palestine papers - israel's peacemakers unmasked

[dre]

Aren't you always trashing the USA for its approach to the Israel-Arab conflict? Although hen you can find public pronouncements from politicians condemning Israeli actions, apparently that's a different story.

Anyways, I respect James Baker and am well aware that official US-policy, for decades, has been opposed to Israeli construction in lands liberated during the Six-Day War. Why is the American official line on this issue valid, though? Just because that's the their position? Is the position valid simply by virtue that it's American?

The truth remains, the vast majority of "settlers" (myself included) live in communities that are a part of Jerusalem. I, and about two hundred thousand other Jews, live in areas near Jerusalem that were under Jordanian occupation for about 20 years. We need these areas for many reasons, all of which are pretty much existential with respect to Jerusalem. They address security needs, population needs, business needs, infrastructure needs, and everything else in between. We're not going to restrict our construction in our capital to the jagged, indefensible, and wholly impractical lines in the sand that were the 1949 armistice lines. We're not going to build this city in a narrow corridor Westward. This has been going on since shortly after the conclusion of the Six-Day War.

The USA has its position, and that's fine. It can do what it needs to for its own political ends, perhaps in order to try and appease the Arabs. An interesting aside, there have been conflicting statements from American leadership with respect to Jerusalem. There have been statements (and bills such as the Jerusalem Embassy Act) which conflict with some anti-settlement statements from current and previous administrations.

The cries about settlement activity undermining the possibility of Palestinian independence also overlooks something very important - why was a Palestinian state not established between 1949 and 1967? For twenty years under Jordanian occupation we didn't hear a word about occupation, or see any moves towards actualizing a then largely non-existent Palestinian nationalism. Why is that? The territories liberated after the Six-Day War, "occupied territory", was used as launching pads for terrorism and war against the Jewish people for decades. You think we're going to relinquish these territories so that the Arabs/Muslims can shoot into our homes from their apartments as they did between 1949 and 1967?

You keep acting like this conflict started in 1967.

As far as negotiations go, you can still negotiate over "settled" land. As I said, the most well-known offer is Barak's offer at Taba for 97% of the West Bank. Negotiations have taken place many times since 1967, and settlements have been being built since then. Some settlements can be relinquished through negotiations. In recent years, however, the politicization of settlements has gained traction as a political excuse by the PA not to engage in negotiations, despite having engaged in negotiations in the past for many years during settlement construction.

I'm still waiting for explanations as to how I'm an "racist" and an "extremist". Oh ya, apparently I also perceive myself as a victim - how's that, again?

You think we're going to relinquish these territories so that the Arabs/Muslims can shoot into our homes from their apartments as they did between 1949 and 1967?

Violence during this period was a two way street with most of being skirmishes along the border. Much of it was the result of fighting over water and came after 1964 when Israel built its national water carrier and began pumping the Jordans headwaters into Israel, which reduced the flow of water to Hashemite territory. Arabs responded with a similar plan of their own to divert the Banias stream before it got to the Kinneret, and pipe water from the Hasbani river into the Litany. Arabs pissed and moaned about Israels water diversion project, but Israel actually bombed the Arab project which started a constant chain of clashes along the border that lead directly to the war in 1967.

Thats why I make comments about playing the victim card. You act like the violence and aggression and provocation was a one-way street but it never was.

You think we're going to relinquish these territories so that the Arabs/Muslims can shoot into our homes from their apartments as they did between 1949 and 1967?

Absolutely not. Israel has no plans of relinguishing these territories AT ALL. First of all they pump 1/3 of their water out of them, and could not grow food for their population if they did. Secondly they dont believe a two-state solution would resolve their security issues anyways.

Israels approach is to keep building settlements and national infrastructure in the west bank until they have effective jurridiction over so much of it that they relinguishing it becomes logistically, and politically impossible. They see the Status Quo as their best option because they can keep plundering the west bank for vital resources, and gradually push palestinians into a smaller and smaller area.

