Peace Farce: Geneva

[abu afak]

Peace farce

Dec. 2, 2003

"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."
- Karl Marx

A decade ago, the world was treated to a festivity of peace. There, in the bright sun of a beautiful September day on the White House lawn, stood Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, with a proud Bill Clinton coaxing them toward a historic handshake.

The celebration was clearly premature, but at least that was a real agreement.

Now we have another celebration, complete with the blessing of 58 former foreign ministers and world leaders, over ?Ewhat can we call it?

Agreement is hardly the word.

On the Israeli side, we have ousted politicians who do not even fully represent the main opposition party. These Israelis, on the one hand, are at pains to argue that they were not usurping the government's prerogative to negotiate agreements, while on the other claiming they have proven that the Palestinian leadership is party to their endeavor.

Spoiling the party, we have the fact that even the Fatah officials who negotiated the agreement, we were told with Arafat's blessing, almost did not attend because they did not receive Arafat's written support, nor the endorsement of the Fatah central committee. Indeed, the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade ?EFatah's terrorist wing ?Ecirculated a leaflet branding the Palestinian participants "collaborators," a label that has often been a death sentence. Masked gunmen have reportedly shot at the home of Yasser Abed Rabbo, the key Palestinian negotiator of the initiative.

That neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian participants represent their respective leaderships is only the beginning of the story. It is, of course, blatantly undemocratic for Israelis to negotiate with people they claim represent foreign leaders who, even at the celebration itself, justify terrorism against Israel as a "fight for peace.....""

The rest at:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1070259995554

[abu afak]

The 'Geneva accord' is not a treaty
Charles Krauthammer

November 28, 2003

WASHINGTON -- On Monday, a peace agreement will be signed by Israelis and Palestinians. This ``Geneva accord'' has gotten much attention. And the signing itself will be greeted with much hoopla. Journalists are being flown in from around the world by the Swiss government. Jimmy Carter will be heading a list of foreign dignitaries. The U.S. Embassy in Bern will be sending an observer.

This is all rather peculiar: the agreement is being signed not by Israeli and Palestinian officials, but by two people with no power.

On the Palestinian side, the negotiator is former information minister Yasser Abed Rabbo, who at least is said to have Yasser Arafat's ear. The Israeli side, however, is led by Yossi Beilin, a man whose political standing in his own country is so low that he failed to make it into Parliament. After helping bring his Labor Party to ruin, Beilin abandoned it for the far left Meretz Party, which then did so badly in the last election that Beilin is now a private citizen.

There is a reason why he is one of Israel's most reviled and discredited politicians. He was the principal ideologue and architect behind the ``peace'' foisted on Israel in 1993. Those Oslo agreements have brought a decade of the worst terror in all Israeli history.

Now he is at it again. And Secretary of State Colin Powell has written a letter to Beilin and Rabbo expressing appreciation for their effort, and next week he plans to meet with them.

This is scandalous. Israel is a democracy, and this agreement was negotiated in defiance of the democratically (and overwhelmingly) elected government of Israel. If a private U.S. citizen negotiates a treaty on his own, he could go to jail under the Logan Act. If an Israeli does it, he gets a pat on the back from the secretary of state.

Moreover, this "peace'' is entirely hallucinatory. It is written as if Oslo never happened. The Palestinian side repeats solemn pledges to recognize Israel, renounce terror, end anti-Israel incitement, etc.-- all promised in Oslo. These promises are today such a dead letter that the Palestinian side is openly bargaining these chits again, as if the Israelis have forgotten that in return for these pledges 10 years ago..."

The rest at:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/printck20031128.shtml

[abu afak]

Rogue Diplomacy: Israeli Leaders Protest 'Geneva Initiative'


By Chris Mitchell
Middle East Bureau Chief
December 3, 2003


Unofficial diplomatic efforts like the Geneva Initiative are forbidden by law in the United States, and some observers believe the U.S. government will not tolerate the interference.


CBN.com – JERUSALEM -- Secretary of State Colin Powell plans to meet with the architects of the "Geneva Initiative" in Washington.

That's a new - unofficial - peace plan for Israel and the Palestinians, but the announcement of Powell's meeting was met with a sharp objection by the Israeli government.

Ehud Olmert, Israel's deputy prime minister criticized Powell for the invitation and said it would not be useful for the diplomatic process.

The State Department replied that the Secretary of State can meet with whomever he wants. Powell plans to meet with Israeli Yossi Beilin and Palestinian Abed Rabbo, who are the main architects of the plan.

Earlier this week, the initiative was formally launched at a Geneva, Switzerland ceremony. A number of heads of state including former U.S. President Jimmy Carter attended the ceremony.

Carter told the gathering the settlements in the West Bank and the Israeli security fence are some of the main obstacles to peace.

Some Israelis believe the planned meeting gives legitimacy to a group acting on behalf of the Israeli government that are not elected officials. One foreign ministry official told CBN News the plan is a virtual plan - meaning it does not have the backing of the elected and legitimate Israeli government.

This kind of rogue diplomacy is prohibited by law in the United States by the Logan Act and some observers feel the U.S. would not tolerate this kind of diplomatic interference. The plan would give most of the West Bank and Gaza to create a Palestinian state, divide Jerusalem and yield sovereignty of the Temple Mount to the Palestinian Authority. Some Palestinian officials have admitted the plan is designed to divide Israeli public opinion and help pull down the Sharon government.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/031203b.asp

[abu afak]

A Program for Israeli Self-Annihilation
by Steven Plaut
December 08, 2003

The "Geneva Agreement" that Israel's Far Left has cooked up with the PLO is such a long-winded and complex manuscript that very few can really work their way through all the prose and technicalities, and even fewer can understand the implications of the intentional confusions and duplicitous obfuscation in the text. I have no doubt that the endorsements of the "agreement" from people like Jimmy Carter and Colin Powell were not based on having actually read the thing.

Yossi Beilin, who has been evicted from the Israeli Labor Party and essentially represents himself, is the godfather of the "deal". He and his team are as representative of Israel as would be a team led by Edward Said and Noam Chomsky claiming the right to negotiate a deal with bin Laden and Saddam on behalf of the US. In reality, at the Geneva "talks" that led to the "deal", the Palestinians were represented by Yossi Beilin, Amram Mitzna, Avraham Burg, the other Israeli leftists, and by the PLO terrorist leaders present. The Jews were not represented there at all. In any case, polls in Israel show the vast majority of Israelis reject the deal, and quite a few regard Beilin and his people as traitors.

But digesting the endless pages in the "accord" is not necessary to understand what is wrong with it.

We will summarize what is wrong with it here as briefly as possible...."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/print.php3?what=article&id=3056

[abu afak]

"Geneva Accord Could Enable Destruction of Israel"
Dec 11, '03


A former member of the Palestinian National Council and the PLO Central Committee has come out in favor of Yossi Beilin’s ‘Geneva Initiative’ – because he believes it would enable the destruction of Israel.

Na'im Al-Ashab’s article, entitled “How to Deal With the Geneva Accord,” appeared in today’s (Thursday) edition of the Palestinian weekly ‘The Jerusalem Times’.

In the article, Al-Ashab accepts the Geneva Accord as a means to bring about Israel’s withdrawal to the pre-1967 border, but makes it clear that the true goal of a “return of the refugees” can only be brought about through “war and victory.” Al-Ashab, known also by his nom de gaur, Abu Bashar, assures readers that the final war launched against Israel would not be “like the current intifada” but would rather result in complete victory over Israel.

He makes it clear that all Israelis must be gotten rid of because “the entire Jewish society in Israel is Zionist, except maybe some hundreds or thousands in the best conditions. This society, left and right, views the return of the Palestinian refugees as elimination to the Zionist project and destructive to the state of Israel.”

The article itself reads:.........."

The rest at:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=54314

[Jorge]

From abu afak, post #4:

The "Geneva Agreement" that Israel's Far Left has cooked up with the PLO is such a long-winded and complex manuscript that very few can really work their way through all the prose and technicalities, and even fewer can understand the implications of the intentional confusions and duplicitous obfuscation in the text. I have no doubt that the endorsements of the "agreement" from people like Jimmy Carter and Colin Powell were not based on having actually read the thing.

I must reluctantly agree with some of Mr. Plaut’s observations; the GA is actually an “extremely long-winded and complex” document, this may very well result in that only a very small percentage of those that received a copy will actually read it. It’s the sort of booklet that one puts in the paper rack to be read “when there is time”; it descends slowly, unread, to the bottom of the pile till the time that we don’t remember what was it about.

The former notwithstanding, to assume that a Secretary of State of the US could give an opinion over a document he hasn’t read (or at least fully briefed by trusted advisors) is to have a rather poor opinion of the person leading the foreign affairs of your country. To say that he may be wrong is one thing, to say that he’s incompetent is a heavy statement to accept for an American citizen. The same goes for former President Carter; a man well versed in a number in conflicts around the globe and undoubtedly able to read this sort of documents far easier and better than you or me, or Mr. Plaut for that matter.

In reality, at the Geneva "talks" that led to the "deal", the Palestinians were represented by Yossi Beilin, Amram Mitzna, Avraham Burg, the other Israeli leftists, and by the PLO terrorist leaders present. The Jews were not represented there at all.

What does he mean by “Jews not represented there”? Israeli leftists have been accused of all sort of things by their opponents, but it’s the first time I hear them being accused of not being Jews.

But digesting the endless pages in the "accord" is not necessary to understand what is wrong with it.

This is actually an incredible statement coming from a person who thinks himself a “political analyst”! Since when it’s not necessary to read a document in order to be able to understand it? As I said before, it’s not an easy to read booklet; but then, if you are not able to read it in depth you don’t dare to venture opinions about it. Or is he implying that we shouldn’t bother to read anything because we have at hand the likes of Mr. Plaut, to quote from? The article comes from “Arutz Sheva”, an enterprise openly identified with the far-right, so it’s quite obvious that they are prejudiced against the GA or indeed any sort of joint initiative with the Palestinians, he cannot even pretend to be unbiased and objective.

[Mediocrates]

Perhaps the criticism is akin to not having to read the Soviet constitution to understand what is wrong with it.

[Jorge]

Re., Mediocrates #7:

Precisely! You cannot honestly say anything for or against the said legal document without reading it.

This thing fro Harutz Sheva and the GA is like forming an opinion about the Comunist Manifesto after reading an analysis of it from the Evangelical Crusade.

(Actually, many years ago, I did read the last Soviet Constitution, or at least, about half of it. I was very much impressed )

[Mediocrates]

As an aside though, the actual words on the page of the 3CP constitution were in essence irrelevant. It's all about the actual employment. So one could I suppose say that regardless of the GA, if the actual sense of the reliability of the parties is such and such then the precise language might not matter all that much. At any rate that's one interpretation. I tend to think that any agreement is only as useful as its enforcement. Think of any agreement in the real world like NAFTA or the WTO. It doesn't stop countries from dumping steel - it provides legal recource when they do. If those agreements thought that their mere statement was there own prima facie enforcement then they would be mistaken and hollow and no one would have to take them seriously. This in the end is what happened to Oslo, no? It became hollow because there was no way to measureably determine it is was enforced or enforceable and not real criteria to determine the difference between success and failure.

[Jorge]

From Mediocrates post #9:

I tend to think that any agreement is only as useful as its enforcement.----- This in the end is what happened to Oslo, no? It became hollow because there was no way to measureably determine it is was enforced or enforceable and not real criteria to determine the difference between success and failure.

I fully agree with you.

Extending your arguments: parallel to setting some "real criteria", it's of paramount importance to have some outside party to judge whether the criteria are met or not. If I may give a sort of vulgar example: you cannot play soccer without a referee ; even if soccer has clearly and plainly defined rules of the game , there is still room for interpretation. One team would claim "foul play"and the other will vehemently deny it and vice versa. (This frequently happened after Oslo). The referee is essential if we want the soccer match to be played in relative peace up to its final outcome.

In this connection, one of the merits of the authors of the Geneva document is that they devoted considerable attention to the subject of supervision and enforcement. This they formulated in painstaiking detail.

(See in the Geneva Acord: 3.1: Implementation and Verfication Group; 3.2 Contact Group; 3.3 Trilateral Commitee and, of course, the Multinational Force, detailed in 5.6)

[Donald]

I cannot see anything wrong with people getting together and proposing a solution. However difficult and complicated it may be, if the majority of people on each side went for it, then it could be adopted and tried. That is perfectly reasonable.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Donald
I cannot see anything wrong with people getting together and proposing a solution. However difficult and complicated it may be, if the majority of people on each side went for it, then it could be adopted and tried. That is perfectly reasonable.

Only it isn't reasonable to draft foriegn goverments to pressure Israel to do a policy which is EXACTLY opposite to the whishs of the Israeli voter who voted for different parties and different ideologies. Israel last elections were taken exactly a year ago, when the RIGHT and (JEWISH) RELIGIOUS parties won about 3 quarters of the house, the Knesset.

[Donald]

Only it isn't reasonable to draft foriegn goverments to pressure Israel to do a policy which is EXACTLY opposite to the whishs of the Israeli voter who voted for different parties and different ideologies.

It is never-the-less still reasonable for people to propose a peace plan that, at some time in the future, may be acceptable to the people involved--with the right assurances that a true peace will result from it, of course.

[Jorge]

From Donald #13:

It is never-the-less still reasonable for people to propose a peace plan that, at some time in the future, may be acceptable to the people involved--with the right assurances that a true peace will result from it, of course.

__________________

You're quite right in appraising it as reasonable. An added argument being that it's quite clear to both parties involved that if ever an agreement comes to be signed it will be essentially on the same lines(with minor changes here and there) as those outlined in the GA or the Ayalon-Nusseibeh decl.

Regarding intervention from outside countries. We tend to forget that other countries, notably the USA, get mixed in the fray because both present leaderships(israeli and palestinian) have proved themselves well nigh incapable of conducting negotiations by themselves alone. If bilateral negotiations were being conducted satisfactorily, it's likely that no outside power would be inclined to interfere.

[Donald]

You are quite right in appraising it as reasonable. An added argument being that it's quite clear to both parties involved that if ever an agreement comes to be signed it will be essentially on the same lines(with minor changes here and there) as those outlined in the GA or the Ayalon-Nusseibeh decl.

Yes, I agree with you about the GA. With the majority of the people on both sides behind it and the whole world in back of it, it would work. We also need a huge peace fund to buy lost settlements from Israel (it would be a crime to see them destroyed) and use them as part of the settlement to Arab families who lose the right of return and who did have homes in Israel proper. All those on both sides who lost family members and property would be compensated. Generosity and forgiveness would be the hallmarks of the peace accord. A hundred billion. Two hundred billion. Cheap at the price. Secure borders. Peace. Prosperity. But the thing about the Geneva Accord that I like is the focus on changing the mindset and actively fighting hatred.

As to the Roadmap, I wish it were otherwise but I'm afraid I hold out little hope for it. It requires peace to run a terrible gauntlet, vulnerable all the while to the vicious, death-giving fanatics and then, at the end, start lengthy negotations only to eventually arrive at something that would likely closely resemble the GA.


Regarding intervention from outside countries. We tend to forget that other countries, notably the USA, get mixed in the fray because both present leaderships(israeli and palestinian) have proved themselves well nigh incapable of conducting negotiations by themselves alone. If bilateral negotiations were being conducted satisfactorily, it's likely that no outside power would be inclined to interfere.

I agree. I think that when the day comes that both sides agree to a plan, the U.S. and the rest of the world, including the Arab nations, will vigorously support it.

The Middle East conflict is the recruiting office for terrorists and when it is closed down terrorism will be hugely diminished and soon defeated. Then world can move on and perhaps some bright child who might be otherwise killed will live to discover a way to give us cheap, non-polluting energy. Yes, I'm a optimist.

[Mediocrates]

Critique of the “Geneva Accords”

By David Meir-Levi

IHC Abstract
The author outlines, point by point, the flaws in the ‘Geneva Accord’, the newest ‘peace plan’ on the market. He shows that while Israel gives up quite a bit under this plan, the Palestinians gives up virtually nothing.


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

The recently signed “Geneva Accords” have been accorded much fanfare. However, there are a number of considerations that cast doubt on the sincerity of the Palestinian side and the advisability of Israel to accept the Accords.

1. One or both sides are hoodwinking their constituencies. The Arabic version of the Accords makes it clear the Palestinian “Right of Return” has not been ceded, merely postponed for future re-negotiation. The Hebrew version makes it clear that Israel no longer need worry about a Palestinian “Right of Return.” Which one is lying?

2. Israel must start its withdrawal from Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip at once, but there is no timetable for the Palestinian Authority to dismantle terror groups and stop terrorism.

3. Palestine is to be a non-militarized state, but there is no apparatus for the process of de-militarization and for monitoring the maintenance of a de-militarized status.

4. The terms of de-militarization (which weapons and in what quantities the Palestinian police force can possess) have not been decided, and can be changed unilaterally by the Palestinian side.

5. There is no apparatus to remedy Palestinian delay or refusal to de-militarize, stop terror, dismantle terror groups and create rule of law.

6. Future points of disputation will be taken to a panel of U.S., U.N., Russian and EU members. This panel can impose its will on either side. Since three of the four component entities of this panel have a decades-old hostility toward Israel and support for Yasser Arafat, this leaves Israel at a decided disadvantage. Why would any state surrender its sovereignty to hostile countries?

7. Palestine can enter into pacts with any state, including radical Muslim states that seek the destruction of Israel, provided the language of such pacts not include explicit references to aggression against Israel. Would anyone suggest that we trust the Iranian Mullahs, Assad, Saudi royalty or Arafat to keep their word?

8. Israel is expected to compensate the almost 5,000,000 Arab descendents of the 1948 700,000 Arab refugees, and their host Arab states, but no mention is made of compensation for the 800,000 Jewish refugees [and their descendents] forced from their homes in Arab countries from 1949 to 1954, most of whom were absorbed by Israel.

9. There is nothing in the Accords that requires the Palestinian government
to establish democracy, empower democratic institutions, legislate and
protect civil rights, and govern by rule of law.

10. The Temple Mount, holiest site to Jews but only third holiest to Muslims, will be under the control of the Palestinian government, with Jewish access only at Palestinian behest. Why does this Accord deny Jews unhindered access to their holiest site?

Even worse, Graham Watson, the head of the European parliamentarian delegation to the Geneva Accords, went on record earlier this week that the international force which will patrol the future borders will “…actively prevent the Israeli army from pursuit of terrorists,” since that force is designed to “…protect the integrity of the Palestinian territory.”

In short, Israel gives up much and relies almost exclusively upon the Palestinian leadership’s good will and integrity. The Palestinian Authority gives up almost nothing while reserving the right to keep the current thugocracy in power, change the terms of the Accord, militarize, enter into aggression pacts with hostile nations, maintain terrorism under the guise of not being able to stop it, and then rely upon international “peace keepers” to hinder Israeli self-defense.

It is not surprising that Ariel Sharon and the overwhelming majority of Israelis are opposed to the plan, while Arafat is beaming. His victory is at last within reach.


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

Source: Original text submitted by the author, 5 December.

The writer is an American-born Israeli currently living in Palo Alto, California. He is Director of Research and Education at the Israel Peace Initiative (IPI), a grass-roots not-for-profit organization in the San Francisco Bay area working to educate the American public and its leaders on the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict and realistic options for resolution. For more information about IPI, check out its website: www.ipi-usa.org.

Mr. Meir-Levi lectures and teaches in English, Hebrew and Spanish. He can be reached at David_meirlevi@hotmail.com.

Edited by IHC Staff.

[Donald]

Page one of reply.


Quotes are from a document written by Mr. Meir-Levi, Director of Research and Education at the Israel Peace Initiative (IPI), a grass-roots not-for-profit organization in the San Francisco Bay area working to educate the American public and its leaders on the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict and realistic options for resolution.( Edited by IHC Staff.)



1. One or both sides are hoodwinking their constituencies. The Arabic version of the Accords makes it clear the Palestinian “Right of Return” has not been ceded, merely postponed for future re-negotiation. The Hebrew version makes it clear that Israel no longer need worry about a Palestinian “Right of Return.” Which one is lying?

Whatever they have been told, they will have to be told the real truth at the start line. For the plan to work the Palestinians must definitely give up the "Right to Return", as indicated in the much publicized "Western" edition of the plan. This is one of the anchors of the plan.


2. Israel must start its withdrawal from Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip at once, but there is no timetable for the Palestinian Authority to dismantle terror groups and stop terrorism.

I'm sure the writer is aware that the Palestinian Authority is completely incapable of dismantling the terror groups without starting a civil war among Palestinians. They won’t do it. They can’t do it. However, on the other hand, the underlying hatred that gives rise to these groups is directly addressed and attacked in the Peace Accord, and so, when peace is established and the recruiting office for terrorism is closed (i.e. the Mid-East conflict), terrorism will diminish and disappear—there and everywhere. With support from the whole world, including the Arab states, with the surge in prosperity that will follow a peace agreement, with enhanced border security imposed by the forces of the West, in concert with Israel and the forces of the Palestinian signatory (the GA will not happen for some long time and there will probably be a new government in Palestine by then), with a virtually impermeable wall along the agreed border (I hope I live to see the celebration when, after a long era of uninterrupted peace, it’s finally torn down), and, finally, considering the immense power of Israel, it is unlikely that the evil forces who remain opposed to peace will have the power to do anything much for any length of time. At any rate the situation in both Israel and Palestine, and elsewhere, will be several million times better than it would be if peace does not come.


3. Palestine is to be a non-militarized state, but there is no apparatus for the process of de-miniaturization and for monitoring the maintenance of a de-militarized status.

Before the peace accord is formally proposed and voted on, it is capable of further definition as a plan becomes reality. But, aside from that, whatever feeble forces Palestine manages to conjure up, they could only be as chaff to the wind compared to the hugely powerful Armed Forces of Israel. Once a genuine peace is achieved with secure borders, the threat from Palestine will be nothing compared to what it is now and, especially, compared to what it could be without it.


4. The terms of de-militarization (which weapons and in what quantities the Palestinian police force can possess) have not been decided, and can be changed unilaterally by the Palestinian side.

This is not a real issue if there is a genuine peace accord. Anyway, this peace accord permits Israel to keep its powerful army and, one might add, the most powerful weapon of them all. Better to have the peace now, when, in terms of military power and very major weapons, Israel has total dominance.


5. There is no apparatus to remedy Palestinian delay or refusal to de-militarize, stop terror, dismantle terror groups and create rule of law.

If the Palestinians wanted to do these things and were able to do them, then the Peace would fall to pieces. They are not going to be given a carte blanche. They have to comply with the provisions of the agreement. To not do so after entering into an agreement supported by the whole world would cost them the support of everyone interested in peace in the Middle East, including Europe. But in the end, if the peace failed because of these things, then would Israel be better or worse off for having shown the world it tried and the other guy was unwilling?


6. Future points of disputation will be taken to a panel of U.S., UN, Russian and EU members. This panel can impose its will on either side. Since three of the four component entities of this panel have a decades-old hostility toward Israel and support for Yasser Arafat, this leaves Israel at a decided disadvantage. Why would any state surrender its sovereignty to hostile countries?

I do not believe that Europe is hostile to Israel itself, but has had specific issues relating to the conflict. These will disappear when the conflict ceases. I believe the whole world will wish Israel well, as most of it did, including Europe, when it was created. In any case, I think the U.S. has always shown that it is a staunch ally of Israel. Finally, the resolution of points of disputation does not require Israel to surrender its sovereignty. Peace, secure borders, prosperity, the disappearance of terrorism . . . What points of disputation could there be that couldn't be resolved when these conditions prevail? Anyway, as before, Israel will still have all the friends and all options it has now--and a lot more besides.


7. Palestine can enter into pacts with any state, including radical Muslim states that seek the destruction of Israel, provided the language of such pacts not include explicit references to aggression against Israel. Would anyone suggest that we trust the Iranian Mullahs, Assad, Saudi royalty or Arafat to keep their word?

With a genuine peace established, with prosperity and trust rising and suffering and death becoming a distant memory, why would a non-Islamic government in Palestine (whether Democratic or not) want to ally itself with its natural enemy. Moreover, why would it want to revert to the old way and bring disaster upon itself? Really...


8. Israel is expected to compensate the almost 5,000,000 Arab descendents of the 1948 700,000 Arab refugees, and their host Arab states, but no mention is made of compensation for the 800,000 Jewish refugees [and their descendents] forced from their homes in Arab countries from 1949 to 1954, most of whom were absorbed by Israel.

The answer is for the world, not Israel, to compensate all families, Arab and Jewish alike, for the loss of lives and property suffered during the conflict. This would, of course, include funds to rebuild, in Israel proper, any settlements turned over to the Palestinians. A world peace fund should be established for this purpose, with, for starters, two hundred billion dollars (U.S.). Too much money? It’s nothing. At least it is nothing compared to the cost of the Mid-East conflict to the antagonists and to the whole world, as well. No, the money required is nothing if it brings an end to Middle East (and world) terrorism and brings peace and prosperity to the Middle East. One ought to mention again the cost, in lives, of the terrible calamity that is coming our way if the conflict is not soon resolved. I'd contribute as much as I could to such a plan and so would the vast majority of people in the world.


9. There is nothing in the Accords that requires the Palestinian government to establish democracy, empower democratic institutions, legislate and protect civil rights, and govern by rule of law.

At present I think the reasonable objective of the GA is to achieve peace. That is enough for one bite. To ask for true Palestinian Democracy in tandem with it is simply not on. One would hope for that, and it will no doubt come someday, but that's up to the people on the other side.


10. The Temple Mount, holiest site to Jews but only third holiest to Muslims, will be under the control of the Palestinian government, with Jewish access only at Palestinian behest. Why does this Accord deny Jews unhindered access to their holiest site?

I don't actually know why. It was part of the proposed deal and I guess they did it because there is a mosque on the place, at the moment. Mosque vs. temple. . . Being a secular type, I constantly wonder what these revered buildings actually have to do with the creator of the universe. Well, I guess the reality is that, because of certain religious factions, they will probably have a lot to do with the peace. In any case, I don't see why, when there is genuine peace, the Palestinians would want to prohibit Jews from going onto the mount, if that's all that's wanted.

[Donald]

Page 2 of reply to document written by Mr. Meir-Levi, Director of Research and Education at the Israel Peace Initiative (IPI)

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


Even worse, Graham Watson, the head of the European parliamentarian delegation to the Geneva Accords, went on record earlier this week that the international force which will patrol the future borders will “…actively prevent the Israeli army from pursuit of terrorists,” since that force is designed to “…protect the integrity of the Palestinian territory.”

What an idiotic thing for him to say! He’s no help at all. They ought to eject him from the delegation if this is what he said and meant. Of course the border force would have to be designed to protect the integrity of both territories. Otherwise the peace accord would not be acceptable to the Israeli people at all, I'm sure. In regard to the pursuit of terrorists, if the borders are very secure, to the extent that Israel is entirely satisfied, it will be a big improvement over what had existed. But what matters most is that a genuine peace, with attendant prosperity on both sides, will have deleterious effect on the terrorist gangs. The recruiting office will be closed. The schools will be talking about Abraham and brotherhood. The era of enlightenment would begin. Yeah, I’m an optimist.


In short, Israel gives up much and relies almost exclusively upon the Palestinian leadership’s good will and integrity. The Palestinian Authority gives up almost nothing while reserving the right to keep the current thugocracy in power, change the terms of the Accord, militarize, enter into aggression pacts with hostile nations, maintain terrorism under the guise of not being able to stop it, and then rely upon international “peace keepers” to hinder Israeli self-defense.

Of course Israel relies on the Palestinian Leadership, but not exclusively. As discussed above, the whole world must participate and the great states must take a very active part. Of course the Palestinian side must give up the "Right of Return", along with state-sponsored hatred and other things. As to the current Palestinian leadership, with a genuine peace and secure borders, that will be their problem, not Israel's. I'm sure there are people on the Palestinian side who, like Mr. Meir-Levi, are of the opinion that the GA will never work because it requires them to give up too much. There will be a lot of dissenters until the peace is established and the benefits are seen and felt. Yes, the price may be higher on the Israeli side, but Israel is rich and powerful and the Palestinian people are generally poor and wretched. And Israel can easily cope with it and the benefits of a genuine, enforced peace, with secure borders and the end of death and destruction will be worth the price she may have to pay many times over.


It is not surprising that Ariel Sharon and the overwhelming majority of Israelis are opposed to the plan, while Arafat is beaming. His victory is at last within reach.

A genuine peace in the Middle East will be a victory for Arafat? Do you not see how short-sighted that statement is? This peace is not for him. He's finished. He's old. It's for the children!

If someone can provide me with a link to the peace plan proposed by the IPI that Mr. Meir-Levis works for, I'd appreciate it very much.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Donald
If the Palestinians wanted to do these things and were able to do them, then the Peace would fall to pieces. They are not going to be given a carte blanche. They have to comply with the provisions of the agreement. To not do so after entering into an agreement supported by the whole world would cost them the support of everyone interested in peace in the Middle East, including Europe. But in the end, if the peace failed because of these things, then would Israel be better or worse off for having shown the world it tried and the other guy was unwilling?

Donald, welcome to the Israel Forum.

No, Israel would not be better off demonstrating for the umteenth time that the Palestinians have no intention of abandoning their national goal of destroying Israel.

There have been plenty of peace plans put in place, but they all failed for the very same reason, i.e., that the Palestinians are not willing to outlaw and dismantle their terrorist infrastructure. In fact, the Palestinians have already explained the reason for their refusal many times, which is that their terror organizations are backed by the majority of the Palestinian population, and removing those organization would plunge their society into a civil war, which they are unwilling to undertake. And why should they?

Most of the world couldn't care less whether the Palestinians continue to massacre Israeli citizens or not. Each country forms its foreign policy to be in line with its national interests, which are:

1. To appease the Arab oil cartel, and

2. To pander to the lucrative 1.3 billion personal Muslim market worldwide.

Sacrificing Israeli lives is nothing in comparison with those interests. So the world has no intention of enforcing any peace agreement that would cause a Palestinian civil war, and is not interested to act on the knowledge that the Palestinians will not uphold any peace agreement with Israel.

The only outcome of any peace plan that does not give Israel the power to expel the Palestinians from any area in which terrorism is left unchecked will only result in thousands more dead Israelis. There would be absolutely no change in support for the Palestinians, based on non-compliance with peace plans. It has always been so, and will continue as such with the current global political situation.

[Jorge]

O.K.! I think I’ve got the drift of the latest posts in this Thread: The clauses contained in the GA are…RISKY. The same is said by the same Forum members about the Ayalon-Nusseibeh decl., the Saudi initiative, the Road-Map; they are all risky. Not only those schemes or plans for negotiations are considered risky, but also unilateral initiatives like withdrawals as proposed by Mr. Olmert.

Of course they are risky; any decision taken in a conflict
situation entails risks of one kind of another. Against any such decisions an infinite number of "What IF this or that happens” questions may be formulated.

We are getting so good at this game of “What if” questions that the best course of action appears to many to be inaction. The attitude of not taking any initiatives till future developments take place.

What the supporters of the Waiting School of thought tend to forget is that this path is also full of risks. Conditions, both national and global, will not be the same in 10 or 20 years time and the risk we are taking by doing nothing is that they may change in a way unfavorable to us.

In the same way that the GA is a model, the Sit and Wait Plan is another one. About this model, Mr. Mitchell, which I have quoted extensively in another Thread, has the following to say:

According to this model, a real resolution depends on time - time for leadership changes, meaning mainly Arafat's removal; time for a U.S. victory in Iraq to weaken the influence of radicalism and extremism; and time for changes in the Arab world driven by democratization and free market forces. Only then will real Israeli- Palestinian and Israeli-Arab peace be possible.
........

With American diplomacy and efforts from both sides it remains possible to lay the groundwork for an active two-state solution. But there is no telling for how long. The shadows of demography, extremism, terrorism, and settlements loom large and will continue to erode the common ground on which such a solution must be built. Pulling it off will not be easy; and there are no guarantees.

But one thing is unmistakably clear - continuing to play the new game( based on the above model) may create a situation in the next few years where there is no game left to play at all

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Donald
Whatever they have been told, they will have to be told the real truth at the start line. For the plan to work the Palestinians must definitely give up the "Right to Return", as indicated in the much publicized "Western" edition of the plan. This is one of the anchors of the plan.


but of course the Palestinians have no intention of ever doing this, regardless of the concessions made by Israel on other fronts. They have made this abundantly clear, and when including the millions of "refugees" in other Arab countries within the population, the chances of this happening are about nil.



I'm sure the writer is aware that the Palestinian Authority is completely incapable of dismantling the terror groups without starting a civil war among Palestinians. They won’t do it. They can’t do it.


they won't do it. that's for sure. They may not be capable of doing it, but of course they have been able to stop the terrorist fatah organizations from attacking when it suited their interest in the past. This of course indicates that when these groups perpetrate attacks the PA has no intention to stop them. And they are still actively engaged in terror directed against civilians. More on that a little later...



However, on the other hand, the underlying hatred that gives rise to these groups is directly addressed and attacked in the Peace Accord, and so, when peace is established and the recruiting office for terrorism is closed (i.e. the Mid-East conflict), terrorism will diminish and disappear—there and everywhere.


fantasy land. Pure and simple. The underlying hatred is founded upon the demonization of Israel and Jews for all ills that have befallen the Arab world and the "Palestinian people" since the beginning of time. We now have several full GENERATIONS of Palestinians who have been taught to glorify martyrdom above all else, to view Jews as the descendants of apes and monkeys and the like, and to believe that their claim on all of Israel is inalienable and inevitable. The propoganda which the PA has used over the past decade to inculcate this view is truly shocking and abhorent, if you are not aware of it I will endeavour to cite some so yuo can take a look.

Then of course there is the whole problem of the fact that truth has no relevance or bearing in the Arab world, and never really has. No matter what Israel does or how well it acts, you can be quite sure that the Arab "street" will be told that the Jews are doing something sinister, whether dropping infertility dust on their cities or conspiring to take over the world. This also needs to change ex ante as there is no reason why it would ex post. If it does not change, the conflict will not go away.

You say it is a manifestation of the conflict. It is not, rather it is one of the root causes.



With support from the whole world, including the Arab states,


fantasy. the Arab states will not REALLY support any such thing. They may make policy pronouncements and the like, but their populations will remain unabashedly hostile to Jews and Israel, and their leaders will not undertake efforts to change this, rather they will use it when it suits them to divert attention from their own despotism.



with the surge in prosperity that will follow a peace agreement,


doubt it. Given that the PA is about as corrupt a government structure as one could imagine, and given that the Palestinians completely lack any sembance of any inkling of a civil society, what will follow is more poverty, more corruption and more anger, directed by the powers that be to the ever-so-popular external scapegoat - the Jews.



with enhanced border security imposed by the forces of the West,


of course, just like after the Suz war in 1956 right? This has been tried already and it is quite clear that western nations such as France and Belguim and the like will NOT allow their troops to remain in harms way if they are targeted by Palestinian suiciders. And they WILL be targeted if they try to stop them. And these suiciders belong to groups that have as their central goal the destruction of Israel. And this will remain ... unfulfilled by any peace agreement.



in concert with Israel and the forces of the Palestinian signatory (the GA will not happen for some long time and there will probably be a new government in Palestine by then), with a virtually impermeable wall along the agreed border (I hope I live to see the celebration when, after a long era of uninterrupted peace, it’s finally torn down), and, finally, considering the immense power of Israel, it is unlikely that the evil forces who remain opposed to peace will have the power to do anything much for any length of time.


ojn that logic, given the "immense power fo Israel" there should not have been any aggression by Plaestinians against israel after Oslo. But of course that made no difference. This is not a standard war with a standard balance of power type assessement. The Palestinians welcome their own casualties because they make their cause look better and their suffering more profound. There is lots available on that too.

You watch, after Arafat Hamas or some group like it will be in control - ultimately that is what the Palestinians want, just like under Oslo they exuded their efforts not to build a civil society and a public infrastructure but to inculcate and then exploit the most base of inclinations among their populations so that they could better be used to destroy Israel. That, if you haven't noticed, has always been the REAL goal.



At any rate the situation in both Israel and Palestine, and elsewhere, will be several million times better than it would be if peace does not come.


but peace will not come regardless.Everything would also be better if there existed multiple parallel universes so the Israelis and Palestinians could both get all they want. But of course this is impossible. Just like your musings above, given circumstances. Wishful thinking does not constitute a realistic potential hypothetical.



Before the peace accord is formally proposed and voted on, it is capable of further definition as a plan becomes reality. But, aside from that, whatever feeble forces Palestine manages to conjure up, they could only be as chaff to the wind compared to the hugely powerful Armed Forces of Israel.


how is that any different from today? Only difference is that the Palestinians will be able to BETTER arm themselves and BETTER develop terrrorist tools and tactics and personnel. Given Israeli military might remains the same as it is today, how would this make things any better?



Once a genuine peace is achieved with secure borders, the threat from Palestine will be nothing compared to what it is now and, especially, compared to what it could be without it.


this basically says once the Palestinians give up violence (the "real peace") Israel will have nothing to worry about. I agree with that but we cannot just assume step 1.



This is not a real issue if there is a genuine peace accord. Anyway, this peace accord permits Israel to keep its powerful army and, one might add, the most powerful weapon of them all. Better to have the peace now, when, in terms of military power and very major weapons, Israel has total dominance.


but of course there will NOT be a "genuine" peace accord. Why should nayone believe otherwise, especially after the "genuine" Oslo, which was just a lie and a ruse to further advance the Palestinians' war aims.

