How to defeat Obama

[Reffo]

My point is, settling the land was a mistake from the beginning, and while I do believe that it's reasonable for Israel to keep some big settlements and give some other land instead, I could also understand if Palestinians take this offer with a grain of salt if Israel still allows some settlements which it believes they should be removed as part of a deal to stay now.

Anyway, like I said, while it is an issue, it's not the main issue for now

I don't even want to go there, in some ways I agree in other ways I don't but it's entirely irrelevant because if we start listing mistakes then the Palestinian Arabs are guilty of at least as many mistakes and bigger ones at that but it's all history. We need to solve todays problems as they exist, for better or worse ...

Wait a second.... Let's say that 20 years from now, there will be 1,000,000 Israelis living scattered all over the WB. Is the two state solution a possibility? Would it be easier to achieve than now? Would Israel be in a better situation than it is now?

My answer are "I'm really doubtful", "Hell no", "Probably no"

It is easier today but it seems that the Palestinian Arabs don't want to compromise today. So what do you want to do about it, give in to every one of their demands? In any case, like I said, irrespective of what happens, Israel will never make the West Bank Arabs Israeli citizens. There are all sorts of other options ahead of that choice and the fact that those options will be unattractive to the Arabs will be their problem. They need to understand that fact NOW, to help them make the right decisions (compromises) in our time.

Time isn't on the Palestinian's side, but it's not on Israel's either...

I have already said that too. I don't think that it's too dramatic to say that so long that the current situation (no peace) exists in the Middle East, it is a time bomb waiting to explode. But our enemies either don't seem to understand the dangers to themselves too or they don't care. So, potentially we are heading for a lose lose situation in the long term but if we give in to their intransigence today, we will face a win lose situation in the future, a win for them and a loss for us. I know what my preference is, what's yours? I think, that like me, you too would prefer a win win solution (involving compromise) today, am I right?

Of course, there is a reasonable possibility that Israel will eventually get to win while the Arabs will lose if they remain intransigent. After all, petro dollars and oil will not be a factor forever.

[Aliyah1995]

Reffo-

By the way, I didn't realise that Netanyahu has agreed to release 1000 prisoners. If we will get Shalit back in return, I can see some rationale in it but if NOT then it's a big mistake ...

After the Kuntar fiasco, we should NOT release a single prisoner until Shalit is back in our hands, ALIVE and well. For the rest of the world to expect anything less for us and from Hamas, well let's just say

[Reffo]

Yes, I agree, the release of that BASTARD child murderer Kuntar was a disgrace. He has now married and is probably in the process of creating a dozen little Kuntars. If so, part of me wishes to do to him as he did to Israeli innocents. But of course that will never happen and perhaps it shouldn't either because we shouldn't aspire to be THEM ... But then again, we shouldn't aspire to be stupid either and releasing Kuntar and dozens of other terrorists in exchange for two dead Israeli soldiers (whom they probably deliberately murdered, before the "prisoner exchange" rather than allow them to return to Israel alive), was STUPID, to say the least ...

[wat0n]

I don't even want to go there, in some ways I agree in other ways I don't but it's entirely irrelevant because if we start listing mistakes then the Palestinian Arabs are guilty of at least as many mistakes and bigger ones at that but it's all history. We need to solve todays problems as they exist, for better or worse ...

I agree, but I'll ask you again: Do you believe the Palestinians have their reasons to doubt Israel's intentions if it keeps settlements that Israel itself said they would leave as part of a deal?

It is easier today but it seems that the Palestinian Arabs don't want to compromise today. So what do you want to do about it, give in to every one of their demands? In any case, like I said, irrespective of what happens, Israel will never make the West Bank Arabs Israeli citizens. There are all sorts of other options ahead of that choice and the fact that those options will be unattractive to the Arabs will be their problem. They need to understand that fact NOW, to help them make the right decisions (compromises) in our time.

No, I don't think Israel should give in to every demand. But I think Israel should at least slow settlement expansion: Their number (check), their perimeter (check) and their population (namely just allow for natural growth and that's it, not checked) and if you want, only for the settlements Israel itself has said it wants to keep as part of a deal (i.e. not the big ones) as it would still be an improvement I guess.

I know that unilateralism hasn't worked in the (recent) past, but I'm not saying Israel should withdraw its military from anywhere as it did in Gaza (big difference).

