How to defeat Obama

[Womble]

WatOn, Womble

Of course you are both right, they could ... Why do you think that hasn't happened? Personally, I doubt that it's because they couldn't get those weapons, especially if we talk about Hezbollah, for Hamas it may be a bit more difficult.

Hint: Think of the consequences, and not just the consequences for Lebanon but for Syria too ...

Honestly? I think that given Obama's policies so far, both the Hizbullah and Syria has few reasons to fear such consequences. They likely believe they can count on the newly spineless US to restrain any Israeli response. If we had someone other than Netanyahu in office they would have been even more brazen, but Bibi's (wholly undeserved) reputation as a super-duper extremist and an ever-so-loose cannon plays in our favor for now.

Question: Do you think that Hezbollah is entirely independent? Or do you think that they are instrumentalities of Syria and Iran?

Both and neither. They have a high degree of independence on the ground (it's impossible to micromanage world's largest non-governmental armed force from Tehran or Damascus, and people heading such force will necessarily have more personal ambition than to just serve a faraway foreign regime), but they depend heavily on supplies of arms and cash. Syria and Iran can dictate the Hizbies' agenda to a large degree, but not totally.

[Reffo]

I don't think anybody really knows what is going on behind the scenes inside these organizations. The consensus seems to be that Hezbollah is at least semi-autonomous, but is obviously receptive to the "advice" of its backers

Advice? I think that's a bit of an understatement. My belief is that although I am sure that Hezbollah has it's 'hotheads', I don't think that they would dare buck the rule of their Syrian and Iranian masters because if they would and Syria would cop the consequences, then heads would roll and in this case, I mean it literally ...

[Reffo]

Honestly? I think that given Obama's policies so far, both the Hizbullah and Syria has few reasons to fear such consequences. They likely believe they can count on the newly spineless US to restrain any Israeli response. If we had someone other than Netanyahu in office they would have been even more brazen, but Bibi's (wholly undeserved) reputation as a super-duper extremist and an ever-so-loose cannon plays in our favor for now

Well then, all I can say is that I would like to think that you are wrong.... Having said that, I do tend to agree with you about Obama ... but I'd like to think that you are wrong about Bibi or at least about the fact that the Israeli people would FORCE a suitable response if indeed Hezbollah or Hamas would acquire accurate weapons and use them to destroy an Israeli city and cause massive Israeli civilian casualties ...

Failing that, then heaven help Israel because it would be doomed ...

But in any case, we are talking hypotheticals because the only source for the supply of such weapons (at least "today") to Hezbollah is Iran, via Syria and I don't believe that they would supply them such weapons (at least in today's circumstances), not because either of those nations are altruistic, but for the reasons already discussed above.

[Jorge]

From Reffo's #159:

My real position is that we should conclude a peace deal with the Palestinian Arabs as soon as we get a Palestinian leadership who would be prepared a peace deal of the type that was offered by Ehud Barak or Ehud Olmert. But since at the moment, there is NO such Palestinian leadership, people like me believe that the next best thing is to do NOTHING until they [The Pal Arabs] come around to understand that that's the MOST that they will ever get out of Israel and that there won't be any more concessions ...

So if you call that "the doing nothing approach" then you are damn right. Because I prefer to see Israel sit tight, hold out an olive branch, and do nothing till THEY accept it, instead of endlessly offering more concessions till the illusory peace that we would get, would be the first step to the annihilation of Israel as the state for the Jewish people (nation) ...

I tend to take "the doing-nothing approach" very seriously because, with variations and hues, it seems to be an approach favored nowadays by a large proportion of Israelis. I think that Reffo sums it quite aptly when saying that this approach is that of those who "prefer to see Israel sit tightly, hold out an olive branch and do nothing till they accept it…"

Question is… till they accept what? It is here I think, that the said variations come into play. According to Reffo the 'what' is "a peace deal of the type that was offered by Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert" . I think that this is an interesting view and as such I'd like to comment on it.

The peace deal discussed by Barak and Arafat is well known in its details. About the reasons why Arafat refused it there are many versions and I hope the historians will clear-up the subject sometime. But, independent of the reasons why it was rejected, my point is that Abbu Mazen is not Arafat, the PLO leadership has changed its behaviour and approaches considerably since then. Thus, we don't really know if a peace deal as the one presented in Taba would be again rejected.

