Here are a couple of the points, not commonly recognised in this matter.Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey
a.) At the heart to of the conflict is the deeply and widely held belief Arab that Jews (not Israelis) should not exist in their place of origin, nor be entitled to a nation - thus no Israel, or Israelis. The exceptions to these beliefs are countries like Turkey, that have no/little institutional history of killing Jews (Jews not Israelis) - Turkey being a whole league ahead of Morocco, as Turkey still has a large Jewish community.
c.) Israel has withdrawn from >80% of the territory it has ever taken by force of arms for self-protection. In every case there has been a reduction in security for Israel, which most Israelis are willing to stand for the bones of a lasting peace. This will not occur in the West Bank because no one in Israel wants to see Iranians firing rockets into Tel-Aviv, or be the man that put Hezbollah within striking distance of 96% of Israel's population.
c.) Unless people are willing to concede Israel's absolute right to exist, like any other nation, within sensibly modified variations of the pre-1967 cease fire line, then the only other option is simply and fight to death or exhaustion.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
@ I'd be happier if you knew why I'd comment, not just that I did.
1. How? On what basis do you start discussions? Morally I have huge issues with the Jews that believed it was worthwhile to talk to the Nazis. I see the same problem here.
2. Good enough. I wholly disagree, but I can understand. I have very set beliefs as to what constitutes war crimes and I see none of these in the actions of the US, UK, NATO or Israel.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Ken we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the UN. I am happy to concede it is far from perfect but we should be trying to redress its problems not tear it down. Collecting a coalition of like minded nations to impose their will is wrong. At the moment the US has the might but morally I see their/our position as no better than if a coalitions of Islamic countries invaded the UK and imposed Sharia Law as a correction of our lax morals. Both coalitions would be convinced of the morality of their causes the principal difference is the West – at this moment in history - has the military might to impose its will (after a fashion). If there is to be some kind of international law - and it is to have any credibility – I would argue our defacto unit of sovereignty lies at the nation state level and some form of council of these units must be the arbiter of trans-national disputes. The problem - in my opinion - has much to do with the states paranoia at relinquishing any control at all to a higher authority. The states are acting anarchically not democratically and those benefiting most from the status quo are – naturally enough - being the greatest impediment to reform.
While I agree it is not helpful to go full sack cloth and ashes over the wealth built up in our nations by the slave trade - or other actions taken by past generations - we should as we ‘sit in modern comfort surrounded by masses of information with absolutely no responsibility’ not think we have no responsibility but acknowledge that previous generations helped put us in this position and use our knowledge and power benevolently rather than to screw some dirt poor country into accepting a trade agreement that is going to keep their citizens earning a pittance.
William our difference is probably more fundamental.
a) That there has been wide spread historical anti-Semitism – for me is again a given – and obviously not just by Arab peoples. The Jews were blamed for spreading the Black Death, Shakespeare shows them as less than popular and on the modern states Germany and the USSR institutionalised it and many others including the US & UK just let it persist unchallenged.
b&c) “This will not occur in the West Bank because no one in Israel wants to see Iranians firing rockets into Tel-Aviv” again I can not let this go unchallenged. That Iran is helping various Palestinian groups I grant you, but the US is helping Israel and it is equally true and equally inflammatory and generally unhelpful for me to say the Americans are firing rockets and killing Palestinian civilians. Earlier I referred to the Stone Age, which seems a bit harsh, but a Roman general would probably keep his ballistas if offered Hamas’ rockets in exchange (you know the ones with the pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey targeting system) however if the Romans had had a few of those shinny IDF helicopter gunships with the nice rocket pods on either side then Hannibal would have needed more than the Nubian cavalry and a few elephants.
Israel is so small geographically that all of Israel could be in the range of enemy rockets if Iran or Syria or anyone else choose to supply them, at present the Israelis are the only ones with hi-tech weapons. Acceptance of Israel is unlikely without the creation and acceptance of a Palestine state but that is not currently in Israel’s best interests. While they have US protection, a modern military, a European standard of living and control over the holy sites why would they want to accept a state which other Arab nations could legitimately arm to parity. There is no trust for such a measure.