As far as negotiations go, you can still negotiate over "settled" land

Any such negotiations are grossly compromised as the quotes from various US officials involved with the conflict show. And if you visit some of the results on that google page youll see its not just US officials. This is the position of virtually the entire world, and the position of a lot of jews as well. Its also the position of a lot of Israel Jews.

But whats more is this is just basic logic and common sense that an elementary school student can easily understand. If you really want to negotiate with someone in good faith you dont engage in acts of deliberate provocation.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Any such negotiations are grossly compromised as the quotes from various US officials involved with the conflict show. And if you visit some of the results on that google page youll see its not just US officials. This is the position of virtually the entire world, and the position of a lot of jews as well. Its also the position of a lot of Israel Jews.

LOL! "Positions" are cheap...let's see "virtually the entire world" pony up some money first. Money talks....bullshit walks.

[WIP]

Thanks for that expert analysis, bud.

Although your entire post is filled with silly editorializing, the most important mistake was the statement that the PA is willing to recognize Jewish independence and self-determination via Israel. The PA will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state and the legitimacy of the Zionist mission.

Bob, I don't follow this Israel/Palestine issue very closely, and I've been under the assumption that ever since the Peace Talks started decades ago that Israel recognized the right of Palestinians to have their own independent state....until last night! I heard during a debate on a public radio program (can't recall which) that no Israeli government has ever accepted the Two State Solution, even in theory, and the pro-Israel commentator didn't dispute the assertion. So, is this true? And, if Israel doesn't recognize the right to a Palestinian state, then what right does Israel have to live in peace?

[Bob]

LOL! "Positions" are cheap...let's see "virtually the entire world" pony up some money first. Money talks....bullshit walks.

More importantly, how could I ever dispute quotes from Jim Baker or other prominent politicians? If Jim Baker says something, it must be true

[Bob]

Bob, I don't follow this Israel/Palestine issue very closely, and I've been under the assumption that ever since the Peace Talks started decades ago that Israel recognized the right of Palestinians to have their own independent state....until last night! I heard during a debate on a public radio program (can't recall which) that no Israeli government has ever accepted the Two State Solution, even in theory, and the pro-Israel commentator didn't dispute the assertion. So, is this true? And, if Israel doesn't recognize the right to a Palestinian state, then what right does Israel have to live in peace?

It's not true. Most recently, Netanyahu has publicly stated his support for the establishment of a Palestinian state towards resolving this conflict, albeit begrudgingly - with conditions. Secondly, the peace process, as early as the 1991 Madrid Conference, was working towards a two-state solution - although the term "two-state solution" had not yet entered the lexicon of the mainstream media at this point. Rabin in 1993 was openly discussing withdrawal from most of the West Bank towards greater autonomy for the Palestinians, with the intention being Palestinian statehood. Basically, working towards Palestinian independence has been a focal point of negotiations for virtually two decades.

You must bear in mind that given the nature of Israeli democracy, changing governments tend to have different approaches towards these issues. The million dollar question being - what is Palestinian statehood? Borders, conditions, and everything in between.

Must've been a pretty poor quality radio show...

[Bob]

Black September and all.

I'm still totally confused. What has Black September to do with the fact that Palestinian statehood wasn't established during twenty years in which the West Bank was under Jordanian occupation? The point I was trying to make (and apparently didn't make very well...) was that between 1949 and 1967 there was no Israeli presence in the West Bank, yet hostility and violence continued from the Arabs. The armistice lines drawn in 1949 were still dangerous, with violence occurring every day for twenty years. Moreover, where were the moves towards Palestinian independence (trying to overthrow the Jordanian dictatorship notwithstanding....).

You know what? Forget it, I feel like I'm about to spin off into a tangent...

