.  .  .  that gets Israel out of the West Bank.

You can't be serious! 

So then, why waste your breath -- and the patience of the rest of us -- talking about it?

'Unfortunately, Avigdor Lieberman, who favors ethnic cleansing in Israel of all Arab presence is a minister in the government.
"
No this is not what he propose. He propose partitioning of Israel .
Arab villages in the North Israel according to his plan will be part of a new Arab state.
I think Senator Biden propose similar partition for Iraq and nobody call him “extremist”

For the more immediate future, he offered the release of "numerous Palestinian prisoners" in exchange for Corporal Gilad Shalit. He said Israel will "significantly diminish roadblocks, increase freedom of movement in the territories, facilitate movement of people and goods in both directions, improve the operation of the border crossings to the Gaza Strip, and release Palestinian funds for the purpose of alleviating the humanitarian hardship which many of you suffer."

Bravo, Olmert. Extraordinarily generous to offer to start obeying international law! Still, it would certainly be a step forward, and not just for Palestinians. Israelis would do well to consider the long-term effects of forcing generation after generation of their youngest and brightest citizens to serve as prison guards.

But is there truly a "majority" of Israelis who would tolerate more humane treatment of Palestinians? If so, where have they been the last five years?

"The ball is now in the Palestinians' court and they will have no one but themselves to blame if the cease-fire -- and the process it is designed to kick start -- dies on the vine."

This utterly simplistic, misleading and familiar mantra of blaming the Palestinians for any and all failures completely ignores the present reality and the history of past "failures".

While it may satisfy those who have only a passing interest in the current state of affairs, or who wish to lather on the hasbera, to those who take enough interest to actually read the various and assorted analysis presented by Israeli writers on this complex subject, this blanket blame is infuriating and ultimately counterproductive. In fact, one has to wonder if the truce is designed to fail.

A few of the myriad of factors at play:

Olmert's shaky hold on his own political position and Bush's need to show some progress, somewhere, in the ME are influencing the timing of the announcement. Perhaps some have noticed the use of the words "sudden" and "surprising" in the initial reports of the ceasefire. It's obvious as hell that the Amman visit and snubbing of Olmert/Abbas until they made nice provided the impetus for this sudden agreement:

"But it is not particularly important if he was forced to say it. Olmert said it. The important thing now is, of course, what will spring from this seed. One possibility: nothing. No chance of negotiations. The crushing Israeli conditions have not yet been made public. They have merely been hinted at, for the record, and when the time comes some of them will destroy any chance for momentum."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/795035.html

Even the IDF is complaining that they were only partially informed and have yet to get detailed marching orders about how to proceed in the West Bank in particular. While the Pals want to include the West Bank in the ceasefire, the Israelis most pointedly, don't. Therefore, operations and killings there continue and Qassams are launched from Gaza in retaliation. As one Israeli analyst makes clear, Palestinians don't consider themselves to be separate people. Palestinians deaths in the West Bank are the same as those in Gaza. Given that Israelis acknowledge that the IDF has played an active role in ruining earlier truces, one can only wonder at the sincerity of Olmert et al in failing to provide the IDF with strict guidlines:

"For the present, in order to defend itself from claims that it caused the cease-fire to fail, the IDF is awaiting precise instructions from the political leadership. These have not been forthcoming, and the army has to guess the intentions of the politicians and, based on them, to determine its instructions for opening fire."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/794993.html

Abbas, for his part, is doing his damndest to satisfy the Israeli and American demands that he sideline the influence of Hamas. Abrubtly scraping months of talks of a unity government with Hamas is his desperate ploy to acheive that end. Well, it's a helluva lot better than the peaceloving Bushie plans to aid and arm a violent civil war in the occupied territories. Although, since there are reports that Condi has promised Abbas 6,000 rifles for Fatah, that option may still be on the table. :

"Abbas's announcement was made following his meeting in Jericho with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"The executive committee stressed the necessity of implementing this step before beginning any new dialogue over a new government," the panel said in a statement.

Muhammad Nazzal, a Syrian-based Hamas leader, pointed out that this was not the first time that Abbas had declared the breakdown of the talks. He said Abbas made a similar statement after meeting with Rice in New York two months ago"
ttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881803247&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

To those who worry that the international community will take the so-called "Palestinian side", rest most assured; at least when it comes to the EU. They have already signaled their support of Abbas, no matter what he does and it's clear that America has co-ordinated this stance.The only Arabs Israel has to worry about are the so-called "moderate" Sunni ones who are already on board.

The object of this farce is to get Hamas out of contention, period. If the ceasefire "fails", it will be blamed on Hamas and presumably, the rightful leadership of the Palestinians will be allowed to "negotiate" the next round in good faith.

(I will be chuckling at The Umbrage if the next annointed leader of the PLO turns out to be Marwan Barghouti)

Unfortunately, and if anyone cares, the return of the captured Gilad Shalid depends on the cooperation of Hamas.

mcs,

In my opinion, Israel has always had a policy of genocide toward the palestinians.

