Ray Jay wrote:Although it may not mean much to the Palestinian narrative, it is very salient to Israelis that about 850,000 Jews left (and in most cases they had little choice) Arab and/or Muslim countries to live in Israel. They also were never fairly compensated. (I've heard damages claims in excess of $200 billion.)

Accepted. But the Palestinians are not responsible for that, and should not be punished in lieu of any resolution.

Clearly, as we have seen, Israel (and it seems many Israelis) would not accept a return to 67 borders, or to use them as the starting point of an equitable land-swap.

Those are 2 very different things. I don't know any Jewish Israelis who would accept the 67 borders. I would guess most wouldn't object to it as the starting point for an equitable land-swap assuming all of the other issues were resolved.

And yet, in 2000, when Ehud Barak's position at Camp David was to allow Palestine to be only 91% (by Israeli reckoning - 86% by Palestinian) of it's territory on the 1967 lines, this was not supported by a majority of Israelis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_ ... the_summit

Barak did not fare as well in public opinion polls. Only 25% of the Israeli public thought his positions on Camp David were just right as opposed to 58% of the public that thought Barak compromised too much.[46] A majority of Israelis were opposed to Barak's position on every issue discussed at Camp David except for security.

This was before the Second Intafada hardened opinions on both sides.

Sorry, but I don't believe that there is evidence that most Israelis would have 15 years ago approved had Barak agreed to an equitable land swap based on the 1967 line. Let alone that they would approve now.

And yes, most Palestinians would not have approved had Arafat come back with anything less.

Danivon:

Sorry, but I don't believe that there is evidence that most Israelis would have 15 years ago approved had Barak agreed to an equitable land swap based on the 1967 line. Let alone that they would approve now.

Okay. Perhaps you are right. Israel is a democracy and they can make their decisions based on what they think is in their national interest. (BTW, I think that is the fundamental flaw in Ricky's argument. He is saying that the Israelis should reach an agreement with the Palestinians because they are not in existential danger and the current situation is terrible. But perhaps the situation isn't terrible from an Israeli perspective. They have a growing standard of living; secure enough borders, and a growing population (Jewish, Muslim, and Christian)).

I presume that the Israeli people are operating as rationally as people in any other democracy. They have decided on a course of action that is in their best interest as they see it. Whether they are correct or not, I do not know. However, I am certain that they understand the Arabs and Palestinians much better than Ricky, you, or I.

And yes, most Palestinians would not have approved had Arafat come back with anything less.

Perhaps you are right. They view a continuation of the conflict (as awful as it is portrayed to be) as better than accepting less than a small proto-state that may eventually turn in to a full fledge state after some time of good behavior.

Ray Jay wrote:I presume that the Israeli people are operating as rationally as people in any other democracy. They have decided on a course of action that is in their best interest as they see it. Whether they are correct or not, I do not know. However, I am certain that they understand the Arabs and Palestinians much better than Ricky, you, or I.

Hmm. I don't see them as homogeneous, and democracies have at times been very irrational. And I don't know that either side actually understand each other at all. There are some Israelis and Palestinians who strive for understanding across the divide, but they don't seem to be getting very far.

And yes, most Palestinians would not have approved had Arafat come back with anything less.

Perhaps you are right. They view a continuation of the conflict (as awful as it is portrayed to be) as better than accepting less than a small proto-state that may eventually turn in to a full fledge state after some time of good behavior.

Not sure what they think now - that was the position back then, before the Second Intafada.

I guess the question is why we should treat them like children. It's ever the colonial error.

Danivon:

I guess the question is why we should treat them like children. It's ever the colonial error.

No one is treating them as children. It is the opposite.

ray

Okay. Perhaps you are right. Israel is a democracy and they can make their decisions based on what they think is in their national interest. (BTW, I think that is the fundamental flaw in Ricky's argument. He is saying that the Israelis should reach an agreement with the Palestinians because they are not in existential danger and the current situation is terrible. But perhaps the situation isn't terrible from an Israeli perspective. They have a growing standard of living; secure enough borders, and a growing population (Jewish, Muslim, and Christian)).

