How to defeat Obama

[curlyg]

Illustrating the point I made earlier about our lack of resources compared to our enemies:

I spoke to my Professor for the Middle East today, he's told me that the Saudi minister of education is coming to my University next week, and everybody is falling over themselves to get a piece of the Saudi petrodollar pie to fund their department/centre/etc. In addition, places will be reserved for Saudi students, no doubt bought off regardless of their academic performance.

[Jorge]

Posted by redcake #393 in answer to my # 387:

Well I don't think "their peaceniks" exist, despite the moniker. What they're supporting, knowing or unknowingly, is not peace, at all. It's our peaceniks who validate their rhetoric. They will look for Jews for validation that they're not siding with antisemites. That influence is far greater than you've given credit. The Israeli right wing platform isn't too far from the Peace Now platform.

The very idea of negotiating with Palestinian Arabs was considered a ludicrous extreme position of the most radical left, all through the 80's when it was illegal. Today the idea of peace negotiations is standard operation, and we have all leaned towards the peacenik, while the Kach party platform on the opposite side of the spectrum, is outlawed. Well, the peacism isn't working out, and so you're seeing a move towards a reinvented Kahanist-light, but by and large, the predominant influence is entirely the peacenik one.

We now have the fake JStreet. We have Obama committing to anti-nuke accords targeting Israel. It's pretty clear that "peace" is simply strategically about weakening Israel's chances at survival, and yes, that's what's on the table. If Israel takes a heavy hit, the predominant sentiment in the world, will be that they earned it, that it could have been avoided had they only respected human rights, and the UN, and offered real concessions and real treaties, that they should have demilitarized.....etc. We already know what the party line is from Soros and Chomsky - Israel puts Jews around the world in danger, and that antisemitism would not exist if Israel did not exist.

Redcake: although I disagree with your views I must admit that you rise in the above Post points that are not easy to refute; nevertheless I'll give it a try:

Starting with "The very idea of negotiating with Palestinian Arabs was considered a ludicrous extreme position of the most radical left, all through the 80's when it was illegal. Today the idea of peace negotiations is standard operation… "

This is quite true. What was considered short of treason in the days of, say, Golda Meir, is now integral part of the discourse of every Israeli government, even of right-wing ones. Some in the so-called Peace Camp see this shift as a victory, evidence that their views have finally managed to prevail. I and others don't see it that way because, if it were so, -- why is it that, as you rightly say, "peacism isn't working out"?

The standard answer to that question is that it's not working out because, although we are committed to a peaceful solution, the Palestinians aren't. The lack of success of a negotiated solution based on the two-state formula is to be ascribed entirely to Palestinian unwillingness to compromise.

The notion that Israel is "committed to negotiations" but that "we have no partner" has become part of a narrative widely accepted by the Israeli public.
The acceptance of such a narrative is, IMO, a huge achievement of the Right. It has weakened the Left because the notion was advanced by former leftists (like Ben-Ami, Barak, Herzog, Peres, etc) and strengthened the supporters of a bi-national state. More importantly, it has given the Right the possibility of continuing its Agenda of annexation while outwardly appearing all too ready for "painful concessions".

Quite clever really… To appear as a dove and in practice to behave like a hawk.

Thus I come back to your assertion: it is not so much that the Right has adopted the "peacenick's" platform but that it has found convenient to appear willing to negotiate while, in practice, ensuring that a two-state solution becomes every year less and less practicable.

The main problem with the official narrative is that it doesn't fit at all with the official policy of tolerating and even supporting the settlement's enterprise. It is not the settlers that are inconsistent; they have their ideology and they are quite open and honest about it. What is inconsistent is the said narrative, because… if we are willing to return the territories why to allow the settlements to expand continuously?

Which brings me to another question… You write that: " It's pretty clear that "peace" is simply strategically about weakening Israel's chances at survival…". If you allow me to change your "peace" term (which is too vague for my taste) for a negotiated agreement resulting in the establishment of a viable Palestinian State –how would that weaken Israel's chances at survival?

PS. I am aware of having sinned by using loose terms like Right, Left, peacenicks , peacism, etc. But going into semantic disquisitions would make my posts even longer than this one.

