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

[devil-fire]

bush wants peace between Israel and Palestine by the time he leaves office. he doesn't seem to say how he wants to get that done, but he lays out some bold expectations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7181658.stm

Mr Bush did not give details of precisely what a final agreement might contain - he said that would be a matter for the talks.

But his statement set out some parameters within which he expected negotiators to work.

These included:


-Palestinian refugee families should be compensated, rather than returning to former homes in what is now Israel
-adjustments to the pre-1967 boundaries "to reflect current realities" - a reference to Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank

He issued a stern warning to both sides not to do anything which breaks promises they have already made, or which might make negotiations more difficult.

"On the Israeli side, that includes ending settlement expansion and removing unauthorised outposts.

"On the Palestinian side, that includes confronting terrorists and dismantling terrorist infrastructure," he said.

i think the USA has the influence to make these things a reality but will the costs of peace outweigh the benefits? or are people in Israel and Palestine as intent on a plan for peace as bush claims to be?

 

[henxan]

Wow.. this seems like the best news concerning the Israel Palestine conflict I've ever heard, and especially coming from an american president. AND especially coming from Bush.. This is probably the most intelligent thing he have ever done!

And YES, I do actually think US is the most important country concerning these issues! That is because US is the biggest supporter, both by the US government, AND private institutions and people (Jewish), in favor of the israeli state. I also would believe that the Palestinians, that is the wast majority, are interested in peace. Sooner or later you would want to live in a peace.

There is only one problem now, and that is that the US or Bush are not going to negotiate with Hamas. This is a error. Hamas should be involved! Though a strongly fundamentalist religious organization, they represent the mayority of the palestinians. And, I have to say, in the case there is really good offerings: Returning to 67borders, removing many settlements, unifying palestine, even hamas will accept.

But, there will be extremists on both sides, Jewish and Muslim, that will not accept peace. So who would enforce the peace if it is accomplished? UN

 

[Werg22]

I read this and smile; there won't be peace over there in our life time fellows.

 

[seycyrus]

Negotiate with Hamas?

The CURRENT Hamas?

The CURRENT Hamas just recently consolidated control by rounding up the competition and shooting them all in the head!

 

[mgb_phys]

The CURRENT Hamas just recently consolidated control by rounding up the competition and shooting them all in the head!

If you have ever been involved in any local council / school politics you can see the apeal of this!

Bush has what about 12 months left in office - to sort out a region that has been a global pain in the butt since civilisation was invented, no problem.

 

[kyleb]

Negotiate with Hamas?

The CURRENT Hamas?

The CURRENT Hamas just recently consolidated control by rounding up the competition and shooting them all in the head!

Hyperbole? Hamas only controls Gaza, and there are still Fatah in Gaza, Hamas only eliminated the militant faction of Fatah which tried to coup the elected Hamas government. Regardless, I don't think Hamas is interested in negotiations at this point. It really doesn't matter who represents the Palestinians in the negotiations though, the important factor is that the terms reached are acceptable the majorities on both sides of the conflict.

Anyway, Bush's "http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3168462.ece"" comment in regard for the need for territorial continuity, along with other statements on the subject, thankfully demonstrate a better understanding of the issue than Clinton ever showed. The only question that remains is if Bush is willing to do what is necessary to convince the Israeli government to respect the Palestinians right to sovereignty. Granted, that is a big if, but it would do much to improve the man's legacy, so the motivation is certainly there. At this point I am cautiously optimistic.

 

[seycyrus]

Hyperbole? Hamas only controls Gaza, and there are still Fatah in Gaza, Hamas only eliminated the militant faction of Fatah which tried to coup the elected Hamas government.

Excuse me?

They rounded up as many as possible and shot them in the head, execution style. Their definition of "member of the militant faction" was VERY liberally applied, according to CNN, BBC and NPR reports.

 

[kyleb]

Can you provide an examples of such reports? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7092365.stm which refers to a crowd of Fatah supports in Gaza being rounded up, but no executions.

 

[russ_watters]

Wow.. this seems like the best news concerning the Israel Palestine conflict I've ever heard...

