Blue Moon's Peace Framework

[Blue Moon]

I'm fairly new to this forum, and appreciate the responses to my posts, whatever disagreement there may be.

I wanted to propose something. This thread is entitled "Peace Think Tank", yet it seems to be composed primarly of arguments (in which I, admittedly, have participated) regarding who are the bad guys, who is right, ect . . .

Would anyone be interested in actually preposing some concrete suggestions for a long term solution here ? I know that it is difficult considering the large differences in opinions re: factual history. But throughout history, even those engaged in murderous war with each other have realized that they must
forge some sort of truce or both sides will suffer more - - regardless of how close each side believes they are "right."

I propose for purposes of discussion of solutions that we all accept certain things as "facts" - - not because we want to, or necessarily in fact, agree with them, but, but because (as in the case of warring countries who have forged peace agreements) one has to look to the immediate and long term future, not the past. Pretend we are "emergency room doctors" and the patient has been in a horrible accident and will die if we don't get creative. It doesn't matter how the accident befell him, or whether he was at fault or not. Can we save the patient ?

Proposed "facts":

1. There are a large number of Arab people living in the Gaza Strip and the West bank who are not prospering and need a better life.

2. The West Bank and Gaza Arabs referred to in #1 need hope, and need to see immediate steps being taken towards the development of a stable, responsible, and prosperous society.

3. At least part of the foreign aid directed to the area, has, for whatever reason, not always been put to the most efficient use in order to develop the region economically or socially.

4. The U.S. and other foreign countries will increase aid to the region if, it in fact, it will be put directly to use to immediately begin developing the region economically and socially.

5. Both the Jews and the Arabs have historical links to some or all parts of the area.

6. Both the Jews and the Arabs have attached religious significance to one or more sites in the area.

7. Isreal is a nation, a soveriegn.

8. Isreal has the right to protect itself and its citizens against attack and murder.

9. Many West Bank and Gaza Arabs assert a right to occupation AND/OR ownership of not only the West Bank and Gaza, but to the land occupied by Israel proper.

10. With respect to #9, there are a significant amount of Arabs in the region who would accept the establishment of a "Palestinian" state in the West Bank area, and recognize the existance of Israel.

11. Either a combination of certain factors, or all of the factors set forth below (A - H) poses an actual threat to Isreal's security:

A. There are either a significant amount of Arabs and/or organized militant groups of Arabs, who want to see the establishment of an Islamic state encompassing all of the territories, including Isreal proper.

B. With respect to factor A, there are one or more militant groups in the region, who have publicly asserted thaty they will continue to attack Isreali and/or it's citizens, even after the development of a Palestinian state, with the intention of replacing Israel with an Islamic state.

C. One or more of these groups referred to factor A, and/or the nation or nations it/they have associations with and/or receive support from, have publicly dissemiated anti-Jewish and/or anti- Isreali propoganda, intended to incite hatred for Isreal and/or the Jews.

D. The hate propoganda has, at one time or another, been either been taught in one or more West Bank and/or Gaza Arab schools and/or mosques and/or broadcast through one or more public media, such as radio broadcast or television or newspapers or magazines, thus reaching some, or many, or most Arabs living in the West Bank or Gaza.

E. One or more of the militant groups referred to in factor A have some form of association, either direct or indirect,with one or more Arab nations in the Middle East.

F. There are one or more other terror groups from the Middle East who has/have advocated the killing of innocent civilians in the United States and Isreal, and has/have demonstrated the willingness to put such advocacy into action through the recent killing of innocent civilians in the United States on 9/11/01.

G. One or more terror groups in the Middle East may soon have access to one or more forms of a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" - - whether it be nuclear, chemical, or otherwise.

H. One or more nations in the Middle East wish to see the elimination of Isreal, and one or more of such nations is/are currently attempting to develop "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that could be used against Isreal.


13. Isreal as an entity, cannot accept the continued killing of its non-combatant civilian population.

14. Isreal, as a soveriegn state, cannot accept the elimination of itself as an entity.

15. There are a large of number of Israeli's and Jews throughout the world that would accept the development of a Palestinian state if it did not pose a security threat to Isreal itself or it's citizens.


SUGGESTION: WHAT ARE CONCRETE, REALISTIC TERMS NOT JUST FOR PEACE, BUT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PEACEFUL, RESPONSIBLE, SECURE, AND PROSPEROUS PALESTINIAN STATE ?REMEMBER, WE NEED TO ATTEMPT TO (1) AVOID THE QUAGMIRE OF WHOSE RIGHT/WHOSE WRONG, AND (2) WE NEED CONCRETE,
(3) WE NEED BOTH AN IMMEDIATE SHORT-TERM, AS WELL AS LONG TERM SOLUTION.

What do you guys think ?

[Jorge]

To Blue Moon:

Congratulations! Your post of 05-31 is one of the most constructive ones I've
read in this Forum. I particularly like your idea of dropping this endless argument about who's right and who's wrong and try to look forward into the
next steps. Since it's obvious that my views are the correct ones
and that any one that dissents with me has a vision clouded with prejudice and bigotry, I can afford to be magnanimous, stop showing to my opponents
how wrong they are and get into the business of constructive proposals... and the same holds for everybody in this Forum.

If I read you correctly the exercise consists in taking up one or more of your proposed "facts" and put up proposed actions in line with those facts
(I think that statement is a more appropriate word than fact, since statements may be true or false whereas facts may not).


Regarding for instance, your statements 1. and 2:

1.There are a large number of Arab people living in the Gaza Strip and the West bank who are not prospering and need a better life.

2. The West Bank and Gaza Arabs referred to in #1 need hope, and need to see immediate steps being taken towards the development of a stable, responsible, and prosperous society .


As a first stage I agree (someone else might disagree) with your statements that the arabs living there, need a better life, hope and to see immediate steps being taken for…
In a second stage I should propose steps or actions conducing to the goal of a stable,responsible and prosperous society.

The easiest of the three is responsibility . A responsible society needs to be able to make decisions on its own, independently. A child is not fully responsible because his parents take most of the decisions that affect him,
in a similar way a soldier is not fully responsible because he acts on decisions of his superiors and so forth. Thus it appears to me that the aim of a responsible Palestinian society is to be achieved by independence from other
societies and the first step should be the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian State (which is after all the subject of this Forum thread ).

The second of the three is stability. This is more complicated because
it's difficult ascertain steps that will put a country in the road to stability. If one examines this particular region Syria and Jordan, are examples of fairly stable
societies, whereas Lebanon was pretty unstable until it came under Syrian
tutelage. In comparison with the former two, Egypt appears less stable; at the same time it is also more democratic, comparatively speaking. Some say that
stability and prosperity go hand in hand, but this doesn't appear to hold in the Middle East. So given a newly created Palestinian State, in order to ensure
stability the model adopted should be that of a strong authoritarian state and not a liberal democracy. (no point in looking up to Sweden or Norway for examples, this is the Middle East, not Scandinavia)

I would say prosperity is the most difficult of the three. I have recently outlined some short term proposals in the thread " Is Peace really necessary?" but the subject merits a deeper discussion. I leave this to
Forum members more deeply versed in Economics.

Regarding your other statements I hope to set my views in a future note.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Blue Moon
SUGGESTION: WHAT ARE CONCRETE, REALISTIC TERMS NOT JUST FOR PEACE, BUT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PEACEFUL, RESPONSIBLE, SECURE, AND PROSPEROUS PALESTINIAN STATE ?REMEMBER, WE NEED TO ATTEMPT TO (1) AVOID THE QUAGMIRE OF WHOSE RIGHT/WHOSE WRONG, AND (2) WE NEED CONCRETE,
(3) WE NEED BOTH AN IMMEDIATE SHORT-TERM, AS WELL AS LONG TERM SOLUTION.

Regardless of placing the blame on one group or another, the main quagmire is that, as you stated correctly, Israel cannot be constantly threatened by Palestinian terrorism. You also correctly mentioned that certain Palestinian terrorist groups will seek to destroy Israel even after a Palestinian state would be created. This is the crux of the problem -- i.e., that there is no arrangement possible whatsoever if those groups persist.

To get out of the quagmire, the Palestinian terrorist groups must be taken out of the equation. To do so, there are 3 options:

1. The Palestinian governing entity would seek and destroy all the members of those groups by whatever means necessary.

2. Israel would hunt down and destroy all the members of those Palestinian terrorist groups.

3. Those groups cease terrorism and abandon their desire to destroy Israel.

Realistically, I don't believe that those groups will take it upon themselves to abandon their desire to destroy Israel, and so the concrete steps would come from #1 or #2.

Historically, even when given the means and the promise of an independent state, the Palestinian Authority not only has not fought terrorism, but it has incited, trained, armed and provided political cover for terrorism. I am not saying this out of blame, but to arrive at a concrete solution "to save the patient," we need to look at all treatment options and decide which is most likely to be effective.

This brings us to option #3, which is in progress at the moment. Israel alone is fighting against Palestinian terrorism. If Israel is successful, there will be a chance for a peaceful resolution. If Israel fails, then we are looking at a completely different scenario:

A Palestinian state is declared, terrorism against Israel continues, including cross border missiles shot into Israeli population centers (as is happening every day right now in Gush Katif), and then an all-out war ensues. The outcome must be either:

a. Israel re-occupies the Palestinian terrotiries, or

b. Israel finally marches all the Palestinian with their Jihad and their terrorism, into Jordan or into the Sinai desert.

The problem is that neither of these scenarios are desirable in the short-run, but I am concerned that, unless there is a fundamental shift in Arab society against terrorism, this is the unfortunate outcome we will face.

[Mediocrates]

In terms of economics I need to ask another question which is, what is the value of prosperity without a viable middle class? There successful rich nations all over the mid east that use their wealth to develop and support state sponsored terrorism. As a general clause, prosperity in and of itself guarantees nothing since people themselves in the country have nothing to risk and nothing to lose from possible poltical and economic reprecussions.

But if you had a viable middle class - the entrepeneurs and worker bees who have skin in the game and the most of their own standard of living at risk then that is a powerful political force for reform. You see it today in Iran which has a large middle class from which the most potent protest arises. Certainly Israel itself is essentially one large middle class country formed on socialist ideals. It's where the real power lies. I don't think that as a political force there is anything to be gained in elevating the poorest Palestinians or 'refugees' in the camps. To do so is merely a response to fear but has no long term success outside of Palestine itself. Conversely there is little to be gained in attempting to reform the criminals at the top. I just don't see the Dauphin or Marie Antionette becoming Palestinian senators no matter how many Star Wars movies you watch.

[L@mplighterM]

I think their leaders have led the Palestinians down the garden path but I don’t think it has taken much persuasion. Arafat is a puppet for Iran, Iraq, well you might say the whole Arab World.

If the Palestinians are unhappy with his leadership then they should oust him. There’s no possible way the PA could stop revolt if the masses opposed Arafat.

I think it’s outrageous that the US is considering a terrorist as a replacement for Arafat.

I could continue for an hour.


Quite frankly I don’t understand why anyone would start a thread trying to elicit sympathy (#1 & #2) for the plight of the Palestinians living in the WB and GS. Polls have indicated that they support the terrorist attacks against Israel.

They have made their bed so they should lie in it and I would consider it obscene to consider helping people like that.

I think peace might be possible when “Hell Freezes Over” and I don’t think that is going to happen anytime soon.
I’ve mentioned on other threads that there are animals in the WB and GS that support the killing of newborn Jewish babies.

Jews die and Arabs celebrate.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Jorge
how wrong they are and get into the business of constructive proposals... and the same holds for everybody in this Forum.

Jorge, do you actually plan on making a constructive proposal? So far, I've seen only a discussion of theoretical societal values, and the only concrete step you propose is that somehow you think that the Palestinians having an independent state will lead them to be "responsible."

FWIW, the more independence the Palestinians have been granted, the more the situation deteriorated. The more freedom was granted to the Palestinians, the more it became evident that they only wanted the freedom to build more missile and suicide-bomb factories in the areas under their control. That's why I think that you are, unfortunately, mistaken.


The second of the three is stability. This is more complicated because it's difficult ascertain steps that will put a country in the road to stability. If one examines this particular region Syria and Jordan, are examples of fairly stable societies, whereas Lebanon was pretty unstable until it came under Syrian tutelage.

"Stability" in the Arab world, as seen from your examples, is only as a direct result of total and complete oppression of its citizens. In Arabs countries where dissidents disappear in middle of the night and are then found shot and mutilated in the streets the next day, there is more stability, if you can call it that. Is this the model you foresee for the future Palestinian entity?

I would say prosperity is the most difficult of the three.

This is where we agree. To build a prosperous society that includes a substantial middle class (as Mediocrates said), there needs to be an emphasis on education, productivity, population control, and capitalism. There also needs to be a competent government free of corruption to make proper use of public funds.

In Palestinian society, like in other Arab countries too, making a living is de-emphasized, while making bombs is held in high-regard. There is a low level of education, a high degree of illiteracy, public corruption, overpopulation, and Islamic extremism. To top it all off, there are no natural resources to trade.

These factors make any future Palestinian state a likely candidate for widespread poverty, because of its societal norms and lack of goods and services to trade. As we also know, poverty leads to more Islamic extremism, and so the circle of Palestinian failure is unlikely to end in this generation. Their only hope is to somehow induce the other Muslim countries to support them as a charity case, or to become an ultra-expensive tourism destination for the petro-dollar sheiks.

