Will Bush's Plan Bring Peace to Israel and Palestine?

[Yonoz]

such as the security councils attempt last year to launch an inquiery into the qana massacre, that was vetoed by the US.

That has what to do with Palestinian sovereignty?

of course the rest of the nations in the security council that are supposed to represent most of the world are all hatemongers. not for instance, people who killed mohammed al-durrah in his fathers arms in cold blood, or a few months ago the murder of an al-aqsa cameraman in front of other cameramen.

Funny you should mention Al-Dura, in light of the recent developments in French courts - i.e. the final 3 seconds of the tape showing Muhammad Al-Dura alive and well.
But we really don't need to go through all this again. Yes, innocent Palestinians are killed - violent conflicts have a tendency to claim lives, on all sides.

 

[turbo]

I asked you to keep this discussion on track less than a day ago, and already you make personal attacks. Never mind the fact the two above statements are false. You cannot even keep civil on an internet forum, how do you expect your comments about peace between Israel and the Palestinians to be taken seriously?

I am trying to keep this discussion on-track as well as possible. That includes telling some hard truths that you want to gloss over. One of those truths is that US taxpayer money finances Israel to the tune of billions/year, and that until we have some politicians that dare to withhold that aid, Israel will never bargain in good faith with the Palestinians, nor will it keep the promises made, if past performance is any measure. Bush may have a "peace plan" on some level, but as long as he continues the flow of US dollars to Israel and uses our veto power to kill any pro-Palestinian resolutions in the UN, Israel has NO incentive to change the status quo. We have to be realistic about this "peace plan" - both sides have to see advantages to good-faith bargaining, and both sides need to see negative consequences resulting from a failure to compromise and bargain. These negative consequences should be significant and certain. If there is no economic/military downside for Israel, there is absolutely no incentive for its government to do anything differently than they are doing now.

There can be peace in the ME, if we have the will to pursue it. It cannot be brought about by having a few meetings at which both sides make some promises that may or may not be kept, with no repercussions. We've been down that road too many times before. It's not going to be easy. There will be factions on both sides that lust for revenge, that will fight for territory to which they feel entitled, and that will fight over every last dime of reparation that may be negotiated. That is to be expected, and it must be dealt with.

 

[Yonoz]

One of those truths is that US taxpayer money finances Israel to the tune of billions/year, and that until we have some politicians that dare to withhold that aid, Israel will never bargain in good faith with the Palestinians, nor will it keep the promises made, if past performance is any measure. Bush may have a "peace plan" on some level, but as long as he continues the flow of US dollars to Israel and uses our veto power to kill any pro-Palestinian resolutions in the UN, Israel has NO incentive to change the status quo. We have to be realistic about this "peace plan" - both sides have to see advantages to good-faith bargaining, and both sides need to see negative consequences resulting from a failure to compromise and bargain. These negative consequences should be significant and certain. If there is no economic/military downside for Israel, there is absolutely no incentive for its government to do anything differently than they are doing now.

All sides' past performance is poor. Here's another truth not to be glossed over: Israel is a democracy with a diverse population. All concessions, past and future, are made by elected governments that require a majority coalition to be able to stay in power, and all treaties have to be approved by the 120-strong Knesset, Israel's parliament. The current coalition comprises of:
Kadima: 29 mandates (MKs)
Labour-Meimad: 19 mandates
Shas: 12 mandates
Yisrael Beitenu: 11 mandates
Pensioners: 7 mandates
Total: 78 out of 120
Yisrael Beitenu's constituency is the traditional right, over which it competes with Likkud (12) and the National Union-National Religious Labour Party (9). Even if Avigdor Lieberman wanted to stay in the coalition, he will lose his voters. Shas, as I mentioned previously, will most likely leave the coalition if Jerusalem is to be partitioned. That leaves Olmert with a minority government. His government may still hold, thanks to support in the Knesset from the left wing parties, but that will mean difficult times for his center Kadima party, which will no longer be perceived as true center, and still has some right wing ministers and MKs that the right-wing opposition will welcome with open arms. He will probably authorize a military campaign in the Gaza Strip to keep from losing face, or who knows - maybe Iran will be attacked, and his "center" status will be restored.
In short, there isn't enough public support for more concessions - and how can you blame them? We've seen Hamas take control of the Gaza Strip after the disengagement, daily rocket barrages on Israeli civilians around the strip. We've seen Hizbullah attack Israeli civilians and military personnel to the point of initiating a war. We've been threatened with annihilation by an upcoming nuclear power that also happens to finance and arm Hamas and Hizbullah.
The majority of Israelis feel under siege, whether you agree they are or you don't. Now think for a moment what sort of message ending US support will send. IMO all that will achieve is further polarization of the public to a left-right dichotomy, and I doubt the left will have the upper hand.
It is an internal US matter and I've discussed it more than I was willing.

