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

[curlyg]

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

Marwan Barghouti is on record saying a final status peace agreement could be based on the Geneva Initiative, so tells me the infinite wellspring of knowledge that is Wikipedia...

[Reffo]

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

This is one place in which you misrepresented my position (and not the only place).

This is what I DID however say in several of my posts:

Yet, I am still NOT against concessions by Israel. As long as the Palestinian Arabs too reciprocate. For example by formally recognising Israel as the nation state FOR the Jewish people. And as long as Israel does not go overboard with it's concessions for a peace that could turn out to be a mirage ...

And curly, if you are an advocate of the Geneva accord, then that's another concession the PLO and Abbas could make. Accepting the Geneva accord that is. I won't even mention Hamas and the rest who represent a significant proportion of the Palestinian population.

[Reffo]

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

Really curly? And you have inside information about that? They told you so on a private channel?

[Reffo]

Marwan Barghouti is on record saying a final status peace agreement could be based on the Geneva Initiative, so tells me the infinite wellspring of knowledge that is Wikipedia...

Really, curlyg? Even the following clause of the Geneva accord ...?

As part of the accord, the Palestinians recognize the right of the Jewish people to their own state and recognize the State of Israel as their national home. Conversely, the Israelis recognize the Palestinian state as the national home of the Palestinian people

You do know of course that Abbas is on the record of rejecting that clause? He didn't just reject it once but he never missess an opportunity to reject it.

[Reffo]

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

And what do you think the root cause of this conflict is? It is bizarre to pretend that it is "the occupation". Israel has come to "occupy" the West Bank in a defensive war after it defeated Jordan which attacked the Jewish state first in 1948 then in 1967. Why did it attack the Jewish state? Because it was part of an Arab alliance which rejected the idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East.

So curly, if you want to tackle the root cause of the problem, then I agree with you. But please don't join the ranks of those who pretend that the root cause is "the occupation". Because the root cause is the unwillingness of the Arabs to recognize Israel as the state OF and FOR the Jewish people. As soon as they will, the rest of the solution will follow.

[Reffo]

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

The concern of Egyptians for their Palestinian Arab brothers is indeed touching. So is their remarkable restraint of non violence towards Israel. I am truly touched by their nobility. Until I remember history and realize that between 1948 and 1967, the Egyptians had a chance to allow their Palestinian Arab brothers to have their independence because prior to 1967, Gaza was under Egyptian control while the West Bank was under Jordanian control. So, the Egyptians had the chance to give up Gaza and pressure the Jordanians into giving up the West Bank for the benefit of their "brothers". But they did not feel all that brotherly then.

As for their remarkable 30 year restraint towards Israel, I refuse to give them brownie points for that because they too benefited from the consequent non violence of Israel towards them. Not to mention the return of Sinai in exchange for peace which was part of the deal that some of their leaders are now so keen to abrogate.

I have my own theories as to why they are now embarking on this path. Unlike you, I don't think that they are acting out of brotherly love or altruism. But that's a topic for another post if you choose to continue the discussion that you started. Otherwise, that's it from me.

[curlyg]

This is one place in which you misrepresented my position (and not the only place).

This is what I DID however say in several of my posts:

Sure, I'll grant you that and apologise.

But the basic point I was making wasn't that you think Israel shouldn't make peace. To clarify, the point I was making was that pointing at the unreliability of the Egyptian peace treaty and extrapolating that to all prospective peace treaties is baseless. We need to ask why the peace treaty with Egypt is liable to fail, and whether those same factors are at play if Israel signs a peace treaty with the Palestinians. As I've made clear, I don't think that is the case.

And curly, if you are an advocate of the Geneva accord, then that's another concession the PLO and Abbas could make. Accepting the Geneva accord that is. I won't even mention Hamas and the rest who represent a significant proportion of the Palestinian population.

Sure, and I'd be all for that... Of course it's a bit rich to be lecturing them about it when Israel's current government takes the positions that it does (no negotiations on Jerusalem, no negotiations on refugees, etc - those are the official positions stated in the Bar Ilan speech).

Really curly? And you have inside information about that? They told you so on a private channel?

