takeo's roadmap for peace (summary)

[Mil]

Posted by Canajew:

Sorry for not responding in time. I was having fun with TDier on the Iraqi thread. That boy is lost even when it comes to their own European history. Anyways.


you can't really impose peace on warring peoples.


It was done before many times before and especially as it applies to Israelis vs. Arabs.


You can facilitate conditions that will allow them to make peace, and you can facilitate conditions that make war and aggression more difficult (like the wall in the WB), but peace cannot be imposed if one side is unwilling to accept it, unless of course the side that does not want peace is bluggened into submission.


True. I don't disagree but this can be accomplished by a third party intervention specifically the United States. It can be a third party that can offer the two sides status-quo by providing political, financial and even military benefits. The same as was done for Egypt and Israel in the seventies during the Camp David Accords. The problem to the latter is that the third party has to be commited to the process. Actually the second main role of the UN is to fascilitate conflict resolution or rather providing a Third Party platform to the conflict by taking accountability of the situation something that UN most of the time failed to accomplish. Most of the time it was the United States or even the Soviet Union accomplishing that particular function of the UN.


And on this logic, the Palestinians must be defeated in order to become independent.


I don't agree. Plus how would they be defeated?


Because if they are not defeated they will never be willing to stop fighting. Much like the Japanese in WWII.


I heard this Japanese theory over and over again, however, this does not apply to the situation. Egypt, for example was not defeated for it to make peace with Israel. From what I see if Syria was not defeated in 1973 it would accomodate for peace with Israel as well. The idea is not to embarrass but to to build a negotiating political platform.



This is ludecrous. Why should the Palestinians, once they gain independence, cooperate with Israel in any way, rather than continuing their efforts to delegitimize Israel in the international arena while continuing to facilitate cross border terrorist activities.


Because it is in their interest.


the world did nothing in the 50s and 60s about cross border terrorism from Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, so why in the world do you think they will do anything this time other than push israel not to retaliate or take effective measures to counteract these raids?


First of all don't compare situation of the 60s to the situation in the 21st century. Number two any retaliation of Israel on Palestine would be very devastating to Palestine both politically on the global stage and most importantly economically. Israeli retaliation capacity for letting terrorists through their borders is something that Jordan (especially Jordan), Syria and Egypt learned the hard way.


No, the Palestinians need to be conclusively and totally defeated in order for there to be a functional enforcement mechanism. Not humiliation-defeat, but total functional strategic and tactical defeat. Then the olive branch extended by the Israelis may get a little more respect.


You really think so? And whom exactly would they be fighting? The PLO?


And who is to enforce this 'peace'? The Europeans? Israel would never allow this. the Americans? Arab jihadists would flock to the area to kill as many as they can (and the Americans could be expected to treat the Palestinians far worse than the Israelis in dealing with these jihadists - the American's first inclanation is to carpet bomb when at risk). Some sort of third world intervention force? What kind of political will do you think they would have to stand up to Palestinian terrorist organizations willing to commit any and every kind of attrocity to undermine their morale?


I don't look at the situation as extremely as you do but international force would have many problems. That is why I say that the best approach to ensure border security would be worked out between the Pals and Israelis on their own.


we'll see. It may be the only answer and while it will surely not happen in the current political environment, there may be circumstances in the future when the international community would be more tollerant of this sort of thing.


If anything the international community would never approve Ethnic Cleansing. I would personally relinquish all the support of Israel - being a Jew and a human being - if it would ever happen. A transfer would be a very bloody and inhumane affair and it would condemn the Democratic nation for generations to come.

But with or without it, I still do not really see peace as a viable outcome. Rather transfer would only deliniate where the front lines are.

As much as I am against the transfer I do not desagree that it is a solution. The other solution is unilateral separation by Israel on Israeli terms (the best approach - in my opinion). The third solution is forceful introduction of a third party where the third party would enforce the solution. Fourth approach is to continue with this idiotic present approach or rely on the good will of the parties involved and specifically on the political strength of the Palestinians and the political interest of the Arab states.

You must be smoking REALLY good grass.

Sorry I don't smoke weed. But in reality there are solutions.

[Mediocrates]

If anything the international community would never approve Ethnic Cleansing.

Of course it does. The international community would declare a world holiday if Jewish Israelis were wiped off the face of the earth today. It all depends on who you hate, not that you hate.


At any rate this is all in a vacuum. All the 'lamb lies down with the lion' thinking ignores the other 2 million Palestinians in neighboring countries who will be pogrommed out of those countries and marched across the borders to Palestine. The international community will do nothing abou this either because if there is only one thing they are more indifferent to than dead Jews, it's arab on arab genocide.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Mil
you can't really impose peace on warring peoples.

It was done before many times before and especially as it applies to Israelis vs. Arabs.

but it wasn't really. Imposing a cease-fire is entirely different than enforcing peace. Cease-fires are basically states of war without the shooting.

True. I don't disagree but this can be accomplished by a third party intervention specifically the United States. It can be a third party that can offer the two sides status-quo by providing political, financial and even military benefits. The same as was done for Egypt and Israel in the seventies during the Camp David Accords. The problem to the latter is that the third party has to be commited to the process. Actually the second main role of the UN is to fascilitate conflict resolution or rather providing a Third Party platform to the conflict by taking accountability of the situation something that UN most of the time failed to accomplish. Most of the time it was the United States or even the Soviet Union accomplishing that particular function of the UN.

BS. The fundamental flaw in your arguments appears to be that you perceive the Palstinian leadership to be both rational and to have adopted as an objective function the maximization of the welfare of their population. This has been demonstrated time and time again to be false, and it takes quite the leap of faith to believe it now. I do not. They are not interested in peace.

The US can only do so much. It cannot put troops on the ground because they would quickly become targets of the Islamists. And third party commitment is insufficient if the Palestinians are not committed (unless the third party is committed to forcibly imposing its will). The Egyptian leadership and the Israelis wanted peace at Camp David I. The Palestinians obviously do not. they want the 'liberation of historic Palestine'. their populationhas been poisened by brainwashing and intollerance, and their leaders do not give a damn about the well being of the people (and even if they did, the people want suicide bombings).

