J. McCutchen

Something is wrong here. The American Secretary of State should not back off because one or both sides in a conflict that endangers US interests refuses to play ball.

Now she feels Colin Powell's pain. This sort of thing happened repeatedly during Powell's tenure albeit in a much more embarrassing fashion as Powell stated his objectives much more clearly. Intramural maneuverings of a US administration led by a weak president with strong subordinates with close ties to the hard right in Israel.

MJ wrote:

"It is true that Israel could not accept the plan's language on refugees. After all, it calls for "a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194" which is a non-starter for Israel."

Right, MJ. Who would ever expect Israel to accept a "just" solution to the Palestininian refugee problem it created. Certainly not us Jews, whose sages said "Righteousness, righteousness you must pursue." Certainly not Israelis, of whom many were refugees. How many MJ units of time must pass until we see these magical two states?

If now is not the time to insist on a "just solution to the refugee problem", even if it leads to a binational state, then when?

Also, how do you make that nifty colored box around quotes from the original article in your comment? Please use only the King's English in your answer. I am an avowed technophobe.

I think the guy sabotaging everything is Elliot Abrams, who is the NSC guy in charge of the Middle East. I guess that job will someday go to Scooter Libby. Abrams is a convicted felon (lying to Congress) who was pardoned by the first Bush. As a felon, he cannot be confirmed by the Senate so Bush 43 put him in an unconfirmed spot at NSC where he can pursue Israel's interests.
Once Scooter is pardoned, he can do the same in some future GOP/Likud administration.

Everyone is scared of Iran, the only regime in the Middle East at risk of being toppled by moderates rather than reactionaries.

It would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic.

noblessoblige: Your take is right on the money, as the Saudi Initiative offers an incredible opportunity for Israel to achieve some of it's stated goals, namely, a countering of Iranian influence in the area and a broad peace with Muslim nations. It also would co-opt the influence of Hamas, as it would be the moderates who would be seen throughout the Arab world as the ones who were responsible for finally achieving the creation of a Palestinian state, something that would undoubtedly eclipse the appeal of groups like Hamas.

I can't imagine a better oportunity for Israel, but it doesn't sound as if there is any serious consideration of the plan by Israeli leaders (although, just as for Condi's efforts, there is lip service being paid to it). Perhaps they're waiting for Netanyahu to be elected. Netanyahu will surely tell them there's no need for compromise, and will continue the expansion of the settlements. If so, the opportunity for peace will be lost forever.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

MJ--you allude to the e-mail from Ros-Lehtinen telling of her plans to thwart Secretary Rice. Here is the e-mail. I work on the Hill and received it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Poblete, Yleem
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:23 AM

Subject: PATA Amendments Act of 2007-

REMINDER: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen will be introducing the attached today.

Please let Gene Gurevich or Alan Goldsmith know if your Member will
co-sponsor.

Thanks,
Yleem.

Yleem D.S. Poblete, PhD
Minority Staff Director
House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Member
B-360 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 226-8GOP (8467)
(202) 226-7269 (FAX)

-----Original Message-----
From: Poblete, Yleem
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 2:24 PM
To:
Subject: PATA Amendments Act of 2007-

To counter attempts by Rice/ State to deal with unity govt and send
assistance to non-Hamas members of unity govt. We sqw how well the
bifurcated approach worked with Lebanon, we can't let this happen with PA.

The attached takes current law and brings it to the threshold of the
House-passed PATA bill, minus exceptions for Abu Mazen security, etc. We
just have exception for ME peace process.

We raised shoulds to shalls.

Please advise if your bosses will co-sponsor.

>

Ha'aretz reports,

The European Union hailed the renewed Arab peace initiative as encouraging Friday, but indicated it would stick with an aid scheme that bypasses the Palestinian government to go directly to the people.

Either The Lobby's, um, "tentacles" reach all the way to Europe, or perhaps AIPAC isn't all we are led to understand them to be. 

This really is an excellent example of why the Saudi Peace Plan is a breath of fresh air. It will remove the debate from the sphere of U.S. politician's AIPAC-influenced actions such as this.

At this point, the Saudi plan may be the only way a peace agreement will ever be achieved, but the plan has the added advantange of also providing the moderate Arabs the prestige in the Muslim world of solving the intractable conflict and paving the way to the Palestinians obtaining their own state. Such an outcome, even if U.S. politicians such as Ros-Lehtinen are completely unable to see it, is very much in the interests of not only the direct parties to the conflict, the Palestinians and Israelis, but also the U.S. Do we not wish to undercut the influence of radical Islam?

