Sari Nusseibeh: Let the People Decide: The Case for Soft Intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian Co

[shira]

Let the People Decide: The Case for Soft Intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Sari Nusseibeh - June 24, 2009

THERE MAY still be one last chance for a two-state settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This will require an immediate but radically different approach to the international community’s efforts in peacemaking. Rather than try to engage the two sides in renewed negotiations, President Obama, acting on behalf of the Quartet, should make an offer to both sides which neither side can refuse. He should present a summary of a pre-drawn blueprint of a settlement to the leadership on both sides, and rather than asking them to enter into a new marathon of negotiations over it, or even to accept or reject it, he should simply request that they put it before their respective publics for a vote: the Israeli side through a referendum, and the Palestinian side through an electoral process.

Some preliminary footwork by Senator Mitchell could be done before the the terms of such a settlement can be finalized. Full use of the Saudi-led Arab peace initiative can be made, thus ensuring Arab support and Israel’s eventual integration into the Middle East. Countless working papers and semi-agreements already dealt with over the years by the two sides, whether in formal or informal talks, can also be made use of. The summary as well as the blueprint should eventually be made available in full to both publics.

Failing a U.S-led initiative as herein outlined, the international community led by the United Nations could still spearhead such a move. Either way, the main idea would be to transcend the impasse facing the formal negotiators by giving their publics an active role in the peace process.

A few caveats and explanations are in order. To start with the caveats, the two publics should be given the choice to vote conditionally—thus conditioning their positive answer on a similarly positive answer from the other side. This will remove one obstacle from the way, helping skeptics on both sides to give this initiative a chance. Second, results should appear simultaneously, or on the same day. Third, this request could be accompanied by a felt, if faint, ultimatum to one or both sides (as appropriate) in the eventuality of a negative result or results. Different points of pressure, all less than brute force, and all painful to one or the other of the two sides, can here be itemized. An intimation of possible adverse effects to a negative outcome—if intelligently articulated—may help the preeminence of reasonableness on both sides. Finally, both sides should be made to understand that this solution, once approved, will have the guaranteed support and protection of the international community.

cont'd...
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online.php?id=259

[Donald Ian Rankin]

1. The problem is at the end of the first paragraph.

Any solution remotely acceptable to the Israeli electorate will be unacceptable to the Palestinian electorate, and vice versa.

The only route to peace is through the US putting pressure on the Israeli electorate - not nearly as much as the pressure as is currently being placed on the Palestinian electorate, but as much as was placed on South Africa. Continuing the policy of "sanctions against the Palestinians, support for Israel" will never bring peace.

[shira]

2. and you think the USA putting pressure on Israelis will work?

i agree with you in part - the most that israelis are willing to concede or offer is MILES (kilometers to you) away from the minimum requirements of palestinian LEADERSHIP.

but if you think israelis can be pressured into sacrificing their security again - moreso than ever before - for a paper agreement, given all the terror that has happened since Oslo, you're delusional.

it's easy for you in the UK to dictate security interests to israelis....you don't live there or have family and friends in israel who would be under instant threat.

----------------

maybe i misunderstand you....what kind of pressure do you have in mind, the type of security risk that israelis should be willing to gamble their lives with - something they'd eventually agree to, under pressure?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. Not "will", but probably "would".

I don't think there is any chance of the US putting pressure on Israel, so no, I don't think it *will* work, but if it happened I think it *would* work.

Withdrawing to its own borders would improve, not worsen, Israel's security.

It's impossible for us in the UK to dictate security to Israelis, and we're not trying to. It's easy for us to advise Israelis, but impossible for us to compel them, or even place significant pressure on them. That's nothing to do with "dictating".

In terms of the type of pressure, I would like to see trade and business sanctions, suspensions from international institutions, refusal of sporting or cultural cooperation, an end to military cooperation, regular statements condemning Israel's actions and supporting the right of the Palestinians to a state with borders based on the Green Line, and a lightening of the restrictions on sending aid and money to Palestine.

I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, but I think it might well bring peace if it did, just as it did in the face of similar apocalyptic predictions about the consequences in South Africa.

[shira]

8. really?

Withdrawing to its own borders would improve, not worsen, Israel's security.

what makes you so certain of that? history shows you couldn't be more wrong. EVERY israeli concession and move towards peace has been met with more violence, not the same level, not less, but MORE.

autonomy given to the PA - more violence
settlement freeze since mid 90's - more violence
gaza pullout - more violence
credible peace offers in 2000 and 2008 - more violence

but this time it'll be much different - why? what makes you think so? hamas and IJ will change?

In terms of the type of pressure, I would like to see trade and business sanctions, suspensions from international institutions, refusal of sporting or cultural cooperation, an end to military cooperation, regular statements condemning Israel's actions and supporting the right of the Palestinians to a state with borders based on the Green Line, and a lightening of the restrictions on sending aid and money to Palestine.

and if all this backfires and explodes literally in Israel's face....then oh well, no skin off your back? you'd take the responsibility for all the death and destruction if it backfires, right? you'd still say it was the right decision no matter what?

half a million people ethnically cleansed, hamas takes over and turns the w.bank into gaza, the idf responds and then like jenin and al-dura episodes, israel is still ripped by clowns like you for self-defense even if they do everything by the book, legally and morally.....sounds great for Israel.

really, israel isn't allowed to defend themselves now...what makes you think the media, UN and human rights orgs would allow them to defend themselves after such a disastrous pullout? after jenin, al-dura, lebanon II, and gaza demonizations, what makes you think the press and human rights orgs would treat israel fairly once israelis in jerusalem and tel aviv are as defenseless as they can possibly be after a failed pullout?

i'm thinking the israeli populace would tell you to fuck off and do whatever you're going to do with sanctions b/c they're not again risking their security (now in all major cities) for your 'hope' that peace will suddenly and magically break out and hamas - and hezbollah - will turn into state-building, pro-democracy and civil rights pacifists.