That's my assessment on the basis of the positions they have taken in past negotiations, and the fact that Palestinian government officials were involved in the actual negotiation of the accords... Certainly I may be wrong. On balance, I think it is more likely they would accept than reject it.

Really, curlyg? Even the following clause of the Geneva accord ...?

You do know of course that Abbas is on the record of rejecting that clause? He didn't just reject it once but he never missess an opportunity to reject it.

Again, this is a bit rich given the fact that the current Israeli government rules out negotiations on far more basic issues, what are regarded under the Oslo Accords framework as being core issues (settlements, refugees, Jerusalem), and can't even accept the proposition, which has been the starting point of all past negotiations, that the 1967 borders will serve as the starting point for borders. Now I'm not siding with Palestinian rejectionism here - but if you ask me which of the parties' official views are more in line with the vision of the Geneva Accords, I think the answer is pretty clear, unfortunately.

And what do you think the root cause of this conflict is? It is bizarre to pretend that it is "the occupation". Israel has come to "occupy" the West Bank in a defensive war after it defeated Jordan which attacked the Jewish state first in 1948 then in 1967. Why did it attack the Jewish state? Because it was part of an Arab alliance which rejected the idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East.

The question was not what is the root cause of the conflict, it was what is the root cause of the possible failure of the treaty. I listed in my post what I thought those causes were.

So curly, if you want to tackle the root cause of the problem, then I agree with you. But please don't join the ranks of those who pretend that the root cause is "the occupation". Because the root cause is the unwillingness of the Arabs to recognize Israel as the state OF and FOR the Jewish people. As soon as they will, the rest of the solution will follow.

Oh come on Reffo, seriously? Like I said, I'm all for the Palestinians accepting Israel as a Jewish state - but to say this is what is holding up a peace agreement is just pure nonsense. Israel's official positions on the core issues at the moment are far more substantial impediments to reaching an agreement than the Palestinian refusal to recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

The concern of Egyptians for their Palestinian Arab brothers is indeed touching. So is their remarkable restraint of non violence towards Israel. I am truly touched by their nobility. Until I remember history and realize that between 1948 and 1967, the Egyptians had a chance to allow their Palestinian Arab brothers to have their independence because prior to 1967, Gaza was under Egyptian control while the West Bank was under Jordanian control. So, the Egyptians had the chance to give up Gaza and pressure the Jordanians into giving up the West Bank for the benefit of their "brothers". But they did not feel all that brotherly then.

The people are not the leaders. Whether or not you think Egypt is transitioning towards genuine democracy, what appears clear is that the voice of the people matters more than it used to. The fact that Egypt's leaders never actually cared about Palestinians is self-evident. The same is not true of the people on the street. That is why the peace treaty is coming under pressure now. So to say that past Egyptian leaders didn't care about Palestinians really tells us nothing of any significance... The treaty is under pressure because Egyptians don't want it - why don't they want it? You would have me believe that the monolithic Egyptian, which has always rejected Israel for some irrational reason, continues to reject it for some irrational reason - presumably that they don't like Jews or something. That may be a factor - but I think the underlying causes are those I mentioned.

As for their remarkable 30 year restraint towards Israel, I refuse to give them brownie points for that because they too benefited from the consequent non violence of Israel towards them. Not to mention the return of Sinai in exchange for peace which was part of the deal that some of their leaders are now so keen to abrogate.

What's remarkable is not the 30 years of restraint - this is perfectly understandable given the benefits you mentioned, and the fact that they were and are militarily outclassed. I never suggested they ought to be praised for their "remarkable restraint" - what I said is that it is remarkable that the treaty is not holding DESPITE the fact that it is beneficial for Egypt as a state, as you yourself have said. And again, WHY IS THE TREATY FAILING NOW? Would you have me believe the overthrow of Mubarak and popular opposition to the treaty is not a factor? What is the cause of the popular opposition? Does Israeli policy have no impact on the way Israel is viewed in the Arab world? Is it just simply a matter of blind, senseless, mindless hatred of Jews by Arabs, which always was and always will be?

[Pleepleus]

"1967 borders will serve as the starting point for borders" "has been the starting point of all past negotiations"?!