[takeo]

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=221&highlight=takeos+peace





first step: talks with Arafat in Jerusalem about the preparation of a peace-conference in Europe or Washington, with lots of international donors. Israel would withdraw its forces from all the territories belonging to the PA . Make your plans public about your intentions to stop all occupation.

second: stop terrorism: expose the plan to stop the occupation and secretly ask the approval of Hamas, PFLP and Jihad. Probably only Jihad, and perhaps hamas would refuse. If they refuse than joint actions between PA-police, israeli army and secret service, in cooperation with international forces (US and European) to dismantle all organisations who still commit violence and refuse to benefit from an amnesty if they give in their weapons (as happened in northern ireland). This would most probably make an end to at least 90% of the terrorist activities.

thirth: permanent withrawel from israeli forces and install international troops and protection to protect the borders of israel and the remaining colonists.

forth: peace-conforence in which israel offers a full independant palestinian state and promise to take in a certain number of refugees (not more than 1.5 million). in return Arafat should sign a peace-treaty with Israel, recognise it, promiise security-cooperation, and allows continued international presence at the borders. Most likely Arafat would accept. Jerusalem would be divided and the holy sites in Eastern Jerusalem brought under international protection and maintained by a board of jewish and Islamic clerics. Europe and the US will promise to take in the rest of the refugees and pay for the resettlements of jewish settlers and palestinian refugees within Israel.

Separate negotiations with Israel and Libanon: the Holan-heights and pre-1967 border in return for a peace-treaty and recognition of Israel. Syria promises to keep the Golan as a demilitarised region. Other Arab countries would be very tempted to recognise Israel as well and do business with it. Israel would recover very fast and instead of being a military middle-eastern power it would be an economic tiger of the middle-East.

Arafat and the PLO would be treated as heroes for bringing liberation (as in 1993) and the moderates would easily win the election.

[elke]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by takeo
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=221&highlight=takeos+peace
first step: talks with Arafat in Jerusalem about the preparation of a peace-conference in Europe or Washington, with lots of international donors.

Donors of what? Blood or organs?

Israel would withdraw its forces from all the territories belonging to the PA . Make your plans public about your intentions to stop all occupation.

And define "all the territories belonging to the PA". These are part of the negotitations.

second: stop terrorism: expose the plan to stop the occupation and secretly ask the approval of Hamas, PFLP and Jihad. Probably only Jihad, and perhaps hamas would refuse.

Hahaha!!!!!

If they refuse than joint actions between PA-police, israeli army and secret service, in cooperation with international forces (US and European) to dismantle all organisations who still commit violence and refuse to benefit from an amnesty if they give in their weapons (as happened in northern ireland). This would most probably make an end to at least 90% of the terrorist activities.

Well, that was the plan at Oslo...

thirth: permanent withrawel from israeli forces and install international troops and protection to protect the borders of israel and the remaining colonists.

Any volunteers?

forth: peace-conforence in which israel offers a full independant palestinian state and promise to take in a certain number of refugees (not more than 1.5 million). in return Arafat should sign a peace-treaty with Israel, recognise it, promiise security-cooperation, and allows continued international presence at the borders.

Tried at Camp David and Taba...

Most likely Arafat would accept.

Hahaha!...NOT!

Jerusalem would be divided and the holy sites in Eastern Jerusalem brought under international protection and maintained by a board of jewish and Islamic clerics. Europe and the US will promise to take in the rest of the refugees and pay for the resettlements of jewish settlers and palestinian refugees within Israel.

Tried at Camp David and Taba...

Separate negotiations with Israel and Libanon: the Holan-heights and pre-1967 border in return for a peace-treaty and recognition of Israel. Syria promises to keep the Golan as a demilitarised region.

Promises, promises...

Other Arab countries would be very tempted to recognise Israel as well and do business with it.

When hell freezes over... At this point, it would be a miracle just to get them in the same room!

Israel would recover very fast and instead of being a military middle-eastern power it would be an economic tiger of the middle-East.

It already is...

Arafat and the PLO would be treated as heroes for bringing liberation (as in 1993) and the moderates would easily win the election.

Election for what?

Clap...Clap...Clap... Sorry, no can do with only one hand.

[takeo]

nothing like it has ever been tried, this combination of factors that is acceptable to both sides (unlike camp david), but if you think the current situation is better than to try anything new than of course i won't argue with you.
foreign troops, i think the us or some european countries would be prepared, and Arafat, syria, etc. even the pflp have already said they would stop violence and recognise israel on the conditions which are met in this plan.
if israel offers something real, and unlike oslo in the near future, palestinians will be willing to offer peace to israel.

i mean in the first fase before negociations start withdrawel from territories belonging to the pa according to oslo.

[elke]

Originally posted by takeo
nothing like it has ever been tried, this combination of factors that is acceptable to both sides (unlike camp david), but if you think the current situation is better than to try anything new than of course i won't argue with you.
foreign troops, i think the us or some european countries would be prepared, and Arafat, syria, etc. even the pflp have already said they would stop violence and recognise israel on the conditions which are met in this plan.
if israel offers something real, and unlike oslo in the near future, palestinians will be willing to offer peace to israel.

i mean in the first fase before negociations start withdrawel from territories belonging to the pa according to oslo.

A combination of most of what you spoke of has been proposed between the Camp David and Taba. According to Dennis Ross, the trouble was that Arafat did not want to sign on the dotted line, where it said "end of conflict". I have heard him say so with my own ears.

A more foolhardy way of dealing with this situation, than withdrawing troops prior to any negotiations, would be hard to find. And WHEN and WHERE has PFLP said that it would stop violence? Let alone that they are not the main perpetrator anyway.

US and Europe are having trouble finding peace-keepers for Afghanistan. Nobody volunteers, for some reason...I wonder why? Do you really, honestly think that it would be as simple as that to find peacekeepers for the MidEast?

You see, Takeo, we all may care about Israel, the Palestinians, whoever. But remember: it's not our children under the gun, it's the Israeli and Palestinian children. It is not up to us to decide the fate of these people. They have to look after their own. Given the grisly history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I don't see how anyone can expect Israel to just pack up and leave. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you can't clap with one hand.

[takeo]

The us wants an end to the mideast-war, i'm sure the us would be willing to send troops, france as well, french troops would be trusted by the palestinians while american troops by the israeli. we have send troops to much more dangerous areas in Africa. And Kosovo isn't disneyland either.

Arafat did not want to sign for some obvious reasons, such as the refugee-question was not solved, israel would controll the border with Jordan, israel would still maintain 8 percent or more of the Westbank, etc. He wanted to negociate the matter but, as Dennis ross said himself, it was a "take it or leave it" proposal.

about the pflp: this is from the pflp-website:

"The possibility of peace still exists if Israel is willing to comply with international law and convention which specify Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territory to the borders of 1967, the recognition of the right of refugees to return, and the right of Palestinians to establish an independent and sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital. "

http://www.pflp-pal.org/faq.html

[elke]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by takeo
The us wants an end to the mideast-war, i'm sure the us would be willing to send troops, france as well, french troops would be trusted by the palestinians while american troops by the israeli. we have send troops to much more dangerous areas in Africa. And Kosovo isn't disneyland either.

While US wants an end to the ME war, I don't know that they would be willing to put actual "boots on the ground". There is much controversy about it here, but the general concensus seems to be "NO".

The reason is very simple: they tried it in, I believe, 1982 in Lebanon and paid 241 lives for the pain, thanks to Hisbollah. Given the strong anti-American feelings in the ME, it's doubtful that US will relent. And please, don't tell me that once a Palestinian state is established, everything will be different. It won't. France may be willing to risk its people this way, but I really don't think that US is.

Arafat did not want to sign for some obvious reasons, such as the refugee-question was not solved, israel would controll the border with Jordan, israel would still maintain 8 percent or more of the Westbank, etc. He wanted to negociate the matter but, as Dennis ross said himself, it was a "take it or leave it" proposal.

The refugee question solution was offered, and a reasonable one at that. The offer was for Israel to accept a small number of refugees under certain circumstances, - e.g. those who had families in Israel, - and the rest would have a right of return into the newly-minted Palestinian state. There was indeed an obvious reason Arafat did not want to sign: it's because there was the "end of conflict" condition in the contract.

According to Dennis Ross, many in the Palestinian delegation wanted to accept this proposal, but they were overruled by Arafat. It may not have been entirely his fault, since apparently he was told on no uncertain terms not to accept by Egypt and the Saudis (I haven't independently confirmed this part, I just heard this in a couple of different places)

about the pflp: this is from the pflp-website:

"The possibility of peace still exists if Israel is willing to comply with international law and convention which specify Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territory to the borders of 1967, the recognition of the right of refugees to return, and the right of Palestinians to establish an independent and sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital. "

http://www.pflp-pal.org/faq.html

I won't even go there. If this is not the case of a "pot calling a kettle black", I don't know what is. But again, just "please recycle" prior discussions.

[Blue Moon]

Response to post #5: re: reason for the post.
Of the various different forums, this one is called "Peace-Think Tank". I just noticed that many posters (including myself) were engaged in historical debate, rather than setting forth some concrete crisis solutions. I think from my previous posts, it is already clear what I think of the situation. But my personal thoughts about who is right here does not necessarily help me to really focus on an emergency strategy to avoid all out war.

To me, there will be only two choices here: 1) All out war, or 2) immediate implementation of some sort of emergency plan, followed by a long term solution. Do I doubt the viability and possibility of #2 ? Of course I do. But, even if the chances are remote, maybe someone or somebodies can think of something that hasn't been thought of before. Why is this important to Israel ? Because although Israel would easily win an all out battle with the West Bank and Gaza Arabs, and probably win even if faced with attacks from neighboring Arab countries,
it has a lot to lose.

Israel is obviously better off with strong U.S. support. The American people, however, tend to gravitate towards the underdog. Moreover, the mainstream media over here are
generally ignorant regarding Mid-East history, and expound moral equivalency - - if this was WWII, Japan would not have needed a "Tokyo Rose." The coverage of "Operation Defensive Shield" might as well have originated from Saudi Arabia.

Back to my point. Does Israel need further isolation from the world; and, unless it absolutely has to, does it want to risk
losing a great deal of support from the American public, which in turn, influences those in power ??? You see, an all out war would result in thousands and thousands of Arab casualties. You should have seen our media coverage of Jenin; and you should have seen the effect on many people. I don't know that our hand-wringing, spineless liberals over here could stomach a real war - - it would be to upsetting to them. They would have a hard time digesting their goat-cheese, mixed baby-green boutique salads, and it might cause them to pay more to fuel up their soccer-mom SUV's.

In addition, in case of an all-out war, Israel could face economic sanctions from other countries, no ????

Don't get me wrong. Israel must do,whatever it must to survive.
However, all out war may have extreme costs for it.

With all this in mind, is it worth it to try to brain-storm to maybe come up something, that maybe others have not ???

By the way, I've already observed a few cynical, sarcastic
posts. Again, I have posted my fair share. But, JUST FOR THIS PARTICULAR FORUM, is anyone interested in taking an "objective" view here - - i.e. pretenting, to not have any personal interest here. You know, a good trial attorney always views the case from the other side in order to prepare and see the holes in his/her own case. Would it not be somewhat interesting and personallying challenging, in order to hammer out a possible plan, to assume, just for a moment, the role of the other side ?
Or, at the very least be neutral: Ever see "Star Trek", remember "Mr. Spock" ?

Wadda ya think ? :p

[Mediocrates]

BTW that hand sign is Kabbalistic, did you know?


I don't quibble with your facts. In fact I skipped over them, more or less- they seem pretty reasonable. My basic premise is that this is a civil war.

Clearly an Alsace-Lorraine solution is not viable. One way or the other the borders between countries have to be set in stone (unless, like Yemen no one really cares where they are). Just as clearly though a divided state might not have any viability. So for a divided Palistan it is not entirely beyond the Pale (sorry - sometimes I just have to be ironic) that Gaza, which houses most of the 'refugees' could become the Palistanians' own underclass dumping ground. "Lose your job? Go to Gaza!" "House got knocked down - emmigrate to sunny Gaza".

At any rate, a framework. Maybe a continuum of transactions then. We can accept each condition as a null state with a sliding scale in one direction toward less compliance and the other direction toward more compliance. For example - the issue of Palestinian immigration into Israel. Start from a position of zero. Couple that goal to 2 distinct processes, one from each side. Compliance with those processes slides the scale one way or the other. So for example if the PLO wants to slide the scale toward more Palistanians moving back over the Green Line then it has to comply with some other link proposition and the Israelis have to jointly comply with another linked proposition.

Similarly they could draw up a detailed list of say 20 priorities and rank them. For each objective, couple it to at least 2 linked sub objectives - one from each side. Each priority has requirements assigned to it that have to be met.

Treat each tuple independently so that there is not requirement to do anything in any order or to have completion of the tasks in any order.

The definition of completion will vary with the definition of the task. In some cases it will be an action in others it will be an agreed to plan of action with dates and times and milestones.

Draft up a preliminary treaty that assigns success criteria to the completion of some subset of the total list. So out of the 20, establisht that critical completion is gained when 15 or whatever number of the shared objectives are met. Leave the remainder to be dealt with as an agreement between 2 different countries.

Anything not on the list is ignored by both parties. Nothing on the list can alter or require changes in the internal political structure of either party. That is, in exchange for allowing Arafat to be the only representative, nobody has any say at all about the makeup of the Israeli government, other than the Israelis themselves.

Put a sunset date on the process. Exceed the date and the process starts over from zero.

Eliminate all of the postcolonial rhetoric from the discussion.

[Mediocrates]

I didn't want to leave that last sentence dangling. Postcolonialism as a body of thought, a modern sociopolitical study that assumes that everything 'western' is bad and lies at the root of most things related to the 'oppression' of other peoples. For a good 4 pages on postcolonialism take a look at:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000006D90C.htm

The basic question and the one most fundamental to the solution of this war is - do the Palestinians themselves see their problems as irresolvable? Do they see their lot in life as moving toward or away from something or do the view themselves as permanently different? I think if you can answer that question then you can also answer the cult of death question.