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

I don't think anyone here has said that AIPAC operations stretch to Europe? However, that doesn't mean there aren't lobbies like AIPAC in Europe, maybe even working with AIPAC to represent Israel's interests. E.g. in the UK there's the Labour Friends of Israel and Conservative Friends of Israel. They don't seem to have the same influence as AIPAC, but nonetheless they do have some influence. Currently, that influence is under attack in the UK, the Jewish community is not v. happy.

Downing Street backing Levy amid fears he might ‘implode’

The only thing threatening the Palestinian people is their unfortunate position as the indigenous inhabitants of the land the Zionists wanted to steal.
Growing up Zionist, this point was made to me over and over.

So, what's your point?

There is a strong Jewish state of Israel, getting stronger and stronger every day, with one of the best High tech in the world,
with one of the strongest (according to Howard) army in the world, with vibrant (but not perfect) democracy.
There is NOTHING you can do about this. So, stop whinning, get a life.

It's OK, davai. We need Naturei Karta around to understand the progress of modernity from the Middle Ages.

Zionista says he/she is a progressive Zionist. Davai is a rightwing nutcase. But you band together with Greenbaum and Brad. All you guys. So cute, the clannishness in this day and age.
So pre-haskalah.

davai

I am not clear what you actually object to. Obviously Israel is not going to agree to take masses of Palestinians into Israel. Had the Palestinians, Egyptians and Jordanians not attacked Israel, and Jordan not taken the West Bank in 1948 many of the refugees would not now exist.

However, the Clinton Plan laid out a pretty clever approach to the refugees. Wouldn't the best bet for Israel be to meet with the King and announce a willingness to negotiate with Hamas?

Can Hamas agree to such a negotiation? I doubt it. If they do Israel need not negotiate itself into non-existence. If a Palestinian State results and missiles or other attacks are made on Israel then the IDF and especially the IAF can take care of it.

Israel would be much better off out of the the West Bank with a mediocre deal than waiting for the perfect deal. Just because many don't care how many Israelis die so they can feel better doesn't mean it is good for Israel's welbeing to hold on to the territories.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Zionista

Your efforts are impressive but he anti-Semites here are absolutely phobic about AIPAC which is the acceptable way to talk about the power of Jews.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

And a gut shabbes to you too, Reb Weinberg!

Thank you.
There is nothing you can do about
"The idea of living in a "Jewish state" is the most disgusting excuse for pseudo religious tyranny I have ever heard"

or

"WHAT IS THE NETUREI KARTA?
Neturei Karta opposed the establishment of and retain all opposition to the existence of the so-called "State of Israel"!"

It's a mute point.

" Davai is a rightwing nutcase. "
Yes, to summarize my humble rightwing nutcase opinions:
1. MJ is not a prophet.
2. AIPAC is not the root of all problems in the world.
3. Critics of Israel are not holy martyrs; therefore it’s OK to criticize them.
5. Israel is here to stay.
6. The fence is going to be a new borders and all Israeli citizen should be moved from the rest of West Bank.
7. After that Israel still might have to maintain control of West Bank for some time because there is no better alternative.
8. The right of return is a mute point.
9. I don’t care about fairness, because life is not fair.

Yes, the Gaza test case was a failure. But why was this so? Did it perhaps have something to do with the fact that Sharon insisted on conducting it in a unilateral manner, with zero security coordination with the PA, in a way calculated to inflict maximum humiliation on the PA and therefore Fatah? What they managed to was to set up conditions for a Hamas electoral victory, allowing the Hamas and Islamic Jihad radicals to pose as if they were driving the Israelis out at gunpoint.

The conclusion should be that the Israelis cannot unilaterally impose a settlement.

Re: Rice's attempts have been repeatedly sabotaged from within the administration, primarily by Cheney.

Isn't Cheney, with his energy industry connections, part of the pro-Saudi cabal in the administration?

Sure,
BTW, It seems only fair that if you set up demands for assisting N Dakota farmers , you should admit to the possibility that N Dakota farmers and the United States' interests may not be the same.

The same true for assisting Mexican immigrants, Taiwan, and so on.
BTW, do we have a Artificial Intelegence software that decides what's in what is not in United States' interests.

No, we get by on natural intelligence. Indeed, I had a paper on the relative value of natural and artificial intelligence for the Computer Measurement Group some years ago.

Are you suggesting, then, that Israel has the same relationship to the national Government of the United States as does North Dakota? I, however, am not making demands either for North Dakotan farmers or South Dakotan credit card companies.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

"The message I got was that the Israeli government is (silently) letting people know to prepare themselves for accepting that the 1967 borders will be the basis for negotiations."