[shaayecanaan]

10. Quite wrong...

history shows you couldn't be more wrong. EVERY israeli concession and move towards peace has been met with more violence, not the same level, not less, but MORE.

Israeli soldiers were dying at the rate of 2 a month during the occupation of Lebanon. I think the rate for Gaza was something like one a month. And Hamas was still firing Qassams, just as Hezbollah were firing Katyushas during the occupation of southern Lebanon.

The withdrawal from Gaza brought very palpable benefits in terms of both lives and money saved.

settlement freeze since mid 90's - more violence

There never was a settlement freeze. Indeed the population of the settlements has increased from 100,000 to 300,000 in the last decade.

I must ask - how does it feel to be a Serb? You have all the hallmarks, the histrionic tone, the ranting, the delusional paranoia.

You're becoming unhinged, a self-parodying pastiche. You should stop now before I figure out another way to denude you of another $50.

[shira]

11. what?

"Israeli soldiers were dying at the rate of 2 a month during the occupation of Lebanon. I think the rate for Gaza was something like one a month. And Hamas was still firing Qassams, just as Hezbollah were firing Katyushas during the occupation of southern Lebanon.

The withdrawal from Gaza brought very palpable benefits in terms of both lives and money saved."

so after Lebanon II and OCL, you'd say it's worked out okay for Israel and the surrounding Arabs? that means a similar war is in the cards after a W.Bank withdrawal due to rockets, etc.

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

"There never was a settlement freeze. Indeed the population of the settlements has increased from 100,000 to 300,000 in the last decade."

sorry, but there hasn't been any new settlement building since the mid 90's.

After the signing of the agreements, Israel refrained from building new settlements although the Oslo agreements stipulated no such ban. However, it continued expanding existing settlements which fell far short of the Shamir government's 1991-92 level. Construction of Housing Units Before Oslo: 1991-92 14,320 units. After Oslo: 1994-95 3,850 units; 1996-1997 3,570 units <9> although the settler population in the West Bank continued growing by around 10,000 per year.<10> The Palestinians built throughout area C administered by Israel without permit.<11>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

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

"You're becoming unhinged, a self-parodying pastiche. You should stop now.."

you think i'm bad....you should see your delusional rantings from my POV.

the person i'm responding to doesn't believe israel has any right to self-defense against terror attacks while you pretend that reports like the recent PCHR civilian body count in Gaza is accurate, israel tries to suppress arab population growth....

maybe i am becoming unhinged, but apparently you and some of your buddies here have been in that state for quite some time.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. Several flat-out lies.

"sorry, but there hasn't been any new settlement building since the mid 90's."

I don't know what you mean here. Are you trying to present "Israel has not founded any new settlements discrete from its other settlements" as "Israel has not been building new buildings in its settlements"? Because Israel has certainly been building at a massive rate in the settlements since the mid 90s...

"The person i'm responding to doesn't believe israel has any right to self-defense against terror attacks"

No, that's not true; what I believe is that the first step of any legitimate Israeli defence must be a genuine offer of peace and an end to the occupation - not the same thing at all. You've deliberately misrepresented this several times recently, please stop doing so.

[shira]

13. just the facts

Israel has been building WITHIN previously built settlements but they have NOT built any new settlements discrete from older ones since the 1990's. And not since the mid 90's has the area that contains all settlements, some 1.7% of W.Bank land, expanded.

That was NOT an Oslo stipulation, btw, but a faith-building measure that was reciprocated with more terror...just one reason a total freeze now would likely accomplish nothing in the form of Arab or PA reciprocity.

==========

Israel genuinely offered peace in 2000 (Barak), 2005 (Gaza pullout), and 2008 (Olmert).

And the fact remains that since marginalized, anti-Israel hardliners like yourself do not think those were legit offers, you believe Israel has no right defending against terror attacks aimed at Israeli civilians. Ergo, ANY defensive military attack by the IDF is condemned by you - meaning Israel has no right to defend itself.

[shaayecanaan]

14. Blatant dishonesty...

I suppose if you wanted to follow that logic, you could say that only 0.45% of the land surface of Australia is built up. What are those damn Aborigines complaining about, eh?

The construction has not just been within existing *settlements*, but within *settlement blocs*. And while no new blocs may have been created, the continuing theft of land for roads, sewages connections and so forth has proceeded apace.

As I have made clear several times, if Israel wants to defend itself from a clear conscience, it should withdraw from the West Bank. If it continues to occupy Palestine, then it commits an act of war and the Palestinians are entitled to retaliate. If they withdraw from the West Bank and the Palestinians attack them, then Israel can legitimately knock the stuffing out of them. But only if they actually withdraw from the West Bank.

[shira]

15. you want honesty? okay, let's see...

1. so Israel freezing brand new settlements since the mid 90's counts for nothing? just as ending settlements and occupation in Gaza 2005 counts for nothing?

2. and are we to pretend that ALL of the existing major and minor settlement blocs should - and are expected to be - abandoned and not part of some land swap as per UNRES242, as well as declarations from the last 2 U.S. presidential administrations that make clear the major blocs will remain part of Israel in a final agreement?