There can be peace in the ME, if we have the will to pursue it. It cannot be brought about by having a few meetings at which both sides make some promises that may or may not be kept, with no repercussions. We've been down that road too many times before. It's not going to be easy. There will be factions on both sides that lust for revenge, that will fight for territory to which they feel entitled, and that will fight over every last dime of reparation that may be negotiated. That is to be expected, and it must be dealt with.

How do you propose we deal with these factions?

 

[turbo]

How do you propose we deal with these factions?

Self-policing is the preferable option. If you give people real hope for peace and security, they will be less tolerant of the radicals among them that are bent on perpetuating conflict. If the populace has no reasonable hope for diplomacy, reconciliation and peace, they will support leaders that prefer military options to diplomacy. Palestinian attacks on Israelis strengthen Israel's hawks, and Israeli attacks on Palestinians strengthen Palestinian hawks. Militants on both sides benefit from conflict, and it's probably going to take years of work to break their hold on power, but the process will never get done if it is not begun.

 

[kyleb]

He will probably authorize a military campaign in the Gaza Strip to keep from losing face, or who knows - maybe Iran will be attacked, and his "center" status will be restored.

When no longer receiving billions in military aid, and under international sanctions that make rearming exceedingly difficult? For your own sakes I would hope not. Under such conditions, surely many from both wings of your political spectrum would see value in coming together to lift the embargoes by achiving a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

 

[Yonoz]

When no longer receiving billions in military aid, and under international sanctions that make rearming exceedingly difficult? For your own sakes I would hope not. Under such conditions, surely many from both wings of your political spectrum would see value in coming together to lift the embargoes by achiving a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

You keep underestimating Israel's independence, and I don't know how you came up with the sanctions idea. The two possibilities I mentioned are not full frontal wars, they are two campaigns that don't require use of the strategic arsenal. And there's always someone selling materiel on this planet.
In any case, every political camp is acting in what they feel are the best interests of Israel - we simply disagree what those interests are. An "Israel vs. the Rest of the World" situation, such as the one you describe, will simply bring more people over to the right wing camp, perhaps even myself.

 

[Yonoz]

Self-policing is the preferable option. If you give people real hope for peace and security, they will be less tolerant of the radicals among them that are bent on perpetuating conflict.

Chicken and egg. You see, giving people real hope for peace and security requires that we first deal with these factions.

If the populace has no reasonable hope for diplomacy, reconciliation and peace, they will support leaders that prefer military options to diplomacy. Palestinian attacks on Israelis strengthen Israel's hawks, and Israeli attacks on Palestinians strengthen Palestinian hawks. Militants on both sides benefit from conflict, and it's probably going to take years of work to break their hold on power, but the process will never get done if it is not begun.

I agree. As far as most Israelis are concerned, we began in 1979 with the Camp David Accords, continued with the Oslo Accords, pullout from Lebanon and disengagement plan. The current outcome of each of these events doesn't really "give people real hope for peace and security".

 

[Yonoz]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/944923.html"

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told his associates on Monday that he intends to advance the diplomatic process and negotiations on the core issues even if this makes him lose his parliamentary majority.

The statement was made in advance of his meeting set for Tuesday with Yisrael Beiteinu Chairman Avigdor Lieberman, who has threatened to pull his party out of the coalition if Olmert starts talks with the Palestinians on the core issues of borders, Jerusalem and the refugees.

...

Until now, Olmert has worked hard to keep Lieberman in his coalition, and according to senior Yisrael Beiteinu officials, Lieberman had expected the premier to be similarly accommodating this time. Instead, to his surprise, Olmert simply ignored the party's red lines, which he views as a sign that Olmert wants to see him leave the government.

Senior Kadima officials echoed this assessment. Yisrael Beiteinu's departure would actually be convenient, they said, because it would increase pressure on Labor to remain in the government even after the Winograd Committee publishes its final report on the Second Lebanon War at the end of the month.

"The Labor Party and [party chairman] Ehud Barak will be able to argue that without Lieberman, the diplomatic process can be accelerated, and therefore, it would be irresponsible to leave the government," explained one. "Sooner or later, Lieberman will leave anyway, so it's better [if it happens] now, before Winograd."

Unlike Yisrael Beiteinu, Labor is essential to Olmert: Without it, he does not have a coalition. However, during his campaign for the party leadership last spring, Barak had pledged to quit the government after the Winograd report was published.