Israel accepted (almost)1967 borders in 2000.

The fence that will be new border is pretty much borders of 1967:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps/Anti-Terrorist+Fence+Map.htm

"right of return can commence"
It's a mute point. It's not going to happen. So why bother to discuss?

On March 30, 2007 - 7:38pm SandThroughTheE... said:

So it begs the question, is Condi even relevant, is she taken seriously as she flits around the ME?

In my opinion, Condi has been nothing more than windowdressing for this administration. This should have been made clear to all after her disasterous stint as National Security Advisor.

Can anyone identify anything Condi has been successful at during her six years of service to the Bush administration?

<blockquote>the text will be in a box</blockquote>

might have luck this time..... 

<blockquote>/

could you write down exactly the string that needs to be written to have 'this text will be in a box' appear in a box?  thanks

I'm probably too naive, but is seems to me that the plight of the Palestinian people is a sore point all over the Arab world and beyond in the muslim world. What makes you think that they will not strike back at you in the future one way or another?
You maintain that might makes right. That means that if a superior force develops against Israel, then it would be this force's "right" to destroy Israel. That makes little sense to me.
Great powers have always ruled not merely by might but by establishing a consensus. In our modern globalizing world, it is more important than ever to have other-than-might legitimacy in the world. I think you are mistaken in your calculations.

“I'm probably too naive, but is seems to me that the plight of the Palestinian people is a sore point all over the Arab world and beyond in the Muslim world.”

I’m not sure how important this point. As I mentioned Palestinians are losing PR war at the moment without fresh pictures or dead children. In general, I question this “Arab street” thing.

“ What makes you think that they will not strike back at you in the future one way or another?”

They are trying every day, and will continue to do this.

“You maintain that might makes right. That means that if a superior force develops against Israel, then it would be this force's "right" to destroy Israel.”

Well, this is what they have been trying from the moment Israel was established and if they could they would destroy Israel.

“Great powers have always ruled not merely by might but by establishing a consensus.”
I’m not sure.

“In our modern globalizing world, it is more important than ever to have other-than-might legitimacy in the world.”

I agree, mutual interests are much more important than just raw military power.

At the end of day, Arab countries and Israel , Palestinians and Israel might be able to find mutually beneficial resolution of the conflict, but they will never ever agree on what's fair and what's not fair.

On March 30, 2007 - 4:59pm Arthur Dent said: M y impression is that attention is now being shifted to an Israeli "red line" about the right of return with Olmert insisting that not a single refugee will return.

Return to where?

I agree.

And how does your logic do anything but help to extend the logic of the middle ages into the present? You think technological advancement is moral advancement. The Nazi's were proud of their modern engineering too.
Israel was bought and paid for with European guilt and American gelt.
Your country is falling apart.

As I said before, the Israelis and and Arab dictators and kings are all terrified of Iran: the one country where the moderates in the long term have the upper hand. And MJ Rosenberg has argued that arab demcracy is bad for Israel. So he defends going to bed with dictators to protect the purity of his little racial democracy. This is the definition of corruption. It's also repeating the history of the Jewish fascists.
Oh irony!

I'm not opposed to the Saudi proposals but I'm disgusted by the craven logic and the moral cowardice of Rosenberg ans his ilk.
And these are the "liberals."

The last of South Africa's racist scum.

SeeDee

If there was (and is) so much Jewish concern about 'Iranian influence', why did folks like R. Perle and D. Feith and like-minded Jewish spokespeople urge on the Iraqi invasion?

Certainly Saddam, even with all his hatred for Israel (and the U.S....and the Iranians), was, in a sense, a counter-weight to 'Iranian influence' in the area.

I would have thought that the Likudians would have foreseen that the elimination of Saddam would automatically increase the 'influence' of the crazies in Iran in the Middle-East.

And, now, if the Saudis are pushed into some kind of accord with Iran because of Olmert's out-of-hand refusal to talk to them, where has the State of Israel profitted?

SeeDee

Davai, I do not believe "assisting North Dakota farmers" has ever cost us 30,000-plus killed and wounded (as has the Jewish-NeoCon backed Iraq debacle)...and I would imagine that some of those 30,000 were, indeed, North Dakotans.

How would you value the life of one of those North Dakotans, Davai?...Would THAT life be the same as the value you place on your OWN family members' lives?

And, BTW, if North Dakota had been the recipient of even half the American tax-payer money that has helped sustain Israel the past 60 years, N. Dakota would be sittin' pretty. (Please note that I am not regretful of the money given to Israel...just the fact that Israelis never seem to appreciate it.)