3. and what do you mean for Israel to withdraw from the W.Bank? to strict 1949 armistice lines?

4. UNRES242 does not call Israel's occupation of the W.Bank either illegal or an act of war, does it?

5. are you saying that since Israel has not withdrawn yet, ANY defensive action against terror is immoral / wrong / illegal? as though Israel has no right to defend as long as they occupy the W.Bank?

6. finally, since it's all but a certainty that if Israel withdrew from the W.Bank, Hamas would soon take over and make the W.Bank into Gaza II....you're all in favor of that and in favor of the inevitable BIG war (worse than Lebanon and OCL) that would follow?

---------------

simple questions, let's test this 'blatant dishonesty' theory of yours out, okay?

or is this where you disappear again, without answering anything?

[shaayecanaan]

16. Dear Palestine: I apologise for kicking you in the balls...

however, at this stage I would unfortunately find it very hard to stop kicking you in the balls. Also, I may at some stage expand my kicking slightly to cover the scrotum generally as well as that bit of skin that connects your balls to your arse.

However, as a sign of good faith, I will voluntarily refrain from kicking you in the arse while I am kicking you in the balls. In exchange for this show of goodwill I will expect you to shower me with gratitude and essentially act as though there is no cause for any grievance between us. At some stage in the future, I may stop kicking you in the balls or maybe one of them at least. You will just have to take me at face value. Perhaps it would help if you allow me to cut off one of your balls and let me keep it in a jar on my desk. I'm inclined to do this anyway but the Americans keep telling me I should really get your agreement first.

Yours sincerely,
Israel.

[shira]

17. that's basically Rankin's argument....refuted by Pelsar in post #9 below.

a blatantly dishonest position that ignores the ongoing Arab-Israel conflict that has existed since well before 1948 and is the ONLY reason for continued Israeli occupation of the W.Bank.

terror since Gaza 2005 is proof that land for peace - at this point in time - is bullshit. I can't imagine why you'd believe that the majority of Israelis would be for giving more land for more terror.

basically, you're an advocate of land-for-war.

why?

what's progressive about your pro-war position? a position that would inevitably lead to Hamas enslaving Palestinians, tens of thousands of more deaths, and ongoing war worse than what we've seen - since Hamas will never seek peace with Israel?

[shaayecanaan]

18. Bit of a reach...

I could just as easily say that the Egypt-Israel treaty proves that "land for peace" works.

Arab-Israel conflict that has existed since well before 1948 and is the ONLY reason for continued Israeli occupation of the W.Bank.

Complete nonsense. The Israelis face a bigger security threat from Lebanon than they do from the West Bank. Why, then, did they withdraw from Lebanon and yet still remain in the West Bank?

The border with Syria has been quiet for 20 years. Syria has plainly proved that it can keep a peace. Golani Syrians have cordial relations with Israel and it is very unlikely that any withdrawal from the Golan would lead to bloodshed. Yet there is very little prospect that Israel will ever leave the Golan and indeed 64% of Israelis oppose withdrawal.

Why? Precisely because there is no cost of remaining in the Golan. Israel left Lebanon when enough of its young men had been killed on Lebanese soil. It left Gaza because too many Israelis had died defending their interests in a paltry scrap of land. It remains in the Golan because there is no shooting and no dying and consequently no incentive to leave.

The PA has taken steps to reduce the influence of Hamas and to stabilise the situation in the West Bank. Yet Israel is reticent even to stop the expansion of settlements, let alone reduce the scope of existing ones.

Sadat attempted for some time prior to 1973 to resolve the issue of the Sinai. However, it took the shock of the 1973 war and relentless pressure from the Carter administration to persuade Israel to give up the Sinai.

I am an advocate of land for peace. It is a pity that Israel has historically required the persuasive element of a large number of its citizens in bodybags before agreeing to resolve matters with its neighbours.

What Israelis often fail to appreciate is that stability in the West Bank is largely due to the good graces of Jordan. Should the Hashemite dynasty fall and the West Bank become a second Lebanon, Israel may well rue the opportunities it passed up to make peace with the Palestinians.

[pelsar]

19. you've ignored gaza....

and for good reason...because its reality is far closer to the westbank than Lebanon, Egypt or Jordan. But now that you've mentioned them:
Lets clarify the differences:
Egpty and Syrian all have strong central govts....There is no serious competition for power or loose gangs running around with agendas, hence they can have deals with israel and there is confidence that they will stick.

Lebanon is weak with a fanatic milita in the south that occupies S.Lebanon, and the consequence of that was Lebanon II.
Gaza was weak with the PA which is why hamas took over and 6,000 rockets were sent in to israel...stopped only by the israeli invasion.

_____

on the point of "body bags bringing about change...that is true not just for israel but other countries as well..hence syria no longer attacks, Egypt no longer attacks, Jordan no longer attacks...Hizballa pulled back, and Hama is quiet......unless of course for reasons i never understood israel is somehow different from other countries....
_______

Now to clarify the westbank: the PA a corrupt organization, is working with the IDF to keep Hamas down,that explains the "steps to reduce the influence of Hamas and to stabilise the situation in the West Bank."....you can thank the IDF for that.