And on this logic, the Palestinians must be defeated in order to become independent.

I don't agree. Plus how would they be defeated?

I don't know how to defeat them. The gloves must come off first, though.

Because if they are not defeated they will never be willing to stop fighting. Much like the Japanese in WWII.

I heard this Japanese theory over and over again, however, this does not apply to the situation. Egypt, for example was not defeated for it to make peace with Israel. From what I see if Syria was not defeated in 1973 it would accomodate for peace with Israel as well. The idea is not to embarrass but to to build a negotiating political platform.

It does apply. Very well, actually. In both cases a population was basically brainwashed into an ideological fervour, and committed to total war until destruction.

Comparisons to Egypt and Syria, on the other hand, are not apt at all. Egypt was interested in peace, while Syria (which was ROUNDLY defeated in '73 (the Israelis could have taken Damascus had the USSR not put paratroopers there) has still not made peace with Israel. The two countries are still in a state of war. And Syria will NOT accomodate for peace with Israel. Where you come up with this stuff is beyond me (maybe its crack you smoke ). There is absolutely no evidence to suggest it will, and there is ample evidence to suggest the contrary. they may be afraid of Israel and that is why they are financing terrorists instead of armies, but you are living in a dream world if you think they are a peaceful well-intentioned country. Delusion is what got Israel into the situation it is in now, believe the PA really intended to be bound by its commitments and allow Israel to live in peace. And more delusion will only get more of the same, regardless of the nobility of intentions.

And yes, the object is to negotiate not to embarass. But in order to negotiate the Palestinians must be roundly defeated, otherwise they will not not not negotiate in good faith and be prepared to be bound by any negotiated agreement. They must see the light before we can pull them through.

This is ludecrous. Why should the Palestinians, once they gain independence, cooperate with Israel in any way, rather than continuing their efforts to delegitimize Israel in the international arena while continuing to facilitate cross border terrorist activities.

Because it is in their interest.

WHAT?!? It is in their interests to stop fighting now. It was never in their interests to start fighting in the first place. Are you really naive enough to believe that their leadership is interested in the people's best interests, or even that the people are interested in their own best interests rather than in bringing down Israel? Again, dream world. You want to explain to me how they will relinquish the sacred 'right of return' ? the refugees wallowing in Arab camps who have been brainwashed to believe this 'right' is an inalienable entitlement will not support peace without it, and there will be no peace with it.

The Palestinians will act according to what they feel will best help them achieve their goals. And their goals are not development and education and prosperity, but again, the 'liberation of historic palestine' and the clensing of the area of its dirty Jews.

First of all don't compare situation of the 60s to the situation in the 21st century. Number two any retaliation of Israel on Palestine would be very devastating to Palestine both politically on the global stage and most importantly economically. Israeli retaliation capacity for letting terrorists through their borders is something that Jordan (especially Jordan), Syria and Egypt learned the hard way.

Why not? you don't think that things are so different today than they were back then do you? people are still people and they have the same generaly tendancies as they used to. The UN is the same dysfunctional organization, and the international community has demonstrated MANY times in the past decade that it is unprepared to make sacrifices to protect innocent civilians in far away places.

As for your number 2, isn't that exactly what Israel did this time at the start of this 'intifada'? Reprisals to provide incentive for deterrence. problem is, it didn't work. the Palestinian leadership and the terroirst groups were prepared to destroy Palestinian society (both physically and through dis-education), consequences be damned. You don't think the 50+% of the Palestinian population (both domestic and in Arab refugee camps) that want to see Israel destroyed will stop when instead they can have a $5 a week job at the car wash because they were never educated in anything but jihad and hatred, do you?

You are living in a magical world, and while it may be quite nice and comfortable there, this world doesn't really work like this. Leaders are not always interested in what's 'best' for their countries, and you need to provide some sort of justification as to why the Palestinians will act differently in the future than they have in the past and the present and have shown absolutely ZERO inclination for change.

[Canajew]

No, the Palestinians need to be conclusively and totally defeated in order for there to be a functional enforcement mechanism. Not humiliation-defeat, but total functional strategic and tactical defeat. Then the olive branch extended by the Israelis may get a little more respect.

You really think so? And whom exactly would they be fighting? The PLO?

Yes. The PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad et. al. All of them. The 'PA' is really just the PLO. It has always just been the PLO. They have lied and cheated and manipulated themselves into 'legitimate' actors in this whole event, yet they are nothing of the sort. Yasser Arafat never in reality rejected or abandoned violence. He only shelved it for tactical reasons. He, and his organization, are terrorists. The Palestinian people need to be 'de-nazified' from all of their programming (not as bad as the North Koreans do, but the same type of thing).

The olive branch extended by the Israelis will be perceived as the Palestinians have always perceived that sort of thing - as a sign of weakness inviting increased military activity. It will get them ZERO respect among the Palestinians. Only capitulation will appease them, and capitulation will only provide them more reason to demand more and, again, fight for the 'liberation of historic palestine'.

I don't look at the situation as extremely as you do but international force would have many problems. That is why I say that the best approach to ensure border security would be worked out between the Pals and Israelis on their own.

You are dreaming. The pals arn't interested. How can you work things out with a party not interested in working things out? They will not agree to anything, unless of course they have no intention of living up to their commitments. Just like their 'commitment' under the road-map to dismantle and disrupt the terrorist organizations. Abu Mazen told the Palestinian parliament that his greatest successes as PM involved getting around fulfilling these obligations.

If anything the international community would never approve Ethnic Cleansing. I would personally relinquish all the support of Israel - being a Jew and a human being - if it would ever happen. A transfer would be a very bloody and inhumane affair and it would condemn the Democratic nation for generations to come.

We'll see. They have accepted it in other places and in other times, and they might accept it in the future. I'm pretty sure it makes no difference, though. It will not stop the fighting, only change the front lines.