By contrast, we do not know really the 'what' offered by Mr. Olmert; the proposals were never published officially and from fragments here and there we are none the wiser. But what we, the public, doesn't know our Government must surely know.

So, what if… the Gov. headed by Mr. Netanyahu was to submit a plan based on what Barak and Olmert proposed? The Palestinians would have to react to it and then we'd know for sure where they stand.

Mr. Netanyahu is before the middle of his term has a firm coalition and his proposals would not suffer from the basic defect of those of B&M, both of which were on their way out and did not represent much except themselves.

======
In general terms the doing-nothing approach does not seem to provide satisfactory answers to the dynamics of regional and world changes. That our world is not static may seem like a platitude but the assumption that 'tomorrow' will be very much like yesterday seems to be a basic tenet of the doing-nothing approach. If a nation adopts that approach as their world-view in a not too distant 'tomorrow' it may face the situation of the proverbial mice in Johnson's book dazzlingly asking:- "Who Moved my Cheese?".

[Jorge]

From NewsGuy's #171:

Not at all. The civilian death toll among the Arabs was caused by Hezbullah firing Scud missiles from apartment buildings and Hamas operating bomb factories in civilian apartment complexes.

The criticism of Israeli actions really comes from the very same Leftists who never uttered a peep while Hamas fired more than 5,000 rockets deliberately into Israeli homes and kindergartens. In fact, the Leftists cheered and marched in support of sending more supplies to Hamas. Yet, when Israel finally fought back to protect the lives of its citizens, those Leftists have the nerve to criticize Israel for destroying Hamas bomb factories or shooting back at terrorists firing anti-tank missiles from hospitals, mosques, and apartment buildings.

Let's face it, Jorge, after Israel tore the fabric of its own society and ethnically cleaned all Jews out of Gaza to hand it to Hamas, and Hamas then used those very same formerly Jewish towns to fire missiles into Israeli schools and homes, how can Leftists still complain about anything? Haven't we learned anything after all the sacrifices Israel made for peace and what it got in return?

To be fair, I must admit that NewsGuy has a point when he talks about "the very same Leftists who never uttered a peep while Hamas fired more than 5,000 rockets deliberately into Israeli homes and kindergartens". The relative silence of some Leftists (Israeli leftists excluded) regarding said attacks testifies against them. To be more precise, one can be silent about many things but one cannot go around condemning the 'harming of innocent civilians" only when the harm is caused by one party. The firing of rockets directed towards towns and kibbutzim was a criminal act that cannot and should not be excused.

I don't quite agree to the notion that the disengagement from the GS meant that "Israel tore the fabric of its own society". The dismantling of the settlements was certainly a dramatic event but I tend to think that other events and processes have had a far deeper and long-lasting effect in tearing "the fabric of our society". To quote just a few: Rabin's assassination, the continuously widening gap between the richest and poorest of our society and the transformation of the IDF into a sort of armed police force tasked with the mission of repressing and oppressing a foreign population (let's not forget that the IDF is still 'the people's army' and what happens to it reflects deeply on our society).

That said, and to formulate things more precisely: Israel did not "hand the GS to Hamas" as NewsGuy maintains. Israel did not hand the GS to anyone; it was a unilateral withdrawal. Had the withdrawal been part of a negotiated agreement with the PA perhaps things might had turned up differently. Nor did Hamas and other terrorist groups had much need of using "formerly Jewish towns to hire missiles". The launching of those missiles requires just a space for a small truck which can be placed anywhere.

Now about NewsGuy question: "how can Leftists still complain about anything?" … perhaps Leftists are perennial complainers and look around the world trying to find something to complain about… In the present case though you don't have to search hard for things to complain about. The IP conflict is still unresolved, initially mainly due to Arab's intransigence and lately mainly due to Israel's intransigence (or so Leftiststend to think). Not only still unresolved, but the specter of a bi-national state looming each year closer and closer. Plenty of other things to complain about but I personally tend to look at them as symptoms of the disease rather than separate ailments.

Newsguy: I was rather puzzled by your concluding sentence: "Haven't we learned anything after all the sacrifices Israel made for peace and what it got in return?". I have been searching my memory about examples of said sacrifices but don't seem to recall any. Would you care to list some of those sacrifices?