Hamas, in the westbank presently is in a similar situation as it was in gaza pre israeli pullout....it wont take much for them to take over the westbank as they did in gaza if and when israel leaves...the conditions are very very similar. The question of course is "does anybody care."...i suspect not. Hamas may bring stability to the Palestenians as per the taliban and/or iran, but certainly not for the region. But that is clearly not a factor. Human rights, Democratic rights are not the issue. If they were, there would be a large amount of noise coming from the left for whats happening in gaza today. To clarify, i'm am not surprised, nor do i really care. The issue for the PA/Hamas/Left etc is one of land ownership and tribal nationalism-we can be clear about this.-hence the human rights issue is nothing more than a "means to an end." i think we can be honest about that.

If that were an actual issue, it would certainly bring up a major problem and discussion of how to insure that the Palestinians do actually live in a free democratic society-but in fact its never brought up and is never discussed- primitive tribalism is the issue at hand.

and of course here your just playing with words:
What Israelis often fail to appreciate is that stability in the West Bank is largely due to the good graces of Jordan. Jordan owes its existent to israel, as in Sept 1970, Jordan is keeping the "lid" on the Palestinians not for israels sake, but for its own....it too wants to survive as country, and works with israel to keep its border quiet and secure. So that little statement infact has little worth beyond propaganda.


The Israelis face a bigger security threat from Lebanon than they do from the West Bank. Why, then, did they withdraw from Lebanon and yet still remain in the West Bank

there are glaring differences....lebanon is a country, fractured, but a country never the less, without a philosophy that includes taking over Haifa, Tel Aviv, etc. The PA/Hamas/Islamic Jihad ownership of the Palestinians on the westbank is not clear on that...plus all it takes is a one person to send in a mortar shell or two in to major israeli cities that surround the westbank to start the path to war. Furthermore most Lebanonese dont give a shit about israel, the Palestinians work and live with israelis, their economy, infrastructure is highly integrated with israel.....they are a far greater threat as a failed state then Lebanon....

land for peace when the govt is weak, does not produce peace:
Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza all perfectly clear examples of it.......the westbank is a copy of gaza pre israeli pullout...its not hard to figure out what hamas is planning for the westbank, and its not hard to wonder what can stop them....

the question is: is it relevant?

[shaayecanaan]

24. No, I didnt...

read it again and you'll notice I referred to it halfway down.

Egpty and Syrian all have strong central govts....There is no serious competition for power or loose gangs running around with agendas, hence they can have deals with israel and there is confidence that they will stick.

Condoleeza Rice pushed Israel to offer Lebanon a peace treaty two years ago in exchange for the Shebaa farms. The only reason it didnt get off the ground was because Lebanon swatted it down. The main reason that Israel has any interest in peace with Syria is because they want Syria to cut off Hezbollah's blood supply. It certainly has little to do with Syria's clapped-out shit-arsed Soviet tanks, or even the fact that Syria has kept a quiet border for 30 years.

"body bags bringing about change...that is true not just for israel but other countries as well

Yes, but less so. Vietnam lost 16% of its population fighting to expel the Americans, over two million people. It took only 50 000 deaths to send the Americans packing. Ariel Sharon said that the difference between Algeria and Israel was that the French Algerians could go home to France, and to some extent that is true. But only to a point. The second Lebanon war ended when Olmert asked his chief of staff how many casualties he could expect if Israel pressed their way to the Litani river, and was told "about 300". If you consider that they took 2000 deaths last time before they gave up, it certainly reflects a substantial lessening of Israel's stomach for war.

Jordan owes its existent to israel, as in Sept 1970

Im trying to think of a witty comeback for this but all I can think of is "what a fucking ridiculous statement".

Jordan is keeping the "lid" on the Palestinians not for israels sake, but for its own

60% of Jordan's population is Palestinian. King Abdullah keeps a lid on the Palestinians - the rest of Jordanian society does not necessarily feel the same way. Most Jordanians favour increased tacit support of the Palestinian resistance, in much the same way that Syria tacitly supports Hezbollah without actually itself getting involved in war.

[pelsar]

37. israel the war mongering country...

yes according to you we have no problem in getting our kids killed.....
that seems to be your bottom line. Whenever i read that i realize i the person who is writing has little understanding of israeli society....

how do i know?..because you arguments are basically that israel has 100% control of the region an does what it wants....or that is somehow "different"

The main reason that Israel has any interest in peace with Syria is because they want Syria to cut off Hezbollah's blood supply.

i guess...israel prefers peace with syria, because it prefers peace can't possible be (we really do like war.....)

you wrote: body bags bringing about change...that is true not just for israel but other countries as well---Yes, but less so.
strange argument that the US's 50,000 killed soldiers, which caused the US pullout of Vietnam is somehow "less" than the the israelis killed in Lebanon or gaza 2000+. your arguing that somehow israel is different....kind of like its a war mongering country that likes war, doesn't really hold water here...try again.

i'm afraid it just proves how "normal" israel is as a country (somehow that is difficult for some to accept)

History lesson
Jordan Sept 1970, israel intelligence told the Jordanians where the Palestinians of Black September were (during their attempt to take over the country) and stopped the Syrian Invasion...when Israeli jets buzzed an invading syrian tank force into jordan, which then turned back....(syrian was already fighting along side the Palestenians....)

Geography and economic lesson...jordan supporting the armed resistance (tacit or otherwise) of the Palestenians will easily upset the balance in Jordan and the region..they are not a strong govt with a long border with israel.....i doubt very much they want to risk their own stability....and their are multiple economic projects with israel that will benefit them....unlike others, they seem to understand where their interests and those of the country lie....

[shaayecanaan]

54. No...

yes according to you we have no problem in getting our kids killed.....