Has it really? Has Israel's position in all past negotiations really been that they would compensate the Palestinians with an equivalent amount of land in Israel for any land in the territories that Israel keeps? I don't think that is true, nor do I think that is right. The territories are not occupied Palestinian territories. They are occupied disputed territories. Israel has a claim on them as well.

[curlyg]

"1967 borders will serve as the starting point for borders" "has been the starting point of all past negotiations"?!

Has it really? Has Israel's position in all past negotiations really been that they would compensate the Palestinians with an equivalent amount of land in Israel for any land in the territories that Israel keeps? I don't think that is true, nor do I think that is right. The territories are not occupied Palestinian territories. They are occupied disputed territories. Israel has a claim on them as well.

To be clear, I'm not saying that the starting point in all previous negotiations has been that the 1967 borders are final and determinative. But the parties haven't approached the table with a blank slate. The principle evident in all of the proposals so far has been that the borders will be BASED on the 1967 lines, with appropriate modifications. This does not necessarily mean 1:1 compensations where Israel wants to keep parts of the West Bank - but the starting point was always the '67 lines, followed by modifications. What evidence do we have of this? Well, for one, none of the negotiations with the Palestinians have ever been based on the premise that Israel might keep swathes of empty land in Area C - which is perhaps something we would expect if they weren't using the 67 lines as a reference point. Of course, if someone really wants to argue that the 67 lines have had absolutely no bearing on past negotiations, I'd be interested in hearing how they go about doing that...

[Aliyah1995]

Curlyg-

Israel's official positions on the core issues at the moment are far more substantial impediments to reaching an agreement than the Palestinian refusal to recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Remember the quite recent eleven month settlement freeze? How many times did Abbas come to the negotiation table before about two weeks before the eleven months ran out? That's right - bootkus.

[Pleepleus]

...The principle evident in all of the proposals so far has been that the borders will be BASED on the 1967 lines, with appropriate modifications...

I really don't know how you can say that. Olmert's peace plan was the ONLY official Israeli offer of Israeli territory to compensate the Palestinians for lands in the West Bank and East Jerusalem that Israel would be retaining. None of the plans before Olmert did so (the Geneva Accord doesn't count - Beilin had no authority).

[Reffo]

Sure, I'll grant you that and apologise

Accepted.

Sure, and I'd be all for that... Of course it's a bit rich to be lecturing them about it when Israel's current government takes the positions that it does (no negotiations on Jerusalem, no negotiations on refugees, etc - those are the official positions stated in the Bar Ilan speech)

The only party who is actually refusing to even sit down and talk is the Palestinian side. Although it is true that Netanyahu outlined some red lines. But what is so shocking about that? Do we want to pretend that the Palestinians have no red lines of their own?

Again, this is a bit rich given the fact that the current Israeli government rules out negotiations on far more basic issues, what are regarded under the Oslo Accords framework as being core issues (settlements, refugees, Jerusalem), and can't even accept the proposition, which has been the starting point of all past negotiations, that the 1967 borders will serve as the starting point for borders. Now I'm not siding with Palestinian rejectionism here - but if you ask me which of the parties' official views are more in line with the vision of the Geneva Accords, I think the answer is pretty clear, unfortunately

There is nothing more basic than what most Israelis and Jews consider to be the root cause of the conflict. The rejection by Arabs of the Jewish nation state in the Middle East. That rejection was why the Arabs started all their wars against the Jewish people. It led to the "occupation" and it is the reason why the "occupation" continues. Unless they come around and accept the right of the Jewish people for self determination, this conflict will never end or will end very badly for EVERYONE.

The question was not what is the root cause of the conflict, it was what is the root cause of the possible failure of the treaty. I listed in my post what I thought those causes were

Like I said above. This conflict will never be solved until the Arabs formally recognize Israel as the state OF and FOR the Jewish people.

Think of it this way: Had the Germans continued to embrace Nazism after WW2 and not renounced it, they would still be under occupation.

Oh come on Reffo, seriously? Like I said, I'm all for the Palestinians accepting Israel as a Jewish state - but to say this is what is holding up a peace agreement is just pure nonsense. Israel's official positions on the core issues at the moment are far more substantial impediments to reaching an agreement than the Palestinian refusal to recognise Israel as a Jewish state

We have a serious disagreement about what is the more important issue. I look at it from OUR point of view while it seems to me that you are prepared to shed what is crucial to US in favour of THEIR mantra, just because they are so persistent and stubborn.