[Bonam]

I'm still totally confused. What has Black September to do with the fact that Palestinian statehood wasn't established during twenty years in which the West Bank was under Jordanian occupation? The point I was trying to make (and apparently didn't make very well...) was that between 1949 and 1967 there was no Israeli presence in the West Bank, yet hostility and violence continued from the Arabs. The armistice lines drawn in 1949 were still dangerous, with violence occurring every day for twenty years. Moreover, where were the moves towards Palestinian independence (trying to overthrow the Jordanian dictatorship notwithstanding....).

Sorry, I didn't make my point well either. Black September and the preceding events was an illustration that the Palestinians pose a security threat not just to Israel, but also to Jordan as well as to all other nations where they have been harbored. Just like Israel, Jordan would not have been inclined to give away land to a group that has committed terrorist acts against it.

As for the moves towards Palestinian independence... those originated with the Arab league after the events of 1967 as another method of warfare against Israel. As long as the Palestinians were under the thumb of another Arab regime they didn't care, but once they saw the PR opportunities presented by a disenfranchised refugee population, the Arab league took to the Palestinian national cause with great enthusiasm. Of course, none of them actually cared about the welfare of Palestinians, as the continued refugee status and lack of citizenship of Palestinian refugees in various Arab nations aptly demonstrates.

[Bob]

Sorry, I didn't make my point well either. Black September and the preceding events was an illustration that the Palestinians pose a security threat not just to Israel, but also to Jordan as well as to all other nations where they have been harbored. Just like Israel, Jordan would not have been inclined to give away land to a group that has committed terrorist acts against it.

As for the moves towards Palestinian independence... those originated with the Arab league after the events of 1967 as another method of warfare against Israel. As long as the Palestinians were under the thumb of another Arab regime they didn't care, but once they saw the PR opportunities presented by a disenfranchised refugee population, the Arab league took to the Palestinian national cause with great enthusiasm. Of course, none of them actually cared about the welfare of Palestinians, as the continued refugee status and lack of citizenship of Palestinian refugees in various Arab nations aptly demonstrates.

Ya, it's a pretty messed up situation... in direct contrast with the massive efforts and outreach Israel takes upon herself to emancipate at-risk Jews. It's particularly strange considering that 85% of Jordanians identify themselves as "Palestinian". As far as I'm concerned, they already have their own country. Moreover, the world has no shortage of countries for Arabs/Muslims.

[Bonam]

Ya, it's a pretty messed up situation... in direct contrast with the massive efforts and outreach Israel takes upon herself to emancipate at-risk Jews. It's particularly strange considering that 85% of Jordanians identify themselves as "Palestinian". As far as I'm concerned, they already have their own country. Moreover, the world has no shortage of countries for Arabs/Muslims.

To be fair, Israel does draw great benefit from "emancipating" at risk Jews, since Israel has always been in need of more people, and, moreover, many of the Jewish immigrants from around the world were very productive people, contributing greatly to Israel, such as for example the 1989-91 exodus of Soviet Jews. From the perspective of some of those Jews, it was kind of a mixed bag. When my own family immigrated to Israel from the former Soviet Union, they soon concluded that it wasn't really much of an improvement: in place of antisemitism and economic instability, there was terrorism and mandatory military service. Not to mention the insufferable summer heat. Hence the next step in the immigration chain, Canada.

Meanwhile, Arab regimes have no need for more people, nor does a mostly uneducated and poor rabble of refugees have much to contribute.

[bud]

Sorry, I didn't make my point well either. Black September and the preceding events was an illustration that the Palestinians pose a security threat not just to Israel, but also to Jordan as well as to all other nations where they have been harbored. Just like Israel, Jordan would not have been inclined to give away land to a group that has committed terrorist acts against it.

maybe they thought since terrorism worked for irgun and the stern gang, it would work for them?

you guys are hilarious with your attempts to try to shift all blames on the palestinian. your denial that israel is not interested in a fair and just peace, despite all the facts in front of us, including the fact that palestinians are without a state and israel continues to steal more land, is also hilarious (woo - run-on sentence).

i guess it's your choice to want to create a world full of lies and half-truths only to support stealing more from a damned piece of land.

come summer time, palestinians will test the world and request recognition of an independent palestinian state. over 100 countries already do and more will follow.

israel's time will soon be up. it happened in south africa, it will happen in palestine.