As much as I am against the transfer I do not desagree that it is a solution. The other solution is unilateral separation by Israel on Israeli terms (the best approach - in my opinion). The third solution is forceful introduction of a third party where the third party would enforce the solution. Fourth approach is to continue with this idiotic present approach or rely on the good will of the parties involved and specifically on the political strength of the Palestinians and the political interest of the Arab states.

but unilateral separation is not a 'solution'. It is a congflict MANAGEMENT strategy. the Palestinians will still fight, will still be fully committed to acts of terrorism and to clensing the area of Jews. But were Israel to 'unilaterally separate' like you suggest, then the fox will be in charge of the hen house and the PA will be able to freely allow the terror organizations to do what they do. The Israelis are in the WB towns in order to protect Israelis. Remove them from the west bank and the terrorists will once again have free reign there.

None of these 'solutions' including transfer and separation, will bring peace. the best hope is a tactical lull in hostilities, or something like the situation in Lebanon, but this is a remote best option, and it is far more likely that things will continue as they have been until the palestinians realize, once and for all, that they have lost and cannot win. Then there can be peace.

Sorry I don't smoke weed. But in reality there are solutions. [/B]

In reality there are a series of temporary stop gaps and partial solutions. the only real solution will take decades to implement and involves effort similar to the American efforts in Japan and Germany after WWII. The Palestinian society needs to be rebuilt from the ground up by enlightened foreign masters. Not a nice thing to say, but without it there will never ever be any peace.

[takeo]

so actually people can't really object to my plan except that they think palestinians will never commit to their promises. But what about Israel, wasn't it exactly Netanyahu's policy which made the palestinians loose all confidence in the oslo-proces, weren't the number of settlements twice as big since 1993... and wouldn't more than half of the people on this board object to this plan simply because they dON'T want to see a retreat from the occupied territories, because they consider it to be a legitimate part of greater Israel??? Such considerations must be dealth with as well, especially knowing that most of the current israeli government never agreed upon leaving the occupied territories, ending the settlements and recognising a palestinian state. that's exactly why a leftwing government is a requirement, because simply not only the palestinians need to agree to the principle of land for peace, so must the israeli government!!!!!!

even if the palestinians today dismantle all terrorism, I'm 100% sure Israel would still not talk with Arafat and would still not grant the palestinians their state on most of the occupied territories, and dismantle the settlements. This would simply split the government. So this current government and palestinian terrorism are allies against peace. both have a lot to loose once real peace-negociatoions lead to result, both reject the idea of a two-state solution.

[takeo]

So let me get this straight, every Jewish person living in the areas outside Israel must go back to Israel while 100's of 1000's of Arabs are to be allowed citizenship into Israel for free?

I have to tell you, you picked the wrong forum to say something as stupid as this.

why is it stupid? both are requirements by several un-resolutions... for free? they have the right to live in the land they or they parents were born, while the settlers can't show any evidence that they have the right to be there and possess this illegally acquired land.

I have a better idea. How about Israel takes Arafat and puts him in a prison cell (and throws away the key), then a moderate from the PA that doesn't do Arafat's bidding is appointed as Prime Minister. Then this new person can crack down on Hamas, Islamic Jihad et al and put a stop to Jew-hatred being preached in every school, mosque etc in the area.

Fine, but why trow arafat in jail? Doing so you won't find any palestinian moderate with at least some public support for decades to come. arafat can still be the formal leader but his health will require him to appoint another moderate prime minister. this is the scenario Israel wants to avoid at all costs, simply because they don't want peace to resume.

That is precisely why Israel allowed him to return from Tunisia ten years ago and armed his "security forces" with tens of thousands of AK47s (was it 40,000 AFAIR?). So, how many chances does the HairyFrog have? How many more Jewish and Arab children have to die to satisfy his and your sociopathic ambitions?

Arafat did do a rather good job in the 90's, restraining terror even if it had quite some sympathy amog palestinian population, perhaps he didn't do the job torough enough, but i surely remember in the 90's AI criticising the PA for putting hamas-sympathisers behind bars...
the failure of Oslo is mainly the responsability of netanyahu and barak, who never really believed in an independant palestinian state by 1999 as promised by oslo.

Why do you require the winner in the aggresive war to act as a loser? Why single out Israel? Here, let me redraw map of Europe...

Israel isn't the winner, in the current situation all parties are loosers, it's a war that can't be won on neither side. it's comparable to bosnia, all loosers, no winners. Israel had a military victory against neighbouring Arab states but couldn't win against the palestinian populations.

As for the UN peacekeepers, did they prevent previous wars as they were supposed to? Are they preventing - right now as we speak - the Hizballah attacks on Israel from Lebanese territory? Heard any UN resolutions about terror waged on Israel? There were none. Sadly, we learned the hard way not to trust our security to anybody.

yes, some un-resolutions condemned the terrorist against israeli civilians, more than one by the way.
but you are currently learning the hard way that you can't fix a satisfying solution yourself either, so international assistance is required. By the way is the situation in lebanon today so bad if you compare to some years ago or to the palestinian-israeli conflict???

How many? And their descendents too? How many generations?
What about the Jewish refugees from the Arab lands?

that are questions that should be settled during the international conferences, how many people, who exactly; etc.
some solution for the jewish refugees from arab countries should be included, compensation and/or the right to return.

Why?! Do you know the history of Golans? It was part of Palestine mandate, but then thanks to an error of stupid (?) French topograph, a faulty map has been drawn. Of course, the Arabs liked it and decided to keep it. BTW, what happened in 1948?

the golan heights are officially recognised by the entire world as a part of Syria and never ever belonged to Israel. It didn't belong to israel in the period 1948-1967, and now it's illegally occupied. look at the official map of the US-embassy in Israel, it doesn't include the golan heights!!!

Not in turn, this should have been done long ago.
Also, they say they don't have any.
Plus, those that they have, are already closed.
Plus, those that are still open, are not terrorists.
And finally, those who are, are fighting for freedom and dignity of their brethren (whom they reject any human rights).

I can go on, but it's time for you to take your medications. Enough experimenting on Jews.

well, Syria may have made their presence some kind of a mystery, they are still in Syria without any doubt. Syria is not likely to do any compromise at all untill Israel gives back the occupied part of syrian territory. Syria is not required to recognise Israel as long as Israel occupies a part of syria, since this is an act of war. Are you really prepared to postpone peace with Syria because of this little piece of land?