[Reffo]

I tend to take "the doing-nothing approach" very seriously because, with variations and hues, it seems to be an approach favored nowadays by a large proportion of Israelis

Glad to hear it, I always knew that MOST Israelis are sensible, practical and down to earth people.

my point is that Abbu Mazen is not Arafat, the PLO leadership has changed its behaviour and approaches considerably since then. Thus, we don't really know if a peace deal as the one presented in Taba would be again rejected

But it seems that they still have NOT changed enough to allow themselves to sign a peace deal with Israel.

By contrast, we do not know really the 'what' offered by Mr. Olmert; the proposals were never published officially and from fragments here and there we are none the wiser. But what we, the public, doesn't know our Government must surely know

Actually we do know Jorge. Here is a link to a Haaretz article in which Olmert told us all about it ...

Haaretz exclusive: Olmert's plan for peace with the Palestinians

Former prime minister Ehud Olmert proposed giving the Palestinians land from communities bordering the Gaza Strip and from the Judean Desert nature reserve in exchange for settlement blocs in the West Bank.

According to the map proposed by Olmert, which is being made public here for the first time, the future border between Israel and the Gaza Strip would be adjacent to kibbutzim and moshavim such as Be'eri, Kissufim and Nir Oz, whose fields would be given to the Palestinians.

Olmert also proposed giving land to a future Palestinian state in the Beit She'an Valley near Kibbutz Tirat Tzvi; in the Judean Hills near Nataf and Mevo Betar; and in the area of Lachish and of the Yatir Forest. Together, the areas would have involved the transfer of 327 square kilometers of territory from within the Green Line

Olmert wanted to annex 6.3 percent of the West Bank to Israel, areas that are home to 75 percent of the Jewish population of the territories. His proposal would have also involved evacuation of dozens of settlements in the Jordan Valley, in the eastern Samarian hills and in the Hebron region. In return for the annexation to Israel of Ma'aleh Adumim, the Gush Etzion bloc of settlements, Ariel, Beit Aryeh and settlements adjacent to Jerusalem, Olmert proposed the transfer of territory to the Palestinians equivalent to 5.8 percent of the area of the West Bank as well as a safe-passage route from Hebron to the Gaza Strip via a highway that would remain part of the sovereign territory of Israel but where there would be no Israeli presence.

Olmert's office said in response to the disclosure of the plan: "On September 16, 2008, [Olmert] presented Palestinian Authority President Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] a map that had been prepared based upon dozens of conversations that the two held in the course of the intensive negotiations after the Annapolis summit. The map that was presented was designed to solve the problem of the borders between Israel and the future Palestinian state. Giving Abu Mazen the map was conditioned upon signing a comprehensive and final agreement with the Palestinians so it would not be used as an 'opening position' in future negotiations the Palestinians sought to conduct. Ultimately, when Abu Mazen did not give his consent to a final and complete agreement, the map was not given to him."

And here is the map that was presented to Abbas ...

Click here to view the map detailing Olmert's peace plan

Wouldn't you know it? Had Abbas accepted the peace plan we now would not have to talk about the leftists favourite subjects: "THE OCCUPATION" and "THE SETTLEMENTS". Unfortunately though it seems to suit Abbas's purposes to keep that ruse alive and blame Israel for everything. Yet so called intelligent people cannot see (or perhaps don't want to see) through the game that the Palestinian Arab leadership still chooses to play ...

So, what if… the Gov. headed by Mr. Netanyahu was to submit a plan based on what Barak and Olmert proposed? The Palestinians would have to react to it and then we'd know for sure where they stand

Yep, so what ... you may very well ask Jorge ... one answer is that perhaps Netanyahu doesn't want to because he does not agree with the plan and I think that answer is not far from the truth. But the more pertinent question to ask is: WHY DIDN'T ABBAS ACCEPT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? The only conclusion one can reach is that it wasn't acceptable to him. And then we have to ask ourselves: Why Not? And what WOULD be acceptable to him? The hint that I get from every utterance of Abbas on the subject is that he wants MORE .... MUCH MUCH MORE from Israel. Such as the Right of Return ... All of East Jerusalem .... Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries ... etc. All things that have never been acceptable to MOST Israelis except to those who are of the Gush Shalom persuasion .... But then again, they only represent a tiny fraction of Israelis and thank goodness for that ....