Actually I was arguing the direct opposite, that Israel is increasingly reluctant to have its people killed in war.

US's 50,000 killed soldiers, which caused the US pullout of Vietnam is somehow "less" than the the israelis killed in Lebanon or gaza 2000+

Per capita, it would be roughly the same. As for Syria, it doesn't avoid war because of the potential casualties, but because of the political impact of a potential defeat. In one sense, it is not a very strong state at all.

...and stopped the Syrian Invasion...when Israeli jets buzzed an invading syrian tank force into jordan, which then turned back....(syrian was already fighting along side the Palestenians....)

Let's presume your assumption holds entirely true (in many ways it doesnt, Assad, for example, has said that the intervention was to be limited and intended only to stop a wave of Palestinian refugees from flooding Syria - also, the King did not request Israeli help, although he did request British or American help, and was in fact terrified at the impact that unsolicited Israeli "assistance" could wreak to the legitimacy of his regime).

Nevertheless, if the PLO coup was successful and the Hashemites were deposed, you would still have a piece of land called Jordan populated by much the same people. When you consider that 60% of Jordan is Palestinian, and a further 20% are Iraqi Sunni or Chaldean Christian (both of whom supported Saddam Hussein and are/were generally sympathetic to the PLO), and only 20% of Jordan are East Bankers, who fill the elite positions in Jordanian society and support the King - not many people would have a great deal to fear from the consequences of a pro-PLO coup.

Which is precisely my point - and what we seem to be getting away from. If democracy ever comes to Jordan (which I understand is supposed to be what we are working towards), Israel will have to be prepared for a rather different environment on its eastern flank.

[Vegasaurus]

23. Land for peace is a failure, and a dead end policy nt

[Ken Burch]

27. It can't possibly be progressive to demand that other Arab countries abandon the Palestinians

And it goes without saying that no one has the right to expect the Palestinians to accept anything short of statehood, since nothing short of that can give them a life. Occupation can never be progressive or positive, and its inconceivable that Palestinians could ever have accepted the settlements. No one, anywhere, would have accepted those settlements.

[shira]

30. wake up - Arab countries have abandoned Palestinians for over 60 years now

they've left millions homeless as refugees and done all they could to use Palestinians as proxies in their war against Israel. They don't give a rat's ass about Palestinians, although they do care about the Palestinian "cause" (destroy Israel).

Face it - you're for an immediate end to occupation that would soon lead to a war bigger than Lebanon 2006 or OCL 2008-09. You're not pro-peace but rather, pro-war. Thousands would die and the region would be less stable than it is now. Gaza 2005 proved land-for-peace is complete crap with the current Palestinian leadership. The best you could hope for is a different foreign occupation, maybe Arab countries, that keep Hamas and the PLO in line. Of course that's a powder keg too for obvious reasons. So you're either pro-war or pro-Arab or NATO type occupation. Stop fooling yourself.

[Ken Burch]

31. The way to avoid war would be not just to end the Occupation

(and you know, by the way, that keeping the Occupation going can only make things keep getting worse, so why not admit it?)
would be for there to be, in addition to an end to the Occupation itself;

1)A real effort to immediately economically rebuild the West Bank and Gaza, with support from the international community;

2)An apology from the Israeli government for incessantly equating Palestinians with European antisemites, and an admission that the Israeli government was always wrong to try to delay the formation of a Palestinian state and to demonize those who called for such a state;

3)An admission that those 750,000 Arab people did NOT leave in 1948 because the "other Arab countries" told them to, but rather because there was a concerted effort to drive them out, coupled, if RoR isn't feasible, with REAL compensation and a genuine expression of remorse for how those people were treated;

4)An amnesty and the establishment of a "Truth and Reconciliation" commission to allow people on both sides to get redress for greivances;

5)An acceptance from the Palestinian side(and this should be achievable)that, while the Zionist leadership inflicted injustices on the Palestinians, most individuals who moved to Israel were not knowing accomplices to this and were lied to by THEIR leadership about the situation they were coming into;

6)Immediate compensation to all Palestinian farmers who had their olive groves destroyed by the IDF and the settlers(an act that never had the slightest justification);

7)An acceptance that individual Jewish people could live in the West Bank if they accepted living there simply as equals to the Palestinians(the statement discussed in the other thread clearly shows this is possible);

8)An apology to the Mizrahi from the countries they were unjustly expelled from, with compensation and an announcement that they were now welcome to return if they wished;

9)An admission on the part of both sides that neither side was solely to blame.


These are the ACTUAL steps I'd take. I've never said "End the Occupation and life will be perfect" and you know it.
I said there was no chance of anything getting better WITHOUT ending the Occupation, and without admitting that the Palestinians are not the successors to the Nazis. The steps I outlined above have a chance of ending the war. Your "hold on dig in and keep stealing land until the Pals surrender" approach has no chance of success at all. You do understand the definition of insanity, don't you shira? Hasn't it made the slightest impression on you that the status quo approach hasn't worked yet, and thus cannot work?

[shira]

33. your plan

Looks like steps 2-9 wouldn't take very long to achieve - not that they'd make a bit of difference to Hamas or Fatah - only step #1 would take some time to work out.

How long until you believe step #1 is achieved? Does the occupation end once that's underway - 5 years from now or what?

[Ken Burch]

36. It would depend on the following factors

1)Whether the settlers would be as defiant(and have the weaponry at their own disposal to keep their defiance going)as the quote from Derfner indicated. If they can't be controlled, they should be deported, as their actions have clearly become a menace to Israeli security.