I have already said that too. I don't think that it's too dramatic to say that so long that the current situation (no peace) exists in the Middle East, it is a time bomb waiting to explode. But our enemies either don't seem to understand the dangers to themselves too or they don't care. So, potentially we are heading for a lose lose situation in the long term but if we give in to their intransigence today, we will face a win lose situation in the future, a win for them and a loss for us. I know what my preference is, what's yours? I think, that like me, you too would prefer a win win solution (involving compromise) today, am I right?

Of course, there is a reasonable possibility that Israel will eventually get to win while the Arabs will lose if they remain intransigent. After all, petro dollars and oil will not be a factor forever.

Yes I'd prefer win-win today. But I can also understand their grievances, and even if we can make the lose-lose situation to happen later than it could at the current pace, I think it's worth giving some concessions.

[dayag]

Because even if the majority of them is peaceful and tolerant, they can't stop the wingnut minority which would try to kill the Jews...

It is not your choice to make for them, Waton. If we all had your attitude, there would be no Jewish state. The first chalutzim returned to the land of Israel while it was under Ottoman rule.

You need to understand that even under the most mythological Palestinian demographics, we're talking about the legal "expulsion" of nearly a quarter of the population. That would make the Serbians blush.

Yes, apparently ethnic cleansing is only allowed against Jews and the whole world is on board. Situation normal.

[wat0n]

Reffo-



After the Kuntar fiasco, we should NOT release a single prisoner until Shalit is back in our hands, ALIVE and well. For the rest of the world to expect anything less for us and from Hamas, well let's just say

I agree.

[wat0n]

It is not your choice to make for them, Waton. If we all had your attitude, there would be no Jewish state. The first chalutzim returned to the land of Israel while it was under Ottoman rule.

Ok, but don't blame me if they get killed. As you say, it would be their choice...

Yes, if Jews had not taken huge risks, then there would be no Israel. But that doesn't mean we should be reckless or irrealistic.

Yes, apparently ethnic cleansing is only allowed against Jews and the whole world is on board. Situation normal.

I think it's more like "it's worse if Jews do *insert some bad action here* than if any other human group does the same thing".

[Reffo]

I agree, but I'll ask you again: Do you believe the Palestinians have their reasons to doubt Israel's intentions if it keeps settlements that Israel itself said they would leave as part of a deal?

I believe that most ordinary Palestinians are brainwashed to hate Israel and therefore they always believe the worst about Israel. I also believe that the Palestinian elites and the leaders know the score but some of them too are blinded by hatred of Israel and the rest are too afraid to rock the boat, it's just easier for them to go with the general flow (you might even say mass hysteria) of their society. In other words: The Palestinians are trapped by their own hatred of Israel which has been carefully nurtured for several generations ...

No, I don't think Israel should give in to every demand. But I think Israel should at least slow settlement expansion: Their number (check), their perimeter (check) and their population (namely just allow for natural growth and that's it, not checked) and if you want, only for the settlements Israel itself has said it wants to keep as part of a deal (i.e. not the big ones) as it would still be an improvement I guess.

I know that unilateralism hasn't worked in the (recent) past, but I'm not saying Israel should withdraw its military from anywhere as it did in Gaza (big difference).

Israel HAS STOPPED settlement expansion but that does NOT seem to be enough for the Palestinian Arabs, they insist on stopping building WITHIN the perimeters of existing settlements too. In other words, they are saying to Israel: "Screw your natural growth too ..."

Yes I'd prefer win-win today. But I can also understand their grievances, and even if we can make the lose-lose situation to happen later than it could at the current pace, I think it's worth giving some concessions

Me too but it seems that the Palestinian Arabs don't see it that way because they are now NOT even pretending that they want to compromise. Because of Obama's policies they feel themselves in the box seat and they are trying to dictate terms to Israel, with Obama's help. So if we give in, there won't be a win-win ... There will only be a win for them and a loss for us. And if that's the case, Israel may as well try for a win-lose situation in it's own favour, which at worst may turn out to be a lose-lose.

To me, at least that strategy is preferable to a lose-win outcome against Israel ....

[Reffo]

I'll ask you again: Do you believe the Palestinians have their reasons to doubt Israel's intentions if it keeps settlements that Israel itself said they would leave as part of a deal?

One more thing on this:

What I do believe is that the Palestinian Arabs have been using the issue of the "settlements" very successfully as propaganda to wrong-foot Israel in the international arena. WatOn, if they would be so worried about the "settlements", then why didn't they accept Ehud Olmert's peace offer in 2008? That would have resolved the issue of the settlements once and for all.

