make peace with the Arab peoples, not just the rulers.

[Reffo]

... that's the advice of Swedish FM Carl Bildt according to the Jerusalem Post article.

http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThes...ID=210736&R=R1

My reaction? I always thought that Swedish people don't have a sense of humour so either I was wrong or this guy is just perverse. Here are some selected quotes of his from the article ...

Asked whether the EU was so obsessed with the conflict that it simply overlooked for decades the human rights abuses in the Arab world, Bildt said that “we all have to search our souls on this one,” including Israel and the Palestinians

Really? Maybe you, Mr Bildt, have to search your soul. To me and many like me it is a no brainer. There were decades of human rights abuses in the Arab world which people like Mr Bildt studiously ignored while they didn't waste any opportunities pontificating to Israel for daring to defend it's civilians from murderous Arab terrorist attacks. Put that into your pocket Mr Bildt ...

As to whether the dramatic regional events have not disproved the argument that the Israeli-Palestinian issue was the core of all the problems in the region, Bildt responded that he never said this was the “core problem,” but that it was undoubtedly one of the major issues with wider significance because it had a “mobilizing influence all over the world.”

Yep, "a mobilizing influence" Mr Bildt. A mobilizing influence that people like you whipped up and fostered. I can only assume that you did it for self aggrandisement and in order to promote your own selfish political agenda ...

“Everything about Jerusalem tends to be ideological,” he said. “The rest of the conflict is national.”

Really? But the motives of the Swedish Moderate party are non ideological I presume?

Bildt also said the sides were tantalizingly close, at one time after the Annapolis conference in 2007, to reaching an agreement, and that this was seen in the Palestinian documents released recently by Al Jazeera, the socalled Palestinian Papers

Could be. But then again, one has to ask the question: Why is the PA leadership so vehement in denying the contents of those papers? I can only assume that they do so for one of the following two reasons ...

1. Either they were talking out of the second side of their mouth and they didn't mean to make the alleged offers ...
2. Or they meant it but they knew/know full well that they couldn't/can't deliver it because the "Arab Street" wouldn't let them. And all the while they made sure that the talks were sabotaged while they continued dangling the carrot ...

Either way, those offers were meaningless and non realisable. Kapish, Mr Bildt?

According to Bildt, 60 percent-70 percent of the populations on both sides say “draw me a two-state solution, with some sort of division, some sort of security.” Reminded that Hamas, a rather important player in the Palestinian polity, was not exactly on board with that position, Bildt agreed, but then said, “We’ll see.”

Now there is a good answer: .... "We Will See" .... personally, I hope we won't see because I don't want Israel to give up strategic land for ..."we will sees" ...

Hamas – it is not for me to judge what they say, because I have not talked to them. What I read is that their official position is a long-term truce for a generation or two.

A generation or two huh? ... I think the rockets seem to be landing on top of Israeli civilians right now. But let's say that you are right, Mr Bildt, let's say that if Israel would give up all the strategic lands for a Hamas promise of peace for a couple of generations. That still leaves their promise hanging in the air, which is to destroy Israel as soon as they feel they have the chance to. So let's assess with honest brutality what their promise means. It means that in exchange for the land that Israel would give up, they propose to consolidate their position, arm themselves to their teeth and attack Israel again in the future, whenever that is. Now I ask you Mr Bildt, would you allow Sweden to give up strategic lands if it would be in Israel's position? Hmmmmmmm, Mr Bildt?

I'll give Mr Bildt the benefit of my doubt (lots of doubt) and I will only admonish him with my signature saying ...

"Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright"

I must say that I feel that I am being too kind for intimating that he is an "idealist" ...

[Aliyah1995]

Yeah, I read this interview over Shabbat. I should have read it in the bathroom. If only Israel/is wouldn't be stubborn, peace is for the taking. Where was he when Israel withdrew from Gaza just to receive kassams in Be'er Sheva, Ashkelon, and Ashdod? Where was he during the first 9.5 months of the "settlement" freeze when Abbas refused to even come to the table? Where was he when the Palestinian "people" (not leaders) threatened Abbas once the Palileaks came out? Sure kiddo. He ought to stick with internal Swedish politics, where the biggest bone of contention is to shorten the work week to 35 hours and bring retirement age down to 58....ROTFL

[Kachah]

make peace with the Arab peoples, not just the rulers.