2)Whether or not all Palestinian factions could be persuaded to accept an end to hostilities(this has been one of the key factors in the Northern Irish situation-on both sides of THAT sectarian dispute-but so far it's gone better there than anyone had expected).

The best way to achieve the second would be to make sure that the settlement was not, in any way, seen as the Palestinian leadership(whichever leadership was to be involved)being humiliated by the Israelis. This is why I've placed such emphasis on the importance of settlement removal. The presence of those settlements(and the insistence on what you've euphemistically termed "natural growth")is seen by virtually ALL Palestinians as Israel imposing its will, decency, common sense and world opinion be damned.

If the worst of the two sides(the settlers on the one hand, the militant would-be "martyrs" on the other)can be dealt with, this will make it much easier to achieve the reconstruction program. Again, to refer to the Northern Irish example, extremists on both sides of that dispute used violence, in part, to PREVENT an economic revival of the area, because they realized that violent resistance movement would be much harder to maintain in a time of economic prosperity(or, as Brecht put it "food is the first thing, morals follow")

If those factors can be dealt with in such a way as to create a situation of parity of esteem, the establishment of trust between the sides(and, it must be said, both sides have had reason to distrust the other)and the creation of a violence-free method of resolving disputes, then it is certainly possible to get the first of my suggestions implemented. Like anyone else, Palestinians would like a normal, peaceful life in the end.

[shira]

39. so you're for strict 1949 borders based on the artificial armistice lines

that's an extreme unrealistic and irrational position that is never going to happen even if the PLO, Hamas, and IJ all sell their weaponry for books and become pacifists. This couldn't have happened even PRIOR to Intifada II starting in 2000 and it's certainly not happening as a result of Intifada II and the failed Gaza 2005 pullout.

You may as well be calling for full right-of-return for a few million Palestinians into Israel as well.

The 'moderate' Mahmoud Abbas is still calling for strict 1949 borders as well as RoR because he's also under the delusion that the US stance has changed since the Clinton and Bush II administrations:

Abbas: I won't give up demand for right of return of refugees
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=505684&contrassID=13

Abbas: Settlement halt a US condition
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443784450&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[azurnoir]

41. Yes please read the articles BOTH titles are quite misleading

the Haaretz article is about Fatah's internal struggle between Abbas and the old guard and Barghouti yes Abbas says he will not give up RoR but how much longer will he be leader is a better question and alludes to something I have long held that younger Palestinians have little desire to live in a hostile foreign county

in the jpost article Abbas says that settle freeze is an American idea but what Abbas says boils down to Israel can build whatever it wants there will no agreement with return to pre 1967 borders and on that score I think most Palestinians agree

[azurnoir]

44. CORRECTION

I just noticed the line that reads

in the jpost article Abbas says that settle freeze is an American idea but what Abbas says boils down to Israel can build whatever it wants there will no agreement with return to pre 1967 borders and on that score I think most Palestinians agree

should have read

in the jpost article Abbas says that settle freeze is an American idea but what Abbas says boils down to Israel can build whatever it wants there will no agreement without a return to pre 1967 borders and on that score I think most Palestinians agree


my mistake

[Vegasaurus]

63. The article does not state or allude to the younger generation

giving up RofR.

Only that Abbas has stated HE won't give it up, because of Arafat.

There is nothing stated that the younger generation doesn't agree with Arafat, only that Bargouti is more electable,

[azurnoir]

64. You apparently cannot read n/t

[Vegasaurus]

65. Really? Please post the contrary.

[Ken Burch]

43. In posting those two links together, you imply that RoR and a settlement freeze are equally extreme

proposals. Why? Even if you can't accept the settlements being removed, why insist on letting them continue to grow? Why wouldn't it be enough for the settlements to stay at their current size?

[azurnoir]

45. IMO what she hopes is that no one will read beyond the titles

which very falsely imply that the Palestinians do want a complete right of return and do not want a settlement freeze and in the case of the settlements that is something being "forced" on them by the US ie Obama
the overarching impression we IMO are supposed to get plays to the Palestinians want all of Israel meme

[Ken Burch]

48. I've read beyond the titles.. Thanks for pointing that out though,

n/t.

[azurnoir]

52. I trusted you did

:-)

[shira]

55. nevermind the titles to the articles - looks like they've changed several times - that's jpost 4 you

My points stand as Abbas will not waive RoR and wants strict 1949 borders based on artificial armistice lines.

RoR and strict 1949 borders are both extreme positions - you really require explanation as to why they're extreme?

I'm only for natural growth within settlement blocs that will be Israel's in any final settlement. Going back to Bill Clinton, it's a given that there will be land swaps and the major settlement blocs will be part of Israel - all according to UNSCR242. Even Jimmy Carter admitted the Gush Etzion bloc would remain part of Israel.

[azurnoir]

57. so who decided the pre 1967 borders are "artificial"

The fact is all borders are artificial, they are in fact political dividing lines
so what would be an nonartificial or real border- some over large apartment complexes? the artificially constructed wall? the Jordan River perhaps that's naturally occurring

[shira]

59. they're only armistice lines

[azurnoir]

62. So is your point that

Israel has decided not to honor the armistice or that it was somehow invalid?

[Ken Burch]

46. It would only be an extreme and irrational position if it could be assumed

that Palestinians are somehow constitutionally incapable of NOT being at war with Israel(and, as AIPAC and the Israeli government would like people to believe), that this was because "they hate the Jews".