Again worrying with the Nazi analogy. If we are going to use it then it is the Israelis with the power and the Palestinians are the oppressed and suffering but I am not happy with casting the Jews as the Nazis even if the analogy does work better that way around. The Israelis just have to talk we had to do it with the IRA. Ignoring your enemies just because you do not like their tactics is not going to get you a solution. With the IRA they never had the level of popular support – even within the Catholic community – that Hamas or Hezbollah have, they could not have stood for democratic office and been elected. These are not a few radical terrorists they are mass movements with wide popular support fighting a war of liberation against an occupying army. You may not see it that way but they do and short of genocide I don’t see any way that is going to change. So talk or fight to annihilation there are a lot more of them and they are already exhausted so I don’t think that is going to be enough to stop them.1. How? On what basis do you start discussions? Morally I have huge issues with the Jews that believed it was worthwhile to talk to the Nazis. I see the same problem here.
Interesting,
I note that you acknowledge one of the major problems with the UN and why it is and will likely remain fairly ineffectual as long as those things don't change. But I find myself curious on both this and the Isreal issue as to what exactly you feel would be the actual results of such things as placing all responsibility for international affairs at the feet of the UN.
And of Isreal capitulating to the demands ( acceptable in what I have heard you say so far) That they give up many of the very things which have helped them to survive amongst those who seek to do them harm and refuse to recognize their right to exist as they do right now.
What exactly do you suggest would be the real life results of such actions.
Along the lines of our responsibilities to make amends for past improprieties of our ancestors I really don't see where it has ever been effective in history to have those who have opportunity to deal with current considerations correctly avoid doing so but rather work at it from a how can we make up for someone elses mistakes aspect.
The problem with the latter is it
1- Doesn't necessarily address any of the issues directly at hand
2- What it does do is create expectation for accountability beyond that which mankind can actually control.
For me it still comes down to choices and for those of us who have the opportunity to make them we should either benefit from the right ones or suffer from the wrong ones.
For those who aren't given those choices (those) who actually take those choices away from them should be accountable for just such.
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
Amidst this all-too-predictable bickering, I'll just interject for a book recommendation. The Brink of Peace: The Israeli-Syrian Negotiations is an autopsy of the earlier, failed process and makes for a good background read to put the current move for negotiations in context.
I disagree with the ready assumption that a Palestinian state would be detrimental to Israeli security. It would first remove most (though certainly not all) of the ideological opposition to Israel, particularly internationally. This may be more important if US military power continues to gradually erode in the face of emerging near-peer competitors. Second, it would give legitimacy to Israeli military retaliation if factions within the new Palestinian state decide to attack Israel; by terrorism, rockets, etc. And I think if Israel can retain control of key resources (water, energy, oil, etc) and use that as leverage with a legitimate and recognized Palestinian authority, an effective, though not perfect, peace could be created. The Palestinian state would be beholden to Israel, making Israel its patron; not Syria or Iran.
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
Interesting proposition
Just a couple of things though.
First working on finding a copy of the book Jedburgh's talking about so I'm sure it may present some facts i'm missing.
But ,
If I remember correctly every surrounding country has refused to allow for any of their lands to become Palestinian territory yet have all consistently demanded that Isreal do just that. Now is a two state solution a good idea, I would definately think so. What actions of the involved players have ever shown that in doing anything but going away entirely will satisfy the regions wants. I don't remember reading about anyone proposing peace afterwords but rather a more gradual continuance of reclamation of "arab" lands?
By the way just so those involved realize I am not coming from so much of a defense of Israel standpoint as I am trying to look at it as a negotiator might in trying to identify the what who wants and what give and takes there can be. The problem I keep having is that every where you turn it pretty much seems like for at least one side of the table its all or all. Someone give me an example of what I'm missing here.