If the Arabs put down their weapons, there would be no war. If the Jews put down their weapons, there would be no Israel.

if the palestinians would never have resisted their occupation, there wouldn't even be a legal representative nor a palestinian government, they would live as the negro's in South-Africa, thanks to their resistance primarily during the first intifadeh at least they have some hope, some expectations which were totally denied untill the late '80's by almost the entire Israeli political top.

long time no see, Takeo

priviet, kak dela? nice to see you're still around!

Re. 1: How can a demand to elect a specific government function in a democratic country? (Imagine an improvement plan for France: "§1 - Jospin gets elected in place of Chirac" )

nothing new is it? The US doesn't recognise the elected president Arafat, the us openly threated the nicaraguan and bolivian people to stop all economic cooperation if they would elect a left-winger, Allende, ... etc. just some examples, there are many more.

Re. 8: What makes you think the refugees in question would be interested in performing dirty work in Israel?

because it would still be a huge improvement compared to their situation today. the once who have a comfortable life probably won't move to Israel but agree upon compensation.

In general, out of pure curiosity: is your plan something the PCF would approve of?

it was a personal tought, but it certainly corresponds to the program of the pcf concerning the middle east.

I was going to go through your proposal piece by piece, but there is no point. I like the general outline of your plan (though I have numerous reservations) but ibrodsky is right - this plan is in no way connected with any sort of actual reality. Its like the joke about the economist stranded on a desert island with a can of tuna but no can opener - his solution - assume a can opener.

be more specific please

OK, so assume Israel replaces sharon with a government that will buckle into Palestinian terrorism. Next, assume Arafat will be a good guy now, even though he has never been in the past. Next, assume the international community actually cares about what goes on (aside from caring about political considerations, which are different) and is willing to properly address it (something it has not done before) AND is willing to pay for it with no guarantees that the PA will not just ciphen more $ away for terrorism.

all this is very real and possible, Arafat has challenged terrorism in the past when he had the means and there were real prospects of peace, and i'm sure the pa has aknowledged that hamas and co. need to be destroyed because they will keep ruining any peace-effort. The international community and especially the us would give a lot of money to finally resolve this very ennoying question in this highly strategic region.

It goes on like this. Every step in your plan is an assumption. You need to provide some sort of evidence or argument that such assumptions are reasonable (or at least reasonably possible). Steps 1 through 4 are all mere assumptions based on absolutely no evidence, whether empirical or theoretical, and as such this 'plan' is doomed to fail like the rest.

it aren't assumptions, every step is possible, even likely in these circumstances. it's rational: the both the pa and a leftist israeli government gree upon a two-state solution so the only problem remains how to achieve this. If there's a clear roadmap to peace that forces both parties to meet the requirements most eventualities that can spoil the party are excluded. (except of course if elections bring a new kind of netanyahu to power who would block the whole process)

I have no plan of my own, so please don't ask me what i would do. I don't know. I don't think there is a solution, because the Palestinians will not allow it.

actually this question is a lot easier to resolve than the iraqi crisis, if only there would be enough goodwill and not this silly game of "who takes the first step" or mutual reprisals. ..
In Iraq the expectations and interests of both parties are radically opposed which makes it much harder if not impossible to find a solution as a compromise between the two parties. Saddam and most iraqi's won't agree to a us-occupation, the us won't just withdraw its forces and disappear after all those efforts they made, while the political ambitions of the different iraqi groups are radically opposed.

[Mil]

Posted by Canajew:



but it wasn't really. Imposing a cease-fire is entirely different than enforcing peace. Cease-fires are basically states of war without the shooting.


Cease-fire with Egypt finally ended with peace, however, cold. I would be satisfied if the relations between Palestine and Israel would be on the same terms.



BS. The fundamental flaw in your arguments appears to be that you perceive the Palstinian leadership to be both rational and to have adopted as an objective function the maximization of the welfare of their population. This has been demonstrated time and time again to be false, and it takes quite the leap of faith to believe it now. I do not. They are not interested in peace.


I am a great believer in political solutions. In history even tougher beligerents found common solutions to satisfy either sides.


The US can only do so much. It cannot put troops on the ground because they would quickly become targets of the Islamists.

US will never put troops in Israel/Palestine.


And third party commitment is insufficient if the Palestinians are not committed (unless the third party is committed to forcibly imposing its will).


The third party should be commited to provide, fascilitate, and support political platform. It has been done before and it worked!!! Listen compared to Palestine Egypt sent out an entire army against Israel and the rhetoric at the time against Israel was as profane as it is now. Some Egyptian soldiers even carried an Arabic version of Mein Kempf.


The Egyptian leadership and the Israelis wanted peace at Camp David I. The Palestinians obviously do not. they want the 'liberation of historic Palestine'.

I don't know what the Palestinian leadership is thinking but you cannot accuse them of been stupid. At the least it's their heads on the line. While Israel might spare them but their idiotic compatriots will certainly not.


their populationhas been poisened by brainwashing and intollerance, and their leaders do not give a damn about the well being of the people (and even if they did, the people want suicide bombings).


So? This does not mean that they do not want peace.



It does apply. Very well, actually. In both cases a population was basically brainwashed into an ideological fervour, and committed to total war until destruction.


Not really. Japan was not invaded, like Germany, with occupation or the destruction of its leaders. Japan capitulated.


Comparisons to Egypt and Syria, on the other hand, are not apt at all. Egypt was interested in peace, while Syria (which was ROUNDLY defeated in '73 (the Israelis could have taken Damascus had the USSR not put paratroopers there) has still not made peace with Israel.


If Israel destroyed the 3rd Egyptian Army and was allowed to re-occupy the Sinai Egypt would still be at war with Israel. That I can guarantee.

The two countries are still in a state of war. And Syria will NOT accomodate for peace with Israel. Where you come up with this stuff is beyond me (maybe its crack you smoke ).


Syria would be very happy to find an accomodation with Israel yet it's beyond of what Syria can do . Or at least not until there going to be a complete regime change in Syria.


There is absolutely no evidence to suggest it will, and there is ample evidence to suggest the contrary. they may be afraid of Israel and that is why they are financing terrorists instead of armies, but you are living in a dream world if you think they are a peaceful well-intentioned country.