[Canajew]

If the Palestinians wanted to do these things and were able to do them, then the Peace would fall to pieces. They are not going to be given a carte blanche. They have to comply with the provisions of the agreement. To not do so after entering into an agreement supported by the whole world would cost them the support of everyone interested in peace in the Middle East, including Europe. But in the end, if the peace failed because of these things, then would Israel be better or worse off for having shown the world it tried and the other guy was unwilling?


pretend this paragraph was written about Oslo. it easily could have been. The Palestinians NEVER complied with ANY of their commitments and peace failed because of it. the world took their side (but only after they started massacring civilians - before that the world had indeed blamed Arafat for a couple of days) and Israel is in a FAR worse situation today than back then. Are we to do this all over again, or can we LEARN from history?



I do not believe that Europe is hostile to Israel itself, but has had specific issues relating to the conflict. These will disappear when the conflict ceases. I believe the whole world will wish Israel well, as most of it did, including Europe, when it was created. In any case, I think the U.S. has always shown that it is a staunch ally of Israel. Finally, the resolution of points of disputation does not require Israel to surrender its sovereignty. Peace, secure borders, prosperity, the disappearance of terrorism . . . What points of disputation could there be that couldn't be resolved when these conditions prevail?


but HOW are they to prevail and WHY are the PAlestinians to aim for these given their real war goals and their past demonstrated inclination to absorb costs imposed on their population in order to further their war goals.

Allowing foreign governemnts to decide defence policy and to limit responses of a DEMOCRATIC country to terrroism directed against CIVILIANS is a diminution of sovereignty and a completed Abandonment of the fundamental obligation of government to protect its civilians from foreign aggression.



With a genuine peace established, with prosperity and trust rising and suffering and death becoming a distant memory, why would a non-Islamic government in Palestine (whether Democratic or not) want to ally itself with its natural enemy.


because your premise is a fantasy. What will happen is that under this agreement the Palestinians will be able to acede without really MEANING it, and as a result they will then be ABLE to do all of these things like align with evil countries. We cannot trust the Palestinians to not act like bastards. they have shown their true colours too many times already.



Moreover, why would it want to revert to the old way and bring disaster upon itself? Really...


who knows why? Ask them about why they planned and started this recent "intifadeh". Same thing exactly. they started it because they thought it would get them MORE than they had today, consequences and suffering be damned. If a party does not have a history of rational action, is it ratiuonal to assume they will act on the basis of reason going foreward? Not really.



The answer is for the world, not Israel, to compensate all families, Arab and Jewish alike, for the loss of lives and property suffered during the conflict. This would, of course, include funds to rebuild, in Israel proper, any settlements turned over to the Palestinians. A world peace fund should be established for this purpose, with, for starters, two hundred billion dollars (U.S.). Too much money? It’s nothing. At least it is nothing compared to the cost of the Mid-East conflict to the antagonists and to the whole world, as well. No, the money required is nothing if it brings an end to Middle East (and world) terrorism and brings peace and prosperity to the Middle East. One ought to mention again the cost, in lives, of the terrible calamity that is coming our way if the conflict is not soon resolved. I'd contribute as much as I could to such a plan and so would the vast majority of people in the world.


well, when a big chink of this $ gets diverted to Palestinian terrorist activity, it will surely not help, just like the billions sunk into the PA by the Europeans. And if the money is wasted by corruption and inefficiency, it will also not do much except for those who are corrupt. And money ius not the solution to anything. The Palestinians need to accept Israel's right to exist and give up their constanrt struggle to bring it down and start focussing on the strugle to bring themselves up.



At present I think the reasonable objective of the GA is to achieve peace. That is enough for one bite. To ask for true Palestinian Democracy in tandem with it is simply not on. One would hope for that, and it will no doubt come someday, but that's up to the people on the other side.


so just blind faith in the other side? I would expect Israel to need more assurances than that. They tried that with Oslo.



I don't actually know why. It was part of the proposed deal and I guess they did it because there is a mosque on the place, at the moment. Mosque vs. temple. . . Being a secular type, I constantly wonder what these revered buildings actually have to do with the creator of the universe. Well, I guess the reality is that, because of certain religious factions, they will probably have a lot to do with the peace. In any case, I don't see why, when there is genuine peace, the Palestinians would want to prohibit Jews from going onto the mount, if that's all that's wanted. [/B]

Again with the genuine peace. Might as well replace that term with something more realistic, like Jesus and Mohammed singing "All you need is Love" with the rest of the Beatles in Mecca.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Donald
What an idiotic thing for him to say! He’s no help at all. They ought to eject him from the delegation if this is what he said and meant. Of course the border force would have to be designed to protect the integrity of both territories. Otherwise the peace accord would not be acceptable to the Israeli people at all, I'm sure. In regard to the pursuit of terrorists, if the borders are very secure, to the extent that Israel is entirely satisfied, it will be a big improvement over what had existed. But what matters most is that a genuine peace, with attendant prosperity on both sides, will have deleterious effect on the terrorist gangs. The recruiting office will be closed. The schools will be talking about Abraham and brotherhood. The era of enlightenment would begin. Yeah, I’m an optimist.


but of course he said it because it is a widely held point ofview. He is not the only voice to say such things. It is safe to assume that a substantial minority at least share it and would view the implementation of the accord in this light.



Of course Israel relies on the Palestinian Leadership, but not exclusively. As discussed above, the whole world must participate and the great states must take a very active part. Of course the Palestinian side must give up the "Right of Return", along with state-sponsored hatred and other things. As to the current Palestinian leadership, with a genuine peace and secure borders, that will be their problem, not Israel's.


no, Israel's problem, because there is no dichotomy between this and "genuine peace" you can't really have one without the other.



I'm sure there are people on the Palestinian side who, like Mr. Meir-Levi, are of the opinion that the GA will never work because it requires them to give up too much.


and then there are the many who do not support the aims of it but support the initiative because it enhances their strategic position vis-a-vis their real goal of destroying Israel and ethnically clensing it of Jews. There are far far far more of these types.



There will be a lot of dissenters until the peace is established and the benefits are seen and felt.



and even far after that.

[QUOTE]
Yes, the price may be higher on the Israeli side, but Israel is rich and powerful and the Palestinian people are generally poor and wretched.


that Israel is rich is due to Israelis' sacrifice and hard work. taht the Palestinians are wretched is their own fault. Are we to treat the Palestinians as children forever, not expecting them to live with the consequences of their actions? How does this help create a proper incentive regime?

{QUOTE]
And Israel can easily cope with it and the benefits of a genuine, enforced peace, with secure borders and the end of death and destruction will be worth the price she may have to pay many times over.


but you have assumed here that the extremely remote chance of a genuine peace is a certainty, which has skewed your analysis. If the chances of success are 5% or 10% and the consequences of failure are far heavier to Israel's detriment, doesn't that change the calulus a bit?



A genuine peace in the Middle East will be a victory for Arafat? Do you not see how short-sighted that statement is? This peace is not for him. He's finished. He's old. It's for the children!


no, implementation of another agreement which wrenches concessions from Israel but allows Arafat et al to retain their war goal of destroying Isarel and enhanciung their strategic position to do so would be a victory. And in case you missed it, that is what the authors were arguing all along. Again, this genuine peace you speak of is an illusion.



But welcome to the Forum, and thank you for making a positive contribution to the level of discourse.

A question, though, if you were of the belief that the Palestinians do not want to live in peace with Israel (and with no 'right' of return) and will not, if left to their own devices, ever change their position on this, then what can be done to, while not ending the conflict, at least minimize the impact of it on Israeli civilians and Israeli soldiers and the Israeli economy? Sharon's plan doesn't seem half bad from this point of view, assuming of course that he still retains all the "sticks" to punish the Palestinians for their acts of depravity.

[Donald]

Hi Canajew



1. My original comment:


Of course Israel relies on the Palestinian Leadership, but not exclusively. As discussed above, the whole world must participate and the great states must take a very active part. Of course the Palestinian side must give up the "Right of Return", along with state-sponsored hatred and other things. As to the current Palestinian leadership, with a genuine peace and secure borders, that will be their problem, not Israel's.

Your reply:

“
no, Israel's problem, because there is no dichotomy between this and "genuine peace" you can't really have one without the other .”

I don’t know if I really understand your response, but I will reply anyway. With a genuine peace in place, the issue of the Palestinian leadership is a matter for the Palestinians. No one can guarantee that the leadership, however constituted, whether a dictator or a democrat, will not be hostile to Israel. But hostility and conflict are two different things. Having a REAL PEACE with secure borders is the first step. As peace proceeds and prosperity spreads among Palestinians, hostility will cease. We were at war with the Germans and Japanese and we killed millions of them under circumstances of great hostility. New generations have come and that hostility has all but vanished.

2. My original comment:


I'm sure there are people on the Palestinian side who, like Mr. Meir-Levi, are of the opinion that the GA will never work because it requires them to give up too much.

Your reply:


“and then there are the many who do not support the aims of it but support the initiative because it enhances their strategic position vis-a-vis their real goal of destroying Israel and ethnically clensing it of Jews. There are far far far more of these types.”

Well, whatever they think, they don’t seem to have a handle on reality. Palestine will never be able to ethnically cleanse Israel. That’s nonsense. Israel has one of the strongest and best Armed Forces in the world, not to mention it’s ability to turn the whole Middle East into a wasteland at the push of a button. Palestine has nothing in the least comparable. On the other hand, the conflict with Palestine could become hugely dangerous, over time, if Israel gave up on peace and retired its forces behind a security barrier.

3. My original comment:


Yes, the price may be higher on the Israeli side, but Israel is rich and powerful and the Palestinian people are generally poor and wretched.

Your reply:


“that Israel is rich is due to Israelis' sacrifice and hard work. taht the Palestinians are wretched is their own fault. Are we to treat the Palestinians as children forever, not expecting them to live with the consequences of their actions? How does this help create a proper incentive regime?”

I’m sure you’re not saying that the Palestinians can’t work hard if they have the opportunity. In any case, however the present disparity came to be, we’re talking about the future. A future peace. A genuine peace. The spread of prosperity into the Palestinian enclave is an important aspect of any lasting peace. When people have a lot to lose they are less likely to make war –or terror. In fact, given the right conditions, they might be very much against the evil of terrorism and the calamities it brings in train.

4. My original comment:


And Israel can easily cope with it and the benefits of a genuine, enforced peace, with secure borders and the end of death and destruction will be worth the price she may have to pay many times over.

Your reply:


“but you have assumed here that the extremely remote chance of a genuine peace is a certainty, which has skewed your analysis. If the chances of success are 5% or 10% and the consequences of failure are far heavier to Israel's detriment, doesn't that change the calulus a bit?”

Not at all. What consequences are you referring to? Israel will not be obliged to disarm and the Palestinians could never acquire a conventional Armed Forces that would constitute a threat against Israel. As for the chances of Peace when the time comes that a Peace Plan is accepted by both sides, the chances of a final peace will be 90 to 95 percent. Where did I get my figures? Same place as you.


5. My original comment:


A genuine peace in the Middle East will be a victory for Arafat? Do you not see how short-sighted that statement is? This peace is not for him. He's finished. He's old. It's for the children!

Your reply:


“no, implementation of another agreement which wrenches concessions from Israel but allows Arafat et al to retain their war goal of destroying Isarel and enhanciung their strategic position to do so would be a victory. And in case you missed it, that is what the authors were arguing all along. Again, this genuine peace you speak of is an illusion.”

I stand by what I’ve said. Assuming the peace agreement does not last, will Palestine grow strong enough in the “interval” to threaten Israel militarily. Would it want to do this, knowing it would be destroyed utterly?

6. Your question:


“A question, though, if you were of the belief that the Palestinians do not want to live in peace with Israel (and with no 'right' of return) and will not, if left to their own devices, ever change their position on this, then what can be done to, while not ending the conflict, at least minimize the impact of it on Israeli civilians and Israeli soldiers and the Israeli economy? Sharon's plan doesn't seem half bad from this point of view, assuming of course that he still retains all the "sticks" to punish the Palestinians for their acts of depravity.”

My reply:

Sharon’s plan is “blood for blood”. It is a scenario of unending conflict. It’s the “Hatfield and McCoy” plan. You have to deal. And in case you’re thinking that a security wall, in tandem with the “Hatfield and McCoy” plan will work, it’s simply not on. It won’t work. It’s a waste of money that might be better spent developing the GA peace plan.


There is no reasonable alternative to peace. If Israel finishes building this wall, will it bring security? Will it able to withdraw its forces from the occupied territories on the other side? If it does, then with no peace , with no international supervision, with the animosity hugely enhanced, with the prospect of International terrorists coming into the unoccupied territories (with God knows what in their trucks), Israel's security will be hugely diminished and everything will be in place for the worst kind of catastrophe! Then Ben Laden, if he were still living in his hole, would be very happy. Alternatively, in order to avert such a scenario, Israel will wind up having to re-occupy all the lands and continue to patrol the seas and intercept all traffic. (Won't that look good, under the circumstances that appear to prevail at that time?) No, there’s no alternative to peace.

Wouldn’t you prefer a genuine peace with the Palestinians and all the Arabs, if such were possible? Well, it is possible, despite the years of hatred and blood. There may be evil men around, but, down deep in their hearts, the vast majority of people, Arabs and Jews alike, long for peace and prosperity. Given a real chance for it, a real deal, they will go for it. And once given a taste of it, they will cling to it.

Now it the time. Israel is very powerful and, I think, the Palestinians are at last ready for a deal. Why don’t you find out? You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Your Welcome:


But welcome to the Forum, and thank you for making a positive contribution to the level of discourse.

My response:

Thank you. I’ll try to stay positive. I suppose it’s easier for me to do this, since I have no particular axe to grind.

I do sincerely believe that in the human heart, except for psychopaths, extreme change for the positive is possible even in the most difficult of circumstances. I was raised in Catholic schools (for the most part) and by the time I was twelve I was extremely holy. The nuns were absolutely positive I was going to be a priest when I grew up. I seldom got less than 100 percent in my catechism tests. They were already making plans to send me to the Seminary. But then this dissident guy by the name of Plato came into my life and I soon became an unredeemed heretic and apostate. So, you see, even in the most difficult cases, improvement is possible.

Regards Don.

[Canajew]

Donald,

sorry it took so long to reply. Busy at work and new years and all that.


Originally posted by Donald
I don’t know if I really understand your response, but I will reply anyway. With a genuine peace in place, the issue of the Palestinian leadership is a matter for the Palestinians. No one can guarantee that the leadership, however constituted, whether a dictator or a democrat, will not be hostile to Israel. But hostility and conflict are two different things. Having a REAL PEACE with secure borders is the first step. As peace proceeds and prosperity spreads among Palestinians, hostility will cease. We were at war with the Germans and Japanese and we killed millions of them under circumstances of great hostility. New generations have come and that hostility has all but vanished.


my response was intended to draw attention to the necessary relationship between government structure, things like the "right of return" and the existence of a genuine peace. Without giving up the "right of return" (which is an invented fiction btw) no "genuine peace" is possible, so to say that with a genuine peace the right of return will be "their" problem is not really accurate.

With respect to your comment above, without the proper form a Palestinian leadership, no peace is possible, genuine or otherwise. In this way the governance structure of the Palestinians is more than just their problem, but is part of the overall root cause of the perpetuation of the conflict.

I agree that theoretically peace-at-some-point is possible, but one must look at the factors which would make this more likely and assess whether they either exist on the ground or have the prospects of comming into being in the immediate, short or medium terms. they do not. There is no such thing as civil society among the Palestinians. At all. Those who develop more modertae tendancies (objective moderation, rather than the subjective moderation which allows Hamas politicos (and PLOers like Arafat too) to be labelled "moderate" because they don't want to kill ALL the Jews) are intimidated and attacked into submission and silence, and the PA's entire media aparatus iis operatign 24-7 to increase the level of animocity and militancy and violence.

You also ignmore above the deep, thoroughly pervasive anti-semitism which is so rampant among the Palestinaisn (and the rest of the Muslim world too. As long as this continues there will be (1) no reason to ever trust ANYTHING the Palestinians say, including any commitments they make under a peace deal (they have immediately broken scores and scores of commitments over the years) and (2) no reason for there to emerge any modertaing influence among the population which might effectively curtail the genocidal inclinations of Palestinian leadership.

As long as this leadership maintains control over education and the rest, what happened in Germany and Japan (where an external power completely re-educated the populations for decency) is impossible, and the radicals would intimidate anyone they feel they need to in order to prevent this from happening.



Well, whatever they think, they don’t seem to have a handle on reality. Palestine will never be able to ethnically cleanse Israel. That’s nonsense. Israel has one of the strongest and best Armed Forces in the world, not to mention it’s ability to turn the whole Middle East into a wasteland at the push of a button. Palestine has nothing in the least comparable. On the other hand, the conflict with Palestine could become hugely dangerous, over time, if Israel gave up on peace and retired its forces behind a security barrier.


with respect, they are not really bounded by any sort of rationality in their strategic behaviour. Never really have been. they are IDEOLOGICALLY driven and driven by things like custom and tribal honour and all that garbage. Many (like Arafat) feel that to give up ANY of Israel to the Jews would be a violation of their obligations to future generations (rather than the real violation of sacrificing their futures on a never ending senseless war). They want Israel destroyed and are not prepared to stop.

The only real way to get them to slowly but surely come to the rational conclusion is to convince them that they have lost and have no chance of achieving their objectives. But of course the actions of Europe and the rest leaping to protect them from the consequences of their own aggression will only serve to prevent the Palestinians from comming to this conclusion, and will only make the conflict more intractible.

Plus, your analysis above about the inevitable victory of Israel really makes no sense. Regardless of military might, the 1949 armistice lines are extremely tenuous. Look at a topographical map of the region and this will be quite evident. 10 miles wide at the waist, with Judea and Samaria towering over it, the costal plain which is pre 1967 Israel is extremely vulnerable. Regardless of the strength of the military, were the soldiers unable to Marshal themselves (which is what would happen when trying to Marshal in toonarrow an area while the enemy is advancing) and the Arabs to launch a surprise attack (which could quite easily be facilitated by the fact that moving equipment into the West bank could be done in secret and could then be deployed on hair-trigger notice, coupled wity the fact that the mountain ranges in Judea and Samaria allow artillary (which is all self propelled now so mobility is far greater than it once was) to rain down on air bases, marshalling yards and the rest, put Israel into an extremely vulnerable situation.

And your last 'ultimate weapon' type argument does not impact on this at all. That's the thing about dictatorships (i.e. every single one of Israel's enemies, and the Palestinians for sure if they ever manipulate themselves into premature independence). For democracies, we are obviousl;y concerned when we start conflicts about casualties - after all we must fight the battle and suffer the damage. On the other hand, dictators are NOT their eople, and are generally less concerned with their peoples' well being. Iranian leaders have said it would be a pretty good trade off to lose 10% of their population if they could wipe out the Jews of Israel, and given Palestinians' rabid Jew hatred and the fact that Israeli nuclear deterednce would only be of limited value a few miles away from home would effectively reduce this incentive even further.

And of course given that your pie-in-the-sky scenario a la "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing" is not really a feasible real world alternatvie, comparing it to the non-ended but better managed conflict between the security wall is disingenuous. Hamas et al will not stop no matter what, and since the Palestinians view them as heros and will never move to disarm them (as they would just assert their own control) your scenario is not really possible. An ongoing conflict across the security barrier is better than an ongoing conflict along the 1949 armistice lines. These are really the only two options for any reasonable time frame you would choose to look at.



I’m sure you’re not saying that the Palestinians can’t work hard if they have the opportunity.


course not. I'm saying that Israelis worked ridiculously hard to build their country, facing several wars of annihilation, the absorption of a high percentage of their population as refugees (mostly badly educated) in the 50s and continuing to do this no matter what, while investing in the future and building a vibrant democracy and civil society, while the Plaestinians have locked themselves into begging for victimhood's sufferance, not focussing on education, health care, building a civil society or anything else. So just because the Israelis tried while the Arabs and Palestinians did not, it does not follow that therefore Israel owes ANYTHING to the Palestinians in terms of the relative prices that must be paid.

Of course the Palestinians will work hard, but only when they have to. Otherwise they will continue to act like spoiled little children, throwing temper tantrums whenever something goes in a way they don't like and contantly breaking or wasting what yuo give them while at the same time demanding more.



In any case, however the present disparity came to be, we’re talking about the future. A future peace. A genuine peace.


a magical fictional peace, I know. You need to try to assess the requirements for such a peace to come about, then asses the likelihood that any of these factors will come about BEFORE peace, rather than as a consequence of it.



The spread of prosperity into the Palestinian enclave is an important aspect of any lasting peace.


absolutely. Never going to happen though. Corrupt kleptocracies are not particularly good at breinging economic prosperity, and the lack of civil society coupled with a hyper-militant culture ensures that a corrupt kleptocracy is the best they can hope for for any foreseeable future along the present course they are taking.

[Canajew]

When people have a lot to lose they are less likely to make war –or terror.


Yes and no. On a macro level this seems ok, but from a micro level those who are engaged in terror generally have more education and better prospects than those who do not, especially all those university and college educated engineers and such that the Palestinians' schools are pumping out (an important side note - every single one of those universities were built by Israel AFTER 1967 to educate the Palestinian population. They were co-opted by radicals, but once again note that the Palestinians didn't build ANYTHING between 1949 and 67, and did not really build anything of substance after OSlo either. Also interesting to note that in the entire life of Arab "Palestine" they didn't build a single new city or town or village, rather they just settled in existing ones that were abandoned or whose inhabitants they could force out - again a cultural norm which is deep rooted and can indeed change, but not over night and not spontaneously).

The statement above also ignores other factors which may be more relevant to the individual decision makers - religious beliefs, socio-cultrual morals (i.e. preachers telling people from birth to adulthood that the best thing they can aspire to be for their people is a suicide-bomber) and the rest. The above statement may have some validity if the standard "all else the same" applies, but if it does not (which it does not) then its explanatory value is circumscribed.



In fact, given the right conditions, they might be very much against the evil of terrorism and the calamities it brings in train.


and given the right conditions they could indeed be completely normal poeple, living in a civil society that is concerned with development and education and the rest. But just because this is possible does not mean it is practicable or at all likely. I am not a racist. I do not think Europeans are inherently better at governing themselves democratically or anything like that. But the society and the culture of the Arabs is ... inferior to that of the west when looking at its ability to produce and maintain a free vibrant civil society with civil rights and fundamental human freedoms and the rest. It just is - totalitarianism - whenther old school tyrant style or new school -ism style is not capable of bringing about the same results, especially where leaders are far more interested in their own well being than that of their people.



Not at all. What consequences are you referring to? Israel will not be obliged to disarm and the Palestinians could never acquire a conventional Armed Forces that would constitute a threat against Israel.


the consequences of failure are:

continued conflict based on the 1949 armistice lines, putting a militarized Palestinian state metres away from Israeli civilians (who, if you will recall, have ALWAYS been the primary target of Palestinian "resistance" fighters);

an international border to cross to prevent attacks, which, when coupled with the automatic majority of the Muslim states coalition with the 'non-aligned' countries translates into the likely further stigmatization of Israel on the world stage.

and of course regional conflict, which has always been the goal of the PLO and will surely be easier one the PLO has their own state.

The failure of Oslo made things FAR worse for Israel on every conceivable axis. There are far far far more weapons in the west bank and gaza than there were before, there is far more violence. The propaganda to which the Palestinian population is inundtated is vastly greater, in botyh quantity and intensity, than before, and Plaestinian children are brainwashed from birth that development is not the goal, martyrdom and conflict is.

On top of all of that, Israel's international standing in the conflict has eroded significantly. Before Oslo a PLO state was not really contemplated. Today it is a given. The delegitimization of Israel has advanced by leaps and bounds, in part because of the legitimization given to the terrorrists, their means and their GOALS through Oslo. And on and on. You may like to think that things are reversible, but they are not. Damage done is irreversible, at least without significant costs on different axis.



As for the chances of Peace when the time comes that a Peace Plan is accepted by both sides, the chances of a final peace will be 90 to 95 percent. Where did I get my figures? Same place as you.


not really. My figures are, of course, estimates and not meant to be precise in any way. However, by recognizing that there are certain things that would make peace more likely, and things that will make it less likely, and then by assessing the existence of these factors and the likelihood that these things will exist in the future (using the same sort of qualitative analysis) one should hopefully be able to see how likely something is. After all, if a,b, and c are necessary to bring about d, and a, b and c are not happening, even though we do not know the percentage chance of success it would not be inaccurate to say chances are low.

Here nothing condusive to peace is present, and given Plaestinian attitudes and an unwillingness of the world to allow the Palestinians to see they have lost, coupled with dictatorship, kleptocracy, state media pouring out hatred and all the rest, peace is not likely at all. And none of these factors is likely to change in any sort of realistic time frame of a future. Thus my extremely remote 5% chance of success figure (which I believe is probably an OVERestimation of the likelihood of success).

How did you possibly arive at a 95% figure, and again, please try not to jump the gun to genuine peace and sort of think through how this will happen for me. I think we all want genuine peace, and it is a noble goal to shoot for, but that does not make it likely.



I stand by what I’ve said. Assuming the peace agreement does not last, will Palestine grow strong enough in the “interval” to threaten Israel militarily. Would it want to do this, knowing it would be destroyed utterly?


good question. Does not the exact same logic apply to the war that Araaft launched in 2000? It does, and this should provide some additional data for your model.



Sharon’s plan is “blood for blood”. It is a scenario of unending conflict.


so is yours. Just you have assumed genuine peace to make it all better. Sometimes conflict manaagement is the best possible outcome and conflict resolution is impossible, at least within any realistic time frame and without severe external shocks or the capitulation of those more savage to those less savage who will then allow the conquored to better themselves. If the Palesitnians won they would kill and expel all the Jews. If they lost the Jews would help them build a better future, just like Israel did after 1967 (which it clearly did, you just have to look at the data) and just like what happened to germany and japan after the war.



It’s the “Hatfield and McCoy” plan.


not really. That was just tit-for-tat ad infinum. The tit for tat was not designed for deterence and was not the point of the strategy - revenge was. Deterence is entirely different, and your analogy is not apt.



You have to deal.


with whom? You think the US should deal with al-quaeda? After all, "You have to deal", right? How do you deal with a party that wants you dead and will not stop until you are?

[Canajew]

And in case you’re thinking that a security wall, in tandem with the “Hatfield and McCoy” plan will work, it’s simply not on. It won’t work. It’s a waste of money that might be better spent developing the GA peace plan.


the GA plan is dead letter. Always has been. And besides that it is a recipe for disaster. You think letting the PLO's army into Jerusalem metres away from Jewish civilians is a good idea? You think that if (perish the though) this were not a "genuine peace" but ANOTHER ruse that this would not resault in significant costs for Israel and Israelis?

The wall already has worked. Sorry to break the news to you. It has increased the cost (in terms of time, money, logistics, manpower et al) of conducting terrorist operations and decreased the likelihood that any of them would suceed. This strengthens Israel's position and weakens the Palestiniansd. And, as I have said before, the only real way to get the conflict to end is to put the Palestinians in so weak a position that they get it through their collective skull that they lost, they should sue for peace and move on. And in the meanwhile, fewer Israelis will die and the Israeli economy will be more secure.



There is no reasonable alternative to peace.


but peace is not a reasonable alternartive given current circumstances, nor is it reasonable that future circumstances will arise given current behaviour so that it is a reasonable future alternative. So while there is no reasonable alternative to peace, peace is also not a reasonable alternative. Therefore conflict management should rule the day.



If Israel finishes building this wall, will it bring security?


yes. Not complete, but of course, yes. Better to have the rapists in prison than the backyard, no? Doesn't completely eliminate the risk (they could escape and there could be others not yet captured) but the risk is reduced the more difficult it is for the rapist to rape, just like security is increased the more difficult it is for the terrrorist to engage in terrorism.



Will it able to withdraw its forces from the occupied territories on the other side?


not really, but this should allow for a more efficient deployment of resources (again stregthening Israel's position while weakening the Palestinian position which is the only realistic way to start along the slow and long path to "genuine peace" 50 or more years from now).



If it does, then with no peace , with no international supervision, with the animosity hugely enhanced, with the prospect of International terrorists coming into the unoccupied territories (with God knows what in their trucks), Israel's security will be hugely diminished and everything will be in place for the worst kind of catastrophe!


I agree, which is why, of course, israel must continue its military and security operations in those areas on the other side of the wall until either all terrrorist threrats are effectively neutralized (which would require intensive operations for an extended period of time coupled with tight Israeli control over borders to choke off the inflow of weapons). But of course withdrawing from them without satisfying the impossible-to-satisfy "right of return" will also bring about this result, given Arafat's support for Hamas et al's objectives.



Then Ben Laden, if he were still living in his hole, would be very happy. Alternatively, in order to avert such a scenario, Israel will wind up having to re-occupy all the lands and continue to patrol the seas and intercept all traffic. (Won't that look good, under the circumstances that appear to prevail at that time?) No, there’s no alternative to peace.


so that's the argument - not having peace is infeasible and therefore peace is the only alternative. Not very good logic. If peace is only a remote option you have failed to set up the proper choice dichotomy - either no peace or try for peace which will almost certainly fail. Which one is worse? Different question entirely and makes a whole lot more sense than peace is the only realistic option, therefore it will be peace.



Wouldn’t you prefer a genuine peace with the Palestinians and all the Arabs, if such were possible?


yes. Wouldn't you prefer that we could all live forever and have unlimited resources to enjoy whatever we want whenever we want, if such were possible? It is not, of course (unless you know something I don't - If you do I'd like to live forever too, so if you could post the secret I'd appreciate it :) )



Well, it is possible, despite the years of hatred and blood.


under what circumstances is it possible? It is possible that the earth could be struck by an asteroid at any time. No doubt. But does that mean that particular circumstances are irrelevant to assessing when this is more or less likely? hardly.



There may be evil men around, but, down deep in their hearts, the vast majority of people, Arabs and Jews alike, long for peace and prosperity.


I have taught my people that the way to achieve peace and prosperity is to rise up and kill all the Jews. My people genuinely believe this. Given this, does your logic above really follow?



Given a real chance for it, a real deal, they will go for it. And once given a taste of it, they will cling to it.


they were offered a "real deal" under Oslo. they wanted more. Always more. And more. And when finally they get a no, which inevitably they will as they demand "return" to Tel Aviv, they will revert back to violence, consolidate their concessions to date, and once again try to achieve their real and never changed goals.

We need to change their goals to make peace at all likely. Saying that it works the other way around, that we need peace for them to change their goals, is wrong, reverses causality of the ENTIRE mideast conflict, and will not result in a proper assessemnt of the sitaution and thus would not result in a policy perscription that would make peace more likely. In fact, the opposite is more likely, as can be seen with Oslo.



Now it the time. Israel is very powerful and, I think, the Palestinians are at last ready for a deal. Why don’t you find out? You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.


lots to lose, little to gain, given the likelihood that what you say about palestinian "willingness" is true (it is not, quite obviously so)



Thank you. I’ll try to stay positive. I suppose it’s easier for me to do this, since I have no particular axe to grind.


its not about the axe, its about the (qualitative) model and the data. You have translated the absence of your axe into a forced impartiality in order to distill down all the information of which you are aware. Your model seems to lack ANY insights from much of the 'data' - Oslo, Lebanon, Jordan, 1967, 1948. Without an axe to grind you would also be less likely to seek out as much information as possible - I do the same in places like Serbia and Rwanda and the rest, where I have no axe to grind, and as a result I know far less about the particulars of the conflict than someone with such an axe.



I do sincerely believe that in the human heart, except for psychopaths, extreme change for the positive is possible even in the most difficult of circumstances.


and of course you sincerely believe this enough to trust other people's lives to it. They have tried and it cost them dearly. They will try again, to be sure, but to try agaian and again under the same circumstances or more adverse circumstances with an enemy which has different and unaltered objectives entirely is pure folly.



I was raised in Catholic schools (for the most part) and by the time I was twelve I was extremely holy. The nuns were absolutely positive I was going to be a priest when I grew up. I seldom got less than 100 percent in my catechism tests. They were already making plans to send me to the Seminary. But then this dissident guy by the name of Plato came into my life and I soon became an unredeemed heretic and apostate. So, you see, even in the most difficult cases, improvement is possible.


not an apt analogy at all. Alow the nuns to kill anyone who even ACTS like they do not believe everything. Have the media spew 24-7 about the traitor-like views that you hold. Allow for society to completely demonize and ostracise you for your views, whcih will result in violence, intimidation and possible death. Change the calculus a bit? Now we are talking Palestinian reality, where the PLO and Hamas and the rest kill "collaboraotrs" and firebomb the houses of those who preach conciliation rather than total victory. And of course then there is PATV and the rest of the Palestinian media, which just pushes the population further and further in the militant direction. And of course you never would have been allowed to read and explore Plato, so you would not really have known that an alternative existed, other than the opinion on Plato spewed by the nuns.

[Donald]

I spent two hours this morning working on my reply to (the first part) of your last posts. I then attempted to open a second copy of the thread and in the process I lost everything I'd written. It will take me at least a week to recover from this misadventure, but I will be back.

Donald

[Mediocrates]

Some people compose in an editor first and then paste it in.

[Donald]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Some people compose in an editor first and then paste it in.

Me too--from now on.

[MGB8]

Donald,

What you don't seem to understand is that there is no such thing as a "real peace."

Peace is simply the decision not to war. It can be changed AT ANY TIME.

Take the example of England and France - they had peace treaties, and then they broke them and warred again. Or of the Hitler-Russian non-aggression pact.

What matters is having in place the conditions that make the "other side" not want to war. Part of that can be economic. Part of that can be educational. Part of that can be legalistic.

But a BIG part of that is military deterence - the idea that warring on your neighbor will cost more than it will earn.

That was what M.A.D. was all about - and that prevented another European war and forced all the wars for the last 50 years to be minor "proxy wars."

Ditto the mideast, where Israel's ability to incinerate its neigbors has forced THEM to fight a PROXY war, via the Pals.

The US war in Iraq has created a new situation, which encourages the Arabs to make peace - because the costs are potentially now much higher.

[Donald]

Originally posted by MGB8
Donald,

What you don't seem to understand is that there is no such thing as a "real peace."

Peace is simply the decision not to war. It can be changed AT ANY TIME.

Take the example of England and France - they had peace treaties, and then they broke them and warred again. Or of the Hitler-Russian non-aggression pact.

What matters is having in place the conditions that make the "other side" not want to war. Part of that can be economic. Part of that can be educational. Part of that can be legalistic.

But a BIG part of that is military deterence - the idea that warring on your neighbor will cost more than it will earn.

That was what M.A.D. was all about - and that prevented another European war and forced all the wars for the last 50 years to be minor "proxy wars."

Ditto the mideast, where Israel's ability to incinerate its neigbors has forced THEM to fight a PROXY war, via the Pals.

The US war in Iraq has created a new situation, which encourages the Arabs to make peace - because the costs are potentially now much higher.

I agree with some of what you've said. The deterrent aspect is understood, but when I talk about a real peace, I mean a peace accepted by the representatives of both sides, with secure borders and real enforcement, bilateral and international, whereby a violation by either side will be largely prevented, moreso than is possible today, and, if and when it does happen, will carry heavy penalties, as well. I never meant that the protagonists must like each other or fully trust each other. But if at the start they have done a deal that is in their mutual interest, and if the world helps out in a major way, then the accelerating benefits of peace will solidify the agreement and new and unpolluted generations will emerge who love peace, who have no hatred in their hearts. Someday there will be a democracy on the other side of the wall, and the peace will be fully secured. No, it's not pie in the sky. It's possible.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Donald
I agree with some of what you've said. The deterrent aspect is understood, but when I talk about a real peace, I mean a peace accepted by the representatives of both sides, with secure borders and real enforcement, bilateral and international, whereby a violation by either side will be largely prevented, moreso than is possible today, and, if and when it does happen, will carry heavy penalties, as well. I never meant that the protagonists must like each other or fully trust each other. But if at the start they have done a deal that is in their mutual interest, and if the world helps out in a major way, then the accelerating benefits of peace will solidify the agreement and new and unpolluted generations will emerge who love peace, who have no hatred in their hearts. Someday there will be a democracy on the other side of the wall, and the peace will be fully secured. No, it's not pie in the sky. It's possible.
Like Egypt, right?

[Donald]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Like Egypt, right?

No, not quite. When a peace with secure borders is in place, support for hostility against Israel, and the hatred that fosters and abets it, will subside in Egypt and everywhere else. There will always be a few hard cases that spring up spontaneously from the soil like Mandrake roots--nut cases like Bin Laden and Hitler—but peace will undo them. They will have no soldiers because they will have no cause. The Palestine conflict is the recruiting office for all Arab terrorist organizations. Their recruits are made, not born, and they are the product of the existing situation. Rightly or wrongly, most Arabs feel a great injustice has been done to the Palestinians by Israel and the world, and they, especially the young, respond to this pain. Making use of that perception, it's easy for evil power brokers to manipulate them. Settle the land issue with secure borders and a peace (with no right of return) that offers generous compensation to all those families on both sides who have suffered losses from the turmoil and the hatred will subside. Over here in Canada we hated the Japanese and we made hay with racial differences for many years, especially during WWII, but now it is all gone and we love their TVs and their cars. Young people don't even remember what the hatred was like. I don’t claim that there isn’t a residue of racial dislike among the old, but they are no longer effective. They don’t matter any more. A new, more tolerant generation has arisen.