I'll say it again. Non recognition of Jewish national aspirations is a sign of bad faith on their part. It means that they are saying, "give us what WE want but we don't have to worry about what YOU want. And after we get what we want, we can resume our original aim of the elimination of Jewish self determination". This is just unacceptable to MOST Jews/Israelis.

The people are not the leaders. Whether or not you think Egypt is transitioning towards genuine democracy, what appears clear is that the voice of the people matters more than it used to. The fact that Egypt's leaders never actually cared about Palestinians is self-evident. The same is not true of the people on the street. That is why the peace treaty is coming under pressure now. So to say that past Egyptian leaders didn't care about Palestinians really tells us nothing of any significance... The treaty is under pressure because Egyptians don't want it - why don't they want it? You would have me believe that the monolithic Egyptian, which has always rejected Israel for some irrational reason, continues to reject it for some irrational reason - presumably that they don't like Jews or something. That may be a factor - but I think the underlying causes are those I mentioned

Sorry curly, you are being simplistic and idealistic.

I agree with sharonbn's assessment. At least some of the leaders who talk about abrogating the peace treaty are just being populist in order to get more votes. The others (the Islamists) are doing it because it is their actual ideology. They are supremacists. As for the people, sure the majority hate Israel. Are you surprised? They have been subjected to generations of brainwashing even during the Mubarak regime. And it will be very very hard to get rid of their resultant hatred of the Jews and Israel no matter what Israel will or will not do.

What's remarkable is not the 30 years of restraint - this is perfectly understandable given the benefits you mentioned, and the fact that they were and are militarily outclassed. I never suggested they ought to be praised for their "remarkable restraint" - what I said is that it is remarkable that the treaty is not holding DESPITE the fact that it is beneficial for Egypt as a state, as you yourself have said. And again, WHY IS THE TREATY FAILING NOW? Would you have me believe the overthrow of Mubarak and popular opposition to the treaty is not a factor? What is the cause of the popular opposition? Does Israeli policy have no impact on the way Israel is viewed in the Arab world? Is it just simply a matter of blind, senseless, mindless hatred of Jews by Arabs, which always was and always will be?

There is nothing remarkable about what is happening NOW. Egypt is in a state of transition, leaders are jockeying for power, there is political turmoil. At such time, opportunistic aspiring leaders will try anything, they say anything, to get themselves into power. Especially if they perceive that more ideological leaders would get an advantage out of stirring nationalist feelings that were stoked by generations of brainwashing.

[curlyg]

Accepted.

The only party who is actually refusing to even sit down and talk is the Palestinian side. Although it is true that Netanyahu outlined some red lines. But what is so shocking about that? Do we want to pretend that the Palestinians have no red lines of their own?

Those 'red lines' were specifically agreed by Israel and the Palestinians to be the core issuers in the final status negotiations. Those are the terms of the Oslo Accords. Of course each side will want things from the other - that's the point of negotiating after all - but to completely rule out negotiating on 2 or 3 core issues hardly inspires confidence.

There is nothing more basic than what most Israelis and Jews consider to be the root cause of the conflict. The rejection by Arabs of the Jewish nation state in the Middle East. That rejection was why the Arabs started all their wars against the Jewish people. It led to the "occupation" and it is the reason why the "occupation" continues. Unless they come around and accept the right of the Jewish people for self determination, this conflict will never end or will end very badly for EVERYONE.

Like I said, you don't have to convince me that they should accept it. But in terms of the hierarchy of issues of importance in negotiations, it doesn't rank up there with Jerusalem or borders. The fact is that in past negotiations this issue was not even raised - and it's not even mentioned in the Oslo Accords.

We have a serious disagreement about what is the more important issue. I look at it from OUR point of view while it seems to me that you are prepared to shed what is crucial to US in favour of THEIR mantra, just because they are so persistent and stubborn.

I haven't shed anything. I've said, if you take a look at the official positions of each side on the peace process as they currently stand, the Palestinian positions more closely reflect the outcome of the Geneva Accord than do Israel's. I find that very unfortunate.