[Bonam]

i guess it's your choice to want to create a world full of lies and half-truths only to support stealing more from a damned piece of land.

come summer time, palestinians will test the world and request recognition of an independent palestinian state. over 100 countries already do and more will follow.

israel's time will soon be up. it happened in south africa, it will happen in palestine.

I'd be all for Palestinians forming their own state. If they did it unilaterally on the land they already have, even better. From Israel's perspective, dealing with a national entity would be much simpler than the present situation.

[bud]

I'd be all for Palestinians forming their own state. If they did it unilaterally on the land they already have, even better. From Israel's perspective, dealing with a national entity would be much simpler than the present situation.

whatever buddy. they will use every power that they have to prevent one from happening.

[Bob]

To be fair, Israel does draw great benefit from "emancipating" at risk Jews, since Israel has always been in need of more people, and, moreover, many of the Jewish immigrants from around the world were very productive people, contributing greatly to Israel, such as for example the 1989-91 exodus of Soviet Jews. From the perspective of some of those Jews, it was kind of a mixed bag. When my own family immigrated to Israel from the former Soviet Union, they soon concluded that it wasn't really much of an improvement: in place of antisemitism and economic instability, there was terrorism and mandatory military service. Not to mention the insufferable summer heat. Hence the next step in the immigration chain, Canada.

Meanwhile, Arab regimes have no need for more people, nor does a mostly uneducated and poor rabble of refugees have much to contribute.

That's true in some cases, but many Jewish immigrants who arrived where liabilities in the pragmatic sense. Many from the former Soviet Union, as well. We didn't pick and choose the educated and leave behind the simple. A more prominent example of this was the series of Ethiopian Aliyot. High numbers of them were, economically speaking, liabilities. The vision of Zionism sees past that, though, and although the stories of Ethiopian Aliyot (and those that survived walking here) are harrowing, there are many shining beams of hope that occurred through generational integration. This couldn't have happened without a sincere sense of Jewish solidarity. This isn't just a buzz-word, it's real and it needs to be preserved and enhanced. Jewish solidarity is all we've got, because we can never depend on the Goyim.

We set the example in this case. The Arabs and Muslims would do well to take note.

[Bob]

whatever buddy. they will use every power that they have to prevent one from happening.

It depends on many variables. A Palestinian state would be acceptable, and even desirable, with certain conditions adhered to. The devil is in the details. You may now continue with your simplistic anti-Israel rhetoric and absurd allusions to Apartheid.

[bud]

It depends on many variables. A Palestinian state would be acceptable, and even desirable, with certain conditions adhered to.

the palestinians do not want to live in cantons with highways controlled by israel. that's the best israel (through barak) has offered. if i were palestinian, i would also tell israel to take their conditions and shove it.

israel is useless. you can't deal with these people because they're not interested in anything but their selfish visions which is still dominated by the ultra right wing nationalists.

[Bob]

That's not what was offered by Barak. For those that actually want to see what was offered, go read Dennis Ross' "The Missing Peace", which shows the maps that were proposed during the Taba negotiations in 2001. The maps may also be available online.

Like several other posters in here who shall not be named, bud pretends to know things. If you haven't read the books or articles, seen or attended the lectures, then why are you speaking about the negotiations and what was or wasn't offered? You make up your arguments as you go along, it's so pathetic.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Bob

[bud]

That's not what was offered by Barak. For those that actually want to see what was offered, go read Dennis Ross' "The Missing Peace", which shows the maps that were proposed during the Taba negotiations in 2001. The maps may also be available online.

Like several other posters in here who shall not be named, bud pretends to know things. If you haven't read the books or articles, seen or attended the lectures, then why are you speaking about the negotiations and what was or wasn't offered? You make up your arguments as you go along, it's so pathetic.

why must you include your resume in every post?

if you have links of maps and documentations, then post it. give it up with your narcissistic posts like anyone cares how you feel about yourself.