As I’ve said before in greater detail, I believe it is possible to achieve a viable peace in the Middle East if a genuine attempt to do it is made by both sides. Not by the road map, unfortunately, for it’s too easily derailed by the fanatics. A grand, all-in-one scheme like the GA, with necessary revisions, is probably the only way to achieve it. And the day will come, as inevitably as summer comes, when the majority of Israelis and the leadership on the other side (moved by a powerful groundswell on the other side) want it. And they will have it, despite the rest, for the alternative is utterly Orwellian.

[MGB8]

While I agree that we need to end our control over the great majority of the Pal Arabs, Donald, you miss a very key point.

It is not Israeli control over the Pal-Arabs, or over the WB and Gaza (or the Golan or before that the Sinai), that is the problem.

The Arabs have no problem with expulsions and murder of their Pal Arab subgroup - Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have all done that. Look at their unwillingness to resettle the Pal Arab "refugees" - defined different than all other refugees (because its multi-generational) - Europe had no such qualms about settling refugees of WWII.

No - the problem is ISRAEL's EXISTENCE - noted by the statments of the Pal Arab leaders (secular and religious), the Arab press, and the leadership of the Arab and Muslim nations aside from Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and maybe Morrocco.

So - that underlying problem will continue to exists as long as Israel exists - unless they change their mythology - and they have NO incentive to do so except punitive measures by the US.

BTW - there is no "new, more tolerant" generation - they have already been brainwashed by their Sesame Street puppets singing the praises of martyrdom.


Originally posted by Donald
No, not quite. When a peace with secure borders is in place, support for hostility against Israel, and the hatred that fosters and abets it, will subside in Egypt and everywhere else. There will always be a few hard cases that spring up spontaneously from the soil like Mandrake roots--nut cases like Bin Laden and Hitler—but peace will undo them. They will have no soldiers because they will have no cause. The Palestine conflict is the recruiting office for all Arab terrorist organizations. Their recruits are made, not born, and they are the product of the existing situation. Rightly or wrongly, most Arabs feel a great injustice has been done to the Palestinians by Israel and the world, and they, especially the young, respond to this pain. Making use of that perception, it's easy for evil power brokers to manipulate them. Settle the land issue with secure borders and a peace (with no right of return) that offers generous compensation to all those families on both sides who have suffered losses from the turmoil and the hatred will subside. Over here in Canada we hated the Japanese and we made hay with racial differences for many years, especially during WWII, but now it is all gone and we love their TVs and their cars. Young people don't even remember what the hatred was like. I don’t claim that there isn’t a residue of racial dislike among the old, but they are no longer effective. They don’t matter any more. A new, more tolerant generation has arisen.

As I’ve said before in greater detail, I believe it is possible to achieve a viable peace in the Middle East if a genuine attempt to do it is made by both sides. Not by the road map, unfortunately, for it’s too easily derailed by the fanatics. A grand, all-in-one scheme like the GA, with necessary revisions, is probably the only way to achieve it. And the day will come, as inevitably as summer comes, when the majority of Israelis and the leadership on the other side (moved by a powerful groundswell on the other side) want it. And they will have it, despite the rest, for the alternative is utterly Orwellian.

[Donald]

While I agree that we need to end our control over the great majority of the Pal Arabs, Donald, you miss a very key point.

Hi MGB8. My family lived in Illinois several generations ago. I haven’t the faintest idea why they preferred to move to the middle of the bald prairie, up here in the cold north. I suppose it had something to do with misplaced dreams. Some people on the forum periodically accuse me of the same thing. Maybe they’re right. Maybe it’s genetic. But I can’t help preferring dreams of peace to dreams of war. But to address the above point . . .

Without an acceptable peace plan (secure borders, etc.), Israel will never be able to end its control over the Palestinian territories. It cannot let go of them and retreat behind a wall. Because of the extreme enmity, it will be obliged to continue to police and control those areas on the other side of the wall, and all the passages into it, and to police and control the all the approaches to the Palestinian fragment by land, sea and air. What a burden it will have to carry for all time, unless there is a peace. Moreover, after the wall has been built, the world will be expecting Israel to withdraw its occupying forces from the other side. What is the world going to say/do when Israel finally admits (to itself and the world) that it cannot do it? Think I’m wrong? Imagine what might be coming into the other side, if Israel really did withdraw behind the wall and conditions of intense hostility persisted—as they would without a peace plan.

Who are the great brains that thought this barrier is the answer? No, you will still be there after it’s done and the deaths and the destruction will continue, perhaps down a little on one side of the wall, for a little while, except that Israeli army deaths on the Palestinian side will increase and Palestinian deaths will increase right along with them. And the expense! And the futility So - that underlying problem will continue to exists as long as Israel exists - unless they change their mythology - and they have NO incentive to do so except punitive measures by the USof it all! No, nothing less than a fair, universally recognized peace, with secure borders, with a program to mitigate hate mongering, with no right of return , etc., as proposed in the Geneva accord, will guarantee Israel’s existence once and for all. Change your mind, my friend in Chicago. Work for that.



It is not Israeli control over the Pal-Arabs, or over the WB and Gaza (or the Golan or before that the Sinai), that is the problem.

The Arabs have no problem with expulsions and murder of their Pal Arab subgroup - Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have all done that. Look at their unwillingness to resettle the Pal Arab "refugees" - defined different than all other refugees (because its multi-generational) - Europe had no such qualms about settling refugees of WWII.

Yes, how the Palestinians have suffered! But the Palestinians don’t want to leave their ancestral lands and no one can make them. To make them do so would be a terrible crime. It even has a name now. It’s called “ethnic cleansing” . It’s only a secondary consideration that the other countries don’t want to take in the Palestinian refugees and no one can make them. There is no solution to be found in this useless and criminal idea.



No - the problem is ISRAEL's EXISTENCE - noted by the statments of the Pal Arab leaders (secular and religious), the Arab press, and the leadership of the Arab and Muslim nations aside from Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and maybe Morrocco.

That may appear to have been the case to the present day with most of those countries. But are you saying that can never change? Anything can change. Perhaps if the Israeli/Palestinian conflict were fairly resolved, they might relent. Taking away the grounds for what they contend is their major complaint will hamper them somewhat, don’t you think? What if they, along with the rest of the world, were willing to recognize the existence of Israel as part of an overall peace deal, such as the Geneva accord? Then with secure borders and by working toward a peaceful relationship (trade, exchanges, etc.) could not attitudes be changed? Or, alternatively, are all future generations on both sides forever condemned to unremitting hostility and hate?


So - that underlying problem will continue to exists as long as Israel exists - unless they change their mythology - and they have NO incentive to do so except punitive measures by the US.

What you call the underlying problem can only be resolved in an atmosphere of peace. Note that the Geneva Accord at least recognizes this problem and contains positive measures to mitigate it. Peace with Palestine will slowly but effectively disarm the hate-mongers, including the very worst of them, including Bin Laden and his demons. For the Palestine/Israel conflict is the recruiting office for these fanatics. A viable peace, with huge International support, including compensation for displaced families on both sides, is Israel’s only long-term hope. Guns will not do it.


BTW - there is no "new, more tolerant" generation - they have already been brainwashed by their Sesame Street puppets singing the praises of martyrdom.


It’s an abominable thing to teach children to hate another race. No doubt about that. I agree with you to that extent. But the aim should be to stop it, not to wring your hands and say “it was ever thus, it will ever be thus”. How can Israel stop it? Only with a viable peace plan along the lines of the Geneva Accord. With a fair resolution, there will be nothing for the hate mongers to use as an excuse for their various depredations, including the brainwashing of children. Sure, some residue of the past will linger on, but try to look two or three generations ahead, after 60 years of peace, trade, prosperity and American pop culture. (I still believe that the majority of Palestinians want peace and democracy and material progress. It’s the horrors of the war that the fanatics thrive on and use to control the desperate masses.)

Understand that I’m not an advocate of weakness, nor, necessarily, even of restraint, when under severe provocation at a particular point in time, but weakness has never been Israel’s problem. Israel is very strong and very determined. But somehow Israel’s present-day strength makes it feel (at least the majority of Israelis) like it does not have to immediately deal with its real problem—the problem of making a permanent peace. The political difficulty of dealing with much hated weaker opponents from a position of surpassing strength is Israel’s major weakness, in my opinion. The tremendous military power it has makes people mistakenly feel like it doesn’t have to do it now, while it is so strong. But it does have to make peace if it wants to survive in the long term and now is absolutely the best time for it to do it—when it is strong and when, at last, I believe, the Palestine and the Arab nations are ready for a real deal. It is now in the very best position to do it. Even the settlements will turn out to be an ace-in-the-hole. They will be the trade-off for the Palestinian refugees giving up the right of return. Painful, yes. But there is pain in birth and this will be the birth of peace that will be worth the pain. This is the heart of the deal—the best deal, the only deal. Oh, if only it were about business and not religion, it would be so much easier.

If Israel doesn’t make a deal now, or at least soon, then the real demons, Bin and his boys, or those like him, may produce a nuclear or biological calamity in the region that will devour all who live there—and possibly many others besides. I personally think the clock is ticking and we’re about to start living on borrowed time. This festering sore must be healed and it must be done soon. Of course, it’s not our only problem. It’s merely the worst one, at the moment. But it is, and has always been, far more important than Iraq. Why didn’t we address it first? Perhaps we’re just stupid. Perhaps politics and not truth or logic calls the shots. Who knows?

[Canajew]

Donald, wish i had time to properly respond, but really busy at work. To sum up, I believe you have your causes and effects backwards. Real peace is only possible once the Palestinians change their behaviour. You say that they will change their behaviour once there is peace. But there can be no peace as the behaviour continues. A peace agreement that is signed in the context of the current Palestinian reality, with a dictatorial government structure, no government accountability, mass indoctrination with anti-semitism and hatred, a cult of death, the religious imperitive to wage holy war against israel's existence and a political reality where extremism is mainstream and moderation is marginalized or eliminated, means nothing. This peace agreement would not be real peace, rather it would make it easier for the extremists and rejectionists to stip up the pot and begin another round of conflict.

Palestinian attitudes, behaviour and practices need to change FIRST. Only then can there be real peace. Israel's citizens will participate in a real peace. The Palestinian people will not. For there to be real peace that needs to change.

[Donald]

“Donald, wish i had time to properly respond, but really busy at work. “

Not to worry, my friend. I’m in the same boat. I’ll probably never find time to reply to your previous lengthy reply to my previous lengthy post. . . But I don’t think it’s critical in the long run if we miss a beat or two, since these “peace possible vs. no peace possible” discussions tend to spiral upwards and repeat themselves before they finally dissipate into thin air. No matter. It’s the positive changes they may make in our understanding and attitudes that really counts.


“To sum up, I believe you have your causes and effects backwards. Real peace is only possible once the Palestinians change their behavior. You say that they will change their behavior once there is peace. But there can be no peace as the behavior continues. “

Well, it’s really a variant of the chicken and egg thing with no one agreeing which should come first. Perhaps we might solve the old puzzle here. My position is that it doesn’t matter as long as we have a decent breakfast, and since we’re very clearly not going to get it by changing behavior with arms, we can only get it by changing the conditions that generate that behavior. Ah!, you say. They generate it themselves! But no they don’t. However much it may have been prolonged and made worse by political and religious exploiters, it’s part and parcel of the problem that has existed since 1947 when the Palestinian displacement occurred. Proper compensation for all displacements on both sides (I mean for both Palestinians and for Jewish families expelled from Arab countries with a loss of property), and for human losses as well, is one of the vital keys to changing it. Much else is necessary, of course, but the further development and implementation of the GA could get us there. The money could also be used to buy abandoned settlements from Israel and these could be turned over to some of displaced families, instead of cash compensation. (Where is the money to come from? Simple. Ask the world for it, for it would be a great benefit to the whole world, especially America. Peace in the Middle East is the key to the war on terrorism and, perhaps, a peaceful future for mankind. It would close the terrorists recruiting office, for one thing. How much is that worth to the world? I would say off the top that it’s worth two hundred billion, easily. Note: one of the incentives to Israel is that it wouldn’t have to come out of the national treasury. It could be a gift of the world to help compensate for past injuries to both sides. Don’t ask me who has suffered most. We both know the answer to that. But that’s not the point. The point is to end the suffering for all time.)


“A peace agreement that is signed in the context of the current Palestinian reality, with a dictatorial government structure, no government accountability, mass indoctrination with anti-semitism and hatred, a cult of death, the religious imperative to wage holy war against Israel’s existence and a political reality where extremism is mainstream and moderation is marginalized or eliminated, means nothing. This peace agreement would not be real peace, rather it would make it easier for the extremists and rejectionists to stir up the pot and begin another round of conflict. “

It would be a lot better than what you’ve got now and infinitely better than what may be coming down the road. A peace treaty signed by Palestine and all other Arab nations still formally at war with Israel, recognition of Israel and it’s agreed borders by all, with both the treaty and borders guaranteed by the U.S., Europe, and the rest of the civilized world, with those secure borders maintained by the Army of Israel on their side and with military troop contributions from the U.S., Canada, and other nations, for border maintenance (until things settle down), with just compensation for displaced families on both sides of the agreed border, with the cessation of state-sponsored hate (as best can be done) which problem the GA tries to address, with the right of return renounced (that’s where the compensation comes in), etc. etc. All this will substantially end the violence—or at least reduce it to the vanishing point by removing any perceived justification for it, and with rising trade and rising prosperity and real security and independence, such that the Palestinians have a material stake in maintaining this future scenario. That is what is possible. And when the groundswell of ordinary people on both sides want it, no one will be able to stop it. And I feel that the great lumping beast is about to stir in earnest. That’s why it’s so important that the GA be out there for all to see. It is their last best hope.

I think that oppression has seen its heyday and that the days of the oppressors are numbered. People everywhere, Palestinians included, want to be free. Look at the news. Look what happened in Russia (not perfect, but definitely turned against the kind of militant autocracy that ruled them for over half a century), look at Georgia, look at Poland and the Ukraine and all of Eastern Europe. Not problem free but coming around. And keep your eye on Iran! It’s coming there to--by degrees maybe, but it’s coming. (It would come a lot faster, if there were a Middle East peace treaty.)


“Palestinian attitudes, behavior and practices need to change FIRST. Only then can there be real peace. Israel's citizens will participate in a real peace. The Palestinian people will not. For there to be real peace that needs to change.”

I’ve already addressed the behavior subject. Yes, Israel’s citizens will participate in a real peace and, I believe, so will the Palestinians—one way or another—if they get the chance. Do you really think that the ordinary Palestinian want this ongoing carnage to continue? Do they not love their own? It’s the deaths that produce the hate that the exploiters use. Do the ordinary Palestinians not want prosperity and peace? It can happen, but it requires a shift in thinking. For example, people talk about the old Oslo accord as though it were an abject failure, but that’s completely the wrong take on it. It came close, I believe. And sometimes, when you’re against a hard pitcher, you need more than one swing at the ball.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Donald
It would be a lot better than what you’ve got now
Is Oslo's carnage better than what we had before.

and infinitely better than what may be coming down the road.
What's coming down the road is the Arab's attack on what remains of Israel. Better an all-out war now to eliminate the terrorists and regain control of Judea and Samaria than to wait for the Jihadis to knock on Jerusalem's, Tel Aviv's, Netanya's, Hadera's and Haifa's doorsteps.

Your brilliant idea has been tried before and failed miserably. The little lab experiment called Oslo has killed and crippled 1000's of people on both sides. Under normal circumstances, it would be categorized as reckless homocide and those responsible would be put on trial.

We're tired of being guinnea pigs, especially since the outcome should already be so obvious to anyone with two functioning eyes at the fore of their head.

[Donald]

“What's coming down the road is the Arab's attack on what remains of Israel. Better an all-out war now to eliminate the terrorists and regain control of Judea and Samaria than to wait for the Jihadis to knock on Jerusalem's, Tel Aviv's, Netanya's, Hadera's and Haifa's doorsteps.”

The Arabs can’t attack Israel. Israel is very powerful and they are very weak. If the kind of violence going on in the Mid-East could be eliminated by force of arms, you’d have done it by now. The only way to eliminate terrorism, both in Israel and worldwide is by bringing peace to the area.



“Your brilliant idea has been tried before and failed miserably. “

Peace is not my brilliant idea. It’s an eternal idea hoped for by most of the people in the world and by most Israelis and most Palestinians.


“The little lab experiment called Oslo has killed and crippled 1000's of people on both sides. Under normal circumstances, it would be categorized as reckless homocide and those responsible would be put on trial.”

The attempt to make peace at Oslo was not an experiment and it did not bring about the Middle East conflict. What are you talking about? Since when do attempts at making peace bring war? Are you saying peace is war? This is an Orwellian idea stood on his head.


“We're tired of being guinea pigs, especially since the outcome should already be so obvious to anyone with two functioning eyes at the fore of their head. “

“You” are not guinea pigs. Anyone with one functioning eye can see that Israel is a very powerful country with immense clout and huge support all over the world. Israel is very capable of doing a peace deal that is in its interest, with the conditions mentioned in my previous posts. I think that in time the GA, with further development will be that accord.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Donald
[B]The Arabs can’t attack Israel. Israel is very powerful and they are very weak.
Tell that to the families of the almost 1000 dead Israelis and the thousands more that are crippled and wounded.

If the kind of violence going on in the Mid-East could be eliminated by force of arms, you’d have done it by now.
Wrong. It's the one thing that hasn't been tried. Making an incursion into Gaza or Jenin and then leaving after a week or two is not the solution.

The only way to eliminate terrorism, both in Israel and worldwide is by bringing peace to the area.
You have it backward. The only way to bring peace to the region is to eliminate the terrorism.

Peace is not my brilliant idea. It’s an eternal idea hoped for by most of the people in the world and by most Israelis and most Palestinians.
As an Israeli, I can certainly verify that. Please factuate your assumptions of Palestinians. Whether it's a majority or an overwhelming minority, their ultimate goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the map.

The attempt to make peace at Oslo was not an experiment
Yes it was. Show me a previous historic example where the wolrd's leading terrorist was invited to come, rule over someone, bring in his terrorist cronies from abroad, give them guns, ignore their own claims that this is all stage one in dismantling the country they're signing a "peace" agreement with, not enforce compliance at all with what they signed on, etc.........

Where else has this tried and tested formula worked?


and it did not bring about the Middle East conflict.
It brought the opposite of peace and more death and bloodshed than there was before. Or are you saying that we should sacrifice our lives, since peace is such a noble cause?

What are you talking about? Since when do attempts at making peace bring war?
Did you just land from Mars?

“You” are not guinea pigs. Anyone with one functioning eye can see that Israel is a very powerful country with immense clout and huge support all over the world.
Europe? Russia? China? Nope.

The UN? Nope.

The US? All the pressures that are being applied to us now are coming from the US. That's not support. That's a threat.


Israel is very capable of doing a peace deal that is in its interest, with the conditions mentioned in my previous posts. I think that in time the GA, with further development will be that accord.
What we call Oslo Deluxe. Guess what? All polls show the makority of Israelis and Pals are against the GA.

What will you do? Ram that down our throat's too? So much for support.

Here's a strategic assessment (http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief3-9.htm) of just how dangerous the GA is to Israel.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Donald
The attempt to make peace at Oslo was not an experiment and it did not bring about the Middle East conflict. What are you talking about? Since when do attempts at making peace bring war? Are you saying peace is war? This is an Orwellian idea stood on his head.


Lots of attempts to make peace end up facilitating war. That's the way it works with despots and religious fundamentalists. they see peace overtured as appeasement and concessions as weakness. Just like how giving up the Sudetenland allowed Germany to force Chech surrender, giving up crucial defensive territoriy to an entity wishing conquest will only make them more aggresive.

If you didn't know, Arafat et al were never interested in peace. they took all the concessions and the reconciliations that Israel made and used them to their tactical advantage in waging their war of extermination. At the beginning Arafat used Jordan to launch attacks, and tried to build an independent terrorist state there. he failed, and King Hussein threw him out. then he went to Lebanon, where he did exactly the same thing. When finally he seemes out of the sphere where he could do the most harm, he was allowed back into gaza.

As soon as he took control of gaza, with the largets police force per capita ANYWHERE, arms smuggling became rampant, schools and mosques and the rest became more extreme, the media was bent to his aims, and he loosened the strings on Hamas et al.

So you see, Oslo was an abject failure not because it was an attempt to make peace but because it was an attempt to make peace with a party that had no interest in peace and was not concerned with the well being of his people (otherwise he wouldn't have launched this war).

Israel, as has been noted here somewhere, made the year after Oslo the "year of peace", educating chilkdren everywhere to reconciliation with Israel's Palestinian neighbours. Arafat appointed an extremist as head of the mosque in jerusalem, and introduced some of the most racist textbooks he could have. He began to propagandize his people into virulence, magnifying and inventing Israeli attorcities (i.e. they are poisoning our wells) and invented provocations and incited to violence when he felt it desirable (the whole Jerusalem Tunnel thing, this recent "initfadeh").

Trying to make peace with such a party is a waste of time and counter productive and as nothing has changed in the Palestinian leadership (except for changes for the worse) trying again to ,make peace would be like negotiating with Hitler over Poland. Appeasement doesn't work with dictators, and for those bent on war "peace" has no meaning except tactical advantage

[MGB8]

Donald,

In response to a couple of your points, Israel would still control the Jordan Valley, and would still have some targetted operations into Pal-Arab areas in response to provocations (ie. Rocket attacks.)

As attacks diminished, if they diminished, Israeli military operations would diminish.

If they escalated attacks, Israel would respond in kind.

However, the day to day "humiliations" would be over.

[Donald]

Originally posted by MGB8
Donald,

In response to a couple of your points, Israel would still control the Jordan Valley, and would still have some targetted operations into Pal-Arab areas in response to provocations (ie. Rocket attacks.)

As attacks diminished, if they diminished, Israeli military operations would diminish.

If they escalated attacks, Israel would respond in kind.

However, the day to day "humiliations" would be over.

The kind of peace that we all want should very certainly preclude such attacks. Everyone would be against that kind of thing, including the Palestinians in a genuine peace. They should prevent it. If they didn't, then yes, Israel will always retain the right to self-defence. In fact, with a general peace accord in place, the international peace-keeping force should join in the effort to stamp out that kind of provocation.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Donald
In fact, with a general peace accord in place, the international peace-keeping force should join in the effort to stamp out that kind of provocation. [/B]

good luck with that. If you haven't noticed one of the reasons 'international law' is so ineffective is because the international community generally has no will to absorb costs to protect others. International peacekeepers were supposed to keep the peace between Israel and Egypt in 1967. They were threatened by Egypt and they left. that easy.

French or some other peacekeepers on the border of Israel and the west bank will not go after terrorists wherever they are, they MIGHT try to stop them as they cross (unlikely, though, look at UNIFIL on Israel's northern border) but they will not take steps necessary to ensure their entities are neutralized. And what do you think will happen when the Palestinian's turn on them and incorporate them inot their coneption of Jihad? Just like the UN in Iraq, blow up a couple of their buildings, target a few of their convoys, demonstrate a propensity and a willingess to commit the most degrading of depravity on prisoners and injured and dead (if you didn't know, Hamas et al routinely execute injured and civilians at the site of their attacks - international community seems to ignore all this because they have gotten used to it and it isn't "us" its "them" who is getting killed - all this will change at the first depravity targeting peacekeepers) and they will put their tail between their legs and run away.

Israel must depend on itself for its protection. That is one of the founding purposes of Zionism, if you didn't know. Jews will not be protected unless Jews protect themselves. History has shown this to be the only truth across time. Other nations may proterct us for a bit, but not forever. And with respect to Israel, this paradigm applies in spades.

And violence can change attitudes. Only the violence must be proper. I have said many times that for there to be any chance of real peace the Palestinians must come to the understanding that they lost, that Israel will not permit itself to be destryoed right now NOR in stages. They have to be convinced that their dirty terrorist war will have CONSEQUENCES for them that will last forever (i.e. they should not now get what they would have gotten under Barak and Oslo, they just shouldn't) otherwise they will extract concessions, launch a war, sue for peace, extract more concessions and on and on. Terrorism should be dealt with in exactly the same way the US deals with al-quaeda - go after them and capture or kill them wherever they are.

The Palestinians must be ACCOUNATBLE for their actions. They are not children. European attitudes and positions where Israel is constantly criticized for its self-defence while the Palestinian 'cause' is constantly defended and their means excused only make things worse, and show to Palestinians that they CAN get what they want by following this course, and so their REAL goal of politicide will not be abandoned, only shelved for when it is convenient to bring it back.

Just like attitudes of the German people could not be changed in 1940 or Japanese attitudes in 1941 could not be changed, the Palestinians' attitude cannot be changed unless they come to the understanding that they have lost and should MOVE ON. Recognize Israel - REALLY recognize it. Start paying more attention to improving quality of life through education and investment and civil society and stop with the collective obsessive compulive goal based on collective self-delusion that all of their problems are due to the Jews and Israel and that once Israel is destroyed they will all live happily ever after.

But of course if you were to really look at Arafta's record over the past 10 years, you would see that he NEVER had any interest in pursuing real nation building goals, and all of his policies were designed to improve his ability to wage his war with Israel. And there are lessens to learn from that, for those who care to see them. Do you?

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Donald
In fact, with a general peace accord in place, the international peace-keeping force should join in the effort to stamp out that kind of provocation.
Wake up call!

U.N. Willing to Send Team to Iraq if Safe (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20040127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq)

Good ol' reliable UN! The US is there, agressively trying (and somewhat failing) to fight off rebel terrorist insurgents and the UN is asking "Is it safe?"

And you think an international peacekeeping force could do a better job in the Mother of All Suicide Bomber Entities, the Palestinian Authority?

[InrepBerkExpl]

The second and third posts in this thread assert that the Geneva Accord is "rogue diplomacy ... prohibited by law in the United States by the Logan Act" and that the citizen negotiators, if Americans, "could go to jail under the Logan Act." The only source provided is Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, a website quite busy promoting Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ".

I thought further research on the Logan Act would be useful, especially since I had never heard of it before and would not want Pat Robertson as my lawyer.

The Logan Act turns out to an actual American statute from 1799, still on the books at Title 18, United States Code, section 953. It was passed during the John Adams Administration in response to Mr. Logan's private efforts at preventing war with France. The Logan Act has never been enforced against anyone in over 200 years.

That's easy to understand, since this extremely broad statute prohibits Americans who lack government authority from "any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States ..."

Thus the Logan Act would prohibit U.S. members of an Amnesty International chapter from petitioning China for the release of political prisoners once the American government had already raised the issue as a controversy with China. Amnesty International maintains complete independence from every government and always operates without official authority.

I doubt those Americans who worked for the release and freedom to immigrate of Jews in the former Soviet Union obtained official U.S. authority for their activities either. Another likely Logan Act violation.

Certainly former President Jimmy Carter has made a career out of violating the Logan Act. For example, his 2002 trip to Cuba involved direct discussions with Castro about increasing Cuban civil liberties and reducing tensions with the United States. It's safe to assume that the Bush Administration provided no authority for Carter to conduct any such diplomatic activity.

I conclude that the Logan Act, similar to the Alien and Sedition Acts, is an unconstitional remnant of the John Adams administration that has remained on the books as an unenforcable dead letter from a disgraceful era in American history where the Bill of Rights was ignored.

Any reference to the Logan Act in the context of the Geneva Accord seeks to mistakenly twist a political disagreement into a criminal act. Seeking peace through the Geneva Accord may be idealistic, but should never be called criminal.

Besides, I believe we should all take seriously the Israel Forum's own description of this topic area: "Brain-storm about peaceful solutions to the Israeli-Arab conflict." Peace is a desirable goal, not a crime.

References: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/953.html
http://wwwa.britannica.com/ebi/article?eu=340202&query=france&ct=ebi
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/031203b.asp
http://www.cbn.com/special/PassionOfChrist.asp
http://www.cartercenter.org/activities/showdoc.asp?countryID=83&submenu=activities
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-index-eng

[sharonbn]

thx a lot for this enlightenment, InrepBerkExpl!

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
The second and third posts in this thread assert that the Geneva Accord is "rogue diplomacy ... prohibited by law in the United States by the Logan Act" and that the citizen negotiators, if Americans, "could go to jail under the Logan Act." The only source provided is Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, a website quite busy promoting Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ".
A Google search easily turns up a ton of material on the subject.

Try searching these forums, too. Sample thread (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?threadid=4363) discussing the Logan Act.

I thought further research on the Logan Act would be useful, especially since I had never heard of it before and would not want Pat Robertson as my lawyer.
I am personally not a lawyer. I'm not sure of the perfections and imperfections of the law.

What I do know is that when a citizen of a country is involved with undermining his own country's policies to the extent where this citizen assists in endangering the country, this is some form of traitorship that should be made illegal.

I'm sure lawyers and legislators can iron out the exact wording and circumstances where such a law should be allowed to apply. The main point is that some law of this nature is necessary.

Any reference to the Logan Act in the context of the Geneva Accord seeks to mistakenly twist a political disagreement into a criminal act. Seeking peace through the Geneva Accord may be idealistic, but should never be called criminal.
When seeking peace jumps over to running the affairs of a country contrary to the country's democratically elected government, the line has been crossed.

Besides, I believe we should all take seriously the Israel Forum's own description of this topic area: "Brain-storm about peaceful solutions to the Israeli-Arab conflict." Peace is a desirable goal, not a crime.
It is the methods used to attain peace that are in dispute here - not the ultimate achievement of peace itself.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
What I do know is that when a citizen of a country is involved with undermining his own country's policies to the extent where this citizen assists in endangering the country, this is some form of traitorship that should be made illegal.

You just described most of the settlers and their activities.

Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful), a right-wing ultranationalist, religio-political revitalization movement, was formed in March 1974 by member s of the Youth Faction of the National Religious Party (Mafdal.)
Main goal and strategy of the movement was the formation of settlements in WB without gov't approval and in some cases in direct contradiction to its policy in an attempt to force recognition in retrospect. Between July 1974 and Dec. 1975 Gush Emunim members attempted to form seven settlements in the Nablus area but the gov't prevented these attempts.
On several occasions, Gush Emunim members claimed they are settling temporarily and after receiving an approval, formed permanent residence. Shilo settlement was formed under pretext of an archeological excavation.

Clashes and conflicts between Gush Emunim and the gov't continued in the first Likud gov't and ended only after Dash party resigned from the gov't in 1981.

translated from this Hebrew source: http://www.btselem.org/Download/Land_Grab_Heb.doc

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by sharonbn
You just described most of the settlers and their activities.

Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful), a right-wing ultranationalist, religio-political revitalization movement, was formed in March 1974 by member s of the Youth Faction of the National Religious Party (Mafdal.)
Main goal and strategy of the movement was the formation of settlements in WB without gov't approval and in some cases in direct contradiction to its policy in an attempt to force recognition in retrospect. Between July 1974 and Dec. 1975 Gush Emunim members attempted to form seven settlements in the Nablus area but the gov't prevented these attempts.
On several occasions, Gush Emunim members claimed they are settling temporarily and after receiving an approval, formed permanent residence. Shilo settlement was formed under pretext of an archeological excavation.

Clashes and conflicts between Gush Emunim and the gov't continued in the first Likud gov't and ended only after Dash party resigned from the gov't in 1981.

translated from this Hebrew source: http://www.btselem.org/Download/Land_Grab_Heb.doc
I won't bother checking the reliability of Btselem's side of the story.

As I said, I'm now lawyer. I don't believe Gush Emunim attempted to negotiate a treaty with a foreign government on behalf of or in place of the Israeli government.

I am not against protests by people on the right or the left. But when diplomacy is used in an attempt to supercede or circumvent a government, that's going way past what should be tollerable by the law of any well managed country.

[MGB8]

The Logan act is probably unconstitutional due to vagueness and overbreadth.

That is all that a lawyer should say about it in analyzing it legally. Whether or not it has been enforced doesn't make one bit of difference in its constitutionality.

Unfortunately, what you got above was a lot of political-emotional shpiel, and the "conclusion" of a non-justice which means exactly....didly.

That said, if a case did go up to the Supreme Court, or even an appeals court, my bet is that the statute is too broad to pass constitutional muster.

That does not mean that the acts prohibited by the logan act are not illegal under another statute, as they could arguable constitute treason.

[InrepBerkExpl]

I very much appreciate the support and comments from sharonbn.

In my opinion, Israel's right wing extremist settlers and allies have been far more effective at undermining their own government's policies than anyone in the peace camp.

MGB8 is clearly correct in the post's first sentence:


The Logan act is probably unconstitutional due to vagueness and overbreadth.

This should put an end to further reliance upon the U.S. Logan Act as a vehicle for attempting to criminalize the Israelis who helped to create the Geneva Accord.

However, MGB8 then suggests other unspecified American criminal statutes may apply, or perhaps treason. (Treason is notoriously difficult to prove under Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, and trying to apply those stringent tests to Israeli citizens is an unreasonable exercise.)

In response, I suggest there is no further point in grasping at American legal straws. If opponents of the Geneva Accord believe Israeli law was violated, they should make that direct assertion with the appropriate citations.

Otherwise, discussion of the Geneva Accord on its merits can continue without one side trying to accuse peace advocates of criminal conduct.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
I very much appreciate the support and comments from sharonbn.

In my opinion, Israel's right wing extremist settlers and allies have been far more effective at undermining their own government's policies than anyone in the peace camp.

MGB8 is clearly correct in the post's first sentence:



This should put an end to further reliance upon the U.S. Logan Act as a vehicle for attempting to criminalize the Israelis who helped to create the Geneva Accord.

However, MGB8 then suggests other unspecified American criminal statutes may apply, or perhaps treason. (Treason is notoriously difficult to prove under Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, and trying to apply those stringent tests to Israeli citizens is an unreasonable exercise.)

In response, I suggest there is no further point in grasping at American legal straws. If opponents of the Geneva Accord believe Israeli law was violated, they should make that direct assertion with the appropriate citations.

Otherwise, discussion of the Geneva Accord on its merits can continue without one side trying to accuse peace advocates of criminal conduct.

I think this discussion somewhat misses the point. Discussions of the Logan Act are not concerned with its applicability or relevance per se, rather it is to make the normative point that behaviour that undermines one's government in its relations with others with which the nation is at war OUGHT to be prohibited, and as a normative claim this carries a certain degree of validity, in my opinion.

it is not whether that action actually IS illegal (as US law obviously means nothing with respect to domestic Israeli concernes) rather whether it SHOULD be illeagl. And in my opinion, it probably should. Having some self-appointed 'delegation' travel to Japan in WWII to sign a document that purports to cede Hawaii to the Japanese should clearly be prohibited, and with respect to the Palestinians, who are in the process of their 50+ year war to destroy Israel, this would seem even more applicable, especially when 'negotiations' are with members of the Palestinian Authority under Yassir Arafat and its representatives.

And with respect to treason, it may be difficult for you to understand that claim as your perspective is undoubtedly different, but from the perspective of Israel having recognized that Arafat not only has 'regressed' back to his old terrorist self, but in fact never changed in the first place, and never gave up on his aim of destroying Israel through his war of stages, given that Israel has recognized this providing additional public relations credibility to the enemy as well as giving them justification for further entrenching themselves in their intractble positions does indeed border on the treasonous, regardless of whether the actors believe they are acting in the best interest of the state or not.

If you will recall Johnathan Pollard also believed he was acting in the best interests of the United States by sharing information with a close ally. But independent action without sanction of the state is unacceptable in matters such as this.

One should not even travel abroad to criticize one's country (something Americans see fairly clearly) let alone make deals with the enemies of the state that would further endanger the security of the nation (as would giving the PLO control over parts of Jerusalem - do you really think they would not do more of the same and allow terror across the street?)

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
In my opinion, Israel's right wing extremist settlers and allies have been far more effective at undermining their own government's policies than anyone in the peace camp.
Tell us how.

This should put an end to further reliance upon the U.S. Logan Act as a vehicle for attempting to criminalize the Israelis who helped to create the Geneva Accord.
The complaint in Israel is that there is nothing at all similar on the law books.

If opponents of the Geneva Accord believe Israeli law was violated, they should make that direct assertion with the appropriate citations.
I haven't seen anyone explicitly state that Beilin & Co. have violated a specific law. The problem is that such laws are lacking.

Otherwise, discussion of the Geneva Accord on its merits can continue without one side trying to accuse peace advocates of criminal conduct.
Sounds like you're trying to shut us up.

One does not have to violate a law to behave morally repugnant to one's country.

[Mediocrates]

Although it's entirely possible that "Berkeleyism" is simply situational. Would the Berkeleys of the world mind if Likud members not in the cabinet simply negotiated on their own a treaty like document of understanding with radical elements in Kashmir to 'manage' Pakistani terrorism there? Or would we hear 'rogue state' and extralegal this and that?