I wouldn't get your hopes up just yet. Pretty much every recent US President has tried. Remember the famous Arafat/Rabin handshake? http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/13/newsid_3053000/3053733.stm

Nevertheless, you are right that the US has to be instrumental - and let's face it, we're the only ones who are actually trying. But the Palesitinans don't really trust us, so what would be best would be for another 3rd party to act as mediators with us. Russia, perhaps.

 

[kyleb]

We've only been supporting Israel goals while consistently vetoing the rest of the worlds attempts to censure Israel's disregard for the Palestinians right to sovereignty. I believe it is now over 30 Security Counsel resolutions we have been the sole veto on over the decades. Hence the reason the Palestinians don't trust us, but that is something our President is well within his power to change.

 

[Yonoz]

As much as it saddens me to say this, it will be very hard for the current Israeli government and Palestinian leadership to reach a true agreement. There is too much distrust among the people, and the current leaderships will lose power if they agree to necessary concessions - Jerusalem is a very problematic issue. Personally, I feel we can't afford to just sit back and let this chance pass, but I'm doubtful it will be achieved under current terms.
As for Hamas, the most they're willing to offer is a ten-year cease-fire, after which they promise nothing.
The general forecast is a breakdown of the process, which will bring about the resignation of Mahmoud Abbas, with a high likelihood of Hamas taking control of the West Bank. If they manage to smuggle in to, or manufacture rockets in, the West Bank, the situation will get worse for everyone. That's the only reason we've gotten this far.

 

[seycyrus]

Can you provide an examples of such reports? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7092365.stm which refers to a crowd of Fatah supports in Gaza being rounded up, but no executions.

I remember most vividly the descriptions from NPR, which is a radio newscast, but here are some links.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/hamas-is-executing-fatah-fighters-in.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3412813,00.html

Here's one from HRW which discusses atrocities on both sides, but does go into a few specifics about Hamas, (tried to teach a Fatah chef to fly for instance)

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2007/06/13/isrlpa16156.htm

 

[pleaserecycle]

Yes, the US most probably do have the power to rectify the situation. But, Bush only has 12 months left as President. This leaves him with no time to actually get anything done. He will claim to be having peace talks, and for the situation to be improving. But, at the end of the day, all he wants is to go out on a good note, as all politicians do. They make short term impacts in a hope that they will be remembered for it in the long run, which often isn't true. Sadly, there is hardly, if any, such a thing as selfless politics.

 

[turbo]

If the US withdrew all aid to Israel until the Israelis negotiated in good faith with the Palestinians, some progress could be made. No US politician is willing to take this step, and our government will continue to perpetuate the Zionists' genocide against the Palestinians. Read any news feed in the US. Palestinians can be killed for being "suspected terrorists" by Israeli troops, and Israelis are "slaughtered" by Palestinian "terrorists" or "gunmen". I don't pretend to know the truth in these incidents, but the slant of the popular press is quite evident.

 

[Astronuc]

bush wants peace between Israel and Palestine by the time he leaves office.

Too bad he didn't start 7 years ago when he took office, but it seems he was fixated on Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

Pretty much every recent US President has tried. Remember the famous Arafat/Rabin handshake?

Clinton did a very poor job, and Reagan and Bush didn't do much. However, they did allow shipments of the some of the most advanced military technology to Israel.

 

[kyleb]

I remember most vividly the descriptions from NPR, which is a radio newscast, but here are some links.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/hamas-is-executing-fatah-fighters-in.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3412813,00.html

Here's one from HRW which discusses atrocities on both sides, but does go into a few specifics about Hamas, (tried to teach a Fatah chef to fly for instance)

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2007/06/13/isrlpa16156.htm

Yeah, the militant facton of Fatah which tried to coup the Hamas led government. The articles explain those Fatah members were holding arms caches, and the first article even lables the ones executed as Fatah fighters, twice within the text of the article and also in the URL itself. And the third article also mentions Fatah miltiants throwing a Hamas supporter off a building as well. So, would you also argue that Fatah is not to be negotated with since they tried to consolidate control by killing off their rivals?