[Jorge]

Quote from BlueMoon:

3. At least part of the foreign aid directed to the area, has, for whatever reason, not always been put to the most efficient use in order to develop the region economically or socially.

4. The U.S. and other foreign countries will increase aid to the region if, it in fact, it will be put directly to use to immediately begin developing the region economically and socially.

In my first note I stated that, regarding BlueMoon's points 1. and 2., the action required is the establishment of a Palestinian State. As it happens, the same action is relevant to points 3. and 4. It is essential to have a govermental infrastructure able to coordinate the various initiatives and to assign funds according to
priorities. Only the palestinians themselves could do it and for that
you need ministries and institutions and all the rest which constitute a government. Here I'm not talking about aid, which is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for development, but also of foreign investment.

However, it is clear that foreign investment won't be available unless some form of peace agreement with Israel is well under way. This in turn, has two preconditions: a commitment from Israel to withdraw from occupied areas and to start dismantling settlements and a commitment from palestinian authorities to actively fight terrorists. Given the present atmosphere of mutual distrust these commitments should be given to and supervised by some international body
accepted by both parties.

The crucial question in point 4. is how "to develop the region economically and socially". In my view the first priority is
to implement projects
that could drastically decrease unemployment. The present figures seem to be bet. 60 and 80% percent, ( estimates,because
there's no one counting). This is a national catastrophe; out of every 10 people able to work only 3 actually do; the three that
receive some salary have to support their families and the families of the other 7!

This problem of unemployment is crucial in connection with
Mediocrates point regarding an strong middle class. His
proposition is quite sensible; nowadays middle classes are justly considered the backbone of a nation. However, since salaries are mostly influenced by supply and demand of the labor market, given the high unemployment, workers will be offered positions
with very low salaries; these are conditions leading to a large proletariat but not to a middle class. The obvious solution for a
rapid decrease in unemployment is for Palestinians to work in Israel instead of the thais, chinese , rumanians, etc. This obvious solution is not accepted by Israel for obvious reasons, so I'm afraid is out of question for the time being. The only agent that
could offer employment in the scale needed in the near future
are governmental agencies that could implement public or comunity projects. I'm sure that after the confrontation of the
last two years there is plenty to build and repair. BlueMoon might raise the point that this goes against his statement 3. and rightly so, because these fiscal projects are usually highly inefficient,
but I can't visualize another practical alternative.

To be continued....

[takeo]

in reply to post number 10:


"While US wants an end to the ME war, I don't know that they would be willing to put actual "boots on the ground". There is much controversy about it here, but the general concensus seems to be "NO". "

i think when the times comes, the consensus will change, the us interfeared in much more dangerous situations, as in Somalia, or Vietnam. and they are considering a military occupation of iraq...
the middle east is just too important for the us.
if the us comes to the Middle east in the context of a peace-settlement in which the palestinians gained everything they wanted, Americans would not be seen as the ennemy, as was the case in libanon. the palestinians themselves call for international troops.



"The refugee question solution was offered, and a reasonable one at that. The offer was for Israel to accept a small number of refugees under certain circumstances, - e.g. those who had families in Israel, - and the rest would have a right of return into the newly-minted Palestinian state. There was indeed an obvious reason Arafat did not want to sign: it's because there was the "end of conflict" condition in the contract. "

actually only more or less 10000 people would be able to return to israel, the rest would remain etnically cleansed, less than 1%, is this a reasonable solution??????????
arafat would not want anything else than an end to conflict, the war has costed him popularity, his good life, his buildings, but if he agreed to camp david, he would be seen by his whole people, and the whole Arab world, as a treator, and they would be right, because camp david was not what the palestinians deserve according to international resolutions and laws.

mediocrates you made a comparison between the "pale" and palestinians, very curious similarities, indeed, and not only linguistic!
I largely agree with jorge in this discussion.
Elke, after what you told abou the life of Jews in Russia, just think for one moment how you would feel if your house was destroyed to build a settlement and forced to live in a refugee-camp sealed off by foreign occupiers ... would you be able to breathe???

[L@mplighterM]

My choice would be all out war and I?m willing to be on the front lines. I know that things aren?t perfect between Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Israel but it seems tolerable. That was only achieved by war and war alone.

The Palestinians are making a living from terrorism. They kill Israeli citizens and Israel retaliates. Billions pour into the WB and GS from the EU and the rest of the world community.

Where?s the economic loss to the Palestinians? This cycle is good for the Palestinians the higher ups undoubtedly feather their nests from the foreign aid whilst the Israeli economy suffers.

So there?s no question in my mind that the Palestinians are rewarded for the despicable acts committed by their citizens.

In the real world people work pay their bills all while living within a budget.

What would happen if terrorism stopped in Israel?

Arafat and his cronies would loose power within a year. Why?

Because at that point there would be no one to blame for the poor state of the economy. People would start demanding jobs and eventually massive demonstrations would erupt calling for Arafat?s resignation.

I believe that ending the cycle can only be achieved by cutting off aid immediately. In short sever the umbilical cord that feeds their criminal organization. The EU and the rest of the world should adopt a ?Tough Love? stance whereas they wouldn?t get a dollar if the terrorism continued.

[Eliot]

Realistically, there can be no peace without the removal of Arafat. I was recently at a lecture at the Israel Defense College in Tel Aviv in which I learned that Arafat's ambition is to be known to history as the third greatest Arab leader, behind only Mohammed himself and Saladin.

With that kind of attitude there can be no compromise and no peace.

[takeo]

blabla, Arafat blabla Arafat blabla

i guess israel colonised and occupied in 1967 because of super-terrorist Arafat, right?
cutting off aid would only make living conditions for the palestinians worse, but terrorism and violence against israel will not stop, they will not stop by the way as long as israel agrees to the palestinian demands that are also the demands of the world, and start negociating with arafat or other palestinian leaders;
in fact Arafat is not important, he will die anyway in a couple of years, with or without Arafat palestinians will not make peace with israel without negociations over the implementations of the un-resolutions. that's the truth.

[Mediocrates]

No one. Not one single person who says "occupation won't guaranty security and safety" can look me in the eye and say with a straight face and tell me that non-occupation will guaranty safety and security either. Which means that it has NEVER been about occupation at all.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
blabla, Arafat blabla Arafat blabla

Like someone said previously, Powerful argument, Takeo. Definitely powerful. :D

[Pathfinder]

Originally posted by Blue Moon

....
7. Isreal is a nation, a soveriegn.

8. Isreal has the right to protect itself and its citizens against attack and murder.

9. Many West Bank and Gaza Arabs assert a right to occupation AND/OR ownership of not only the West Bank and Gaza, but to the land occupied by Israel proper.

10. With respect to #9, there are a significant amount of Arabs in the region who would accept the establishment of a "Palestinian" state in the West Bank area, and recognize the existance of Israel.

11. Either a combination of certain factors, or all of the factors set forth below (A - H) poses an actual threat to Isreal's security:
....

SUGGESTION: WHAT ARE CONCRETE, REALISTIC TERMS NOT JUST FOR PEACE, BUT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PEACEFUL, RESPONSIBLE, SECURE, AND PROSPEROUS PALESTINIAN STATE ?REMEMBER, WE NEED TO ATTEMPT TO (1) AVOID THE QUAGMIRE OF WHOSE RIGHT/WHOSE WRONG, AND (2) WE NEED CONCRETE,
(3) WE NEED BOTH AN IMMEDIATE SHORT-TERM, AS WELL AS LONG TERM SOLUTION.

What do you guys think ?

The whole world is looking for a solution. Unfortunately, the predominating definition of solution is one that is pretty, comfortable, and happy for all involved. In todays reality that is fantasy. I accept in general your "facts", but they point to the ultimate fact that there will be no perfect, comfortable solution. I also can't divorce myself from my own views as to hierarchy of evils. Far ahead, at the top of the list, terrorism must stop. Somewhere down the list I beleive the Palestinians should have some form of self-determination.

I see only two viable roads to equilibrium,(I can't call anything a solution).

1. Palestinian moderates let their voices be heard. They denounce, completely, terror and the culture of hatred and replace the current leadership with one willing to both destroy current terror organizations and deal honestly with Israel. Isreal will gladly deal with such a leadership and will surely offer a compromise even more generous than Taba.

2. Israel takes unilateral actions in defense. These include actions we see today such as walls, incursions and deportations. They may eventually include more extreme measures that have been discussed such as mass deportations from the WB or Gaza.

The neat solution that the world is looking for, ie. comfortable compromise with existing terror establishment in territories, is just never going to happen unless Israel develops a death wish.

[elke]

Originally posted by takeo
i guess israel colonised and occupied in 1967 because of super-terrorist Arafat, right?

Sorry, Vic :( Sorry, Blue Moon - Mea culpa! But I think that this really needs to be said.

Yes, as a matter of fact to some degree, Arafat and his cronies are indeed responsible for the 1967 war. They were infiltrating Israeli communities continuously throughout the whole time, and attacking the individual settlements.

Our first landlords in the US were a couple of Polish Jews, who escaped to Israel during WWII. They lived on a kibbutz - I don't remember where exactly. One night, while they were all sleeping, the kibbutz was attacked by terrorists and many of their friends were killed, although they were able to fight the terrorists off. Right after that event, they grabbed their two young daughters and whatever clothes they had (which was all they owned in this world), and left for the US. They were lucky to be able to come into the US - I am not sure how they got here.
This was a few years before the Six Day War, before the "occupation and colonization", so the kibbutz was within the "pre-'67 borders". This was also a very common occurrence, apparently.

As far as the future is concerned, there are 2 choices:
1. Both parties agree to put aside ALL their grievances and proceed without assigning blame, or
2. Thorough and fair historical research determines the corresponding responsibility for the conflict and the sides accept the blame and apologies.

IMHO, #2 is not realistically possible; so Blue Moon, I think you are right - #1 is the way to go.

However, in the near future even that seems impossible. The only idea that seems to promise a drop in the suicide bombings is the wall. Basically, at the risk of getting pelted by virtual rotten vegetables, I think that Barak has the right idea: the "unilateral separation", as it is euphemistically called. Dismantle the isolated settlements and defend the rest with everything you've got. Once the emotional temperature in the territories goes down and a viable Palestinian leadership emerges, negotiations for final status, Jerusalem, economic cooperation, etc. etc. can proceed. Maybe, pressure could be brought to bear on the UN to take responsibility for what happens in the camps and for the education of the Palestinian youth (yes, I know, "dream on!" :) ).

Sorry to ramble so much.

[takeo]

"No one. Not one single person who says "occupation won't guaranty security and safety" can look me in the eye and say with a straight face and tell me that non-occupation will guaranty safety and security either. Which means that it has NEVER been about occupation at all."

garantee is a strong word, not a single solution can garantee anything, history is not exact science, but i can promise you a serious drop in violence, at least, I would even bet money on it.



"The neat solution that the world is looking for, ie. comfortable compromise with existing terror establishment in territories, is just never going to happen unless Israel develops a death wish."

What do you call terror establishment?
Some "terrorist" organisations have clear goals, once those are fullfilled they stop terrorism, that's how it happened in Ireland, in many parts of the world. those goals for 80% of palestinians are NOT the end of israel, but peace with israel on some conditions as established at nauseam on this forum.




"Yes, as a matter of fact to some degree, Arafat and his cronies are indeed responsible for the 1967 war. They were infiltrating Israeli communities continuously throughout the whole time, and attacking the individual settlements. "

Arafat was still a nobody in 1967.


I agree violence happened before 1967 as well, because there wasn't any peace in the region, no single neighbouring country recognised israel, and millions of refugees were living in exile, with wounds more recent than today. Another indication that the refugee-question needs to be resolved as well.
But only after the palestinian resistance got organised more solidly and the plo was established, and Arafat became the leader of the palestinian resistance.
Undoubtely also violence after 1967 became an even more serious treath, resulting in the 1973-war, munich, and finally the intifadeh.

"As far as the future is concerned, there are 2 choices:
1. Both parties agree to put aside ALL their grievances and proceed without assigning blame, or
2. Thorough and fair historical research determines the corresponding responsibility for the conflict and the sides accept the blame and apologies. "

I agree, well said



"However, in the near future even that seems impossible. The only idea that seems to promise a drop in the suicide bombings is the wall. Basically, at the risk of getting pelted by virtual rotten vegetables, I think that Barak has the right idea: the "unilateral separation", as it is euphemistically called. Dismantle the isolated settlements and defend the rest with everything you've got. Once the emotional temperature in the territories goes down and a viable Palestinian leadership emerges, negotiations for final status, Jerusalem, economic cooperation, etc. etc. can proceed. Maybe, pressure could be brought to bear on the UN to take responsibility for what happens in the camps and for the education of the Palestinian youth (yes, I know, "dream on!" ). "

I don't think so, as you mentioned above, if there is no peace, violence will always accure and is unstoppable, no wall is 100% secure, and walls will not protect against rockets, which, according to this solution, palestinians could import from neighbouring countries.
Peace with jordan, Egypt has demonstrated that only full peace, with all matters discussed and agreed upon, will almost garantee peace and stability, nothing else. But for this solution israel will need to do some painfull concessions (refugees, free borders and airspace for the new state, withdrawel of most colonies) that it was not willing to do in Camp david.

[elke]

I don't particularly like the wall solution either: it cramps my style by admitting that there are limitations to the goodwill human beings can have for each other. However, as a temporary stopgap, I think it could serve 2 purposes:

1. Lower the number of the suicide murders in Israel, by preventing at least most of them
2. Keep the IDF out of the Palestinians' faces, thereby allowing them the beautiful view of their own countenances.

Among other things, these aspects of the "unilateral separation" would help lower the emotional temperature of both sides, and allow for some soul searching.