What has te Geneva accord demonstrated? That elements in the PA are at least plausibly able to negotiate like rational people in the way that the rest of the civilized world does. If this is the case then why do we hear that that very same outcome is on its face absolutely impossible for the PA power eg. Arafat? So if the GA is possible then all it has demonstrated to me is that Arafat or Hamas for that matter are at least plausibly able to sit down and haggle. If not then the GA really is a farce, a kind of board game or child's toy where you push the buttons and nothing real happens. The Israelis already have a Parliamentary tool, a procedural doctrine to vett the GA once the PA decides its real. We need not look to Israelis and wonder about that. That is the nature of democracies. Perhaps the Israelis would accept it, perhaps not. Perhaps it would, as we say in the US "languish in committee". Who knows? It's not really important either way because unlike the fascist dictatorship of Fatah-Hamas-istan the Israelis really do get a say. So like it or lump it. At the very least they get to throw out the government that ennacts something they can't live with.

So if Arafat is waiting for Israel to become a totalitarian state like his before he feels comfortable negotiating then I suggest we need not bother any further with him.

The fact is, and I've said this over and over; Israel has shown them nearly every aspect of it's political spectrum from left to right and all of them get the same response. Clearly what Arafat wants is NO political face at all. The only thing he understands is dictatorship. Roughly translated into Israeli terms, it means the employment of force w/o asking permission first. This is why Sharon has been able to disrupt the political advances of Arafat and his 'movement'. It's about the use of unapologetic force without worrying about public opinion surveys.

So here is what Arafat can do. We already know bargaining is possible. Now he needs to sit down and do that, hammer out whatever he can get and jam that down their throats like it or not.

[InrepBerkExpl]

Canajew,

Unfortunately, we do approach this from very different perspectives. Americans opposed to the Vietnam War used a wide variety of tactics to try and stop the escalation, destruction and killing. I marched against the war, helped elect an anti-war Congressman, plus anti-war members of the Berkeley City Council, supported anti-war candidates for President, and would have resisted the military draft by either refusing induction or reclaiming my Canadian citizenship (I was born in Ottawa). My views are those of the American generation who ultimately got the United States out of Vietnam.

And Americans take our First Amendment rights very seriously. We will criticize the U.S. government, especially the current Bush Administration, from any forum, in or out of the country. Thus, there is a continuing U.S. anti-war movement which became very large and visible in opposing Bush's unnecessary war of choice against Iraq.

I try my best to be consistent. I support both Israel and a negotiated peace with the Palestinians. This is a rare subject where my views are close to those of the Bush Administration, especially when Secretary of State Powell is allowed to shape American policy. I saw nothing wrong with the Road Map, other than lack of necessary support from the PA and Israel.

Thus, the Geneva Accord, whatever its flaws, demonstrates that negotiations are possible and can lead to peace, if the two sides are mutually willing to make sacrifices, compromises, and concessions. The current inabililty of Israeli and Palestinian leaders to resume negotiations more than justifies the Geneva Accord. I also believe that the United States will ultimately have to place troops on the ground in order to satisfy Israel's legitimate security concerns once peace agreements are reached.

The Geneva Accord is neither treason nor espionage, and I wish there were more posts in this thread about how to re-start negotiations without preconditions, rather than on the topic of why Israeli doves ought to be treated as criminals. Trials of Vietnam War opponents in the United States only served to increase anti-war sentiment, and the same is likely to be true in Israel.

[MGB8]

This isn't about free speech.

Its about whether or not its legal (or appropriate) for non-elected individuals to go and negotiate with a party currently at war with the population of their state, claiming to represent that state in some fashion.

Its not quite Hanoi-Jane, but its not so far away, either.

Geneva proved nothing more than that there are words which some non-representative people will agree to. As Oslo proved (again), words don't mean anything. In Oslo the PA not only supposedly recognized Israel's right to exist (despite the fact that the schoolbooks, symbols, and media still don't), but renounced ALL VIOLENCE aimed towards gaining a Pal Arab state. Not renouncing terrorism, mind you - but ALL VIOLENCE - meaning the semantic arguments about what is and isn't terrorism shouldn't be relevant to them.


Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
Canajew,

Unfortunately, we do approach this from very different perspectives. Americans opposed to the Vietnam War used a wide variety of tactics to try and stop the escalation, destruction and killing. I marched against the war, helped elect an anti-war Congressman, plus anti-war members of the Berkeley City Council, supported anti-war candidates for President, and would have resisted the military draft by either refusing induction or reclaiming my Canadian citizenship (I was born in Ottawa). My views are those of the American generation who ultimately got the United States out of Vietnam.

And Americans take our First Amendment rights very seriously. We will criticize the U.S. government, especially the current Bush Administration, from any forum, in or out of the country. Thus, there is a continuing U.S. anti-war movement which became very large and visible in opposing Bush's unnecessary war of choice against Iraq.

I try my best to be consistent. I support both Israel and a negotiated peace with the Palestinians. This is a rare subject where my views are close to those of the Bush Administration, especially when Secretary of State Powell is allowed to shape American policy. I saw nothing wrong with the Road Map, other than lack of necessary support from the PA and Israel.

Thus, the Geneva Accord, whatever its flaws, demonstrates that negotiations are possible and can lead to peace, if the two sides are mutually willing to make sacrifices, compromises, and concessions. The current inabililty of Israeli and Palestinian leaders to resume negotiations more than justifies the Geneva Accord. I also believe that the United States will ultimately have to place troops on the ground in order to satisfy Israel's legitimate security concerns once peace agreements are reached.

The Geneva Accord is neither treason nor espionage, and I wish there were more posts in this thread about how to re-start negotiations without preconditions, rather than on the topic of why Israeli doves ought to be treated as criminals. Trials of Vietnam War opponents in the United States only served to increase anti-war sentiment, and the same is likely to be true in Israel.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
Canajew,

Unfortunately, we do approach this from very different perspectives. Americans opposed to the Vietnam War used a wide variety of tactics to try and stop the escalation, destruction and killing. I marched against the war, helped elect an anti-war Congressman, plus anti-war members of the Berkeley City Council, supported anti-war candidates for President, and would have resisted the military draft by either refusing induction or reclaiming my Canadian citizenship (I was born in Ottawa). My views are those of the American generation who ultimately got the United States out of Vietnam.


but of course you are undoubtedly aware that part of the reason you lost in Vietnam was precisely because of those types of actions and the play that America's enemies gained from them. Vietnam is quite a different situation from the Palestinians, as the Vietnamese were not interested in "wiping (the United States) off the map". Where the enemy has a central aim of the destruction of your state, less deference can be paid to these types of independent actions.



And Americans take our First Amendment rights very seriously.
We will criticize the U.S. government, especially the current Bush Administration, from any forum, in or out of the country.


It was my understandign that Americans have had one of the strongest informal policies about criticizing the American government abroad. While I believe that America's dominance allows it do realx this somewhat, with countries like Israel who are fighting for their political and real survival, things are different, I think.



Thus, there is a continuing U.S. anti-war movement which became very large and visible in opposing Bush's unnecessary war of choice against Iraq.


but for all the wrong reasons. The antiwar movement was a collection of Stalinists, communists, islamists and various left wing (good hearted yet ignorant) young people looking for a social outlet. Rarely were Bush's policies opposed like you did the other day, referring to optimal policy rather than railing against "american imperialism" and that sort of tripe.



I try my best to be consistent. I support both Israel and a negotiated peace with the Palestinians.


me too. In theory. In real life things are different. I support imortality for all the people too, but in real life that doesn't mean much. Same thing with a 'negotiated solution' with the Palestinians. how many times do they need to blow up an agreement in Israel's face before you will accept the fact that they are really interested in Israel's destruction, not the creation of their own state. They could have had a state back in 2000, remember, but instead chose to incite their people and launch this war. At the time more than 95% of Palestinians were not 'living under occupation'.



This is a rare subject where my views are close to those of the Bush Administration, especially when Secretary of State Powell is allowed to shape American policy.


Me too. From a social and religious policy perspective I think hes' nuts, and form an economic policy perspective I have serious issues with his agenda and plan, but on the middle east I am a big fan. He needs to be tougher though. How many times are we to allow the Palestinians to violated every single commitment they have ever undertaken before we start calling things as they are?



I saw nothing wrong with the Road Map, other than lack of necessary support from the PA and Israel.


the PAlestinians were never prepared to stop terrorism. Given this, Israel was not prepared to do anything either. Your attempt to apportiuon balme equally is not warranted.



Thus, the Geneva Accord, whatever its flaws, demonstrates that negotiations are possible and can lead to peace, if the two sides are mutually willing to make sacrifices, compromises, and concessions.


we already knew that. Problem is, of course, the Palestinians have not and are not prepared to make any concessions. they will make them in WORDS, but they will never actually concede anything. What did they EVER do under Oslo? They violated every single tenent of that agreement in both letter and spirit right from the beginning. Arafat smuggled in terrorists on the banned list the FIRST TIME he came into Gaza, smuggling them in the back of his car. he used his helicoptors to import illegal arms, turned the education system into a brainwashing system to bring about this cult of death shahhed-worshiping culture the Palestinians have embraced today, and built stronger military forces than he was allowed to do. he never fought against terrorism, and in fact terrorism increased everywhere as soon as he took control over areas.

Oslo was a negotiated agreement. barak's proposals are not too far from Geneva. Arafat not only rejected them but launched a war in response. And for the decade of Oslo when the Israelis tought their children peace and understanding and tolerance and all the rest of the democratic good stuff we teach here in Canada, the Palestinians tought Jihad, and that Jews are descendants of apes and pigs, and that Israel is Palestine and all of it is 'occupied'.

Under these conditions, negotiated agreements ARE impossible, and that is something infinite wishful thinking will not be able to overcome.



The current inabililty of Israeli and Palestinian leaders to resume negotiations more than justifies the Geneva Accord.


you don't undertsand. Negotiation is impossible. the Plaestinians will use negotiations for PR and to extract concessions but will not return anything. As such, negotiating with Yassir Rabbo and comming to this agreement is just another PR victory for the Palestinians, giving them more legitimacy where they should have none.

And I want peace too. Juts I realize that the only way to get it is to convince the Palestinians that they have lost and they cannot win. until this is allowed to happen they will continue to be under the sway of the fanatics and Arafat who preach jihad until victory or death. Accords like this only make the achievement of ACTUAL peace less likely.



I also believe that the United States will ultimately have to place troops on the ground in order to satisfy Israel's legitimate security concerns once peace agreements are reached.


that will not work. the will quickly become targets of the Palestinians. What then? they will not really be able to fight back, and they will also not really be able to effectively root out terrorism. Fighting terror cannot be done just on the border. if the PAlestinians are not prepared to do it themselves then Israel must root out terrorist infrastructure in Palestinian cities. Otherwise it will continue forever, and unless the Americans are prepared to act as civilly as the Isarelis (i.e. sending in troops rather than carpet bombing - Israel is among the most restrained democratic armies in the world- contrary to propaganda), which they are not as this would entail high American casualties, they will not be effective. if you didn't notice the APlestinians through their media have tought their children that the Israelis are just an extension of American imperialism and the Americans are evil too. Check out some of the PAlestinian brainwashing monitor sites. palestinian media watch and operation sick (which looks at the use of child combatants in armed conflicts around the world) should be a good intro.



The Geneva Accord is neither treason nor espionage, and I wish there were more posts in this thread about how to re-start negotiations without preconditions, rather than on the topic of why Israeli doves ought to be treated as criminals.


again, the accord itself is more or less fine, pretty close to any eventual conclusion. But the PROCESS is illigitimate and bordering on treasonous as it is very detrimental to the interests of state. And people here do not want to restart negotiations without preconditions. that has been tried, and the APlestinians are not to be trusted again until they start behaving like normal people. Until then, negotiations will at best be a waste of time and more likely very detrimental to Israel's interests.



Trials of Vietnam War opponents in the United States only served to increase anti-war sentiment, and the same is likely to be true in Israel. [/B]

doubt it. US civilians were not being murdered en masse. Since Oslo (and before it casualties from terror were significant but low), Israel has experienced an equivalent of several world trade centre attacks. You go out to ground zero and start protesting about how we should negotiate with al-quaeda and understand their grievances and see how far you get.

[InrepBerkExpl]

In my posts under various threads, I have clearly identified myself with the mainstream Israeli peace movement, the Jewish-American pro-peace organizations, and even with the Bush Administration's Road Map for Peace. What we have in common is the belief that negotiations between Israel and the PA must be conducted, with the inevitable result being a two-state solution.

I will add the personal opinion that extremists on both sides, right wing Israeli settlers and Jewish/Moslem fanatics, are united in opposition to this desired outcome. However, negotiations were favored by the Israeli leaders who are my heroes, the late Abba Eban, Shimon Peres, and Prime Minister Rabin (murdered by a Jewish fanatic). Therefore the question is whether the Israeli-Palestinian extremist/fanatic alliance maintains its supremacy and blocks the resumption of negotiations.

At least I am making a positive proposal: go back to negotiations. Far as I can recall, there is a still a Palestinian Prime Minister to negotiate with. If either side insists upon preconditions to negotiations, these must be removed, and that is a proper opening role for American diplomacy by Secretary of State Powell.

All of you who take issue with my posts suggest no constructive alternative to negotiations. In fact you suggest nothing positive at all, simply asserting that negotiations are impossible. Then you eagerly propose to criminalize those Israeli doves who disagree and have tried to demonstrate the potential benefits/results from negotiations by offering the Geneva Accord.

It seems Prime Minister Sharon, no favorite of mine, at least has some ideas for unilateral Israeli withdrawal from parts of Gaza. This approach may not help much, but Sharon appears to reject the status quo in Gaza as against Israel's own best interests.

I remember attending an Abba Eban speech in California during the 1980s in which he declared that Israel must abandon all aspirations to permanently rule over the Palestinian people. I still agree with him. Do you?

I would like to read some affirmative suggestions for progress from those who have disagreed with my posts.

[Mediocrates]

As opposed to what?

There is a limited set of choices:

Do nothing
Today, tomorrow; more of the same
Tit for tat
Escalate
Pull out
Haggle over fractions


All of these are being done, have been done or plan to be done. Problem is the Arafat plan is to fight to the last Palestinian.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
In my posts under various threads, I have clearly identified myself with the mainstream Israeli peace movement, the Jewish-American pro-peace organizations, and even with the Bush Administration's Road Map for Peace. What we have in common is the belief that negotiations between Israel and the PA must be conducted, with the inevitable result being a two-state solution.

I will add the personal opinion that extremists on both sides, right wing Israeli settlers and Jewish/Moslem fanatics, are united in opposition to this desired outcome. However, negotiations were favored by the Israeli leaders who are my heroes, the late Abba Eban, Shimon Peres, and Prime Minister Rabin (murdered by a Jewish fanatic). Therefore the question is whether the Israeli-Palestinian extremist/fanatic alliance maintains its supremacy and blocks the resumption of negotiations.

At least I am making a positive proposal: go back to negotiations. Far as I can recall, there is a still a Palestinian Prime Minister to negotiate with. If either side insists upon preconditions to negotiations, these must be removed, and that is a proper opening role for American diplomacy by Secretary of State Powell.

All of you who take issue with my posts suggest no constructive alternative to negotiations. In fact you suggest nothing positive at all, simply asserting that negotiations are impossible. Then you eagerly propose to criminalize those Israeli doves who disagree and have tried to demonstrate the potential benefits/results from negotiations by offering the Geneva Accord.
...


I will make some positive suggestions: The Palestinians should stop mass murdering Israeli women, children, and elderly. The Arab/Muslim world should recognize Israel's right to exist.

Once these steps are taken, I will join with you in asking both sides to sit down and negotiate a reasonable compromise leading to a Palestinian state living side-by side with Israel in peace.

In fact, I will go even further. Not only would I like to see a peaceful resolution of the conflict, I'd like to see Israel pitch in and help raise the standard of living (including healthcare and education) for the entire region.

As you can see, anyone can make "positive proposals." The trick is to make positive proposals that are workable given reality.

Unfortunately, your assessment is guided by the mistaken belief (wishful thinking, really) that the conflict is the result of extremists/fanatics on both sides.

Yes, there are "extremists" in most societies. But in democratic countries governed by Rule of Law, extremists operate on the fringes of society and when they try to put words into action they are arrested. In totalitarian societies, in contrast, the extremists are in charge and impose their will on everyone else.

So you make "positive proposals" that assume there is a Jewish fanatic problem equal and opposite to the Muslim fanatic problem. You think that if you assign an equal measure of guilt to Israel that this will help create the conditions for negotiations.

Unfortunately, the Arab ME has been trying to destroy Israel since Day One. While Islamists sneak past Israeli soldiers to kill civilians--what more evidence do you need that their goal is genocide?--the occasional Jewish terrorists are more often than not arrested and punished before they act.

Wanting peace is good, but it isn't enough. History is filled with wars and bloodshed. Surely you are not the first to discover that for the average citizen peace is far preferable to death and destruction. Perhaps there are reasons why war persists. I suggest that non-democratic societies are ruled by extremists who owe their power not to the ability to garner the most votes, but to the willingness to liquidate challengers and intimidate the populace.

This is the real problem. Under the PA and in several Arab countries people are taught to hate Jews and Israel from early childhood. They are taught that what makes a person good is willingness to sacrifice their life to kills Jews. They are taught that justice requires the destruction of Israel. The blood libel and Protocols are primetime stuff in their media. They host neoNazi and KKK essays on their websites. When the PM of Malaysia gave a speech saying Jews rule the world, he received only praise from Muslim leaders.

I appreciate your call for positive proposals. Perhaps you could reciprocate by being more realistic. By "realistic" I don't mean that peace is impossible. But the first step is for the Arabs to renounce the use of evil suicide mass murder attacks against civilians and recognize Israel's right to exist. If you think about, without these simple concessions to decency there is nothing to negotiate.

Just because Arafat has a puppet Prime Minister that does not mean that he is empowered to make genuine compromises. Like you, Neville Chamberlain thought the desire for peace and willingness of one side to negotiate was enough. Tens of millions died needlessly because those who truly wanted peace were willing to assign their own side half of the blame as a gesture of good will.

BTW, Israel does not rule the Palestinian people. I don't know anyone who wants to see Israel rule the Palestinians. But I also don't want to see Israel withdraw unilaterally and every Arab/Muslim terrorist congregate in the West Bank. I don't want to see Iran providing Hamas with more effective weapons of mass murder.

You see, there is a reasonable middle ground between ideological extremism and naive peace movements.

[Jorge]

Excerpts from Canajew post #54:

…rather it is to make the normative point that behaviour that undermines one's government in its relations with others with which the nation is at war OUGHT to be prohibited, and as a normative claim this carries a certain degree of validity, in my opinion. …. it is not whether that action actually IS illegal rather whether it SHOULD be illeagl. And in my opinion, it probably should.

…. And with respect to treason… providing additional public relations credibility to the enemy as well as giving them justification for further entrenching themselves in their intractble positions does indeed border on the treasonous, regardless of whether the actors believe they are acting in the best interest of the state or not.

Canajew, I’m not sure whether you recognize the full implications of your words, however, since similar statements are being voiced more and more frequently here in Israel, I think I should comment on them.

To propose that “behavior that undermines one’s government” ought to be prohibited is, to say the least, an attempt to curtail democracy. (This, even with the proviso in “a country at war”, cannot be taken lightly; it is a matter of debate whether Israel is at all in a state of war, as many people qualify it as police action conducted by the Army against terrorist gangs. The fact that some say that we are at war does not make it one.)

What does “undermining one’s government” imply? I have frequently stated in this Forum, that the policies of the said government are clumsy, shortsighted and bordering in stupidity. By saying this, am I not undermining my government? Of course I am! I feel I ought to do so because in my opinion its policies are bringing our country to the brink of disaster and the sooner it is replaced by a less inept one, the better.

Alas! my contribution is ,sadly, quite small, since the Forum audience, even if international, is rather restricted, but the point is whether or not my behavior “ought to be prohibited”. What about the opinions and actions of others who can reach wider audiences? I mean political leaders, members of parliament, university professors? Should they also be silenced because they are “undermining” the elected government?

“…. And with respect to treason… providing additional public relations credibility to the enemy…” Far too many times non-combatant Palestinian have been killed “accidentally” by our soldiers. Many people in the opposition have voiced their disgust and demanded inquiries? Isn’t this clearly “providing additional public relations credibility to the enemy”? Of course it is! But…is it treason?

Soon the question of the Separation Fence will be heard at the Court in The Hague. Many here have voiced their opinion about the insane design of the Fence. Had it been delineated along the Green Line, instead of the mad-hatter’s design used, a lot of conflict and needless suffering of the population could have been avoided. Isn’t this another case of “ providing public relations credibility to the enemy”? Is it treason?

In a democracy such as ours the Opposition is set on bringing down the government by whatever legal means it chooses? What is implicit in the paragraphs quoted above is that some of the up to now legal means should be declared illegal. When and if this happens the present government will be free to do as it pleases and conduct The War speedily to Total Victory. Now…where did I hear this last sentence before?

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Jorge
Canajew, I’m not sure whether you recognize the full implications of your words, however, since similar statements are being voiced more and more frequently here in Israel, I think I should comment on them.


I am aware of the full implications of my words, but I did not deliniate at all. I was just making a conceptual point. Where the proper boundaries are, and the scope for abuse if they are set improperly, are additional issues that would need to be addressed when the policy is drafted.

I used the example of ceding Hawaii to the Japanese because that seemed like the most clear-cut example of the kinds of actions that are unacceptable in a nation at war, just to show that in principle such a law is necessary. Where the cut-off is between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour is a different issue.



To propose that “behavior that undermines one’s government” ought to be prohibited is, to say the least, an attempt to curtail democracy. (This, even with the proviso in “a country at war”, cannot be taken lightly; it is a matter of debate whether Israel is at all in a state of war, as many people qualify it as police action conducted by the Army against terrorist gangs. The fact that some say that we are at war does not make it one.)


ut us not a 'police action.' Israel is in the process of occupying a hostile foreign territory and a hostile foreign population in order to prevent it from pursuing its desired and expressed aim of destroying the state of Israel. That is a war. Whether the foreigners are nominally independent or not is irrelevant.



What does “undermining one’s government” imply? I have frequently stated in this Forum, that the policies of the said government are clumsy, shortsighted and bordering in stupidity. By saying this, am I not undermining my government? Of course I am! I feel I ought to do so because in my opinion its policies are bringing our country to the brink of disaster and the sooner it is replaced by a less inept one, the better.


I kind of disagree (I think a different government might be able to do better but I don't see anyone who might be able to create such a government), but that is beside the point. I understand your concern with regards to acceptable vs unacceptable behaviour, and in a democracy certainly basic democratic interactions must be maintained. But shouting at the top of your lungs o a soap-box in dowtown Jerusalem about the immorality and incompetence of the government is quite adifferent thing then travelling to Syria and agreeing to cede the Golan to Asad, even though you have no authority and the country is at war with Israel. This is more or less what Beilin did with the Palestinian authority. The One Voice initiative and all the other peace groups, while in my opinion blinded by idealism, engage in dialogue with others and criticize inequities when they see them. that's fine. But providing intelligence to the enemy, however, while 'free speach' is clearly not fine, and it is about drawing the proper boundaries between what is acceptable and what is not.



Alas! my contribution is ,sadly, quite small, since the Forum audience, even if international, is rather restricted, but the point is whether or not my behavior “ought to be prohibited”. What about the opinions and actions of others who can reach wider audiences? I mean political leaders, members of parliament, university professors? Should they also be silenced because they are “undermining” the elected government?


again, you choose to interpret 'undermine' in its broadest sense, and yes this will lead to totalitarianism. But no democracy is a perfect democracy, nor should it be (i.e. we cannot vote to kill all the Quebecois). In democracy you have to be careful, and should err on the side of caution, allowing rather than prohibiting borderline speach and conduct.



“…. And with respect to treason… providing additional public relations credibility to the enemy…” Far too many times non-combatant Palestinian have been killed “accidentally” by our soldiers. Many people in the opposition have voiced their disgust and demanded inquiries? Isn’t this clearly “providing additional public relations credibility to the enemy”? Of course it is! But…is it treason?


no. PArt of the proper course of the interactions within a civil society. But publishing or broadcasting where those soldiers are going to be deployed, on the other hand, would not be acceptable, and you should see this too. Again, you point ot easy cases on one side, so I will point to easy cases on the other. The line is obviously to go somewhere in the middle.



Soon the question of the Separation Fence will be heard at the Court in The Hague. Many here have voiced their opinion about the insane design of the Fence. Had it been delineated along the Green Line, instead of the mad-hatter’s design used, a lot of conflict and needless suffering of the population could have been avoided. Isn’t this another case of “ providing public relations credibility to the enemy”? Is it treason?


no.



In a democracy such as ours the Opposition is set on bringing down the government by whatever legal means it chooses? What is implicit in the paragraphs quoted above is that some of the up to now legal means should be declared illegal. When and if this happens the present government will be free to do as it pleases and conduct The War speedily to Total Victory. Now…where did I hear this last sentence before? [/B]

again, everything is on a spectrum. The mlst aggregious conduct should be prohibited. Were these "accords' not 'accords' but just another initiative then things would be better, like with other peace initiatives, but to attempt to impart legitimacy on the process through the usurpation of the state's responsibility, not to mention the fact that it was pursued primarily abroad and is domestically funded by foreingers brings up very serious issues with respect to whether such behaviour is acceptable. In most democracies it is considered illegitimate and illegal to fund election campaigns with foreign contributions, as this undermines the democratic values of a state. What exactly would be the difference between that and this sort of stunt, which was designed to give Beilin a political platform that he could exploit to try to put himself in a position where he can surrender to the Palestinians.

[Mediocrates]

Perhaps one should simply use the standard of impeachment. If a person or persons from the Legislative branch enters into secret negotiations withanyone outside of the scope or knowledge of the executive branch, is that an impeachable offense? Certainly one can say that the intent of doing so is specifically to affect some change in the government else these individuals could proceed as private citizens furthering a personal goal, one that is personally vital but nonbinding on the government. Clearly though was not the intent. And the only way to affect any change in the government, an just as certainly the Israelis intent was not to affect any change on the PA solely, was as a quasi legitimate representative of the government.

Is it impeachable?

In theory this is what envoys do but an envoy typically proceeds under the orders of the executive branch or, through the legislative branch subject to executive branch pre approval. In the American system the only place I believe where Congress can send out it's own envoys is in the case of Congressional inquries, audits, CBO (budget office) reviews and the like; all actions that are dependent on the taxing and legislative powers of Congress itself. Again, unofficial bodies appear to carry no weight because whatever the intent, the affect is nullified.

Is it impeachable?

It would then appear that GA type activities sanctioned neither by the executive branch nor by Congress are not actually illegal. At least not in the sense that these activities were carried out with the intent to commit sedition or treason or espionage. It is I suppose possible to make a case that the GA group knowingly or unknowingly coopted the plans of the PA delegation, which having been sent from the PA executive committee itself, did legally speak with the authority of that body. Therefore while the GA may not actually accomplish anything substantial or speak with any official voice, their actions on their own don't appear to be illegal.

Is it impeachable?

Then again, can automatically discount the theory that Sharon knew about this and created this backchannel with that expressed purpose in mind?

[InrepBerkExpl]

ibrodsy,

I support the positive aspects contained your last post, but have difficulty understanding what you really mean.

It appears you consider the Palestinian Authority to be a terrorist organization. And your post's bottom line is:


No "peace process" with terrorists. The only solution is military victory.

Thus, I conclude you reject any negotiations with the PA, preferring military escalation leading to an undefined Israeli "victory" over the Palestinians.

I may be in error with this interpretation. Perhaps you were describing preconditions to negotiations. Am I correct that what you advocate is war, and then a generous peace once the Palestinians surrender?

[Mediocrates]

I would suggest that in lieu of that you articulate crisply what your own success criteria look like. Seriously, what is the actual step by step plan you suggest, what are the criteria, how do you know if you are successful and how do you know you are not. How long do you spend at it?

[Jorge]

From ibrodsky post #62:

I will make some positive suggestions: The Palestinians should stop mass murdering Israeli women, children, and elderly. The Arab/Muslim world should recognize Israel's right to exist.

But these are not positive suggestions at all! First you make an unwarranted generalization: that the Palestinians (meaning all or the majority of them) are mass murdering Israelis. Second you make a sweeping generalization about an "Arab/Muslim world"; why not say Arab countries? (Of these, Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel and Saudia, Kuwait and Oman are indicated they are willing)

Not all the Palestinians, but terrorist groups among them are intent on mass murdering Israelis and Jews in general. They won't stop, they are not willing to stop and we, the Israelis, have not ben able to stop them. This is what in your Post you call reality. A positive suggestion would be one that, taking that reality as a basis, suggests, proposes, a way to move forward.
I couldn't find it in your Post, so, may I ask you, do you have any
suggestion to move forward or should be sit patiently waiting for those terrorists to change their minds?

[InrepBerkExpl]

Mediocrates,

I believe my prior post asks ibrodsy reasonable questions.

So, not in lieu of receiving a reply from him, let me offer you a response.

Previously, I expressed support for the Road Map offered by the Quartet of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. Here it is:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/20062.htm

Although supported by both Israel and the PA, the Road Map failed to be implemented on the first attempt. Secretary of State Powell, with help I believe from Egypt and Jordan, has continued to try and revive the Road Map process. Obviously Iraq has diverted attention in other directions, which is unfortunate.

Secretary of State Powell could list the reasons why negotiations under the Road Map have not resumed. I lack that knowledge. However, I believe these impediments, whatever they are, need to be removed. In summary I adopt the position of the United States that the parties need to get back to the Road Map:

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rt/c2829.htm

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
Thus, I conclude you reject any negotiations with the PA, preferring military escalation leading to an undefined Israeli "victory" over the Palestinians.
An excellent pragmatic solution.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
Previously, I expressed support for the Road Map offered by the Quartet of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. Here it is:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/20062.htm

Although supported by both Israel and the PA, the Road Map failed to be implemented on the first attempt.


the roap map is not really supported by the PA, just as the Oslo accords were not really supported by the PLO. It was and is all a ruse. The PA will not do anything to stop terrorism and will not stop the shaheed glorification and rabid anti-semitism being propagated in its schools. The Palestinians want Israel destroyed, which is quite clear from how they interact with the Arab speaking world. What they say in English is immaterial, and Israel should not be expected to take their word on anything again, considering the last timne they did it cost a thousand lives.



Secretary of State Powell, with help I believe from Egypt and Jordan, has continued to try and revive the Road Map process. Obviously Iraq has diverted attention in other directions, which is unfortunate.

Secretary of State Powell could list the reasons why negotiations under the Road Map have not resumed. I lack that knowledge.


he could, but he wouldn't. He would say diplomatic stuff about 'both sides' and 'reciprocity' and 'political will' and blah blah, but he will not say that it cannot proceed because the Palestinians are not really interested in the object of the negotiations, i.e. peace.



However, I believe these impediments, whatever they are, need to be removed. In summary I adopt the position of the United States that the parties need to get back to the Road Map:


can I take this to mean you are in support of the removal of Yassir Arafat, the entire PA apparatus, and all of the other terrorist groups? This is the problem with adopting vague general principles in order to avoid actually looking at the complexities of the issue and the facts on the ground. Objective assessment of relaity is the first step to comming to any real, functional and feasible plan for solving this problem. You have not done this in your post.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
ibrodsy,

I support the positive aspects contained your last post, but have difficulty understanding what you really mean.

It appears you consider the Palestinian Authority to be a terrorist organization. And your post's bottom line is:

Thus, I conclude you reject any negotiations with the PA, preferring military escalation leading to an undefined Israeli "victory" over the Palestinians.

I may be in error with this interpretation. Perhaps you were describing preconditions to negotiations. Am I correct that what you advocate is war, and then a generous peace once the Palestinians surrender?

No, I supported the approach that President Bush outlined in a speech before the "Roadmap" was floated. In that speech, he offered a path leading to a Palestinian state if the Palestinians enacted reforms to establish a non-corrupt, representative, transparent government led by individuals not "compromised by terror."

I believe this was a reasonable precondition to negotiations.

Unfortunately, the Palestinians ignored these demands and the President also ignored the fact that they ignored them.

He went on to define the Roadmap which required, as one of the first steps, that the Palestinians take real action to dismantle terrorist groups.

Now, if you believe the PA is not in bed with terrorists you are badly mistaken. Yaser Arafat has repeatedly called for "one million martyrs" in Arabic. He has been involved in managing, planning, and supporting terrorism his entire life.

Note that during the Oslo "Peace Process" he pretended to arrest terrorists. But now the PA declines to even pretend to arrest terrorists, complaining that this would instigate a civil war--as if that is a reason for Israel to simply accept terrorism.

So if you are asking me if it is possible to negotiate with decent people who firmly oppose blowing up Israeli busses and restaurants, my answer is "yes." But if you are asking me to pretend the PA has nothing to do with terrorism and is simply unable to fight these groups, my answer is "no." If the problem were simply lack of ability as opposed to will, the PA could enlist help to create a police force to round up terrorists. In fact, this is what the 10,000-man force armed under Israel's nose during the Oslo exercise was supposed to do.

Now, help me understand what you are suggesting. Do you believe it is possible to "negotiate" with terrorists?

[minusthejihad]

This whole conversation reminds me about the end of an old DJ Quick song called "tonight".

In the end someone say, "yo, what happened to peace?"

And Quick says, " n*gga, peace, pass me another 40"

I's like a 40 right now.

For all you "soul-challenged" out there, (yes, that means you too Taco), a 40 is a 40 oz of malt liquor.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Jorge


But these are not positive suggestions at all! First you make an unwarranted generalization: that the Palestinians (meaning all or the majority of them) are mass murdering Israelis. Second you make a sweeping generalization about an "Arab/Muslim world"; why not say Arab countries? (Of these, Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel and Saudia, Kuwait and Oman are indicated they are willing)

Not all the Palestinians, but terrorist groups among them are intent on mass murdering Israelis and Jews in general. They won't stop, they are not willing to stop and we, the Israelis, have not ben able to stop them. This is what in your Post you call reality. A positive suggestion would be one that, taking that reality as a basis, suggests, proposes, a way to move forward.
I couldn't find it in your Post, so, may I ask you, do you have any
suggestion to move forward or should be sit patiently waiting for those terrorists to change their minds?

Jorge, if you don't think stopping mass murder attacks is a positive step, you are beyond hope.

I never said *all* Palestinians support mass murder, but it would be equally absurd to pretend there isn't broad support for these attacks in Palestinian society. Nor did I accuse *all* Arabs or *all* Muslims of anything, but when a plainly anti-Semitic speech is greeted with nothing but praise, and numerous Arab and Muslim countries refuse to even recognize Israel's right to exist, it indicates to reasonable people that there is a very deep-rooted and widely-supported hostility.

Sorry to demolish your fantasy world, Jorge, but sometimes there are Evil people who must be fought. I think you agree there was nothing to negotiate with the Nazis. Simply pretending they didn't exist would have been equally foolish.

You see, Arafat's game of "we can't stop the terrorists but let's try to work out a deal anyway" is no accident. It is designed to ensure that such attacks continue in order to put additional pressure on Israel to make dangerous concessions.

Because Arafat understands that some Jews are so naive or so removed that they are willing to grasp at straws--even straw fuses.

[InrepBerkExpl]

Ibrodsky,

I agree you have raised appropriate questions regarding the PA's role in supporting/fighting/and/or being unable to control terrorism.

I don't have the answers, but it is critical that we learn the truth. A return to negotiations under the Road Map framework still seems the best way to try and bring out the best efforts towards peace that the PA and Israel are capable of.

Clearly the American position is that Israel negotiate with the decent people you described as firmly opposed to blowing up Israeli busses and restaurants. I concur.

The United States believes these people exist in the PA. Only the resumption of negotiations will give any possible chance for the peacemakers on both sides to regain the upper hand. Other options, such as the continuing cycle of violence/murder/terrorism/revenge/& more of the same are worse than a new effort at negotiations.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
Ibrodsky,

I agree you have raised appropriate questions regarding the PA's role in supporting/fighting/and/or being unable to control terrorism.

I don't have the answers, but it is critical that we learn the truth. A return to negotiations under the Road Map framework still seems the best way to try and bring out the best efforts towards peace that the PA and Israel are capable of.

Clearly the American position is that Israel negotiate with the decent people you described as firmly opposed to blowing up Israeli busses and restaurants. I concur.

The United States believes these people exist in the PA. Only the resumption of negotiations will give any possible chance for the peacemakers on both sides to regain the upper hand. Other options, such as the continuing cycle of violence/murder/terrorism/revenge/& more of the same are worse than a new effort at negotiations.

I agree up to "Only the resumption of negotiations will give any possible chance for the peacemakers..."

No, only militarily defeating the groups dedicated to mass murdering Jews on ideological grounds can lead to a negotiated settlement.

Again, it is simply naive to believe you can make peace by ignoring evil people--whether the Nazis or Hamas. This isn't the way I want the world to work--it *is* the way the world works.

I also think the "cycle of violence" is just one big excuse for the people who instigated the violence, who are most recalcitrant, and who teach their children that it is noble to kill Jews. If there were no mass murder attacks, there would be no IDF raids.

And, by the way, the PA responded to a settlement offer--whether it was perfect or not, it was an offer--not with a counter-offer but by violating everything they agreed to.

[MGB8]

Jorge and Berkley are once again proving the stupidity of the left, and by this I mean planning policies based on beliefs but ignoring reality when reality contradicts those beliefs.

First of all, the reality is that Israel IS in a war. There is an enemy who is sworn to destroy the nation. Police deal with people who violate local crimal law - drug dealers and thieves and maybe the occasional multiple homicide.

