To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

[Reffo]

I have an easier solution:

shutdown financial aid, and within a fortnight, they will capitulate

There is only one potential problem with your solution sharonbn. It depends on the willingness of the US to continue to fork out the aid forever. I suspect that if the Egyptian leaders will continue to shoot their mouths off as they already have, then as you say, the Americans will happily pull the plug on them. And once they'll do that, it is quite possibly, even probable, that after they would pull the plug, the Americans will not reverse that decision even if the Egyptians then back off. And who would blame the Americans? After all, they have their own economic problems to worry about.

If that happens, sharonbn, then what do you suppose would happen?

[sharonbn]

why is it probable that the US will not reverse an embargo? the whole reason of financial aid is to gain influence over the client state.
and if the Americans have economic problems that prevent this funding, they will stop it regardless of Egypt behavior.
I think it is highly improbable that an embargo would continue if the reasons for it are lifted.

[Reffo]

yes, Reffo, you can conclude that.
can we conclude that you agree with the Geneva accord, including its demands from Israel and the Palestinians?

In principle yes, I agree with a lot that is in the Geneva accord, if I interpret it correctly. But I will have to study it further before I make my answer an unqualified yes. A lot depends on the interpretation of it. I'll tell you my red lines though ...

1. I am against mass evacuation of the large "settlement" blocs.
2. I am against handing over exclusive control by Palestinian Arabs of Jewish holy sites, first and foremost, places like the Temple Mount.
3. I am against Israel accepting other than a very small, token number of Palestinian "refugees" into Israel (a very very small number maybe - a few hundred perhaps).
4. In exchange of recognzing a new Arab Palestine by Israel, I would insist on Palestinian Arab recognition of Israel as THE state FOR the Jewish people.

of course the end of beligerence, incitement and terrorism would be a given. As well as various safeguards, for a number of future years to ensure that the new Palestine would not start to arm itself.

[Reffo]

why is it probable that the US will not reverse an embargo? the whole reason of financial aid is to gain influence over the client state.
and if the Americans have economic problems that prevent this funding, they will stop it regardless of Egypt behavior.
I think it is highly improbable that an embargo would continue if the reasons for it are lifted

The term 'embargo' is incorrect. We are talking about 'American foreign AID' here.

Such foreign aid is unpopular amongst many Americans. And I don't blame them. Many American tax payers are suffering economically and they would prefer to see any such money distributed to help Americans instead.

Is it probable that America would terminate such aid to Egypt? Who knows, I certainly don't but my perception is that the Egyptians are playing with fire by even talking about terminating their obligations. If I would be them, I wouldn't want to hand the Americans a reason to review their aid to Egypt because once they would terminate it, they may be very happy not to renew it and put it to better use in America itself.

Just my opinion. But what do I know?

[sharonbn]

Are you saying that the US is giving 1.3B$ to Egypt out of habit?

[Reffo]

The US has been giving money to Egypt, probably for the reasons that you mentioned. But it has been very unpopular with many Americans. Therefore, if the Egyptians continue to rock the boat, those Americans will prevail.

I hope you won't make me repeat that, sharonbn, I already said that above.

[sharonbn]

the US is giving aid to many countries worldwide, as part of its policy to influence and intervene everywhere.
it probably supports Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco as well.
IF the Egyptians will rock the boat, the US can and probably will exercise its influence, but the rules of the game is that the stick must be accompanied by a carrot. Otherwise, if the US unilaterally breaks the rules of the game, it will have reprocautions beyond Egypt as this may diminish US influence elsewhere around the world.

I really don't see any situation where your scenario will materialize.

the only likely scenario is that of Iran circa 1979, where following the Islamic revolution, the US and Iran broke all diplomatic and economic ties (if you don't count Irangate...). This can happen in Egypt, but that is a risk one cannot foresee or take any safeguards when signing peace treaty.

[Reffo]

sharonbn

Like you said before, none of us are prophets. I am just mentioning possible scenarios and risks. And IMHO, the scenario that I am talking about is a finite possibility.

[curlyg]

There are some very strange arguments being made here.


Firstly, Reffo, what does it mean to say that the Palestinians should make equal concessions to Israel in a peace agreement? Concessions from what baseline? What's the starting point? You always said, in the past, that the 1967 lines are not the starting point. You rejected the generally accepted international legal position - your position was, effectively, that legally it all belongs to Israel or is disputed. So in other words, your starting point is the Palestinians are entitled to nothing, and Israel is entitled to everything as a matter of principle. As a matter of practicality, Israel is already in possession of everything. So what can the Palestinians actually give Israel that is of value, other than their word? Virtually nothing. This is not necessarily a function of their hostility, just of their powerlessness.