Not just, "not so terrible," from an Israelis perspective.... The stalling on reaching a deal works to Israels advantage as they seek to have current settlements accepted as part of Israel because of the time they have existed.... (It being harder to move populations that have long beeen established in an area.Well, in peacetime. In war, millions sometimes leave their homes qyickly. See 1947)
The irrational part of this is that they "have secure enough borders", but also complain (rightfully) about being in constant threat of terrorism. (especialy rockets).
True security comes about when countries on both sides of the border respect the border.
Right now, "security" in the West Bank means that Palestinians exist in a patch work and have their lives constantly frustrated by israelis crossing closngs (from one part of The West Bank to another) that often seperate farmers homes from their lands by hours long commutes.....
Security also means access to the requisite resources required to function as a modern society. At the moment Palestinians are largely at the mercy of the Israelis occupation which distributes most of the water to israelis.... amongst other discriminatory practices around energy etc.
Israeli has to give up some of their settlements in the West Bank and agree to Internationalize Jeruselum as part of an agreement that most Israelis and Palestinians can finally settle on ..... A compromise that seems unlikely as long as prevericating is seen to be gaining an advantage for Israel.

freeman3

Ricky, maybe you need a history lesson.

Oh please. I'm well aware of the history. I'm also aware that the Palestinian vresion is a little different.
But the past is not the present. And the stuation in Israel today is not one where Israel is in any way existentially threatened by the Arab neighbors...(Israel has 500 nuclear weapons for crying out loud.Iran has none.)
Justifying the present actions of Israel with conditions that no longer exist is a dishonest approach to a solution.
How far back do we want to go? There were very few Jews in Israel in 1880. Are Arabs justified in their continued terrorism and violence because their country was usurped by immigrants that their colonial masters let into the country? (Essentially the exact same arguement for not accepting "The right of return", the protection of the character of the country.)

Freman3

The strength of a Israel does not make them immune from terrorist attacks. Peace of mind from the absence of the threat of violence is a valuable part of modern life and the threat of terrorism takes that away from many Israelis.
So please Ricky see the overall history here. (And yes I am aware of the Balfour Declaration , Sykes- Picot , and that Israel can be heavy- handed in how they treat Palestinisns)

Nothing makes a state entirely immune from terrorism.
But secure borders, accepted by neighboring nations, is a first step.
And I do se the overall history. Right back to 1880. Palestinians got the short end and have been badly served by their colonial masters, their own leadership (mostly dictators put in power by colonials) and by their Arab brethern. (Also dictators who used Israel as a distraction for their own populace).
I don't think history justifies anything any more... Both sides got plenty of history to point to and it sure hasn't helped arrive art a solution. All it does it help them make a moral case to third parties and their own populace...
The solution is not to continually refight the past, but to accept that there is a solution. Part of that solution , the first part, is for Israel to aaccept that it can't keep all of its settlements, and that Jeruseulm must be compromised upon as well.... The next part is for Israel to realize it needs a partner in peace, if borders are going to be secure... That starts with making concessions to Palestinians that start making their lives better. Concessions that israel can and should promote as gifts, but gifts offered without conditions that continue to humiliate Paestinains. And which haven't worked to provide more security anyway. (Things like the bloackae of Gaza...)
My whole point in this, is that I don't thiink the current Israelis govenrment has a genuine interest in finding a solution now. Nor for perhaps another couple of decades. Nothing they are doing is anything but a repeat of past failed tactics and polciies that have not advanced towards what most of the world knows will eventually have to be a solution... And they do this for incremental gains that in the larger scheme don't seem worth the calamity that is forced upon the Palestinians, nor the strife that Israelis undergo.

An interesting viewpoint from an Isreali, albeit a citizen who is not a resident (born in Iraq, fled as a child with his family and then spent his youth in Israel before moving to the UK):

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -land-grab

So what should Israel do? The beginning of wisdom is to admit mistakes and stop adding fuel to the fire. First of all, Israel should end its relentless campaign to demonise the people of Gaza. Demonisation is the enemy of dialogue and a major cause of diplomatic deadlock. The assertion of Major General Giora Eiland that there is no such thing as “innocent civilians” in Gaza is simply absurd. Gazans are normal people and, like normal people anywhere in the world, they long to live in freedom and dignity on their land.