"as has the Jewish-NeoCon backed Iraq debacle"

Jewish anti-NeoCon including Paul Krugman, Barbara Boxer, Russ Reingold, Paul Wellstone and huge majority of Jews were against war in Iraq. We Jews didn't vote for Bush, we voted for Gore.
He would never started this war.
North Dakota farmers voted for Bush.
So please leave us alone. Blame non-Jews who voted for Bush for this war.

Thank you. Spell checker can't read my mind.

We Jews didn't vote for Bush, we voted for Gore.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Little Boxes
by Malvina Reynolds

Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of tickytacky
Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes all the same
There's a green one and a pink one and a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

And the people in the houses all went to the university
Where they were put in boxes and they came out all the same,
And there's doctors and there's lawyers, and business executives
And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

And they all play on the golf course and drink their martinis dry,
And they all have pretty children and the children go to school
And the children go to summer camp and then to the university
Where they are put in boxes and they come out all the same.

And the boys go into business and marry and raise a family
In boxes made of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

"We Jews didn't vote for Bush, "

Don't ever say "we" in reference to judaism. You damn well don't speak for Jews you arrogant son of a bitch. You don't speak for me.
You don't even speak for zionists.

We have plenty of "homelands for racists" - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, "Palestine", etc.

Daniel Gree says some of us are phobic about Aipac. Phobic means fearful. Aipac makes me nauseous. It's a bunch of moronic Jews with no sense of Jewish or American history who endanger both Jews and Americans every day.
I am not afraid of them. I hate them. Pure and simple. But they sure dont scare me. They themselves are scared ghetto Jews.

Wow. What can I say. The least racist state in prpbably Iran, which is why you and MJ, the Saudis and Mubarak are so scared.

"We have plenty of homelands for racists"
Most Palestinians would take a bi-natinal state. But your PW Botha imitation is amusing.

- delete duplicate -

According to Jeffrey Blankfort (PDF) the Israel Lobby as a whole (inc. AIPAC) "represents no more than a third of America’s six million Jews."

However, remember the Israeli Lobby is not strictly Jewish, there are a fair number of Christian zionists too, although they have recently created their own offshoot organization Christians United for Israel with their own rapid response email program, and bus loads of rabid supporters of Israel (Lobbying for Armageddon) on Hill lobby day...

Wordie,

Has the Bush administration been wise to avoid direct negotiations with Iran and Syria too?

Does one invite the other side to become part of one's negotiating team?

The Quartet are supposed to be mediators, not part of the Arab League's negotiating team.

Zionista: Sorry, that's so lukewarm (at best) that it sounds like a "No" to me. 

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

The Arab League already has the Quartet's support for the initiative.  Remember that the expressed purpose of the Riyadh summit was to RE-launch the initiative, and they've had their support since they launched it in Beirut five years ago -- Javier Solana and Ban Ki Moon were there in Riyadh.  

My point remains that the Arab League, if it is serious about initiating negotiations with Israel, would be wiser to create a working group to open a diplomatic channel with Israel than with the Quartet which is already on board with the idea.

To Seth Edenbaum:
I always get called a "self-hating Jew" because I am a leftwing pro-peace Zionist.
But I've never much cared because what the hell is a SHJ anyway. Not me, for sure.
But then you came along. Wow. It's a pathology. The next time someone calls me an SHJ, I will think of you, and flatten him.
It's a disease of the mind. Are you real ugly or something? What makes someone so hate their own identity and yet be so obsessed with it.
Sick dude.

Wordie,

The Arabs started something and now the ball's in Israel's court. Are they going to welcome the initative, or spin reason after reason to ignore it?

Israel already has expressed its interest.  But you have commited yourself to hearing "no."

If it was at least as important for the Arab League to establish a diplomatic channel with Israel, as they have resolved to create working groups to communicate with the Quartet, then Israel would have other and better ways than the media to engage more constructively with the Arab League's initiative.

Aside: Isn't it funny how it's supposed to be us Zionists who are the ones who want to "stifle the debate"?

SeeDee

And why in the world, zionista, would you be concerned about "If one wants to downrate this comment, fine."?

You seem assailed by self-doubts about your 'no compromise is possible"... your infallibility on all things related to Israeli policy and the results...

Maybe, it is just that you know in your heart of hearts that you are just full of ...er, I mean, dead wrong.