Looking at it from the outside, the Palestinians' paramount problem seems to be not lack of money, or "occupation", or anything other than their inexperience in running their own lives, as a group. After all, if they did not mishandle the autonomy granted during Oslo, now they would not only have their infrastruture intact, but would most likely have their own state - their purported goal in life! Israel's experience in building itself can be invaluable to them! Incidentally, Sari Nuseibeh wrote an article in Newsweek magazine, where he basically said that. I couldn't believe it when I read it, because although this concept seems obvious, I have never heard a Palestinian - or anyone else for that matter - mention it.

Maybe, just maybe, the "time-out" would allow the Palestinians and Israelis to realize that no matter what, their future lies together and they might as well help each other.

[takeo]

"Among other things, these aspects of the "unilateral separation" would help lower the emotional temperature of both sides, and allow for some soul searching. "

maybe so, but at best it would be a "libanon"-solution, lower the emotional temperature and violence, but still troublesome and potentially dangerous and possibly it would be helpfull for groups as hamas to gain more popularity. i don't know, if talks have to occure anyway, why this intermediary meriod is needed, why not start final negociations right away?

"Looking at it from the outside, the Palestinians' paramount problem seems to be not lack of money, or "occupation", or anything other than their inexperience in running their own lives, as a group. After all, if they did not mishandle the autonomy granted during Oslo, now they would not only have their infrastruture intact, but would most likely have their own state - their purported goal in life! Israel's experience in building itself can be invaluable to them! Incidentally, Sari Nuseibeh wrote an article in Newsweek magazine, where he basically said that. I couldn't believe it when I read it, because although this concept seems obvious, I have never heard a Palestinian - or anyone else for that matter - mention it. "

Yes palestinians can take an example from israel to build their state, that's right.
But I think the palestinian problem is not (only) their inexperience, the situation of the PA after oslo was very difficult, it was no state but had some state-autority, but its territory was skattered all over the WB and Gaza, with foreign controll in between and no real economic resources. Furthermore the PA was confronted with a growing discontent among the population who didn't see their lifes improove and were still surrounded by foreign military. A Palestinian state (not a protectorate as proposed in camp david) and a solution of the refugee-problem would have alleviated a lot of problems for the PA.

[elke]

The wall should not be the final settlement, but rather a temporary solution to what will, hopefully, be a temporary problem. The talks cannot occur without the will on both sides to talk. Whether you or I believe that Arafat is a credible leader (you do, I don't) is immaterial. What's important is whether the Israelis believe that he is. Conversely, it does not matter whether you or I believe that Sharon is capable of negotiating fairly (you don't, I do) - what's important is whether the Palestinians believe it. Therefore, negotiations at this time are not feasible.

As NewsGuy succinctly put it, every society has a right and an obligation to protect itself from attack. At this time, the first and foremost problem is the suicide murders. Therefore, the first order of the day is to resolve that problem.

When you get married, you will find a very fascinating thing: in the heat of battle, - and ultimately, everyone fights, - you actually HATE the spouse. The best thing to do at such a point is to leave the room, the house, whatever it takes to separate yourself from the other person. Once you are away, you calm down and realize that divorce is unnecessary, and moreover is not really what you want. Well, permanent divorce for the Israelis and Palestinians is not only impossible, but also undesirable, but they need time to realize that.

This is my opinion, anyway. Lucky for them, I don't get to make such decisions. :D

[takeo]

"The wall should not be the final settlement, but rather a temporary solution to what will, hopefully, be a temporary problem. The talks cannot occur without the will on both sides to talk. Whether you or I believe that Arafat is a credible leader (you do, I don't) is immaterial. What's important is whether the Israelis believe that he is. Conversely, it does not matter whether you or I believe that Sharon is capable of negotiating fairly (you don't, I do) - what's important is whether the Palestinians believe it. Therefore, negotiations at this time are not feasible. "

The problem is not what Arafat or Sharon think, this is not important, if they get to the negociating table they will have to negociate anyway, they don't have to become close buddies. (for example in dayton three leaders who really hated eachother and didn't trust eachother for one second, came together and made a lasting peace, and didn't Rabin and arafat hated and distrusted eachother too in 1992?)


"As NewsGuy succinctly put it, every society has a right and an obligation to protect itself from attack. At this time, the first and foremost problem is the suicide murders. Therefore, the first order of the day is to resolve that problem. "

that's a shortsided view, of course israel has to protect itself from attacks, but not only by fighting the visible consequences of the war, but the root-causes of the war.
It is like treating Cholera by giving the patient immodium (medication against diarrea) but no antibiotics.


"When you get married, you will find a very fascinating thing: in the heat of battle, - and ultimately, everyone fights, - you actually HATE the spouse. The best thing to do at such a point is to leave the room, the house, whatever it takes to separate yourself from the other person. Once you are away, you calm down and realize that divorce is unnecessary, and moreover is not really what you want. Well, permanent divorce for the Israelis and Palestinians is not only impossible, but also undesirable, but they need time to realize that. "

ok, i recognise that scenario, all too familiar even if i'm not married... but do you think the spouses will come closer together if they separate for months? usually such "cool-down" periods result in definitive divorse...

[elke]

Oh, but it is important what Sharon and Arafat think. You and I, and even US and EU governments, cannot make either one of them do something they don't want to do. Israel is a sovereign country, and the Palestinians don't have non-Palestinian representation (which is unfortunate, IMO).

The wall is certainly far from perfect solution, and I don't think that it should even be looked at as a "solution", just a stopgap measure to cool off. It will simply buy time until negotiations can be re-started, instead of beating their heads against the wall.

[takeo]

"Oh, but it is important what Sharon and Arafat think. You and I, and even US and EU governments, cannot make either one of them do something they don't want to do. Israel is a sovereign country, and the Palestinians don't have non-Palestinian representation (which is unfortunate, IMO). "

they can't force them, but they can pressure them to do so.
and finally it is in the interests of both palestine and israel to achieve peace, so they will have to negociate. Palestine shouldn't have a non-palestinian representation as israel shouldn't have a non-israeli representation, they have an own representation in international bodies.


"The wall is certainly far from perfect solution, and I don't think that it should even be looked at as a "solution", just a stopgap measure to cool off. It will simply buy time until negotiations can be re-started, instead of beating their heads against the wall"

I hope so, but who says they will not beat their heads against the wall? i don't think a wall will cool off much of the sentiments, only negociations can.

[Mediocrates]

Yes palestinians can take an example from israel to build their state, that's right. But I think the palestinian problem is not (only) their inexperience,... Furthermore the PA was confronted with a growing discontent among the population who didn't see their lifes improove and were still surrounded by foreign military.

Which really goes to the heart of whether the PLO is a viable government or not. They:

1) Can't get much of anything done
2) Don't run the civil infrastructure
3) Are hated by many of their own people
4) Routinely lie about how ineffectual they are
5) Make vague promises to the West w/ little or no concern for Palestinians
6) Can't control the violence that they themselves demand the world accept as well as their own autocracy over it.

Yet we hear over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again:

1) We have no right to make any demands whatsoever on the structure or makeup or even the direction of the PLO
2) There is no one else around with the same stature
3) There is no one else around with the same power
4) The devil you know....


Yeah - I had to bang the screws in with a hammer because I couldn't find a screwdriver.

[elke]

Correct me if I am wrong, everybody, but here is how I see it:

I can think of no example of a successful country that became independent without first going through some sort of a long "autonomy" period. Usually, as in the case of the United States and Israel for instance, such autonomy period is used to form a proto-government and build up the civil infrastructure: i.e. justice system, police, etc. etc. This proto-government demonstrates to all and sundry that it has control over its population, that it can provide the governmental services to majority's tastes, and that it's responsible and won't be a hazard to others.

The wise sages that created the Talmud have achieved their goal and more: not only have they enabled Jews to survive as a community and a nation, but they also laid the groundwork that allowed Jews to govern their community relatively independently as "communities within communities" in the Diaspora. This long experience of self-government has allowed the Jews in Israel to avoid some of the "growing pains" that haunt the other newly-minted countries.

The Palestinians have not used their autonomy to their advantage: not during the British Mandate, and not after Oslo. Their government, in the person of Arafat, has failed to both build up the civilian infrastructure and to control its population. Whether he is an unrepentant terrorist or a weak leader is immaterial, what's important is that Israelis do not have the trust in him that would allow them to make painful concessions. Since the Palestinians seem bent on having him as their leader, this is an impasse.

To ask the Israelis to make concessions unilaterally, when they don't believe that there would be reciprocation, seems foolhardy at best. Even if US, EU, whoever are doing it, it's not a fact that Israel will relent. Israel is a sovereign nation, whose government is charged with protecting its people. Their concerns cannot be ignored and they can't be "pressured" into making concessions they believe will be detrimental to their existance.

Therefore, I believe that there is no point in pushing negotiations at this time. They simply won't happen, no matter what we believe. The wall would allow for the "end of occupation" for much of the territories, and hopefully, a government would emerge that would put the people's welfare as their first priority and will begin building the civil structure to the Palestinian society.

[dov]

With all arguments known, Israel needs to freeze any "peace talks" for at least number of years, allowing "palestinians" concentrate on internal management as a local government without rights of carrying any types of fire arms except local police.
Crimes against Israeli civic population must be considered as criminal offences and must be treated accordingly.
If within justified time frame (lets say 5 years) these people show enough integrety in terms of economic, social development and education of their population - only then Israel should consider possibility for separation.
In the case of continious violance (most likely), Israel must start deportation of those arabs who do not have Israeli citizenships to the countries where they are belong - such as Jordan, Egypt, Syria; and if they dont want to relocate - 2 bad.
Therefore Israel will have enough time to evaluate current and future situation without pressure, according to objectives of Israel not OPEK and EU.
this is in short.

[takeo]

"1) We have no right to make any demands whatsoever on the structure or makeup or even the direction of the PLO
2) There is no one else around with the same stature
3) There is no one else around with the same power
4) The devil you know.... "

that's right, whatever mistakes the pa made, you will have to live with it and you will only be able to influence it if by helping the palestinians, not by fighting them. and only the palestinians can and will improove their leadership. Moreover, many of the problems facing the pa-leadership have been created/worsened by israeli policies. if you think destroying pa-buildings, prisons, etc. and commit terrorist attacks against arafat, will help the palestinians to solve their problems and will encourage them to stop terrorist groups, think again;

[takeo]

"The Palestinians have not used their autonomy to their advantage: not during the British Mandate, and not after Oslo. Their government, in the person of Arafat, has failed to both build up the civilian infrastructure and to control its population. Whether he is an unrepentant terrorist or a weak leader is immaterial, what's important is that Israelis do not have the trust in him that would allow them to make painful concessions. Since the Palestinians seem bent on having him as their leader, this is an impasse. "

arafat has showed good leadership skills after Oslo, with some exceptions (the pre-independance zionist state was not free of mistakes and violence either!!!). only since 2000 things got out of controll, in fact a new conflict started for which israel also beard responsability.
Sharon is not trusted by most people outside israel, yet he is the israeli leader so the palestinians have no choice but to negociate with him. He is the responsible for the greater escalation since he came to power. the same applies for Arafat, yet israel has no choice but to negociate with him or his probable successors, if it wants peace. You can't choose the palestinian leader because you're not palestinian, get it in your head!!!!!!!!!!!!
and if you really won't negociate with the palestinians because you don't like their leader, you deserve war. The choice is not upon israel alone, remember, it is an international conflict!


"To ask the Israelis to make concessions unilaterally, when they don't believe that there would be reciprocation, seems foolhardy at best. Even if US, EU, whoever are doing it, it's not a fact that Israel will relent. Israel is a sovereign nation, whose government is charged with protecting its people. Their concerns cannot be ignored and they can't be "pressured" into making concessions they believe will be detrimental to their existance. "

but also the same applies for the palestinians, they won't make concessions either that are not according to their rights and objectives. so you'll have to find a compromise, based on the un-resolutions. And both parties have to be pressured, the occupier and etnic cleanser and the one using violence against civilians.

"Therefore, I believe that there is no point in pushing negotiations at this time. They simply won't happen, no matter what we believe. The wall would allow for the "end of occupation" for much of the territories, and hopefully, a government would emerge that would put the people's welfare as their first priority and will begin building the civil structure to the Palestinian society."

i don't think so, a wall would even further enrage the palestinians, and a further radicalisation would emerge, with all the catastrophic consequences for israel's security.
palestinians are human beings, and if you build walls to separate people, you will not create confidance and trust but hate, and living in a cage will certainly not improove the economic situation, as we could see the last years too. of course this scenario will lead to continuous violence, in fact i think people who don't want to negociate with palestinians don't want to do some painfull concessions as refugees and a total withdrawel, THAT's why they are opposed to negociations, not because of violence.



"In the case of continious violance (most likely), Israel must start deportation of those arabs who do not have Israeli citizenships to the countries where they are belong - such as Jordan, Egypt, Syria; and if they dont want to relocate - 2 bad.
Therefore Israel will have enough time to evaluate current and future situation without pressure, according to objectives of Israel not OPEK and EU.
this is in short"

ok, the masks have been removed, dov is nothing but an ordinary nazi. to the countries where they are belong - such as Jordan, Egypt, Syria; and if they dont want to relocate - 2 bad.
such a solution of course would mean the end of israel, i think in such case even europe will help to destroy the nazist regime who would use such methods. in the end israeli people will be the victim of such policy.

rather the destruction of israel and genocide against the palestinians than to talk with arafat, some people are really sick in their mind...

[elke]

I think that in order to have civilized debate, it is imperative to keep the rhetoric down. "Nazi" has very high emotional content for everyone, but especially for the Jews. It also has a very specific definition, as does "genocide", and whatever you may think of Dov's opinion on the subject, considering all the circumstances, such language is inappropriate.