This is an organized campaign to kill Israeli civilians (and soldiers, too) for political gain. To not characterize it as a war is to insult the victims of these killers - its disgusting, plain and simple. It makes me sick. What would you define a war as, Jorge?

No, this is deliberate ignoring of reality, and ignoring of the victims, because this reality doesn't jive with your politcal beliefs. Its the SAME THING as George Bush believing that whatever is in the best interest of Multi-national corporations boards of directors is good for the US economy, regardless of what the data indicates - Political belief trumping reality. But at least Bush has credible economic theorists on his side.

As for "negotiating" with the PA. You can only negotiate with a group prepared to compromise to a point that you can live with. For example, the Union could not negotiate with the Confederacy, because their goals where mutually exclusive - cessession versus one United States.

When you don't have a real middle ground, it comes down to a power game.

With the Pal Arabs, a large % of them don't have a middle ground with Israel - for them the goal is the elimination of Israel - either by terror, by weakening Israel for possible future military campaigns, or by demographics (see "right of return"), or any other means.

The rest of the Palestinians could fight this group and for the greater part prevent them from acting (isolated events would happen - but it would be more like the 1 Baruch Goldstein event, as opposed to the thousands and thousands of attempted, sometimes succesful, Arab mass-murder attempts) but, they don't want to, because the price to them of not doing so is very low, although its steadily increasing (thank you Sharon and Bush).

Remember that the Pal Arabs promised to renouce violence (many times), and broke that promise. They promised to not incite. They promised to accept Israel's existence (not when you look at their schoolbooks or government symbols, which have ALL of Israel as "Palestine" occupied by the evil zionist entity.) The Road Map, which they agreed to, had them promise to dismantel terror groups, which they have since renounced (but they still are committed to the road map....as long as they don't have to take any steps...)

Only as Israel makes life harder for the Pal Arabs do the poll numbers show that they think that this planned terror war was a mistake. That's because people react to consequences - its just like training your dog or a young child.

And that's that. Action - consequence. REALITY.

[MGB8]

Ibrodsky,

Lets call a spade a spade. The PA reacted to being granted sovereignty, control over their people, and being given money and legitimacy (no more exile), by, despite their statements renouncing all violence and accepting Israel's right to exists as the Jewish state - they reacted by bringing in more and more weapons, having more and more terror attacks, inciting more and more terror, all the while openly keeping the goal of the genocide of the Jews and destruction of Israel alive.

They blame these on settlement contruction, but they knew that Israel would pull these out if an agreement was reached. They had a trial run, and they blew it.

Also, I happen to strongly suspect that Rabin was assasinated not by one right wing nut-job, but by either the Pal-Arabs or the LEFT-WING nut-jobs, because Rabin was on record as saying that he wouldn't give as much as Barak offered, even, and with the Pal-Arab violations, I'm sure Rabin would have killed Arafat by now, and had the legitimacy to do it.

[abu afak]

InRepBerkExpl..

May I suggest a string Titled:

"Palestinians and Bush Not Following the Roadmap":

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=3355

The title article (and I often) point out that the Roadmap calls for Elections FIRST.

It's not at all clear that anyone on the Palestinain side has the moral authority/mandate to make peace or even negotiate it.. including Arafat.

An election and it's campaign would be quite enlightening for all.

Who will run on what Platform?
Will Hamas win? Get 30-40%?
How many will vote for a Peace negotiating platform?

Can the winning side (if it's for accomodation) even control the other/War side if it's 60-40?

Indeed, I believe the Palestinians May need a Civil War first to settle the matter.
So let's have the elections and maybe that as well before we Give them a state .. shall we?


Also .. the Roadmap is somewhat agreeable to both sides because it contains very few details// -- like Borders-- for just one. (something on which a few of us have laid out a position) That's perhaps the biggest issue besides the question of whether the Palestinains want peace at all.

[InrepBerkExpl]

I am surprised to learn that the Roadmap for Peace demonstrates "the stupidity of the left". This would also be a shock to President Bush and Secretary of State Powell.

It seems obvious that without effective American and international pressure applied to both the Palestinians and Israel, there will be no return to negotiations. Such pressure is unlikely during an election year when Bush has other priorities. The Middle East hawks will continue to have their war indefinitely, and all sides lose.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
I am surprised to learn that the Roadmap for Peace demonstrates "the stupidity of the left". This would also be a shock to President Bush and Secretary of State Powell.


They propose it and push it because they have to. It was reported today that powell placed the blame for not fighting terrorism squarely on Yassir Arafat. however, in order ot maintain the fiction theat peace is possible, the Bush administration is focussing now on the powerless abu ala to solve all the PAs problems. They are continuing to maintain the fiction that it is possible to negotiate any sort of peace with the PA. In my opinion Bush probably knows better but, for obvious reasons, can't say so. Powell, on the other hand, seems to be quite prepared to get the Israelis to stick their necks out time and time again so that the Palestinians can take swings at their heads.



It seems obvious that without effective American and international pressure applied to both the Palestinians and Israel, there will be no return to negotiations. Such pressure is unlikely during an election year when Bush has other priorities.


what is the point of negotiations? The answer is obviiously that unless there are negotiations there can never be a negotiated peace, but while negotiations may therefore be a necessary condition, they are not sufficient. Whether there are fake negotiations or not is irrelevant. There were negotiations under Oslo and the Palestinians used the process to gird for war. Nothing has changed within the PA, and if anything the Palestinians have been brainwashed into more virulent aggression and more intractable positions. Under these conditions, negotiations are useless. You seem to be missing this point.



The Middle East hawks will continue to have their war indefinitely, and all sides lose. [/B]

what are you saying here? the Israelis would very much like this war directed against its civilians to end. the Palestinians, on the other hand, could yhave had independence and almost everything they wanted back in 2000 but instead chose to startv a war, and have never shown any inclination to stop it. The 'hawks' you refer to in Israel just realize that in order to get the war to fiunally end the Israelis must be allowed to win it. the Palestinians, on the other hand, are the ones who favour perpetual conflict, as thisd gets them sympathy and allows them to continue on the PR front while at the same time not having to actually give up their ultimate goal of Israel's destruction.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
I am surprised to learn that the Roadmap for Peace demonstrates "the stupidity of the left". This would also be a shock to President Bush and Secretary of State Powell.

It seems obvious that without effective American and international pressure applied to both the Palestinians and Israel, there will be no return to negotiations. Such pressure is unlikely during an election year when Bush has other priorities. The Middle East hawks will continue to have their war indefinitely, and all sides lose.

I agree the Roadmap does not demonstrate "the stupidity of the left." It wasn't devised by the left. And I don't know how anyone can disagree with the Roadmap's demand that the Palestinians take real action against the terrorist groups, which they have refused to do even with outside help.

However, I strongly disagree with your contention that strong international pressure must be applied to both the Palestinians and Israelis. The international community has demonstrated over and over that it is obsessed with censuring Israel and is willing to turn a blind eye to PA involvement with terrorism. (Though there has been some progress, particularly getting the EU to recognize and block terrorist funding.)

Again, in your desire to believe the other side is no different, you are willing to project your values on them and distribute the blame equally between the two sides. You seem like an intelligent person, and though it's not my place to give you research assignments, I really think you need to look at two things: (1) the record of what Arafat and the PLO have said in Arabic versus English, and (2) the relationship between peace initiatives, Israeli concessions, and the number of deaths/injuries caused by terrorists.

In particular, I'de like to hear from the peace camp on what basis a racist, terrorist, liar like Yaser Arafat deserved a Noble Peace Prize. I'd also like to hear the justification for forcing Israel to accept the transplantation of Arafat and the PLO to the West Bank from Tunisia. This action has caused thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of life-altering injuries.

The fact is that prior to the Oslo Peace Process there was little violence in the West Bank--most of the attacks were staged from neighboring countries and the death toll was much lower. Arafat has created a terrorist infrastructure and poisons the minds of Palestinians beginning in early childhood. So here we are: Israeli forces no longer occupy Palestinian population centers, Israel no longer administers local government for the Palestinians, and we are further from peace than ever.

It's time to recognize that the problem is not American elections and hawks, but Islamists, dictators, and racists who spread the blood libel and teach their children that killing Jews is the sure path to salvation.

[MGB8]

Did I say that belief in the Roadmap (as written) demonstrates the stupidity of the left?

No...I said ignoring reality for deeply held political beliefs.

It is the same as right wingers who believe that transfer of close to 3 million arabs, or even 1.5 million arabs, as opposed to maybe 20,000 Jews is a realistic possibility - they ignore the economic sanctions that would no doubt come down on Israel crippling it, as it is a modern, trade dependent nation. Or those right wingers who believe that we can continue to rule the WB & Gaza indefinately but not give the resident Arabs the vote.

Its nice to believe, but its simply not reality. Berkley and Jorge, among others represent the opposite side of the coin.

The roadmap calls for (1) free and fair democratic elections in the PA and an end to monetary corruption, (2) dismantalling of terror groups (which includes ending their funding - by both the Pal Arabs and other Arab states), and (3) an end to incitment by the arabs.

In return Israel stops settlement growth. It is fair to say that Israel isn't fully meeting its side of this bargain....but Israel's failure is NOTHING compared to the Pal Arabs, who have expressly repudiated ALL OF THESE CONDITIONS (to use a legal term) while giving lip service to believing in "the roadmap." Abbas and Quria both said they would take no steps against Hamas, Jihad and Fatah's Martyr Brigade. Arafat said they would disarm them when Israel disbanded the military. This is roadmap acceptance? Elections haven't been held, security services not consolidated, and very little done about the money. Incitement has continued at the same levels as before - daily, hourly, with no recognition of Israel's right to exists.

The roadmap is dead because the Pal-Arabs have rejected all their obligations under it.

But the left wants to make MORE concessions and to pretend that none of the above happened, and to act accordingly, as if the Arabs had acted in compliance with their obligations.

That is existential stupidity.

Oh, the left will also say things like "military force isn't working and is only creating more terrorists", meanwhile terror attacks, while not stopped, have declined, succesful terror attacks moreso, and Pal Arab poll numbers show more and more realize that going to war against Israel was a strategic mistake. Guess what, just like other people, when the Pal Arabs see that their actions cause negative consequences to THEM, they rethink those actions. Reality.

[Jorge]

Quotes from MGB8 post #77:

Jorge and Berkley are once again proving the stupidity of the left, and by this I mean planning policies based on beliefs but ignoring reality when reality contradicts those beliefs .

MGB8: I hope you don’t mind my criticism if I say that you are a bit too liberal in your use of the word stupidity. The subjects we happen to be discussing are depressing enough on their own, so why not a lighter tone?

This is an organized campaign to kill Israeli civilians (and soldiers, too) for political gain. To not characterize it as a war is to insult the victims of these killers - its disgusting, plain and simple. It makes me sick. What would you define a war as, Jorge?

Ditto., Why should I be wanting to insult the victims of terrorist attacks? Look, I live among them, for me they are not figments of the TV screen, they are my neighbors and friends, in the next attack they could be members of my family. Nevertheless, I don’t see the connection you appear to make between whether do we call it a War or not and the pain of the bereaved families and friends. The killed and maimed are the victims of mad, ruthless beasts; do you think their families will feel less pain if we call their loved lost ones “war victims”?

What do I define as a War? My Semiotic friends are eager to point out whenever they have a chance that “Words don’t have meanings, people do”. That is, you have a pretty clear notion of what do you mean by War. So do I. It just happens that most likely the meanings we ascribe to the word War are bound to be different. If you don’t believe me, just go around asking your friends what do they mean by Peace, Love, Admiration and other Big Words of the kind.

One way to surmount this barrier to communication is to try to describe the characteristics of the situation; if we agree on those, whether we call it a War or a Rambunsun is irrelevant, If we don’t agree on those characteristics, the problem is larger and we just have to keep learning.

The present phase of the Israeli-Palestinian military conflict is not, in my humble opinion, a confrontation between two armies. It is neither a confrontation between and Army and a civilian population as a whole. It is neither a confrontation between an Army and sectors of a population using guerilla tactics (I wouldn’t call suicide bombing a guerrilla action). If we agree on what it is not we might shift to what it is or appears to be.

I would say it is a group of actions of the State designed to punish perpetrators or instigators of terrorist attacks and to prevent further ones. That these actions are entrusted to the Army instead of the Israeli Police are due merely to their large scale and to the fact that the Army and not the Police have jurisdiction over the conquered territories. (If similar actions had to be carried out against Israeli Arabs, for instance, they would be entrusted to the Police and not to the Army.) Usually, there is no armed resistance against those actions by the population at large, only by the terrorists themselves.

If we agree on the above characteristics you may go on calling it a War and I may go on calling it a Police Action. If we don’t… well, we keep on trying; that’s why we’re here for.

There’s however a further point to be made in this connection. Wars usually results in victory of one contender and defeat of the other, not so police actions. A large police operation against crime or drug traffic is not realistically designed to eradicate them, but to contain them; the causes are deeper and out of the reach of the law enforcing people. It is in this sense that most of our higher Army officers have repeatedly stated that the present armed confrontation does not have a purely military solution and the Army will never attain final victory.

No, this is deliberate ignoring of reality, and ignoring of the victims, because this reality doesn't jive with your political beliefs .

No, believe me, I’m not trying to ignore “reality”, provided there is an objective reality as perceived by all. In a sense, my reality, or rather my appraisal of the situation is much bleaker than yours. You distinguish clearly the black from the white whereas I tend to see too much in gray tones; moreover you agree with the policies our side is implementing to cope with the situation: I wholly disagree with them and have little hope that the present government will mend his ways. Not rosy at all, I assure you.
More about “reality” in a later Post…

[MGB8]

Jorge,

First, I completely disagree that this is not a confrontation between an army and a several guerila armies - armed with either automatic rifles, rpgs, mortars or explosives, so of which are used in suicide attacks - but a suicide attack is still an attack - where Japanese Kamikazi pilots not warriors?

How can you say that mortar attacks, roadside bombs, and yes, suicide bombs are not guerilla tactics? what basis do you have for that opinion?

More importantly, these groups are ORGANIZED with a POLITICAL AIM - to destroy the Jewish state.

A police action is directed generally against YOUR OWN CITIZENS. These are people who (1) are foreigners, and (2) reject the very idea of Israeli citizenship.

The reason I object to calling it a "police action" as opposed to a war is that semantics DO count, in world opinion and propaganda - and I am sure you understand that very well.

This is a war, and your refusal to call it one has consequences. It means that certain actions, which people consider appropriate for a "war" are considered innapropriate because its "just a police action." And Jorge, you full well know that is THE INTENT of calling Arafat's war a "police action" - to make Israel look bad in defense of itself by de-legitizing self-defense measures that would otherwise be appropriate.

In other words, you are trying, either willfully or by, yes, stupidity, to block Israel from defending itself to the fullest via propaganda - the propaganda of trying to define the conflict as something less than it is, (and the corresponding Israeli responses).

To those who believe that Israel should be allowed to defend itself to the fullest, who want to limit the amount of Jews killed by strong self defense....your "semantic difference" is not just offensive, it is characteristic of an emeny - one of Arafat's many "useful fools" as he has characterized the Israeli left on more than one occassion.

If you want to argue that Israel should not strike back forcefully because the consequences of those strikes are not helpful - go ahead - at least that's honest, if completely and utterly mistaken.

But this tact, of trying to minimize the conflict through words, and use this propaganda to hurt Israel's credibility on its self-defense....that is dishonest.

[MGB8]

To be more concise:

The issue is (1) WHY do you want to call it a "police action" instead of a war, and, relatedly (2) what are the consequences of the change in name, and finally, (3) is the name change justified.

The answers are, in a better order:
(2) the consequence of calling it a "police action" is to deligitimize Israel's actions in self-defense to the world, and thus make it more difficult for Israel to defend itself, and easier for the Pal-Arabs to kill Israelis. It also imposes your idea that there can be "no military victory", which is wrong both in terms of police actions (killing a mass murderer ends his mass murders). Your analogy to the drug trade is flawed - because the drug trade continues due to economics - the costs of dealing drugs (potential death and imprisonment) is less than the potential profit.

(1) the only reason WHY to call it a police action as opposed to a war is to achieve the objectives set out in answer to No.2, above,

and

(3) No, its not justified because a police action is an attempt to stop criminals (no political objective) from commiting a criminal acts, which are generally personal, not political. A WAR is the USE OF VIOLENCE FOR POLITICAL AIMS.

TERRORISM is the targetting of non-combatants (as opposed to combatants or military instalations) for violence to achieve those political aims.

The fact that the Hamas, Jihad and the PA security forces aren't "traditional armies" makes no difference - they are warriors commiting violence for political aims - and this is a war. Clearly and unquestionably. Again, the only reason to deny this is to hurt Israel.



Originally posted by MGB8
Jorge,

First, I completely disagree that this is not a confrontation between an army and a several guerila armies - armed with either automatic rifles, rpgs, mortars or explosives, so of which are used in suicide attacks - but a suicide attack is still an attack - where Japanese Kamikazi pilots not warriors?

How can you say that mortar attacks, roadside bombs, and yes, suicide bombs are not guerilla tactics? what basis do you have for that opinion?

More importantly, these groups are ORGANIZED with a POLITICAL AIM - to destroy the Jewish state.

A police action is directed generally against YOUR OWN CITIZENS. These are people who (1) are foreigners, and (2) reject the very idea of Israeli citizenship.

The reason I object to calling it a "police action" as opposed to a war is that semantics DO count, in world opinion and propaganda - and I am sure you understand that very well.

This is a war, and your refusal to call it one has consequences. It means that certain actions, which people consider appropriate for a "war" are considered innapropriate because its "just a police action." And Jorge, you full well know that is THE INTENT of calling Arafat's war a "police action" - to make Israel look bad in defense of itself by de-legitizing self-defense measures that would otherwise be appropriate.

In other words, you are trying, either willfully or by, yes, stupidity, to block Israel from defending itself to the fullest via propaganda - the propaganda of trying to define the conflict as something less than it is, (and the corresponding Israeli responses).

To those who believe that Israel should be allowed to defend itself to the fullest, who want to limit the amount of Jews killed by strong self defense....your "semantic difference" is not just offensive, it is characteristic of an emeny - one of Arafat's many "useful fools" as he has characterized the Israeli left on more than one occassion.

If you want to argue that Israel should not strike back forcefully because the consequences of those strikes are not helpful - go ahead - at least that's honest, if completely and utterly mistaken.

But this tact, of trying to minimize the conflict through words, and use this propaganda to hurt Israel's credibility on its self-defense....that is dishonest.

[InrepBerkExpl]

ibrodsky,

Let's clear up the misunderstandings once again. I have been attempting to defend the American position, which favors a return to negotiations under the Roadmap. I review information from the U.S. State Department's website to supplement my memory and try to avoid errors.

You do not denounce the Roadmap, but you disagree with this prior statement of mine


It seems obvious that without effective American and international pressure applied to both the Palestinians and Israel, there will be no return to negotiations.

I believe that sentence is accurate regarding the past, present, and future.

However, you make the incorrect assumption that my sentence above seeks to "distribute the blame equally between the two sides."

That is neither the American position nor mine. Here are the words of Secretary of State Powell from a recent interview at
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/29565.htm :


SECRETARY POWELL: The President still believes in the roadmap because the roadmap reflects the vision that the President has of two states living side by side in peace with each other. That's what the international community wants.

We thought we were on a good roll last summer, when then-Prime Minister Abu Mazen was installed, and we started to see some movement. But unfortunately, Chairman Arafat's action made it difficult for Abu Mazen to do his job, and so he stepped down as Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority.

There is now a new Prime Minister, Abu Alaa. We're encouraging him to do more in the area of security to end terrorist attacks.

Meanwhile, on the Israeli side, Prime Minister Sharon has indicated that they want to pull out of the settlements in Gaza. This is an important initiative on Mr. Sharon's part. Whether they do it as part of a settlement with the other side, in other words, not unilaterally, remains to be seen. And we can't say we accept the movement out of Gaza unless we understand how it plays into what the Israelis might be thinking of doing in the West Bank, and how that also affects the route that the fence might be taking.

The Secretary of State immediately blames Arafat by name for sabotaging former Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen. Primary blame is placed where it belongs, on Arafat. Encouragement, a fine diplomatic word that includes pressure, is offered to the new Palestinian Prime Minister in the area of security.

With softer words, Secretary Powell also expresses concern about two of Sharon's unilateral activities: Gaza and the fence route. The United States does not accept Israel acting unilaterally, because it wishes such matters decided "as part of a settlement with the other side". Thus Israel receives its share of blame for non-compliance with what the U.S. considers to be a key element underlying the peace process: "that permanent status issues are to be resolved through negotiations". (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/28639.htm)

Is there any doubt that the United States also pressures Israel on these matters and wishes to see negotiations resume?

[MGB8]

The question remains, what is the point of returning to negotiations when the Pal-Arabs have specifically renounced all their obligations under the roadmap?

I understand the concern about the route of the fence. Its route zig-zags a lot, and it certainly does deviate from the Green line.

Nu?

Certainly, it makes sense for Israel to try to disrupt Pal-Arab daily life as little as possible (as long as they aren't engaging in terror). The goal is separation, even political punishment, but not collective "actual" punishment.

If there was a negotiated solution - which doesn't seem possible within the next couple generations (didn't the Pentagon say that, also?), the fence would of course need to be moved to the negotiated border, any part remaining in Pal-Arab land could be simply wrecked by the pal-Arab.

But, since a negotiated solution seems generations away, Israel can apply pressure to the Pal-Arabs to stop the war by (1) making the war more difficult to wage by making Jews less suceptible to Arab attacks, and (2) by creating a de-facto line that give the Arabs less land than they want, thus leaving them incentive to negotiate.

If the PA would come to the table right now and say (1) we will comply with all provisions of the roadmap, in particular the dismantalling of terror groups, and (2) we'll give up the "right-of-return" as impractical - I'm sure they could get something very close to Baraks offer. But they won't, because they don't have enough pressure on them to.

Israeli unilaterral action is that pressure - that continuing the war will get them less than what they want, and Israel will fortify its positions on what they argue is Arab land (outside of ALL of Israel, which they also argues is part of "historic Arab Palestine" - a stupid argument since that includes Jordan, and also because it was a British (and before then Roman) imposed term, often refering to the Jews as Palestinians.


Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
ibrodsky,

Let's clear up the misunderstandings once again. I have been attempting to defend the American position, which favors a return to negotiations under the Roadmap. I review information from the U.S. State Department's website to supplement my memory and try to avoid errors.

You do not denounce the Roadmap, but you disagree with this prior statement of mine



I believe that sentence is accurate regarding the past, present, and future.

However, you make the incorrect assumption that my sentence above seeks to "distribute the blame equally between the two sides."

That is neither the American position nor mine. Here are the words of Secretary of State Powell from a recent interview at
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/29565.htm :



The Secretary of State immediately blames Arafat by name for sabotaging former Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen. Primary blame is placed where it belongs, on Arafat. Encouragement, a fine diplomatic word that includes pressure, is offered to the new Palestinian Prime Minister in the area of security.

With softer words, Secretary Powell also expresses concern about two of Sharon's unilateral activities: Gaza and the fence route. The United States does not accept Israel acting unilaterally, because it wishes such matters decided "as part of a settlement with the other side". Thus Israel receives its share of blame for non-compliance with what the U.S. considers to be a key element underlying the peace process: "that permanent status issues are to be resolved through negotiations". (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/28639.htm)

Is there any doubt that the United States also pressures Israel on these matters and wishes to see negotiations resume?

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
ibrodsky,

Let's clear up the misunderstandings once again. I have been attempting to defend the American position, which favors a return to negotiations under the Roadmap. I review information from the U.S. State Department's website to supplement my memory and try to avoid errors.

...

However, you make the incorrect assumption that my sentence above seeks to "distribute the blame equally between the two sides."

Dave, I'm not trying to misrepresent your views, but as I recall in your first post you suggested the conflict was the result of fanatics/extremists on both sides. Then you said the international community had to put pressure on both sides.

I don't think the conflict started because of fanatics on both sides, and I don't think the Roadmap stalled because of violations on both sides. In 1947, the Jews of Palestine sought to exercise their right of self-determination only in the areas where they were the overwhelming majority. The Arabs, who had already been awarded 75% of Palestine, insisted they should rule 100% of Palestine, including areas with more than twice as many Jewish inhabitants and areas they had ethnically cleansed of Jews.

I don't see building a security fence that has indisputably reduced the number of terrorist mass murder attacks as a violation of the Roadmap. Israel has not only given public assurances that the route of the fence will not establish a de facto border, but has just announced a major change in the fence's route in deference to complaints from local Arabs.

Nor do I see pulling settlements out of Gaza as blatant violation. Colin Powell's complaint is, as you've noted, that the administration wants both sides to act within the framework of the Roadmap rather than outside it. So in this case the complaint is about Israel making a concession that the Palestinians have demanded all along.

Now, I think I need to clarify my views. To me, the Roadmap is absolutely worthless if the Palestinians don't take real and decisive action against the terrorist groups. I'm not impressed that the Administration and State Dept. are willing to overlook the fact that 1) Arafat is still in charge and 2) the Palestinians have stated clearly they have no intentions of dismantling the terrorist groups.

Allow me to quote from Winston Churchill's brilliant history of World War II:


from Volume One, The Gathering Storm

Theme of the Volume

How the English-speaking peoples through their unwisdom, carelessness, and good nature allowed the wicked to rearm.

You may recall that after World War I the Great Democracies were disillusioned with war--yet hopeful everyone everywhere could see as they did that it caused tremendous suffering for no good purpose. So while the British and others recognized Hitler was an extremist, they believed that if they tossed him a bone and appealed to the decent German majority they could negotiate a resolution.

Based on my study of history, I find that wars start when one side attacks the other, and they end when one side emerges victorious. In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I fear that Israel and the West have, "through their unwisdom, carelessness, and good nature," given a war criminal the Noble Peace Prize and insisted he and his merry band of racist thugs be allowed to set up shop in the West Bank--as if these breathtaking and unearned rewards would somehow shame him into acting differently.

At least when Hitler invaded Poland the Neville Chamberlains of the world were forced off the stage. Their strategy of avoid war at all costs, appeal to the powerless moderates on the other side, and negotiate anything and everything proved naive, ineffective, and (as we now know to our great sorrow) dangerous. Hitler could have been stopped early with little loss of life and property. Instead, Churchill was accused of being what is now called a "hardliner" for consistently warning that Hitler had to be stopped.


Is there any doubt that the United States also pressures Israel on these matters and wishes to see negotiations resume?

No, you are quite right. It's very unfortunate that the U.S. refuses to negotiate with terrorists itself but insists that Israel negotiate with its terrorist enemies.

What I've been trying to say to you all along is that I recognize and appreciate your good intentions. But as they say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. We need to understand the facts regarding how the conflict came about. We need to learn the lessons of history. And we need to recognize Evil, call it by its rightful name, and dedicate ourselves to eradicating it.

[abu afak]

InRepBerkExpl?
I realize you've been able to pick and choose only the tiny frags you want to respond to from the many and detailed responses.. while ignoring many problems pointed out to you with your position ...but how do we proceed with the 'Roadmap' you say you favor without the Stated Precondition/needed elections.. without which no Palestinian leader will have a mandate to make peace.
(If that's the platform that even wins)


Originally posted by abu afak
InRepBerkExpl..

May I suggest a string Titled:

"Palestinians and Bush Not Following the Roadmap":

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=3355

The title article (and I often) point out that the Roadmap calls for Elections FIRST.

It's not at all clear that anyone on the Palestinain side has the moral authority/mandate to make peace or even negotiate it.. including Arafat.

An election and it's campaign would be quite enlightening for all.

Who will run on what Platform?
Will Hamas win? Get 30-40%?
How many will vote for a Peace negotiating platform?

Can the winning side (if it's for accomodation) even control the other/War side if it's 60-40?

Indeed, I believe the Palestinians May need a Civil War first to settle the matter.
So let's have the elections and maybe that as well before we Give them a state .. shall we?


Also .. the Roadmap is somewhat agreeable to both sides because it contains very few details// -- like Borders-- for just one. (something on which a few of us have laid out a position) That's perhaps the biggest issue besides the question of whether the Palestinains want peace at all.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
However, the murder of Prime Minister Rabin by a Jewish fanatic in 1995 set a pattern in motion that changed everything for the worse. Arab suicide bombers then helped Likud win the election that followed. Anti-peace extremists from one side always strengthen the hand of their counterparts on the opposite side. It's still going on, worse now than ever before, in my opinion.
Before Rabin was murdered, had terrorism subsided or increased since the signing fo the Oslo Accords?

After Oslo, during Rabin's tenure, did Arafat show complete sincerety with the endevours of his "partner for peace"?

Answer those questions honestly and readjust your warped analysis.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl

However, the murder of Prime Minister Rabin by a Jewish fanatic in 1995 set a pattern in motion that changed everything for the worse. Arab suicide bombers then helped Likud win the election that followed. Anti-peace extremists from one side always strengthen the hand of their counterparts on the opposite side. It's still going on, worse now than ever before, in my opinion.



Dave, this analysis is flawed from start to finish. Prime Minister Rabin was murdered by an individual lunatic. His killer didn't represent a constituency in Israel or the Jewish community abroad. It's easy to blame the assassination of a political leader on his critics, but it's a cheap shot.

It is even more unfair to suggest the murder of Prime Minister Rabin set in motion the current wave of mass murder attacks against Jews. The creation of a Palestinian terrorist culture started when Arafat, the Father of Modern Terrorism, was relocated to the West Bank. The "suicide bomber" attacks started before Rabin was assassinated and are due to Arab racism and the Islamist Death Cult that brainwashes young people into thinking that by killing themselves to kill Jews they will win a ticket to Paradise. The people who encourage, recruit, and finance mass murderers as well as the homicide bombers themselves are the *only* people responsible for their horrible crimes.

You really have things backwards when you imply that a "Jewish fanatic" was the prime mover behind suicide/homicide bombers, the Israeli electorate choosing Likud over Labor, and the current war. Are you so desperate for an illusory peace that you are willing to shift all of the blame to Isreal, or is it just a reflection of intense hostility toward religious Jews and/or Likud?

My reference to Churchill was not for the purpose of comparing anyone to Hitler. It was for the purpose of comparing today's peace movement to the peace movement of the 1930s. Peace is desirable, but pretending the other side doesn't prefer war ("jihad") is pure folly.

[Mediocrates]

Hundreds of Israelis were murdered prior to Rabin's death. One would think people would know that.

[Mediocrates]

BTW on per capita basis the number of Jews murdered by terrorism through 1948-1956 was about 5-6 times what it is today. One would think that people would know that. This includes the 'peaceful' times that fools like takeo and tdidier and northlander use as an excuse to hate Israel for its so called aggression during that time.

And oh, since it's clear no one really knows the actual history - Kirbayla aka Yassin was a known launch point for terrorists who had already killed about 130 Jewish citizens.

[Binyamin]

The GA and the Road Map cannot be supported because "there is no better solution, and the alternative is worse." Unless there are good indications that a plan will bring peace, Israel cannot gamble anything on that plan. There is no reason to believe that either of these plans will do better than Oslo, and there are many indications that they will only bring more suffering. Even if there aren't any other options, it is better to do nothing.

There are two closely related conditions for starting peace talks, which seem to be ignored. One is that Israel has to make peace with the entire Palestinian people, and not just with one group. Peace with Arafat wouldn't help if they still have the Hamas and Islamic Jihad bombing them.

The second condition is that the people who are signing the peace agreement are capable of delivering peace. A peace deal that promises to fight terror is not a peace agreement, but only a transfer of responsibility, with no reduction in the violence (in the best possible scenario.) There is no justification for such an agreement.

These are not preconditions for peace, but essential before it is possible to talk about peace. The Palestinian Authority does not meet either of these criteria.

One of the Palestinians biggest gains from the intifada is that people expect less from a peace agreement. Before Oslo no one would have thought about signing a deal which would not promise 100% quiet. Now that Arafat has raised the terror to such a high level, people are prepared to settle for a "serious reduction" in the terror, which would probably still be more than pre-Oslo levels.

Any peace talks will have to rectify this mispreception. Israel should be constantly demanding the above two criteria be met before the they can begin to talk.

(Another prevalent misconception is that Israel should leave the terrirtories regardless of any other considerations. This is very poular with the Israeli left, and it can explain alot of the irresponsible clauses in the GA and Oslo. Israel does not have a holy duty to leave the terrirtories. It should be prepared to give land for peace, but nothing when there is no peace.)

You ask how Israel can continue without peace, but Israel does not need peace. If Israel could return the terror to pre-Oslo levels they would not think about peace anymore, and no one would be asking them to talk to the Palestinians.

Israel should slowly and diplomatically end the peace process. They should officially recognize that Oslo is dead, and no longer binding. They should slowly retake what they gave to Arafat, which will severly reduce the Palestinian's ability - and interest (after their media is liberated)- to fight Israel. This is one possible alternative to the GA and the Road Map.

Of course Israel will continue to remind the world that it is interested in peace, and that it is prepared to start the peace process again as soon as they have someone to talk to. Someone who can represent all the Palestinians, and who can guarantee the peace that they promise.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Binyamin
Israel should slowly and diplomatically end the peace process. They should officially recognize that Oslo is dead, and no longer binding. They should slowly retake what they gave to Arafat, which will severly reduce the Palestinian's ability - and interest (after their media is liberated)- to fight Israel. This is one possible alternative to the GA and the Road Map.

Israel needs a leader who understands that you can't "make peace"--you have to win the war.

[MGB8]

I think you under-estimate Sharon.

On the one hand, he has no illusions that the Pal-Arabs will make peace. He knows that they won't - at least not any peace that wouldn't threaten Israel (no right of return plus not 100% of the WB).

On the other hand, he knows that continuing to control the WB and Gaza will create an increasing threat of economic sanctions as the Arabs have done a good job comparing Israel to South Africa. Moreover, the demographic threat is real and transfer is not a viable option - see the above mentioned sanctions.

So Sharon is trying to redraw the lines of the conflict to put Israel in a position where it can best defend itself while also avoiding the demographic dangers. This is done while not abandoning the roadmap, but fully expecting the Arabs to continue doing exactly what they have been doing - supporting this terror war and maintaining unagreeable demands.




Originally posted by ibrodsky
Israel needs a leader who understands that you can't "make peace"--you have to win the war.

[abu afak]

(Let's try it again, as InRepBerkExpl has done the 'Berkeley shuffle' again)

InRepBerkExpl?
I realize you've been able to pick and choose only the tiny frags you want to respond to from the many and detailed responses.. while ignoring many problems pointed out to you with your position ...but how do we proceed with the 'Roadmap' you say you favor without the Stated Precondition/needed elections.. without which no Palestinian leader will have a mandate to make peace.
(If that's the platform that even wins)


Originally posted by abu afak
InRepBerkExpl..

May I suggest a string Titled:

"Palestinians and Bush Not Following the Roadmap":

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=3355

The title article (and I often) point out that the Roadmap calls for Elections FIRST.

It's not at all clear that anyone on the Palestinain side has the moral authority/mandate to make peace or even negotiate it.. including Arafat.

An election and it's campaign would be quite enlightening for all.

Who will run on what Platform?
Will Hamas win? Get 30-40%?
How many will vote for a Peace negotiating platform?

Can the winning side (if it's for accomodation) even control the other/War side if it's 60-40?

Indeed, I believe the Palestinians May need a Civil War first to settle the matter.
So let's have the elections and maybe that as well before we Give them a state .. shall we?


Also .. the Roadmap is somewhat agreeable to both sides because it contains very few details// -- like Borders-- for just one. (something on which a few of us have laid out a position) That's perhaps the biggest issue besides the question of whether the Palestinains want peace at all.

[MGB8]

Berkley,

The right had nothing to gain by Rabin's death. The left, and more than that the Pal-Arabs, on the other hand, did.

Rabin was on the record with his limits as to what he would give the Pal-Arabs - less than what Barak offered.

Rabin, if faced with the Arabs violation of EVERY TENANT OF OSLO, in particular the renounciation of violence, could have legitimately ENDED OSLO, and EXPELLED THE PLO.

Many believe that had he lived he would have done just that - that he would have realized the the PLO did not in reality accept Israel's right to exist (see their maps of "Palestine", as well as their schoolbooks, political symbols, and general media). The speech that you cite seems to suggest that he was keen on making the Arabs keep their obligations.

The right, on the other hand, faced a MARTYR with Rabin's death, a martyr that cemented the cause they opposed.

Does it makes sense for the right to kill Rabin, or simply to have him voted out if the Arabs violate their side of the deal (violate is a bad word since they never implemented one of their commitments, besides one letter from Arafat to Rabin in English stating his recognition of Israel as the Jewish state - while the other side of his mouth and his actions told quite another story.)

No...chances are that the left had Rabin murdered to create a martyt for their cause. There is circumstantial evidence that points that way, also.


Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
ibrodsky,

On this part of Israel's history, we have irreconcilable differences.

I believe that lunatic carried out the desires of an Israeli extremist constituency which had labeled Prime Minister Rabin as a traitor.

I wish the murdering fanatic had been stopped; so that Rabin could have lived to try and create a better, more peaceful future for Israel.

Excerpts from Prime Minister Rabin's last speech, November 4, 1995 (http://www.ariga.com/rabin-speech.shtml):

[MGB8]

Berkley,

You are very good at ignoring what you don't like (or what doesn't fit into your political conception of the world.) Are you brave enough to respond to this? Or will you cowardly not-respond like you did to Abu-Afak's questions to you?