[Reffo]

The notion that Israel is "committed to negotiations" but that "we have no partner" has become part of a narrative widely accepted by the Israeli public.
The acceptance of such a narrative is, IMO, a huge achievement of the Right. It has weakened the Left because the notion was advanced by former leftists (like Ben-Ami, Barak, Herzog, Peres, etc) and strengthened the supporters of a bi-national state. More importantly, it has given the Right the possibility of continuing its Agenda of annexation while outwardly appearing all too ready for "painful concessions".

Quite clever really… To appear as a dove and in practice to behave like a hawk.

Thus I come back to your assertion: it is not so much that the Right has adopted the "peacenick's" platform but that it has found convenient to appear willing to negotiate while, in practice, ensuring that a two-state solution becomes every year less and less practicable.

The main problem with the official narrative is that it doesn't fit at all with the official policy of tolerating and even supporting the settlement's enterprise. It is not the settlers that are inconsistent; they have their ideology and they are quite open and honest about it. What is inconsistent is the said narrative, because… if we are willing to return the territories why to allow the settlements to expand continuously?

This type of thinking is sad, really sad ....

Once again it is the fault of the damn clever "rightists" that there is no peace .... And Jorge has a ready answer to brush off the obvious question:

Why didn't Arafat and then Abbas refuse to accept the peace offers made by Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert? Which coincidentally were the same offers that Jorge himself seemed to endorse (see my post #420)

Jorge's standard answer in the past, to the above question, has been that by the time those offers were made, the Prime Ministers who made those offers (the two Ehuds) were lame duck prime ministers.

I don't know why though (is it just me?) but somehow that pat answer just does not satisfy me because it just does not seem to exonerate the Palestinian Arab leaders (Arafat and Abbas) who refused to accept the offers. Firstly, because had they accepted the offers they would have demonstrated THEIR peaceful intentions, irrespective of whatever would have happened afterwards. In fact, there would have been two possible outcomes:

1. The prospects of peace would have inspired Israeli voters to re-elect the left wing government. That surely would have been a win for the Palestinians too if they would have really been interested in peace, isn't that so, Jorge?
   
2. Conversely, the Israeli voters would still have been duped by the "evil right wingers" and would have kicked out the Ehud/s, thereby proving Jorge's assertion that those Israeli Prime Ministers who offered those peace terms were just lame duck Prime Ministers. But had the Pal leaders accepted the offers, that would have still made them look good and it would have gained them recognition as supporters of peace, surely a win for them, no,Jorge ...?

Sadly though, neither Arafat, nor Abbas saw it that way so we will never know what would have happened had the Pal Arab leaders said YES. I suppose it could be argued that they were just too dumb to recognize the opportunity to look and actually be good ... be supporters of peace ....

Personally, I don't believe that because I don't believe that either Arafat or Abbas were/are that dumb. I believe in the theory of accepting the obvious simple explanation which is that Arafat and Abbas did NOT consider the peace offers to be acceptable and that's why they did NOT say YES ...

And another question that I asked, which Jorge seems to avoid answering (as if it was the plague), is this: If such a peace offer (Ehud Olmert's) would really be acceptable to Abbas, why doesn't he just come out and say so? Surely, that would achieve the dual purpose of making him [Abbas] look like a REAL partner for peace and it would also put pressure on Netanyahu to accept the deal or risk looking like the conniving extremist that many of his enemies claim him to be.

Add all of that up and to me at least, the answer is obvious: Abbas is not interested in the type of peace that even the likes of Jorge seem to endorse. And given that such a deal is as far as most Israelis would be willing to offer and no more, it seems to me that "the evil rightists" are right (pardon the pun) when they claim that Israel has no peace partner ...

Oh and I nearly forgot to mention the most important thing: Had the Palestinian Arab leadership accepted those peace offers and had those peace deals subsequently been implemented, the dual issues of "the settlements" and the "occupation" would be a thing of the past by now. Either that, or "the evil Israeli rightists" would have been left high and dry and could be pilloried mercilessly by everyone (even the likes of me) except their own kind (doesn't it sound like utopia, Jorge?) Yet it seems that even that prospect did not entice either Arafat or Abbas to say yes to the peace offers. Why Jorge? Surely there is only one answer to that: They did/do NOT want such a peace with Israel, so how much further would you [when I say "you", I mean Gush Shalom] be prepared to go to appease them Jorge? ....