As long as the Israeli government refuses to believe that Palestinians can be capable of peace and that everything it does must be done on the assumption that war will go on no matter what(and that belief runs through all YOUR posts), it is pointless for that government to claim to want peace. The establishment of peace means accepting that the people you are negotiating with are capable of being normal, civilized humans.

But the Israeli government and the IDF refuse to accept this. Instead, they to pretend that Palestinians are mindless slaves of their "leadership", and that the leadership they have now can be changed or be made to act in a reasonable, humanistic way by being crushed militarily). It pretends that the Occupation can lead to a better Palestinian leadership(even though the Israeli government itself knows this is impossible). This belief could be described as the doctrine of "moderation through humiliation".

This belief goes against everything everyone knows about Palestinians and their history, which is that the organizing principle of that history is to avenge past humiliations. This is why it is so crucial, now, to make sure not to humiliate the Palestinians ever again. Not because "we don't want to hurt their feelings" but because the Israeli governments's insistence on being able to claim that it "won" and the Palestinians "lost" can only lead to any Palestinian leadership Israel negotiates with being discredited, overthrown, and replaced with another that wants, once again, to avenge the shame.


And it is why people who self identify as "pro-Israel", such as yourself, need to accept that "peace through victory" is as impossible here as it was for the U.S. in Vietnam. As long as the Israeli political and military leadership has a LBJ in Vietnam mindset, the war, as it did for the U.S., will continue.

To repurpose John Kerry's famous remark:

How can you ask your descendants unto their tenth generation to die for a mistake?

As to territory...if the Palestinians were to make their own proposal, a non-humiliating proposal, for a minor land swap, I'd back that, but it's really compromise enough to get them to accept Israel's existence and agree to live in peace with it. Given what happened in'48, there's not much more than that that you can ask. It's unconscionable, though, for the Israeli government to be trying to make a future Palestinian state as small and weak as possible.

[shira]

56. but it can be assumed, Ken....here's the latest from a Fatah official

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc-7GK6F4RI

that's "moderate" Fatah - the same Fatah that says it hasn't even recognized Israel and will not push Hamas to do so either:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1237114855755

add to this the demand for RoR and strict 1949 borders, remember Hamas is even worse, and it's hard to imagine Palestinian leadership ever wants anything other than a continuation of this conflict.

[Ken Burch]

58. Fatah recognized Israel in 1994, for G-d's sake

That act put the "recognition" issue to rest.

It's childish for Netanyahu to act like we're still back on that.

[shira]

60. did you read the article - Fatah says only the PLO recognized Israel's right to exist

and the video of that Pal'n representative was something else, wasn't it?

[Ken Burch]

61. Excuse me...Fatah IS the PLO

It's only Hamas that didn't officially recognize.

[Ken Burch]

49. I've read the articles, the one on settlements does NOT say what you want people to think it says

It does NOT say that Palestinians don't care if the settlements grow. And you knew that when you posted it. The settlements were NEVER only an American issue.

[Ken Burch]

47. I should also have added, in addition to "parity of esteem"

the idea of "parity of grievance" as well.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Best post I've read here in a while....

That was funny. Thanks for posting it :)

[Ken Burch]

26. There's no difference between expanding existing settlements and starting new ones

In both cases, Palestinians have more land stolen for no reason. Why can't you make the simple and obvious connection that if you take more and more land from those you are fighting against(and oppressing)this can have NO effect but to make them resist more and more fiercely? Why can't you see that those settlements bring nothing but danger to Israel by increasing the justified anger Palestinians feel?

And Israel has been allowed to do everything it NEEDS to do. It would be immoral for Israel to attack Iran, since it would mainly kill innocent civilians. OCL proves the IDF can't do surgical strikes any more.

[shira]

29. sure there is, see #28 below

you're just assuming that Israel must retreat behind 1949 armistice lines and therefore should dump everything beyond those artificial borders. THAT is an extreme position Ken, and it's not what UNSCR242 calls for at all.

And you obviously don't know anything about OCL and surgical strikes.

[Ken Burch]

25. Keeping the settlements adds nothing to Israeli security.

And "natural growth" of those settlements can only undermine it. Why can't you at least admit that there's no justification in the existing settlements getting any LARGER? Why can't you admit the settlers have enough?

[shira]

28. you're still under the delusion that UNSCR242 calls for israeli withdrawal behind 1949 artificial

armistice lines, when it is clear that the resolution calls for negotiated secure and defensible borders.

Are you in any way aware of the fact that many settlements are located on hills and mountains overlooking Israel, which means that if Hamas and PLO snipers took positions there, as Syrians did in the Golan before 1967, that Israelis would be easy targets? THAT'S where many settlements are today. Ergo, the UNSCR242 call for secure and defensible borders, whether settlements were ever built there or not - Israel could never allow the PLO and Hamas to have such easy access again.

Get real, Ken....the last 2 presidential administrations granted that Israel would retain the major settlement blocs - blocs that will remain Israel's and natural growth within those blocs that would of course happen even now had Arafat accepted a deal 9 years ago.

Try to get that through your head - the natural growth going on now would still be going on now had a deal been struck 9 years ago....because those blocs of land would have been swapped. No extra land is being "stolen" due to natural growth. Anything beyond natural growth is, of course, wrong.

Read Larry Derfner's latest in the jpost.....he's very far left and against settlements but is NOT against natural growth.