Sorry curly, you are being simplistic and idealistic.

I agree with sharonbn's assessment. At least some of the leaders who talk about abrogating the peace treaty are just being populist in order to get more votes. The others (the Islamists) are doing it because it is their actual ideology. They are supremacists. As for the people, sure the majority hate Israel. Are you surprised? They have been subjected to generations of brainwashing even during the Mubarak regime. And it will be very very hard to get rid of their resultant hatred of the Jews and Israel no matter what Israel will or will not do.

... which is exactly what I am saying. 'Being populist' only works if the positions you are taking are, well, popular. If everyone in Egypt loved Israel, the Islamists would hold their tongues and nobody would be talking about abrogating the peace treaty. Whatever the case used to be, the voice of the people appears to be more significant now. So now the question, 'why do they hate us?' -- or to be more exact 'why do they hate us so much that they would abrogate a peace treaty that has kept the peace for 30 years?' Generations of brainwashing is probably part of the answer, but do you want to pretend that the continuing conflict with the Palestinians has nothing to do with it? Invariably when you ask most Egyptians for the reason they hate Israel, they'll respond Palestine.

[Reffo]

Those 'red lines' were specifically agreed by Israel and the Palestinians to be the core issuers in the final status negotiations. Those are the terms of the Oslo Accords. Of course each side will want things from the other - that's the point of negotiating after all - but to completely rule out negotiating on 2 or 3 core issues hardly inspires confidence

I repeat, the only party that does not even want to sit down and negotiate, are the Palestinians. And the excuse that you are prepared to accept on their behalf is Netanyahu's speech at Bar Ilan. His "sin" was that he said this .... ?

Whenever we discuss a permanent arrangement, Israel needs defensible borders with Jerusalem remaining the united capital of Israel. (Applause)

Full text of Netanyahu's foreign policy speech at Bar Ilan
Jun.14, 2009 | 11:41 PM

Now let's see what Abbas said about Jerusalem in one of his speeches ...

Abbas says there will be no peace without Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. It seems little has changed for him since 1948

Abbas, Fayyad's Verbal Jihad
Tzippe Barrow — Wed, 2012-05-16 09:10

in other words, both leaders are jockeying for Jerusalem to be the capital of their state. Why is Abbas allowed to do it but Netanyahu isn't?

Now let's have a look at what was said about the refugees:

For this to have practical meaning, we need a clear agreement to solve the Palestinian refugee problem outside of the borders of the State of Israel. For it is clear to all that the demand to settle the Palestinian refugees inside of Israel, contradicts the continued existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish People. We must solve the problem of the Arab refugees. And I believe that it is possible to solve it. Because we have proven that we ourselves solved a similar problem. Tiny Israel took in the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were uprooted from their homes.

Therefore, justice and logic dictates that the problem of the Palestinian refugees must be solved outside the borders of the State of Israel. There is broad national agreement on this. (Applause)

I believe that with good will and international investment of we can solve this humanitarian problem once and for all

Most Jews and Israelis agree with him. So can you please explain why what he said was wrong, curlyg?

[Reffo]

Like I said, you don't have to convince me that they should accept it. But in terms of the hierarchy of issues of importance in negotiations, it doesn't rank up there with Jerusalem or borders. The fact is that in past negotiations this issue was not even raised - and it's not even mentioned in the Oslo Accords

It seems to me that you have come to accept the Palestinian notion of what IS or ISN'T important. And it seems that you feel that way because of Oslo. Now hear this, curlyg: Things transpired before Oslo too. For instance, UN GA Resolution 181 in 1948 talked specifically about the creation of a Jewish State and an Arab state in what was then called Palestine. The Jews accepted it, the Arabs didn't. It is high time to correct their historical rejectionism NOW. It is very much a core issue.

And about Oslo. It isn't and should not be more binding on Israel than the Palestinian Arabs. After all, the Palestinian Arabs were the ones who rejected Oslo back in 2001 when they started their infamous intifada in which they terrorized Israelis with their suicide bombing campaign for nearly 4 years.

So, please let's not bring up Oslo as an excuse to suppress something which was always a very high priority for Jews and Israelis. The recognition by Arabs as the nation state of the Jewish people.