I agree that both sides have to take some responsibility. I've said that steadily. I want to hear Dag say that.

One can be agitated and peaceful under occupation. Terrorism isn't the only response possible. African American and Asian Indians were both successful using a peaceful model under occupation.

That Israel supported Hamas at one point doesn't absolve Palestinians of responsibility.

Ghandi was peaceful, but that doesn't mean all Indians were.

I honestly don't know what you are talking about anymore.

Ray Jay wrote:I honestly don't know what you are talking about anymore.

I blame the US education system.

There were violent revolutionary movements in India as well as the moderate Congress. Some of them conspired with Germany (both Imperial Germany around WWI and Nazi Germany around WWII) to form armed groups for the purpose of ending the Raj by war. Look up Subhas Chandra Bose, Anushilan Samiti, Ghadar, the Hindustan Revolutionary Association, Bhagat Singh...

Even with Congress / Ghandi led demonstrations, violence would break out, and not always instigated by the British or the Raj forces. After Independence, partition was an absolute blood-bath, but intercommunal violence was a feature of the period before Independence as well. The winning of Independence was not completely down to Ghandi and the use of non-violent methods. The main issue for Britain was that post-WWII it could not sustain control of a vast nation that was becoming chaotic, and many of the new Labour government had already been convinced some time before of the cause of independence regardless of the methods used since the 20s.

Going back a little further there were the horrors of the 1857 mutiny/rebellion.

And remember who it was that killed Ghandi.

Ray, do you think the current Israelis government is genuinely serious about seeking peace? I don't think so. I think they use the Palestinian issue as a wedge issue in politics to keep power... Its convenient. Plus a resolution that accommodates Palestine ends support for the current government by Israelis extremists who don't want to accept a Palestinian entity.And unfortunately that group has enough votes to keep Netanyahu in power...
The announcement on the new settlements, which I read probably won't move ahead, was nothing more than a knee jerk reaction aimed at the Palestinians success at gaining US recognition. Its an insult that plays well to hardliners in Israel.
Its hard to understand why this recognition is such a problem for Israel. They are, after all, the regions super power. There are few scenarios that one could come up with that represent a serious threat to Israels existence. Maybe only the threat from Iran is even imaginable and that has little to do with Palestine.
This should give Israel the confidence to find Palestinians who are willing to work towards accommodation of two states, without forcing them to knuckle under completely. Somehow the current government doesn't have this confidence...
I'll explain more explicitly. Palestinians (Hamas) does not recognize the right of Israel to exist...
At this point Israels reply should be, it doesn't matter what you recognize or not. We exist, we thrive, and we will continue to do so. Your views on our future are irrelevant.
We will work towards Palestinians having a genuine nation as well, that thrives and provides opportunity for its citizens. (And then set out to do so with policies that help Palestine's economy grow, and their educational system improve...)
That strategy would make the extremists in the Arab world less and less relevant. People eventually migrate to the people who will use power to improve their lives...

RickyP, is Hamas serious about peace?

bbauska wrote:RickyP, is Hamas serious about peace?

Not really.

However there is a lot more to Palestine than the Hamas-led bits. The bulk is led by Fatah and the PLO. Ricky is not calling for Israel to deal with Hamas, but to deal with the Palestinians who have been trying for years to negotiate. People like Hanan Ashwari and current Prime Minister Salam Fayyad...

Salaam Fayyad won international and domestic approval for his management of the West Bank. The World Bank credited him with making substantial improvements in Palestinian state institutions.[20] A polling in November of 2009 showed that 60.7% of Palestinians credited his government with improving the economy of the West Bank; 61.9% faulted Hamas for the deterioration in the economy of Gaza. 54.4% of Palestinians believed that Fayyad's government is superior to the Hamas government.[21] 57.1% of Palestinians believed that Fayyad's government advanced reforms of the Palestinian Authority, 52% believe corruption decreased and 48% believed that security improved under his governance.[22]

from Wikipedia

While Hamas in Gaza are sending missiles, the West Bank government under PLO parties is building a state. But Israel is not working with them, especially not at the moment, when the Israeli parties are jostling for position in the upcoming elections.

And Westerners are not seeing what is going on, because Hamas and Gaza are bigger news and for some it falls in line with preconceived notions about how Arabs are.

rickyp wrote:Ray, do you think the current Israelis government is genuinely serious about seeking peace? I don't think so. I think they use the Palestinian issue as a wedge issue in politics to keep power... Its convenient. Plus a resolution that accommodates Palestine ends support for the current government by Israelis extremists who don't want to accept a Palestinian entity.

I agree with the vast majority of your post. The only nuance that I want to introduce is that many Israelis no longer believe there is even a possibiliy of peace. (I've talked to a few where I take a view close to yours in the discussion.) For many Israelis, the frame of reference is not a peaceful western style existence such as enjoyed by you and me. Their frame of reference is Holocaust survival, mistreatment in Arab lands as second class citizen, mistreatment by the Soviet Union, or perpetually dealing with terrorism or war during their entire lives. At this point I would say the last 2 are the most important.

If you do not believe that a 2 state solution is even possible; if you do not believe that the Palestinians as a whole can ever live near you with peaceful coexistence, then you act the way that Netanyahu is acting.