In principle, I would like to see construction go on within, but not beyond, Gush Etzion, Alfei Menashe, East Talpiot and the other large settlements that we will be keeping if and when a peace treaty is signed. But I know that in practice, we will not respect any such limits in building over the Green Line. Even if the Netanyahu government wanted to curtail settlement construction, which it doesn't, the settlers would flout the government's will as they always have and keep on building here, there, everywhere.

http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443756942&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

and get this straight - i agree with everything Derfner wrote in that paragraph.

[Ken Burch]

32. If that's the attitude of the settlers, the Israeli government should DEPORT them

They should be sent back to Brooklyn or Miami(and, if you're at all honest, you'd have to admit that most of the craziest settlers are Americans, so there's no slur in the suggestion). The attitude of those settlers puts ALL Israelis at risk. There's no justification for indulging such arrogance and recklessness. Those settlers clearly don't give a damn if they get everybody in the IDF killed defending them.

[shira]

34. what attitude? Larry Derfner's attitude? please be specific.

[Ken Burch]

35. If the settlers are going to be that arrogant and defiant

in their determination to expand the settlements, no matter what.

The attitude that Derfner spoke of with such resignation in the last line of the quote you posted.

[shira]

40. it's hard to disagree with you on this in particular - they should be jailed or deported

and congrats - you're finally indulging in LEGITIMATE criticism of Israeli policy regarding the settlers.

see how this works? :)

[Ken Burch]

51. If you acknowledge that the actions of the settlers are THAT detrimental to Israeli security

Why would you EVER want the settlements to grow? Wouldn't that give the settlers even MORE chances to trash things?
Why increase their power? The worst of them WANT to soak the West Bank with Palestinian blood.

[LeftishBrit]

42. I actually agree with you on this.

I think the extreme settlers are out-of-hand, and a danger to their country, and at the extreme, domestic terrorists.

[Ken Burch]

53. Thanks.

n/t.

[pelsar]

3. wasnt gaza enough?

a weak corrupt Palestinian leadership invites hamas, islamic jihad, etc to take over. In fact its the IDF working with the PA that keeps Hamas weak in the westbank........

any agreement with the PA at this point, without the IDF supporting them (not a good idea) will last as long as it takes for Hamas to take over the westbank, install shari law and.......start phase 2 of their war.

___________

The consequences of such a sequence of events is not good for the Palestinians nor for the israelis.....the obvious question is if those consequences are even relevant-or will their supporters "be surprised" as they were in gazas events, from hamas taking over..to the kassams, to the invasion, to the stopping of the kassams.....

actually i've learned....freedom is not the goal of many Palestinian supporters..its simple tribal nationalism, the way they live (as per the gaza example) is considered an internal matter and dragging couples through the streets caught holding hands is considered an internal cultural matter-as is executing political rivals etc)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. No, 10% was not enough.

Trying to base your prediction of what will happen when your remove a cancerous tumour from a patient on the fact that when you remove 10% of it (while the other 90% continues to expand) they don't get any better is foolish.

[pelsar]

6. if i recall correctly....

pre gaza pullout....the discussions were about how israel must do something dramatic, make the first step etc...........

now that that failed completely, the excuses start pouring in as to why the Palestinians didnt take advantage of it. (though now that the kassams have stopped it may be that hamas will turn its attention to its citizens.....that may have some good points to it....maybe)

Actually the predictions arent only based on gaza..they're based on Lebanon and the years of oslo where israel would pull out of an area, and immediately that vacuum would be filled with a local gang who would then start sending suicide bombers....

its not a difficult scenario to understand nor predict...a weak local govt, armed militias under the influence of foreign govts, feeding the poor offering discipline, faith etc and given the opportunity takes over.....not much to be surprised about...though i admit i am surprised that you dont see that as the obvious scenario....you do know that hamas is in the westbank....and that the PA is corrupt as ever.....and that the only difference between gaza and the westbank is the IDF raids.....

but then i understand you have no real problem with theocratic fanatics running the Palestinians.....as long as they are muslim and Palestinians......democracy is not really on the agenda is it?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. I think the phrase is "good faith gesture".

The problem was that pulling out of Gaza patently wasn't a good faith gesture; its intention was to make it easier for Israel to hold on to other settlements.

As to the government of the Palestinians - I'm not happy with the theocratic (arguably) fanatics (definately) of Hamas running Palestine, but if that's who the Palestinians vote for then external forces preventing them from doing so is probably the greater of two evils. But I am firmly in favour of steps to make the Palestinians less likely to vote for Hamas, and the only realistic way to do that is to give them a way to achieve a viable state through non-violent means. And I see no prospect of that happening.

[pelsar]

9. intentions?

The problem was that pulling out of Gaza patently wasn't a good faith gesture; its intention was to make it easier for Israel to hold on to other settlements.

You know why pulling out of gaza made it easier for israel to hold onto the settlements? because of the Palestinians failure to take advantage of the pullout, and used it to shoot rockets at our cities, it simply proved to us the fallacy of the "land for peace mentality."

Now had they made a "club med" out of it".......and the israeli population saw, came, visited, THAT would have shown how the settlements are in fact the problem....dont blame israel for the Palestinians failure whatever you believe israels intentions, the Palestinians could have easily turned it to their advantage....

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

21. The OP is an article by Sari Nusseibeh. I really don't think he supported the invasion of Gaza!

[Ken Burch]

50. ER...to say the least...

:eyes:

[LeftishBrit]

22. Very interesting article

Sounds like a good idea - except for the obvious: what happens if either or both sides reject the proposal? Then we're all back to square one, and Obama and the world community will have to decide what pressures to exert.

Still it might be the bold step that could break the impasse!