Second, it is time to remove from Hamas the terrorist tag. This is a powerful weapon in the propaganda war but useless in the quest for peace. Hamas is indeed guilty of terrorism but it is also a legitimate political actor, having won a fair and free election in 2006. Netanyahu claims that Hamas is indistinguishable from the murderous fanatics who make up Isis. Hamas, however, is not a messianic jihadist movement but a local organisation with a pragmatic political leadership and limited aims.

Third, Israel should transfer its confrontation with Hamas from the battlefield to the conference table. On 2 June Hamas and Fatah reached an accord and formed a national unity government which consists of technocrats without a single Hamas-affiliated member. This government accepts the Quartet’s three conditions to qualify as a negotiating partner: it recognises Israel, it respects all previous Palestinian agreements with Israel and it renounces violence. One of Netanyahu’s undeclared war aims was to disrupt this unity government so Israel could continue to divide and rule, but the government survived the baptism of fire.

Hamas vehemently denies the legitimacy of Israel but its leaders have stated repeatedly that if Fatah negotiates with Israel a two-state peace deal based on the 1967 borders, and if this outcome is approved in a national referendum, it would respect it as the choice of the Palestinian people. Israel should therefore stop thinking of Palestinian unity as a threat and embrace it instead as a potential building block of its own security.

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

I guess the question is why we should treat them like children. It's ever the colonial error.

No one is treating them as children. It is the opposite.

Hmm. The reality is that since it's establishment, Likud has always opposed the creation of a Palestinian state and promoted the idea of settlement across all of 'Judea and Samaria' (ie: the land up to the Jordan) as part of Israel.

While they are in power, I don't see how we can trust that they will 'allow' the Palestinians to form a state even if they do 'behave'.

I think the formula for peace for the Palestinians is actually quite simple--non--violence. Trying to pressure Israel through violence to agree to a two state solution has the opposite effect intended. Violence simply causes moderates in Israel to retreat and emboldens hard- liners. Electing Hamas is not such a great idea either, because it signals the continued use of violence to reach political ends.
Of course, in the US and many other places violence has been used to gain independence. But certainly in the US we gained from a colonial power which really did not have vital interests at stake in keeping the US and independence of the US did not threaten the security of Great Britain. Here, it would be a great step towards peace if terrorism stopped instead of just being renounced. That would encourage moderate Israelis in the belief that they could live peacefully next to a Palestinian state.

freeman3 wrote:I think the formula for peace for the Palestinians is actually quite simple--non--violence.

All very well, but what is the formula for peace for Israel?

Trying to pressure Israel through violence to agree to a two state solution has the opposite effect intended. Violence simply causes moderates in Israel to retreat and emboldens hard- liners.

I thought Israel already agreed with a two-state solution, and it's merely a question of what the borders between those states are, who (if anyone) can return to either of them, and security for both.

And the Israeli government possibly putting pressure on through violence and the tacit (and sometimes explicit) support for settlement?

Electing Hamas is not such a great idea either, because it signals the continued use of violence to reach political ends.

There have only been two set of elections in Palestine. the first won by Fatah, the second (narrowly) by Hamas. So they have not 'elected' anyone more than once.

On the other hand. Israel keeps electing Likud and other hard-liners like Naftali Bennett. What does that signal?

Of course, in the US and many other places violence has been used to gain independence. But certainly in the US we gained from a colonial power which really did not have vital interests at stake in keeping the US and independence of the US did not threaten the security of Great Britain. Here, it would be a great step towards peace if terrorism stopped instead of just being renounced. That would encourage moderate Israelis in the belief that they could live peacefully next to a Palestinian state.

Most countries that have obtained independence - even from neighbours (Namibia from South Africa, South Sudan from Sudan, the Balkan states from the Ottomans, Austria and Yugoslavia) did so through violence. The exceptions like Norway and Slovakia are rare indeed.

And the reason is simple - that the overlords did not wish to give up their power.

Examples of groups obtaining independence through violence when they are vastly weaker than the occupier and their independence threatens the security of the occupier do not abound . It's worked so well for the Palestinians thus far...why is the burden on Israel to change since the status quo is bearable for them?

freeman3 wrote:Examples of groups obtaining independence through violence when they are vastly weaker than the occupier and their independence threatens the security of the occupier do not abound . It's worked so well for the Palestinians thus far...why is the burden on Israel to change since the status quo is bearable for them?