Thanks for this excellent advice, Mr. Bildt.
I also have a couple of good ones: for all people in need and poverty - just get rich and everything will be okay. For the hungry ones - just eat food, it'll fix you.
And for the dumbass Swedish do-gooders idiots: just put your shit together and get smart.
All about as useless as the quoted one.

[Reffo]

... and there is more from the Foreign Minister of Luxemburg, Jean Asselborn ...

http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThes...aspx?id=210253

Jean Asselborn: They [the PA leaders] told me this morning – both of them – that they want to have peace with Israel, without any other tricky thing in mind.

JP: If the Palestinians want peace, like they told you this morning, why won’t they negotiate?

Jean Asselborn: Because they cannot negotiate if they look out of the window and see on their own ground that buildings are growing, settlements are being built on territory that doesn’t belong to Israel.

Really, Mr Jean Asselborn? Does that mean that you want Israel to withdraw to the pre 1967 boundaries, the Aushwitz boundaries? Because if you do, I think that Israel will no longer fall for the demands of people like you, NO there is no cigar ...

I would like to see someone ask him and other EU politicians the following questions:

They say that Israel has/is building settlements on territories not belonging to Israel. That is not quite an accurate description, Mr Jean Asselborn because it implies that Israel is building on Arab territories. Israel has/is building settlements by and large very close to the 1967 boundaries which are disputed territories. The the correct description of those territories is: DISPUTED territories. UN Resolution 242 never required Israel to withdraw to the pre 1967 boundaries. UN Resolution 242 required Israel to withdraw to Secure and Recognised Borders. Which means that the actual borders would need to be negotiated.

By making the above statement, Asselborn also seems to imply that there is no room even for so called land swaps whereby the settlements would become part of Israel and Israel would give up an equivalent size of land in return, thereby ensuring that Israel's overall territories would not end up to be greater than it's pre 1967 territorial size. Is that true Mr Asselborn?

If it is, then someone please ask him/them to explain what is so sacred about the pre 1967 boundaries? Weren't those boundaries just the old 1949 armistice lines? Of course they were and therefore could Mr Asselborn explain what is the difference between the pre 1967 and post 1967 boundaries? Weren't both just artificial lines which represented the lines where the fighting stopped in 1949 and 1967 respectively?

Could someone also ask them/him, why is it imperative for Israel to ignore it's own security by withdrawing to the highly vulnerable pre 1967 boundaries, even though the Arabs were the ones who initiated and continued the war against the Jewish people? What other nations in history were asked and were willing to withdraw to more vulnerable borders under such circumstances?

Last but not least, could someone ask them/him why the Jewish people should be willing to freeze building in neighbourhoods such as East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion where Jews lived prior to 1948 and from which they were ethnically cleansed by Arabs? Why aren't/weren't Jews entitled to return to those neighbourhoods after their 1967 victory following yet another Arab aggression? Is that true justice according to the likes of Jean Asselborn?

I could go on but I'll just stop here for now ...

[Reffo]

And one more thing, Mr Asselborn, could you tell me the historical borders of Arab Palestine? I bet you can't because there never was an independent Arab Palestine. And therefore, could you please explain where this insistence is coming from that the borders of Israel are the pre 1967 boundaries and that the rest of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) belong to the Arabs?

[Kachah]

And one more thing, Mr Asselborn, could you tell me the historical borders of Arab Palestine? ...the rest of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) belong to the Arabs?

Wouldn't the very word "Judaea" point to historical location of Arab Palestine? NOT THERE!
Anyway, these people from Luxemburg with the names starting with "ass" obviously know better.

[curlyg]

I actually agree with Kachah more than Reffo on the settlements point. It's not worth getting bogged down in, this is the mistake Obama made from the start of his presidency. Its completely and utterly irrelevant whether the settlements are legal or not - they are a fact. Now bearing all of the facts of the situation in mind we have to approach the situation with a problem-solving approach rather than some mechanical legalistic set of demands. That's the only way this thing is every going to be resolved. The Palestinians have always negotiated while settlement construction was ongoing, it's Obama who gave them this idiotic idea of insisting on a settlement freeze as a precondition.