My belief is that the Palestinian's have an end game in mind which goes way beyond the settlements. My belief is that they still consider Israel itself as a settlement and all they have been doing is jerking everyone along to make Israel give up as much as possible, without them [the Palestinians] having to sign a peace deal in return. And at the end, after they would feel that they managed to squeeze out all the concessions that they can from Israel, they will trump up some excuse to riot so that they'll be able to continue their "struggle" to eliminate Israel (as they did in 2000 when Sharon visited the Jewish holy site - the temple mount and they did that right after Ehud Barak gave unprecedented concessions as part of his peace offer).

So, watOn, I'll turn your own question back at you:

Do you believe the Israelis have their reasons to doubt the Palestinian Arabs intentions if they keep rejecting major Israeli concessions especially since, the greater the concessions, the more vehemently the Palestinian Arabs reject it?

[wat0n]

So, watOn, I'll turn your own question back at you:

Do you believe the Israelis have their reasons to doubt the Palestinian Arabs intentions if they keep rejecting major Israeli concessions especially since, the greater the concessions, the more vehemently the Palestinian Arabs reject it?

Yes, Israelis do have good reasons not to trust the Palestinians and rejecting Barak's offer is one of them. And sadly enough, what you just said is not even the biggest reason for Israelis to take whatever Abbas promises with a grain of salt because honestly he can't really promise much.

My point is, there are no saints in this story. Israel could still do more trust-building, even though the Palestinians could do as much trust-building as Israel could (way more if we include Hamas and not just Fatah).

[Reffo]

watOn

Fair enough, I understand what you are saying but I must admit, I feel Israel is wasting it's time at the moment in trying to get through to the Palestinians.

Having said that, there is still the question of winning over public opinion in the international front. That is important too and Israel needs to do as much as necessary (and maybe even a bit more ) not to at least lose the battle on that front. But even that is hard and Obama is not helping ...

[Reffo]

watOn, curlyg

If some sort of peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs will ever eventuate, then this is how I envision how it will come about ...

First: They'll have to feel that they have something important to lose ...

Second: They'll have to feel that violence and war is hopeless for them and that it would only accelerate and exaggerate their loss ...

Third: They'll have to feel that no one out there will be there for them to do their bidding of forcing Israel's hands ...

In other words, the Palestinians will need to feel cornered and feel a sense of urgency to help THEMSELVES not to lose what is important to them. And they will need to feel that their ONLY OPTION is to compromise and conclude a formal peace deal with Israel.

The challenge beyond that will be to ensure that the Palestinians won't feel that they have new option/s to change their minds in the future after the conclusion of such a peace deal. But that's another story, let's get the first thing right first ...

Seems quite a tall order from where we are right NOW (unfortunately) ....

[wat0n]

watOn, curlyg

If some sort of peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs will ever eventuate, then this is how I envision how it will come about ...

First: They'll have to feel that they have something important to lose ...

Second: They'll have to feel that violence and war is hopeless for them and that it would only accelerate and exaggerate their loss ...

Third: They'll have to feel that no one out there will be there for them to do their bidding of forcing Israel's hands ...

In other words, the Palestinians will need to feel cornered and feel a sense of urgency to help THEMSELVES not to lose what is important to them. And they will need to feel that their ONLY OPTION is to compromise and conclude a formal peace deal with Israel.

The challenge beyond that will be to ensure that the Palestinians won't feel that they have new option/s to change their minds in the future after the conclusion of such a peace deal. But that's another story, let's get the first thing right first ...

Seems quite a tall order from where we are right NOW (unfortunately) ....

It's funny, I think this could apply for both sides. Now, the problem is that as long that one side is in the #3 state, the other can't be in the same state by definition...

I think that at least the Palestinians in the WB would also satisfy #2, and maybe #1 too. Israel satisfies #1 and #2 for sure, maybe #3 too. Regarding the Palestinians in Gaza, I don't know and maybe it doesn't matter given that Hamas controls the area (and if Hamas becomes more moderate, then it would stop being Hamas: They are unfortunately representing an important fraction of the Palestinians as well, the extremist one of course).

[curlyg]

Like I said, we have been there, done that .... what is it they say about the definition of insanity? Insanity is to keep trying to do the same thing and expecting a different outcome each time ... Of course in the unlikely event that on this occasion Obama will adopt your attitude that "the ball is in their court" and will formally/publicly chastise the Pal Arabs, if they don't respond, like he did Israel, then I might change my tune about Obama. In the meanwhile I and I hope many like me will be critical of him as loudly and as often as possible ... but let's be realistic, what are the chances that it will come about?