Israel is no doubt gonna nitpick the plan to death too, and develop a thousand red-herring arguments and equivocations for why it should not be accepted as the starting point for negotiations, all the while appearing to be open to it. Then, when the Saudis finally give up, we'll start hearing from Israel supporters how they "weren't really serious about peace" and how there is "no partner" for the Israelis to negotiate with. And the illegal settlement building will continue unabated.

This is much as you appear to be doing here, with your "take your ball and go home" comment. Nice try.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

SeeDee

And how, Zionista, would you characterize the political stance of Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz (among others)...and are you going to say that they did not urge on the Bush invasion of Iraq?

Whatever their aims and regardless of their race and/or religious affiliation, they were wrong as possible on their pushing Bush's folly. I also do not retract referring to their ilk as 'Jewish NeoCons'...and this does not exclude 'neocons' of any other name.

They were (are) all wrong...and have been proven wrong by subsequent events.

On March 31, 2007 - 4:27pm SandThroughTheE... said: Meanwhile in the Israeli press:

ZOA poll shows support for Israel in US "...Americans oppose giving land to Palestinians by a margin of 5-to-1, according to a new poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates for the Zionist Organization of America..."

I have a lot of trouble believing that 5 to 1 number regarding land. I'd like to see the question that was asked.

"Are you saying this because you believe all US Jews to be Zionists, and all voite the same?"
You do have a wicked mind, don't you? I didn't imply anything that you imagine.

I'm just saying that according to all available stats huge majority of Jews voted for Gore:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html
2000
Bush (R) 19
Gore (D) 79
Nader (G) 1

2004*
Bush (R) 24
Kerry (D) 76
Nader (G)

"Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz (among others)...and are you going to say that they did not urge on the Bush invasion of Iraq?"

The did, but why protestant Bush listen to Richard Perle
instead of Jewish smart people like Paul Krugman.
What's wrong with Christians in general and Protestants specifically who elected such a stupid protestant president.
Does it sound absurd enough?

Quite all right. I'm annoyed with people who become annoyed at people who, regretfully, police civility in the discussion of any act, civil or uncivil. I am here for the discussion of ideas rather than the venting of vitriol.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite." [Winston Churchill, regarding his formality in Britain's declaration of war on the Empire of Japan]

"The secret teaching of the Itto Ryu school of Kendo, Kiriotoshi, is the first technique of some hundred or so. The teaching is "Ai Uchi", meaning to cut the opponent just as he cuts you. This is the ultimate training... it is lack of anger. It means to treat your enemy as an honored guest. It also means to abandon your life or throw away fear." [Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings]

You got me, but you still can check Howards's comment to see where "fair" came from.

Listen up, Weinberg, you fucking asshole who calls me a moron for belonging to AIPAC. People like you helped our people in Warsaw get put into into a ghetto in 1939 because your kind were too stupid to see that Jews have to be strong in the face of terror.

"Please tell us, what address does Israel use to answer it?"

Zionista - For crying out loud. All Olmert has to do is make a speech saying he wants to negotiate a peace agreement. At that point there will be dozens of venues volunteering to help -the UN, EU, the US etc etc. It is very simple.

davai,

Most of the discussion seems as usual to simply be people scoring points for their side.

I would like to discuss with you what is actually happening. You are quite clear as to what side you are on. I am on the opposite side. It might be possible for us (and others interested) to nevertheless discuss what is happening, free from any illusions about convincing each other as to what should happen.

One reason I think such agreement is possible is because there seems to be a general consensus among people posting comments here that nothing much is happening. So there is actually quite a high level of agreement about what is happening (nothing).

The point scoring is about whose fault that is.

I disagree with that consensus. My opinion is that something is in fact happening. Perhaps others who disagree as to what actually is happening might agree with me that the consensus is wrong and something is happening.

For example you say:

Israel accepted (almost)1967 borders in 2000.

I disagree, but lets not argue about that. Suppose I accept that for the sake of argument.

If I have not misunderstood, my impression from your postings is that you would have been strongly opposed to Israel accepting (almost)1967 borders in 2000. Certainly a lot of people denounced whatever it was that Israel is supposed to have accepted in 2000, for example Ariel Sharon and the party he led.

Now you are saying:

The fence that will be new border is pretty much borders of 1967.

Would I be mistaken in thinking that you are now (reluctantly) advocating something you were previously opposed to?

If I am not wrong, then something has changed in your attitudes. If I am wrong about your previous view, am I also wrong to believe that there are nevertheless more Israel supporters today who believe that Israel's borders will not extend far to the east of that than there used to be?

I am not asking about what people say should be the borders (eg"from the Nile to the Euphrates") but about what they actually think (but don't necessarily say) will be the borders.