Now moving on from the comments of the various idiots Reffo has quoted, I'm actually somewhat hopeful that we will see more democratic Arab regimes (though I doubt it will happen). The notion of making peace with Arab people instead of their regimes is not without merit. No doubt it would present a whole set of new problems for Israel, but it would at least force Arabs to finally have a discussion about and, perhaps ultimately come to terms with, Israel. An Arab party that argues for abrogating peace treaties with Israel will subsequently have to explain to the electorate why an entire generation of young men are now dead or wounded or otherwise scarred by the consequent war when they didn't have to be, or why the money from the US isn't flowing quite so freely any more...

[Kachah]

Now bearing all of the facts of the situation in mind we have to approach the situation with a problem-solving approach rather than some mechanical legalistic set of demands. That's the only way this thing is every going to be resolved....

That's not 100% right either.
There is no-one to negotiate with. There is no sovereign power which values itself high enough to honor the result of negotiations in fear of threat to its sovereignity. Settlement bullshit is a tactical move. Israel has demonstrated its readiness to remove settlements and uproot its inhabitants at the enormous human and monetary cost - in Gaza. The result - Gaza is ruled by the most hostile maniacs who came to power exactly because Israel's good will and search for peace was interpreted by the Arabs as the result of hardening line and increased terrorist activity.
Talking about negotiating with Abbas itself should be considered irrelevant. Look, even Gaddafi almost turned good and came with olive branch. He admitted previous wrongdoing, paid compensations - seemingly triumph of the Western politics of stick and carrot but essentially engagement as a legitimate ruler of Libya. Tell me, what's this wise Western policy worth now? Same with Abbas and his henchmen. Even such technicality as factoring Gaza in this imaginary "solution" is a non-event.
Peace can only be acheived by re-settling, by extending Egyptian and Jordanian jurisdiction (unlikely) or by status quo - Israeli control until things improve with te overall economical and educational progress (hopefully).

Now moving on from the comments of the various idiots Reffo has quoted, I'm actually somewhat hopeful that we will see more democratic Arab regimes (though I doubt it will happen). The notion of making peace with Arab people instead of their regimes is not without merit. No doubt it would present a whole set of new problems for Israel, but it would at least force Arabs to finally have a discussion about and, perhaps ultimately come to terms with, Israel. ..

When did Israel wage a war on Arabs, remind me? There is 1.7 mil Arabs leaving in ISrael as her citizens, is Israel at war with them?
It's a question of generally very low education, scaremongering and brainwashing. If you are a barely literate Arab watching TV show about Israelis stealing your kids' kidneys - you will no doubt feel at war. But to stop this war is not up to Israel. In fact, to stop this war you need to blow up this TV station - but it's pretty clear how the world would react. Essentially, it's Mr Bildt and his Ass-friend from Luxemburg who keep this war going on. That's why his advice is not only useless - it's highly hypocritical.

[Reffo]

I actually agree with Kachah more than Reffo on the settlements point. It's not worth getting bogged down in

OK, if we ignore THEIR (Israel's critics) endless repetition that "the settlements are illegal" then the problem will just go away, right? ... I am sorry but I don't agree.

Before long, it will be accepted wisdom, in fact it has already happened because we ignored their BS for so long. And what has been the outcome? Even some reasonable people blame Israel for the stalemate because they say: " ... it's the settlements, stupid ...."

this is the mistake Obama made from the start of his presidency

Yes and Obama made that mistake precisely because for years, Israel and it's supporters just rolled over and did NOT challenge the lies that the settlements are illegal. Had Israel's supporters in the US kicked up a fuss and insisted that the settlements are NOT illegal then Obama might have thought twice about making the settlements the main issue.

NOTE:- I am not arguing about the wisdom of the settlements. I am arguing about the legality of the settlements. There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between the two. Israel and it's supporters should Insist that the settlements are NOT illegal, NO compromise on THAT score but the wisdom of building more settlements is legitimate debate. The former allows Israel to be delegitimised and be subjected to pressure. The latter is just a matter of opinion and cannot be used to make conditions or to delegitimise Israel. It's as simple as that.

[Reffo]

The notion of making peace with Arab people instead of their regimes is not without merit

It sounds like a good slogan but it is a pie in the sky notion ...

How exactly would Israel ignore the Arab leaders, whoever they are, and make peace directly with the Arab people? For that matter, WHO are, the Arab people exactly? Are they a monolithic entity? Or are they made up by various groups. Seculars, religious, nationalists, left wingers, right wingers, moderates, fanatics and so on ...