[dre]

I'd be all for Palestinians forming their own state. If they did it unilaterally on the land they already have, even better. From Israel's perspective, dealing with a national entity would be much simpler than the present situation.

I completely agree from a security perspective... As long as the palestinian government was sufficiently propped up with western cash for a while so that they were strong enough to control various militant groups. The problem is if Israel ends the occupation they cant plunder the west bank for water anymore, which is why they wont even consider it.

Ariel Sharon described giving up control of the mountain aquifier as "accepting death". Thats literally how Israeli insiders view it. They cant grow food without that water... and the situation is getting worse. Water in the Kinneret basin is receding and the region is drying out. That will likely lead to more conflict.

You and I will never ever see a different scenario play out over there in that god forsaken pile of dirt than weve seen for the last 50 years. Ill better everything I own there there wont be a Palestinian state in the next 50 years. The only way that will EVER happen is if theres a major shift in global balance of power. As long as the US is a super power theres literally zero chance of it.

[dre]

why must you include your resume in every post?

if you have links of maps and documentations, then post it. give it up with your narcissistic posts like anyone cares how you feel about yourself.

why must you include your resume in every post?

Its a form of logical fallacy used by posters as a substitute for actual knowledge or a cogent argument.

Its call argumentum ad verecundiam.

[Bob]

why must you include your resume in every post?

if you have links of maps and documentations, then post it. give it up with your narcissistic posts like anyone cares how you feel about yourself.

It's simple, really. You're making things up as you go along. You and I both know that you don't know the first thing about the negotiations that have taken place between Israel and the PA. You couldn't even name the the leader or negotiators involved, or the locations and dates, let alone the details of what was offered or what wasn't. All you do is make one-liner posts blaming Israel while using rhetoric such as "Apartheid" and "racism". Do you expect us to believe that you're knowledgeable enough about the history of the diplomatic process in order to be permitted to make simplistic summaries of the events you're pretending to be familiar with?

Be honest with yourself, and stop acting like you're something you're not. You haven't done the research, so you don't have the knowledge to be levying decisions or valid opinions about the reasons for collapses in peace process.

The most recent example of you pretending to know something is right here in this thread:

the palestinians do not want to live in cantons with highways controlled by israel. that's the best israel (through barak) has offered.

You just made this up on the spot. No research, no books, no lectures, no nothing. You and several others in this forum do this regularly, you make up garbage without knowing anything. Don't expect me to go the trouble to rebuff every lie in all of your posts. If someone comes in here and starts using rhetoric like "Holohoax", am I supposed to go to extreme lengths to prove him wrong?

Like I said, if someone wants to have an inside-look into the peace talks over several decades, read Dennis Ross' book "The Missing Peace". There are maps in there illustrating Israeli offers, and people are free to make up their minds after seeing them - maybe Israel offered too much, maybe too little, maybe it was just right... or maybe something else.

Aaron David Miller's book "The Much Too Promised Land" is also a good insider's account of a lead adviser to several American Administrations, although with less details about what was actually offered and focusing on all of Israel's diplomacy - not just with the Palestinians. If anyone is seriously interested in learning something about the peace process rather than just reading one-liner rhetoric on an internet discussion forum, I highly recommend those two books.

[dre]

It's simple, really. You're making things up as you go along. You and I both know that you don't know the first thing about the negotiations that have taken place between Israel and the PA. You couldn't even name the the leader or negotiators involved, or the locations and dates, let alone the details of what was offered or what wasn't. All you do is make one-liner posts blaming Israel while using rhetoric such as "Apartheid" and "racism". Do you expect us to believe that you're knowledgeable enough about the history of the diplomatic process in order to be permitted to make simplistic summaries of the events you're pretending to be familiar with?

Be honest with yourself, and stop acting like you're something you're not. You haven't done the research, so you don't have the knowledge to be levying decisions or valid opinions about the reasons for collapses in peace process.