[Reffo]

....and strengthened the supporters of a bi-national state ...

And this comment of Jorge's is just beyond funny. He keeps on referring to "rightists" as "supporters of a bi-national state" ....

Of course, that pre-supposes that with the growth of "the settlements", which by the way, are not even growing, Israel would eventually either have to accept the Arabs of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) as Israeli citizens or preside over a restive Arab population harshly and undemocratically ...

Of course, Jorge would not even entertain the third possibility which is that the Arabs of Judea and Samaria will eventually be forced to sign a peace deal with Israel (no matter how long that will take) and then they would end up being citizens of their own respective country or countries, be it the Palestinistan, Jordan, or Hamastan or even Egypt (in the case of Gaza), but definitely NOT Israel ...

[Reffo]

The notion that Israel is "committed to negotiations" but that "we have no partner" has become part of a narrative widely accepted by the Israeli public.
The acceptance of such a narrative is, IMO, a huge achievement of the Right. It has weakened the Left because the notion was advanced by former leftists (like Ben-Ami, Barak, Herzog, Peres, etc)

Interesting that Jorge calls the likes of Ben Ami and others as "former leftists". It seems that anyone who does not tow the line that Israel is at fault that there is no peace is relegated to be a former leftist. Oh well, cest lavie, such is life ...

I wonder what Jorge and Gush Shalom call the Palestinian Muslim Arab journalist, Khaled Abu Toameh, who also says that the current Palestinian Arab leadership is not ready to make peace with Israel ....

Middle East: "Proximity Talks" Benefit Hamas and Iran

The Obama Administration is making a mistake forcing Israel and the Palestinian Authority to discuss “core” issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, borders and settlements when the two sides are crying out that the gap between them on these explosive topics remains as wide as ever.

There is no doubt that the talks will fail. Mahmoud Abbas and Fayyad will be the first to pay the price because Palestinians will turn to them and demand that they stop talking about peace and coexistence with Israel. The only ones who will benefit from this are Hamas and its friends in Tehran and Damascus. The “proximity talks” will eventually undermine the moderates and boost the extremists among the Palestinians.

By insisting on putting the issues of Jerusalem and refugees on the table, the Obama Administration is placing Israelis and Palestinians on the course of collision

This is what Toameh said about why Arafat did not say yes to Barak's peace offer in Camp David and Taba

Arafat did not want to go down in history as the Arab and Muslim leader who gave up parts of Jerusalem to the Jews. On the contrary, he had always sought to depict himself as the modern Salah Eddin Al-Ayoubi, the Muslim warrior who drove the Crusaders out of the Holy Land.

Similarly, Arafat did not want future generations of Arabs and Muslims to condemn him for relinquishing the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees to their original villages inside Israel

And this is how he is comparing history to what is happening today ...

Arafat returned home from Camp David with the message that Israel does not want peace because of its refusal to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders and the Palestinians’ other demands, first and foremost the “right of return.”

Now President Obama is repeating the same mistake. The “core” issues of Jerusalem, refugees, settlements and borders are once again on the table - this time at the US-sponsored “proximity” talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

For the talks to succeed, both sides need to make concessions not only on Jerusalem and the refugees, but also on a variety of sensitive topics. As it appears now, neither Abbas nor Binyamin Netanyahu is in a position to make far-reaching concessions

I guess, Jorge might go easier on Toameh because he balances what he says about today's Pali leadership with what he says about Netanyahu ... Then again, I predict that Jorge will just be too busy to reply.

[Jorge]

Quotes from Reffo's Post # 423:

"Once again it is the fault of the damn clever "rightists" that there is no peace .... "

Well… I wouldn't put it so strongly as in the sentence you appear to impute to me, but I would go as far as saying that Israel has had (since 1967) a very large share of the responsibility of not having reached an agreement with the Palestinians.

Incidentally, the term "damn clever rightists" in the above quote is not mine. How could they be "damn clever" if they do not realize that they are leading Israel through the wrong path?

