Palestinians, not the existence of Israel's control of territory pre-1967. Borders can be changed; Palestinians can state that they recognize 1967 borders without giving up their ultimate right to all (or at least much) of the land. This is not semantics --this is coded language;

(3) As far as I can tell , Palestinians are willing to talk and gain concessions without giving up anything in return. Sure make us an offer we'll let you know if it is acceptable. But giving up important concessions does not happen because it is politically impossible to publicly give up important concessions on Jerusalem, on the Right of Return, and on permanently giving up Palestine. Private willingness to compromise on Right of Return and some other things is politically ok, because such things have to be done to extract concessions, but no commitment is made. So why should Israel throw out concessions when there is no indication that the Palestinians will give Israel what it wants from such a deal (1) a commitment to recognize Israel as a permanent Jewish state encompassing the pre-1947 borders ( plus whatever additional territory is agreed to at the negotiating table ), (2) the end of the war that started in 1947 and repudiation of terrorism. Of course many difficult issues would have to be resolved , but at the end of successful negotiations the Palestinians have to be willing to do this. Why not explicitly say to Israel that if we get the Palestinian state we want we will agree to recognizing the Jewish state and renounce terrorism? Of course, negotiations have to be satisfactory to the Palestinians but there has to be an indication that at the end Israel will get something. Arafat's refusal to make a counter-offer offering any concessions makes Israel rightly skeptical of negotiations. But that could change if the Palestinians firmly commit to granting Israel's two pre-conditions to a successful deal if the Palestinians are satisfied with the deal.

The PLO gave such a commitment - recognising Israel as a nation state and to renounce violence - in 1993, as part of the build up to Oslo. This became part of Oslo. Camp David was about restarting Oslo.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E ... ecognition

The PLO was offering what you said that most Israelis would grant. Now you know that Israel was not offering that, you place the onus on the Palestinians to compromise?

The PLO 'offer' was the same status as the Isreali one - the start point for negotiations. When you look at the number of absolute demands on both sides, do you wonder that an agreement was not forthcoming?

The two key requirements are agreeing to end the 1947 war and recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state permanently within at least the 1947 borders. Read that letter (like a lawyer would in interpreting a contract) and see if that letter from Arafat contains such a commitment. I know this seems overly technical but Arafat knew exactly what he was committing to and what he was not committing to. The single-most important thing Israel wanted from Arafat at Camp David was an agreement that the 1947 war was finally over.
There is doubt as to whether the Palestinians are willing to accept defeat in the 1947 war and the permanent existence of Israel as a Jewish state within the pre-1967 borders. And without such a willingness it is not wise for Israel to go to a mediator and try and negotiate peace. The last time they did that they were rewarded with the Second Intifada...

Hmm.

Recogising Israel as a nation state should be enough. We don't have to recognise any other country as a religious state if we don't want to, and even on ethnicity it is troubling. Even so, the mere name of Israel carries a lot of weight.

And the PLO can't 'end' the 1947 war: that was declared by the Arab states, some of which have already agreed peace. Surely you don't mean to make Palestinians have to wait for Syria? The demand that the Palestinimans accept 'defeat' (when a recognition of the 1947-67 borders pretty much does that anyway) is a bit Versailles to me.

It is quite clear to me (admittedly not a lawyer) that it is about recognising Israel, its right to exist, the need for peace and a settlement. It was a precondition for Oslo and clearly was acceptable then. Adding new preconditions seems to me to be unhelpful.

danivon

Say the guy on top lets up, and the guy on the bottom then takes advantage to get some revenge in, restarting the fight? Then we would say "hey, you two stop fighting!", right? And if this keeps happening, we either have to go in and break it up, or leave the idiots to it

.

Sure.
Does this sound like Israel iswilling to let the Palestinians up off the matt?
Or are they just taking advantage of them again?

Israel claims West Bank land for possible settlement use Aug 31.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/ ... D020140831

rickyp wrote:Sure.
Does this sound like Israel iswilling to let the Palestinians up off the matt?
Or are they just taking advantage of them again?

Israel claims West Bank land for possible settlement use Aug 31.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/ ... D020140831

It is part of a continuing pattern.

The general idea for solving the conflict is, and has been for some time, "land for peace". Israel - and in particular the Likudnik and other nationalist elements - eschews that formula in favour of expanding settlement. Palestine - and in particular Hamas and other extremist elements - eschews that formula in favour of violence.

Both are feeding the other's extreme side by their implacability and pushing the envelope. This is why I argue with you that it is not all about Israel being the dominant power, and with Freeman that it is not all about the Palestinians being unreasonable.