Secondly, the line of argument "(1) There was peace treaty with Egypt, (2) It may fail -- therefore, peace treaties are liable to fail, Israel should not enter into them" is quite bizarre, because it fails to ask the question WHY might the peace treaty fail? What has made Egyptians, after 30 years of non-violence at the very least, remain so resentful of Israel? Well there are several explanations for that. Some people might want to say that Arabs are just savage, primitive, tribal people who hate Israel and always will. I for one don't think that is the case - and even if Arabs will never regard Israel is a friend or ally, this does not explain why they wish to actively work against it, that is to say to abrogate a peace treaty which has kept the peace. The fact of the matter is that the reason that hostility against Israel is still so strong in the Arab world is that, firstly, the images of Palestinian suffering are genuine and infuriating to many people who regard them as their 'brothers.' Secondly, there is a perception that Israel did not abide by the treaty because it did not give the Palestinians 'full autonomy', as stipulated. Thirdly, there is the propaganda of Arab governments, exploiting the continuing occupation to score political points. But the root cause of all of these factors, or at least the most significant direct cause, is the conflict with the Palestinians. The rational response is to say "let's remove that root cause", not "let's continue with our inaction and let this issue fester", and then wonder why our peace treaties fail.

[Reffo]

curlyg

Oh dear ... You took my position, everything I said on this thread as well as elsewhere and turned it into cartoonish terms. Black and white like without any nuance. I suggest you re-read again what I said to sharonbn on this thread and then if you want to. We can discuss it once you really grasp what my position is.

[Reffo]

Oh and please spare me ..there are plenty of compromises that the Palestinian Arabs CAN and WILL HAVE TO make. I have listed them on this very thread. Stop lining up with those who want to give them cop outs. You are not furthering the cause of peace by doing so.

[curlyg]

I don't think I have misrepresented or caricatured your views - any more than will necessarily occur when I summarise them in a single paragraph. I think I can be forgiven for not writing a comprehensive analysis of the views of Reffo on the Middle East, no?

All I've asked you to do is define the baseline from which you think they need to make concessions. The only specific example I can see that you have given in this thread is recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Is that a "reciprocal" concession for all the 'concessions' you think Israel will make?

The thing is, even though you apparently don't want to have to specify it, the baseline matters. The Palestinians think that they ARE making concessions - by saying land swaps will be allowed so Israel can keep settlement blocs, or by agreeing not to insist on exclusive sovereignty over parts of East Jerusalem or the Old City or the Temple Mount, or by agreeing to have military limitations placed on them, or allow Israeli early warning stations in their territory. If the starting point is rights under international law, then, at least from their perspective, they are conceding plenty as it is. But if you reject that position and say that as a matter of principle everything should belong to Israel, but as a matter of practicality Israel might have to give up a little here and there to quiet the Palestinians down, then the baseline is completely different and virtually nothing they do will seem like a concession to you - because it's not something that was theirs to concede in the first place.

As for my comments on why the peace treaty with Egypt is failing and the fact that I think you've casually ignored those basic issues, I stand by that. Nothing you've said in this thread makes me think otherwise.

EDIT:

As for my "furthering the cause of peace" - I don't think anything I say has any bearing whatsoever on the cause of peace. I'm questioning your views on the Egypt peace treaty because they are commonly held, and I don't think they're particularly well reasoned. This isn't an attack against you, probably most Israelis would side with you here. I just don't find the logic (or, in my view, lack thereof) particularly persuasive.

[Aliyah1995]

Curlyg, I won't speak for Reffo, but I believe that most Israelis (save the most radical leftists) believe that the Arabs have to give up their zero sum game. In practical terms, they will have to accept that there will be no "law of return" for foreign born refugees into an Israeli state, but if/when they get their own state there will be a "law of return" to that state. I think even Sharonbn mentioned that he is against a "law of return" into Israel within the "green line". The rest of the concessions the Arabs will need to make are listed in the Geneva Accord (again, most Israelis save the most radical left agree are the baseline for any future agreement).

[curlyg]

Personally I've long thought the Geneva Accord was a very well thought out proposal - it tackles the practical issues, and it's fair. They've got detailed maps, they have plans, and they've spent years working on this - and are still working on it to this day. I think if Israel were willing to say outright that a final status agreement should look pretty much like the Geneva Accords, subject to minor changes, the Palestinians would agree. But I suspect the Jordan will flow backwards before I hear those words leave the lips of an Israeli Prime Minister, let alone Bibi. He can't even bring himself to say "1967".

[Aliyah1995]

I think if Israel were willing to say outright that a final status agreement should look pretty much like the Geneva Accords, subject to minor changes, the Palestinians would agree.

I guess you're more optimistic than most on both sides.