An Olmert associate said on Monday that there was no reason for Lieberman to be surprised by recent developments. Olmert "wants to reach an agreement [with the Palestinians], and he intends to realize his vision, even at the price of Lieberman's departure," the associate said.

Meanwhile, Likud is continuing its efforts to persuade both Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas to quit the coalition. "Like us, they see the dangers [of Olmert's diplomatic moves], and we expect them to draw conclusions and quit the government now," Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu said at a faction meeting on Monday.

 

[Art]

What is the difference between the right-wing parties in Israel who do not wish to recognise an independent Palestinian state and Hamas who do not wish to recognise an independent Israeli state?

There is crushing international pressure on Hamas and the Palestinian population to force them to change their viewpoint so why not the same pressure on Israeli citizens and it's right-wing politicians to rethink their strategy?

In some of the posts above it is suggested that any solution has to accommodate the views of Israel's right-wing lest more people be drawn towards it so where is the same understanding of how Palestinians are being pushed towards supporting Hamas extremists by the actions of Israel and the sanctions applied by Israel's friends?

Why do we hear so much about the dangers of an Islamic state and nothing about the dangers of an Halakha state? Why are the proponents of an Islamic state deemed beyond the pale and subject to assassination whilst the proponents of an Halakha state are allowed total freedom to spread their poison and indeed are aided by Israeli gov't ministries? On the same note we hear a lot of the influence of Madrassas and how they indoctrinate young Islamic people who are subsequently seeded into key positions in the military and civil service and again we hear nothing of the Yeshivot which performs the exact same function for Jewish extremists in Israel.

It is the double standards applied that so irritates most fair minded people.

IMO One reason why any peace deal is highly unlikely is Israel needs an ongoing war with the Palestinians to maintain some semblance of unity as without it internal divisions emanating from it's diversity of colour, creed and factional religion would very quickly lead to civil unrest and possibly even civil war between various jewish factions. Unfortunately it is the Palestinians who are paying the price for this show of unity.

 

[Yonoz]

What is the difference between the right-wing parties in Israel who do not wish to recognise an independent Palestinian state and Hamas who do not wish to recognise an independent Israeli state?

Several Likkud governments, including one led by its current chairman, Binyamin Netanyahu, have negotiated with the Palestinians towards the formation of an independent Palestinian state.
Yisrael Beitenu's manifesto calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, with "border corrections", i.e. where there's an Arab or Jewish majority close to the border, the border will be "corrected".
Only the National Union-Religious Labour parties call for the formation of "Eretz Yisrael Hashlema": the complete Eretz Yisrael. It is actually candidates' list from four different parties, with variations as to the answer to "the Palestinian problem": voluntary population transfers, an administrative Palestinian autonomy with no security force, etc. They hold 9 seats in the Knesset, hardly comparable to Hamas.
No party calls for the annihilation of the Palestinians, as Hamas openly does for Israelis.

There is crushing international pressure on Hamas and the Palestinian population to force them to change their viewpoint so why not the same pressure on Israeli citizens and it's right-wing politicians to rethink their strategy?

I thought you were against such collective punishment...
Apart from the ideological difference as to the legitimacy of violence, and the use of such violence against civilians, Hamas is in power in Gaza, having gained it by - you guessed it - use of violence.

In some of the posts above it is suggested that any solution has to accommodate the views of Israel's right-wing lest more people be drawn towards it so where is the same understanding of how Palestinians are being pushed towards supporting Hamas extremists by the actions of Israel and the sanctions applied by Israel's friends?

With the exception of the National Union-Religious Labour, the right wing views the occupied territories as guarantees to the security of Israel. I believe we all agree that for peace to prevail, this must be addressed, if possible. It is impossible to address Hamas' "view" of the annihilation of Israel.

Why do we hear so much about the dangers of an Islamic state and nothing about the dangers of an Halakha state? Why are the proponents of an Islamic state deemed beyond the pale and subject to assassination whilst the proponents of an Halakha state are allowed total freedom to spread their poison and indeed are aided by Israeli gov't ministries? On the same note we hear a lot of the influence of Madrassas and how they indoctrinate young Islamic people who are subsequently seeded into key positions in the military and civil service and again we hear nothing of the Yeshivot which performs the exact same function for Jewish extremists in Israel.

You need to read up on Judaism (and from a reputable source). No one was assassinated because they were a proponent of an Islamic state.
No party in the Knesset calls for the establishment of a Halakha state. In fact, it is illegal for a party to oppose Israel's democratic nature. Religious Labour is social-democratic.
Meir Kahane was a proponent of a Halakha state, managed to get one seat in the Knesset after 3 failures, after which the Election Law was corrected and his party was barred for its racist manifesto. His movement was declared a terrorist organization in 1994, and membership is therefor illegal. His followers have tried weaseling their way into the Knesset, needless to say they lacked the minimal amount of votes.