I am not sure what constitutes the "good leadership" Arafat exhibited, in your opinion. Please clarify. I see no examples of such myself.

While it is true that Israelis cannot elect Palestinian leadership, they do have a right to decide whether or not to deal with the leadership elected. Their decision has to be made based on their assessment of that leadership's capacity to deliver on the promises it makes in any agreement. While this conflict has international implications, the brunt of the price for any errors in judgement will be borne by the Israelis, not by the rest of the world. Therefore, they have a right to proceed as they see fit.

[takeo]

I think that in order to have civilized debate, it is imperative to "keep the rhetoric down. "Nazi" has very high emotional content for everyone, but especially for the Jews. It also has a very specific definition, as does "genocide", and whatever you may think of Dov's opinion on the subject, considering all the circumstances, such language is inappropriate. "

OK, i will try to avoid such words, yet i don't think it is possible to have a civilised debate with people prefering massive etnic cleansing or worse...


"I am not sure what constitutes the "good leadership" Arafat exhibited, in your opinion. Please clarify. I see no examples of such myself. "

Arafat build his whole infrastructure in the 90's in difficult circumstances, he made palestinians believe in peace with israel, and became more popular than destructive forces such as Hamas. And even during periods with uneasy relations with the israeli he tried, quite succesfully, to limit the confrontations and not to respond to israeli provocations (untill the new intifadeh)
He could not eradicate hamas, but he arrested their leaders, and limited the possibilities of hamas (untill israel started to attack the PA ). He also managed to ensure order for many years in very explosive cities and situations.



"While it is true that Israelis cannot elect Palestinian leadership, they do have a right to decide whether or not to deal with the leadership elected. Their decision has to be made based on their assessment of that leadership's capacity to deliver on the promises it makes in any agreement. "

this is not a private company that has the free choice to accept or not to negociate with another company. This is about israel's and the middle Eastern future, and the only alternative for negociations is war. So israel, if it would be responsible, has no choice.

"While this conflict has international implications, the brunt of the price for any errors in judgement will be borne by the Israelis, not by the rest of the world. Therefore, they have a right to proceed as they see fit."

not only israel is involved, the palestinians and Arab neighbours as well, those countries have as much a voice in the debate as israel, that's what i mean. So any israeli unilateral decisions will not benefit to peace or stability.

[elke]

I found these two polls very revealing, as well as rather disturbing. Here they are, with links:

This was done in April 1999:
http://www.ibnkhaldun.org/newsletter/1999/june/indic.htm
(1)The Peace Process
1.Support for the peace process reaches 70%, opposition 26%
2.Support for armed attacks against Israelis rises to 45% and opposition reaches 48%
(2)PA Performance
1. Positive evaluation of the PLC performance reaches 43%
2. Positive evaluation of the presidency reaches 53%, security services 52%, cabinet 47%, the judiciary 42%, and opposition parties and factions 33%
(3) Conditions of Democracy and Corruption in the Palestinian areas
1.Positive evaluation of Palestinian democracy reaches 26%, its lowest level since 1996
2. Positive evaluation of democracy in Israel reaches 66%, in the US 54%, and in France 45%
3. Positive evaluation of democracy in Jordan reaches 30%, and in Egypt 24%
4. A majority of 56% believes that people, today, can not criticize the PA without fear
5. Belief that corruption exists in PA institutions reaches 71%, its highest level ever, while a majority of 61% believes that it will increase or remain the same in the future
6. People believe that corruption exists in ministries and government offices (76%), in the security services (77%), in the PLC (49%), and in the office of the presidency (40%)
The results indicate that the positive evaluation of the state of democracy in Palestine has reached its lowest level ever with a percentage of 26%. Two months ago, that level stood at 36%, while the highest level stood at 50% two years ago. The percentage of those who believe that people can not criticize the PA without fear stands today at 56%.

This was done in March 2002:
http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2002/no44.htm

1.Support for the Palestinian-Israeli peace process is 46.6 percent, while support for the Oslo agreements is 31.6 percent.
2.72.4 percent, do not believe that signing a permanent Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement based on “two states for two peoples” means, from a Palestinian viewpoint, an end to the historical Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
3.41.6 percent, believe that the most favored solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a two-state solution, while 31.6 percent believe that historic Palestine cannot be divided into two states and that a bi-national state in all of historic Palestine, where Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal representation and rights, is the most favored solution. Meanwhile, 12.5 percent believe that a Palestinian state on the whole historic Palestine, with the return of refugees, is the favored solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
4. 29.4 percent believe that the peace process is dead and negotiations cannot be resumed, while 49.7 percent believe that the peace process is passing through difficult times with an unknown future. Of those interviewed, 18.5 percent believe that United States envoy Anthony Zinni will succeed in his mission of a cease-fire and return of Palestinians and Israelis to the negotiation table.
5.83.9 percent, support the continuation of al-Aqsa Intifada in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, while 67.5 percent believe that the Palestinian Intifadah has increased Israeli readiness to come closer to Palestinian demands to achieve a peace agreement.
6.48.1 percent believe that the final goal of the current Intifadah is ending the Israeli military occupation based on UN Security Council resolution 242 and the establishment of the state of Palestine, while 43.9 percent believe the final goal to be liberated all of Palestinian soil: historic Palestine.
7.Palestinians who support the continuation of popular and military aspects of the Intifadah are 66.3 percent. Also, 73.6 percent support the continuation of military operations against Israeli targets as a suitable response to the current political situation, and 72 percent support suicide bombing operations against Israeli civilians.
8.There are 58.9 percent of those interviewed who believe Palestinian Authority performance is between good and very good, while 20.6 percent believe Palestinian President Yasser Arafat is in full control of internal affairs and 44.7 percent believe that Arafat is in control of internal affairs to some extent.
Popular trust of Palestinian personalities is 27.9 percent for Yasser Arafat, 9.7 percent trust Ahmed Yassin and 32.1 percent do not trust anyone. As for political factions, 29.5 percent trust Fateh, 19.8 percent trust Hamas and 29.6 percent do not anyone.

I would say that these polls show a complete failure of Arafat and Palestinian Authority to create a viable government. 20.6% believe that Arafat is in full control? Pah! Maybe he can get a lollypop for trying under difficult circumstances, sorry, but no cigar.

[takeo]

I think that this polls on the contrary show that overall Arafat has not failed, he has failed on some points, such as the fight against corruption in the PA, and democratisation, but he could convince a majority of the Palestinians that peace with israel is possible and suitable, on certain conditions. And he personally still has the trust of a majority of palestinians. The polls also show that the majority of palestinians are willing to live in a democratic, peacefull country.

of course some results are obvious, Arafat IS not in full controll of the events, he doesn't controll israel, and since all his facilities have been destroyed he is not in controll of the palestinian territories.

is is also clear that the war was in no way favorable for Arafat or the PA, so the war was certainly not necessary to boost the popularity of the pa as some people on this forum claim.

[Mediocrates]

This is why it is silly to put any political capital into Arafat. People can fold their arms and stamp their feet and demand that the rest of the world simply MUST deal with Arafat but in practical terms it would be like trying to negotiate with Baby Doc Duvallier in exile on behalf of Hati. No one takes Arafat or the Arafat process seriously and the only thing stopping Arafat from winding up on a gibbet is the terror his thugs inflict on his own people.

Oh sure all the commoners get to wave the flag, burn some effigies and chant the corporate song. But Mobutu also got his people to smile for the cameras too. That doesn't make it right or practical or reasonable or effective.

Simply put Europe doesn't mind pretending to deal with Arafat because it doesn't care who it deals with in this situation as long as it's someone. Good Bad Weak Strong - what's the difference? If things get really REALLY out of hand, my friends from Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune will be there to fix it. We kick ass so you don't have to.

[Vic]

Originally posted by elke
I found these two polls very revealing, as well as rather disturbing. Here they are, with links: [...]
I'm not a polling expert, but someone who is has once explained to me that under the conditions the Palestinian polls are conducted they are an absolute humbug anyway.

[elke]

Originally posted by Vic
I'm not a polling expert, but someone who is has once explained to me that under the conditions the Palestinian polls are conducted they are an absolute humbug anyway.

Definitely. I don't deal with polls, but I do deal with statistical data and analysis on regular basis (funny thing about the insurance business...). At its best, statistics may be able to give you a clue, provided careful, thorough analysis is done. Otherwise they are useless.

However, this is the best we got... Hopefully, some truth can seep through the muck. Also, there were very few if any, surprises in these results: the events on the ground don't contradict what seems to be the views these polls suggest.

[takeo]

"This is why it is silly to put any political capital into Arafat. People can fold their arms and stamp their feet and demand that the rest of the world simply MUST deal with Arafat but in practical terms it would be like trying to negotiate with Baby Doc Duvallier in exile on behalf of Hati. No one takes Arafat or the Arafat process seriously and the only thing stopping Arafat from winding up on a gibbet is the terror his thugs inflict on his own people.

Oh sure all the commoners get to wave the flag, burn some effigies and chant the corporate song. But Mobutu also got his people to smile for the cameras too. That doesn't make it right or practical or reasonable or effective.

Simply put Europe doesn't mind pretending to deal with Arafat because it doesn't care who it deals with in this situation as long as it's someone. Good Bad Weak Strong - what's the difference? If things get really REALLY out of hand, my friends from Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune will be there to fix it. We kick ass so you don't have to."

It is so easy to complain that Arafat has no total controll over his people if you are yourself (israel) partly responsible for that.
i agree, yet Arafat had controll over palestine for quite some years, untill israel began destroying the pa and things got out of controll. But the PA and Arafat, and especially Fatah, still have the most power in palestine, and they are the most moderate group, so it would be in israel's interest to help Arafat to restore his grip on power in palestine. It could do so by stopping the aggression aginst the pa, and begin negociating over a final settlement of the middle east. the alternative is hamas or pflp becoming more popular/strong than Arafat/fatah, which would make the situation totally outrageous.
arafat is not a saint and his policy was not the best possible, but he is still the best bet for peace, there is nobody else!
that's why the EU AND the US support him. the anti-arafat retorics of israel will only make it harder to reach a constructive solution.

[elke]

This is a classic case of looking at the same data and coming to drastically different conclusions. Whose analysis is correct? That's why it should be up to the Israelis to decide whether or not they believe they can risk concessions. Their whole existence is riding on it.

[Mediocrates]

Other than clicking my ruby red shoes together three times does anyone seriously believe that there is a way Arafat can be propped up?

Think about it. A proto country that's as much at war with itself as it is with Israel. Billions in the bank and nothing to show for it. No civil order. He's afraid to go out in public amongst his own people. No stable plan for reforms, no succesion plan in the absence of elections. He replaces the maybe one capable person at the head of the security forces with an obvious 72 year old figurehead. There are several foreign based and supported armies in his country all vying for supremacy...

The only way to prop up Arafat is to slap an IDF uniform on him and have him shoot at Hamas and Hezbollah and do exactly what the IDF is doing without his 'support' already.

[elke]

You have the ruby red shoes? You've been holding out on us! :)

I believe you are right, there is no hope for Arafat.

[Blue Moon]

I thought Mediocrates post #15 had some good ideas.
I think that the lists should include what each side is willing to do, in addition to any demands.

Would you folks consider forming two separate lists of 20 factors, in descending order of importance (#1 the most important).

For a brain twister, perhaps we could actually form
TWO SETS of two lists:

SET ONE: Conditions/concessions under the existing leadership for both countries:
1 (A)West Bank and Gaza Arab conditions and concessions for emergency, temporary cessation of hostilities.
1 (B) Same as A for Israel.

2 (A)West Bank and Gaza Arab conditions and concessions for long term peace
3 (B) Same as A for Israel.


SET TWO: Conditions/concessions under a new, more moderate (but not necessarily liberal or soft) regime for each side that would be a least somewhat less hard-lined than the current regime - -

1 (A)West Bank and Gaza Arab conditions for emergency, temporary cessation of hostilities.
1 (B) Same as A for Israel.

2 (A)West Bank and Gaza Arab conditions for long term peace
3 (B) Same as A for Israel.


Perhaps we could simply create the lists without bickering, and
then "negotiate the lists" afterward.

:D

[elke]

Good idea, Blue Moon! I wonder if we could get the Israeli and Palestinian teams to do that.

But one thing needs to also be discussed: logistics and how to judge the success or failure of the plans. It seems to me that the paramount problem here is not so much the terms of the agreement, but rather the lack of control over implementation.

[Mediocrates]

At the heart of what I proposed in #14 was a replacement of 'goals' with activities. Activities you can track and evaluate, while goals you can't. Each of the activities is a small step isolated from each other small step. Success is defined by achieving ANY number of the set of tasks. That is, there is no prime activity.

The key, like any project is to arrive at a good list of requirements and stick to it no matter what. They might have to spend a year working on the list.

It's just an idea based on working out disputes among my children. Separate the emotion, the goals and the objectives from the solution and simply set everyone to specific tasks. If they own the task, no matter how small then they will try to achieve it. If they build up a pile of completed tasks they will meet their objective or something pretty close to it in the end, or, the initial list was wrong and we have to start over. But in the mean time nobody is trying to claw each others throats out.

I'd have to think very hard about the list components because none of the items can be vaporous concepts like 'a free nation' 'no violence' 'resolution to the right of return'. It has to be very hard very basic objective clinical activities like 'reduce Gallillean overpumping by 8%/year while maintaining salinity constant coupled to the development agreements with Turkey to codevelop a water pipeline of equal or greater volume coupled to a restructuring of Israeli water rights and policies so that the cost model is restructured from a cost free basis to a pay as you go volume consumption model for the affected Gallillean water."


...or something equally specific. What you wind up with is a set of loosely coupled strategic national initiatives.

[L@mplighterM]

Here’s a former PM of Canada’s peace plan. If I understand him correctly I believe that he feels it’s time for some serious house cleaning.