And Jorge has a ready answer to brush off the obvious question:
Why did(n't) Arafat and then Abbas refuse to accept the peace offers made by Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert? Which coincidentally were the same offers that Jorge himself seemed to endorse (see my post #420)
Jorge's standard answer in the past, to the above question, has been that by the time those offers were made, the Prime Ministers who made those offers (the two Ehuds) were lame duck prime ministers.

( I took the liberty to correct the 'didn't" a mistake you must have done without noticing it. )
Glad you used "that Jorge seemed to endorse" . Thing is that although I endorsed at the time Mr. Barak's proposals, I've never endorsed Mr. Olmert's ones. The latter for the simplest reason that I don't quite know what was proposed by Mr. Olmert and/or Mrs. Livni. If the partition map that you quoted was really a serious offer (which I doubt) then I wouldn't have endorsed it.

"Lame duck" prime ministers is a good description of their status at the time of the "negotiations". (I'll eventually get back to this)

I don't know why though (is it just me?) but somehow that pat answer just does not satisfy me because it just does not seem to exonerate the Palestinian Arab leaders (Arafat and Abbas) who refused to accept the offers. Firstly, because had they accepted the offers they would have demonstrated THEIR peaceful intentions,

Reffo: if you don't mind, for reasons to be dealt with later on, I'd rather not put the Arafat-Barak situation in the same bag as that of the Abbas-Olmert one. That said, Arafat's refusal does not exonerate him for his part in the failure. He could have highlighted the Palestinian points in a much clearer way and propose alternative ways of continuing negotiations after Barak's exit from the stage. He didn't... and left everyone wondering what the Palestinian position was.

But, following your argument –"what if he had accepted Barak's terms?" Since Mr.Barak was on his way out, someone in Israel would have had to ratify said agreement. Mr. Barak at the time had no majority in the Knesset, nor a strong backing in public opinion, he was effectively finished as PM … that's why "lame duck' is a good description. In all likelihood the agreement would not have been ratified. Mr. Arafat would have been left in the dubious position of a leader willing to renounce to any claims of Right of Return for the sake of some sheets of paper which were worthless.

For a Palestinian leader to agree to throw overboard the clause of return of refugees, he'd have to show that he has concluded good terms in the other core issues. Even so, it would require of him considerable courage as a leader. Mr. Arafat wasn't suited for that role. IMHO, Abbu Mazen has more caliber, after all, he was responsible for the Geneva Accords which implied a de facto disownment of that issue.
To be continued…

[Jorge]

Quote from Reffo's Post #424:

And this comment of Jorge's is just beyond funny. He keeps on referring to "rightists" as "supporters of a bi-national state" ....

Of course, that pre-supposes that with the growth of "the settlements", which by the way, are not even growing, Israel would eventually either have to accept the Arabs of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) as Israeli citizens or preside over a restive Arab population harshly and undemocratically ...

Reffo: I am sorry it looks funny to you but I believe in all seriousness that any sector that opposes negotiations or looks around for any possible excuses for not negotiating right now is conducing the process towards the inevitability of a bi-national state. Since, in the case of Israel, that has been the consistent position of the Right, it would follow that the "rightists" are "supporters of a bi-national state".

Of course, Jorge would not even entertain the third possibility which is that the Arabs of Judea and Samaria will eventually be forced to sign a peace deal with Israel (no matter how long that will take) and then they would end up being citizens of their own respective country or countries, be it the Palestinistan, Jordan, or Hamastan or even Egypt (in the case of Gaza), but definitely NOT Israel ...

Not at all… I would entertain the third possibility you mention… moreover, I am quite willing to analyze it.

That possibility, in the form you put it, contains several elements: that the Palestinians could eventually be forced to sign a peace deal; that the passage of time is immaterial (no matter how long that will take) and, that for Palestinians, it is (or could in the future) irrelevant whether they are annexed by Jordan or Egypt or exercise their right to self-determination.

It looks to me that your "third possibility" is based on the assumption that at a certain point in the future the Palestinians will arrive to the conclusion that theirs is a lost cause and that their only option is to accept a "peace deal" on Israeli terms, to accept either being incorporated to another Arab country or opt for citizenship in a Palestinian State established on whatever areas have not been annexed by Israel at that nebulous point in the future. In short… unconditional surrender.