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
Ron I am obviously after a system I feel is just and for that I think it should, at a minimum, pass a ‘veil of ignorance’ test. I am obviously not a fan of the ‘might is right’ school but do believe if the UN did not exist we would have to invent it. As to how it should work and what affect that might have. The core is, as always, trust or as is the current case lack there of. In cold war times countries tended to be graded along a linear ideological left/right scale with the US and USSR at opposite poles, today this does not work so well as the ideologies being fought over are different but regardless of the calibration system used the US is not likely to fall at or near the centre. A new world order reflecting the wishes of some mythical average human, or state, is therefore not likely to be much to the liking of the average American anymore than a world average in the cold war times that may of produced a social democrat or soft socialist. Given that most countries are not going to fall near the centre and few – with exception of the Scandinavians – seem consistently to be willing to accept they should not get priority treatment I do not underestimate the difficulty of getting the system to work. I hope that it would eventually produce a system where the use of military force, or sanctions, would be seldom used and that if they were the offending country would be in no doubt that they would be consistently applied and no other state would aid them. I would also hope that these sanctions would principally be used for humanitarian rather than political reasons and we would never be in a position where wars were started based on the internal domestic politics of another state. In the first Gulf War I thought the system worked much as it should, it reversed an act of aggression by one state on a weaker state, sanctioned by the wider international community including states that would normally be regarded as ‘friendly’ by Iraq. I naively believed this would be viewed by as an example of what could be achieved by co-operation and would be taken as a warning by despots. In Afghanistan not so much and Iraq II has bought great shame on both our countries making us international pariahs. I trusted my government not to start a war unless their intelligence was rock solid, as it stands now I would rather place my trust in the UN general assembly and will do my part in making sure they do not get elected again. They perpetrated a fraud against their own people and my principle regret is that no one is going to be held accountable. We often talk about the radicalisation of Muslim Extremists but this war has radicalised me, prior to Iraq II when I scanned the paper I would probably have skipped most of the stories I now read. I certainly would not have followed US domestic politics or ever have been to this site and would have accepted much of the pro-Israeli propaganda as fact. Now I start by assuming an Iranian and UK (or US) official statement is equally likely to be false and take it from there – a very sorry state of affairs but it has been enlightening. [/ End of Rant]
In the case of ME dispute I do not see any workable solution apart from two states each confident of their own sovereignty and security. I think each side could agree to some form of this IF they believed there was a power they could trust to intervene to restore the status quo if the other party transgressed. The UN should be the ones to do this and both Israel and a fledgling Palestinian state should confidently expect the same level of support given to Kuwait. The UN should be able to call on forces from all states to achieve this but as Israel’s mentor and closest ally and the planets only current military superpower could the US be relied upon to fight oppression regardless of who is doing the oppressing? And what do we do when the US is the oppressor? Until there is some way of controlling the US I can not see any way of achieving an equitable world order. It is in the US’s own interest to use the influence it now has to reform the system. When my grandfather was born the UK was the superpower, when my father was born (in WWII) who knows Germany/Russia/US/Japan/UK, when I was born the US’s star was rising, my children were born into the US/USSR era but now watch the rise of China and India, who will be top dog when they have children I do not know but I don’t want my grand children subject to the whim of one nation based on how big their GDP is and how much of it they are willing to spend on weapons – there must be a better way and we need to find it now. While I have no love for GWB he is better than Stalin or Hitler but that is just luck and we can not keep just hoping it holds.
While I agree with AmericanPride’s two state solution it fails the ‘veil of ignorance’ test in that it is unreasonable to expect Israel to accept a Palestinian state having control of its oil and water supply. Would you give that control over vital US resource to Cuba or Venezuela? If the answer is no then why should the Palestinians.
Israel already controls to a large extent Palestinian access to those resources -- and has used them marginally effectively against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The missing piece of this puzzle, I think, is the absence of a legitimate Palestinian faction recognized both by Israel and the Palestinian people. Israel needs to search for (or create?) a Palestinian political faction willing to accept peace with these particular conditions, but at the same time, it needs the support of Palestinian "elites" so it can make that decision on their behalf. The problem of course is that the elites use Israel as a rallying cry to shape public support. So -- either Israel needs to make a concession of some kind to demonstrate the contrary (political, economic, or territorial, etc) or Israel can wait for the current Palestinian factions to delegitimize themselves. Both carry their own risks. But Israel is the superior actor in this situation in terms of power, and so it has the initiative on which course the issue will take.While I agree with AmericanPride’s two state solution it fails the ‘veil of ignorance’ test in that it is unreasonable to expect Israel to accept a Palestinian state having control of its oil and water supply. Would you give that control over vital US resource to Cuba or Venezuela? If the answer is no then why should the Palestinians.