I firmly believe that the only way to achieve peace is to undertake serious actions in the WB and GS.

All world leaders should be taking his position and if they did I’m certain that terrorism in the ME would greatly diminish.

Article:


Give Israel Full Support, Mulroney Says
Robert Fife | National Post [Submitted by Kwazimodo]
April 13, 2002


OTTAWA - Canada must abandon its policy of even-handedness in the Middle East and give unshakeable support to Israel's right to use military force to defend itself from suicide bombers and other terrorist attacks, says Brian Mulroney, the former Conservative prime minister.

Mr. Mulroney said yesterday Israel is facing a threat to its existence as a Jewish state and that he deplored Canada's policy of "moral equivalency and even-handedness" toward Israel and the Palestinians, led by Yasser Arafat.

"When you hear governments talking about moral equivalency and even-handedness, these are code words for hypocrisy," Mr. Mulroney said in an interview.

"Israel has earned, really through centuries of persecution of Jews leading up to the Holocaust, [the right] to determine by herself what measures have to be taken to ensure her security."

He denounced the Chrétien government for arguing that Israel is as guilty as the Palestinian Authority for the escalating violence. Israel, he said, offered land for peace but has been met by "murder bombers."

"No country has the right to hector [Israel] or moralize in this regard and certainly instruct Israel about the manner in which she defends herself either internally or in a pre-emptive action which protects Jews from acts of terror or murder."

Mr. Mulroney also berated the Liberal government for its support of the political wing of Hezbollah (The Party of God), whose military organization is fomenting terrorism in the Palestinian Authority and launching rocket attacks at Israel's northern border.

Canada, like the European Union, has listed the military wing of Hezbollah -- known as Hezbollah Foreign Security Apparatus -- as a terrorist organization, but says the group's political and social wings still do important humanitarian work.

The distinction allows Canadian and European charities to fund the groups, as long as the money is earmarked for social programs in Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority.

In contrast, Washington considers all of Hezbollah, which is armed by Iran and backed by Syria, a terrorist organization.

Mr. Mulroney said there is no difference between the activities of the terrorist group and its political and charitable factions.

"If it's for medical supplies, Canada should buy the medical supplies and deliver them, but we should not allow fundraising to take place on our territory in any way directly or indirectly that contributes to the militarization of the West Bank or Gaza or any part of Palestine because we know what it is being used for," he said.

Bill Graham, the Minister of Foreign Affairs , continues to insist in the House of Commons that the political branch of the Lebanon-based group is separate from its military wing.

He told the Commons this week that any money Hezbollah raises in Canada goes toward its humanitarian efforts in Lebanon and not terrorism in Palestinian-controlled territories.

Mr. Mulroney appeared to take issue with the European Union and Colin Powell, the U.S. Secretary of State, who has urged Israel to show restraint in the face of suicide bomb attacks.

He said Washington would not stand idly by if suicide bombers from Mexico launched attacks against the United States as a strategy to claim parts of Texas.

"What do you think Canada would do if somebody tried to institute a regime of terror?" he said.

Mr. Mulroney also called on Canada to champion a new Marshall Plan for the Middle East to relieve poverty and help establish a progressive Palestinian state, once the Palestinians renounce terror and accept Israel's right to exist.

Canada should lobby middle-power nations around the world to offer billions of dollars to the Palestinians for health, education, technical assistance and the development of democratic institutions, he said.

"The reason for it is to get the new state off to an encouraging start so that young Palestinians would see quickly on the horizon the benefits of peaceful co-existence with Israel and say: 'Hey, I don't have to live in terror and I don't have to live in mud huts. We can build our own state that will eventually become as prosperous as Israel."

Mr. Mulroney said eventually Canada could encourage Israel and the new Palestinian state to develop a free-trade zone that could include moderate Arab countries such as Jordan and Egypt. (Mr. Mulroney championed free trade between Canada, the United States and Mexico when he was prime minister.)

Free trade would focus the leaders of Israel and Arab nations on creating prosperity rather than on concerns about military security, eventually promoting democracy throughout the region, he said.

Mr. Mulroney said he was appalled that so few world leaders had spoken out strongly against a recent wave of anti-Semitic attacks in Europe, Russia and in Canada, including fire-bombings of synagogues.

"What is happening is that people unfriendly to Jews are using Israeli policy in the Middle East to defend themselves as a justification to launch localized attacks against members of the Jewish community and this has to be stomped out immediately," he said.

"I must say I am deeply dismayed by the ongoing silence by some people in positions of authority who should be speaking out."


http://www.canadianheritagealliance.com/channels/news/2002/apr/25i.html

[elke]

Can we vote for him? :)

[takeo]

I don't think "activities" or any partial solution will bring peace, Oslo was peace in stages, and it failed. I think "the whole thing" should be discussed and agreed upon, by all sides and most of the region and the world needs to be concerned.
Camp David was indeed a great chance for peace, if only israel did more concessions about some issues, so this should be definately a base for any new peace-deal. By the way the Palestinians will not agree to anything less.
All this discussion about Arafat is futile, in any peace-deal garantees for israel's security will be included, and perhaps a reform of the PA, and that's all that matters.
By attacking Arafat and destroying any legal government in Palestine, israel will certainly not improove its security, and if you are not prepared to talk untill the violence stops, you will have to wait a very long time.
Sharon's failed policy made clear that you can't stop violence by even more violence or destroying the PA. One thing needs to be done as soon as possible, a peace-deal with all palestinians, not only the PA but also the PFLP and other groups prepared to recognise israel and garantee it's safety on some conditions.

all the other solutions will not bring peace but stagnation in the best case and escalation in the worst case, you can't root out "terrorism" by military means, it has never worked, certainly not of the terrorists have the backing of a billion of people and are fighting for a just cause, recognised by the world community.
Israel has no choice but to start negociations with the palestinians, the longer it waits, the more blood will be spoiled on both sides.

[elke]

As they say, "the devil is in the details". Any solution, partial or otherwise, requires zillions of such "details", which are nothing but specific activities. General framework is relatively easy to set, it's these pesky details that derail every attempt.

[takeo]

I agree that any plan or deal should be detailed, but all should be part of the same deal, which must be implemented at the same time;

[elke]

Sure, it can all be negotiated at the same time. Of course, thorny issues will still pop up here and there as the implementation progresses.

It is my understanding that the reason Israelis are talking about the "interim" agreements, is that they don't see the PA as able to deliver compliance. Security on paper is not the same as security on the ground.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by elke
Can we vote for him? :)

The guy is Irish but he makes sense in his speech. I don’t believe any politician (former or current) has taken a position that even comes close to his reasoning.

I wonder if he has a lot of Jewish clients? He’s a lawyer.

I hope you have a short commute on Monday and that your back holds you up without too much pain.

[Blue Moon]

Just a thought - we kind of start out with a few posts starting to hint at possible concrete ideas to "save the patient", but then we seemed to get bogged down in the old, we/they can't have peace because your bad, they are bad, we are right, they couldn't be right, which way is really right . . .

What if we just come up with ideas (again from the standpoint of unbiased analysts), such as demands/concessions and order of importance, and see if any combination of the factors in the lists might work - - maybe nobody in power will consider it - - but, who knows, maybe somebody would ????

I kinda hinted at one possible link at beginning the process in my last post - -
Would it be easier to come to acceptable terms with different leaders in office ??? I know, you will say, who should be the different leaders / I say: That's where this fun starts and the thread returns to, at least what the title suggests, a Peace
"think tank."

Anyway, faced with ultimate disaster for the West Bank and Gaza Arabs, and potential economic disaster for Israeal if an all-out war breaks out,
isn't this process worth trying ?

[UniKrishnan]

There is a solution to every conflict. The problems is whether the right factors are in place with the right intentions to give it effect.

The tragedy that is the Palestinian Israeli conflict is that both sides are influenced and driven by a political midset of the past,armed and motivated by those who give the least yet demand the most. Outsiders generous with the lives of others.

The Palestinians were betrayed by the world over 50 years ago in much the same way the Israeli's (jews who came to settle in Palestine) were betrayed in World War II. The greatest stumbling block in this conflict is no different to that which dogs India and Pakistan who cannot look at any situation without dragging the Ghosts of partition their past into the present thereby fogging a vision for the future.

Isiah Berlin once wrote "Greatness is the ability to transform paradoxes into platitudes", there is yet room for this in the context of this dispute in Israel.

This is not a middle east conflict. Bah Humbug. Arab states have gained a great advantage and a distraction to their own bloody and blood thirsty repressive domestic politics by pointing to the 'Israeli-Palestinian' situation in an effort to curtail internal rebellion, discord and dissent. They have thus far been highly successful with a little help from Europe and the former Soviets especially.

I would not exclude the US for their own bloody manipulative roles in extending this conflict to suit their own strategic and economic goals in the region. I am though suprised at Israel's lack of vision and leadership especially in the past 10 years of this conflict. I would have expected a brilliant nation, to come up with better than 'an eye for an eye' which has left the area with millions of blind people and no visionaries.

I can understand the position of the Palestinians with one repressive and militaristic highly dogmatic leadership. There is no room for liberal alternatives given their position. They cannot but rely on their Arab 'Brothers' for support especially now with an equally brutal and repressive regime in tel Aviv.

It would be worthwhile asking all of the Arabs to take a long hard look at themselves and their situations first before Palestinians can be influenced to change. And for that we need to be united. The Arabs (not Palestinians) need to be contained and isolated or their feudal leadership everywhere usurped.

The barbaric militaristic and feudal kingdoms must go first. The Koran must be replaced with constitutional government. Women and other minorities must enter the equation and the status quo challenged.

I see 60,000 Jews gathering in Tel Aviv to protest against their governments action and not one soul machine gunned down for doing so. I hear and see several officers denounce their governments actions at a time of war and not executed at dawn for the priviledge. I see women serve on the frontline of defence in an effective use of manpower on one side and the oppression and slavery of women on the other in an effective way by which to lose not only a war but also the soul of humanity.

What are the alternatives ? a popular uprising ? is that possible ? well it is when we need to change a government for our own ends. Ask the French who harboured the Ayatollah then released him into orbit. Ask the US who do it like we play football in South America.

Come on Israel, where are your prophets, your leaders when the rest of the world see and learn from the inspirational works of your sons strewn to the four winds? from Marx and Jesus to Woody Allen and Rabbinovitch (Sholem Alaikum)

[elke]

Thank you, L@mplighter, I appreciate your concern! :D

You are right, Blue Moon, as usual :) It's exceedingly hard to keep on topic, because ultimately it does come down to implementation - and as soon as we get to that, personalities come in. But we do need to try, I agree.

UniKrishnan, that's a good assessment, IMO! Looking forward to your contributions.

Maybe, the negotiating team needs to include a crew of good psychologists, sociologists, and economists. This conflict has so many dimensions that need to be considered, and IMO haven't been to date. The people with these specialties should be able to assess the feasibility of both the ultimate general goals and the steps required for implementation.

[UniKrishnan]

In order to re align the distortions and to erode the destructive power of interlopers in the conflict, Israel should call the blluff of the Arab states and concede to a Palestine which it did in Oslo anyway on one ocndition, "That all Arab states agree to free and 'Fair' elections, universal franchise (women included) secular and constitutional government" as a pre condition to implementation of the Oslo accord.

Thus far we have a situation of two peoples speaking in two distinctly different languages not dialects (metophorically), one with the institutions and traditions of democracy with a yearning for the same, whilst on the other side we have the results of years of neglect by all sides, the Palestinians, with a tradition of the sword, conflict, intolerance and an aversion for anything intellectual.

It may sound racist and they may have had a glorious past, but none of these qualities are present and we need a paradigm shift in ridding the area of the kind of violence we have thus far witnessed.

Both sides are tired I think. In their weariness they are careless and ruthless in pursuit of a vision they cannot envision. The reason I generalise and drag the Arab question into the equation is because of what I percieve to be their selective interference which has never helped Yasser Arafat or anyone including Sheik Yassin. Heaven and hell are full of Martyrs and I am sure they too are fed up. The solution has to now come from Israel and the Palestinians alone.

[elke]

It sounds like a great idea, UniKrishnan.

However, I don't think that Israel alone can budge these countries into changing, without the EU and US, and possibly even China to be "in on it". In this scenario, what is asked of these countries' leadership is for them to effectively disappear from the world stage. There are few, if any, examples in history where despots willingly abrogated their power.

There is always a first time, I concede, but it must be made worthwhile for them to do so: e.g. "we won't buy OPEC oil, unless there is democratically elected government in all states that constitute OPEC".

Maybe, you are on to something here though... :cool:

[takeo]

"Security on paper is not the same as security on the ground."

That's absolutely right, but "paper" conditions, combined with real actions and a controlling mechanism, can make paper-concessions real, both for the palestinians and israel.

I don't think only the Arab world needs to change, the whole world and as you said not in the last place israel has mentality problems.
But such things change slowly, and foreign pressure or an ongoing war are certainly not contributing factors to any improvement, it is the war that has to stop first, and later on the mentalitity, policy, interhuman relations, etc.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by UniKrishnan
The solution has to now come from Israel and the Palestinians alone.

I don’t believe that either side has a free hand to deal with all the issues.

Israel’s has to march to the tune of the world community especially the US. I’m certain that if Israel was left alone to deal with the problem in the WB and GS there would have been a great reduction in terrorism from those areas if indeed it had not been eliminated all together. Since that hasn’t been/will not be the case things will remain at a status quo. There may be some cessation in attacks but it’ll just be the calm before the storm.

The Palestinians in the WB and GS through their leadership are certainly not able to strike a deal settling the issue of the occupied territories by themselves. Arafat and the rest of the PA have close ties to Iran, Iraq and a Network of Terrorists that span the globe and I believe that you can state with certainty that they will always be behind the scenes.