If the US withdrew all aid to Israel until the Israelis negotiated in good faith with the Palestinians, some progress could be made.

Between that and the power to impose sanctions though the UN, I figure a year is plenty of time to bring resolution to the conflict. Granted, I have yet to see any indication that Bush actually intends to do anything of the sort.

 

[Yonoz]

No US politician is willing to take this step, and our government will continue to perpetuate the Zionists' genocide against the Palestinians.

Let's try, for once, to keep the discussion both on topic and free of libel, kay?

 

[Art]

I can't see meaningful negotiations happening any time soon. The key message Israel will take from Bush's speech is that the solution 'will have to reflect realities on the ground' i.e. the Palestinians shouldn't expect back land in the west bank where Israel has built it's illegal settlements. Now that Israel has confirmation they will be allowed to keep the occupied land they stole in direct contravention of international law and ergo bad behaviour will be rewarded it is inevitable Israel will want to make sure 'the realities on the ground' favour them as much as possible before contemplating peace and so we can expect another decade or two of settlement expansion before Israel genuinely engages.

Israel is not even attempting to be subtle about their intentions. Within days of the Annapolis summit they began new 'authorised' settlement expansions on stolen Palestinian land and despite criticism from Condi Rice they have stated publicly they will continue to expand their East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements whilst continuing to support and protect their 'unauthorised' settlements.

Bush's response to this rejection of his demands will be a measure of just how serious he is in promoting a lasting peace settlement.

 

[Yonoz]

Now that Israel has confirmation they will be allowed to keep the occupied land they stole in direct contravention of international law and ergo bad behaviour will be rewarded it is inevitable Israel will want to make sure 'the realities on the ground' favour them as much as possible before contemplating peace and so we can expect another decade or two of settlement expansion before Israel genuinely engages.

Well, if it is anything like the previous decade, or two, or three, which included the Gaza disengagement, pullout from Lebanon and the Camp David Accords, I guess we can expect a decade of contraction. One thing is certain - it will not satisfy everyone

Israel is not even attempting to be subtle about their intentions. Within days of the Annapolis summit they began new 'authorised' settlement expansions on stolen Palestinian land and despite criticism from Condi Rice they have stated publicly they will continue to expand their East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements whilst continuing to support and protect their 'unauthorised' settlements.

Actually, these expansions began a while back - Israel has a formidable beaurocracy as only a parliamentary socialist democracy can, and Olmert has a very narrow path he can take considering the composition of his coalition.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/944220.html"

Just weeks after taking office in January 2006, Olmert sent police to tear down nine unauthorized homes in the Amona outpost. But violent clashes ensued there between police and settlers, and in the two years since, he has taken no serious action against the outposts.

Right-wing members of Olmert's coalition and settlers oppose any action against the outposts, making the issue extremely sensitive at a time when the prime minister is trying to hold together his coalition and make peace with the Palestinians. Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman will meet with Olmert Monday and is expected to tell him he may resign over negotiations with the Palestinians.

 

[Astronuc]

I think it is a difficult situation, because both parties want the same land - all of it, and both could claim historical precedence over that last 5000 years. The status quo seems unsustainable, and it is certainly unsatisfactory.

Perhaps some in Israel hope to wait it out and that the Palestinians will simply go away. That would seem untenable.

Some Palesitinians hope that Israel will settle and agree to remove settlers from the West Bank and allow the Palestinians to claim E. Jerusalem. Is that even possible?

And then there are Hamas and Hizbullah, and other interested parties who seem committed to violence, which is unacceptable.

Hmmmm. Difficult.

 

[turbo]

It is a difficult situation, and it is not going to resolve itself, especially if Bush won't take the necessary steps to pressure Israel's government. The US is Israel's sponsor and proxy, and Israel wields exceptional power in US politics. Our government arms Israel with the most advanced weaponry available, provides billions in "aid" that no modern country should need, and thwarts every single attempt by the UN to redress the expulsion and murder of Palestinians and the theft of their property. Until this patronage is removed, Israel will not negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians, and perhaps not even then, since they have military superiority over all their neighbors.