Of course, possibilities being possibilities, one could gamble on it and it looks to me that all those that favor the 'doing-nothing approach" are placing strong bets on it.

I tend to think that it is too risky and I wouldn't bet on it. What if they don't surrender unconditionally? Then Israel would be faced with the two alternatives you mention above: to grant them Israeli citizenship or to rule "harshly and undemocratically" over them.

What if they do surrender eventually but it takes them another 40 years to do so? (They have been at it for more than 40 years already without showing any willingness to surrender) Then Israel would have been ruling "harshly and undemocratically" over a subjected population for close to one hundred years.

Of course, one tenet within the "third possibility' is that time is immaterial. "Whatever long it takes" underlies the assumption that not only all other things being equal but that also all other things will keep on being equal. It is of course possible that it may happen but, from what we know of our world, are they plausible assumptions?

======
Finally, from Reffo's Post # 425:

Then again, I predict that Jorge will just be too busy to reply.

Your prediction is right on the spot this time. I'm about to set off to beautiful Lugano and I'll be too busy to reply for close to a fortnight

[Womble]

Quote from Reffo's Post #424:

And this comment of Jorge's is just beyond funny. He keeps on referring to "rightists" as "supporters of a bi-national state" ....

Of course, that pre-supposes that with the growth of "the settlements", which by the way, are not even growing, Israel would eventually either have to accept the Arabs of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) as Israeli citizens or preside over a restive Arab population harshly and undemocratically ...

Reffo: I am sorry it looks funny to you but I believe in all seriousness that any sector that opposes negotiations or looks around for any possible excuses for not negotiating right now is conducing the process towards the inevitability of a bi-national state. Since, in the case of Israel, that has been the consistent position of the Right, it would follow that the "rightists" are "supporters of a bi-national state".

Of course, Jorge would not even entertain the third possibility which is that the Arabs of Judea and Samaria will eventually be forced to sign a peace deal with Israel (no matter how long that will take) and then they would end up being citizens of their own respective country or countries, be it the Palestinistan, Jordan, or Hamastan or even Egypt (in the case of Gaza), but definitely NOT Israel ...

Not at all… I would entertain the third possibility you mention… moreover, I am quite willing to analyze it.

That possibility, in the form you put it, contains several elements: that the Palestinians could eventually be forced to sign a peace deal; that the passage of time is immaterial (no matter how long that will take) and, that for Palestinians, it is (or could in the future) irrelevant whether they are annexed by Jordan or Egypt or exercise their right to self-determination.

It looks to me that your "third possibility" is based on the assumption that at a certain point in the future the Palestinians will arrive to the conclusion that theirs is a lost cause and that their only option is to accept a "peace deal" on Israeli terms, to accept either being incorporated to another Arab country or opt for citizenship in a Palestinian State established on whatever areas have not been annexed by Israel at that nebulous point in the future. In short… unconditional surrender.

Of course, possibilities being possibilities, one could gamble on it and it looks to me that all those that favor the 'doing-nothing approach" are placing strong bets on it.

I tend to think that it is too risky and I wouldn't bet on it. What if they don't surrender unconditionally? Then Israel would be faced with the two alternatives you mention above: to grant them Israeli citizenship or to rule "harshly and undemocratically" over them.

What if they do surrender eventually but it takes them another 40 years to do so? (They have been at it for more than 40 years already without showing any willingness to surrender) Then Israel would have been ruling "harshly and undemocratically" over a subjected population for close to one hundred years.

Of course, one tenet within the "third possibility' is that time is immaterial. "Whatever long it takes" underlies the assumption that not only all other things being equal but that also all other things will keep on being equal. It is of course possible that it may happen but, from what we know of our world, are they plausible assumptions?

But given all of the above, what reason do the Palestinians have to make a deal?

Your case, Jorge, boils down to argument from desperation. You feel that time is running out on Israel and that Israel must obtain a peace agreement at all costs.