I don’t believe for even a second that this is an Israel vs. Palestinian issue by itself. The attacks against Israelis in Israel, WB and the GS are just a continuation of past wars that were lost by the Arabs/Muslims.

Support for the terrorist strikes come from within all the Arab/Muslim countries and from around the Globe.

I think it’s easy to view this issue with tunnel vision and see only Israel vs. Palestinians in the WB and GS but nothing could be further from the truth. This should be considered a problem of every democratic civilized country in the world.

[Vic]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Israel’s has to march to the tune of the world community especially the US. I’m certain that if Israel was left alone to deal with the problem in the WB and GS there would have been a great reduction in terrorism from those areas if indeed it had not been eliminated all together. Since that hasn’t been/will not be the case things will remain at a status quo. There may be some cessation in attacks but it’ll just be the calm before the storm.
Therefore the most important issue for Israel is: how to rid itself of "external" considerations in order to do what needs to be done.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Vic

Therefore the most important issue for Israel is: how to rid itself of "external" considerations in order to do what needs to be done.

The only way would be an increased Jewish population, a stronger economy, and completely independent military industry.

[elke]

Originally posted by NewsGuy


The only way would be an increased Jewish population, a stronger economy, and completely independent military industry.

Somehow, the employment opportunities must be there first. Where is the point of making Aliya if we are simply to sit on unemployment? Many Russian Jews I know, including my family, would have gone to Israel if it wasn't for the employment problems at the time. Even now, we would move there if it was possible for us to do so without becoming a burden instead of an asset to Israel.

[Vic]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
The only way would be an increased Jewish population, a stronger economy, and completely independent military industry.
What is the point of "increasing" the population if a large part of the newcomers has no chance to earn its living? They only weaken the economy.

Do you see any chances to achieve Nos. 2 and 3, NewsGuy?

[elke]

Originally posted by Vic

What is the point of "increasing" the population if a large part of the newcomers has no chance to earn its living? They only weaken the economy.

Do you see any chances to achieve Nos. 2 and 3, NewsGuy?

Great minds think alike :D

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Vic

What is the point of "increasing" the population if a large part of the newcomers has no chance to earn its living? They only weaken the economy.



Theoretically this is how it works:

1 person =no employment
2 persons= employment

And so on?

The trouble is that a lot of governments put their eggs in one basket and then when you end up with a downturn in that sector it results in unemployment. With a diversified economy and enough capital Israel I believe that Israel could easily expand its population base.

[elke]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM


Theoretically this is how it works:

1 person =no employment
2 persons= employment

And so on?

The trouble is that a lot of governments put their eggs in one basket and then when you end up with a downturn in that sector it results in unemployment. With a diversified economy and enough capital Israel I believe that Israel could easily expand its population base.

This scenario would be true if the 2 people had some sort of "nestegg" between them to start up a business. Russian Jews in the late '70s were allowed to take with them, if I remember correctly, approximately $450 for a family of four, in addition to some things that potentially could be sold upon arrival. They also were usually unemployed for some months prior to their departure, which dwindled whatever savings they might have had further. In addition, we actually had to PAY to get rid of the Soviet citizenship! :D

[Vic]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM


Theoretically this is how it works:

1 person =no employment
2 persons= employment
And practically? If this would work, Israel would be the richest country in the world by now

[elke]

Originally posted by Vic

And practically? If this would work, Israel would be the richest country in the world by now

Practically, unfortunately, it doesn't work. My Physics teacher aunt is working at a sausage-making factory, and her husband the musician - as a truck driver.

[hskrox]

Israelis have killed many Palestinians too.
but you're right, Israel has the right to prtect its citizens.
WHat should be done is for the two nations to stop stalliing, and create borders.

[Vic]

Originally posted by elke
Practically, unfortunately, it doesn't work. My Physics teacher aunt is working at a sausage-making factory, and her husband the musician - as a truck driver.
In Israel or in the US?

[elke]

Originally posted by Vic

In Israel or in the US?

Anywhere on Planet Earth ;)

[takeo]

"The only way would be an increased Jewish population"

Hey, i tought there was no more place in israel for more people?
or only for newcomers of the RIGHT RACE perhaps?

The world won't leave Israel alone, because it's an international conflict with international complications. Of course the arab world will continue supporting the palestinians.
Israel's economy can not live without trade with the US or Europe, if israel would do some radical actions as proposed by lomplighter or newsguy ( who won't accept any concession to the Palestinian people, so from their point of view peace-talks are impossible) it would isolate israel and its economy would (and should) be ruined.

I think the whole world needs to pressure israel, even much more than today, into concessions and implementing the un-resolutions. Israel is not a mighty nation, the US and Europe can and should force Israel to change policy, and if israel insists on its own violent non-solution to the problem, than some radical measures as economical embargo seems appropriated. The leftist parties in France also have launched a proposal in parliament to give subsidies to companies and parties in both israel and palestine committed to peace-talks, and boycott the others. Only there is discussion about which side labour should be considered.
I would go even further and favor giving israel's government the choice: if israel stubbornly refuses to negociate over the implementation of the un-resolutions than not only economical embargo's but as well support for the palestinian resistance against the IDF will be possible, if israel agrees to negociations, than Europe and the us should commit themselves to send troops to provide israel's security and a kind of marshall-plan for the region, including israel, should be put in place.

Don't have the arrogance to think that the "Western world" is so much more devellopped than those lousy Arabs, and that israel is part of the "western world", it is not a clash of civilisations but a clash of different countries involvede in a regional conflict that should be resolved by imposing international legislation.

Anyway, i will not post much more on this forum for now because lack of time, but I can assure you 100% that any solution except immediate negociations, independant of wether or not you like their leader, will not bring peace and security for israel.
the situation for israel will not improove but worsen if the current israeli policies continue, watch my words if we will have the same discussions in a year or so... a 2000 israeli and 20000 palestinian deaths further...

[Mediocrates]

I agree with one thing - send in foreign in foreign troops. Sadly though for you Europe has barely the power to project its policies in Europe let alone the rest of the world. Isn't that what postcolonialism and the EU are all about - the abrogation of force?

The expression is 'the US cooks the dinner and Europe does the dishes'. We kick ass so you don't have to. So I do agree that US troops should be there. The current climate will not tolerate another Somalian debacle so with the first US casualities it will crystalize US foreign policy. They would be all special forces professional volunteers so they understand the risks unlike the reservists butchered in the booby trapped streets of Jenin.

[Mediocrates]

What I meant was foreign force as force; real force and not some ersatz blue beret army. The proverbial urban warfare broadsword.

I'd even welcome some down on their luck Spetznatz paratroopers.

[takeo]

I agree
But Europe is building its own military force, in 5 years the joint European army will be a fact. Also France's army is the 4th most powerfull in the world, after the US, Russia and China.

[elke]

Yes, but can the world wait 4-5 years?

[takeo]

no of course not, but individual European countries and the us can send professional troops right away.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
if israel would do some radical actions as proposed by lomplighter or newsguy ( who won't accept any concession to the Palestinian people, so from their point of view peace-talks are impossible)
Again, please don't put words in my mouth. You regularly misrepresent my views. If you want to comment on something I said, then please use the "quote" feature or copy and paste my exact words, and not your mistaken interpretation of some ideas that aren't even mine in the first place.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by elke
Somehow, the employment opportunities must be there first. Where is the point of making Aliya if we are simply to sit on unemployment?

That's true. But it is really a matter of the chicken and the egg. More people create demand and that draws supply. To use the Russian immigrant example, the more arrived, the more local restaurants, grocery stores, clothing stores, music stores, community centers, translation services, print publications, etc. were created to match the specific requirements of the new population. In other words, the increased population generated new business and also gathered political power.

Although Israel now suffers from an terrorism-created unemployment problem, as well as from the global high-tech recession, Israel's economy still grew significantly due to the arrival of the Russian immigrants.

I still agree with you that Israel needs to provide an attractive setting for new immigrants, including economic opportunity and reasonable security conditions, but I think that this will be the case in the very near future.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Vic
Do you see any chances to achieve Nos. 2 and 3, NewsGuy?

Yes, definitely. As for the economy, Israel has 4 economic growth areas.

1. It is just a matter of time before the global high-tech recession is over and then Israel's high-tech sector will bounce back strong. Israeli high-tech companies have learned to cut expenses sharply during the recession and the survivors, of which there are many, will be able to show much higher profitability when the market comes back. This means that the Israeli companies' stocks will go up and more foreign investment will flow like water again within the next 2 years.

2. Israel stands to benefit from its leadership in the prescription drug industry with companies like Teva expanding into Europe through acquisitions, and also gaining more FDA approvals this year.

3. In the weapons industry, Israel is opening up new significant markets like India, which has been using all kinds of Israeli technology to combat its Islamic-terrorist enemy Afghanistan.

4. Worldwide Jewery has now been affected by increased anti-Semitism in the past year and so it is much more likely to be even more generous to Israel than ever before.

These 4 areas of economic growth will all kick in for Israel, making it a stronger force.

As for military independence, I think that the recent temporary military embargoes from Germany and the UK against Israel, will cause Israel to wake up to the need to build its own motor and spare-parts factrories. I would be surprised if this isn't underway already after the recent wake-call. Basically, Israel needs replacement engines for its tanks and spare parts for other equipment. For the most parts, Israel already has the ability to produce its own missiles and bullets, etc.

btw - The recent launch of the Ofek 5 spy satellite is another move towards military independence.

So, yes, I think that Israel is moving towards becoming a stronger and more independent global player. The main thing now is to end the security crisis.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I agree with one thing - send in foreign in foreign troops. Sadly though for you Europe has barely the power to project its policies in Europe let alone the rest of the world. Isn't that what postcolonialism and the EU are all about - the abrogation of force?

The expression is 'the US cooks the dinner and Europe does the dishes'. We kick ass so you don't have to. So I do agree that US troops should be there. The current climate will not tolerate another Somalian debacle so with the first US casualities it will crystalize US foreign policy. They would be all special forces professional volunteers so they understand the risks unlike the reservists butchered in the booby trapped streets of Jenin.
"Europe" is much less united than it tries to make believe and IMHO it's not bad. Imagine a "joint" army communicating in broken English...

Yet the separate troops are not that bad. The British are performing fine in Afghanistan, for example.

As for Jenin - I still don't get why they sent the reservists in. Didn't the army leadership know in advance what was going to happen? That's poor intelligence work, if anything. Or are they just losing their heads?

[UniKrishnan]

Just to but in here as I think the discussion is getting more interesting, The Europeans as observers, peace keepers and monitors are certainly not prone to the unified face they tend to portray although they appear to be one of few choices available if it happens.

Remember Bosnia and the Dutch and French experience, allowing the butchers through the net doing nothing to stop them in the process. The result is still being assessed for its horrors and unprecedented brutality. You don't want a repeat of traditional hatreds of Jews by Europeans being acted out under the guise of a foreign 'civilzed and independent' peace keeping or monitoring force. The job requires a different approach as this problem is of a different nature to other conflicts. You have to take care of it with a little more media savvy.

With respect to the economic issues you have raised, Israel has one of the largest and most lucrative markets at its door step. All of it hostile. It can still make the most of it through a third party friendly to the beast.

Israeli water technology, the most important in an arid and dry area starved of the most important resource is one. The others are in the area of information technology, pharmaceuticals and even leisure.

Even though you are traditional enemies, the Arabs are most understood and observed by Israel albeit for different reasons today. When the Chinese or Taiwanese were embargoed they sought to manufacture and label their products differently so as not to attract unwanted attention and through trade made deep inroads into the hearst, minds, bellies, eyes and bodies of their adversaries.

Banking and Finance,distribution and low level technology for use in manufacturing and packaging can be exported thorough third parties into the 200 million Arab population in the neighbourhood.

An American president once remarked "No country ever went broke because of Trade". It is something worth looking at. Yes India is upgrading many of its systems and hardware purchased from the former Soviet Union with advanced Israeli Technology intergrating it into their own and advancing their knowledge.

Clearly there is too much focus on the battle fields and the technology there does not win the war in the end. The focus is too much on the belligerent side of things. For a people ( middle easterners) who gave the world trade, that is a damn shame!!

[takeo]

You raised a very interesting issue, trade with Arab countries (water technologies, etc.) which is potentially a great opportunity for the israeli economy. This is yet another important advantage of implementing the un-resolutions and starting all-inclusive peace-negociations (including relations with Arab countries, except Iraq, all have been interested in trade with israel on the condition of a peace-deal with the Palestinians!


About peace-keeping, as mediocratis indicated such operations need full preparation and a wide range of capacities, unlike dutchbat in Bosnia for example, more like in Kosovo and Bosnia today.

newsguy, you once said that you would accept a palestinian state, but as well that if it would be possible you would prefere "massive transfer" (euphemistic terminology for etnic cleansing) of all palestinians to Jordan.
But the conditions under which you would accept a palestinian state are totally unacceptable for the palestinians and certainly less than they got in camp David, OK?

"My personal wish is that they will be forced (or better yet, choose independently) to leave Israel, including Gaza, the Golan, Judea and Samaria). IMHO, these are part of the Jewish homeland.
But I am a pragmatist.
Although I thought that Barak went too far on the Jerusalem issue and not far enough on what the Palestinians (and the other Arab countries) would do in return, I would have supported the agreement as it was presented. My only condition would have been that the plan be brought to a national referendum. If a large enough majority of Israelis would support the plan, then I would, too.
In fact, I still believe that there should be a referendum in Israel about whether Israel should unilaterally withdraw from the Palestinian-occupied territories, and dismantle some Jewish settlements and recognize a second Palestinian state.
If the answer is yes, then as a democratic country, the Israeli governement should carry out the people's will.
But if the answer is no, then the governement should carry out a full-scale war and destroy the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure once and for all, no matter what the cost is to the Palestinias civilians who support terrorism. That way, everyone can get on with their lives when the dust settles."