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
As mentioned earlier each side tends to pick their cartographer and moment in time and the 'Arab' side has picked the moment before Israel's creation as their point. This off course leaves them feeling a fair solution is a Palestinian state occupying the lands now claimed by Israel (a few Jews living within its boarders as an optional extra). Understandably this is not quite what Israel favours. You ask a lot of the surrounding states to give up their territories to accommodate the creation of Israel (or Palestine depending on how you look at it). I suspect this would be about as popular as mandating the creation of Kurdistan using chunks of Turkey, Iraq, Iran & Syria. It would be a hard sell to their own peoples especially those that would either be relocated or become Israeli or Palestinian citizens. The question seems simple enough to you – or most Israelis – but the acceptance of Israel is implicit and from a Palestinian stand point it makes less sense. Move the problem out of the ME and view it like this.
Some First Nation tribe was living in what is now Kansas and got displaced as the European settlers moved west they were dispersed around the world but the UN decided hundreds of years later to give them back Kansas as a country of their own. The US did not agree but could not do much about it however those who had been living in Kansas for generations either fought back or were driven out or were housed in reservations on some of the poorest land. For years they did not give up but never had the weapons, despite some help from other US states. The obvious solution, suggested by well meaning negotiators, is accept you are not going to get Kansas back but all the surrounding states give up part of their territory to make a new state. The analogy is weak because these are merely states not Nation States but if they did do this to help their brothers from Kansas they would be accepting that it was fair they should have been displaced in the first place and in so doing weaken their original case.
As I understand it even Hamas is pragmatic enough to negotiate a peace if it brings security and a reasonable standard of living to its people but that is not the same as accepting Israel, and by extension, what it views as the original injustice.
As I have been writing these post I keep finding myself think of the Hitch-Hikers guide to the Galaxy and Arthur Dent lying in front of the bulldozer trying to stop his house being destroyed to make way for a bypass while the bemused officials laugh at the futility of his actions unaware of the Earths impending doom as it is scheduled to be removed to make way for a hyper-space bypass.
Beware the precedents you set lest they comeback and bite you in the …
AmericanPride
I agree they need someone to negotiate with. The problem is they have been trying a divide & rule strategy by having Hamas designated a terrorist organisation, so they can't be talked to, and then playing nice with Abbas. The attendant carrot and stick approach – blockade Gaza and withhold tax revenues, release funds to the West Bank make minor concession – fools no one in the Arab world not even Fatah. I do not believe Israel genuinely want to get into negotiations that might lead to viable two state solution, and wonder if that bit of land is big enough to support two viable states. They have much the better of the deal at the moment and in their position I am not sure I would do differently. In the long term the US may not be able to go on funding them, or their own military, to the same extent at which point they will need to be more flexible but for now they hold all the cards.
Last edited by JJackson; 05-30-2008 at 04:44 PM.
a.) Most educated, rational and normal Israelis want a Palestinian state, because it should mean peace and prosperity, but how do you get the Palestinians not to allow their state as a base of anti-Israeli operations? Every where the IDF has withdrawn from creates bases for terrorists. Giving the Palestinians a state does not create peace, because their having a state does not get rid of Israel which is what the men of violence/Iran/Hezbollah/all the others, are ideologically tied to.
b.) This is simple not true, because it never has in the past. The West constantly condems legitimate IDF operations to kill and capture terrorists, regardless of their legitimacy. Israel is constantly condemend for action legitimate in international law, and more over, condemened for actions that other countries perpetrate with less legitmacy, and recieve virtually no condemnation at all.
c.) To retain control over key resrources and use them as weapons would be coercive and immoral. The Palestinians must pay for/provide for water, electricity and oil like everyone else. For the amount of aid they get, they should have a living standard close to that of Switzerland, so Gaza could/should be like Dubai. The Palestinian don't want to be beholden to Israel. They want it gone.