I never said that Syria is a peaceful well-intentioned country. All I said that Syria would not mind to find a peaceful accomodation with Israel. At the least for security purposes.


Delusion is what got Israel into the situation it is in now, believe the PA really intended to be bound by its commitments and allow Israel to live in peace. And more delusion will only get more of the same, regardless of the nobility of intentions.


The PA itself has many things to warry about including an imminent civil war where sides would be supported by various Arab states to ful-fill their purposes. Neither Israel nor Palestine want to either become a second Lebanon or have a Lebanon like neighbor on its border.


And yes, the object is to negotiate not to embarass. But in order to negotiate the Palestinians must be roundly defeated, otherwise they will not not not negotiate in good faith and be prepared to be bound by any negotiated agreement. They must see the light before we can pull them through.


So how would you defeat the Palestinians? Do you think destroying Hamas, IJ, A-Brigades and such would fascilitatepeace? What if another group springs up? What if Saudi Arabia or lets say Syria or Iran decide to influence things a litte?



WHAT?!? It is in their interests to stop fighting now. It was never in their interests to start fighting in the first place. Are you really naive enough to believe that their leadership is interested in the people's best interests, or even that the people are interested in their own best interests rather than in bringing down Israel?


Stop repeating this idiocy about the destruction of Israel and such. It's for babies. The reason why the Intifada is still in place is because Arafat is a bad political leader where the only way he can survive is by balancing his act between all the various forces including extremists, Arab states, Israel, US and the rest of the world. That's why Arafat has to be removed or go into retirement and somebody completely new should be introduced.


Again, dream world. You want to explain to me how they will relinquish the sacred 'right of return' ?


EASY. They would be put in front of the fact.


the refugees wallowing in Arab camps who have been brainwashed to believe this 'right' is an inalienable entitlement will not support peace without it, and there will be no peace with it.


Who cares about what they think or are brainwashed to think. Let Palestinians deal with that. Everyone knows that no former Palestinian will step a foot inside Israel proper; it's all just rhetoric.


The Palestinians will act according to what they feel will best help them achieve their goals. And their goals are not development and education and prosperity, but again, the 'liberation of historic palestine' and the clensing of the area of its dirty Jews.


No comment.



Why not? you don't think that things are so different today than they were back then do you? people are still people and they have the same generaly tendancies as they used to.


There are many things that are different. First of all no Cold War and second of all the Arab world has more or less stabalized.


The UN is the same dysfunctional organization, and the international community has demonstrated MANY times in the past decade that it is unprepared to make sacrifices to protect innocent civilians in far away places.


That's why UN is not the third party - but US is.


As for your number 2, isn't that exactly what Israel did this time at the start of this 'intifada'? Reprisals to provide incentive for deterrence. problem is, it didn't work. the Palestinian leadership and the terroirst groups were prepared to destroy Palestinian society (both physically and through dis-education), consequences be damned. You don't think the 50+% of the Palestinian population (both domestic and in Arab refugee camps) that want to see Israel destroyed will stop when instead they can have a $5 a week job at the car wash because they were never educated in anything but jihad and hatred, do you?


All I said is that after the Palestinian state would be established any increased violence against Israel coming from over the borders would be answered by retaliation. Trust me after Israel destroys a few economic targets - the Pals would make sure to guard their borders.


You are living in a magical world, and while it may be quite nice and comfortable there, this world doesn't really work like this.


Dude as I said above peace was found among belligerents much more violent then those in the Israeli/Pal conflict.


Leaders are not always interested in what's 'best' for their countries, and you need to provide some sort of justification as to why the Palestinians will act differently in the future than they have in the past and the present and have shown absolutely ZERO inclination for change.


I agree, Palestinian leadership is very ineffective that's why Israel should take initiative into its own facts and separate unilaterally.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
When France returns Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, we'll consider it.

How naive do you have to be to suggest putting Arafat in charge of dismantling the terror organizations? (This was condition #1 of the Road Map, by the way.) If it's not naivete that motivates such a comment, it must be outright glee at the prospect of more dead Jews.

Not to mention 'TakeØ's plan' was the Barak deal.. give or take.

And the Palestinians counteroffer was the Intifada.

Interesting also .. TakeØ wants to unlelect the Goverment that was a result of the Arab rejection, Sharon, while keeping Arafat, who has failed to negotiate or honor agreements with every other Israel' PM of any party for 36 years.

[takeo]

(1) the presence of an interlocutor on both sides, prepared to bargain in good faith and to be bound by any eventual agreement.

ok

(2) a willingness of the domestic populations of each side to be prepared to be bound by an agreement negotiated in good faith by their leaders.

I think that willingness exists on both sides, the only problem is the lack of confidence and trust, on both sides.

(3) the Palestinians must stop brainwashing their population. (note that this is not a reciprocal precondition as were the previous two because this circumstance is unique to Palestinian society and unless it is addressed BEFORE negotiations are entered into such negotiations cannot succeed)

i think this will stop naturally once peace is a reality, it's the same all over the world. The same applies to israel of course, it should stop to diabolise Arafat... by the way palestinian anger doesn't so much rely on propaganda but much more on daily reality, rockets and tanks destroying buildings, daily closures, settlers taking over parts of palestinian cities under israeli guardance, this are daily realities which contribute to the hate against israel and everything it represents. (even before this current intifadeh, but undoubtely much stronger nowadays)

There are undoubtedly many more, and I cannot, therefore, say that these are sufficient preconditions for a peace settlement, but rather that they are necessary conditions. Without the first two, ANY negotiations will fail, whether in the context of international agreements or private business agreements, while without the third the Palestinians will never be in a position to satisfy conditions 1 and 2.

there are conditions, however, on israeli side as well, such as a general willingness to get rid of the settlements and finally accept that the palestinian state will be a reality in the near future.