[Reffo]

Although Obama is NOT the first to demand endless concessions from Israel, he has stepped up the demands significantly and this trend has to STOP. Why? Because any cursory textbook on negotiation tactics reveals that if one side decides (or is forced to decide) to continually offer concessions in order to bring about a final agreement, ends up conditioning their adversaries to hold back and ask or go for even more concessions. It is plain old human nature and I urge all sceptics who don't believe this fact, to visit any Middle Eastern Bazaar and see for themselves how people negotiate, especially in the Middle East. Final agreement is reached only when both parties realize that NO ONE is going to budge ANY FURTHER ...

That sums up why after various peace offers by Israel in the last decade alone, I favour the "Do Nothing" approach NOW. Because the Arabs need to come to the understanding that Israel is unable and unwilling to offer any more concessions than the two Ehuds already offered ...

[wat0n]

Although Obama is NOT the first to demand endless concessions from Israel, he has stepped up the demands significantly and this trend has to STOP. Why? Because any cursory textbook on negotiation tactics reveals that if one side decides (or is forced to decide) to continually offer concessions in order to bring about a final agreement, ends up conditioning their adversaries to hold back and ask or go for even more concessions. It is plain old human nature and I urge all sceptics who don't believe this fact, to visit any Middle Eastern Bazaar and see for themselves how people negotiate, especially in the Middle East. Final agreement is reached only when both parties realize that NO ONE is going to budge ANY FURTHER ...

That sums up why after various peace offers by Israel in the last decade alone, I favour the "Do Nothing" approach NOW. Because the Arabs need to come to the understanding that Israel is unable and unwilling to offer any more concessions than the two Ehuds already offered ...

I'm a bit more pessimistic about the current situation than you are...

I think that right now the issue is not whether the Palestinians want 2 states/their own state/peace but rather if they can have their own state/guarantee peace. The truth is, even if Fatah and Israel agreed about everything there wouldn't be any assurances that this conflict would end because, well, Hamas rules half of the territories that will hopefully become the Palestinian state. And the last Gaza war didn't force Hamas to give concessions to Fatah on forming an unity government, it surely weakened Hamas but not enough for forcing them into agreeing to elections or at the very least declaring an end to the internal Palestinian division.

I do believe that Israel could do a lot to improve prospects on peace, but IMHO right now the internal Palestinian division is the biggest obstacle to achieving peace: The Palestinians can't have a state as long as they have two governments, even if most Palestinians want to have a state and to leave in peace with Israel they can't do it as long as they have an army that could take over the country by force as we all saw in 2007...

IMHO this is a challenge for Obama, and I think he should have a Gaza policy, even if it's not public... Because as months go by, it seems that this Palestinian division is permanent, and if it is, then the game changes radically as achieving a deal with Fatah does not mean that the conflict ends or anything... And part of negotiations will be deciding what to do with Gaza.

Finally, I think Israel could still try to pursue peace, maybe not with the Palestinians, but with Syria... But that's a different story, of course.

[Jorge]

From Reffo's Post #201:

But the more pertinent question to ask is: WHY DIDN'T ABBAS ACCEPT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

I wasn't inclined to answer your question because I really don't know why. I have a theory though and since you put the question in CAPITAL BOLDS I gather that possible answers may be important for you.

My theory is that Abu Mazen did not accept it because he has no sense of humour.

You kindly provided a link to the map that illustrated Mr. Olmert's proposal for borders:

And here is the map that was presented to Abbas ...

Even a cursory look at that map leads one to reach the conclusion that it must have been a joke of our former PM. A lot of people, back in 2009, including me, took it as such.

Had Abbu Mazen had some sense of humor he would have laughed his head off and, once calmed, he would have stayed for dinner to chat about this and that and talks would have been resumed the next week.
But he seems to be a man that doesn't know how to take a good joke, so he choose to put on one of his solemn faces and departed with it, never to come back.

