Israel confirms talks with Syria

[AmericanPride]

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 Every where the IDF has withdrawn from creates bases for terrorists.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.

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.

[Rex Brynen]

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

[William F. Owen]

@ 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

@ As I live on the Ground, allow me to respond!

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

[AmericanPride]

@ 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.

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.