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=1685&highlight=IMHO+these+are+part+of+the+Jewish+homela nd+newsguy#post1685

[rgonce]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I didn't want to leave that last sentence dangling. Postcolonialism as a body of thought, a modern sociopolitical study that assumes that everything 'western' is bad and lies at the root of most things related to the 'oppression' of other peoples. For a good 4 pages on postcolonialism take a look at:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000006D90C.htm

The basic question and the one most fundamental to the solution of this war is - do the Palestinians themselves see their problems as irresolvable? Do they see their lot in life as moving toward or away from something or do the view themselves as permanently different? I think if you can answer that question then you can also answer the cult of death question.

Realistic hope for the Palestinians is necessary to move toward resolution. Jordan may be willing to accept Palestinians living in the Arabah in return for economic incentives from Israel. Take a look at the arabah thread and see if you think there is anything of value in the Ezekiel Project.

[elke]

Originally posted by rgonce
Realistic hope for the Palestinians is necessary to move toward resolution. Jordan may be willing to accept Palestinians living in the Arabah in return for economic incentives from Israel. Take a look at the arabah thread and see if you think there is anything of value in the Ezekiel Project.

You know, you may have a point: maybe, with the help of some concrete proposals, Jordan and the Palestinians both, would consider a merger. That would resolve so many issues at once!

[Mediocrates]

The Jordanians have a deep aversion to the Palestinians. They went to war with them in 1970 after they attempted to overthrow the King.

The first Jordanian King was assassinated by a Palestinian at the al Aqsa mosque in 1951.

The largest population of Palestinian 'refugees', even more than in the territories, is in Jordan. They've been there in dust and squalor since 1948. In the 67 War, Jordan was only too happy to cede the West Bank to Israel in exchange for getting rid of 2 million poor discontent oppressed dangerous Palestinians.

There is no way on God's grey earth they will take them back.

[Jorge]

quote from BlueMoon 06-08

Just a thought - we kind of start out with a few posts starting to hint at possible concrete ideas to "save the patient", but then we seemed to get bogged down in the old, we/they can't have peace because your bad, they are bad, we are right, they couldn't be right, which way is really right . . .

You're absolutely right. We do have a strong tendency to fall into negative assessments and loose sight of the larger picture. In order to get back on the rails I am posting some observations on your "agenda" posted on 06 -07.
quote:

SET ONE: Conditions/concessions under the existing leadership for both countries:
1 (A)West Bank and Gaza Arab conditions and concessions for emergency, temporary cessation of hostilities.
1 (B) Same as A for Israel.

2 (A)West Bank and Gaza Arab conditions and concessions for long term peace
3 (B) Same as A for Israel.


SET TWO: Conditions/concessions under a new, more moderate (but not necessarily liberal or soft) regime for each side that would be a least somewhat less hard-lined than the current regime - -

1 (A)West Bank and Gaza Arab conditions for emergency, temporary cessation of hostilities.
1 (B) Same as A for Israel.

Regarding 1A) and 1B):
Any talks or agreements would have to be between official representatives of both sides; one representative is obviously the Israeli government the other, according to your proposal remains undetermined. You cannot have an unstructured agency called "the West Bank and Gaza Arabs" sitting at the table. Hence before we start we have to agree in that the official representative of the other side is the PA, a body recognized by most of the Palestinians and the international community, or some other structured body with similar qualifications

The PA is not officially engaged in hostilities towards Israel, the hostile acts are carried out by terrorist organizations, which will not we willing to conduct any negotiations so, on the Palestinian side there are no conditions or concessions to negotiate. Israel also is not officially engaged in hostilities towards Palestinians
but claims that is carrying out punitive actions against terrorists. Even if the PA had the will and wish to fight terrorism it probably won't manage to suppress it entirely. Israel so far, even if it has the will, wish and might to fight terrorism,
has also proved itself incapable of suppressing it.

Since the PA cannot guarantee an end to terrorist activities and since Israel
cannot guarantee that it will abstain from retaliation, the procedure ought to be to start with the second phase that you propose, i.e. peace talks while "hostilities" continue in some degree. As a precondition for the start of negotiations we should have commitments given to some international body
accepted by both parties. From the Palestinian side a commitment to do its utmost to fight terrorism and to prevent terrorist actions; from the Israeli
side a commitment to show maximum restraint regarding retaliatory actions.
Given the qualitative nature of those commitments and the mutual distrust of both sides, there is not much point in mutual promises and the international body alluded earlier is essential for pressing or inducing both sides to stick to their commitments.

The only hope is that if both sides are in the near future actively engaged in a peace process so that "light may be seen at the end of the tunnel", Palestinian society will be a less fertile ground than it is now, so that terrorism may be isolated and reduced to a marginal phenomena.

Regarding SET TWO above:

A second observation I'd like to make regarding your proposals is in connection with separate initiatives for present "hard line " leaderships
and hypothetical "soft line" ones in both sides. The most likely scenario for the next Israeli elections is a victory for the Likud Party; in the unlikely event
that the Labor Party gets the upper hand, it will have to form a coalition with
parties more to its right. Thus "center-right" is our present government and center right" the next one, some of us, me included, may not like it but they are the only realistic assessment for the near future. At the Palestinian side it is also not realistic to expect a new leadership with a softer attitude towards conditions and concessions than the present one.

Accordingly, I don't see much point of devising two sets of conditions/concessions for peace negotiations. As it is one set is difficult enough.

The opening conditions of the Palestinian side are well known:1) Establishment of a Palestinian State limited by 1967 borders and with Jerusalem as its capital. 2) Withdrawal from all settlements from the area of the Palestinian state 3) Solution of the refugee problem. These conditions are in line (with some minor
variations with the Clinton Plan, The Ben-Eliezer Plan, the Saudi Plan, the Mubarak Plan and others. I agree with fellow Forum members that details are sometimes of great importance but the larger picture is essentially contained in those three points and I
propose to use them as a macro-framework wherein detailed
steps may be fitted.

Israel's present government opening conditions regarding those points are: 1) negotiable, with the proviso that such a state is demilitarized. 2) negotiable only for some isolated settlements 3) not negotiable if by solution is meant accepting the "right to return".

I have said in other notes that these sets of condition/concessions appear to be highly asymmetrical in that Israel is asked to make a lot of concessions in return only for one small concession: to be left in peace. This may be so, but one has to keep in mind that, regarding 1) and 2), Israel is only asked to revert to the situation that existed prior 1967 and with Palestinians not being left in any better,rather a worse one,
geographical situation than the one that existed in that year.

Regarding some concrete steps that may be taken once the peace process is under way: a) I agree with some fellow members that have touched on economical initiatives, mainly trade. I think that economic cooperation is probably the most important factor to recover some measure of mutual trust. For both israelis and palestinians it is important to realize that peace, besides stopping the bloodshed, will bring prosperity to the whole area.

[Mediocrates]

except that the very groups who everyone is ready to claim and believe are utter uncontrollable are the same groups that escalate their violence every time peace or a settlement is approached BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT PEACE. PEACE IS BAD FOR THEM.


So how do we deal with an uncontrollable group everyone is willing to call a third party that is escalating violence?

[Vic]

Originally posted by NewsGuy


Yes, definitely. As for the economy, Israel has 4 economic growth areas.

[...]

3. In the weapons industry, Israel is opening up new significant markets like India, which has been using all kinds of Israeli technology to combat its Islamic-terrorist enemy Afghanistan.

[...]

These 4 areas of economic growth will all kick in for Israel, making it a stronger force.

As for military independence, I think that the recent temporary military embargoes from Germany and the UK against Israel, will cause Israel to wake up to the need to build its own motor and spare-parts factrories. I would be surprised if this isn't underway already after the recent wake-call. Basically, Israel needs replacement engines for its tanks and spare parts for other equipment. For the most parts, Israel already has the ability to produce its own missiles and bullets, etc.

btw - The recent launch of the Ofek 5 spy satellite is another move towards military independence.

So, yes, I think that Israel is moving towards becoming a stronger and more independent global player. The main thing now is to end the security crisis.

Isn't there a conflict of interests between the Israeli and the American military industries, as one can conclude from this (sad) article: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=175004&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y ?

[Jorge]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
except that the very groups who everyone is ready to claim and believe are utter uncontrollable are the same groups that escalate their violence every time peace or a settlement is approached BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT PEACE. PEACE IS BAD FOR THEM.


So how do we deal with an uncontrollable group everyone is willing to call a third party that is escalating violence?

I think the answer to your question of how do we deal with those groups is implicit in a key sentence of yours:PEACE IS BAD
FOR THEM. If we can create a situation where most of the people sorrounding them can see the benefits of peace and can see peace as an attainable state in the near future, then they will be
isolated, marginated, alienated, etc. Every israeli action that escalates the conflict is GOOD for them, every action that downgrades the conflict and signals steps towards conciliation is
BAD for them.

Although the above considerations may be used to set the correct strategy, the tactics are far from clear. The tactical problem stems from what you rightly said :" they escalate their
violence every time peace or a peace settlement is aproached".
Thus the tactical problem is how to overcome what we may call
the potential barrier . This is a concept I borrowed from the interaction bet. equally charged particles; when two such particles
approach together, repulsion sets in and the closer they are, the greater the repulsion forces. However, if the particles have enough velocity the particles can get at such close distance that attraction is larger than repulsion and both stick together.
I hate to mix physics with politics but the analogy is roughly this:
if both parties decide on a road to peace and pursue it with enough determination so that they won't be sidetracked by obstacles put on their way by terrorist groups (which will be more active he closer they are to their objective) they might actually
get to a point where the mutual ties cannot be destroyed by
isolated suicide bombers and the like. From then onwards
is downhill all the way.

From the above considerations it may be infered that
tactics based on the freezing or postponement of the peace
negotiations or on conducting them at a deliberate slow pace,
may result in helping those groups to put more and better obstacles on the way. On the other hand, if peace is pursued with
determination and expediency, they may be defeated.

Food for thought....

[Blue Moon]

Re: Jorge's Post #92

When I suggested considering the different criteria/concession lists, I was not actually thinking of hawks on one hand, and dove's on the other. Rather, I was thinking of hawks (e.g. Sharon) on one hand, and a more moderate regime. I am guessing a moderate, as opposed to dovish regime, is more of a possibility, because the folks in Israel are gettin' a bit mighty fed up of seeing the body parts of innocents flying around, and seem to be finally recognizing that war was actually declared against Israel long ago - - it is called the Intifada.

As an American, I was around when Sharon's you-know-what was in a ringer for the slaughter in the Lebanese refugee camps - - e.g. Saabra. Yes, he was not convicted in Israel, but he was nevertheless guilty in the eyes of much of the world. The U.S. mainstream press really took a turn in opinion against Israel, and, I don't think Isreal, and especially Sharon, ever recovered. Example of the problem:
I think that the willingness of the mainstream media to believe the lies about Jenin might possibly be traceable, at least in small part, to the very sad incidents at the camps.

Maybe by outlining the different demands and concessions of each type of regime for both sides, we may determine whether a change in leadership on either or both sides is something that would be relevant or not to the current stalemate.

I do believe, however, that although Mr. Sharon is a war hero and helped save Israel, and has Israel's best intentions in his heart, he is, at least in part, a propoganda liability.

Does propoganda matter ???? - - sure seems to. How else do you explain a regime supporting the worst types of atrocities possible maintaining a majority of the worlds support ????

[UniKrishnan]

In order for the problem to be resolved, first it should be understood that the existence of both sides is critical and essential to the existence of the other. That should be the basis of any framework towards a lasting settlement.

Under the current situation and climate created by leaders with aspirations and visions moulded by the mistakes of the past being transformed into the future, the only vision and necessity is to obliterate the other in the most brutal and painful fashion. And neither side has a monopoly on virtue or vice in this regard.

Unless both Israeli's and Palestinains (not necessarily their individual governments or representatives) have the courage to work out their differences through non governmental organisations and with the help of friendly (mutually) parties because of the deep divide and suspicion and work towards an existence where each side is instrumental and critical to the survival of the other economically, militarily and politically, there are no more grounds to explore for any future because there is no future.

A democratic government the product of a loosely stitched up coalition is as unrepresentative as a totalitarian government representing a fraction of the population. Both have legitimate claims to the product of a flawed system.

Unless the spirit of cooperation is present in any system, the legal formalities alone will not produce results or just outcomes.

I still see images of 60,000 gathering in Tel Aviv for a peaceful solution, can I have 1,000 or maybe 100 from the other side ?? or is the silence or their absence the root of the problem ??

[elke]

It certainly does seem that historically major changes come from within the society, and only get encoded into legal documents when "critical mass" is reached. After all, legal documents are only made of paper - easy to break.

That's why it's so important that both parties take responsibility for their own actions and interests, instead of relying on others to work for what's best for them. Again, until the Palestinian leadership decides that THEY should be in full control of their own destiny, and their destiny lies in tandem - not in lieu of - that of the Israelis, any peace process is doomed. How can any reasonable person think that 1 to 2 years will be adequate to resolve these internal problems?

[Gatorade]

UniKrishnan, nice post and good points.

The onus is almost always on Israel for peace. It has to come from both sides and from every day people. There are Israelis publicly going to the streets for peace. Where is the peace movement on the Palestinian side?

[elke]

'Minds me of the sibling situation:
"You are older, that's why you are responsible. Your brother/sister is small still, they don't understand!"
"But MOM! It's HIS/HER fault!"
"I know, but you are OLDER" :D

As parents, we know that it's not only unfair but also unproductive and dangerous to always have the elder child give in to the younger one. Yet people are expecting Israel to do just that.