Personally, I think the Israelis are making a mistake. I would maintain a hard line re Hamas and Iran, but I would take a softer line with Abbas. Perhaps it would still not be possible to achieve peace (I hold that open as a likelihood because of the state of Arab society and the nature of the conflicting demands), but at the very least by being open to peace you maintain a moral standing which I believe is important not only for international relations, but also for national cohesiveness.

Ray Jay wrote:Personally, I think the Israelis are making a mistake. I would maintain a hard line re Hamas and Iran, but I would take a softer line with Abbas. Perhaps it would still not be possible to achieve peace (I hold that open as a likelihood because of the state of Arab society and the nature of the conflicting demands), but at the very least by being open to peace you maintain a moral standing which I believe is important not only for international relations, but also for national cohesiveness.

This.

ray

The only nuance that I want to introduce is that many Israelis no longer believe there is even a possibility of peace

.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said, although I'm not sure about this...
And if it is true, i put it down to being misled. And to the immediate understandable response to the rocketeering campaign.

There is no question that the rocketeering has a psychological toll, even if the reality is that they aren't particularly deadly. I suspect the roads in Israel offer a greater risk than being hit by a rocket.... (That's part of the logical disconnect many people make about many threats. Acts of terror in the west are rare, but the perception is that they are a continuing great risk.)
And certainly terrorists are a risk to Israelis, I'm not discounting that fact. Just that the perceived risk is greater than the actual risk.
Palestinians, indeed all of the Arab world offer no genuine risk to Israel militarily. They can only act out with their rockets and bombs.
The solution to ending rockets and bombs isn't really by striking out at the culprits. I'm, not saying you don't, its just that it won't end it. The end to terrorism will come, when enough Palestinians see a brighter future within a Palestine friends with their neighbor.
Without popular support the terrorists will wither .
What Netanyahu does now, is only a guarantee that the violence continues....
As the dominant player in the region, and the occupiers of Palestine .... Israel has a chance to change things.
I think we agree that Netanyahu cannot see this..... But I wonder why he expects anything different from what he does now? How does he expect Palestinians to react when he declares that more settlements will be built?

What Netanyahu says is that the Palestinians should come to the negotiating table without any preconditions. They have refused.

I don't know what Netanyahu truly believes. My suspicion is that he believes that true peace is not possible ever no matter what Israel does. Abbas is seen as weak and not someone who can deliever peace. (I think Israel should try to strengthen him, but you haven't asked what I think.). Given Netanyahu's reality that the Palestinians will never be peaceful, his job is to do what is best for the country by using all of the tools at his disposal at home and abroad. Like all politicians he wants to get re-elected, but I don't think that is all he cares about, do you? Is he really that different than what other political leaders do in non-peaceful parts of the world with ethnic conflicts?

I think the point is that Netanyahu doesn't care how the Palestinians will react. He is securing his country via walls, fences, iron domes, and drones. The violence will continue, but the cost to Israelis will stay limited. It's cynical, but he has delivered more to Israelis than those who peacefully withdrew from Gaza or engaged in almost agreements with the Palestinians. It's not what I want, but I'm not a citizen of Israel and threatened by terrorism on a daily basis.

I have to disagree with my fellow liberal posters. We can criticize Israel but what good does it do? What benefit does a so-called peace confer on Israel if its neighbor is still bent on its destruction? The reality is that Israel appears to have decided that the status quo is the best they can get and that a so-called peace is risky. The Palestinians have tried terrorism, but while terrorism works fairly well against colonial powers it is not so effective against countries that are defending their own territory. Yes, we understand that many Palestinians would be willing to co-exist with Israel, but by supporting Hamas the Palestinians indicate that way too many would rather lash out against Israel than co-exist.
I appreciate the history lesson on India, and it is interesting that perhaps Ghandhi's non-violent stance may not have played a dominant role as is commonly supposed, but again we are talking about a colonial power giving up a valuable colony, as opposed to a country defending its existential right to exist.
The Palestinians need to stop terrorism, they need to elect moderates, and eventually they will get their own country. Right now, they are playing into the hands of Israeli conservatives. The Palestinians hold the key to their own freedom--it is not really clear that they value their own state over exacting revenge on Israel.

freeman

The Palestinians need to stop terrorism, they need to elect moderates, and eventually they will get their own country. Right now, they are playing into the hands of Israeli conservatives. The Palestinians hold the key to their own freedom--itearliest no clear that they value their own state over exacting revenge on Israel.

And Israel needs the Palestinians to stop terrorism. Because its a misery for both sides.
So the question is, what strategy can be followed by Israel that encourages more and more Palestinians to pursue a different strategy.
Right now, Israel is all stick. No carrot. When you closely examine the treatment of Palestinians in the west bank, the daily humiliations enacted on them in the name of Israelis security, and the economic inequality in how resources on the west Bank are "shared", would be enough to drive most people to frustration. And occasional violence. That can escalate...
I agree that Palestinians are playing into the hands of Israelis conservatives with their violence. But I can also understand why they act with violence... (without condoning it...)
The end game for Israelis conservatives seems to be the status quo.... Continuing violence. Continuing to chip away bits of land, and manage the West Bank resources..... Hang the expense of the security or the continuing tragedies when the terrorists are successful in their attack..
Its like living with a rotting cancer that creates festering wounds on your body, rather than trying new drugs that might cure... The treatment might not offer guarantees, but surely its better than the status quo.

What "carrots" have the Israelis used in the past, RickyP?