This is a position that sets Israel up for total loss, because if time is running out on Israel, then all the Palestinians need to do is drag the process on and on. Which is precisely what Abbas is aiming for- endless negotiations and increasing Israeli concessions while avoiding signing up to any formula that puts definable limits on Palestinian demands. During the twenty years of peace process, Israel's negotiation position has changed tremendously, always towards a greater compromise, while the Palestinian position has changed marginally and always towards escalating demands. Continuing this trend will predictably result in repeats of Camp David- every time the negotiations approach anything resembling a solution, the Palestinians will blow them up under one pretext or another.

The Palestinians make no secret of the fact that they're gambling on patience. "Allah is on the side of the patient", said one of the Hamas leaders. But the way to defeat an opponent who gambles on patience is not with desperation but with greater patience.

I don't believe that time is running out on Israel. On the contrary, it is the Palestinians who are worse off by the day, and the settlement enterprise, of which I'm not generally a fan, is one of the factors in determining whose side time is on. The gradual loss of land is perhaps the only thing that can force the Palestinians to accept an "end of conflict, end of claims" formula of any kind.

I understand why you're terrified of the possibility that Israel may have to maintain the military rule over the Palestinians for decades to come. I actually thing it can take longer still. Breaking the perception that Israel is an error of history and an aberration that will one day vanish off the face of the earth may require that Israel outlasts the Crusader kingdoms- that's a couple of hundred years. But gloomy as that perspective is, it may be the only way so long as the Arab world maintans the hope of succeeding in destroying us.

The fears of the "inevitability of the binational state" ring hollow to me. Foreign whining notwithstanding, there's no reason why Israel would be compelled to absorb the West Bank or Gaza population and grant them citizenship. On the other hand, attempting to desperately rush towards a solution can actually worsen the demographic situation. Every time the talk begins about dividing Jerusalem, the Arabs of the city's east hurry to purchase or rent homes on the western side. Should it become a real possibility, I predict that all of the east Jerusalem's 200 000 Arab residents will prefer moving to the western side rather than lose the bituah leumi and healthcare and end up governed by the thugs from Ramallah. Moreover, in the framework of the "peace process", regardless of whether or not it will eventually yield anything whatsoever in terms of solutions, it will be demanded that Israel liberalize immigration procedures for Palestinians and accept "symbolic" numbers of "refugees" in the tens of thousands. If your position is motivated by demography concerns, I don't see how your prescribed course of action would help alleviate it.

[Reffo]

I'll start with Jorge's last bit first (I have a reason ...)

Then again, I predict that Jorge will just be too busy to reply.

Your prediction is right on the spot this time. I'm about to set off to beautiful Lugano and I'll be too busy to reply for close to a fortnight

And this is the question that Jorge chose to ignore for the second time:

so how much further would you [when I say "you", I mean Gush Shalom] be prepared to go to appease them Jorge? ....

The first time, I asked Jorge a direct question about his vision of what the peace terms SHOULD BE, instead of answering, he told me to search for his answer on this site, which I did and indeed found an answer and presented it for his confirmation. I now asked him to tell me how much further is he willing to go to appease the Palestinian Arabs .... and his response is ? A postponement of the response ... what a surprise ... must be hard to answer that question but it's much easier to criticise the "damn clever rightists" for saying that Israel has NO peace partner ....

PS
It IS interesting though that Jorge seemed to have found the time to respond to many of my other points, OK .... NUH .... I better respond to his ones in return ....

Well… I wouldn't put it so strongly as in the sentence you appear to impute to me, but I would go as far as saying that Israel has had (since 1967) a very large share of the responsibility of not having reached an agreement with the Palestinians

Does that mean that the Palestinians too share the blame, Jorge?

( I took the liberty to correct the 'didn't" a mistake you must have done without noticing it. )

Thank you.

Glad you used "that Jorge seemed to endorse" . Thing is that although I endorsed at the time Mr. Barak's proposals, I've never endorsed Mr. Olmert's ones. The latter for the simplest reason that I don't quite know what was proposed by Mr. Olmert and/or Mrs. Livni. If the partition map that you quoted was really a serious offer (which I doubt) then I wouldn't have endorsed it

It's easy to dismiss something as not serious but much harder to explain why, huh Jorge?