The necessary first step is to insist that Israel negotiate a peace with the Palestinians (in good faith, not just empty promises!), and to withhold all aid/weapons sales, etc until such negotiations are completed and the terms of such are adhered to. If it takes a year or two, and Israel's economy suffers from the lack of a constant infusion of dollars, too bad.

 

[nabki]

what most people who haven't actualy been to the middle east have not noticed is that islamists such as hamas and hizbullah are more popular with arabs and muslims in general than 'moderates' such as fatah or certain people in power. the reason being mainly the bush administration which has been seen as the embodiment of evil, and because people here feel that their identity has been attacked by the 'war on terror'. then comes afghanistan, iraq, support of musharaf... that dosent help either. people have become fed up with all the failed negotiations that have been sponsored by the US, and then the repeated vetos. most arabs feel fustrated at the fact that their land is being stolen and their countries invaded while certain 'men of status' can't wait to shake hands with condi and let bush wave a sword about (which was pretty amature by the way), then get the highest medal of honour.

 

[Yonoz]

Some Palesitinians hope that Israel will settle and agree to remove settlers from the West Bank and allow the Palestinians to claim E. Jerusalem. Is that even possible?

With a broad coalition, it's possible.
Tomorrow Olmert will meet with Avigdor Lieberman, and the latter will probably anounce he will step down if Jerusalem is even discussed.
The recurring problem of the coalition leaders in Israel are the non-nationalist religious parties, which usually tip the balance. They are right-wing in nature, but they are not strict about it. Their status as the breakers or makers grants them many political gains. In the past week the Sephardic Shas party achieved the resurrection of the Ministry of Religious Affairs (under a slightly different name) - which was closed down four years ago. This is a heavy price to pay for the integrity of the coalition at this stage, and no concessions have been made so far. There is some conflict between the partitioning of Jerusalem and Shas' religious nature, one wonders if Olmert is capable of keeping their support.
We will most likely see either Olmert or Abbas step down or voted out over the next year, but this is the Holy Land - maybe we'll see a political virgin birth.

 

[Yonoz]

If it takes a year or two, and Israel's economy suffers from the lack of a constant infusion of dollars, too bad.

What constant infusion of dollars? The only place those dollars are going is the US arms industry.

 

[turbo]

What constant infusion of dollars? The only place those dollars are going is the US arms industry.

If you will check, you will find that billions upon billions of dollars in loans and loan guarantees have been quietly converted into grants by our elected officials. We, the US taxpayers have been bled for decades to support Israel. If we want to see peace in the ME, we need to stop this mindless support for Israel and insist on real compromise and reconciliation. The status-quo is not working, and it is costing us not only taxpayer dollars, but trust and respect among the Arab states who could otherwise be allies and partners.

 

[Yonoz]

If you will check, you will find that billions upon billions of dollars in loans and loan guarantees have been quietly converted into grants by our elected officials.

How about addressing the point I made, i.e. these grants are spent on US-made arms. Moreover, many of these grants are given in return for certain concessions to the Palestinians, or to remove opposition to arms sales to other countries in the ME.
These grants are an internal US matter, I will not argue for or against them, but they are certainly not infusions into Israel's economy, rather the US arms industry, which also benefits from the removal of Israeli competition. Did you know Israeli security businesses are stopped from competing in other countries' military contracts due to US concerns, while US companies are not? I'm not talking only about enemy countries such as China, but about India, Turkey and others.

 

[turbo]

Here is a table for you to consider.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

Almost $100 billion dollars of US taxpayer money since 1949. The fact that much of that money is in the form of military grants means nothing in and of itself. The more than $2 billion/year IS an infusion of cash into the Israeli economy because Israel would otherwise have to come up with this money on its own, and depress its own economy to sustain that level of military spending. If Bush truly wanted peace in the middle east, he would have vetoed this spending until Israel stopped building and expanding settlements, withdrew to within the borders recognized by the UN, and negotiated for peace with its neighbors, including compensation for properties lost by the Palestinians who have been refused the right of return. US politicians are gutless, and will not withhold these billions of dollars from Israel - least of all "W".