The most recent example of you pretending to know something is right here in this thread:

the palestinians do not want to live in cantons with highways controlled by israel. that's the best israel (through barak) has offered.

You just made this up on the spot. No research, no books, no lectures, no nothing. You and several others in this forum do this regularly, you make up garbage without knowing anything. Don't expect me to go the trouble to rebuff every lie in all of your posts. If someone comes in here and starts using rhetoric like "Holohoax", am I supposed to go to extreme lengths to prove him wrong?

Like I said, if someone wants to have an inside-look into the peace talks over several decades, read Dennis Ross' book "The Missing Peace". There are maps in there illustrating Israeli offers, and people are free to make up their minds after seeing them - maybe Israel offered too much, maybe too little, maybe it was just right... or maybe something else.

Aaron David Miller's book "The Much Too Promised Land" is also a good insider's account of a lead adviser to several American Administrations, although with less details about what was actually offered and focusing on all of Israel's diplomacy - not just with the Palestinians. If anyone is seriously interested in learning something about the peace process rather than just reading one-liner rhetoric on an internet discussion forum, I highly recommend those two books.

[Rue]

Sorry, I didn't make my point well either. Black September and the preceding events was an illustration that the Palestinians pose a security threat not just to Israel, but also to Jordan as well as to all other nations where they have been harbored. Just like Israel, Jordan would not have been inclined to give away land to a group that has committed terrorist acts against it.

As for the moves towards Palestinian independence... those originated with the Arab league after the events of 1967 as another method of warfare against Israel. As long as the Palestinians were under the thumb of another Arab regime they didn't care, but once they saw the PR opportunities presented by a disenfranchised refugee population, the Arab league took to the Palestinian national cause with great enthusiasm. Of course, none of them actually cared about the welfare of Palestinians, as the continued refugee status and lack of citizenship of Palestinian refugees in various Arab nations aptly demonstrates.

Well stated 100% concur.

[Rue]

maybe they thought since terrorism worked for irgun and the stern gang, it would work for them?

israel's time will soon be up. it happened in south africa, it will happen in palestine.

Its statements like the above that are the reason you get the responses you do. Your extreme language can do nothing but bring back extreme responses. Do you really expect a middle of the roader like me to bother to respond to you?

Look at what you stated. Who is "they"? Do you think if you preface the comment with "maybe" it some how gives it credibility? Go find out what the total numebr of irgun and Stern gang members were, the total population of Jews in Israel at their time of existence and then tell me the percentage of that population they were. Can you do that or do you want to trot out the Zionists are just as terrorist as Hamas b.s. some more.

As for the second comment is simply shows why when you make comments like that you reduce them to simplistic diatribes reflecting your own extreme views.

Out comes the Israel is racist apartheid South Africa b.s. to match the Zionists are terrorists one.

Thanks for the meaningful dialogue.

[Rue]

Is it possible for you to debate his views without the personal remarks and the signs of disrepect? Is it? Is it possible for any of us to simply debate the opinions?

Yah I read what you wrote. Its nothing but an attempt to insult and bait. Lol lol lol?

Look at how the dialogue deteriorates. We have you baiting Bob and Bud trotting out the Israel is racist apartheid South Africa terrorist name calling. Is it possible we talk about the issues instead of trying to behave like we are all righteous?

If you do not like the opinions he expresses state why. Simply making the accusation he makes things up means what? Should I tell you that you did the same thing in your name calling to him? What does it serve to do?

Let's either talk about the issues and why we disagree with them or shaddup.

[Rue]

why must you include your resume in every post?

the same reason you reduce every post to simplistic name calling against Israel and he is attacked personally.

He's a friggin Israeli. He feels threatened by your comments. Try stucture what you say in non personal terms and maybe he won't feel the need to defend himself on a personal level.

Spend all your time name calling Israel and calling for the end of its existence here's a hint, he probably will consider you a threat.

It aint rocket science.

Let's talk about the issues not ourselves please.