Reffo: if you don't mind, for reasons to be dealt with later on, I'd rather not put the Arafat-Barak situation in the same bag as that of the Abbas-Olmert one. That said, Arafat's refusal does not exonerate him for his part in the failure. He could have highlighted the Palestinian points in a much clearer way and propose alternative ways of continuing negotiations after Barak's exit from the stage. He didn't... and left everyone wondering what the Palestinian position was

Oh .... his position was very clear .... remember the Intifadah? And I clearly remember an interview with Arafat (as if it was yesterday) when he answered a question about Ehud Barak (yes in English), he said about him, I remember his exact words: "Go to the hell ...."

And the other thing that he made very clear was his demand on the so called right of return. It was very clear that Arafat was no peace partner no matter how much Gush Shalom-niks try to pretend otherwise ...

But, following your argument –"what if he had accepted Barak's terms?" Since Mr.Barak was on his way out, someone in Israel would have had to ratify said agreement

True ... and one possibility would have been that it would be Ehud Barak himself because had Arafat said yes, and with the prospects of peace, Ehud Barak may have been re-elected by Israeli voters. Admittedly it was only a possibility but we will never really know because Arafat did NOT say yes because he was not a partner for peace ...

Mr. Barak at the time had no majority in the Knesset, nor a strong backing in public opinion, he was effectively finished as PM … that's why "lame duck' is a good description. In all likelihood the agreement would not have been ratified. Mr. Arafat would have been left in the dubious position of a leader willing to renounce to any claims of Right of Return for the sake of some sheets of paper which were worthless.

For a Palestinian leader to agree to throw overboard the clause of return of refugees, he'd have to show that he has concluded good terms in the other core issues. Even so, it would require of him considerable courage as a leader. Mr. Arafat wasn't suited for that role

Thank you Jorge, you have just confirmed the "Right of Return" demand as an obstacle to peace.

You have also confirmed that the rightists were right (pardon the pun) about Arafat in saying that he was not a partner for peace.

Last but not least, I have to ask you this: Can Israel's rightist leaders use the types of excuses that you make for Arafat too? Can they too say that they cannot make concessions because Abbas is a weak leader who would not be able to deliver peace anyway (because of Hamas)? Can Netanyahu too say that he hasn't got the courage to take on the settlers if he won't be able to show any results for it ...? Or does that ype of excuse making only works when it comes to Palestinian Arabs?

IMHO, Abbu Mazen has more caliber, after all, he was responsible for the Geneva Accords which implied a de facto disownment of that issue.
To be continued…

I am not sure how to take this one. My initial reaction is just to laugh it off .... That statement of yours, Jorge, smacks of a religious affirmation of faith in Abbas. There is nothing that this man has done to date, other than empty words (if that) that can back up that faith. In fact, even his words contradict your claim Jorge. Here are just three reasons (off the top of my head):

1. He refuses to recognize Israel as the state for the Jewish people
2. He too, like Arafat, insists on the so called right of return
3. He insists that Israel should return to the 1967 boundaries which Aba Eban, who was an arch dove, called the Auschwitz borders ...

And what about Abbas's actual deeds? He called off the negotiations because Israel finally did something about the rockets from Gaza. He refused to continue negotiations subsequently and excused his refusal by setting pre-conditions for negotiations. And even now, after some pressure from Obama (presumably) he is only willing to conduct indirect negotiations (back to the future remember the good old days Jorge? When the Arabs refused to sit at the same table with Israelis?) for 4 months ... He does NOT sound to me like he is a serious partner for peace. I am afraid I have to agree with Israel's "evil rightists" ....

[Reffo]

And this comment of Jorge's is just beyond funny. He keeps on referring to "rightists" as "supporters of a bi-national state" ....

Of course, that pre-supposes that with the growth of "the settlements", which by the way, are not even growing, Israel would eventually either have to accept the Arabs of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) as Israeli citizens or preside over a restive Arab population harshly and undemocratically ...

Reffo: I am sorry it looks funny to you but I believe in all seriousness that any sector that opposes negotiations or looks around for any possible excuses for not negotiating right now is conducing the process towards the inevitability of a bi-national state. Since, in the case of Israel, that has been the consistent position of the Right, it would follow that the "rightists" are "supporters of a bi-national state"

Excuse me Jorge but when you say "any sector that opposes negotiations or looks around for any possible excuses for not negotiating right now", that sounds to me as if you are talking about Abbas ..... really, Jorge, haven't you been reading the news lately?