It is the double standards applied that so irritates most fair minded people.

It is the pretense to have some sort of authority over who is judged "fair minded" that so irritates me.

IMO One reason why any peace deal is highly unlikely is Israel needs an ongoing war with the Palestinians to maintain some semblance of unity as without it internal divisions emanating from it's diversity of colour, creed and factional religion would very quickly lead to civil unrest and possibly even civil war between various jewish factions. Unfortunately it is the Palestinians who are paying the price for this show of unity.

I'm so sorry we're not fascist, Art. I, for one, value pluralism and variety of opinions - perhaps you do not, I won't hold it against you.

 

[henxan]

I agree. As far as most Israelis are concerned, we began in 1979 with the Camp David Accords, continued with the Oslo Accords, pullout from Lebanon and disengagement plan. The current outcome of each of these events doesn't really "give people real hope for peace and security".

I agree that the previous peace treaties have been doomed from the start. Especially the oslo-agreement. The fact is there must be something to gain for both sides. The oslo-agreement was in reality a "lets keep the status quo," only let's kiss and make up. To get real peace, there must be a significant reduction of the settlements in Palestine. Today there is some hundreds of settlements, connected by guarded roads and crossing-posts. This means palestine today is divided into hundreds of bits. For a person to get to hospital one may need to go pass several road crossings, many which are open only minutes or hours a day. If traveling in my country meant standing in queue for hours or days, intensive control and interrogation for each passing, i would be infuriated. If the palestinians were promised to get at least a country not dotted by jewish settlements all over, easier travel, the possibility of a unity, the may be satisfied. At least the vast majority. One will never get rid of the the extremists on either side.

In echange the gain for the israelis would be increased security. There should be a international contribution to security and military, preferably UN, which could guard the israeli state and help palestine get its act together.

 

[Yonoz]

I agree that the previous peace treaties have been doomed from the start. Especially the oslo-agreement. The fact is there must be something to gain for both sides. The oslo-agreement was in reality a "lets keep the status quo," only let's kiss and make up.

The Oslo Accords were meant to build trust. The territories were divided into 3 zones: complete PA jurisdiction, with right of pursuit for the IDF; shared jurisdiction, with joint patrols; Israeli jurisdiction. As the negotiations progressed, more territory was transferred to Palestinian control. One can only guess "what if": what if Arafat was to fight terrorism and not support it, what if PM Rabin hadn't been assassinated, and so on.

To get real peace, there must be a significant reduction of the settlements in Palestine. Today there is some hundreds of settlements, connected by guarded roads and crossing-posts. This means palestine today is divided into hundreds of bits. For a person to get to hospital one may need to go pass several road crossings, many which are open only minutes or hours a day. If traveling in my country meant standing in queue for hours or days, intensive control and interrogation for each passing, i would be infuriated. If the palestinians were promised to get at least a country not dotted by jewish settlements all over, easier travel, the possibility of a unity, the may be satisfied. At least the vast majority. One will never get rid of the the extremists on either side.

I agree, the settlements are an obstacle. The question is how do we convince Israelis to support their removal? The settlements are perceived by some Israelis as a front shield for the rest of the population. All those rockets, mortars and gunfire coming out of the Gaza Strip used to be aimed at the settlers there. When they were pulled out, Israelis outside the strip became the target. Already we are seeing Grad rockets hitting the southern outskirts of the city of Ashkelon. Now, if you'd care to look at a map of Israel and the occupied territories and try to imagine what would happen if there were such rockets in the West Bank.

In echange the gain for the israelis would be increased security. There should be a international contribution to security and military, preferably UN, which could guard the israeli state and help palestine get its act together.

I'm afraid the UN can't even guard itself. There's a strong UN force in South Lebanon, and now we've seen the resuming of rocket fire from there.

 

[henxan]

I agree, the settlements are an obstacle. The question is how do we convince Israelis to support their removal? The settlements are perceived by some Israelis as a front shield for the rest of the population. All those rockets, mortars and gunfire coming out of the Gaza Strip used to be aimed at the settlers there. When they were pulled out, Israelis outside the strip became the target.

Well, this is why it is important to involve hamas in the negotiations. If hamas wants to see a stop in the attacs on israel, they are probably able to enforce it. Hamas has been viewed as a solidarity organization by the palestinians, and to a certain degree it is. Fatah on the other hand has been plagued by corruption. It is not through agreements with fatah one could achieve peace but with hamas. I also think the other muslim countries neighbouring palestine are important. But, as I said earlier, there must be an acceptable treaty before the palestinians agrees, and it must involve decreasing settlements.