1) I don't think the status quo is bearable for the Israelis
2) Do you not understand that what I am saying is that the burden is on both Israelis and Palestinians?

freeman3

their independence threatens the security of the occupier do not abound

As an occupied land, rife with security fences and zones, Palestinians threaten the security of Israel. (West Bank)
As an embargoed and blockaded ghetto Palestinians threaten the security of Israel. (Gaza)
And your saying that even if a viable Palestinian State is achieved that Israel will still be threatened .

You don't seem to see any solution.

I understand what you're saying, Owen--you're being a conciliator, trying to get both sides to be reasonable. I just disagree. Since the Second Intifada Israel has opted for a permanent defense against the Palestinians rather than take the risk of a Palestinian state on the West Bank. And they have been relatively successful with this strategy. So in this case the threat of violence against Israel as a negotiating tactic does not work because Israel has already factored that in permanently. The way to change that calculus is for the Palestinians to show that they are not (at least not necessarily) a threat to Israel.
Ricky, the Palestinians are much weaker than Israel yet they persist in attacks so yes Israel puts restrictions on them. As would any country. Even Canada.
What do you would happen if Hamas and Fatah got together and agreed to no missile attacks or any terrorist attack on Israel for 1 year? Maybe they could condition that on Israel agreeing to peace talks without any pre-conditions. When you hit an impasse you have to find a way around it. Continuing violence simply plays into the hands of hard- line Israelis who prefer a permanently bunkered down Israel to making Israel more vulnerable with a Palestinian state that would make Israel less secure. So, I think one way to change the impasse is to prove that the violence can be stopped. If nothing else, it might Israel a glimpse of the possibilities of peace. It would also show that Palestinian leaders can exercise sufficient control to prevent attacks.

rickyp wrote:freeman3

their independence threatens the security of the occupier do not abound

As an occupied land, rife with security fences and zones, Palestinians threaten the security of Israel. (West Bank)
As an embargoed and blockaded ghetto Palestinians threaten the security of Israel. (Gaza)
And your saying that even if a viable Palestinian State is achieved that Israel will still be threatened .

You don't seem to see any solution.

I don't see any complete solution. I think the Israelis can do better on the optics of who is at fault, but I don't think there is a long term solution that will please both sides. Ultimately the Israelis will annex more West Bank land, either by law or de facto. The reality is that the Palestinians want more than the Israelis will give. I think that both the failed Camp David accords and the withdrawal from Gaza show that. The Palestinians rejected both of those offers as insufficient. Their pride was too great to accept them. However, other groups have been offered less and accepted them as better than the alternative. The Kurds have accepted limited autonomy in Iraq and are using that to improve their situation. The Israelis accepted a small amount of territory in 1947 (smaller than the 1948 armistice line) and decided to build a state. The Palestinians could have used Gaza and the Camp David accords as an opportunity to show good behavior and to build the institutions of a state. But they didn't want to give up the right of return, or East Jerusalem or some of the West Bank. They couldn't stand the humiliation of walking away with such a deal. They chose rejectionism in Hamas or an Intifada.

That makes sense when you consider the Palestinian narrative. Western Europeans arrived and slowly displaced them from their land thru force and trickery. They had to fight a colonial power with inferior arms.

If you read the Arab press you will see that narrative reinforced. In fact, Danivon and Ricky will pick it up at times by calling Israel a colonial power. Danivon provides sources that claim Jews bought their land and kicked them out. They will tell us about the relative population in Palestine in the 1880's. Whereas many Zionists refuse to read that stuff, I fully embrace it. And what it tells me is that the problem is not solvable.

So Israel makes do with the best of bad alternatives. They protect their civilians as much as possible and send in their army when they need to. This year Gaza; next year Hezbollah. Meanwhile Israel has its strengths that Europe doesn't match. Israel's economy grows; its population grows; it's software, education, and science is amazing when you consider the country's size. There is this Palestinian mess, but the country prospers. If they could solve the Palestinian issue it would be even better. But if you don't agree with Ricky or Danivon that it is solvable if you behave differently, this is a reasonably decent alternative.

(cross posted with Freeman whose post makes sense to me.)