Of course, Jorge would not even entertain the third possibility which is that the Arabs of Judea and Samaria will eventually be forced to sign a peace deal with Israel (no matter how long that will take) and then they would end up being citizens of their own respective country or countries, be it the Palestinistan, Jordan, or Hamastan or even Egypt (in the case of Gaza), but definitely NOT Israel ...

Not at all… I would entertain the third possibility you mention… moreover, I am quite willing to analyze it.

That possibility, in the form you put it, contains several elements: that the Palestinians could eventually be forced to sign a peace deal; that the passage of time is immaterial (no matter how long that will take) and, that for Palestinians, it is (or could in the future) irrelevant whether they are annexed by Jordan or Egypt or exercise their right to self-determination.

It looks to me that your "third possibility" is based on the assumption that at a certain point in the future the Palestinians will arrive to the conclusion that theirs is a lost cause and that their only option is to accept a "peace deal" on Israeli terms

If you consider Ehud Barak's terms (or even Ehud Olmert's about which you seem to be in a state of denial) as "Israel's terms", then you are absolutely right. Why, would they/you have a problem with those terms, Jorge?

to accept either being incorporated to another Arab country or opt for citizenship in a Palestinian State established on whatever areas have not been annexed by Israel at that nebulous point in the future. In short… unconditional surrender

I just mentioned them becoming part of an Arab country, as they used to be, as one possibility. I don't really care whether that happens or not, it's entirely up to them. But what I do care about is that they SHOULD NOT BE part of Israel which you seem to accept as a possibility. And that's the bit that I don't understand. You seem to reject the possibility that the Muslim, Palestinian ARABS could be integrated into another Muslim ARAB country (culture) yet you uncritically accept the possibility that they could be incorporated into a Hebrew Jewish state, STRANGE bit of logic ....

Of course, possibilities being possibilities, one could gamble on it and it looks to me that all those that favor the 'doing-nothing approach" are placing strong bets on it

Doing nothing for a while .... in other words: WAITING ..... is better than doing the WRONG THING, think of it that way, Jorge .....

I tend to think that it is too risky and I wouldn't bet on it. What if they don't surrender unconditionally?

You mean what if they don't accept the type of peace offered by the Clinton parameters as offered by Ehud Barak (and Ehud Olmert)? Then things would have to continue as they are .... unless of course you have a better solution, Jorge? [when I say "you" I mean Gush Shalom .....]

Then Israel would be faced with the two alternatives you mention above: to grant them Israeli citizenship or to rule "harshly and undemocratically" over them

The answer is obvious, do whatever is necessary to contain them till they come to their senses, no matter how long it takes, and compromise. Definitely NOT making them Israeli citizens. Unless you Gush Shalom-nicks can come up with a more palatable idea, Jorge .... still waiting for your answer on that score Jorge ....

What if they do surrender eventually but it takes them another 40 years to do so? (They have been at it for more than 40 years already without showing any willingness to surrender) Then Israel would have been ruling "harshly and undemocratically" over a subjected population for close to one hundred years

Or even 200 years, Jorge .... it would still be better than doing the wrong thing NOW and paying a very heavy price for it, perhaps as heavy as as Israel's destruction.

But if you don't think that would be the price that Israel would have to pay Jorge, then perhaps you could enlighten us what SHOULD Israel DO NOW in order to avert "the disaster" that you paint that would befall Israel if it chooses to wait till the Palis would be willing to compromise?

Of course, one tenet within the "third possibility' is that time is immaterial. "Whatever long it takes" underlies the assumption that not only all other things being equal but that also all other things will keep on being equal. It is of course possible that it may happen but, from what we know of our world, are they plausible assumption

No, time is not immaterial. The longer that this state of affairs remains in the Middle East, the longer people will suffer. But so long that the Palestinian Arabs remain intransigent and choose to play their zero sum game of no compromise, there is no other choice.

I won't labour this point any more. Suffice it to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Womble's response (post #428). He puts it so much better than I did ....