In the heated debate to decide who is marginally the better or worse, we lose sight of the fundamentals - that neither side are acting in a way that will end the problem any time soon.

danivon

In the heated debate to decide who is marginally the better or worse, we lose sight of the fundamentals - that neither side are acting in a way that will end the problem any time soon

True.
But in Israels case I believe its beause their ultimate goal, includes much more of the West Bank than most third parties would think is (fair, appropriate, legal etc) . And much more control of resources, and limits on Palestinian sovereignty than one would call a true two state solution.
For that reason they are comfortable using the excuse of the Gazan rocketing to continue their incremental efforts in increasing their share of land and resources.
A completely supine Palestinian government would also have to accept what ever unfair and unworkable offer Israel might provide. Certainly far short of Oslo...
So I agree with you that neither side is attempting a solution. But I also beleive that if Palestinians give in completely they will inevitably be shortchanged, However Hamas ineffectual rocketing is entirely playing into Israels hands. A non-violent form of protest and a reeducation of westerners concerning their view of history, might go further.
On the other hand, it is human nature to lash out against those who have caused so much damage to one's family, neighbors and fellow citizens. And who continue to hold Gazans and the occupied West Bank Palestinians in conditions that are criminal. Comditions that only Israel has the power to alleviate. And don't you think that some considerable change in these conditions should be a first step?

rickyp wrote:danivon

In the heated debate to decide who is marginally the better or worse, we lose sight of the fundamentals - that neither side are acting in a way that will end the problem any time soon

True.
But in Israels case I believe its beause their ultimate goal, includes much more of the West Bank than most third parties would think is (fair, appropriate, legal etc) .

Many would contend that the Palestinians' ultimate goal is to do the opposite - appropriation of as much of Israel as possible.

For some (on both sides), that is indeed the goal. But many Israelis don't really support Settlement and resent the resources expended on them. But at the same time they don't want to see the settlers murdered.

And much more control of resources, and limits on Palestinian sovereignty than one would call a true two state solution.

Indeed. And that is why the 'offer' made at Camp David was not as generous as the Israeli government and its supporters make out.

For that reason they are comfortable using the excuse of the Gazan rocketing to continue their incremental efforts in increasing their share of land and resources.

So why keep giving them the excuse? It's self-defeating to an extent, surely?

A completely supine Palestinian government would also have to accept what ever unfair and unworkable offer Israel might provide. Certainly far short of Oslo...
So I agree with you that neither side is attempting a solution. But I also beleive that if Palestinians give in completely they will inevitably be shortchanged, However Hamas ineffectual rocketing is entirely playing into Israels hands. A non-violent form of protest and a reeducation of westerners concerning their view of history, might go further.

I'm not saying that the Palestinans should give in completely. And I do agree that non-violent protest would be more effective, even in the face of aggression.

On the other hand, it is human nature to lash out against those who have caused so much damage to one's family, neighbors and fellow citizens. And who continue to hold Gazans and the occupied West Bank Palestinians in conditions that are criminal. Comditions that only Israel has the power to alleviate. And don't you think that some considerable change in these conditions should be a first step?

Many Israelis have also seen damage caused to their family, neighbours and fellow citizens, and those in range of missile attacks, or in areas where there have been major terrorist actions will see things in a similar way, and may also support 'lashing out'.

The problem, to be frank, is that Israel may be able to alleviate conditions, but only if Hamas or other factions in Palestine also allow that to happen. I would also add that part of the problem was that as soon as Fatah gained power in Palestine, there was a rash of corruption which had two important effects - the lack of improvement for Palestinians in their living standards, and the emergence of Hamas as an alternative on the back of social provision.

So it's not even clearly simply the fault of Israel that Palestinians are in quite the dire social straits that they are.

I had a response but I realized that I really don't know how Palestinians view what is meant by recognizing Israel's Right to Exist or how they view UN resolution 242. I don't know who Arafat consulted before he agreed to that, did he consult a bunch of lawyers or maybe religious advisors who gave him advice as to what the phrase meant . I tried to look at Palestinian culture to see if I could get any information but it really seems to be only a couple of hundreds years old (as far as being distinctly Palestinian) Does their culture place great importance on honoring written agreements ? I don't know . One would have expected that after 46 years of refusing to recognize Israel that their decision to recognize would have caused enormous turmoil in the Palestinian community. I don't remember there being such turmoil but maybe there was and I don't remember it.

The significance is that if Arafat was able to convince other Palestinian leaders of recognizing Israel without a lot of opposition, one reason would be that a loophole was discovered in the recognition that allowed him to convince other Palestinians that it was not that a big deal (particularly since they getting closer towards being a state as a result of doing so).
Anyway, if Israel is going to try and negotiate they have to know at the outset that the Palestinians will be willing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state with permanent borders and that the Palestinians ( forget about the other Arab countries) agree that the 1947 war is over. The point is that there be no ambiguity. This is why Israel is requiring them to recognize as a Jewish state. Why would there be reluctance to recognize Israel as being a Jewish state? I can see no justification but that the Palestinians realize that if they do that they would be legally giving up their right to get back the land Israel occupies.
I am not saying that the Palestinians had to agree to the deal that they were offered at Camp David. But they have to unambiguously give up getting back Palestine. I don't think they have done so.They have used language which seems to imply that they have done so, but I don't think they have done so. And they are relying on expansive western interpretations of what is meant by recognizing Israel's to exist to put international pressure on Israel. And it seems to being have some effect as shown by the recent anti-semitism in Europe as a result of what happened in Gaza.
I see the Palestinian strategy as trying to get their Palestinian state without giving up the right to get back Palestine. And if my interpretation is wrong it does not cost them anything to recognize Israel as a Jewish state permanently entitled to the pre-1967 borders. Right now, I believe that Israel is requiring the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state before they are willing to discuss peace. Thus far, the Palestinians have refused to do so. Why is that?