I am not sure how the israelis think of the settlers, would they accept jewish settlers coming into israel?

 

[nabki]

"correcting the border", as in the way it has been continuosly corrected from the end of the 1940s till now, as in from not existing to occupying all the territory in the golan, the sinani penensiula, west bank, gaza, lebanon ect...
israel has had a long history of 'correcting' its borders. or maybe its going to be a new slower way, like settlement or land seziures or even letting armed militias that, for some reason the israel government don't know about, go into a farmers field and beat him to death like what happened a few weeks ago. that makes the land legaly property of israel, since they fought for it didnt they?
what happened to al-dura was a horrific act of state sponsred terrorism even if he lived, and i suggest that the people who are reading this post do a google for the video. and how about the start of the last intifada, can you please tell us why it started? that would give the readers a good view on how much respect the leadership of israel for other religions. or what happened in the kiyamah cathedral in jerusalem a few years ago? do you even know what movements such as hamas and hizbullah mean to the arab people? is digging under the third most holiest place in islam not reason enough for resistance? israel has time and time again desecrated the rights of the palestinian people and spat in the face of the arab and islamic world. and now, during a peace confrence, israel strikes at gaza killing 10! how can that help the peace process?

 

[Yonoz]

Well, this is why it is important to involve hamas in the negotiations. If hamas wants to see a stop in the attacs on israel, they are probably able to enforce it. Hamas has been viewed as a solidarity organization by the palestinians, and to a certain degree it is. Fatah on the other hand has been plagued by corruption. It is not through agreements with fatah one could achieve peace but with hamas. I also think the other muslim countries neighbouring palestine are important. But, as I said earlier, there must be an acceptable treaty before the palestinians agrees, and it must involve decreasing settlements.

Hamas, unlike Fatah, is unwilling to accept peace with Israel, thus negotiations with it will only delay an inevitable confrontation.

I am not sure how the israelis think of the settlers, would they accept jewish settlers coming into israel?

Most settlers are not very ideological, they moved to the territories because there's a higher standard of living there. These settlers are usually in settlements right near the 1967 border and should evacuate without too much trouble. The radical ones settle in remote outposts or close to Palestinians, such as in Hebron. Of course we'd accept all of them back in Israel, they belong here.
The left parties are trying to pass a law that will compensate settlers who return to Israel regardless of the peace process. When the government will decide to evacuate the settlements, there'll be other compensation plans.

 

[pfisher]

To piggyback on Yonoz's point, Israel has removed settlers before from the Sinai and most recently (and unilaterally) in Gaza. Four settlements have also been dismantled in the West Bank.

 

[nabki]

and israel has recently planned to build some new settlements in east jerusalem

 

[Yonoz]

"correcting the border", as in the way it has been continuosly corrected from the end of the 1940s till now, as in from not existing to occupying all the territory in the golan, the sinani penensiula, west bank, gaza, lebanon ect...
israel has had a long history of 'correcting' its borders. or maybe its going to be a new slower way, like settlement or land seziures or even letting armed militias that, for some reason the israel government don't know about, go into a farmers field and beat him to death like what happened a few weeks ago. that makes the land legaly property of israel, since they fought for it didnt they?

You misunderstood. The corrections offered by Yisrael Beitenu include handing areas of Israeli Arab populations over to the Palestinian Authority. Naturally, Israeli Arabs wish to remain citizens of Israel rather than become ones of the PA, so that is unattainable.
BTW the Sinai peninsula is Egyptian, and Lebanon is, well, Lebanese. And no sane Israeli wants Gaza.

what happened to al-dura was a horrific act of state sponsred terrorism even if he lived, and i suggest that the people who are reading this post do a google for the video.

But you see, the other scenes in the tape all show staged Palestinian injuries. Al-Dura may well have been staged as well, just like those walking dead who were carried in the staged funeral processions in Jenin.

and how about the start of the last intifada, can you please tell us why it started? that would give the readers a good view on how much respect the leadership of israel for other religions.

I believe you're referring to Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, but we both know that's not how it started. In any case, why should anyone not be allowed visit there? I was there, with an organized group in military uniform (no boots) just a few months before, and no one had any problems with it. I'll tell you something more, our representatives have such respect for Islam that they made it illegal for Jews to conduct any form of worship on the Temple Mount, and the Muslim Waqf has full control there. Of course that never stopped Muslims from using it as a platform to attack the Jews praying below them at the Western Wall.

or what happened in the kiyamah cathedral in jerusalem a few years ago? do you even know what movements such as hamas and hizbullah mean to the arab people?