You expertly avoided answering Abu's quetion - which is simply don't the Pal Arabs need to elect a government (as required by the roadmap) so that the government has an idea, by their platforms and who gets elected, of what the population wants to do vis-a-vi peace with Israel.

Of course, chances are that a non-peace loving group would win, as they do in their Pal-Arab university elections (OH, the OPPRESSION!), and that would put a crimp in your argument that the Pal Arabs want peace. Do you really believe a pro-real-peace party would be elected? One willing to give up the right of return or at minimum act against those who attack Israel?

A palestinian civil war would not be on Abu Afaks hands or any other hands other than those Pal-Arabs who fought it.

Frankly, because of artificial external pressure (caused by oil power), the Pal-Arabs haven't born the full consequences of their actions. Where it ANY western state that suffered attacks of this magnitude, the Pal Arab population of about 3 million would have suffered much much much much more than a little over 3000 fatalities over a 3 year terror war that they started. The US has killed many more in both Iraq and Aghganistan. Syria killed more in one day in their PLO uprising, as did Jordan.

If the Pal's did have to bear the full consequences of their actions, the civil war wouldn't be an issue because they would have been disuaded from the goal of military attempts to destroy Israel (as more and more are being now, with Israel's more moderate responses increasing the consequences).

Abu afak is right - the Pal Arabs need to decide among themselves - do we continue to allow attacks on out neighbor or not. Israel and the West cannot settle the debate for them, although they can make sure that the Pal Arabs understand/feel the consequences of attacking their neighbors.

If the Pal-Arabs aren't willing to use force to stop those other Pal-Arabs who insist on attacking Israel - then no peace is possible - as attacks will continue regardless, other than the peace of dead jews, which I don't think you support - or is that the "peace" that you have in mind?

And when we learn the whole truth about Rabin's assasination, we will find out that it was not the right, but the left or the PLO (or both) that murdered him - to make him a martyr and entrench their policies.

As you can tell by my tone - I don't mind being the bad cop here. Nor do I mind having my views challenged - unlike you who will not allow your views to be challenged - saying something trite like "we have nothing constructive to say to one another."

You Berkeley, are likely a smart person. But for whatever reason you allow your politics to completely color your perception of reality, to the point that you will willingly ignore facts and replace them with assumptions that fit better with your political beliefs.

You are the same as those settlers who believe that transfer of the Arabs is a realistic solution to this conflict - except that they ignore the global econo-political reality, whereas you ignore history and the actions of the parties.



Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
Abu,

We lack sufficient common ground to even attempt a serious discussion. And I have made (and will continue to make) the effort with other people whose opinions differ significantly from mine.

But you are unique on this forum by having suggested that a Palestinian Civil War would be a healthy development. It appears you are one of those persons who would be happy with the maximum amount of blood on his hands.

As Prime Minister Rabin said in his last speech before a Jewish fanatic murdered him: "There are enemies of peace who are trying to hurt us, in order to torpedo the peace process."

Was he talking about you? If the shoe fits, wear it.

We have nothing constructive to say to each other.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by MGB8
Berkley,

You are very good at ignoring what you don't like (or what doesn't fit into your political conception of the world.) Are you brave enough to respond to this? Or will you cowardly not-respond like you did to Abu-Afak's questions to you?

You expertly avoided answering Abu's quetion - which is simply don't the Pal Arabs need to elect a government (as required by the roadmap) so that the government has an idea, by their platforms and who gets elected, of what the population wants to do vis-a-vi peace with Israel......

Oh so true MGB8!

He's been avoiding 95% of what's posted to him and because there have been so many responses pointing out his fallacies, he's just selected occasional small fragments he Could respond to.

With my 'election' point (which he first also tried to ignore until the repost of it at the page top) he DEFENSIVELY tried the old faux-Indignant routine.. you know.. "he has nothing in common with abu-the-barabarian who wants a Civil War" (which is NOT what I said, but did only suggest they may need one in light of their division).

So as you point out, we saw avoidance of a question he didn't even realize was inherent in the Roadmap he is pushing.
(and is no doubt now embarrassed at missing this 'detail')
(dare we ask this novice his idea of borders of this new state?)

But MGB.. we've seen all kinds of similarly Transparent Obfuscations and 'conversational hand grenades'/sabotages before.

All because he's really got nowhere to go now-- and would have to put the onus on the Palestinians (/Elections/My Point), instead of some vague pushing of a Roadmap he knows NOT the terms of.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
I believe you are trying to alter the political history of Israel. This may not be intentional.

The right had everything to gain by Rabin's death,
I disagree with the word "everything". Gain? yes. I didn't shed a tear for him - not then, not now.

Rabin's last speech mentioned these "enemies of peace".
These words out of the mouth of a morn who brought this war upon us.

Ever since then, even Rabin family members and close associates have said over and over that had things gotten to where they were with Rabin being alive, he would have stopped this peace farce long ago.

And Likud obtained the ultimate prize, winning the next election, thanks to invaluable help from Arab suicide bombers who created a climate of fear that drained support from Shimon Peres.
Thanks to Rabin, no less. Enough Israelis at that moment were wide-eyed enough to recognize that Oslo was a sham and that peace is not attainable with Arafat and the PA.

So much for the value of a martyr.
I agree, though there are lots of softees still out there who care more about Rabin's death than the 100s who died as guinea pigs for his little experiment. I take it you're one of them?

Arafat was another big loser in that same election.
He's still here, pulling the strings.

How can you blame the Israeli left when the right-wing assassin was caught and expressed pride in his evil deed? This is not the JFK assassination where no trial ever took place and conspiracy theories run rampant, none of which I take seriously. What "evidence" do you have implicating the left? Who originated these fables?
Srak! Srak!

Little do you know how ugly the story is and how many inconsistencies there are in it. I suggest buying and reading Lies, Israel's Secret Service and the Rabin Murder (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/9652292419/qid=1077520128/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2808769-0305517?v=glance&s=books), by Professor David Morrison. More vivid inconsistencies have come out since the publication of the book.

Even Leah Rabin, in an interview published in La'Isha (Women's) Magazine a few years after the assasination, said there are seriously problems with the official answers given to her. This article (http://www.shemayisrael.com/chareidi/archives5760/toldos/arabin.htm) references her comments but I can't locate the text of the original article online.

If you believe peace would have failed had Rabin lived due to PLO violations, that puts us into the area of pure speculation.
To so many of us here, the writing was on the wall from day one. The biggest speculators here, still looking for fools gold, are the left and the center-left, including Sharon, Olmert & Partners.

Peace could just as well have gained momentum with Rabin as Prime Minister.
You are now the speculator, contradicting the fact that terrorism went through the roof after the Oslo Accords were signed.

In any negotiation, one never states a true final position publicly. The cards must be kept hidden. I simply do not know what a final peace settlement under Oslo would have contained with Rabin and Peres negotiating for Israel. Nor do you.
Indeed, that was one of the biggest stupidities of the accord. Almost total ambiguity. And here we are today, no less ambiguous.

The damage subsequently done to peace by Netanyahu's government was incalculable.
LOL! He was the lesser of 3 evils, counting Rabin and the snake Peres. His general rule was very simple - no peace from the PA, no concessions. And you have a problem with that?

Reviving the peace process unfortunately required more than Barak's good intentions. He was not an ideal negotiator, with less experience and skill than Rabin and Peres. Barak failed to even present his best offer at Camp David.
The typical left lame excuse. Indeed barak was a miserable negotiator. He put his cards face up on the table and said take what you want. Temple Mount, half of Jerusalem, almost 67' borders.

But go ahead and blame Barak. Very logical, of course.

Arafat was far worse, making no counter-proposal
What counter-proposals did he need to take? All he had to do was say "yes".

and thus losing American confidence, perhaps permanently. Serves him right.
Unfortunately, it just took the US and many (hard to say most) of the peaceniks 6 years to admit this.

And Arafat is still pulling the strings.

Reasonable people may disagree over most of the things we have written. But until now, I never heard or read a statement that chances are "the left had Rabin murdered". If you cannot back that up, why introduce it in the first place?
Introduced.

As for these repeated questions about new Palestinian elections, they are part of the Road Map, which the United States continues to support. Secretary of State Powell's most recent statement focused on other higher priorities, such as security concerns, Gaza, and the fence. Let's not forget negotiations, which are the Road Map's only hope. There is nothing further I can possibly add.
Indeed.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by MGB8
Berkley,

You are very good at ignoring what you don't like (or what doesn't fit into your political conception of the world.) Are you brave enough to respond to this? Or will you cowardly not-respond like you did to Abu-Afak's questions to you?

You expertly avoided answering Abu's quetion - which is simply don't the Pal Arabs need to elect a government (as required by the roadmap) so that the government has an idea, by their platforms and who gets elected, of what the population wants to do vis-a-vi peace with Israel......

Oh so true MGB8!

He's been avoiding 95% of what's posted(/Reposted/Re-Reposted) to him and because there have been so many responses pointing out his fallacies, he's just selected occasional small fragments he Could respond to.

With my 'Election' point (which he first also tried to ignore until the repost of it at the page top, and now Continues to despite even you/MGB pointing to it) he DEFENSIVELY tried the old faux-Indignant routine.. you know.. "he has nothing in common with abu-the-barabarian who wants a Civil War" (which is NOT what I said, but did only suggest they may need one in light of their division).

So as you point out, we saw avoidance of a question he didn't even realize was inherent in the Roadmap he is pushing! Elections
(and he is no doubt now embarrassed at missing/not knowing this 'detail')
(dare we ask this novice his idea of borders of this new state?)

But MGB.. we've seen all kinds of similarly Transparent Obfuscations and 'conversational hand grenades'/sabotages before.

All because he's really got nowhere to go now-- and would have to put the onus on the Palestinians (/Elections/My Point), instead of some vague pushing of a Roadmap he knows NOT the terms of.

So I suspect he'll keep trying to ignore 'the Elephant/s in the room'...
the one he rented in fact, but didn't even know what was in it.

[Binyamin]

Bekrley,
You quoted a very important paragraph from Rabin's speech.


I want to say bluntly, that we have found a partner for peace among the Palestinians as well: the PLO, which was an enemy, and has ceased to engage in terrorism. Without partners for peace, there can be no peace.

Without partners, no peace.

The PLO is a partner now that they have "ceased to engage in terrorism."

The PLO, now the PA, is completely committed to terror.

There is no partner, and there cannot be peace.

[Mediocrates]

Berkeley

Actually Likud won following Rabin's death by the narrowest of margins plus they mounted a PM candidate (Netanyahu) who had relatively little experience. The right had very little to gain.

But all of this smacks of second gunman on the grassy knoll talk which I think is probably beneath you. If you want to believe there was a huge dark plot to get rid of Rabin, have at it. The fact is, for most of Israel's history it was the left leaning administrations which were in power and to little net effect. You seek enemies among Israelis where your real enemies are in the PA. If you seriously think that Likud is a bigger threat than Fatah then you are delusional.

[Oh Jerusalem]

P.A. Arabs vs. Arafat (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=58359)
16:35 Feb 23, '04 / 1 Adar 5764

Journalist Dmitry Radyshevsky, Executive-Director of the Michael Cherney Foundation, chaired the First Annual Jerusalem Summit last autumn, which was co-sponsored by Israel's Tourism Ministry and the National Unity Coalition for Israel, among others. Its stated goals were to convene "outstanding political and academic leaders to develop a joint strategy against the Totalitarianism of the East represented by radical Islam, as well as against Moral Relativism of the West."

Radyshevsky told the participants that he recently "had an in-depth conversation with a very influential Palestinian Arab. Since he no longer resides in the territories, he can afford the luxury to think and speak freely; yet since he is still linked to the PA in various ways, he should not be named." Radyshevsky then proceeded to quote him "without commentary:"

"Israel won the first intifada. The Palestinians were exhausted. Arafat was at his lowest point in Tunisia. At that time Israel could have imposed any solution, and the Palestinians would have accepted it. Instead, you [Israel] went to Oslo - without consulting with either Arabs in the territories [us] or Jordan... And the Arabs concluded that Arafat had won.

"[We] were prepared to accept the status quo - a de facto peace - but Israel imposed on [us] the Arafat Gang with the old Arab mentality - rejection of any peace with Israel. The first thing the PLO did upon return was to close down the opposition papers and fire every independent journalist.

"After Oslo, we thought we would have lightly armed police to keep public order. But when we saw these guys with submachine guns, we exclaimed: This is not police - this is fedayeen. They said right away: 'We came back to continue the struggle. It is more convenient to fight Israel from here than from Tunisia.'

"They installed a dozen armed structures, all of which were in the business of robbery, rape, and extortion. A relative of mine had a store next door to a headquarters. These officers would come in every day, take whatever they wanted, and tell him to put it on the organization's account. When the amount reached 15,000 shekels, they arrested him and accused him of being an Israeli spy. They kept him in the basement for three days and let him go only when he agreed to forget the debt. When he came home, he prayed to Allah to erase these 'headquarters.' A few months later, Israelis bombed the building. He called me: 'Allah heard my prayers!' Any Palestinian can tell you a dozen stories like that.

"Your Operation Defensive Shield made Palestinians more free by putting the PA security services out of business, which brought down the number of rapes, extortion, and torture... Israel keeps misleading us by sending wrong signals. You say Arafat is no longer a partner, but Sharon is about to meet with Abu Ala, and Omri Sharon meets with Rajoub. But here everybody knows them as Arafat's people. And so the Palestinians think that in fact Israel is plotting to make Arafat strong...You should either acknowledge you're working with him, or get rid of his gang once and forever. Be straight and consistent. Tell the truth.

"Jerusalem Arabs want to keep their permanent resident status; they see what is going on in the West Bank and what Arafat has done to them... Palestinians want to go back to the pre-1987 situation, when one could travel from Ramallah to Ramat Gan, to earn money and go back home, without Arafat or check points...

"You must disarm all Arafat's armed forces and leave a civilian administration only. If you don't do it now, Arafat will be followed by thousands of Arafats. Enter the territories, disarm all the 'security services', and stay there. If you let the people know you are here to stay, that you will not allow the jihadists to come back and grow here, people will believe in you and help you. Palestinians will not fight for Arafat. Intifada is not a popular revolt; it's a war conducted by several armed groups.

"The only other alternative you have is to go back and hide behind the 1967 borders, and then prepare for the worst: Hamas in the Old City and French Hill, and the total war for destruction. Then both Jews and Arabs will die.

"No one will say any of this in the open. First you must enter the territories and prove you're serious. And then I'll give you 500 influential Arabs who will support you."

[Jorge]

From MGB8 post # 86:

(2) the consequence of calling it a "police action" is to deligitimize Israel's actions in self-defense to the world, and thus make it more difficult for Israel to defend itself, and easier for the Pal-Arabs to kill Israelis.

I wish you people would stop ascribing to us (by us meaning the Israeli Left) such devious intentions and motivations like wanting to make easier for Palestinians to kill Israelis (us included). I won’t even argue the point. I assume that it has its origins in a deeply rooted American cultural trait: to think that your opponents are wrong it’s not enough, you have to think also that they are EVIL incarnated.

I fail to see why calling it a police action could “deligitimize Israel’s action in self-defence” and calling it a War would legitimize them. Operations conducted within the framework of “police actions” may or not be legitimate and may or not be wise and may or not be ethical ones. The same applies to those operations conducted within a “war”. Killing of non-combatants and abuses of the civil population are not considered legitimate, whether within a war or within a massive police action. The use of “excessive force” by the police forces in the riots of Oct.2000, that led to the killing of 12 Israeli Arabs led to an Enquiry Committee to find those responsible for the killings. A similar committee was appointed to enquiry into the massacres of Shabra and Shatilla, conducted with Mr. Sharon’s acquiescence, which were performed during a War. Dropping a one-ton bomb on a building that “may or may not” be occupied by children with the intent of killing one terrorist chief, will considered harshly whether as part of a war or of a police action.

It occurs to me that part of our opposing points of view comes from the confusion between war and “combats”. As an example of “a combat situation” within a War, one could think of soldiers of one side bombarding a town from which soldiers of the enemy are firing at them. It is taken for granted that innocent civilians will be killed in such an action and, sad as it is, it is merely considered as an unfortunate side effect of a War. An entirely different case is when the same soldiers in the same War, decide to bombard a town as a reprisal for some act of sabotage or to teach the town dwellers a lesson. The latter is considered a War Crime; the main difference consisting in that the first was a “combat situation” and the second isn’t.

I do understand that the fight against organized terrorism is not as clear cut as a War between two Armies and hence poses a number of new dilemmas. Events like “targeted killings” , the use of torture in interrogations attempting to diffuse “a ticking bomb situation” and others of the sort, may be considered by most Courts of Law as legitimate actions of self-defense. , Targeted killings carried out without proper consideration of the number of bystanders that may be killed or measures designed to inflict suffering to the population at large as part of psychological warfare, will probably not pass the scrutiny of the same Courts.

The fact that the Hamas, Jihad and the PA security forces aren't "traditional armies" makes no difference - they are warriors commiting violence for political aims - and this is a war. Clearly and unquestionably.

Here I strongly disagree and moreover I think you are doing a poor service in presenting the Israeli position to the public. To call them “warriors committing violence for political aims” is close to call them “freedom fighters”. The word warrior has a positive connotation for most people. They are not warriors, they are just murderers pure and simple. If anyone had to undertake the macabre task of cataloguing murderers, suicide terrorists would surely be at the bottom of the scale. One may be able to understand humans committing killings as acts of passion, or greed or vengeance, but this is wanton, reckless killings and puts its perpetrators outside the human kind. Their crimes are not only inhuman but the perpetrators are sub-human.

To call them “warriors committing violence for political aims” in a war context, in the misguided effort to justify calling this a War, even if it isn’t, is unfortunate. While so doing you put a bunch of murderers in the same lot of warriors present and past. I’m not sure whether Warriors go to Heaven, Purgatory or Hell; wherever they go, I’m sure they wouldn’t accept to share their quarters with suicide bombers.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
ibrodsky,

On this part of Israel's history, we have irreconcilable differences.

I believe that lunatic carried out the desires of an Israeli extremist constituency which had labeled Prime Minister Rabin as a traitor.

I wish the murdering fanatic had been stopped; so that Rabin could have lived to try and create a better, more peaceful future for Israel.


Yes, we do have an irreconciable difference. By equating criticism of Rabin's policy of appeasement with support for assassination, you demonstrate your intolerance of legitimate dissenting views.

In fact, your dismissive attitude towards those who believed it unwise to invite Yaser Arafat to move his base of operations from Tunis to Gaza City is downright mean-spirited--particularly given that events proved them right.

So I'm not sure what more I can say to someone who blames Palestinian war crimes on the Israeli victims. You apparently learned nothing from Churchill, as you are determined to repeat Neville Chamberlain's mistakes.

P.S.: Mediocrates hit the nail on the head when he said "If you seriously think that Likud is a bigger threat than Fatah then you are delusional."

[Binyamin]

Jorge,


Dropping a one-ton bomb on a building that “may or may not” be occupied by children with the intent of killing one terrorist chief, will considered harshly whether as part of a war or of a police action.


Targeted killings carried out without proper consideration of the number of bystanders that may be killed or measures designed to inflict suffering to the population at large as part of psychological warfare, will probably not pass the scrutiny of the same Courts.

You are worrying about the Palestinian child more than the Jewish children who will be saved, which is not a morally balanced view. If fifty innocent Palestinians will be killed (keep in mind that most of them support terror, and that most of the children are being raised to be terrorists,) but the action will save the lives of many more Jews (all of whom want the Palestinians to live in peace,) then the bombing is morally necessary.

The Geneva Convention spefically says that an army may ignore civilians when attacking military targets.


Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

All actions against the Palestinians are completely legal and moral, and they save lives and suffering. The people who fight against these actions are allowing the terror to continue longer.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
There is nothing further I can possibly add.
I. for one, noticed that right away.

[Mira~]

oooooh, it's gettin hot in here!

[Mediocrates]

Self defence also includes one's capability to degrade your attackers WILL to fight. Without this vital aspect you are performing no more than permanent pest control. So I would submit that one should not be too picky about so called collateral damage or take extraordinary steps to insure that every man woman child and donkey is out of harms way before 'taking out' some terrorists. How long do you think Hamas would garner local support if their very presence amidst the local population was so radioactive that it brought down the buildings, literally around their heads? What if a significant part of the IDF's response was in fact psychological terrorism as it were? Why not take the tack as they did in the 50's that what's important is to destroy the Palestinians will to kill?

[Jorge]

From Binyamin post #96:

The GA and the Road Map cannot be supported because "there is no better solution, and the alternative is worse." Unless there are good indications that a plan will bring peace, Israel cannot gamble anything on that plan. There is no reason to believe that either of these plans will do better than Oslo, and there are many indications that they will only bring more suffering. Even if there aren't any other options, it is better to do nothing.

The above paragraph is a good example of a misconception prevalent in a sector of the Israeli public. The idea being that if we enter into a peace process of whatever sort we are taking risks, whereas by “doing nothing” we are safe from risks.

I called it a misconception because it ignores the fact that “doing nothing” at the diplomatic level will not necessarily mean that the processes which are currently in motion in the Israeli society, the Palestinian society and the international community are going to stand still. These processes are numerous and complex but they all have a dynamic of their own; the demographic trends will go on working, the socio-economic deterioration in Israeli society will continue, the collapse of the Palestinian society and its relapse into anarchy will follow its course and the impatience of the international community with leaderships, both Israeli and Palestinian, incapable of looking further than their noses will go on growing.

The “doing nothing” strategy involves thus taking a considerable risk. That in a few years the situation will not be the same as now is stating the obvious; the change might be favorable to us in which case we win the game or, it may be unfavorable to us and we loose it. One’s personal beliefs might induce them to bet on either a favorable or unfavorable outcome, but to think that we are not taking huge risks is to bury one’s head in the sand, as ostriches are famous for doing.

In my opinion the greatest risk involved in the “do-nothing” strategy is that in the near future we might be confronted with a situation in which a two-state solution to the conflict is no longer a viable one. If this happens, a de-facto bi-national State will be the only option; such an option, as has been said over and over, means that the State of Israel will be no longer Jewish, neither democratic. By then mutual hatred may have reached such a level that the next outcome may be genocide, ethnic cleansing of either we or them.

The reasons why I favor an immediate start of a peace process along the lines of the Road Map or the GA are not that I ignore the flaws and pitfalls involved in their implementation. I myself could write quite a long list of them. The reasons lie mainly in that I think that by playing the “do-nothing game ” we are putting the continued existence of the State of Israel in the roulette table.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Mira
oooooh, it's gettin hot in here!
My PC's cooling fan goes to make speed when I'm in here. :p

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Jorge
[The above paragraph is a good example of a misconception prevalent in a sector of the Israeli public. The idea being that if we enter into a peace process of whatever sort we are taking risks, whereas by “doing nothing” we are safe from risks.
Almost everyone that I know is for doing something - going to war. We're all fed up with Sharon's doing virtually nothing, worse, unilatreally retreating and giving terrorists more incentive than ever.

Israel's PR stinks because there is no diplomatic explanation for doing nothing.

The reasons lie mainly in that I think that by playing the “do-nothing game ” we are putting the continued existence of the State of Israel in the roulette table.
I see almost no difference between the result of our doing nothing and implementing the roadmap.

Both of them will lead to the the potential demise of Israel.

[Jorge]

From Mediocrates post #116:

Self defence also includes one's capability to degrade your attackers WILL to fight. Without this vital aspect you are performing no more than permanent pest control. So I would submit that one should not be too picky about so called collateral damage or take extraordinary steps to insure that every man woman child and donkey is out of harms way before 'taking out' some terrorists.

I'm not quite sure who said the following but I'll quote him anyway:

" If the day comes when we'll have the same scale of values as those of the Palestinian terrorists then in that day I'll know they have manged to defeat us. "

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Jorge
I'm not quite sure who said the following but I'll quote him anyway:

" If the day comes when we'll have the same scale of values as those of the Palestinian terrorists then in that they I'll know they have manged to defeat us. " [/B]
The tactics mentioned by Mediocrates are pefectly permissable according to the Geneva Convention.

No one's talked about stooping as low as the Arabs.

[Binyamin]

Jorge,

Doing nothing leaves us with the WB and GS, and it leaves us the option of doing something in the future.
The GA or the Road Map will leave us with nothing except Palestinian good-will. If that won't be enough, then the terror will continue for as long as Israel will exist, without any realistic possibility of improving the situation.

I was not saying that Israel should not do anything. I was showing one alternative to the GA and Road Map, to answer the argument that there is nothing else. Doing nothing is a suitable, and more beneficial, alternative.

I suggested earlier that Israel should slowly retake the territories. This, together with other steps, can return the situation to how it was before Oslo, and allow for the establishment of a democratic and peaceful Palestinian civil government, whenever they will demonstrate that they want peace.

This may not be the best solution, but it will leave a way out, and it will leave us with bargaining chips. The GA and Road Map leave us with nothing.

[Mediocrates]

I believe my methods were fully endorsed by Ben-Gurion, Peres, Ayalon, Sharon and Rabin in the 50's. During the bad years 48-56 when the invisible war claimed hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians they believed that they had to seriously degrade the Palestinians desire to kill them or at least make them pay for it at a price that was too high to be acceptable. Once you start haggling over an acceptable number of Jewish murders based on an acceptable response to them, it is your morale I'm afraid which will collapse.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
The tactics mentioned by Mediocrates are pefectly permissable according to the Geneva Convention.

No one's talked about stooping as low as the Arabs.


No, but the Jews of YESHA were originally considered to be a front line early warning advanced guard. Strategic in nature. I see nothing wrong with exploiting that and arming them and giving them clear guidelines on how they can respond to terrorism on their own. I don't advocate bus bombings in Ramallah but I see nothing at all wrong with giving all the 'settlement' shoulder fired missles and the will to use them, nor do I see any harm with deputizing some of them and allowing them to operate freely within a given radius of their homes, in ways they devise themselves to respond to terrorist threats and acts.

[MGB8]

Jorge,

In the law it is presumed that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of their actions.

Speaking and trying to persuade is a form of action.

Your action is trying to persuade people that Israel is not at war, but "merely" engaged in a "police action." You KNOW that the conotations and implications of a "police action" are much different than a "war." A Police Action implies a handful of people, not generally heavily armed, not with a political purpose.

A war implies something else entirely.

They ARE Warriors. And, unlike the bias that you accuse me of, I accept that they believe that they ARE Freedom Fighters - fighting against foreign invaders and occupiers (of all Israel.) Like Takeo implies - the Jews should go back to Europe (and whereever else they came from, except the smaller numbers that were here before....which the Arabs can dominate).

This is a war, an aggressive war to conquer Israel for Islam and pan-Arabia, but they, unlike "warriors" before them cowardly choose to target civilians, because they know they cannot win in the field of battle. They themselves will admit as much (except the cowardly part).

Its not "unfortunate" - it is accurate. That's the difference between you and I, Jorge. I don't care that calling the "merely criminals" may to some extent de-legitimize them. The truth is that they are commiting acts of war, and should be responded to in kind. They are not "just criminals," and to treat them as such is both condescending to them and weakens Israel.

You go on to make my point, that your goal is to limit Israel military responses to these acts of war. WHAT IS THE NATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT?

You probably will argue increased resentment in response - but increased resentment has a much lesser effect than no negative consequences for actions. And killing terrorists is the best way to fight terrorism - if you believe their 'hydra' theory, kill one and two will grow, you are a fool - people in general are pretty cowardly, and when they see that actions will lead to their death and the harship or deaths of those they care about, the non-suicidal ones will avoid those actions.

That is why there was no real revolt under Saddam, or against the Ayatollah, or against the Syrian, Jordanian or Saudi regimes.

Only when they BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN WIN do people commit these actions (like the Shi'ite who though they'd have US military backing).

You need to really read a lot of history and learn the lessons from it.



Originally posted by Jorge
From MGB8 post # 86:

(2) the consequence of calling it a "police action" is to deligitimize Israel's actions in self-defense to the world, and thus make it more difficult for Israel to defend itself, and easier for the Pal-Arabs to kill Israelis.

I wish you people would stop ascribing to us (by us meaning the Israeli Left) such devious intentions and motivations like wanting to make easier for Palestinians to kill Israelis (us included). I won’t even argue the point. I assume that it has its origins in a deeply rooted American cultural trait: to think that your opponents are wrong it’s not enough, you have to think also that they are EVIL incarnated.

I fail to see why calling it a police action could “deligitimize Israel’s action in self-defence” and calling it a War would legitimize them. Operations conducted within the framework of “police actions” may or not be legitimate and may or not be wise and may or not be ethical ones. The same applies to those operations conducted within a “war”. Killing of non-combatants and abuses of the civil population are not considered legitimate, whether within a war or within a massive police action. The use of “excessive force” by the police forces in the riots of Oct.2000, that led to the killing of 12 Israeli Arabs led to an Enquiry Committee to find those responsible for the killings. A similar committee was appointed to enquiry into the massacres of Shabra and Shatilla, conducted with Mr. Sharon’s acquiescence, which were performed during a War. Dropping a one-ton bomb on a building that “may or may not” be occupied by children with the intent of killing one terrorist chief, will considered harshly whether as part of a war or of a police action.

It occurs to me that part of our opposing points of view comes from the confusion between war and “combats”. As an example of “a combat situation” within a War, one could think of soldiers of one side bombarding a town from which soldiers of the enemy are firing at them. It is taken for granted that innocent civilians will be killed in such an action and, sad as it is, it is merely considered as an unfortunate side effect of a War. An entirely different case is when the same soldiers in the same War, decide to bombard a town as a reprisal for some act of sabotage or to teach the town dwellers a lesson. The latter is considered a War Crime; the main difference consisting in that the first was a “combat situation” and the second isn’t.

I do understand that the fight against organized terrorism is not as clear cut as a War between two Armies and hence poses a number of new dilemmas. Events like “targeted killings” , the use of torture in interrogations attempting to diffuse “a ticking bomb situation” and others of the sort, may be considered by most Courts of Law as legitimate actions of self-defense. , Targeted killings carried out without proper consideration of the number of bystanders that may be killed or measures designed to inflict suffering to the population at large as part of psychological warfare, will probably not pass the scrutiny of the same Courts.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jorge
From MGB8 post # 86:

(2) the consequence of calling it a "police action" is to deligitimize Israel's actions in self-defense to the world, and thus make it more difficult for Israel to defend itself, and easier for the Pal-Arabs to kill Israelis.

I wish you people would stop ascribing to us (by us meaning the Israeli Left) such devious intentions and motivations like wanting to make easier for Palestinians to kill Israelis ([B]us included). I won’t even argue the point. I assume that it has its origins in a deeply rooted American cultural trait: to think that your opponents are wrong it’s not enough, you have to think also that they are EVIL incarnated.

I fail to see why calling it a police action could “deligitimize Israel’s action in self-defence” and calling it a War would legitimize them. Operations conducted within the framework of “police actions” may or not be legitimate and may or not be wise and may or not be ethical ones. The same applies to those operations conducted within a “war”. Killing of non-combatants and abuses of the civil population are not considered legitimate, whether within a war or within a massive police action. The use of “excessive force” by the police forces in the riots of Oct.2000, that led to the killing of 12 Israeli Arabs led to an Enquiry Committee to find those responsible for the killings. A similar committee was appointed to enquiry into the massacres of Shabra and Shatilla, conducted with Mr. Sharon’s acquiescence, which were performed during a War. Dropping a one-ton bomb on a building that “may or may not” be occupied by children with the intent of killing one terrorist chief, will considered harshly whether as part of a war or of a police action.

It occurs to me that part of our opposing points of view comes from the confusion between war and “combats”. As an example of “a combat situation” within a War, one could think of soldiers of one side bombarding a town from which soldiers of the enemy are firing at them. It is taken for granted that innocent civilians will be killed in such an action and, sad as it is, it is merely considered as an unfortunate side effect of a War. An entirely different case is when the same soldiers in the same War, decide to bombard a town as a reprisal for some act of sabotage or to teach the town dwellers a lesson. The latter is considered a War Crime; the main difference consisting in that the first was a “combat situation” and the second isn’t.

I do understand that the fight against organized terrorism is not as clear cut as a War between two Armies and hence poses a number of new dilemmas. Events like “targeted killings” , the use of torture in interrogations attempting to diffuse “a ticking bomb situation” and others of the sort, may be considered by most Courts of Law as legitimate actions of self-defense. , Targeted killings carried out without proper consideration of the number of bystanders that may be killed or measures designed to inflict suffering to the population at large as part of psychological warfare, will probably not pass the scrutiny of the same Courts.

The fact that the Hamas, Jihad and the PA security forces aren't "traditional armies" makes no difference - they are warriors commiting violence for political aims - and this is a war. Clearly and unquestionably.

......

To call them “warriors committing violence for political aims” in a war context, in the misguided effort to justify calling this a War, even if it isn’t, is unfortunate. While so doing you put a bunch of murderers in the same lot of warriors present and past. I’m not sure whether Warriors go to Heaven, Purgatory or Hell; wherever they go, I’m sure they wouldn’t accept to share their quarters with suicide bombers.

[MGB8]

Berkely,

The question of whether the Pal-Arabs need to have free and open elections, as required by the road map, to decide whether they want to pursue peace with Israel, or its eventual destruction, is still on the table.

You suggest that the right had something to gain by Rabin's death (other than some emotional revenge - if that's all you are suggesting then I can't argue with that).

What did they have to gain?

PERES, more left than Rabin, took over for him (for TWO YEARS!!!) The LEFT gained immediately thereafter, not the right.

Do you believe the murder of Rabin by, as you say, a right-wing Zealot, made the right more appealing to the Israeli public, or less?

You speculated a right-wing conspiracy, but wouldn't an Arab have been a much better foil - one could have been manipulated into commiting the crime.

No. It was the left who managed to ENTRENCH policies that the nation was deeply deeply divided on at the time who gained most from Rabin's assassination. Subsequent elections would have happened anyway, there is no "ultimate prize" when elections happen as often as Israel. I

f terror had continued like IT DID, its likely that Rabin would have lost, unless he CHANGED POLICY. If Rabin DID change policy, with his stature it would have destroyed Arafat and Oslo. In the end, the right lost because of Rabin's death, and the left and the PLO gained.

Netenyahu didn't damage the peace process . That idea is buying into the propaganda line that "settlements" stop peace. But Bibi didn't fund terrorism, the PLO did. The PLO incited, the PLO denyed Israel's legitimacy on their political sites, symbols, media and schools.

Bibi instituted a plan which said, "everytime there is a terror attack, we will put in another settlement, hoping that the Pal-Arabs will get the point that terror HURTs their desire for land, not helps it." It was logical, but based on a false premise - that the PLO wanted a peaceful state next to Israel with as much territory as possible. but what the PLO really wanted, and wants, is the defeat, and then destruction of Israel. Negotiations don't fit into the Jihadi model.

The PLO KNEW that Israel has demolitied and removed settlements in the past. They know that if they get land in a negotiated agreement, they can do whatever they want with that land - tear down a fence, takeover settlements. But they also knew that they had the "demographic weapon," and where hoping to internationalize the war.

Why do you and Jorge also ignore or disbelieve what the PLO says in Arabic, but believe them when they speak English?

Unfortunately, Berkely, its you who has revised history, not me.





Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
MGB8,

I believe you are trying to alter the political history of Israel. This may not be intentional.

The right had everything to gain by Rabin's death, which is why a Jewish reactionary religious zealot assassinated him in 1995. Rabin's last speech mentioned these "enemies of peace".

And Likud obtained the ultimate prize, winning the next election, thanks to invaluable help from Arab suicide bombers who created a climate of fear that drained support from Shimon Peres. So much for the value of a martyr. Arafat was another big loser in that same election.

How can you blame the Israeli left when the right-wing assassin was caught and expressed pride in his evil deed? This is not the JFK assassination where no trial ever took place and conspiracy theories run rampant, none of which I take seriously. What "evidence" do you have implicating the left? Who originated these fables?

If you believe peace would have failed had Rabin lived due to PLO violations, that puts us into the area of pure speculation. Peace could just as well have gained momentum with Rabin as Prime Minister.

In any negotiation, one never states a true final position publicly. The cards must be kept hidden. I simply do not know what a final peace settlement under Oslo would have contained with Rabin and Peres negotiating for Israel. Nor do you.

The damage subsequently done to peace by Netanyahu's government was incalculable. Reviving the peace process unfortunately required more than Barak's good intentions. He was not an ideal negotiator, with less experience and skill than Rabin and Peres. Barak failed to even present his best offer at Camp David. Arafat was far worse, making no counter-proposal and thus losing American confidence, perhaps permanently. Serves him right.

I would have expected the parties to at least bring a conceptual agreement to Camp David in 2000, which I believe Begin and Sadat had already reached before President Carter's mediation helped work out the details and finalize it. Instead I suspect Barak and Arafat had little substantive communication before Camp David.

And it has been a total disaster since then, with plenty of blame, death, and misery to go around.

Reasonable people may disagree over most of the things we have written. But until now, I never heard or read a statement that chances are "the left had Rabin murdered". If you cannot back that up, why introduce it in the first place?

As for these repeated questions about new Palestinian elections, they are part of the Road Map, which the United States continues to support. Secretary of State Powell's most recent statement focused on other higher priorities, such as security concerns, Gaza, and the fence. Let's not forget negotiations, which are the Road Map's only hope. There is nothing further I can possibly add.