Now I amnot saying that there are not some very nasty extremists in Israel, but bascially within the confines of a functioning democracy, they are generally less able to peddle their messages of hate.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Utterly wrong. My wife used to buy her furniture in Nablus and get her car serviced in Ramallah. Tens of 1,000's of Israelis used the Palestinian Casinos in Jericho. Lots of Palestinian worked in Israel and for Isreali firms in the territories. A peaceful Palestinian State is very much in Israels interest. I'd submit that a peace with Israel, is the kiss of death to the powerful complexions of Palestinian leaderships.
The Palestinian State is not the desired condition for a Palestinian Peace. It never was when Gaza was part of Egypt, and the West Bank was part of Jordan. That only changed in 1988.
Strangely enough I am pretty careful what I say about Nazis. It's nothing to do with power. It's about belief and action. I said I had a moral problem negotiating with people like them. Not that anyone was like them, and when I do, I refer to the anti-semitic element of their creed as that is what generally distinguishes Nazism from Fascism, Italy and Spain having not big beef with Jews. - except the Communist ones! A lot of the Proto-fascist where Jews!Again worrying with the Nazi analogy. If we are going to use it then it is the Israelis with the power and the Palestinians are the oppressed and suffering but I am not happy with casting the Jews as the Nazis even if the analogy does work better that way around.
When the IDF starts exterminating Jews, I'll except the Nazi tag.
...and yes, I have a huge problem with the occupation of Judea and Samaria. I don't think the IDF should be there. I think it delegitimises Israels existance, but unlike the Palestinians, I am happy to accept Arabs, living in Israel.
Shabat Shalom. I'm off the market, to drink coffee, served by hot looking Yemini girls.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
a) Having a state, however, submits the Palestinians to a national and international law. The ideological weapon is only effective because the Palestinians do not have a viable state -- Egypt and Jordan abandoned ideology in order to have peace. Syria is interested in doing so as well. Land is more important than ideology. The Palestinian people are not radical because of Islam or even Israel's existence, but because their own conditions have created a situation of desperation. A legitimate Palestinian state would be compelled by international norms (and the constant pressure of Israeli intervention) to effectively suppress "anti-Israeli operations" in order to maintain its own survival. Just as Egypt and Jordan abandoned the Palestinian "cause" when more important interests compelled them (territory, and the basic survival of the state), I would imagine that a Palestinian regime would do the same.
b) Why would the West defend a Palestinian state if it shielded terrorist organizations? It would not be politically viable to ignore Palestinian terrorism internationally if the Palestinians became a state-sponsor. And I think the Israelis would have more other-than-security options to isolate terrorist organizations in the Palestinian territories by pushing for the enforcement of laws which punish state-sponsorship of terrorism. That's simply more leverage to hold over a Palestinian regime that would be interested in the survival of its state rather than conflict with Israel (hence the importance of maintaining control of key resources). Right now, it appears as if the Palestinians have just cause, even if the methods are deplorable, so the West can write it off as something it can ignore.
c) That's the nature of politics. Peace is not always brought about or maintained by moral means.
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
Ironically, I think that debates like these are sometimes a little behind the situation on the ground.
I have absolutely no doubt that (most of) Israel sees a Palestinian state in its long-term interest, and has no desire to maintain permanent control over the bulk of the Palestinian population and territories. Indeed, I would submit that PM Olmert is more committed to that goal than any previous Israeli prime minister. We've come a long way from the 1990s, when such a view was very much a minority--indeed, Israel refused to allow the Palestinians an independent delegation at Madrid in 1991, and Rabin couldn't bring himself to include the word "state" in the Oslo Agreement in 1993.
Yet it remains the case that Israel still may wish to retain far more Palestinian territory, and impose far more restrictive conditions, than any Palestinian leader can possibly swallow or sell. Ha'aretz had a great headline last week--since changed--that highlighted this (with probably deliberate irony): "Israel offers to keep 8.5% of West Bank..." Israel also continues to engage in activities--notably illegal settlement growth--that are profoundly and deeply corrosive of the peace process.
On the Palestinian side, there is now strong majority support for a two-state solution (as poll and after poll shows), and a widespread willingness to accept (if not like) Israel as part of a lasting peace. Indeed, even a majority of Hamas voters (NOT cadres) accept the logic of a two state solution. Certainly, President Abbas and PM Fayyad see a two state solution as being in the fundamental interest of the Palestinian people, and have worked tirelessly (and at considerable personal risk) to try to bring it about. I don't think that the notion that the Palestinian movement is too enamored of being a movement to become a state was true during the Arafat period, and I certainly don't think its true now.