Is it possible to please ALL of them? The only way I can think of doing that Is if Israel would commit national Hara Kiri. How exactly would Israel make a separate peace with such a multitude? It's hard enough to make peace with even Arab leaders some of whom are absolute rulers whose word is the law.

[bararallu]

"The notion of making peace with Arab people instead of their regimes is not without merit. "

Absolutely no merit. Making peace with illiterate, paranoid, shame culture ridden Cro-Magnon who cant even understand, nor honor, terms of contract, are the zenith of academic self indulgence- or the nadir of rational behavior.

[curlyg]

"The notion of making peace with Arab people instead of their regimes is not without merit. "

Absolutely no merit. Making peace with illiterate, paranoid, shame culture ridden Cro-Magnon who cant even understand, nor honor, terms of contract, are the zenith of academic self indulgence- or the nadir of rational behavior.

So you basically say this:

1) Peace with Arab dictators is worthless because they are dictators, liable to be swept away by the people.
2) Peace with potentially semi-legitimate Arab leaders is worthless, because the people they represent are barbarians.

So presumably the conclusion you would have us adopt is that Arabs are singularly incapable of peace under any circumstances?

[Mediocrates]

So you basically say this:

1) Peace with Arab dictators is worthless because they are dictators, liable to be swept away by the people.
2) Peace with potentially semi-legitimate Arab leaders is worthless, because the people they represent are barbarians.

So presumably the conclusion you would have us adopt is that Arabs are singularly incapable of peace under any circumstances?

I would say that peace with Arab authoritarian leaders is as useful as it is useful to them. They are good to keep around in the name of predictable stability. Or as stable as they are able. This amounts to tolerating their insane rhetoric while their tanks and bombers rust out. On the other hand 'People's Revolutions' often result in anarchy. Anarchy ends in asymmetrical warfare and surreptitiously sending arms to Hamas and other groups like that.

But it's clear that among China, Russia and the US, there's an arms race going on in the mideast. Russians sell advanced anti aircraft missiles to Lebanon and Syria, the US sells F-16's to everyone. China sells anti ship missiles to to comers. But these are all expensive complex systems that require training and maintenance. Not something Arabs are good at or motivated to become good at. And in fact who wants to get in an actual war with Israel when they can give SA-18 missiles to the PFLP and have them shoot down an airliner? No one's going to hold them accountable for that.

I said this years ago when it was clear that Israel is fighting a post-strategic war. There are no wider strategic military aims. It's tribal. Nuclear armed cruise missiles on submarines are not very useful any more because there are few strategic goals let alone targets. They can keep them in their back pocket as a final option against WMDs but it's also clear that WMD's are likely to be used by any of their primary opponents. Israel's bomb in the basement may ensure those opponents don't develop strategic WMDs but why would Israel encourage them not to spend enormous amounts of capital to do that. One positive thing to come out of Iran's atomic weapons program is that it's bankrupting them. If they didn't do it they'd have billions more to give to Hezbollah. And a counter tactical missile shield for Israel would cost a tremendous amount of money if Hezbollah had 400,000 missiles instead of 10% of that.

So the problem, to me, is not who you make 'peace' with, but how much leakage you can tolerate coming out of a given agreement. Are dictators more likely not to give weapons to freelancers who might one day use them against their own? Yes. Are 'People's Revolutions' more likely to spread weapons and cash around and sow fear and confusion? Yes they are. I say let the remaining batch of Gadaffis and Mubareks scream every day for the blood of Jews to run in the gutter. Who cares? Their armies are trash and they need them to point the guns at their own people.

[bararallu]

So you basically say this:

1) Peace with Arab dictators is worthless because they are dictators, liable to be swept away by the people.
2) Peace with potentially semi-legitimate Arab leaders is worthless, because the people they represent are barbarians.

So presumably the conclusion you would have us adopt is that Arabs are singularly incapable of peace under any circumstances?

Over all that is a correct assessment of my position, with the clarification of "Arabs" = "Muslim Arabs" living in Muslim majority countries, aka dictatorships of one stripe or another.

Also, it's not merely "worthless" but dangerous, given that the formula "land for peace," is fundamentally irresponsible, and racist towards Jews.

[Mediocrates]

Since when have the 'Arab people' had any bearing?