Actually I recall thinking at the times of those tête-ÃÂ-têtes between the two that Abu Mazen was no match for Olmert in informal negotiations. Mr. Olmert is a man of the world with expensive tastes who appreciates a good malt and a cigar. Mr. Abbas is too pompous and austere; he even doesn't drink and sticks only to tea or lemonade. Teetotalers cannot be trusted as political negotiators… too inflexible (another theory of mine which I won't elaborate here). Nothing like a Martini too many to make you look at the world in a more benevolent way.

Moreover Mr. Olmert's aides said at the time that the map was shown to Mr. Abbas but "not given to him". That way the fellow had to rely on his memory for any cartographic details and then, if he referred to it, they could say that he got it wrong or that the map never existed… A few months later they gave the map to the press for any one to look at it. Funny, isn't it?

[Reffo]

Yes Jorge, I expected a response like that from a Gush Shalom-nick like you. After all, you guys do always tend to see things from our enemies point of view and NOT from the point of view that is important to most Israelis.

I wouldn't mind though if you would explain what you find humorous in Ehud Olmert's peace offer.... I mean it is easy (and even glib) to just laugh things off but it is much harder to provide a rational argument that justifies why the peace offer was not accepted ....

[Reffo]

I'm a bit more pessimistic about the current situation than you are...

Actually, I am not optimistic either. I don't think we will see peace in our generation. That's realistic and we just have to make the most of it ...

I think that right now the issue is not whether the Palestinians want 2 states/their own state/peace but rather if they can have their own state/guarantee peace. The truth is, even if Fatah and Israel agreed about everything there wouldn't be any assurances that this conflict would end because, well, Hamas rules half of the territories that will hopefully become the Palestinian state. And the last Gaza war didn't force Hamas to give concessions to Fatah on forming an unity government, it surely weakened Hamas but not enough for forcing them into agreeing to elections or at the very least declaring an end to the internal Palestinian division

I agree

I do believe that Israel could do a lot to improve prospects on peace

If you mean more concessions by Israel, then I don't agree. If you mean extending an olive branch by reiterating previous peace offers then I agree.

but IMHO right now the internal Palestinian division is the biggest obstacle to achieving peace: The Palestinians can't have a state as long as they have two governments, even if most Palestinians want to have a state and to leave in peace with Israel they can't do it as long as they have an army that could take over the country by force as we all saw in 2007...

Totally agree

IMHO this is a challenge for Obama, and I think he should have a Gaza policy, even if it's not public... Because as months go by, it seems that this Palestinian division is permanent, and if it is, then the game changes radically as achieving a deal with Fatah does not mean that the conflict ends or anything... And part of negotiations will be deciding what to do with Gaza

I don't think Obama has any interest in applying any real pressure on the Palestinian Arabs and certainly not publicly like it does to Israel. In fact, I believe that Obamas main agenda is to shift the US policy towards the Arabs, away from Israel. The idea of peace is only of secondary importance to him, maybe as a useful by-product if he can achieve it .... His main agenda is to appease the Muslim/Arab world, at the expense of Israel if necessary ...

Finally, I think Israel could still try to pursue peace, maybe not with the Palestinians, but with Syria... But that's a different story, of course

Yes, Israel should pursue peace with Syria but "pursue" is the operative word because with Obama's current policies, I don't see any Arab party, let alone Syria, being in the mood to offer any of the necessary compromises that could lead to peace ...

See, watOn? I am not optimistic at all, at least not in the short to medium term. However, in the long term, I AM optimistic if Israel will remain determined and if it's people will stand up for it's rights to security and peace. And I am pretty sure that they will be up to it and will NOT listen to the small vocal minority amongst them (like Gush Shalom) who are defeatist and preach negativity at every turn ...

[wat0n]

If you mean more concessions by Israel, then I don't agree. If you mean extending an olive branch by reiterating previous peace offers then I agree.

I do believe that Israel could give out some concessions, particularly regarding settlements.

I don't think Obama has any interest in applying any real pressure on the Palestinian Arabs and certainly not publicly like it does to Israel. In fact, I believe that Obamas main agenda is to shift the US policy towards the Arabs, away from Israel. The idea of peace is only of secondary importance to him, maybe as a useful by-product if he can achieve it .... His main agenda is to appease the Muslim/Arab world, at the expense of Israel if necessary ...