By the way, I didn't realise that Netanyahu has agreed to release 1000 prisoners. If we will get Shalit back in return, I can see some rationale in it but if NOT then it's a big mistake ...

There was an article saying so on Ynet but there has been no official announcement on Ynet. It has nothing to do with the Shalit deal - it is a good will gesture to Abbas not to Hamas.

[curlyg]

watOn, curlyg

If some sort of peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs will ever eventuate, then this is how I envision how it will come about ...

First: They'll have to feel that they have something important to lose ...

Second: They'll have to feel that violence and war is hopeless for them and that it would only accelerate and exaggerate their loss ...

Third: They'll have to feel that no one out there will be there for them to do their bidding of forcing Israel's hands ...

In other words, the Palestinians will need to feel cornered and feel a sense of urgency to help THEMSELVES not to lose what is important to them. And they will need to feel that their ONLY OPTION is to compromise and conclude a formal peace deal with Israel.

The challenge beyond that will be to ensure that the Palestinians won't feel that they have new option/s to change their minds in the future after the conclusion of such a peace deal. But that's another story, let's get the first thing right first ...

Seems quite a tall order from where we are right NOW (unfortunately) ....

1. I would agree. That is just basic realpolitik. But the inverse is also true, meaning that if they have something important to gain they have an incentive to talk, which in the grand scheme of things is clearly the case. At the moment we have a tactical pause on their part because they think they can extract better terms from Obama, but overall the broader trend of this conflict has been towards a realisation by both parties than a negotiated agreement of some form is mutually beneficial in different ways.

2. This is a subset of (1) in that they have to feel that negotiations are preferable to force as a means of making gains or avoiding losses. This is clearly a realisation which the PA has come to, which is why you see people like Fayyad trying to foster a more popular civil opposition to Israel e.g. by burning settlement goods and so on, but at the same time the Palestinian Security Forces doing a decent job of maintaining order and clamping down on arms distribution and militant groups.

3. Again, this is just one factor of (1). They're holding out for Obama to give them a better deal than they could negotiate with Israel because of the obvious power imbalance. This is why Obama's approach to the conflict has been like a bottle of cyanide to the already failing peace process. He simply failed to anticipate the scale of the effect which his Arab/Islamic appeasing verbal diarrhea would have, thinking that events like the Cairo Speech were just symbolic hot air and not foreseeing their very real effects.

--------

But as I said in the grand scheme of things the direction in which this conflict has been headed for some time is towards the realisation that the two state solution is really the only viable possibility and I think that this is a reality which has come to be accepted, albeit grudgingly, on both sides including among the more hard line elements.

Hamas doesn't really fit so neatly into this calculus though because they thrive in conflict situations, both in terms of support and in terms of financing from foreign states as backers, and don't really have much to gain from a peace deal at this stage. Incidentally as much as one might hate Hamas and what they stand for on an ideological/political level there is no doubt that they have been a highly effective government in terms of successfully imposing their will as a government not only upon the people but also upon other armed factions, and doing so without the extensive training and support which Fatah has received from the US. I mean, when you consider the fact that Fatah's budget is 10 times that of Hamas and yet Fatah is only ahead in the polls by 3-4% you know that there is a very serious problem with their administration, which has only really begun improving these past few years under Fayyad (who is not from Fatah). There is a bigger issue of Hamas actually being able to exert its authority over all of Gaza whereas Fatah's power is highly fragmented because of Israeli settlements and military control which divide up the territory and make competent administration extremely difficult even under a decent government such as the current one.

Also I think we need to think ahead about how we are going to manage the day after a hypothetical peace deal. There are some aspects of the status quo which are significantly more desirable than ordinary relations with our neighbors. Some of the issues that I think need consideration are:

(1) Would there be significant illegal immigration from Palestine? How would Israel deal with it?

(2) How would we deal with the possibility of tourism from the Arab world from a security standpoint? I mean, do we really want a million Arab tourists visiting Israel even in a situation of "peace"?

(3) How would we deal with the fact that Arab countries will be significantly more capable of penetrating Israel from an espionage perspective, e.g. by Israeli Arabs visiting what are now "enemy states" and making contact, or by Arab "tourists" visiting local Israeli Arabs with no obstacles?

(4) How would we go about preventing Israeli Arabs who marry Palestinians or Arabs from other countries from bringing their spouse and family into Israel?

These are the types of questions which I think are far more significant than whether or not we will keep one settlement more or less in a hypothetical peace deal.