That having been said, there is certainly a substantial militant minority that opposes a negotiated two state solution and will use violence to derail it. (About half of the Palestinian population, living under either occupation or siege, approve of such violence--hardly surprising for a population under foreign occupation.) Some Hamas soft-liners accept a two-state permanent outcome, but they have been increasingly marginalized by Fateh and Israeli actions, creating a situation where the hardliners are increasing ascendency in Gaza in particular. Abbas is politically weak, and lacks the ability to control violence or assure Israeli security, which makes Israel reluctant to extend the PA greater authority or territorial control. Finally, just like the Israelis, the Palestinians too have difficulty making some of the compromises (notably on refugees) that might be needed to close a deal.
We are therefore at a point where both leaderships, and both peoples, want a just and lasting peace based on a two state solution... but there is little mutual trust, and neither have any clear idea how to get there. Weak leadership, violence, and occupation all create constant obstacles to progress.
Current Bush Administration strategy, after years of neglect, has been to get the parties into the same room and get them talking, but with minimal US engagement on the substance beyond the initial Annapolis send-off. I think that is a mistake, and it was a mistake to let the December 2000 Clinton Parameters slide off the table at the end of his term. On the contrary, I think the US should dust them off, rename them ("The Bush Parameters"!), and establish them (possibly through a UNSC resolution) as the goalposts for which the two parties should be aiming. Oh, there would certainly be mutterings on both sides about imposed solutions, but I think both leaderships would find it much easier to reach a compromise through such a process.
As for Hizbullah and Iran... Hizbullah's actions in Lebanon certainly shape Israeli security concerns, but they are not, not are they likely to ever be, even marginally significant actors in the Palestinian territories. Iran is more predatory than causative in the current situation: Hamas and Iran have relations of convenience not of shared ideology, and Iranian financial and military support for Hamas is not a primary determinant of the latter's capabilities or actions.
None of this, of course, relates in the slightest to the nominal topic of this thread, namely the current Syrian-Israeli talks
@ As I live on the Ground, allow me to respond!
@ Ironically, I think that debates like these are sometimes a little behind the situation on the ground.
@ Yet it remains the case that Israel still may wish to retain far more Palestinian territory, and impose far more restrictive conditions, than any Palestinian leader can possibly swallow or sell. Ha'aretz had a great headline last week--since changed--that highlighted this (with probably deliberate irony): "Israel offers to keep 8.5% of West Bank..." Israel also continues to engage in activities--notably illegal settlement growth--that are profoundly and deeply corrosive of the peace process.
@ On the Palestinian side, there is now strong majority support for a two-state solution (as poll and after poll shows), and a widespread willingness to accept (if not like) Israel as part of a lasting peace.
@ As for Hizbullah and Iran... Hizbullah's actions in Lebanon certainly shape Israeli security concerns, but they are not, not are they likely to ever be, even marginally significant actors in the Palestinian territories. Iran is more predatory than causative in the current situation:
@ None of this, of course, relates in the slightest to the nominal topic of this thread, namely the current Syrian-Israeli talks
@ Very true, but you might look at the actual ground under dispute, and the 200,000 Religious/ultra Nationalist Jews that live there. It's far better to face them with the reality of a Palestinian State, and then go from there, than to risk the utter chaos of trying to move them. I say go for what's do-able.
@ Yes, most Palestinians want peace. I'm not worried about them. The normal Palestinian people have made no impact on Middle East politics in the last 60 years. It's their leaders, organised crime families and extremists that shape things.
@ So the Iranian aren't already on the West bank, seeking influence and cutting deals? I don't think your average IRGC Operator cares about Palestine, but he does want a base within rocket range of TLV International. - and try telling the people of Israel that Iran has no interest or influence on the West Bank. I wish it was true. Peace would be a step nearer.
@ The talks with Syria are meaningless unless put in the context of a regional peace. Peace with Jordan didn't solve all the problems either, especially after the King gave away the Trans-Jordan and ensured some of the current problems.