Why? It was Begin to sign Camp-David accords. Yet this depends on the Israeli voters.

all right, but Begin was a lot more realistic than the current rulers. perhaps Sharon is a old real-politician, but large parts of his government certainly aren't and are in favor of ideological solutions. besides this isn't about some piece of desert, this is primarily about the historically, strategically and economically important Westbank.

lets put it the other way around. Israel would be meeting with US to discuss the peace process since it will be the US that will be providing the "Internation" backing, political assistance, and most importantly financial contributions. The thing is that it is something that US and Israel are currently already doing.

yes, but israel doesn't follow the recommendations of the us, not even in theory. Besides, the will on israeli side is lacking to really find a solution, thus leaving washington in a powerless position (punishing and threatening israel as have been the case for other countries is still not an option it seems, because of the strong zionist lobby)

Yep. Short of starting a civil war of course.

yes, but you can bet on it that if the palestinians see the israeli's are really removing settlements and withdrawing there will be a lot of support for the pa, and much less for Hamas. (as was the case in 1993-1995), hamas will certainly loose the civil war in this case. in the current conditions however things might turn out completely different. (given the fact as well that most of the pa's security apparatus has been demolished by israel)

Even if the main culprits really exist outside Palestine? Right?

the ones outside are much less dangerous.

You make me laugh. Even if Arafat wanted to remove Hamas he wouldn't be able to do it - other Arab regimes would never let him do it.

BS, jordan, Egypt, perhaps even lebanon and syria (on the condition israel is negociating over the golan) would wellcome this.

So basically if there are court battles and such and if Israel delays for at least one month - basically PA is free to not dismantle Hamas for that month? Right? And in the mean-while some bus explodes just to hurry up the Israelis. Right?

one month, no, but if it becomes clear after a year israel is not going to meet its obligations, at all, than hamas-members should be released and the struggle against terror ended. the other way around as well of course... a strong reminder to both sides to keep their commitments, and a strong reminder for whoever gets elected in israel not to postpone already agreed upon decisions.

And in the mean-while two more buses explode because some faction in Palestine does not like some minute detail of the peace agreenment. Following the explosion French peace-keepers, who apparently let the bomb through, are fighting a political battle in the UN to prove of how inoccent they are. At the same time Arafat's security forces storm the head-quarters of the extremist organization and 20 people die in the battle. Another week passes and some Palestinian official gets assasinated for siding with the "Zionists." Following the assocination two days of demostrations ensue in which the Pal preventive forces kill 20 and ejure some 100. Following that a UN border potrol is targeted with an RPG killing all four European peace-keepers on board (Israel would never agree to Arab participants) causing condemnation from the UN. At the same time there is enourmous pressure on Arafat to find the guilty while at the same time the same French UN checkpoint misses another suicide bomber which kills another 15 people in a Haifa cafe.

this doesn't sound likely or reasonable, because fighting terror means fighting all terror with all means available. The French and others would just keep the peace and protect israel militarily, the anti-terrorist struggle would be the palestinian responsability since they have the means to sort out who's terrorist and who isn't. with the propper support and means (which they haven't today) palestinians would be able to deal with the fundamentalists as any other Arab state dealt with them, such as syria, Jordan, egypt, etc.

In reality no international force would ever work and you would not find too many volunteers to send their troops to the place. If anything the security has to be worked out between Israelis and Pals.

this is preferably but there's a lack of trust between the two sides, the international troops would be a kind of go-between, especially in the border areas.

WHAT?!!!!!!! Never will Pals be allowed to work in Israel.

they did in the past, when there were far less suicide-killings than today...

Until there is going to be a Democratic regime in Damascus Syria will never get the Golan.

what difference does that make? why can't you make peace with assad, as it appears he'll be there a long time to come. even Kaddafi seems nowadays to come to terms with Europe and the us, so why not Assad? you made peace with Egypt and jordan as well which aren't exactly democracies are they? in fact dictatorships are more reliable since a democratic system means another government doesn't necessarily agree to the principles signed by his predecessor...

You basically described the "Road Map." with some extra twicks. So what's new?

new, that israel has to offer the full and total withdrawel of the occupied territories without further uncertainties or BS, and that both the israeli and palestinian duties will rely upon eachother ...

[takeo]

In reality what's needed is a brand new approach to the issue and nothing that gives any room for irrelivent discussions or relies on the good-will of the two sides. The latter has been tried over and over. I say unilateral separation of Israel (on Israeli terms of course) from the West Bank and Gaza is best way to accomplish peace. And Jerusalem remains Israeli - of course.

indeed goodwill alone isn't enough, there need to be a stick, on both sides however!!!
unilateral separation isn't the solution however, unless you mean all of the occupied territories. if not palestinians will continue to fight israel untill all of the occupied territories have been freed. but even in this case it leaves a lot of insecurity, such as at the border with lebanon.

I agree, but this wouldn't really lead to 'peace', would it? Rather the result would be, at best (though exceedingly unlikely), a cease fire and at worst (and almost certainly) continued cross border aggression.

indeed

It seems that peace is impossible and what is needed are for people's thoughts and efforts to be dedicated to conflict management rather than conflict resolution. But even with this approach, the 'best case scenario' is likely only to be mediocre.

such a situation can't be managed, only a total comprehensive solution will bring peace.

The rest is "pie in the sky". The conflict is based on Islamic religious hatred and that will never cease. It is up to Israel to defend itself or be a victim again and all the world needs to wake up to Islamic religious hatred. It is a sad chapter in human history.

The core of the problem being Islamic racism needs to be addressed out in the open and removed from the closet.

You can't solve anything if you pretend the main problem doesn't exist.

BS, islamism isn't the main problem, everything most palestinians want is a normal country in the occupied territories and most of all a normal life free of occupation. the main problem is the israeli occupation, which has to end, even people who aren't islamic resist israeli occupation, such as the christians.

Well, after observing and analyzing the Israeli/Arab conflict for the better part of my life, I disagree with just about every part of this plan, because it will guarantee the destruction of the State of Israel as a Jewish State. It might also bring the majority of murderous Palestinians closer to their true and ultimate dream of conducting a Jihad-Genocide of the Jews of Israel.

perhaps you mean the destruction of the idea of Eretz Israel to which you are so much dedicated. It would however garantee the survival of a peacefull israel integrated in the region and finally coming to terms with the palestinians and vice-versa. not all will be perfect immidiately, but surely it will mean a great improvement compared to the last decades, and a lesser financial burden as well for israel. Anyways, there isn't an alternative, because your plan of etnic cleansing will ensure Israel's destruction.