My view is that many people who think along similar lines to you have in fact been shifting their position because a process has been set in motion which is intended to shift your thinking. I will outline my reasoning so it can be refuted.

I believe the process of shifting took off in a big way when Sharon announced the "fence".

What strikes me from the map you referenced is that nobody draws wriggles like that as their permanent border. Viewed from either side the protusions and indentations are begging to be filled in one way or another.

For many supporters of the Palestinians the "apartheid wall" was denounced as a blatant land grab and means of intimidating and harassing Palestinians.

For many supporters of Israel it was defended as a "security fence" protecting against terrorist attacks.

The point I think missed by many is that for settlers on the east side it gave a message that Sharon of all people, believes that large parts of "Judea and Samaria" might end up outside the "land of Israel" - negating the whole point of them establishing settlements there. This was viewed by some of them as betrayal.

But it certainly wasn't what Sharon said at the time. He said it was a tactical measure relating to prevention of suicide bombers.

It was only later, when Sharon evacuated Gaza that larger numbers (among a minority of Israelis) denounced Sharon as intending to withdraw from "judea and samaria".

At the time the US insisted that at least 4 minor West Bank settlements had to be included so the settlers had to mobilize about Gaza although they did not care much about Gaza. Their mobilization was a flop, because it was only 4 minor settlements after all.

Now here we are some time later and you at least agree that a lot more than 4 minor settlements are to be evacuated.

Surely there is much less widespread belief that those settlements east of the "fence" can be held (as opposed to whether they should be) than there was before the evacuation of Gaza.

Am I wrong about that?

My view is that the "fence" is an obviously indefensible border. Nobody planning to defend a line would shape it like that. It provides an imaginary border that people getting used to the idea that Israel must retreat can retreat to in their heads before they can be ready for the next more difficult retreat.

You wrote earlier in this topic:

6. The fence is going to be a new borders and all Israeli citizen should be moved from the rest of West Bank.

7. After that Israel still might have to maintain control of West Bank for some time because there is no better alternative.

That is your view now. Was it also your view then or were you among those who would have said:

No Israeli citizen should be moved from the rest of the West Bank?

Either way, are there more supporters of Israel who now believe Israeli citizens should be moved from the rest of the West Bank or not?

Obviously these two things you mention go together. If Israel establishes a border not agreed with those living on the other side of it then it will, not "might" have to control the West Bank since whether you call it a fence or a wall it is obviously useless against rocket attacks.

On the other hand it seems pretty obvious that Israeli control of the West Bank and the Palestinians not accepting that means the conflict continues. So "for some time" would either mean forever, or until the Palestinians accept Israeli rule, or are "transferred" or until the Israeli control is withdrawn with the conflict still not settled.

The debate and point scoring became about which would and should happen.

According to the PLO view, which I agree with, only a viable contiguous Palestinian State with (East) Jerusalem as its capital (including a corridor connecting Gaza) can actually enforce even a long term armistice agreement with Israel. It will also need an international force to assist as in south Lebanon. Israeli control and the IDF cannot result in an end to the conflict.

Presumably you disagree and might perhaps denounce this as simply part of propaganda to destroy Israel.

Yet your use of "for some time" implies you know and accept that Israeli control of the West Bank cannot go on forever either.

Did you once believe it would go on forever? That all of "Judea and Samaria" were part of the "Land of Israel" and would never be surrendered? Perhaps not, but certainly many did, and built settlements as an affirmation of their belief.

Am I wrong to think that there are less Israelis who are now confident that Israeli control of the West Bank can go on forever than there used to be?

I suggest that a smaller minority than ever believes that (though they are loud and angry about their belief because it is threatened).

This shift occurred some time after the announcement of the "fence" and increased after the evacuation of Gaza - together with increasing anger and hatred towards the Palestinians.

The PLO position, which I agree with, is that the "fence" annexes territory to prevent any future Palestinian State having a capital in East Jerusalem (consistent with Israel having annexed the whole of Jerusalem and claiming that is irreversible).

Do you disagree with that assessment? Or are we agreed that the "fence" does (and presumably in your view should) prevent a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem?

My view is that when the "fence" was announced it created necessary cognitive dissonance about the project to absorb the whole of the West Bank. Settlers and their supporters could adjust themselves to that project having failed without an immediate panic among the settlers who had put so much of their lives into grabbing every hilltop. They could still tell themselves its not going to happen. We're staying. The location of the fence made it clear there would be no Palestinian State.

It seems you still expect (and presumably desire) that there will be no Palestinian State since you advocate that there is no better alternative than Israeli control of the West Bank.