 

[Yonoz]

The fact that much of that money is in the form of military grants means nothing in and of itself. The more than $2 billion/year IS an infusion of cash into the Israeli economy because Israel would otherwise have to come up with this money on its own, and depress its own economy to sustain that level of military spending.

AFAIK Israel would not have spent these amounts of money on US-made weapons had they not been in the form of grants. It would either buy Israeli made weapons, improve existing platforms or purchase them from a third country, all for much, much cheaper. The amount of jobs created by the first two options would probably do some good for the Israeli economy, and Israel would be free to export weapons to countries such as China, India and all those other ones in Latin America and Africa without limits - just like the US and the Europeans are doing.

 

[kyleb]

Well, if it is anything like the previous decade, or two, or three, which included the Gaza disengagement, pullout from Lebanon and the Camp David Accords, I guess we can expect a decade of contraction.

Only if you turn a blind eye to the West Bank which Israel has been continually expanding settlement of for the past few decades.

One thing is certain - it will not satisfy everyone

What you are attempting to hint at with the wink? Again, the important factor is that whatever compromise might be reached is satisfactory to the majorities on both sides. From there it becomes a simple matter of empowering those majorities to keep their respective dissenters in line.

Actually, these expansions began a while back...

Which settements are you reffering to? I've seen news of funding for expansions allocated shortly after Annapolis, http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=66&docid=2623&pos=1".

- Israel has a formidable beaurocracy as only a parliamentary socialist democracy can, and Olmert has a very narrow path he can take considering the composition of his coalition.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/944220.html"

And again, withdrawing aid and imposing sanctions would put that bureaucracy in the position of reassessing it's priorities.

 

[russ_watters]

We've only been supporting Israel goals while consistently vetoing the rest of the worlds attempts to censure Israel's disregard for the Palestinians right to sovereignty.

That's not the purpose of those UN resolutions. Both the US and Israel support the Palestinian right to sovereignty. What the US opposes is the hatemongering resolutions that Israel's enemies put up. They don't have anything to do with sovereignty.

 

[kyleb]

Draft resolutions http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1997/19970307.sc6335.html" directly affirm the Palestinian right to sovereignty. It was drafted by France, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom, hardly enemies of Israel; and that resolution would have passed unanimously were it not shot down by our veto. So, what has that decade of Palestine loosing land to Israel created but a catalyst for hatred, hate mongering the world was ready to stop while we alone held them back?

 

[Yonoz]

Only if you turn a blind eye to the West Bank which Israel has been continually expanding settlement of for the past few decades.

Surprise surprise, there are Israeli expansionists, and they're getting more and more support. I wonder why?

What you are attempting to hint at with the wink? Again, the important factor is that whatever compromise might be reached is satisfactory to the majorities on both sides. From there it becomes a simple matter of empowering those majorities to keep their respective dissenters in line.

I'm hinting there will always be someone who justifies violence against Israel. You're assuming there is some compromise that is satisfactory to the majority on both sides, and that those majorities are motivated enough to keep their respective dissenters in line.

Which settements are you reffering to? I've seen news of funding for expansions allocated shortly after Annapolis, http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=66&docid=2623&pos=1" .

The expansions were initiated in Jerusalem's City Council a few years ago. The Housing Ministry approved them after Annapolis. In any case, they are in contradiction to Israeli policy and obligations. They should be stopped at the courts, and I believe that will be the exact case. That's one of the roles Peace Now plays.

And again, withdrawing aid and imposing sanctions would put that bureaucracy in the position of reassessing it's priorities.

That's right. It may also have other effects.

 

[Dale]

A president trying to get mid-east peace is kind of like a batchelor party. One last hurrah before settling down. Maybe you get lucky, but chances are you just get a hangover.

 

[hubertg]

I agree with Werg22.

 

[nabki]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyleb
We've only been supporting Israel goals while consistently vetoing the rest of the worlds attempts to censure Israel's disregard for the Palestinians right to sovereignty.

That's not the purpose of those UN resolutions. Both the US and Israel support the Palestinian right to sovereignty. What the US opposes is the hatemongering resolutions that Israel's enemies put up. They don't have anything to do with sovereignty.

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

 

[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.