@ Amen to that, but why do you assume that the Palestinian State would submit to International Law. Most folks believe Israel to flout International Law at will. The idea that a Palestinian Government would be peace loving rational people is very much in doubt. If they have a viable state, the rockets and suicide bombers may still come. That's a price we will have to pay, and it's a tough sell. The only thing that will stop that is if Iran, Syria and all the others, tell them not to do it.
@ Because the target of their terrorism would be Israel, and the history shows that the world (except the US) has never really cared much about what happens to Israel. A lot of people put a lot of effort into trying to ensure the US abandons Israel, by painting the support as a conspiracy theory. A great many nations, including the UK and France, historically have taken actions to damage Israeli national security. History shows the Israeli people, not to trust other nations when it comes to their security. 3,000 of Jewish history does not give them a lot of confidence.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
1) It's not that I believe a Palestinian state would comply with international law without some kind of compulsion or threat of punitive action. I should clarify and state that I think if Palestine were to become a state, international law can potentially become an effective lever (for Israel or the United States) to pressure the regime. I doubt they would be peace-loving, but I'm certain they would be rational. I am simply trying to illustrate that I think it is possible to create a situation in which "peace", simply the absence of violence, is a possibility with a Palestinian state. Certainly there will be factions within such a state that do not desire peace, but the appropriate levers applied to the regime will compel the state to marginalize such factions for the sake of preserving its existence. It would put the Palestinians on the defensive -- right now, they are on the offensive, insofar they desire to create, rather than protect, a particular interest. Give them something to defend and they'll defend it.
2) I will think on your second point and respond to it soon.
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
Because the USA aren't as influential and powerful or even as fair as some Americans believe. U.S.-organized negotiations about Israel-related troubles weren't really useful after 1979. The USA favoured Israel too much to be helpful.
This "a problem arises and nobody asks the U.S. for help" phenomenon is quite widespread. Remember the Kenya troubles? All external mediators were Africans. It's a myth that the world automatically calls for the U.S. if there's a problem somewhere.
It's also a problem of the Bush administration, which has spent instead of accumulated the political capital of the USA.
About the talks;
I'm pretty sure that the objective is to trade the Golan heights for peace and recognization as sovereign state and they'll of course include a stop of support for Hezbollah.
Whatever happens is imho irrelevant in the long run anyway, as Israel will only cease to exist when its ties to the West become severed and Western support dwindles. That will happen eventually, in up to five generations.
The Arabs needed about six generations to get rid of crusaders, the Israelis have only lasted for two generations so far.
Not really--indeed, a Syrian demand in the current indirect talks is for the US to become more involved, since they don't believe the process is truly credible until it involves a greater degree of US commitment. Similarly, the Palestinians are pressing for the US to become more, not less, engaged in the Israeli-Palestinian talks.
Despite Washington's tilt, virtually everyone in the region sees it as the only actor with sufficient leverage to make things happen.
The (nuclear-armed) Israelis aren't going anywhere, and I'm quite sure they'll be around in four more generations. (I suspect Wilf has some views on this tooWhatever happens is imho irrelevant in the long run anyway, as Israel will only cease to exist when its ties to the West become severed and Western support dwindles. That will happen eventually, in up to five generations.
The Arabs needed about six generations to get rid of crusaders, the Israelis have only lasted for two generations so far.
Not that I would ever need to say to those here.The (nuclear-armed) Israelis aren't going anywhere, and I'm quite sure they'll be around in four more generations. (I suspect Wilf has some views on this too- and I live amongst 6 million folks, some descended from the generation that nearly got wiped out and who won't go down without a fight, nuclear armed or not.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
CSIS, 3 Jun 08: Israeli and Syrian Weapons of Mass Destruction
The link above contains both reports in a single pdf file. They can also be downloaded separately:Both Israel and Syria have long been involved in creating weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. The attached two reports look beyond the narrow issue of nuclear weapons, and summarize developments in each country’s full range of weapons of mass destruction -including chemical and biological weapons - and delivery systems. Both reports are deliberately conservative, avoiding scare or worst case sources and estimates.
Israeli WMD
Syrian WMD
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks