No to the Two state solution

[curlyg]

Originally Posted by bararallu

Their nationality is the fundamental constituent of their narrative. The basic difference in *the Jews* vs "the Palestinians"- is that the Jews (As checkered as our ancient history is, and I can hold school sessions on it), never claimed that say the Canaanites never existed, or that the Shomronim are invaders (we can talk about the Shomronim btw, its an interesting story), and have no place in the region. Neither do the e.g., Swedes for all their faults manufactured "swedishness" out of the air just to *negate* the Finns or Danish. "Palestine" is pure and simple: replacement theology married to a vicious ethnic cleansing motives. That is what it amounts to. And just like we don't accept other projects of comparable stature (i.e., the European-Aryan enterprise) we should not accept this patently anti-Semitic construct. If we do please feel free to call you and I sons of a apes and pigs.

Let me state again, not only have they manufactured the nationality rather recently, and done so with the KGB (and our friends the Egyptians) in tow, but they have done so to fundamentally undermine our existence as a people. That is the definition of a zero sum game. Its not enough that we loose, they must win.... no two state solution. Accepting their narrative, any part of it, including their nationality is tantamount to something like the denial of the Holocaust or any sort of blood libel. Please put it in context... Its not that they are just a myth, they are a myth that are in place to make you demon spawn.

My position on Jewish negotiations with these envious sniveling cowards: If you're happy to come to a negotiation table in good faith and be spat in your face with all this, please don't represent the rest of us Jews. Not in my name. The Palestinian narrative and their fabricated anti-Semitic nationality should be anathema to any self respecting Jew.

Originally Posted by Kachah

Not going to happen, curlyg. It's Western-style wishful thinking - like bringing democracy to Afghanistan or Rainbow nation. Define borders, sign agreement and hold the violators responsible. Not with this mob.
Their leaders play double or nothing, and they know damn well that the Left will not allow the "nothing" option.
They don't want the state, in fact, they don't give a damn. State or no state - as long as Israel goes. One of the reasons is that there is no Palestinian people and no need for any formal statehood, but mostly because they are brainwashed, exhausted and denied education and objective information.
Egypt was different, it was already a state and its rulers had a lot to lose if the war was going on. THey were not "oppressed" or "displaced", they had an army, it would have been very hard for them to go backwards.

Originally Posted by Kachah

My regards, bararallu. The fabrication of "Palestinian" identity is a mere tool of trade. And the trade is - Judenfrei Middle East.
It wasn't even accomplished by the Palestinians, it's all a product of KGB and chardonnay socialists of Europe. Do you know how many years Abbas spent in the KGB school in Moscow? Find out.
The Arab position since 1947 UN vote has not changed - no Israel, the rest is irrelevant. With the state or without, Fatah or Hamas - don't matter. THeir goal is very clear. I wish we had goals as well defined as theirs. And we did when it was an existential conflict. We had to survive the Wars of Independence, we had to overcome the multiple enemies in the following decades in wars. Nothing challenges our military might any more and the accords with Egypt and Jordan to a lesser extent guarantee that.
But the enemy has changed its tactics and modus operandi while retaining the strategy. Their army now is the terrorist groups on the ground and the Left wing of the Western society supporting them internationally. 2 state trick is part of this tactical ploy.
We are yet to find successful countermeasures and defeat this threat.

Even if we accept the contention that at the genesis of its formation Palestinian identity was primarily a tool to delegitimise the presence of the Jews in the Land of Israel it surely can't be regarded so simply at this stage. They have genuinely undergone a different collective experience to neighboring Arab nations over the past century.

But even if we accept your position on Palestinian nationalism entirely - what difference does this make in practice? The entirely debate is a waste of time, it does not change the situation at all whether we decide to recognise them as "Palestinians" or simply as generic Arabs. The facts remain the same, the pressures remain the same, and the viable solutions remain the same.

It also seems to me that there is a degree of schizophrenia in the Right's approach to the problem of the two-state solution. On the one hand the argument is made that the Palestinians have never wanted a two-state solution, and as evidence the failure of previous negotiations (especially Camp David and Taba) is cited. But on the other hand the Right argues against negotiations and clearly fears a two-state solution because of the "salami doctrine" whereby the Palestinians are allegedly attempting to cut up Israel slice by slice, first with a two-state solution, and then with further attacks until we concede more and more territory. The arguments are clearly inconsistent. If the Palestinians are engaging in the salami tactic, why haven't they accepted one of the proposed two-state deals? If they do not want a two-state solution at all, why the aversion to negotiation? What is there to fear? More importantly, if one holds that they are not interested in a two-state solution, then what are they interested in? Clearly maintaining the status-quo is not at all conducive to their ultimate goal of destroying Israel and they would benefit far more from controlling their own territory.

[bararallu]

Originally Posted by curlyg

Even if we accept the contention that at the genesis of its formation Palestinian identity was primarily a tool to delegitimise the presence of the Jews in the Land of Israel it surely can't be regarded so simply at this stage.

Really and why is that?

Lets review some data points:

1. The KGB role was exposed in fabricating the palestinian nationality, as reported by the former head of Romanian Intelligence.
2. The Syrians, who never quite dropped their claim to the whole of the Levant, had to be convinced by the former to tactically follow the strategy and then that was done post 1973 when they lost the war.
3. The Charters of both Fatah and Hamas, are zero sum scenarios that negate the historical claim of the Jews on their land and theologically/ethnically replace the Jews with the said fabricated nationality and related 'narrative' (=neqba etc)
4. the PLO was re-invented in circa 1965 with Syrian blessing.
5. There have been 3 attempts at genocide against the Israeli Jews and a mass ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab countries.

They have genuinely undergone a different collective experience to neighboring Arab nations over the past century.

I'd like to hear more about this 'genuine transformation.'

Really.

Nationality generally is a rather week strata of the consciousness for typical Arabs. First comes the family (they typically never leave the village or even block of their birth) and a little beyond that their tribal/clan affiliation. Those are the primary drivers of Arab self identity. Pan Arabism in fact- was started by non Arab Aramean/Chaldian populations in the Levant and Iraq.

This is completely different from the Jews, who's national identity supersedes clan affiliation or even family affiliation in many cases.

But even if we accept your position on Palestinian nationalism entirely - what difference does this make in practice?

No, if I'm to negotiate with Nazis then I negotiate with Nazis. I'd rather shoot Nazis personally. Actually, I'd rather negotiate with Nazis than with hypocrites like Arafat and writeabookonholocaustdenial Abbas.

The entirely debate is a waste of time, it does not change the situation at all whether we decide to recognize them as "Palestinians" or simply as generic Arabs.

Of course it does. They are occupying Hebrew soil, at our sufferance. They've also bloodied that soil with Jewish blood. I'm not comfortable negotiating away Hebrew soil. I am up for strategically retreating until the time is right to retake our national holdings.

The facts remain the same, the pressures remain the same, and the viable solutions remain the same.

Right, demonification of Israel, the Jews, unabated replacement theology, Holocaust denial, attempted genocide, or at least arming and training of the Arab foe with shortsighted American strategy- to attempt yet another one. Yes that I certainly see.

It also seems to me that there is a degree of schizophrenia in the Right's approach to the problem of the two-state solution.

You don't seem to understand our ethical position. We don't negotiate with liars or thieves, much less attempted genociders. Not because those negotiations are indeed a "waste of time," but because it is an affront to the memory of all the prematurely dead Jews that made Israel and our nation possible since time immemorial. That said, there are hypocrites on the right, and an immense amount of pressure to boot from the "International Community", most of all the US and EU.

On the one hand the argument is made that the Palestinians have never wanted a two-state solution, and as evidence the failure of previous negotiations (especially Camp David and Taba) is cited. But on the other hand the Right argues against negotiations and clearly fears a two-state solution because of the "salami doctrine"

This is an illogical juxtaposition. We hold that the Arabs have never wanted a two state solution. They want the dhimmi rules in effect and have us perpetually under their heel in the best scenario, genocide being the more probable path. The Salami Method is not something that the Israeli Right invented. Arafat's Cairo speech pretty much laid that out in gory details.

It has to do with "confidence building measures," and the commensurate single sided [Israeli] concessions, under Oslo that would theoretically lead to a 2 state solution, not a two state solution in its own right. The two are in fact two sides of the same coin: the one is a broad strategy the other some opportune tactics filling out that strategy.

whereby the Palestinians are allegedly attempting to cut up What is there to fear?

International Commitments, since the only party to get blamed (pay attention to Mr Goldstone recently? or the UN?) are the Israelis. Every concession is unidirectional, every penalty is comparably unidirectional, even though any supposed deal would be negotiated. There is no peace possible, you need to face that possibility. We need to win a war, we have since we had the cojones to retake our land.

More importantly, if one holds that they are not interested in a two-state solution, then what are they interested in?

You got to be kidding me asking that. Do you or don't you see that the Palestinian enterprise is an exercise in attempted replacement theology/ethnic cleansing? What have they built with *Billions and Billions* of dollars in aid? Riddle me this batman.

Clearly maintaining the status-quo is not at all conducive to their ultimate goal of destroying Israel and they would benefit far more from controlling their own territory.

Says a Westerner w/ western ideals and standard of living, residing in a civilized country. They are raiders, thieves and religious fanatics, using ways and means virtually unchanged in 3000 years. Can they better themselves, sure. Will they, I'd bet against it.

Generally, Curly, I'd like you to demonstrate to us that successfully negotiating peace with Dictatorships, and then Arab dictatorships, is something that historically holds water. I'd further like you to demonstrate that having a security guarantee by another country (or worse something like the EU/UN) is something we should have faith in. And lastly I'd like to you to demonstrate that the Palestinians are actually interested in building a state, given that they have build absolutely nothing to date with enough money to rebuild Israel many times over.

[Aliyah1995]

Great post, bararallu. So much so, that I have nothing more to add, as I couldn't have said it better myself

[Yala]

Originally Posted by bararallu

Nationality generally is a rather week strata of the consciousness for typical Arabs. First comes the family (they typically never leave the village or even block of their birth) and a little beyond that their tribal/clan affiliation. Those are the primary drivers of Arab self identity.

Quite right and this even made up most of the plot of Lawrence of Arabia. It's so obvious that most of the people arguing about this conflict haven't the faintest idea about Arabs and their history.

[Kachah]

Originally Posted by bararallu

Says a Westerner w/ western ideals and standard of living, residing in a civilized country. .

And Western democracy where the governements act on behalf of people (more or less).
Yep, that's one of the main hurdles to understanding.
The Arabs are nothing like that and their leaders are infinitely removed from the people (not only Arabs, Russia or North Korea are no different in principle).
Now think about it: did Arafat want a state? why? What could he do with a state he could not do without?

[bararallu]

Yep and there are ways to put this that even Leftists grok the nature of the universe (btw Curly, I don't particularly include you in the Leftist signifier, we know you're just being a devils advocate ) in speaking their own language: ass backwards economics.

Leftist analysis is primarily based on the marxist dialectic and as such sees the world in terms of capital, of haves and have nots. Now while there is quite the disparity between Israel and Fakestine, and pretty much all other Arab States, even those blessed with black gold- the usual takeo class analysis comes up a little short generally in identifying the class struggle involved. The actual class struggle as anyone with eyes, ears and a wet noodle between their ears can ascertain is between the exceptionally small Arab elite class (typically focused around a number of tribes/clans, per country and related nepotism) and the tons of nose pickin hoi palloi.

The elites sacrifice the whole of the economy to a war footing, which is consistent with the ways raider economies have functioned in the ME since... well since we have recorded history actually. The goal is to demonify, hype victory over the demon Jews, and spend billions on arming themselves to the teeth to accomplish said victory: and most of the time being too cowardly to actually carry out such an endevour. The other half of the fortune of aid and black gold proceeds spent is in literally greasing the machine. You see we in the west have Banks. The Arabs have grandparents, gold chests in sand and farm animals. They pretty much live in the worlds biggest ponzi scheme. Don't believe it? Live in Egypt or any Arab country for a month and find out.

Why is this the case? Ask yourselves the question: what the hell will the Arabs do if they have victory over Israel? Next target [EU] is going to be harder still, and they will likely get nuked 100x over, so hence the status as is. Raider economies + kleptocracy + corruption through the core of society, by and for the elites, are all synergistic factors that we need to accept as boundary conditions in assessing the questions why do Arabs do what they do.

[newman]

Originally Posted by Golem of Prague

"Constructed" is a bit inaccurate. Collective identities arise out of shared historic experience.

But your larger point is spot on. Whether or not the Palestinians existed as a national entity in 1948 can be argued, but the existence of a Palestinian people today is an inarguable fact, and their national aspirations have to be channeled somewhere. Which is why the two state solution is the most logical and least damaging way out of this conflict.

I say again.........................BALONEY!

Please point out the unique palestinian language, quisine, customs, dress etc etc.

They are just ubiquitous arab/muslim/nazis. An inbred, child-mollesting, thieving, Jew-hating arab from Iraq/Saudi/wherever is looks the same, dresses the same, speaks the same and stinks the same as one who's relatives have squatted in Eretz Israel for several generations!

One more thing. Jews have been in EY for at least 3500 years (learned Jews please correct me here) or longer. Not one stinking arab/muslim/nazi ever set one diseased foot in EY until 1200 or so years ago. So the Jews have it as far as 'native title' goes.

Need I also remind you of the other 'rights of ownership' issues?

1/ Title granted by G-d.

2/ Land paid for in money (yes, early zionists BOUGHT most of the land from it's absentee Turkish & egyptian owners)

3/ Land paid for in Jewish blood (Land taken in a defensive war is legal under international law. Notice how germany ain't getting former territories (such as the Sudetenland) back??)

[bararallu]

The Learned Jews are off on holiday at the moment. I'd say another week and they'll be back

[curlyg]

Don't worry barallau, I haven't forgotten you. With charm like yours, how could I?

I'll have more time in around 2 weeks. Exams.

[Kachah]

Originally Posted by bararallu

Generally, Curly, I'd like you to demonstrate to us that successfully negotiating peace with Dictatorships, and then Arab dictatorships, is something that historically holds water.

It's probably premature to state that Camp David "historically" has proven to hold water but I doubt you can deny it was successful negotiation (obviously by ME-Arab standars). Probably some objections will follow that Sadat was not a fully blown dictator - which is true to the same extent that Egypt was no democracy either. What mattered though was that Sadat had a clear incentive: get the land back and further improve his powers as a a ruler of an independent state already in existence. This made his case very different to Abbas's - what would he gain? He isn't even a true dictator, he could not hold on to Gaza when it was thrown back to him, who knows how firm his grip on the West Bank is? Clearly his only way of "negotiating" would be to set conditions which can not be met like "Jerusalem - the capital of Palestinian state" or "return of the refugees" and other similar crap. Everybody knows he won't get it but as soon as he decides to become an inch more realistic and drop the Jerusalem claim - he will be ousted (and probably killed as a traitor) by his own partners in terrorism. Even more so with Hamas.
So, hypothetically, yes, negotiating with Arab dictators can succeed if it boosts their dictatorial position and powers. Not the case here.

Originally Posted by bararallu

I'd further like you to demonstrate that having a security guarantee by another country (or worse something like the EU/UN) is something we should have faith in. .

Oh, no, please, EU/UN are both worthless and ridiculously inadequate. In fact suprisingly inadequate given the size of EU economy.
The only guarantee must be from the US or - better still - the coalition headed by the US such as the 2003 Iraqi Coalition of the willing.
UN may continue to suck up to Arab league and vote for the next volume of Goldstone report.

Originally Posted by bararallu

And lastly I'd like to you to demonstrate that the Palestinians are actually interested in building a state, given that they have build absolutely nothing to date with enough money to rebuild Israel many times over.

Yeah, I would like to see that. I've helped Curly with the first two just to free up his hands to bring us some compelling evidence how this beautiful peaceful people go out of their way to build a prosperous democratic peaceful state to live in peace with its neighbors. Message of peace from Gaza. Nice.
So?

[takeo]

The only guarantee must be from the US or - better still - the coalition headed by the US such as the 2003 Iraqi Coalition of the willing.

oh yes, good idea, since the unilateral approach of the war in Iraq was such a great succes...

[Mediocrates]

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/isra.../20091105.aspx

[curlyg]

Originally Posted by bararallu

I'd like to hear more about this 'genuine transformation.'

Really.

I said they have undergone a different collective experience to neighbouring Arab nations. Meaning that because of the aftermath of 1967, being severed from neighbouring states, it's not unreasonable that they consider themselves separate. The point I am making here is that even if Palestinian national identity was a conscious fabrication by Syria, the KGB, or whoever else, it can't simply be regarded as something hollow which exists for the sole purpose of delegitimizing Israel at this time. Today, someone would not think to himself "I will pretend to be a Palestinian so that I can drive the Jews off the land", he identifies with a certain collective history, narrative and land. That is to say, it's a nationalism like any other, and I don't think your objection about its origins as a tool of delegitimisation can simply "uncreate" this nation.

Originally Posted by bararallu

Nationality generally is a rather week strata of the consciousness for typical Arabs. First comes the family (they typically never leave the village or even block of their birth) and a little beyond that their tribal/clan affiliation.

I really dont know how useful it is to be speaking about the "stratas of consciousness" of Arabs generally. I imagine such things vary widely from region to region. And if any single group of Arabs could be said to rise above the traditional tribal patterns it is the Palestinians, where levels of education are among the highest in the Arab world (in fact, according to a recent report by the World Bank it is second only to Lebanon, with an enrolment rate of 37.9% in higher education institutions). In any case - what is it you are arguing? That their national identity is not a sufficiently strong "strata of consciousness" to warrant statehood?

Originally Posted by bararallu

No, if I'm to negotiate with Nazis then I negotiate with Nazis. I'd rather shoot Nazis personally. Actually, I'd rather negotiate with Nazis than with hypocrites like Arafat and writeabookonholocaustdenial Abbas.

We've been shooting for decades. Short of massive ethnic cleansing there is no way to win this war by force.

Originally Posted by bararallu

Of course it does. They are occupying Hebrew soil, at our sufferance. They've also bloodied that soil with Jewish blood. I'm not comfortable negotiating away Hebrew soil. I am up for strategically retreating until the time is right to retake our national holdings.

Hebrew soil? What is Hebrew about this soil save the fact that Hebrews lived on it several millennia ago? Don't misunderstand me - I appreciate the historical importance of the land to us as a people and I can certainly sympathise with a reluctance to give it up. But there are FACTS which cannot be overcome by sheer force of will. The people that inhabit that land now are Arabs. It is my view that while we must always be mindful of our history - it cannot DICTATE MODERN ISRAELI POLICY! Did we create a modern state so that we could be forever shackled by our past, and allow it to drag us despite all common sense and reason to perpetual war with our neighbours? Or did we create a modern state so that we could be "a nation amongst the nations", create a safe haven for Jews, and build - with our own hands and under our own leadership - a better future for our people. Zionism, for me, is the latter.

What you propose means, in practice, war without end.

Originally Posted by bararallu

Right, demonification of Israel, the Jews, unabated replacement theology, Holocaust denial, attempted genocide, or at least arming and training of the Arab foe with shortsighted American strategy- to attempt yet another one. Yes that I certainly see.

No, bararallu, that is spin and an attempt to trivialise the valid points I am making. The facts, pressures, and solutions to which I was referring were made quite clear previously. The facts are that we are a Jewish state in a predominately Arab neighborhood, with a rapidly growing and hostile Arab population within the territories we control which will soon form an absolute majority. Our territorial claims are not recognised by a single state. We are becoming increasingly isolated internationally, to the point that our only consistent supporters at the United Nations are the US, Micronesia and Tuvalu. The West Bank is, in net terms, an economic burden rather than an asset. The only solution which has international support and some chance of addressing all of these issues, as well as our security concerns, is some kind of two state solution.

Originally Posted by bararallu

You don't seem to understand our ethical position. We don't negotiate with liars or thieves, much less attempted genociders. Not because those negotiations are indeed a "waste of time," but because it is an affront to the memory of all the prematurely dead Jews that made Israel and our nation possible since time immemorial. That said, there are hypocrites on the right, and an immense amount of pressure to boot from the "International Community", most of all the US and EU.

And you would propose that we avenge the blood of those dead Jews by ensuring that more Jewish blood is spilled for generations to come? Because that is exactly what your proposal means in effect. The same thing jumps out at me throughout your post: what you are proposing means war without end. It means that we will have a state with no recognised borders, no international legitimacy, and ultimately no international support, which antagonises its neighbours and inevitably fights wars against them. That is the existence to which you would condemn Israel because of your moral outrage.

Originally Posted by bararallu

This is an illogical juxtaposition. We hold that the Arabs have never wanted a two state solution. They want the dhimmi rules in effect and have us perpetually under their heel in the best scenario, genocide being the more probable path. The Salami Method is not something that the Israeli Right invented. Arafat's Cairo speech pretty much laid that out in gory details.

It has to do with "confidence building measures," and the commensurate single sided [Israeli] concessions, under Oslo that would theoretically lead to a 2 state solution, not a two state solution in its own right. The two are in fact two sides of the same coin: the one is a broad strategy the other some opportune tactics filling out that strategy.

There are several problems with this. Firstly, the Salami Method was fairly clearly articulated on a number of occasions. In essence, it was the idea that the Palestinians should accept whatever land they are able to get their hands on via negotiations at this stage, so that at a later stage an opportunity might present itself to allow them to use that territory as a springboard for further attacks to gain additional territory. If this is still the guiding principle of Palestinian policy, why did they not accept unprecedented proposals such as those made by Barak and Olmert? There is a sense of finality in these talks - and both sides realise it. Popular opinion on both sides still largely favours a two-state solution, albeit grudgingly.

Secondly, even if this past decade was simply one big anomaly or deception, and the Salami Method is still the true aspiration of the Palestinians, is it even conceivable that they would be able to execute it? As you correctly point out, corruption is rampant and Palestinian leaders are generally incompetent. As I have pointed out, the West Bank is not particularly useful in an economic sense - Palestine would be a poor country. Thirdly, any agreement which results in the Palestinians obtaining some land will obviously include Israeli security arrangements. Fourthly, the IDF is among the world's leading militaries. This Salami plan is not a particularly well thought out strategy, if you ask me.

Originally Posted by bararallu

International Commitments, since the only party to get blamed (pay attention to Mr Goldstone recently? or the UN?) are the Israelis. Every concession is unidirectional, every penalty is comparably unidirectional, even though any supposed deal would be negotiated.

Certainly, we would have international commitments if we recognised a State of Palestine which would serve as an obstacle to reclaiming what you view as Hebrew soil at a later date. But given that you are so disdainful of the very notion of international obligations in the first place, I don't see why this troubles you so much. Indeed, we already have international obligations to the Palestinians despite the fact that they have no state - and these obligations are arguably more onerous. It's ironic that you refer to the Goldstone report, since it stated this quite explicitly in several instances. A number of its allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity would not have arisen had this been a war between two states rather than a military operation conducted by an Occupying Power. For example:

The Mission also finds that
Israel violated specific obligations it has as Occupying Power spelled out in the Fourth Geneva
Convention, such as the duty to maintain medical and hospital establishments and services and to
agree to relief schemes if the occupied territory is not well supplied.

[curlyg]

297. The human rights treaties ratified by Israel are also binding in relation to Israeli conduct
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Article 2 of ICCPR obliges each State party to respect and
to ensure to all individuals “within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction” the rights
recognized within it. In the words of the Human Rights Committee, “a State party must respect
and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone within the power or effective control
of that State party, even if not situated within the territory of the State party”.176
298. The International Court of Justice has also held that ICCPR applies “in respect of acts
done by a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside its own territory”.177 Accordingly, the
Human Rights Committee has considered that ICCPR also applies to the benefit of people within
the Occupied Palestinian Territory.178 The Committees established to monitor compliance with
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women by their States parties have equally determined that Israel’s human rights
obligations extend to the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

1297. The relevant provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention relating to the duties of an
occupying Power should also be taken into consideration, in particular the obligations contained
in articles 50 (duty to facilitate the working of care and education institutions), 55 (duty to ensure
food and medical supplies to the population), 56 (duty to ensure and maintain medical and
hospital establishments and services), 59 (duty to agree on relief schemes if the occupied
territory is not well supplied) and 60 (duty to continue performing obligations even if third
parties provide relief consignments). Several provisions of Additional Protocol I reflecting
customary international law are also relevant here, including articles 51 and 52, which prohibit
attacks on civilians and on civilian objects, and article 54, which prohibits the destruction of
objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.

1301. The Mission considers that the closure of or the restrictions imposed on border crossings
by Israel in the immediate period before the military operations subjected the local population to
extreme hardship and deprivations that are inconsistent with their protected status. The
restrictions on the entry of foodstuffs, medical supplies, agricultural and industrial input,
including industrial fuel, together with the restrictions on the use of land near the border and on
fishing in the sea have resulted in widespread poverty, increased dependence on food and other
assistance, increased unemployment and economic paralysis. The Mission can conclude only that
Israel has and continues to violate its obligations as an occupying Power under the Fourth
Geneva Convention.

And so on and so forth. You can find a dozen more statements like that in there.

Originally Posted by bararallu

There is no peace possible, you need to face that possibility. We need to win a war, we have since we had the cojones to retake our land.

Finally we come to the crux of the matter.

That is a possibility, and I am willing to face it. If, as you say, the Palestinians will never accept a deal, then a situation will arise eventually where we have no choice but to "win a war." But that is not a foregone conclusion that I am willing to accept before every possible diplomatic option has been exhausted. Like I have said (and you explicitly say here), the consequence of accepting your reasoning is plunging Israel into neverending war and insecurity. That is not a decision anyone should take lightly.

If the time comes where diplomacy is exhausted and it is clear that the Palestinians cannot accept terms which are satisfactory to us, I will stand fully behind whatever measures are necessary to ensure that Israel can survive. As I have already said, I am of the view that, in the absence of a peace agreement, the only viable alternative is massive ethnic cleansing or "population transfer" or whatever other friendly euphemism you prefer. In extreme circumstances, I could even support that - but I am not satisfied that diplomacy has been tried fully.

Originally Posted by bararallu

You got to be kidding me asking that. Do you or don't you see that the Palestinian enterprise is an exercise in attempted replacement theology/ethnic cleansing? What have they built with *Billions and Billions* of dollars in aid? Riddle me this batman.

Generally I am inclined to believe it is not an exercise in replacement theology even if it once was, for the reasons I discussed above. As for what they have done with billions of dollars of aid money - Suha Arafat has a nice house in Paris and I'm sure Abbas has a generous donation sitting in his Swiss bank account. But I've never denied that the Palestinian leadership was utterly corrupt. I don't think that has even been a secret. Surely you aren't suggesting that those billions of dollars were spent on weapons aimed at destroying Israel - that money was enough to build a not-so-small army.

Originally Posted by bararallu

Says a Westerner w/ western ideals and standard of living, residing in a civilized country. They are raiders, thieves and religious fanatics, using ways and means virtually unchanged in 3000 years. Can they better themselves, sure. Will they, I'd bet against it.

Aren't you the one who cites the Salami Method? That strategy is founded upon the principle that the Palestinians must accept whatever land they can to use as a launchpad for future attacks. Presumably Arafat did not have my Westerner credentials.

Originally Posted by bararallu

Generally, Curly, I'd like you to demonstrate to us that successfully negotiating peace with Dictatorships, and then Arab dictatorships, is something that historically holds water. I'd further like you to demonstrate that having a security guarantee by another country (or worse something like the EU/UN) is something we should have faith in. And lastly I'd like to you to demonstrate that the Palestinians are actually interested in building a state, given that they have build absolutely nothing to date with enough money to rebuild Israel many times over.

I believe the peace agreements with Jordan and Egypt were reasonably successful. That's not to say we became best of friends, but there were real gains - the border with Egypt has been effectively demilitarised for decades now effectively removing the most powerful Arab military form our security equation and we quietly cooperate on issues of mutual interest (Gaza, Iran, Hezbollah). Is it an ideal relationship? Of course not - and I don't expect it ever will be, at least for the foreseeable future. The well has been poisoned - Arab governments have incited against Israel for so long that anything so much as resembling normal relations is impossible. But the card which they have always played in that incitement is the Palestinian card, and if that card can be removed via a peace agreement, I believe that would be in our favour and improve relations in the long run. I don't think you can separate the fact that the Palestinian situation remains unresolved from the fact that our relations with Jordan and Egypt have remained cold since the peace treaties - they may be dictatorships, but popular opinion does count.

[curlyg]

As for security guarantees, it's hard to speak about this generally. But if we use the Clinton parameters as a general reference:

Security:
The key lies in an international presence that can only be withdrawn by mutual consent. This presence will also monitor the implementation of the agreement between both sides.
My best judgment is that the Israeli presence would remain in fixed locations in the Jordan Valley under the authority of the International force for another 36 months. This period could be reduced in the event of favorable regional developments that diminish the
threats to Israel.
On early warning stations, Israel should maintain three facilities in the West Bank with a Palestinian liaison presence. The stations will be subject to review every 10 years with any changes in the status to be mutually agreed.
Regarding emergency developments, I understand that you will still have to develop a map of the relevant areas and routes. But in defining what is an emergency, I propose the following definition:
Imminent and demonstrable threat to Israel's national security of a military nature that requires the activation of a national state emergency.
Of course, the international forces will need to be notified of any such determination.
On airspace, I suggest that the state of Palestine will have sovereignty over its airspace but that two sides should work out special arrangements for Israeli training and operational needs.
I understand that the Israeli position is that Palestine should be defined as a "demilitarized state" while the Palestinian side proposes "a state with limited arms." As a compromise, I suggest calling it a "non-militarized state."
This will be consistent with the fact that in addition to a strong Palestinian security forces. Palestine will have an international force for border security and deterrent purposes.

I would think that something along these lines would be generally acceptable, with the exception that an American force with powers to enforce demilitarisation would be preferable by far to an international force. As for "demonstrating" that this is something we should trust, that is clearly impossible. I cannot "demonstrate" that. But it is certainly preferable to a unilateral withdrawal which permits the Palestinians to buy whatever weapons they please without any mechanism whatsoever in place to prevent it.

As for showing that the Palestinians want to build a state - that much seems self-evident. It is certainly their declared intention, and we have Palestinian proposals for building state institutions within 2 years (the Fayyad plan) which Israel is clearly taking seriously since it objected so rigorously to the unilateral implementation of that plan. I do not know if they are capable of building a state, but I do believe it is their intention, notwithstanding the issue of corruption.

Originally Posted by bararallu

Yep and there are ways to put this that even Leftists grok the nature of the universe (btw Curly, I don't particularly include you in the Leftist signifier, we know you're just being a devils advocate ) in speaking their own language: ass backwards economics.

I don't have any problem standing by what I have said. I certainly wasn't playing devil's advocate. These are my views, and though they are open to change if I am convinced they are wrong, I am not so convinced. If the result is that I am "Leftist grok" in your eyes, so be it.