But unfortunately, I think it's fair to say that takeo's plan is probably not far off from the views of most Europeans, and even many Israeli Leftists would sign off on this plan.

that's right, i would even say the majority of the Israeli, if terrorism would really come to an end.

Other than the Arafat reference, this is probably the only part of takeo's plan that makes sense to me and that could actually bring about the beginning of a peace process. But this has been tried time and time again, including in the latest Road Map for Peace.

no, it didn't, palestinians currently haven't the means to do so and israel can't either, the climate is very hostile. only a real palestinian state can. in the 90's some of this happened, but not enough and not systematic enough.

And each time the Palestinians are required to eliminate their terror organizations, it becomes clear that the majority of the Palestinian people in fact support terrorism and Jihad-Genocide against the Jews, and so the Palestinian leadership is not willing to act against the wishes of its people. (as others have already commented before me).

IF the people really believe in the israeli intentions to really end the occupation, as they did during the mid 90's, support for hamas drops considerably.

So, I ask takeo, what does he suggest to do if and when the Palestinian leadership refuses to stop their terrorist brothers?

then of course the israeli's won't fullfill their promises either. but you should at least give them a chance to do so, reinstall the security apparatus, withdraw, and start giving them incitives, prospectives, rewards for ending terrorism, which will in turn increase the popularity of the pa. this seems to be a problem for this government, because, i repeat, they don't want to withdraw!

you can't really impose peace on warring peoples. You can facilitate conditions that will allow them to make peace, and you can facilitate conditions that make war and aggression more difficult (like the wall in the WB), but peace cannot be imposed if one side is unwilling to accept it, unless of course the side that does not want peace is bluggened into submission. And on this logic, the Palestinians must be defeated in order to become independent. Because if they are not defeated they will never be willing to stop fighting. Much like the Japanese in WWII.

the situation is not comparable, the palestinians have been military defeated, but unlike the japanese they are fighting for theirr own existence, their own country, not some colonial possessions. The japanese would still be fighting the us if the us would have colonised japan instead of returning its status of a strong independant power. as the vietnamese, in such a situation you simply can't win a war, because you can't win a war against an entire people, the european colonisers came to this conclusion some decades ago...

This is ludecrous. Why should the Palestinians, once they gain independence, cooperate with Israel in any way, rather than continuing their efforts to delegitimize Israel in the international arena while continuing to facilitate cross border terrorist activities. the world did nothing in the 50s and 60s about cross border terrorism from Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, so why in the world do you think they will do anything this time other than push israel not to retaliate or take effective measures to counteract these raids?

because, once they have their independant state, they have actually something to loose, not only their credibility but their security and independance. Even the terrorists of hesbollah don't attack israel even if they have the means to do so and never recognised israel. (because lebanon is free now, their main objective) a palestinian state would take care, as jordan, egypt and even syria, not to let terrorists attack israel from ist territory.

[takeo]

And who is to enforce this 'peace'? The Europeans? Israel would never allow this. the Americans? Arab jihadists would flock to the area to kill as many as they can (and the Americans could be expected to treat the Palestinians far worse than the Israelis in dealing with these jihadists - the American's first inclanation is to carpet bomb when at risk). Some sort of third world intervention force? What kind of political will do you think they would have to stand up to Palestinian terrorist organizations willing to commit any and every kind of attrocity to undermine their morale?

Europeans, Russians, chinese and Americans under un-leadership, for example. They wouldn't flock to combat the us-forces since the troops will essencially be considered liberators by the palestinians, so even al-quaida won't risk to attack them (the palestinian question was their most important propaganda-asset untill recently, now Bush gave them another great gift, iraq!).

we'll see. It may be the only answer and while it will surely not happen in the current political environment, there may be circumstances in the future when the international community would be more tollerant of this sort of thing.

in your dreams

When France returns Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, we'll consider it.

not a single alsacien wants to return to germany, believe me! besides Alsace-lorraine is recognised by the entire world as being part of france. what a silly comparison...

How naive do you have to be to suggest putting Arafat in charge of dismantling the terror organizations? (This was condition #1 of the Road Map, by the way.) If it's not naivete that motivates such a comment, it must be outright glee at the prospect of more dead Jews.

arafat prooved in the past to be dedicated to peace if israel is as well. He still is, but needs assistance perhaps from more modern leaders more in touch with reality and in better health.

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:


what difference does that make?


Big difference.



even Kaddafi seems nowadays to come to terms with Europe and the us, so why not Assad?


Because Israel is no Europe or US. Israel is located in the Middle East. The reason why Israel would not accomodate Assad is because he is Assad.


you made peace with Egypt and jordan as well which aren't exactly democracies are they?


Peace with Egypt costs US 2 billion dollars yearly and US will never give the same offer to Syria.



in fact dictatorships are more reliable since a democratic system means another government doesn't necessarily agree to the principles signed by his predecessor...


On the contrary Democracies are much more dependable to keeping treaties already in place!!!!!!!!!! If anything it's dictatorships that have this interesting ability to change their mind. As I told you before Democracies have two very important qualities: Transparancy and Predictability. The latter is something that dictatorships lack.

[takeo]

If anything the international community would never approve Ethnic Cleansing. I would personally relinquish all the support of Israel - being a Jew and a human being - if it would ever happen. A transfer would be a very bloody and inhumane affair and it would condemn the Democratic nation for generations to come.

idem dito

As much as I am against the transfer I do not desagree that it is a solution. The other solution is unilateral separation by Israel on Israeli terms (the best approach - in my opinion). The third solution is forceful introduction of a third party where the third party would enforce the solution. Fourth approach is to continue with this idiotic present approach or rely on the good will of the parties involved and specifically on the political strength of the Palestinians and the political interest of the Arab states.

all those are theoretical solutions which will never work in reality.

Sorry I don't smoke weed.

is it legalised in illinois?