[ibrodsky]

An interesting tidbit from Efraim Karsh's book "Arafat's War": when confronted by Western leaders about the continuation of Palestinian mass murder attacks against Israelis during the Oslo "Peace Process" Arafat blamed the attacks on Jewish conspirators.

[Jorge]

Quotes from Binyamin #122:

Doing nothing leaves us with the WB and GS, and it leaves us the option of doing something in the future.
The GA or the Road Map will leave us with nothing except Palestinian good-will. If that won't be enough, then the terror will continue for as long as Israel will exist, without any realistic possibility of improving the situation.

The way I see it, and I’m not alone in this appraisal of the situation, terror will continue to be inflicted upon us independently of whether or not we withdraw from the WB and GS. If we follow the right policies, terror may decrease in intensity and frequency, but it won’t vanish. I’m with those who think that terror is exacerbated, intensified, by our continued occupation of the conquered territories but it’s not the cause of it. Even if we were to disappear from the Middle East, terror will find other banner and targets, amongst them the secular and progressive groups of the Muslim world and the European and American infidels.

By becoming convinced that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is mainly centered around the issue of terror we have fallen into a trap artfully designed by groups like Hamas and of those in Israel who favor the annexation of the occupied territories. According to the arguments of the latter, no peace process of any kind may be conducted unless terror is stopped. Since they know damn well that terror is not being to be eradicated, nor by us nor by anyone else, what they are effectively aiming at, is at "staying put" for the near future. This, while in the meantime, expanding the existing settlements, creating new ones and an infrastructure of roads, fences and walls designed to push Palestinians inside smaller and smaller “enclaves”.

The above is not really a policy of “doing nothing” as Binyamin suggests. It’s a policy of doing nothing in so far at it concerns rejecting any peace initiative, but it’s a policy of Doing, actively and persistently, in so far as it concerns creating “facts in the ground” that could end for ever the possibility of a two-state solution.

In the words of Binyamin:
I suggested earlier that Israel should slowly retake the territories. This, together with other steps, can return the situation to how it was before Oslo, and allow for the establishment of a democratic and peaceful Palestinian civil government, whenever they will demonstrate that they want peace.

I’m not quite sure what does he mean by “slowly retake” . According to the newspapers that I read we have already taken or re-taken them all. How could this and “other measures” that remain to be specified, conduct the conflict back to the pre-Oslo period?

I’m under the impression, and correct me if I’m wrong, that the pre-Oslo period refers to those years between the Yom Kippur War and the outbreak of the first intifadah. During those years we all lived under the illusion that the inhabitants of the territories had come to accept their fate: to be for ever nothing more than a reservoir of cheap labor under the “benevolent occupation” of the IDF. We may look at that period with nostalgic feelings or, alternatively, we may kick our heads in atonement for having been so blind.

[MGB8]

Jorge,

You know full well that Israel hasn't retaken all of the territories. That's why when tanks roll into Gaza or Israel launces Defensive Shield or goes into Jenin or Ramallah that there's such a big to-do.

I agree with you that Israel cannot hold on to all the territories. The demographic threat and the threats of eventual sactions make either controlling the Arab population or transferring them are impossible without endangering Israel.

However, I disagree with you that we should ignore what Arafat and the PLO say in Arabic, or their actions. I disagree with you that when they clearly promote terror, committ terror, that we should pretend they don't for the sake of some imagined "peace process" that hasn't resulted in any peace, only escalating demands.

Stop ignoring reality. The PA is not a peace partner, it is an enemy nation, committed to the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews. And there is no group within Pal-Arab society willing to do what it takes to stop those who will continue to attack Jews. so what chances of real peace (not a piece of paper) are there? Slim and none.


Originally posted by Jorge
Quotes from Binyamin #122:

Doing nothing leaves us with the WB and GS, and it leaves us the option of doing something in the future.
The GA or the Road Map will leave us with nothing except Palestinian good-will. If that won't be enough, then the terror will continue for as long as Israel will exist, without any realistic possibility of improving the situation.

The way I see it, and I’m not alone in this appraisal of the situation, terror will continue to be inflicted upon us independently of whether or not we withdraw from the WB and GS. If we follow the right policies, terror may decrease in intensity and frequency, but it won’t vanish. I’m with those who think that terror is exacerbated, intensified, by our continued occupation of the conquered territories but it’s not the cause of it. Even if we were to disappear from the Middle East, terror will find other banner and targets, amongst them the secular and progressive groups of the Muslim world and the European and American infidels.

By becoming convinced that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is mainly centered around the issue of terror we have fallen into a trap artfully designed by groups like Hamas and of those in Israel who favor the annexation of the occupied territories. According to the arguments of the latter, no peace process of any kind may be conducted unless terror is stopped. Since they know damn well that terror is not being to be eradicated, nor by us nor by anyone else, what they are effectively aiming at, is at "staying put" for the near future. This, while in the meantime, expanding the existing settlements, creating new ones and an infrastructure of roads, fences and walls designed to push Palestinians inside smaller and smaller “enclaves”.

The above is not really a policy of “doing nothing” as Binyamin suggests. It’s a policy of doing nothing in so far at it concerns rejecting any peace initiative, but it’s a policy of Doing, actively and persistently, in so far as it concerns creating “facts in the ground” that could end for ever the possibility of a two-state solution.

In the words of Binyamin:
I suggested earlier that Israel should slowly retake the territories. This, together with other steps, can return the situation to how it was before Oslo, and allow for the establishment of a democratic and peaceful Palestinian civil government, whenever they will demonstrate that they want peace.

I’m not quite sure what does he mean by “slowly retake” . According to the newspapers that I read we have already taken or re-taken them all. How could this and “other measures” that remain to be specified, conduct the conflict back to the pre-Oslo period?

I’m under the impression, and correct me if I’m wrong, that the pre-Oslo period refers to those years between the Yom Kippur War and the outbreak of the first intifadah. During those years we all lived under the illusion that the inhabitants of the territories had come to accept their fate: to be for ever nothing more than a reservoir of cheap labor under the “benevolent occupation” of the IDF. We may look at that period with nostalgic feelings or, alternatively, we may kick our heads in atonement for having been so blind.

[Jorge]

Posted by MGB8, # 125:
Jorge,
You need to really read a lot of history and learn the lessons from it.

In that, for a change, I cannot but agree with you. Years go by and the list of “Books-I-should-have-read-but-I-haven’t", gets longer and longer. Whenever one starts with another book, one discovers another 10 to add to the List. Rather depressing, I’d say. Anyway, let’s try to do something with the little I know.

Take for instance an episode from History called “ The Conquest of the West” during the 19th Century. In those years people started to colonize what was loosely called The American West, thus starting A Conflict . This particular conflict was clearly about Land. One side, that we may call the Foreign Americans (descendants of English, Irish, Poles, Germans, etc) ,wanted to settle there; another side, that we might call Native Americans (because they’ve been living there for countless generations), claimed the same Land as rightfully theirs and objected violently. The government of the time, which had been promoting this settlement business, sends in US troops to give a hand to the Foreign Americans and, in a comparatively short time the conflict was resolved.

The particular solution chosen then, was to herd the Native Americans (the ones that were left) to some out of the way places called Indian Reservations. Peace Treaties (not like the flimsy GA, but real, solid ones) were solemnly signed whereby the US President promised to let them live unharmed provided they kept quiet and didn’t wander out of the said Reservations.

Now, how would you call the armed confrontation? A War, a Police Action, a Military Campaign, something else? I’m merely asking because I’m not sure myself.

As you rightly say we should try to learn the Lessons that History teaches us. The first that occurs to me is that if one side has enough military superiority it can get away with Almost Anything. As Churchill might have written in his History of the English Speaking Ones, it’s not so much a question of which side is right and which one wrong, but of which side has got the rifles and which one has got the bows and arrows.

The other lesson that occurs to me is that the victors are remembered and the defeated are quickly forgotten. Were if not for the fact that some Hollywood producers invented the Western films, most of us would not even suspect that Red Indians ever existed.

Is this particular piece of History relevant to the I-P conflict? In many ways, no and in a few ways, yes. When some right-wingers talk about Peace with the Palestinians, they appeared to have in mind Treaties similar to those referred to above. Change a few words, Palestinians instead of Red Indians; enclaves, instead of reservations, “promise to abandon violence”, instead of keeping quiet and it looks like sort of related conceptions, doesn’t it?

After all if some misguided Americans in the 19th century had come along with something looking like our present Road Map or the GA model, the reaction would surely have been, as it is now in some right wing circles: What for? We can get away with Almost Anything!

[abu afak]

I wonder if the Indians would have turned down Half of America.. say West of the Mississippi.... as the Arabs turned down half of 'Palestine' 1948. A 'Palestine' that jews had been living in good number in since the 1830's.
Nor could Indians return to 99% of their 'home range'/native territory as Palestinians/Arabs could have (if their Arab 'brothers' allowed such).
and then 50 Years later, having seen 'the writing on the wall', would have turned down 95% of the same deal.

I don't think so.


American Indians Aren’t Like Palestinians

By David Yeagley

MANY PEOPLE SEE A SIMILARITY BETWEEN American Indians and today’s Palestinians. I’m Comanche Indian. I see no similarity whatsoever.

Comanches were once "Lords of the South Plains," (Wallace & Hoebel, 1952). Arabs living in Palestine have never dominated anything but goats. Comanches were independent, and certainly not supported by two billion other Indian ‘brothers,’ like the Palestinian Arabs claim they’re supported by the Arab world.

There’s no similarity in the land claim issue. Comanches, never numbering more than six or seven thousand, were simply strong enough to take over the American southwestern plains, first from other Indians, then from white people. Palestinians have accomplished nothing but suicide bombings.

Palestinian Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine. They are leftover Arabs, residual of another age. Knowing Arab history is vital to understanding the situation in the Middle East. (Joan Peters’ From Time Immemorial (1984) is a ‘must read’ on this subject.)

Arabs are from Arabia....."

enjoy the rest:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=267

[Jorge]

Continued from my post #130:

Let’s consider another example to see what Lessons we may conclude from it. About 2000 years ago, a sector of the Jewish population of the Holy Land raised in revolt against the mighty Roman Empire. This was the start of a bloody confrontation that, as we all know, resulted in the destruction of the Second Temple. Not all the Jews rebelled; a sector of them, kept their allegiance to the Empire; these, if we were to use modern terminology, were on the side of progress, modernization and even globalization. The ones that rebelled, again in modern terminology, were the fundamentalists of those times; they opposed modernization and wanted to keep things as they always have been, whatever the cost (and the cost, in lives and suffering of the population at large, was to be pretty stiff).

The Romans were, at least before the revolt, kind of rather benevolent conquerors; their motto Live and Let Live, provided it’s quite clear who’s the Boss. In many ways like the American Empire of present days; all countries have absolute freedom to do as they please, provided they don’t interfere with American interests.

If we are to believe Josephus Flavius ( we have no choice since he was the only war correspondent on the spot) the rebels, or zealots, as they are often called, were sort of rough types. Some of the things they did to fellow Jews make modern Hamasniks look like school children in comparison.

(note to MGB8: re., a discussion we were having, Josephus Flavius doesn’t refer to the zealots as Warriors, Soldiers or Resistance Fighters or the like. He calls them Bandits, purely and simply Bandits, even if that was much closer to a War than the present I-P confrontation).

Here again, as in the case of the Conquest of the West, the military superiority of one side was pretty large. War machines of the latest technology, against stones and knives. The outcome could have been predicted by any TV war commentator : the Romans won.

What are the Lessons to be learnt form this one? Before going into it, let me quote again from MGB8 #125:

And killing terrorists is the best way to fight terrorism - if you believe their 'hydra' theory, kill one and two will grow, you are a fool - people in general are pretty cowardly, and when they see that actions will lead to their death and the harship or deaths of those they care about, the non-suicidal ones will avoid those actions.

Well not necessarily, MGB8, it ain’t necessarily so. In the same narrative, Titus calls unto him the leaders of the revolt and delivers to them a pretty long speech (long for Titus, who wasn’t given to much talking). He tells them about the might of the Empire and the thousands of Legions it commands , tells them that they haven’t got the least chance to win and how much better for them and their families to surrender now and avoid a bloody massacre. The rebels, so Josephus writes, looked Titus in the eyes , turned their backs and went off to continue the fight. The rest is History, as someone said.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Jorge
Let’s consider another example to see what Lessons we may conclude from it. About 2000 years ago, a sector of the Jewish population of the Holy Land raised in revolt against the mighty Roman Empire. This was the start of a bloody confrontation that, as we all know, resulted in the destruction of the Second Temple.
Just for fun, contrast this to the Maccabees against the Greek empire a few hundred years before.

[Binyamin]

Jorge,

Josephus, while considered generally reliable, is known to have slanted his reporting in favor of the Romans.

Your cannot compare the Hamas 'hydra' idea to the zealot's refusal to listen to Titus. The zealot following did not grow during the war, and I would assume that alot of the less committed abandoned the fight. We would be doing well if Hamas was only left with the hard-liners, and then we fight them to the last man. As you said, we can assume to win the military conflict because we are stronger. If you argue that Hamas will get stronger when we fight, then the zealot's are a very poor example. I am not familiar with any rebel group that grew stronger as their end came closer.

Another point about the stronger one's winning.

As you rightly say we should try to learn the Lessons that History teaches us. The first that occurs to me is that if one side has enough military superiority it can get away with Almost Anything. As Churchill might have written in his History of the English Speaking Ones, it’s not so much a question of which side is right and which one wrong, but of which side has got the rifles and which one has got the bows and arrows.

If the stronger side is not prepared to fight, or otherwise prevented from using its military superiority, then we cannot assume that they will win. Compare with Vietnam and Masada (the defending Jews were strong enough to fight the Roman's, but they were not prepared to kill the Roman's Jewish slaves.)

Israel is stronger, but they are being prevented from using their strength, by outside pressure and by the Left. If you are arguing that Israel should not fight, then you cannot argue that it is guaranteed to win.

What were you trying to show from the story of the Native American's?

[Jorge]

Quote from Binyamin #134:

If the stronger side is not prepared to fight, or otherwise prevented from using its military superiority, then we cannot assume that they will win. Compare with Vietnam and Masada (the defending Jews were strong enough to fight the Roman's, but they were not prepared to kill the Roman's Jewish slaves.)

Israel is stronger, but they are being prevented from using their strength, by outside pressure and by the Left. If you are arguing that Israel should not fight, then you cannot argue that it is guaranteed to win.

Binyamin, thanks for pointing out the apparent contradictions in my last posts. I say, apparent, because may be I didn’t express myself clearly enough and left room for some ambiguity.

I wasn’t proposing that “Israel should not fight”. On the contrary, I think that Israel should fight terrorism with the best of its abilities; I don’t oppose “targeted killings” or similar targeted actions; suicide bombers because of the nature of their actions, have placed themselves outside civilized society and we may dispense, when necessary, of fair trials in Court. I may have been misinterpreted because I said and keep saying that we have not been selective enough in our fight against terrorism. As a result of our police actions, the civil population at large has been unnecessarily and unwisely harmed. Too many of our actions may be considered as “collective punishment” and, in this respect, instead of fighting terrorism we are promoting it.

I wasn’t arguing either that Israel “is guaranteed to win”. As you rightly point out, the last Vietnam War (although not Masada) is an example showing that vast military superiority is not enough. In the present case, as you also rightly point out, international pressure and the Israeli left, have been preventing Israel from using its full strength. This restraining influence is a positive and not a negative factor. The present government doesn’t seem able to distinguish clearly between fighting terrorists and fighting the Palestinians at large. If the Army Chief of Staff, with the tacit approval of the Defense Minister, declares that the main goal of the Army actions is “to imprint in the heads of the Palestinians that violence is useless” , it’s a good thing that some restraining forces could have some influence. The opposition of the Israeli left to the government policies stems in this respect, not from the struggle against terrorism, but from the excessive application of forceful measures against the population at large.

Finally:

What were you trying to show from the story of the Native American's?

I wasn’t trying to show anything really. I merely set an example of a particular episode in History in order to try to extract Lessons from it; this because of an argument we were having with MGB8.

A Comanche friend of abu afak seems to believe that people like me intends to identify the Palestinians with the Red Indians. Again, nothing further from my intentions. What I did argue, a propos of the Red Indians, is that some right wingers (not all, and not even the majority of them) have conceived a model of a peace settlement with the Palestinians along similar lines as the Peace Treaties imposed upon the feathered Americans. I also tend to think that the rationale behind that model is based on the fact that our military superiority is so large that we can get away with Almost Anything.

[Mediocrates]

I get the sense that the problem is not so much that Israel is prevented from using its strength but that it much more complex than that.

Top level - it's not apparent that Israel still has any recognizable national goals or initiatives. That is, what does Israel think the point of the Jewish state is?

Second level - it's not apparent that Israel has an operational strategic policy for either themselves or for the intifada. We see tactics and operations but no strategy.

Third level - it is apparent that too many decisions are politically motivated, have too much input and the decision making process from analysis to execution is deeply flawed. Extremely poor and suspect decisions get made too frequently.

Fourth level - it is apparent that the decisions which are made, and the the tactics that result are often countermanded or terminated at inappropriate times for no obvious reason at all. This is poor follow through.



This is classic executive/operational anaysis stuff. It speaks to the political realm where seemingly everyone gets a voice and a vote and yet few are accountable. Or the reverse happens and everyone is accountable but has no authority which results in a complete failure to make any decision at all.


Are there any other MBA's out there besides me who want to go over there and straighten this out?

[Binyamin]

Thanks for clrifying your position, Jorge. It maks the discussion easier.

How do you define "excessive force"? If Israel uses the minimum force necessary to guarantee that they get their man, but they know that civilians will also be killed, is that excessive?

The Geneva Convention, quoted earlier, says that Israel may ignore the presence of civilians while fighting terror. Israel is allowed to use as much force as necessary to kill the terrorist, and that is all they should worry about. If the terrorist is in an apartment building, and they need to destroy the entire building to get him, then that is not excessive force.

If Israel would destroy Gaza city, because that guaratees that there won't be any terrorist left, then that is illegal because they aren't attacking the terrorists. They are attacking the civilian population as a means of killing terrorists.

Excessive force is somewhere in the middle. If Israel dos not try to figure out what the minimum necessary force is, and they just go all-out with everything they have, then they are being excessive. As long as they are trying to use the minimum then they are using "reasonable force," even though they now that many civilians will be killed. Israel has never acted like this, and they always worry about the civilians. They often abort attacks because they see civilians in the area, which is beyond what international standards asks for.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Jorge
As a result of our police actions,
Wrong. These are military actions, not police actions. And I'm not the one playing semantics here. There's a war on or weren't you told?

the civil population at large has been unnecessarily and unwisely harmed.
Wrong. As a result of Palestinian terrorist basing themselves and taking cover in the midst of so-called non-involved civilian population areas, the civil population at large has been unnecessarily and unwisely harmed.

Too many of our actions may be considered as “collective punishment” and, in this respect, instead of fighting terrorism we are promoting it.
Wrong. Roadblocks and curfews in times of war that have a bottom line effect on hindering the movement of enemy forces against our own soldiers and population are not collective punishment. They are defensive measures and are perfectly permissible in times of conflict.

How convenient of you to espouse perfect PalSpeak language.


I wasn’t arguing either that Israel “is guaranteed to win”. As you rightly point out, the last Vietnam War (although not Masada) is an example showing that vast military superiority is not enough. In the present case, as you also rightly point out, international pressure and the Israeli left, have been preventing Israel from using its full strength. This restraining influence is a positive and not a negative factor.
Sure. The conflict goes on longer. Israel is indecisve in its goals. We are constantly rewarding terorists.

I'm all optimistic, thanks to you.

The present government doesn’t seem able to distinguish clearly between fighting terrorists and fighting the Palestinians at large.
I don't see what you base this on. Most of our actions are pinpoint. The Pals as a whole support the terorists and almost always assist them.

If the Army Chief of Staff, with the tacit approval of the Defense Minister, declares that the main goal of the Army actions is “to imprint in the heads of the Palestinians that violence is useless” , it’s a good thing that some restraining forces could have some influence.
But it hasn't worked. So what's good about it.

The opposition of the Israeli left to the government policies stems in this respect, not from the struggle against terrorism, but from the excessive application of forceful measures against the population at large.
If I recall correctly, it was Rabin who first reimposed the roadblocks, closing of entry gates, etc.

Besides which, what's excessive? There's not enough. That's why it's worth the Arab's while to continue. When you beat someone to a pulp, ask them if they've had enough and nod in the affirmative and back off, that's when you won. I know that "winning" must be an odd concept to you. You may never have heard of it before.


Finally:

I doubt that.

What I did argue, a propos of the Red Indians, is that some right wingers (not all, and not even the majority of them) have conceived a model of a peace settlement with the Palestinians along similar lines as the Peace Treaties imposed upon the feathered Americans. I also tend to think that the rationale behind that model is based on the fact that our military superiority is so large that we can get away with Almost Anything.
What good is "military superiority" if you hesitate to use it to defeat your enemy? We've tossed out nothing but empty threats over the last 4 years. And people are still dying from this - on both sides.

[MGB8]

Jorge,

Your recent posts aren't really about history, the judging of how documented and certain events effected trends and outcomes. Instead, your posts show a very intellectual bent, but of such an academic nature that you forget reality for ideals and dogmas.

You make reference to some concern that the Pal-Arabs will end up forgotten like the american Indians. The situations are completely different - they are barely comparable. First, the Palestinians are ARABS - a tiny part of a huge nation with 22 soveriegn nations of their own. The American Indians refers to the whole group, not a tiny subgroup of questionable legitimacy.

And you don't really come to a conclusion - other than some guilt about the victors writing history. The Philistines too were forgotten, and the Phoenicians and many more. Nu?

What you need to focus on is cause and effect. Action and reaction. Consequences.

What you learn is general principles of human behavior - that appeasment never works, that force is often necessary, that, as Machiaveli pointed out, it is better to be feared than loved.

To make decisions in this world you need to get an accurate picture of the facts, and apply the facts to the principles of human nature to predict the likely outcomes.

I think that you, like much of the left, simply ignore facts that you don't like and the brutal and selfish realities of human nature because you want to believe in a more idealistic vision of humanity - even if that idealism kills you, and your neighbors and family.

[Jorge]

Quotes from Mediocrates Post #136:

Are there any other MBA's out there besides me who want to go over there and straighten this out?

I don’t happen to have an MBA but I’m very keen to get into it as an amateur. I think the ideas put forward in #136 deserve serious discussion; they represent an attempt to examine the present confrontation from an original perspective, different from the “who’s guilty-of- what” approach that is too prevalent in the present debate.

Somewhat similar questions to those posed by Mediocrates have been posed lately by members of the so-called Israeli Academia. They have pointed out that the Israeli government has not delineated clearly an overall policy for the I-P confrontation in general and for the struggle against terrorism in particular. In its absence it is impossible to judge whether individual actions are justified or not. This corresponds, I think, to Mediocrates Second Level:


Second level - it's not apparent that Israel has an operational strategic policy for either themselves or for the intifada. We see tactics and operations but no strategy.


In the absence of such operational strategic policy, sectors of the population at large and of the Executive Branch in particular get disoriented. This is particularly acute at all levels of the IDF, which is supposed to implement government policies in the occupied territories. Allow me to give an example: Regional Army Officers have often been accused of being too complacent in relation with the so-called “illegal settlements”. This a bit unfair; has the government told them that we are definitely “going out”? Or, has any one told them we are going to "stay put" and the larger the area we control the better? Of course they hear hints from the PM and “nuances” of those hints from the Defense Minister, but Army Officers are not used to work on the basis of hints and nuances, they need clear general directives so that they may judge whether individual operations facilitate or not the general plan. In the meantime, if they “are of the opinion ” that settlements should be expanded they act accordingly, if not, they put obstacles. Any business organization that had to operate in the absence of such basic guidelines will get into trouble sooner than later.

To be continued…

[Jorge]

Continuation of Comments on Mediocrates #136:

Second level - it's not apparent that Israel has an operational strategic policy for either themselves or for the intifada. We see tactics and operations but no strategy.

An strategic policy requires clearly defined main aims or goals. Within the context of systems analysis, once the organization proposes tentative goals, the analyst has to first examine whether those goals are realistic, that is if they can be achieved. Some may not, because of the constraints imposed on the system’s actions by factors outside its control (surroundings) and/ or because the system’s resources may not be large enough. This is over and above systems analysis and borders into plain common sense. If the analysis shows that the preliminary tentative goals are not realistic or if the costs involved in attaining them are considered excessive, the ball is back into the client's (organization) court with a request to modify the said goals.

Preliminary tentative goals are usually in the realm of wishful thinking; gradually as the process goes on, goals more attuned to the actual situation in which the system operates are bound to emerge and only at about this stage various strategies may be examined. Compare this with the fight against terrorism undertaken by the present government. Preliminary tentative goals are stated in terms of “wiping out” or “eradicating” terrorism. These are at the level of declarations of the PM and isolated Ministers; no government meetings at the ministerial level have ever taken place to discuss those goals; that’s why I call them tentative. In due course the Army is entrusted to carry out operations designed to accomplish the said goals. Since no positive results are apparent, the Army is told to carry out operations of an increasing magnitude, culminating into gaining control of all major towns and sealing major and minor roads between them. Somewhere along the process, the responsibility for “eradicating” terror and "completely dismantling" terrorist organizations is shifted to a competing organization, the PA. Now, the PA up to then had been the main target of the military and diplomatic operations "designed" to combat terror and has been reduced to a mere shadow of a governing body. The absurdity of the situation may be compared to one in which, in the middle of the “Cola War” for supremacy in the world’s markets, Coca-Cola would ask Pepsi to give it a hand.

At no stage of the above events has the government thought fit to review its tentative goals. This, in spite that most institutions devoted to study the conflict had been talking in terms of only “minimizing” or “containing” terrorist attacks. Those institutions, which are many in Israel, are integrated by brilliant and learned members, not just academics but also retired army officers with a wide experience. Sadly, they talk mainly between themselves, their reports are hardly known by the general public and the government, as far as I know, has never solicited their opinion. Since they are independent of the government and have no political axis to grind they are in a unique position to perform analysis of government policies regarding terrorism and other topics. The PM and his dependents think that wishful thinking is more important for decision making that learned opinions based on research of facts and variables. This is why operations designed to kill all terrorists, actual or potential and all instigators, actual or potential, will continue unabated for years to come.

[MGB8]

Jerusalem,

Jorge is parroting the type of logic that allowed the PA to build such a powerful terror organization to begin with.

Namely, he believes that instead of responding to Palestinian violence against Israelis (as well as the promoting and tolerating of that violence), Israel should simply give them what they say they want (in English, as Jorge doesn't believe them when they say what they want in arabic, or through their symbols or behind closed doors.)

Jorge believes that by doing nothing, the Pals will eventually just stop terrorism, because they won't have a motive. Of course, this is based on the wishful thinking assumption that "what they want" is a Palestine of only the pre-67 borders w/out a right of return (since the right of return is simply an attempt to kill Israel through demographics.)

He also believes that non-response does not enable or embolden the terrorists and Pal-Arab and Arab in general population at large. This is despite clear evidence that the Oslo accords did exactly that - both in terms of numbers and interviews of Palestinian Arabs.

Additionally, he buys the propaganda that the blowing up of PA buildings has somehow killed all the Fatah security service people - that they can't meet in other buildings, don't have existing intel operations, despite the great effectiveness Fatah has in quelling internal strife - mostly through extra-judicial violence.

In essence, he believes that when a Bully comes up to a kid and asks for his lunch money while hitting the kid...if the kid gives the bully the money, the bully will leave the kid alone. The demands will end, not escalate.

On the other hand, he believes that making the Pal-Arabs, and the Pal-Arab terrorists in particular, bear uncomfortable consequences for their actions, will only cause them to support those actions more. In other words, if the kid hits the Bully hard, Jorge believes that the Bully is more likely to continue to hitting the kid out of the increased anger. He doesn't account for a short term rise in anger and a long term evaluation of costs versus benefits.

Jorge believes that increasing the benefits and lessening the costs of Terrorism by the Pal Arabs, and the other Arabs who support them, will somehow cause the Pal Arabs to stop the terrorism, despite the showing that IT WORKS!

Jorge believes that doing the opposite, causing a decrease in benefits and increase in costs from terrorism will cause the Pal Arabs to increase the terror, even though they will not be accomplishing anything by it other than suffering more.

Jorge, do you understand the illogic of your positions? Do you understand the grave risk you take - WHAT IF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT PAL-ARAB GOALS ARE WRONG??? Do you undersrtand the grave strategic risks you ask of your neighbors based on your willingness to trust what Arafat and his mouthpieces say in English and ignore their actions and what they say in Arabic?

This is the thinking of what Arafat calls a "useful fool" - what he has called American lefty Jews, Beilin, Sarrid, and Peres.


Everyone agrees that Israel hasn't had a clear policy on the WB and Gaza. Most people think that the continued controlling the Pal-Arab population in the WB is unsustainable in the long run. There is even some truth to the idea that any peace must be a "just peace" to be acceptable in the long run - although the peace that the Confederacy, the Ottoman Empire, Nazi germany and Imperial Japan earned probably wouldn't be called "just" by anyone, and they seem to have lasted.....

Bottom line, Jorge, you really, really need to put the above questions to your highly educated mind.

[MGB8]

Mediocrates,

I believe that there is much more concensus on the points you raised than might be facially apparent.

I believe that the majority of Israelis (and Jews) believe that Israels existence as THE JEWISH state is ESSENTIAL as a check against what happened in Nazi Germany, Russia and before then Spain, etc. - namely to prevent the picking on a defenseless minority.

However, I also think that "they" believe that being a Jewish State REQUIRES Israel to be a democracy, and to subject itself to much higher moral restrictions than Europe or the US, much less the Arab despots.

That precludes things like Transfer or continued control of the WB for too much longer. Hence the deep desire for a negotiated settlement with the Pal Arabs.

The seeming fluctuations in policy, on the other hand, stem not from a change in the goal and strategy of Israel, but from a change of the perception of the reality of the situation.

Pre and during Oslo, Jews really hoped that the goal of the Pals was not to destroy Israel, but just to have a friendly, independent state. They really thought that Arafat could change his spots. While only about half of Jews and Israelis actually believed this, much of the other hald were willing to take grave risks to give this a chance.

The risks blew up in their faces.

Now that other half is in power, and it is coming to grips with the demographic situation on the ground, as well as the econo-political facts which limit Israel's actions via the likely consequences of any "extreme" Israeli actions which would end the conflict decisively.

The result has been the road map / unilateral separation idea - with the right believing that this must be guided foremost by security concerns, because no amount of concessions will end the Arabs hostilities to Israel, while the left wants to base it only on giving the Arabs as much as possible....because they want to believe that they were right pre-and during Oslo that the Pal-Arabs just want to be peaceful neighbors.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by MGB8
Everyone agrees that Israel hasn't had a clear policy on the WB and Gaza.
Read and weep:

ISRAEL'S SECURITY DOCTRINE AND THE TRAP OF "LIMITED CONFLICT" (http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp514.htm)

[Binyamin]

It would be foolish for the Israeli government to announce their overall strategy. There is to much argument over how to deal with the conflict. Each Member of the Knesset has his own idea of what to do, and will fight against any variation in the officail policy. Any plan that is publicized is guaranteed to be destroyed by its opponents.

Sharon prefers to work in a very loose framework, without spelling anything out. This allows him plenty of room to manuever without being attacked at every turn. (Its the same with his coalition. The coalition agreement was vague enough to allow incompatible parties to sit together, and it gives Sharon enough backing for each question.)

If the Knesset would be willing to work together with Sharon even when they do not like his plan, he would be able to be more open. At this point, the less he says, the more he can do.



Preliminary tentative goals are stated in terms of “wiping out” or “eradicating” terrorism. These are at the level of declarations of the PM and isolated Ministers; no government meetings at the ministerial level have ever taken place to discuss those goals; that’s why I call them tentative. In due course the Army is entrusted to carry out operations designed to accomplish the said goals. Since no positive results are apparent,

The government says that each operation is meant to eradicate terror because that is what people want to hear. Of course they do not waste any time trying to figure out how to immediately end terror, and they never expected any of their operations to do that.



the Israeli government has not delineated clearly an overall policy for the I-P confrontation in general and for the struggle against terrorism in particular. In its absence it is impossible to judge whether individual actions are justified or not.
Jorge, can you defend this logic?

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Binyamin
It would be foolish for the Israeli government to announce their overall strategy. There is to much argument over how to deal with the conflict. Each Member of the Knesset has his own idea of what to do, and will fight against any variation in the officail policy. Any plan that is publicized is guaranteed to be destroyed by its opponents.

Sharon prefers to work in a very loose framework, without spelling anything out. This allows him plenty of room to manuever without being attacked at every turn. (Its the same with his coalition. The coalition agreement was vague enough to allow incompatible parties to sit together, and it gives Sharon enough backing for each question.)
I feel sorry for you. Sharon is a man who has long ago lost faith in believing that Jews have a right to live in Israel.

We are subject to having the government say one thing one month and something else the next, with the overall direction being one of retreat and silent acknowledgement that Israel is unjust.

The most important thing we could have now is a strong government with the clearest policy possible. One that says we Jews were brought back to this land and if someone else doesn't like us here, we'll kick them the hell out of here.

If the Knesset would be willing to work together with Sharon even when they do not like his plan, he would be able to be more open. At this point, the less he says, the more he can do.
This is fantasy, based on no known reality I read or hear about locally, including from those that are in influential positions in the government.

Arik Sharon is more left than Rabin was. Are you Uri Dan in disguise?

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
I feel sorry for you. Sharon is a man who has long ago lost faith in believing that Jews have a right to live in Israel.

We are subject to having the government say one thing one month and something else the next, with the overall direction being one of retreat and silent acknowledgement that Israel is unjust.

The most important thing we could have now is a strong government with the clearest policy possible. One that says we Jews were brought back to this land and if someone else doesn't like us here, we'll kick them the hell out of here.

This is fantasy, based on no known reality I read or hear about locally, including from those that are in influential positions in the government.

Arik Sharon is more left than Rabin was. Are you Uri Dan in disguise?

I fully agree with you.
We can still win, if we will lern to make use of the fluidety of the situation. When lows are not enforced on Arabs (like construction laws, polygammey, welfare ect... ), they tend to become unenforced on all sides...

There is a limited anarchy in Israel, courts are lacking, cases prolonged, justace undone... it can sure work in our benefit as well.

Making long lasting facts on the ground, million of beaurocractes won't mend. Army that doesn't supplay security, leaves room for private organizations. Think Western! Did the cavelary rescued and save each and every american settler? Or did the American settlers bore guns and orgnized into millitias.

In in 50's, Israel had HAGMAR, hebrew initials or parimeter defense (hagana mer'havit), where every border town or village on the acted as a fort, armed with heavy machine guns and anti tank artillary and heavy morters. Thus the Kibbutzniks and Jewish town people chased away Arab Fedayun, or held their position against advancing Egyption and Jordenian army.

Israel should restore the laws that support the Hagamar, rearmd the population, relax gun control laws, so every citizen could own a gun provided they prove minimal ability to use it, rebuild the youth battalions (Gadnah) and civil watch (Mishmar ezrahi). More guns to more civilians and the (possible private) legal backing for them. The citizens will do the rest. Guard their homes and families from Arab hordes. That will create facts that no goverment or terror organization or international prussure can change. Arab robber and thieves should be shot by the guards. No burgler rights! And you'll see how crime rates go down, even without the fence.

Give the people more guns! Then you'll have peace.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Give the people more guns! Then you'll have peace.
"Kochi Ve'otzem Yadi Assa Li Et Ha'Chayl Ha'zeh."

"My strength and the might of my hand that has accumulated this wealth for me."

Devarim 8:17

Firepower alone is not the answer.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
"Kochi Ve'otzem Yadi Assa Li Et Ha'Chayl Ha'zeh."

"My strength and the might of my hand that has accumulated this wealth for me."

Devarim 8:17

Firepower alone is not the answer.

Of course you are right!

IF people do not have the moral resolution to do what needed, then what ever arms they have is nothing more then a scrap of metal.

However, a change in the gun policy AND the legal backing needed to shoot down ilegal trespassers, burglers and thieves, then people will have hope and greater freedom to defend themselves alone, with less dependence of the army or the police. Then it will be easier to creat facts on the ground, fight the Arabs back...

As I said, that was how the Negev looked like in the 50's and early 60's. Far more terrorists were killed then armed Jews.

Once people will have hope through guns, then ideology will follow.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Once people will have hope through guns, then ideology will follow.
That's a wee bit absurd. :rolleyes:

[Jorge]

From Binyamin #137:

How do you define "excessive force"? If Israel uses the minimum force necessary to guarantee that they get their man, but they know that civilians will also be killed, is that excessive?

I haven’t found a good definition of “excessive force”. Instead, allow me to go about it in a roundabout manner. Security forces are many times entrusted to keep an area under control, apprehend actual or potential criminals, suppress riots, etc. etc.( In addition they may be involved in combat situations, but these will be dealt later) To carry out these missions they usually need to use “force” : live or rubber ammunition, water cannons, artillery, tear gas… the lot. If, as a result of such actions, people get killed or seriously wounded, it may be said, tentatively, that excessive force was applied (remember, I’m talking of situations which normally are not life threatening for the forces in question). After the events, examination of the operation may lead to the conclusion that the extent to which force was used was or not justified. Here we are back in limbo, because the examination or enquiry is done by the security forces themselves which are hardly impartial; since as well, the injured side is also hardly impartial we are in no position to judge isolated confrontations.