But you now advocate that all Israeli citizens should be moved from the rest of "judea and samaria". That seems to me a big shift .

At the time, Israel could still announce to the rest of the world that the wall was temporary and did not affect final status negotiations with some supporters thinking like you now do that this would be the new boundary and others thinking (as many Palestinians do) that it was just another way to harass Palestinians and ensure there never will be final status negotiations and the Palestinians will somehow be "transferred".

Meanwhile Israeli control over the Palestinians could be maintained so there would be no Palestinian victory celebrations.

It was only a few years ago that the "fence" was announced. Please think back to your own views then. Perhaps long before the wall was announced you believed that Israel could, should and would continue not only to control the Palestinians throughout the West Bank but also to build settlements, for example in Hebron? Or perhaps you held the opposite view? What about others. Have their views shifted, and if so, in what direction?

Obviously there is much less support for "peaceniks" in Israel now than before and much more support for strong suppression of the Palestinians. But at the same time aren't there more who believe that all Israeli citizens will be removed from settlements east of the fence than there used to be?

Perhaps not for you, but I suggest for many, a shift in thinking has occurred from once being totally convinced that Israel could and would permanently hold settlements in the rest of the West Bank and that there was nothing to discuss about it since removing the settlers is not going to happen "why bother to discuss".

I suggest that many people who once were totally convinced the settlements would continue expanding are now convinced that all Israeli citizens will be moved from those settlements they previously thought would be permanent.

What people think will happen is a lot more significant than what they say should happen.

If you believe that Israel could control the rest of the West Bank indefinately then you would not be saying all Israeli citizens should be moved from it.

Suppose for the sake of discussion that the Israeli security services and government came to the conclusion before the "fence" was announced that it would not be possible for Israel to control the Palestinians indefinately just as it had not been possible to control south Lebanon indefinately.

You might disagree with such a conclusion by those authorities, and as a separate matter, you might disagree with my assessment that they have in fact reached such a conclusion.

But just suppose, for the sake of argument they had reached that conclusion. Would it not be necessary to break the news gradually?

Wouldn't you expect to first shift people to accepting that settlers have to be removed from Gaza and then from most of the West Bank and not announce right away that major settlements will also have to go?

How could one break the news gradually wihout first convincing people that the settlements east of "the fence" must be evacuated and stressing at the same time that Israeli control over the Palestinians will be strengthened with harsher measures?

Only after that has sunk in, would authorities convinced they have to retreat begin preparing people for how far the retreat must go.

Isn't that what's been happening?

If not, why didn't the Israeli government issue a reassuring statement to the residents of the major settlements that Israel will never ever consider returning to the 1967 borders?

This week, which M.J. Rosenberg is so disappointed about, would have been an obvious occasion for such an announcement.

Instead there are announcements that Israel will never ever accept the return of any Palestinians.

Isn't that thought provoking for you?

I expect that from now on we can expect the usual point scorers on the Israeli side to talk more and more about how opposed they are to the "right of return" and less and less about the impossibility of evacuating major settlements and withdrawing to the 1967 borders.

This topic is an example of that phenomenon.

J. McCutchen

I am a bit surprised that MJ is surprised...

(via SyriaComment)

Tony Karon on US-Saudi relations in his "Birth Pangs of a Post-Bush Middle East."

Teledildonics?

"With many years in the Internet Engineering Task Force,"
Come on, please don't be a smart Alec.

I woulds like to answer on your questions but first a couple clarifications
"Instead there are announcements that Israel will never ever accept the return of any Palestinians."
What's your position about this issue?

"According to the PLO view, which I agree with, only a viable contiguous Palestinian State with (East) Jerusalem as its capital (including a corridor connecting Gaza) can actually enforce even a long term armistice agreement with Israel. "

Why not full peace?

Do you know what's size of area outside green line and inside
fence? What % of West Bank are we talking about?

But Israel’s response has been to try to finesse the whole initiative, seemingly hoping it will go away. Olmert said, “There are interesting ideas there, and we are ready to hold discussions and hear from the Saudis about their approach and to tell them about ours.” That is a start. But why not simply accept the initiative with the stated understanding that its specific terms have to be amended?

I'll tell you why.  Because if Israel accepts the initiative as stated, it is afraid it will get railroaded into making concessions in exchange for vague and unenforceable Arab promises of "peace".  Far better to discuss various aspects of peace with the Arabs as separate issues in a series of exploratory talks to better understand the positions of each side.