Please, enlighten me.

is digging under the third most holiest place in islam not reason enough for resistance?

What digging?
EDIT: You must be referring to the Muslim Waqf's digs under the Temple Mount that caused unsubstantiated archaeological loss. Are you suggesting Jews should start a resistance of our own?

israel has time and time again desecrated the rights of the palestinian people and spat in the face of the arab and islamic world. and now, during a peace confrence, israel strikes at gaza killing 10! how can that help the peace process?

How do daily rocket barrages on civilians help the peace process? The operation in Gaza is meant to occupy those carrying out these attacks.

 

[nabki]

currently at least it is al-aqsa mosque, where ariel sharon entered the prayer hall with a fully armed military bodyguard ignoring all the rules of entering a mosque, then after resistance by palestinians that involved shoes being thrown at the offender, the group fired at the unarmed palestinians. if that's not how it started, then how did it?
so al-dura was not killed? staged? EVERY arab channel was showing that tape, a lot of western ones, and why didnt the government of israel say it was a false tape or a setup when it happend? and what other scenes in the tape? it seems to me that your trying to say that israel is a country that has never commited any wrong since its beggining. and when did muslims conduct attacks on jews from al-aqsa mosque?
what hapend at the cathedral was a siege that lasted for a few months. even the vatican pleaded for the israelies to stop it, but to no avail.
digging near the fragile wall for construction, and digging tunnels under the mosque WITHOUT knowledge of the islamic wuqf.
and how will talking with only the current corrupt and minoroty fatah, while ignoring the majority hamas help? of course everything israel does is 'meant' for some reason, since israel is never in the wrong. and do you think that increased military activity is going to calm hamas down?
oh, and how about putting 2/3 of the parliment in prison?

 

[henxan]

Hamas, unlike Fatah, is unwilling to accept peace with Israel, thus negotiations with it will only delay an inevitable confrontation.

I see that, at present moment. But they have been deliberately pushed out of any negotiations, trivialized. You never accomplish anything when you ignore a fraction representing the majority of a country. Hamas isn't composed of only idiots, nor is the israeli government, and reasonable people will know a good deal when they see it. Thats why I believe there is a significant mass of people in hamas that will seek an end to the "war/occupation," and they will most certainly be willing to let israel in peace, given prior-to-1967-borders.

Another thing, which I have very little knowledge, is the "holy places," muslim or jewish. How important are these? But common sense should commend that this isn't the biggest controversies.

 

[kyleb]

Hamas isn't composed of only idiots, nor is the israeli government, and reasonable people will know a good deal when they see it. Thats why I believe there is a significant mass of people in hamas that will seek an end to the "war/occupation," and they will most certainly be willing to let israel in peace, given prior-to-1967-borders.

I think it is obvious that the vast majority of Palestinians would accept such terms, including many members of Hamas. However, on the Israeli side, even self proclaimed peace supporters and settlement detractors like Yonoz say's he'd likely rather take on the world than withdraw to those boarders. Granted, it seems the Green Line has a poorly defined meaning to Israeli society; it was only recently decided to be mentioned in their children's textbooks, and last I heard was that decision was facing strong opposition.

 

[mheslep]

... Hamas isn't composed of only idiots, nor is the israeli government, and reasonable people will know a good deal when they see it. Thats why I believe there is a significant mass of people in hamas that will seek an end to the "war/occupation," and they will most certainly be willing to let israel in peace, given prior-to-1967-borders.

It may be hard to get 'reasonable' people to emerge from thttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL3UnHZ0DRc&feature=related".

 

[Yonoz]

I see that, at present moment. But they have been deliberately pushed out of any negotiations, trivialized. You never accomplish anything when you ignore a fraction representing the majority of a country. Hamas isn't composed of only idiots, nor is the israeli government, and reasonable people will know a good deal when they see it. Thats why I believe there is a significant mass of people in hamas that will seek an end to the "war/occupation," and they will most certainly be willing to let israel in peace, given prior-to-1967-borders.

At what point should we expect this change of rhetoric? Negotiations, as turbo-1 will tell you, have to be done in good faith. One cannot enter negotiations in good faith when the other side openly declares that under no circumstances will it ever recognize one's existence. I agree Hamas should be negotiated with, but as long as they do not declare the end to their mission of liberating every last cm of Palestine, negotiations will only delay an inevitable confrontation. However, I do believe Hamas will be negotiated with should they make a significant gesture of good faith, such as ending the rocket fire aimed at Israeli civilians. Until they do, negotiating with them will be rightly viewed as a strategic maneuver to gain some breath and prepare for a future confrontation.