I don't think so, he is certainly not Bush II, but I don't think his main aim is to appease Muslims. I'd say that he believes that being more dovish will help the US to achieve its foreign policy aims, but it's not an end per se. If he has to become hawkish, I think he will...

Yes, Israel should pursue peace with Syria but "pursue" is the operative word because with Obama's current policies, I don't see any Arab party, let alone Syria, being in the mood to offer any of the necessary compromises that could lead to peace ...

See, watOn? I am not optimistic at all, at least not in the short to medium term. However, in the long term, I AM optimistic if Israel will remain determined and if it's people will stand up for it's rights to security and peace. And I am pretty sure that they will be up to it and will NOT listen to the small vocal minority amongst them (like Gush Shalom) who are defeatist and preach negativity at every turn ...

I think that Syria is particularly the case in which Obama may achieve some sort of success with a soft approach. Especially regarding help to solve their water problem (and economic aid in general).

[curlyg]

Actually, I am not optimistic either. I don't think we will see peace in our generation. That's realistic and we just have to make the most of it ...

Reffo we can't wait another generation. I know you and I don't agree on this but generally the longer we wait the less viable a separation of populations becomes and, consequently, the less likely a two state solution becomes.

Settlement building does not work as a pressuring mechanism. We have been building settlements for 40 years and it clearly hasn't worked to make the Palestinian position significantly more flexible.

We are wasting time. The Palestinians are never going to love us - more importantly, we don't need them to love us or expect them to love us. We just need a peace agreement built on two basic principles: separation of populations and effective mechanisms for ensuring Israeli security and Palestinian demilitarisation. Those are the two fundamental principles necessary for Israeli survival. Everything else -- including evacuating some outlying settlements and dividing Jerusalem and compromising on holy sites -- is subordinate. These things have historical value, but historical value does not outweigh the survival of Israel.

I don't think so, he is certainly not Bush II, but I don't think his main aim is to appease Muslims. I'd say that he believes that being more dovish will help the US to achieve its foreign policy aims, but it's not an end per se. If he has to become hawkish, I think he will...

He has been quite clear. His aim is to improve America's standing in the Arab and Muslim worlds, in large part because US troops are stationed there in significant numbers, and he sees the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian fighting as negatively affecting Arab public opinion on the US. And clearly he is not entirely wrong.

The point is that the way in which this US administration conceives of its interests in the Middle East lends itself to pressure on Israel and to appeasing the Muslim world. He might be willing to use limited military force (beyond what the US is already doing) in very limited circumstances, but you can see how his conception of the Middle East works against that.

[Reffo]

I do believe that Israel could give out some concessions, particularly regarding settlements

To what end? We have been there already and done that ... no good has ever come of it. Read my Post #202.

I don't think his main aim is to appease Muslims. I'd say that he believes that being more dovish will help the US to achieve its foreign policy aims, but it's not an end per se. If he has to become hawkish, I think he will...

Yes, he may become even more hawkish with Israel, not the Palestinian Arabs. Sorry watOn I couldn't resist that, I know that's NOT what you were saying but unfortunately I happen to think that it's so ...

I think that Syria is particularly the case in which Obama may achieve some sort of success with a soft approach. Especially regarding help to solve their water problem (and economic aid in general)

Let's just agree to disagree but having said that, I sincerely hope that you are right and that I am wrong ...

[Womble]

From Reffo's Post #201:

But the more pertinent question to ask is: WHY DIDN'T ABBAS ACCEPT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

I wasn't inclined to answer your question because I really don't know why. I have a theory though and since you put the question in CAPITAL BOLDS I gather that possible answers may be important for you.

My theory is that Abu Mazen did not accept it because he has no sense of humour.

You kindly provided a link to the map that illustrated Mr. Olmert's proposal for borders:

And here is the map that was presented to Abbas ...

Even a cursory look at that map leads one to reach the conclusion that it must have been a joke of our former PM

And what exactly was so wrong with it?

Moreover Mr. Olmert's aides said at the time that the map was shown to Mr. Abbas but "not given to him".

Because Abbas would not agree, in principle, to "end of conflict, end of claims" formula. Olmert's insanely far-reaching deal was an unacceptably dangerous gamble for the country, and he didn't want it to become the starting point, rather than the end point, of future bargaining.