At any rate this is all in a vacuum. All the 'lamb lies down with the lion' thinking ignores the other 2 million Palestinians in neighboring countries who will be pogrommed out of those countries and marched across the borders to Palestine. The international community will do nothing abou this either because if there is only one thing they are more indifferent to than dead Jews, it's arab on arab genocide.

actually the worst off will leave for israel while the more wealthy ones, certainly with compensation, will be more easily integrated in the country of residence.

BS. The fundamental flaw in your arguments appears to be that you perceive the Palstinian leadership to be both rational and to have adopted as an objective function the maximization of the welfare of their population. This has been demonstrated time and time again to be false, and it takes quite the leap of faith to believe it now. I do not. They are not interested in peace.

your conclusions are false

Comparisons to Egypt and Syria, on the other hand, are not apt at all. Egypt was interested in peace, while Syria (which was ROUNDLY defeated in '73 (the Israelis could have taken Damascus had the USSR not put paratroopers there) has still not made peace with Israel. The two countries are still in a state of war. And Syria will NOT accomodate for peace with Israel. Where you come up with this stuff is beyond me (maybe its crack you smoke ). There is absolutely no evidence to suggest it will, and there is ample evidence to suggest the contrary. they may be afraid of Israel and that is why they are financing terrorists instead of armies, but you are living in a dream world if you think they are a peaceful well-intentioned country. Delusion is what got Israel into the situation it is in now, believe the PA really intended to be bound by its commitments and allow Israel to live in peace. And more delusion will only get more of the same, regardless of the nobility of intentions.

syria made clear time after time its willing to recognise israel on the condition israel returns the golan-heights, the only problem during negociations was how much golan should be given back.

WHAT?!? It is in their interests to stop fighting now. It was never in their interests to start fighting in the first place. Are you really naive enough to believe that their leadership is interested in the people's best interests, or even that the people are interested in their own best interests rather than in bringing down Israel? Again, dream world. You want to explain to me how they will relinquish the sacred 'right of return' ? the refugees wallowing in Arab camps who have been brainwashed to believe this 'right' is an inalienable entitlement will not support peace without it, and there will be no peace with it.

the right of return is a un-resolution and will happen sooner or later, it is even included in the roadmap. the first intifadeh led to the oslo-proces, so clearly resisting the occupation is in their interest (but not the killing of innocent people)

As for your number 2, isn't that exactly what Israel did this time at the start of this 'intifada'? Reprisals to provide incentive for deterrence. problem is, it didn't work. the Palestinian leadership and the terroirst groups were prepared to destroy Palestinian society (both physically and through dis-education), consequences be damned. You don't think the 50+% of the Palestinian population (both domestic and in Arab refugee camps) that want to see Israel destroyed will stop when instead they can have a $5 a week job at the car wash because they were never educated in anything but jihad and hatred, do you?

they already gain more than that, but anyway yes they would, palestinians want economic devellopment very badly, but they also aknowledge this requires an end to the occupation.

Yes. The PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad et. al. All of them. The 'PA' is really just the PLO. It has always just been the PLO. They have lied and cheated and manipulated themselves into 'legitimate' actors in this whole event, yet they are nothing of the sort. Yasser Arafat never in reality rejected or abandoned violence. He only shelved it for tactical reasons. He, and his organization, are terrorists. The Palestinian people need to be 'de-nazified' from all of their programming (not as bad as the North Koreans do, but the same type of thing).

insanity. the plo was a resistance organisation as anywhere in the colonised world, it is the most moderate of all palestinian organisations. In postwar germany many germans didn't like nazism so denazification was easy, in palestine every single palestinian is engaged in their national liberation, which by the way isn't as close to nazism as israel's Eretz Israel-ambitions are. the so called "denazification" of iraq didn't succeed either, because many people still support the baathist party, the same reason why the nazi's "desovietisation" during WWII completely failed. you will have to live with the plo, like it or not. the alternative is hamas, jihad or al-aqsa...

In reality there are a series of temporary stop gaps and partial solutions. the only real solution will take decades to implement and involves effort similar to the American efforts in Japan and Germany after WWII. The Palestinian society needs to be rebuilt from the ground up by enlightened foreign masters. Not a nice thing to say, but without it there will never ever be any peace.

the japanese and german society were never rebuild from the ground, and never had foreign masters. the germans and japanese did it all themselves (even the japanese emperor stayed), they just changed sides because the allied could offer them once again an independant and strong state. Israel can't offer anything like this to the palestinians. the case of iraq, and before colonialism, shows that without the population cooperating nd without strong incentives nothing can be achieved.

[takeo]

Peace with Egypt costs US 2 billion dollars yearly and US will never give the same offer to Syria.

no need to, Syria wants the golan heights, that's it.

On the contrary Democracies are much more dependable to keeping treaties already in place!!!!!!!!!! If anything it's dictatorships that have this interesting ability to change their mind. As I told you before Democracies have two very important qualities: Transparancy and Predictability. The latter is something that dictatorships lack.

so what about netanyahu not agreeing to the oslo-process? what about Bush refusing to implement kyoto? etc. ...
most democracies as well lack transparancy and predictability.
I would rather be a businessman in China or singapore than in India or bangladesh...

[takeo]

Not to mention 'TakeØ's plan' was the Barak deal.. give or take.

And the Palestinians counteroffer was the Intifada.

Interesting also .. TakeØ wants to unlelect the Goverment that was a result of the Arab rejection, Sharon, while keeping Arafat, who has failed to negotiate or honor agreements with every other Israel' PM of any party for 36 years.

no, there's a big difference!
barak's offer was even a far cry of the rather unclear oslo-agreements, and didn't promise to give back the occupied territories, only scattered parts of it without real borders as any independant state.

of course Arafat should be elected as well during new elections, but I'm sure that Arafat is more willing to commit to the two-state solution than the government-sharon is. perhaps, as i said, sharon would be realistic enough to accept such a solution, but parts of his own party and certainly his coalition-partners certainly wouldn't. They don't even agree to ceasing the settlement-activity! arafat got along pretty well with rabin and perez, untill the first one got assasinated (not by a palestinian, remember, and some members of this forum are still searching for excuses to legitimise this crime) which was the beginning of the end of the peace-process.