Another thing, which I have very little knowledge, is the "holy places," muslim or jewish. How important are these? But common sense should commend that this isn't the biggest controversies.

They are important, to a certain extent. The single most explosive issue is Jerusalem, specifically the Temple Mount. Besides the obvious national importance to both Israelis and Palestinians, there will have to be some strong international effort there - freedom of worship must be assured for all faiths, and the city itself would be a revolving door for terrorists without division of the city and strong security arrangements. There are existing arrangements for Jewish pilgrimage to tombs in the West Bank, i.e. the pilgrimage is done at night under tight security, sites outside Jerusalem will probably have a similar arrangement.
Hebron will be another issue, as there are inhabited Jewish properties right at its cramped center. These have been Jewish property since before the birth of Zionism, they are inhabited by very zealous settlers, and so the situation will be difficult to diffuse.

 

[Yonoz]

I think it is obvious that the vast majority of Palestinians would accept such terms, including many members of Hamas. However, on the Israeli side, even self proclaimed peace supporters and settlement detractors like Yonoz say's he'd likely rather take on the world than withdraw to those boarders. Granted, it seems the Green Line has a poorly defined meaning to Israeli society; it was only recently decided to be mentioned in their children's textbooks, and last I heard was that decision was facing strong opposition.

It's not that obvious what terms the Palestinians would accept, especially not to a nation who had an Arab enemy attack it with every generation. As I said, most Israelis feel under siege, whether you agree they are or you don't.
If the situation you described somehow came into being, i.e. Israel would be prevented from arming itself, then the occupied territories will certainly be critical to its existence. I have learned from my national and personal histories the importance of the independence of national self-defense. The only difference between myself (and most Israeli leftists) and secular right wing Israelis is that I am optimistic as to the chance of securing Israel in its narrower, strategically inferior form. Should the western world turn Israel into another Czechoslovakia, I figure my optimism would be lost.
The green line has always been mentioned as it is a significant piece of information in the War of Independence and the Six Day War. I assure you Israeli children have been learning about both wars, the occupation and the Intifadas in history classes. You can't teach Israeli history without the green line.

 

[henxan]

Yonoz:

Well.. This is why it is good that US has come into the picture. Because they could say that israel have to go back to their original borders. They could help get about UN/nato resources to keep palestine peaceful. .I think that, what this thread started with, bush can make a change. But is he willing?

 

[turbo]

Yonoz:

Well.. This is why it is good that US has come into the picture. Because they could say that israel have to go back to their original borders. They could help get about UN/nato resources to keep palestine peaceful. .I think that, what this thread started with, bush can make a change. But is he willing?

Bush cannot make any change because he is unwilling to engage in diplomacy. Israel is in the position of military superiority, and has no reason to change the status quo. The US must be willing to offer both the carrot and the stick to both sides of the conflict, and so far, Israel has not been shown the stick and instead gets a steady diet of carrots. If this does not change, Israel will never negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians.

There are a number of things underlying the problem that make resolution tough. Zionists used ethnic cleansing to sweep Arab Palestinians from Palestine, flooding bordering countries with refugees. Also, when the Palestinians responded to the force used against them, they were branded as terrorists. Over the decades, Israel has used its influence in US politics to blunt any UN condemnation of their actions. By now, most Arabs with a rational world-view believe that the US is vehemently pro-Zionist and anti-Arab. The Zionists carved their country out of a colonial territory by using violence and terrorism against the natives living there. Under international law, these displaced persons are entitled to the right of return, or if that right of return is abrogated under extraordinary circumstances, at least reasonable restitution. Israel has denied these obligations for over 50 years.

If I invaded your home and drove you out, would you feel satisfied if after 50+ years, I allowed you to live in the tool shed, as long as I had absolute control over your comings and goings? The Palestinians in the "tool shed" are not far-removed from this example.

 

[Yonoz]

currently at least it is al-aqsa mosque, where ariel sharon entered the prayer hall with a fully armed military bodyguard ignoring all the rules of entering a mosque, then after resistance by palestinians that involved shoes being thrown at the offender, the group fired at the unarmed palestinians. if that's not how it started, then how did it?