Israeli politicians try to claim empathy, by playing around with "peace," but, under the covers, they're in bed with the devil-- that's what the old testament tells us.

Way to back up your opinion with the premise of demonic possession.  Would that be common wisdom in "the reality-based community"?

I'm waiting for this week's edition of Bitterlemons to see if they address the subject. I've outsourced my thinking to them .

Meanwhile there's still time to read last week's edition with Yossi Alpher's thoughtful article. Amazing that he , and at least to some extent , the other participants can still summon up the ability not to demonize the other side .

And to be honest I must say that at least this week that is more true of the Israelis.

Prick a jew(palestinian) , doth he not bleed ?

My own view is that ceasefires are fine.  Anything that offers even a short-term respite from violence is a good thing.  Israel's continuing military operations have not succeeded in eliminating the threat of rockets, which continue to fall on southern Israel, so if there's a way to persuade the terrorists from violence, that's a good thing.

And perhaps negotiations might succeed in moving the ball forward to a certain degree.  But anyone that thinks that any sort of permanent solution to the conflict is anywhere near in reach, they are deluding themselves. 

It's interesting to me that many of the same people who consider Iraq to be hopelessly FUBAR and urging our withdrawal are the same ones urging American intervention (diplomatic, not military, to be sure) as if it's in our power to solve a conflict that is at least as deep-rooted, complex and intractable as the conflict in Iraq. 

The issue in my mind is what goal and expectation needs to be set.  I think that shooting for a permanent, stable peace at this stage is utterly unrealistic, the same way it is utterly unrealistic to shoot for turning Iraq into a stable democracy.  So by all means, the American government should encourage and try to help cease-fires.  As Ariel Sharon said, perhaps the best we can hope for at this stage is a long-term non-belligerence, similar to the situation Israel has now with most of the Arab world.  Then, at some point in the future, perhaps the Arab world will have matured enough so we can talk about real peace. 

Let me guess. It was a "joke," perhaps?

no, it's not a joke. both sides, in my opinion, are dysfunctional but I tend to blame Israel much more since it's legally allowed to buy, build and use weapons of mass destruction.

of course, if you think its Ok to bulldoze civilian homes, use white-phosphor weapons, drop cluster bombs, etc... then maybe I was joking.

When Israel last attacked Lebanon, it created the "largest oil spill in mediterranean history" and left behind millions of unexploded cluster bomblets, read landminds, on the ground.

I equally dislike unibombers and B52 bombers even though the media asymetrically criminalizes the former.

In my book, terrorism is a product of economic and miliatary isolation.

You live in a fantasy land. The deal offered at Camp David and Taba offered him such a deal. He not only wouldn't say yes he wouldn't offer his own proposals.

Carter's claim seems to support as he suggests that Arafat would have been killed if he accepted the deal at Taba.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

J. McCutchen

Hopefully your take on Olmert is the correct one. I see it as another sham.

As you point out, the Israelis have nothing to lose with rhetoric. Olmert gave the Palestinians the "sleeve out of his vest" and he did so because the fortunes of his one and only benefactor have taken a decided southerly turn. Give the Palestian authority the customs revenues the Israelis are holding and stop trying to foment civil war in a democratically elected PA....show us the money - show the West Bank Settlers the Roadmap back to legal Israel.

I've seen the BS too many times b4. Two steps forward one step back and playing the US like a fiddle.

The only regional leader to voice unqualified support for the Bush administration has been Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has gone so far as to say that the Iraq invasion contributed to regional stability.But Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was gloomy about the prospects for a deal between his Fatah party and the militant group Hamas that would allow formation of a nonsectarian government and open the way for increased aid and, potentially, peace talks with Israel.
Rice said afterward that the administration "cannot create the circumstances" for peace. "This is the kind of thing that takes time," she said. "You don't expect great leaps forward." Expressing deeper unhappiness with the United States, leaders from Jordan, Egypt and Persian Gulf countries told Rice during her trip to an economic development conference in Jordan on Friday that the U.S. had a responsibility to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which they and many analysts viewed as the key to regional stability. ...Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, urged greater U.S. action, warning that the Middle East was becoming "an abyss…. The region is facing real failure."

LAT:

Mideast allies near a state of panic
U.S. leaders' visits to the region reap only warnings and worry.

J. McCutchen

You live in a fantasy land. The deal offered at Camp David and Taba offered him such a deal. He not only wouldn't say yes he wouldn't offer his own proposals.

Carter's claim seems to support as he suggests that Arafat would have been killed if he accepted the deal at Taba

Carter actually said, and correctly said, that there was no "deal" at Taba. That's an Israeli myth. Would you like references?

Can't deal with Arafat. Can't deal with Abbas. Can't deal with Hamas.,..

To all you Jew-haters:

Olmert is your best hope for a peaceful solution. If he fails becaue Abbas is too weak to make a deal, the next Israeli Prime Minister will solve the problem much differently, and there ain't a damn thing you or senile Carter can do about it.