A ”macro” analysis of a prolonged conflict may be less ambiguous. Security forces are killing Palestinians at a rate of say a 1000 per year; if, of those casualties, 60% are defined as non- combatants I suppose that we’ll agree that “excessive force” was applied as an average; if only 10% of the casualties were non-combatants we’d say they are doing rather well. This may sound gruesome to sensitive souls, but this is indeed a gruesome conflict. (note: there is this Herzelya Institute doing quite serious research on this data but somehow I misplaced their URL).

I think I ought to say at this stage that I don’t agree with the stereotype, presented by Arab propaganda, of IDF soldiers as cruel and ruthless that go around shooting women and children. Few if any Israelis, whatever their political convictions, will agree on that image, for the simplest reason that we happen to know those youngsters; they are our relatives or the neighbor’s relatives or the neighbor’s, neighbor’s relatives. We have seen them growing from toddlers to teen-agers to “tironim”, munching whatever they can get hold of. We simply just know that they are neither cruel, nor ruthless, nor immoral.

The said soldiers are being placed by the society they are supposed to protect in situations that are bound to result in unintentional killings. If you lend your car to your ten years old and the boy runs down a few pedestrians, it’s quite clear who’s to blame. Equally clear is a situation where someone sends heavily armored platoons to control a demonstration without any prior training on how to subdue demonstrations. Yesterday 2 more Palestinians were killed and 20 injured during a demonstration against the separation Wall; the Army is investigating whether “excessive force” was justified. The bottom line is that those soldiers had no idea how to subdue a demonstration, they probably had to choose between retreating or firing at the crowd so, they fired. In another incident the day before , soldiers guarding a post fired at a group of children killing one and seriously injuring another. What else are you supposed to do if the “rules of engagement” you are given are to shoot at anything that moves? What were the children doing so close to the post? We’ll never know. What we do know is that Army posts are frequently situated few meters away from the children’s homes and, naturally, “accidents happen”.

If you station soldiers inside hostile populated areas these accidents are bound to happen; if the soldiers are poorly trained for the tasks entrusted to them, “accidents” will triple; the number of accidents will of course be proportional to the number of days, or months, the situation is maintained. The said situation is compounded because the entire chain of command from area officers up to the government executives deny all responsibility about whatever happens at the site of operations.

No offence intended, but whenever “excessive force” is attributed to the Police. you’ll see all the top brass keeping an eye on things and personally enquiring about what happened. Similar cases, in which the Army is involved, it appears that everyone above the rank of captain suddenly has important matters to attend elsewhere.
To be continued…

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
That's a wee bit absurd. :rolleyes:

Quite simple really... People are thinking about retreat only because they convince themselves that resisting terror is impractical. Self defence is immoral. Only super commando who is also a lawer can fight and kill Arab terrorist once he is attacked... And the reality is not so... Problem is people in Israel forgot the reality.

The possibility that a resident, fires at a burgler or cattle thief or car thief, is compaletly beyonned what people think they can do. It is not a viable option for people anymore. So the relay compaletly on malfunctioning goverment, cascrated military and impotent unefficiant justace system, which turns each case into an endless philosophical academic debate.

The goverment has to give more power to the people, empowerment, through relaxing gun owning and using laws. So a farmer who is attacked by cattle thieves can return fire without fearing legal charges from the wounded thief or crimminal charges from the state. (or international court).

[Binyamin]

Gilgamesh, you are right from a moral and practical viewpoint, but your idea is not practical. The laws will not be changed, and europe will put sanctions on us. It will not help that they are being one-sided and immoral.

Jorge, I posted this a while ago, from the fourth Geneva Convention.

Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
Your definition of excessive force condradicts this article.
I gave a definition of excessive force above, that it is where the army did not try to use the minimum force necessary. ("Excessive" means to much, not 'harmful'.)

[Binyamin]

Oh Jerusalem,

Sharon is definately prepared to give away more than Rabin, and probably even more than Beilin, but only if he thinks it will bring us peace. But he has no illusions about the possibility of making peace with the Palestinians. He knows that that will never happen.

(Excuse my ignorance- who is Uri Dan?)

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
The goverment has to give more power to the people, empowerment, through relaxing gun owning and using laws. So a farmer who is attacked by cattle thieves can return fire without fearing legal charges from the wounded thief or crimminal charges from the state. (or international court).
What's much more urgent in my opinion, is to give back to the IDF the ability to wage war. That includes retaking Yehuda and Shomron and the chucking out of Assah Kasher's code of ethics for the IDF. No soldier should have to ask himself whether he'll need a lawyer if he pulls the trigger in legitimate defensive and offensive military activities.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Binyamin
Sharon is definately prepared to give away more than Rabin, and probably even more than Beilin,
No. Beilin is worse, willing to give retreat fully to the Green Line, including Jerusalem and possibly "donating" a chunk of the Negev to be annexed to an Arab Gaza.

but only if he thinks it will bring us peace. But he has no illusions about the possibility of making peace with the Palestinians. He knows that that will never happen.
Yet his unilateral moves will only endanger us even more. How many more lives have to be lost by this fool of a prime minister?

Excuse my ignorance- who is Uri Dan?
Ui Dan is a very close friend of Arik Sharon and a newspaper columnist.

He has devoted numerous articles of his to defending Sharon over the last few years since he's in office by saying exactly what you're saying. That Sharon doesn't mean in. It's a bluff. He's smarter than you or me or every member of his own cabinet.

It would be great if someone could compile of of Dan's Sharon-licking articles and make an "I told you so" list.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
What's much more urgent in my opinion, is to give back to the IDF the ability to wage war. That includes retaking Yehuda and Shomron and the chucking out of Assah Kasher's code of ethics for the IDF. No soldier should have to ask himself whether he'll need a lawyer if he pulls the trigger in legitimate defensive and offensive military activities.

You are perfectly right, but I have came to terms with the fact, that the IDF will never have such freedoms, and even if he does, I doubt the army know what to do with that freedom.

Last time the army had "freedom of action" 23 soldiers died in Jenin, in a place that should have been shell by artillary or bombed from the air.

Power to the people, is much easier idea to promote. in a state of semi anarchy, where the goverment is simply unefficiant, empowerment is the way forward. not relaying again, of forces commanded by central command.

[Jorge]

From MGB8 posts #139 and #142:

I think that you, like much of the left, simply ignore facts that you don't like and the brutal and selfish realities of human nature because you want to believe in a more idealistic vision of humanity - even if that idealism kills you, and your neighbors and family.

It’s not only the leftists that tend to ignore facts that they don’t like, also the rightists do it, in fact everyone does it. A set of opinions about a particular issue is mainly achieved at, by ignoring or paying minimal attention to certain facts and stressing others. To try to pretend we are objective, impartial observers of a conflict about which we are highly opinionated is simply nonsense.

It is unfair, to accuse the Left, or at least the Israeli Left, of having distorted views of the present conflict because of its “idealism” (having an "idealistic vision of humanity"). I think I’ve said before and if so I’ll repeat myself, that, in the context of the I-P conflict the Left adopts a pragmatic position whereas the Right adopts an idealistic one.

The position of most of the Israeli leftists is that we should relinquish the occupied territories and seek a negotiated solution because this course is in the bests interests of the Israelis at large. This is a pragmatic position, bordering in Utilitarian Ethics (what benefits my side is Good, what harms it is Bad). Occupation or Conquest as abstract concepts are left to anyone’s personal beliefs; what we are saying is that this particular occupation is harming Israeli interests and the more time we persist on it the worse for us.

The position of the Israeli Right (and especially of those parties and movements closely associated with the settlements) is an idealistic one. Its main component is the existence of certain Rights to the whole of the Land of Israel; these rights are supposed to originate in divine commandments or in a national-historical or nationalistic “destiny”. Some particular site should be in Jewish hands because Abraham and Sarah bought there a place to be buried; the fact that the place may be now in the middle of a densely populated Arab population and that we may need a whole Army division to defend it, an intricate system of private roads to get to it and a wasteful infrastructure to maintain it is, for them, neither here nor there; what is important is that the place is Holy; what is important is the Idea, the Principle. The Principle being the Redemption of The Land, a land that has acquired almost Messianic proportions.

I’m not saying that all the Right thinks upon those lines. But what happens in practice is that the Agenda for the Right (and, since they are a majority, for the whole country) is formulated on the basis of the ideals of the settlement movement. A similar process is seen in the Palestinian side where the Agenda is largely set on the basis of the Idealists and not of the Pragmatists among them.

From #142:
Jorge believes that increasing the benefits and lessening the costs of Terrorism by the Pal Arabs, and the other Arabs who support them, will somehow cause the Pal Arabs to stop the terrorism, despite the showing that IT WORKS!

A personal aside: I’m getting quite annoyed about other people telling what I believe. I know damn well what I believe and what I don’t; so, if someone wants to highlight what I believe or not, why not just quote me instead of putting words in my mouth?

Everyone agrees that Israel hasn't had a clear policy on the WB and Gaza. Most people think that the continued controlling the Pal-Arab population in the WB is unsustainable in the long run.

Taking into consideration that the Israeli Left has been claiming for years what now is, in your view, the opinion of “everyone” and of what “most people think”, we seem to be in the right track. Now the question that might be in order is: “If the continued controlling of the Palestinians in the WB is unsustainable in the long run” why do we keep on expanding settlements and creating new ones?

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Jorge
It’s not only the leftists that tend to ignore facts that they don’t like, also the rightists do it, in fact everyone does it. A set of opinions about a particular issue is mainly achieved at, by ignoring or paying minimal attention to certain facts and stressing others. To try to pretend we are objective, impartial observers of a conflict about which we are highly opinionated is simply nonsense. Where from have you picked up all that post modern cr@p ???

Lets see, if all knowlage is partial, all morality is relative and all actions are wrong... then all defenitions for crimes should be abolished!!! There are no crimminals only misunderstood individuals who need help. And all policemen and judges are worst crimminals since they pretend to know better while they realy don't... There is not free choise, only a collection of psychological urges that drive us like mindless animals... ect...

How is that Jorge? Would you accept me as fellow anarachist? I can go on and on with BS like that for hours! I can even become you leader, the head programmer that will tell you what to do or think! The totall absolute dictator! (only with mindless anarchist it is possible... to waste democracy to ashes and promote totallitarian ragimes).


in the context of the I-P conflict the Left adopts a pragmatic position whereas the Right adopts an idealistic one. Odd... I think exactly vice versa... pity you have not corraboration of your views. no evidance and no proofs. Very post modern of you!!!

Let put it this way... the leftist also support socialism, communism UFO's and new age healing and magic. So go figure... you might be right after all... (I will heal you with magic next time you'll have car accident... since in a post modern world, the Shaman knows far better then the doctor).


The position of most of the Israeli leftists is that we should relinquish the occupied territories and seek a negotiated solution because this course is in the bests interests of the Israelis at large. I don't trust Arabs or Leftis... deal with that.

Convince me that Rightists ways will not bring peace while negociations will .


This is a pragmatic position, bordering in Utilitarian Ethics (what benefits my side is Good, what harms it is Bad). Peace is pragmatic and utilitarian. No argument with that. Prove me that war against terrorism will not bring peace, once it fought properly. (Today it isn't).


Occupation or Conquest as abstract concepts are left to anyone’s personal beliefs; what we are saying is that this particular occupation is harming Israeli interests and the more time we persist on it the worse for us. I agree! BUT I put the blame on mishandling of the liberation of the territoris. Not heaving enough Jews and Jobs there after so many years. Not protecting the Jews from Arabs properly. Not giving Jews enough legal backing to self defend themselves. Not Registaring land ownership properly, in a way that will reduce land disputes. Not having a single goverment policy line or PR line about the territoris. Israel have made all the mistake. Scared retreat is never the solution. However, mistakes can be undone. Prgamaticly speaking ofcourse.


The position of the Israeli Right (and especially of those parties and movements closely associated with the settlements) is an idealistic one. Its main component is the existence of certain Rights to the whole of the Land of Israel; these rights are supposed to originate in divine commandments or in a national-historical or nationalistic “destiny”. You analesis is correct about a fraction of the people supporting the settlers. Not he majority of Zionists like me, who form the pragmatic majority with whome the left consistantly avoid ideological contact. It seems, that ideologicaly, we us people, the leftist got the worst job dealing with. Tough!

Deal with Prgamatic Zionist. Thouse who believe in security, healthy demographic distributions, land reserves for future times, strategic issues, water, pollutions resulted from the PA, crime levels caused mainly by Islamist terroristic ideology and Arab population explosion. These are facts the Lefts cannot argue with, so he rather squabeling with the fanatics and wirdows of the fring right. Cahana's people do not represent the Right in Israel. Yet, the leftists, tradionaly cannot converse with others then Cahana's freaks. I guess it's thier entertainment. So excuss me if I resent abonedening Israel's govement to people for them politics is an experiment or a mind game, and the Israeli civilians pawn in your toy. Some risks mustn't been taken, yet the left got other agenda: self indulgement.


Some particular site should be in Jewish hands because Abraham and Sarah bought there a place to be buried; the fact that the place may be now in the middle of a densely populated Arab population and that we may need a whole Army division to defend it, an intricate system of private roads to get to it and a wasteful infrastructure to maintain it is, for them, neither here nor there; what is important is that the place is Holy; what is important is the Idea, the Principle. The Principle being the Redemption of The Land, a land that has acquired almost Messianic proportions. You are right. Hebron should have been a Jewish town, densly populated with Jews. The reason it is not so is politics: wrong politics. Hebron is ours like the rest of the country is ours: Jewish. You cannot WILLINGLY abondon one place while claiming ownership to other places, with lesser historical importance to the Jewish people. This in consitancy in Zionist ideology, this gap between should do and can do, is very dangerus, since it might lead to the end of Zionism.


But what happens in practice is that the Agenda for the Right (and, since they are a majority, for the whole country) is formulated on the basis of the ideals of the settlement movement. The settlers are our paionears. The vanguard of the Israeli camp. They have the Right FULL support, although not all rightist can live there, for practicle reasons and goverment lack of committment.


Now the question that might be in order is: “If the continued controlling of the Palestinians in the WB is unsustainable in the long run” why do we keep on expanding settlements and creating new ones? There is nothing to do one with the other. Having settlements do not mean controlling the Arabs. Imagin right wingers peace (no transfare). Settlements are great many, densly populated, among Arab cities. Arabs menage themselves compaletly, and Jews menage themselves compaletly... in two independent political structures.

Only "Rights" prevented from the Arabs is owning missiles and heavy weapons, and control over border crossings. But if Arabs want peace, what need do they have for border crossings and owning missiles and artillary?

Settlement got nothing to do with control, independence what peace. Nothing at all.

So the real war, acutally, is in owning weapons and control border crossings with Egypt and Jorden. (and of course, land grab and Arab honor on our expance, which will NOT end if Israel will redraw).

[MGB8]

Jorge,

You are correct that some on the right continue to ignore the reality that the mass transfer of Arabs is impractical, in that the likely economic consequences to Israel from Sanctions would be crippling.

Remember that Sharon, Bibi and Olmert are not advocates of transfer.

However, you are wrong to say that the left is at all pragmatic.

The right correctly recognizes that:
(1) The PA funds, supports and incites terror, is unwilling to act against terror sponsored by someone else.

(2) The PA/PLO has not renounced its goal of destroying Israel, nor is it willing to confront others who harbor this goal, and the PLO will not be happy with simply the WB and Gaza - and that the WB and Gaza will be turned into new, Israeli army free bases for attacks on Israel as soon as a new Pal-state is established.

(3) Any peace treaty is a piece of paper, easily broken, and the international community will not rush to Israel's aid if it come under attack again.

(4) The majority of Pal-Arabs do not support the right of Israel to exists, and DO support actions to further the destruction of Israel.

You STILL ignore the realities of the PLOs actions and words in Arabic, from their symbols which show all of Israel as Palestine, to their schoolbooks, to their financing of terror, including via fatah (the PLO's) al-aqsa brigade's arm.

I prefer the far right to the left, because the Right rather risk sanctions, a loss of money, by killing those committed to killing them, then the left who would hand over their families and neighbors to be slaughtered by their enemies over the long run, by pretending that the enemy really isn't the enemy, because they are too cowardly to face the fact that a group believes Jews don't deserve the right to live.

Do you understand the significance of the word SOAP, Jorge?

The left is not pragmatic. The left is a bunch of Neville Chamberlein-esque cowards - the new soap.







Originally posted by Jorge
From MGB8 posts #139 and #142:

I think that you, like much of the left, simply ignore facts that you don't like and the brutal and selfish realities of human nature because you want to believe in a more idealistic vision of humanity - even if that idealism kills you, and your neighbors and family.

It’s not only the leftists that tend to ignore facts that they don’t like, also the rightists do it, in fact everyone does it. A set of opinions about a particular issue is mainly achieved at, by ignoring or paying minimal attention to certain facts and stressing others. To try to pretend we are objective, impartial observers of a conflict about which we are highly opinionated is simply nonsense.

It is unfair, to accuse the Left, or at least the Israeli Left, of having distorted views of the present conflict because of its “idealism” (having an "idealistic vision of humanity"). I think I’ve said before and if so I’ll repeat myself, that, in the context of the I-P conflict the Left adopts a pragmatic position whereas the Right adopts an idealistic one.

The position of most of the Israeli leftists is that we should relinquish the occupied territories and seek a negotiated solution because this course is in the bests interests of the Israelis at large. This is a pragmatic position, bordering in Utilitarian Ethics (what benefits my side is Good, what harms it is Bad). Occupation or Conquest as abstract concepts are left to anyone’s personal beliefs; what we are saying is that this particular occupation is harming Israeli interests and the more time we persist on it the worse for us.

The position of the Israeli Right (and especially of those parties and movements closely associated with the settlements) is an idealistic one. Its main component is the existence of certain Rights to the whole of the Land of Israel; these rights are supposed to originate in divine commandments or in a national-historical or nationalistic “destiny”. Some particular site should be in Jewish hands because Abraham and Sarah bought there a place to be buried; the fact that the place may be now in the middle of a densely populated Arab population and that we may need a whole Army division to defend it, an intricate system of private roads to get to it and a wasteful infrastructure to maintain it is, for them, neither here nor there; what is important is that the place is Holy; what is important is the Idea, the Principle. The Principle being the Redemption of The Land, a land that has acquired almost Messianic proportions.

I’m not saying that all the Right thinks upon those lines. But what happens in practice is that the Agenda for the Right (and, since they are a majority, for the whole country) is formulated on the basis of the ideals of the settlement movement. A similar process is seen in the Palestinian side where the Agenda is largely set on the basis of the Idealists and not of the Pragmatists among them.

From #142:
Jorge believes that increasing the benefits and lessening the costs of Terrorism by the Pal Arabs, and the other Arabs who support them, will somehow cause the Pal Arabs to stop the terrorism, despite the showing that IT WORKS!

A personal aside: I’m getting quite annoyed about other people telling what I believe. I know damn well what I believe and what I don’t; so, if someone wants to highlight what I believe or not, why not just quote me instead of putting words in my mouth?

Everyone agrees that Israel hasn't had a clear policy on the WB and Gaza. Most people think that the continued controlling the Pal-Arab population in the WB is unsustainable in the long run.

Taking into consideration that the Israeli Left has been claiming for years what now is, in your view, the opinion of “everyone” and of what “most people think”, we seem to be in the right track. Now the question that might be in order is: “If the continued controlling of the Palestinians in the WB is unsustainable in the long run” why do we keep on expanding settlements and creating new ones?

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Jorge
Now the question that might be in order is: “If the continued controlling of the Palestinians in the WB is unsustainable in the long run” why do we keep on expanding settlements and creating new ones?
To control law and order, not Palestinians.

[MGB8]

Jorge,

You again bought into Pal-Arab propaganda.

The real question is: "What does the building of settlements have to do with the control of the Pal-Arabs?"

The answer: Absolutely nothing.

The settlements, and remember that the Pal Arabs consider the suburbs of Jerusalem settlements, are just housing projects.

They may or may not effect how the map is finally drawn, but in the end, like any other piece of land, they are negotiable.

Just like the Sinai was evacuated, so too can settlements be evacutated or abandoned.

Note that the opposition to the security barrier is based on the fact that it "grabs" some settlement blocks on the "Israeli side" of the fence. What does that mean for settlements not on the Israeli side? It means that they are abandoned in the long run, essentially, although the barrier is movable and does not create an actual border, just a security line.

Also, just because the Pal-Arabs want ALL the WB, doesn't mean that's what's necessary for Israel to not control the Pal-Arab population - you need to understand that, also. Just because they say so doesn't make it true (in fact, it makes it more likely than not false.)


Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
To control law and order, not Palestinians.

[Mira~]

Here is a bit of heartening news. I wonder why we don't see this (or at least I haven't seen it) in our mainstream media.

Maybe because it makes Arafat and the Palestinian Authority look bad. and for reasons unknown our mainstream media do not want to make him look bad.

If Jordan can make peace with Israel and get land back (south of sea of Galiliee and south of Dead Sea, but israeli kibbutzim still farm the land, and pay rent to Jordan) and make cooperative industrial zones (QIZs) and do cooperative scientific ventures (like this one described in the article), then why in the world can't Arafat and the PA have similar cooperation with Israel?

http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&repository=0001_article&id=13386

[Jorge]

In my post # 158 I said ,quote:

The position of most of the Israeli leftists is that we should relinquish the occupied territories and seek a negotiated solution because this course is in the bests interests of the Israelis at large.

I’d like now to connect this statement with Mediocrates Top Level of post #136, quote:

Top level - it's not apparent that Israel still has any recognizable national goals or initiatives. That is, what does Israel think the point of the Jewish state is?

I do not pretend to have a comprehensive answer to that tall question. However, in my view, if one were to state main national goals, first on the list would be: “To ensure the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish State”.

To attain that goal, a necessary condition (although not a sufficient one) is a clear cut majority of Jewish population within that State. To many readers this might appear like stating the obvious, which of course it is, but the Jewish opponents to a two-state solution tend too often to forget the obvious.

The alternative to a two-state solution is a bi-national state; in the latter the proportion of Jews will be similar to that of the Arabs and, in a near future, if the demographic trends are maintained, Jews will become a minority.

When we say that the Israeli Left supports relinquishing the occupied territories and seeking a negotiated solution, because this course is in the “best interests of the State of Israel”, we are taking into consideration that this policy will ensure a clear Jewish majority in the State of Israel.

The said “negotiated solution” of the conflict includes in our view the establishment of a viable Palestinian State, that’s why it’s called a two-state solution (I apologize if I sound like a school teacher, but it so happens that some of my opponents have considerable difficulties in perceiving the basics of the situation).

Suppose we wake up one sunny day to find that we have achieved Final Victory. Palestinians abandon any form of opposition to Israel, accept continued occupation, the PLO, Hamas,etc. cease to exist, all the remaining terrorists have fled to Pakistan. After pinching our skin to be sure we are not dreaming and after the victory speeches and celebrations, the next Israeli reaction, if we are still sane of mind, will be on the lines of : -- Wait a minute!—You cannot live under continued occupation! – Are you sure you wouldn’t like a nice and cozy State of your own?-

I am aware that quite a few in the right think that we can eat our cake and keep it whole; that is, to have a Jewish State without a Jewish majority. That may be possible for some years, only that it would not be just a Jewish State but a Jewish Police State. Police or Totalitarian states seem to be remarkably short lived lately (with the notable exception of Arab kingdoms and dictatorships); it’s thus more than likely that a Police Sate will not ensure the continued existence of a Jewish State for future generations.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Jorge
However, in my view, if one were to state main national goals, first on the list would be: “To ensure the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish State”.

To attain that goal, a necessary condition (although not a sufficient one) is a clear cut majority of Jewish population within that State. [/b] Agreed! perfectly!
What about Um-El-Pahem? (Um-El-Pahem: A radical jihadic city of Arabs with Israeli citizenship. Many of the residents of that city participated and supported suicide bombers. Without these people help, many of the suicide bombing could never take place. The city borderders in the east with the "Green line"). Do you support the idea of offer for the PA to annax that city, and thus to "free" the city Arabs from the: "most brutal occupation the world had ever known" as well as the "racist state discrimination of Arabs and aparthied policy toward Arabs" ?

BTW, both quotes belong to MK Azmy Bishara: Assad personal pal, PhD from East Germany and the KGB, and Um-El-Pahem city hero and resident.


The alternative to a two-state solution is a bi-national state; in the latter the proportion of Jews will be similar to that of the Arabs and, in a near future, if the demographic trends are maintained, Jews will become a minority. If arabs will have a say, Israel will stop being a democracy... so our choises are between not being a democracy in Jewish minority control, or not being a democracy but in Jewish control... Well, I prefer the latter.

The bi-national threat is an empty one. Israel do not consider the Arabs of the PA as citizens and see no reasons to look at them as such. Israel, after all, answered the Arabs demands for independent self governance and they have one already. As far as i concern, the rest of the Arabs in Israel should join that ragime control. Only Arafat hates Arabs more then Jewish terror victims.

If Israel goverment will stop supporting immigration of Arabs into Israel, then there is no reason to fear Israel becoming bi-national.


The said “negotiated solution” of the conflict includes in our view the establishment of a viable Palestinian State, that’s why it’s called a two-state solution (I apologize if I sound like a school teacher, but it so happens that some of my opponents have considerable difficulties in perceiving the basics of the situation). I may support that idea had i was assured that what ever remains of MY country will be Arab free the same way the Arabs demand their part of the land be Jewish cleansed.

If the Left accepts Jews right for certain part of the land of Israel, (which the left isn't accepting) then it follows directly that Arabs got nothing to look for in our parts, they are hositle (already) land grabbers and brutal occupayers.

The Left for some reason, avoids answering this little bit, which follows streight from their arguments.


Suppose we wake up one sunny day to find that we have achieved Final Victory. Palestinians abandon any form of opposition to Israel, accept continued occupation, the PLO, Hamas,etc. cease to exist, all the remaining terrorists have fled to Pakistan. You mean... going back in time to the 70's and 80's ? sound good for me!!!


After pinching our skin to be sure we are not dreaming and after the victory speeches and celebrations, the next Israeli reaction, if we are still sane of mind, will be on the lines of : -- Wait a minute!—You cannot live under continued occupation! – Are you sure you wouldn’t like a nice and cozy State of your own?- In the 70's and 80's no-one, neither the Jordenians nor the Egyptions, considred a "national state" for the Arabs of the WB and Gaza. Believe it or not, not even the PLO!!!. They always talked about driving Jews into the sea. Not on independence, untill the Jewish anti zionist left talked them into it.

The Arabs were better off while we called the shots. They had jobs, lots and lots of babies, lots of money... they had great time. They were the most educated Arabs in the ME, best fed, lowest mortality rates... Every 15 years, Arabs doubled their population with immigration from all over the ME (all wanting a piece of the racist occupation) and thanks to the best health care in the ME, provided by the "rabid occupation".

Lastly: Arabs can have an autonomy with all rights imaginable other then building an Army. Arabs can call their autonomy: self governance, canton administration... whatever they wish to call it, to answer all their political cravings, other then building an Army. Does not-building-an-Army, makes them feel "under occupation"? If they truely want peace, why should they want to have an army? The same way, if they truely want peace, why the "settelments" bother them? They used to make a living thanks to the settlements. Only thanks to the settlements, that provided Arabs with jobs and commarce, did the Arabs standard of living climbed to the highest in the ME.


Police or Totalitarian states seem to be remarkably short lived lately (with the notable exception of Arab kingdoms and dictatorships); BAD examples. Arabs dictatorships are among the most stable in the world. Saddam rulled high for over 3 decades. Assad senior, almost four! Mubarak- quarter of a century, the thierd leader of Egypt's military backed single party dictatorship. King Hussain made it into the Guiness book of records as the longest ruleing autocrate.


it’s thus more than likely that a Police Sate will not ensure the continued existence of a Jewish State for future generations. Idiotic!

[MGB8]

Jorge,

The opposition to the left is not about giving some of the WB and Gaza up.

Its about HOW we do it, and about how much.

The left would give the PLO everything they demand (for now), and ask nothing in return but words, which they don't care if they are violated.

The left do not take into account defensible borders or other real security concerns in their hurry to give the PLO what they want, nor do they take into account the consequences of surrendering the land to an enemy which continues to attack it.

Instead, the left prefers to ignore the facts which clearly show that the PLO is an enemy, calling this not a war but a "police action", ignoring the orders of Al-aqsa, the funding, the media, the symbols, the schoolbooks, etc.

The right also is aware of the demorgaphic problem. Once, the right hoped that autonomy with Israeli military control would be enough to satisfy the Pal-Arab desire for self-government yet meet Israeli security needs. Another option was Jordanian and Egyptian citizenship for the Pal-Arabs, even Jordanian/Egyptian local control of the WB and Gaza....with Israeli military control.

These compromise solutions might have worked once upon a time.

However, that has become less likely a possible solution given Oslo and the militancy the PLO brought with them, that Israel invited and allowed.

The right has realized this, and now also wants to separate from the Pal Arabs. However, it, unlike the left, will not stick its head in the sand and pretend we're not at war and we have a peace partner to give land to without a second thought.

The right is willing to fight to protect the future of Israel, to make sure that a Pal-Arab state is less a terror state than what would be created right now, to WIN THE WAR first, and then to negotiate a peace from a position of strength, with an enemy who is tired of war and now wants peace, because the consequences are too severe.

[Binyamin]

The alternative to a two-state solution is a bi-national state; in the latter the proportion of Jews will be similar to that of the Arabs and, in a near future, if the demographic trends are maintained, Jews will become a minority.

This is incorrect. The alternative is a Jewish state, with autonomous (or occupied) territories (like before Oslo). There is no reason that Israel should ever give them citizenship. See the thread "TIME- Is it on the arab's side?"


Suppose we wake up one sunny day to find that we have achieved Final Victory. Palestinians abandon any form of opposition to Israel, accept continued occupation, the PLO, Hamas,etc. cease to exist, all the remaining terrorists have fled to Pakistan. After pinching our skin to be sure we are not dreaming and after the victory speeches and celebrations, the next Israeli reaction, if we are still sane of mind, will be on the lines of : -- Wait a minute!—You cannot live under continued occupation! – Are you sure you wouldn’t like a nice and cozy State of your own?-


I would not react like that. Why would it bother us that they are under occupation, especially if it doesn't bother them?





It is unfair, to accuse the Left, or at least the Israeli Left, of having distorted views of the present conflict because of its “idealism” (having an "idealistic vision of humanity"). I think I’ve said before and if so I’ll repeat myself, that, in the context of the I-P conflict the Left adopts a pragmatic position whereas the Right adopts an idealistic one.

"Transferring 100% of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza to the Palestinians is not a political decision, it is a moral decision." -Shimon Peres, qouted in the Jerusalem Post.

[Jorge]

In my post # 164 I wrote, quote:

The alternative to a two-state solution is a bi-national state; in the latter the proportion of Jews will be similar to that of the Arabs and, in a near future, if the demographic trends are maintained, Jews will become a minority. ________________________________________

Binyamin in post # 167 replied, quote:

This is incorrect. The alternative is a Jewish state, with autonomous (or occupied) territories (like before Oslo). There is no reason that Israel should ever give them citizenship .

I don’t quite see the “incorrect” part. A Jewish State, with autonomous (or occupied ) territories" in perpetuity is quite clearly a bi-national State. An State whose population is made up of roughly equal parts of individuals that profess to belong to two different nations is a bi-national State. It may be named “Jewish State” by its Jewish population, provided they were the dominant sector in it, because obviously, the “rules of the game” and names or denominations are decided by the ruling class or sector. As you may recall, South Africa, in apartheid times, was called a "democratic country" by the ruling white sector; language and hence names allow a considerable latitude; the questions center not so much about names but about the situations those names are supposed to describe.

You might agree with me that one of the most important components of an State is the set of Laws that regulate the relations between its individuals, their organizations and the various government agencies or bodies. In a Jewish State, as the one you depict, that set of laws will be formulated by the Jewish population( rather, its representatives) and applied some of them to Jews and some to the Arabs. The Arabs would have no participation in formulating those laws (except perhaps municipal regulations); in short they’ll have a similar status as those of “temporary residents”, accorded to new immigrants in special cases.

I’m not quite sure the Arabs would appreciate the irony of being foreigners in their own land. Certainly sense of humor doesn’t seem to be one of their national traits. In which case they will oppose such an arrangement as you propose; in which case the Jewish sector will have to impose forcefully its will; in which case, as I said in #164, the Jewish State will in practice be a Jewish Police State.

It doesn’t take much imagination to conclude that the main efforts of such an State will be directed to enforce our will upon the Arab population; the welfare of its citizens, the education of its children and the “Jewish ness” of the State, all these and more will have to be sacrificed in the fulfillment of the National Goal: to keep half of its population permanently subjugated.

The Israeli population has been getting a “sample to taste” of the State you depict by what’s been happening here in the last three years; the cost of keeping the Palestinians at gun-point has fallen largely on the shoulders of the weakest sectors of our society; health and education levels are reaching all-time lows, we have never been so internationally isolated as we are now, we are fast becoming a liability for a growing number of Diaspora Jews, soldiers in fighting units have gone down from heroes to “fraiers”. The list is long and it will get longer and longer as we progress in the road to the Jewish Police State that you seem to advocate.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Jorge
"..,.Take for instance an episode from History called “ The Conquest of the West” during the 19th Century. In those years people started to colonize what was loosely called The American West, thus starting A Conflict . This particular conflict was clearly about Land. One side, that we may call the Foreign Americans (descendants of English, Irish, Poles, Germans, etc) ,wanted to settle there; another side, that we might call Native Americans (because they’ve been living there for countless generations), claimed the same Land as rightfully theirs and objected violently. The government of the time, which had been promoting this settlement business, sends in US troops to give a hand to the Foreign Americans and, in a comparatively short time the conflict was resolved.

The particular solution chosen then, was to herd the Native Americans (the ones that were left) to some out of the way places called Indian Reservations. Peace Treaties (not like the flimsy GA, but real, solid ones) were solemnly signed whereby the US President promised to let them live unharmed provided they kept quiet and didn’t wander out of the said Reservations.

Now, how would you call the armed confrontation? A War, a Police Action, a Military Campaign, something else? I’m merely asking because I’m not sure myself.

As you rightly say we should try to learn the Lessons that History teaches us. The first that occurs to me is that if one side has enough military superiority it can get away with Almost Anything. As Churchill might have written in his History of the English Speaking Ones, it’s not so much a question of which side is right and which one wrong, but of which side has got the rifles and which one has got the bows and arrows.

The other lesson that occurs to me is that the victors are remembered and the defeated are quickly forgotten. Were if not for the fact that some Hollywood producers invented the Western films, most of us would not even suspect that Red Indians ever existed.

Is this particular piece of History relevant to the I-P conflict? In many ways, no and in a few ways, yes.....
Jorge, you never did respond to my commentary on your use of the Palestinian-American Indian Comparison.
Oh well.


Originally posted by abu afak

I wonder if the Indians would have turned down Half of America.. say West of the Mississippi.... as the Arabs turned down half of 'Palestine' 1948. A 'Palestine' that jews had been living in good number in since the 1830's.

Nor could Indians return to 99% of their 'home range'/native territory as Palestinians/Arabs could have (if their Arab 'brothers' allowed such).
and then 50 Years later, having seen 'the writing on the wall', would have turned down 95% of the same deal.

I don't think so.


American Indians Aren’t Like Palestinians

By David Yeagley

MANY PEOPLE SEE A SIMILARITY BETWEEN American Indians and today’s Palestinians. I’m Comanche Indian. I see no similarity whatsoever.

Comanches were once "Lords of the South Plains," (Wallace & Hoebel, 1952). Arabs living in Palestine have never dominated anything but goats. Comanches were independent, and certainly not supported by two billion other Indian ‘brothers,’ like the Palestinian Arabs claim they’re supported by the Arab world.

There’s no similarity in the land claim issue. Comanches, never numbering more than six or seven thousand, were simply strong enough to take over the American southwestern plains, first from other Indians, then from white people. Palestinians have accomplished nothing but suicide bombings.

Palestinian Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine. They are leftover Arabs, residual of another age. Knowing Arab history is vital to understanding the situation in the Middle East. (Joan Peters’ From Time Immemorial (1984) is a ‘must read’ on this subject.)

Arabs are from Arabia....."

enjoy the rest:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=267 [/B]

[Oh Jerusalem]

Anyone still interested in buying some luft from these air heads?


Geneva Initiative PR Man: Change Atmosphere - Not Reality (http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=21152)
Aaron Lerner Date: 10 June 2004

Adman Dror Shternshus was interviewed this morning on Israel Radio's "Its
All Talk" ("Hakol Diburim") magazine while on his way to a conference in Jordan to "market the
Peace label."

During the course of the interview, Shternshus explained that it is "best
not to listen to criticism and to sell peace".

Asked if visions of peace are in touch with reality, Shternshus replied
"reality is not clean, I work on words" and that his idea of marketing the
peace label is "not to change reality but the atmosphere."

During the course of the interview it was never mentioned that Shternshus
provided PR service for the 2003 Meretz election campaign and provides PR
services for Beilin's Geneva Initiative.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il