Al-Aqsa Mosque is, well, a Mosque - the Temple Mount is a mount. The Al-Aqsa Mosque is built on the Temple Mount, as is the Dome of the Rock. The Muslim name for the Temple Mount is the Noble Sanctuary. A rose by any other name...
As for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada#_ref-15"/Noble Sanctuary/Official Residence of the Spaghetti Monster:

"A group of Palestinian dignitaries came to protest the visit, as did three Arab Knesset Members. With the dignitaries watching from a safe distance, the Shahab (youth mob) threw rocks and attempted to get past the Israeli security personnel and reach Sharon and his entourage [...] Still, Sharon's deportment was quiet and dignified. He did not pray, did not make any statement, or do anything else that might be interpreted as offensive to the sensitivities of Muslims. Even after he came back near the Wailing Wall under the hail of rocks, he remained calm. "I came here as one who believes in coexistence between Jews and Arabs," Sharon told the waiting reporters. "I believe that we can build and develop together. This was a peaceful visit. Is it an instigation for Israeli Jews to come to the Jewish people's holiest site?"

You see - Sharon was on the Noble Sanctuary, but he never entered the Al-Aqsa Mosque, nor the Dome of the Rock. The real violence started the next day, Friday - prayer day.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qb5fIP-MfAc", ask anyone who was in the Thanzeem at the time. There was even an attack on an Israeli settler convoy that claimed the life of an Israeli soldier the day before Sharon's visit - which for some reason doesn't signify the start of the second Intifada to you more than a Jew visiting the Noble Sanctuary - something that happened many many times before, never sparking any uprisings.

so al-dura was not killed? staged? EVERY arab channel was showing that tape, a lot of western ones, and why didnt the government of israel say it was a false tape or a setup when it happend? and what other scenes in the tape? it seems to me that your trying to say that israel is a country that has never commited any wrong since its beggining.

It quite possibly was staged: several investigations pointed to that possibility - though of course it can't be said with any certainty. The Israeli government can't make assertions such as that without a proper investigation, and that took time. The France 2 network, which holds the master tapes, will not release them to the public. Even the sequence shown in the court was cut. Here's http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\\ForeignBureaus\\archive\\200502\\FOR20050215c.html" :

In a January 2005 article in Le Figaro , Jeambar and Leconte said that when France 2 news director Arlette Chabot showed them the cassette, they were surprised that it did not contain any footage of the child's "agony."

They also found that the first 20 minutes or so of the cassette showed scenes of young Palestinians "playing at war" in front of the camera, falling as if wounded and then getting up and walking away.

Jeambar and Leconte told radio station RCJ that a France 2 official also present at the meeting had said in reference to the playacting, "You know it's always like that."

Israel has done "wrong", as has every other country, but your historical errors show for how much nonsense it is blamed.

and when did muslims conduct attacks on jews from al-aqsa mosque?

Not from the mosque, from the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary. One such account is in the source relating to Sharon's visit, but there were several other cases during the Intifadas.

what hapend at the cathedral was a siege that lasted for a few months. even the vatican pleaded for the israelies to stop it, but to no avail.

You mean the Church of the Nativity, which is in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem. Funny you should be so sensitive about weapons entering mosques, but you see no problem in armed fighters claiming refuge in a church, let alone stealing the church's valuables. The siege lasted 39 days, and everyone was free to come out unharmed.

digging near the fragile wall for construction, and digging tunnels under the mosque WITHOUT knowledge of the islamic wuqf.

There are no tunnels being dug under the mosque, despite what the Waqf claims. The digs outside the wall are salvation digs so that a replacement for a swept ramp can be built. Unlike the Waqf's digs, they are supervised by professionals. The Waqf never conducts any salvation digs, and http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=776922" .

and how will talking with only the current corrupt and minoroty fatah, while ignoring the majority hamas help? of course everything israel does is 'meant' for some reason, since israel is never in the wrong. and do you think that increased military activity is going to calm hamas down?
oh, and how about putting 2/3 of the parliment in prison?

I have explained the reasons why negotiations with Hamas under the current circumstances are futile.
The military activity is not meant to calm Hamas down, I have stated it is meant to occupy the militants and extract a toll from them - and it has achieved that. I don't see any point in calming Hamas down if they will only gather strength for an inevitable future confrontation.
Indeed, parliament members on behalf of Hamas are in Israeli prisons. Having witnessed what Hamas has done in Gaza, I believe it's in everyone's interests. Everyone but Hamas and their Iranian backers, that is.

 

[Yonoz]

Yonoz:

Well.. This is why it is good that US has come into the picture. Because they could say that israel have to go back to their original borders. They could help get about UN/nato resources to keep palestine peaceful. .I think that, what this thread started with, bush can make a change. But is he willing?

I believe Bush is willing, but there's a lot of elements in the equation. One rocket, one shell can tear down years of trust-building.

 

[Evo]

I think it's time to close this down as the discussion isn't progressing.