If suicide bombing could be drastically reduced

I don't think this will happen, but maybe. This is what their military budget can afford and it also reflects the sort of technology that they can readily acquire.

I certainly don't think state sanction terror, what some call wars, has much more class than suicide bombing.

You may remember Bill Maher who noted that sucide bombers had more guts than pilots flying at 10,000 feet and he got fired for it because his comments showed that either method ends up killing civilians and "supposedly patriotic soldiers" who would be surely be happier in club med enjoying peace...

And what happens when Palestinian terrorists try to attack the US forces, which is a virtual certainty?

I agree with Maher and with you. But also understand why the Israelis aren't going to
enter an agreement minimally acceptable to the Palestinians while those bombings continue.

Bordering on trolldom with "Jew-hater" epithet. Factually unsupported and unhelpful.

Jexter: Are you are being intentionally deceptive?

a) The majority of Israelis (and the majority of Palestinians), support a two state solution.. You then mention one horrible idea - the Geneva Initiative (which both Palestinians and Israelis thought was a horrible idea) - and extrapolate that no two state solution is viable.

Sounds kind of like a straw man, since the Geneva Initiative has nothing to do with whether the majority of both sides would approve a real and viable two state solution. Clearly there are unresolved issues (Jerusalem, Jerusalem, of course, Jerusalem), but the inability to agree on points of contention in no way changes the fact that the majority of both sides are in favor of a two state solution.

b) This statement is comparing apples and oranges:

This low level of support for a barely viable Palestinian state contrasts with the consistently high levels of support among Israeli Jews for a concrete, but very different, solution to the conflict: "transfer," or ethnic cleansing. In opinion polls, 60 per cent of Israeli Jews regularly favor the emigration of Arab citizens from the as-yet-undetermined borders of the Jewish state.

To be clear, 60% of Israelis are advocating moving Arab Israelis out of Israeli and to an Arab Palestinian state once it has been established in a two state solution. This moving of Arabs to a Palestinian state has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Israeli Jews would be in favor of a Palestinian state.

I will go so far as to say this is comparable to the desire for the Palestinians to move Jews out of the Palestinian territories (those people called "Settlers"), which clearly the majority of Palestinians would want to do, even after the founding of a Palestinian state.

The desire to transfer citizens out of Israel, of course, does have an impact on Israel's claim to be a modern democracy (thus respecting the citizenship of minorities). However, I bet if you polled French Citizens you'd find the majority would be in favor of shipping French Muslims back to Algeria. Doesn't make France less of a democracy. Also doesn't mean any of its going to happen. That's why modern democracies have things like constitutioons/basic rights laws and court systems, to protect minorities from impulses of the majorities.

Anyway, to summarize, Israeli Jews opinion of the appropriate treatment of its non-Jewish citizens in no way provides a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as you implied, since for that you would need a soultion to the conflict between Israelis in Israeli and Palestinians in the Palestinian Territories.

To summarize further, the majority of both peoples support a two state solution, and anything that doesn't flow from that has no chance of succcess.

To summarize even further, trying to falsely paint one party of a two party conflict as some sort of crazy genocidal maniacs is unproductive, and only increases the general level of bitterness and paranoia. Thanks for making things worse...

if there were also a cast iron guarantee against invasion .

This is precisely what the Israelis will not accept. The Israelis do not accept "guarantees" by others or third parties. I was going to write something trite like "see: Holocaust", but there are much more recent examples.

Where is the international army to defend the people of Darfur? Tibet? For that matter, if the Palestinians situation is so tragic then why isn't the international community in there fighting Israel? Look at how hard it was to get a force in Lebanon that is not doing anything, or how much suffering and destruction occured in the former Yugoslavia - and that was in the heart of Europe!

Every day, in every way, the world shows the Israelis that they can rely on emergency shipments of equipment and UN votes from allies but countries do not spill blood to save other countries or people, even from genocide. They do not want to be the people relying on other people to come save them again.

The Israelis also know the Palestinians, and they know that their word from one leader to the next is no good (witness the current situation with Hamas). They also know the Palestinians hate them.

So no guarantees from the international community, and no gaurantees from the Palestinians.

This is not to say that a two state solution is unviable. Merely that the Israelis need the upper hand with facts on the ground, not just guarantees. The Palestinians would have to agree to have no armed forces. This is very similar to Post-WWII. The Palestinians, like Japan and Germany, lost a war (actually, now the Palestinians have lost several wars). Japan and Germany were occupied, and the only way they could get their sovereignty back is to agree to no armed forces, which both countries maintain until today. If its good enough for Japan, it should be good enough for the Palestinians.

Are you aware that you are conducting your argument with the author, Jonathan Cook, of the piece quoted by Jexster?

The only original words from the poster are the first two sentences. Everything following the ":" is from the article.

BTW, Jonathan Cook is a Brit who lives in the West Bank.