Regardless of what one thinks of the occupation of the West Bank, the fact remains that the land is the only real bargaining chip Israel has to get the best possible deal that ensures its long term security.  It is not going to give away the game in the negotiations by prematurely agreeing to anything.  If the Arabs are truly serious about wanting to pursue peace with Israel - and there are signs that some of them are indeed serious - then they should pursue it.

As a separate issue, it's not clear what peace with the Arabs would mean in any case.  Would the risk of war or terrorism drop significantly?  I'm not sure it would.  Would the Arab people hate Israel any less?  The example of Egypt is not encouraging.  A peace with weak Arab governments, as opposed to an actual reconciliation with the Arab people, doesn't seem like it is worth a whole lot.  Egypt is one assassination away from renouncing its treaty with Israel and turning belligerent again. 

None of this is to say that Israel should spurn peace overtures.  A peace treaty is better than no peace treaty.  But only if Israel doesn't give up too much to get it.

You're a Russian aren't you?

Sand...,

and this little gem I would like to know from whence it came?

"...Hamas issues warning to lift ban: "...Hamas remains committed to establishment of a Muslim state in all of British-mandated Palestine, including what is now Israel..."

See (scroll down), 

"We stress that we do not and will never recognise the right of Israel to exist on one inch of Palestinian land," Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said.

"We will not abandon the resistance to the Zionist occupation until the liberation of all Palestinian soil," Barhoum said.

jdledell,

Zionista - For crying out loud. All Olmert has to do is make a speech saying he wants to negotiate a peace agreement. At that point there will be dozens of venues volunteering to help -the UN, EU, the US etc etc. It is very simple.

So nu...?

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wants to start a dialogue with Saudi Arabia and other moderate Arab countries after the Riyadh summit again ratified the Saudi peace initiative.

Also,

Merkel in Jerusalem: I'd like to help the sides walk towards peaceBy Haaretz Service and News Agencies

In her first Mideast trip as EU president, German Chancellor Angela Merkel offered Europe's help in promoting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, saying "I would like to support the sides to walk the path toward peace.

"The Europeans must not assume that they could force a solution. We can't and I don't want to do it," she said during a speech at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where the former physics researcher received an honorary doctorate.

I don't like your answer. It's in the MJ style.
Your answer is that they think the way the think not based on reality around them but because there is something wrong with them.
Obviously two people can come to different conclusions based on interpreting the same reality and you can argue about interpretation.
Instead you are saying, I KNOW THE TRUTH, and if they don’t see the TRUTH, there is something wrong with them, i.e. “Israeli/Jewish paranoia “.

Modernity introduced us to valuable liberal notions of human rights within the context of the nation-state.  I see this as a good thing, as the assertion of national rights remains a consistent prerequisite for the respect of human rights.

I submit and agree with what Hannah Arendt wrote in The Origins of Totalitarianism,

The Rights of Man, after all, had been defined as "inalienable" because they were supposed to be independent of all governments; but it turned out that the moment human beings lacked their own government and had to fall back upon their minimum rights, no authority was left to protect them and no institution was willing to guarantee them....

Not only did the loss of national rights in all instances entail the loss of human rights; the restoration of human rights, as the recent example of the State of Israel proves, has been achieved so far only through the restoration or the establishment of national rights.  The conception of human rights, based upon the assumed existence of a human being as such, broke down at the very moment when those who professed to believe in it were for the first time confronted with people who had indeed lost all other qualities and specific relationships -- except that they were still human.  The world found nothing sacred in the abstract nakedness of being human.

The reality of Jewish national rights in Israel is consistent with the dominant regional culture of Arab identity politics -- check out the 4th bullet point under "On the Arab-Israeli Conflict" in the Lebanese Daily Star's excerpts from the Arab League communique from the Riyadh summit,

Act diligently to protect the Arab identity ... and strengthen belonging to it in the hearts and minds of children, adolescents and young men and women, since Arabism is not a racist or ethnic concept, rather it is a unified cultural identity, with the Arabic language as its means of expression.

I submit likewise that Zionism (Jewish national liberation) is not a racist concept as it is a unified cultural identity, with the Hebrew language as its means of expression.  Further, Jewish and Arab national rights are not mutually exclusive in former British-Palestine.

Davai,

My response to climbing through the screen was in jest, but my real experience is not, as demonstrated by one example and another. For a broader view, try my last book.

You've made silly comments before about my not taking myself seriously, as when I've nailed your inaccuracies about military threats. In this case, it's not boasting if you've done it. Now, what, again were you saying about "come on"?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?" [Dirty Harry Callahan] ;=)

davai -I don't know how you can come to the conclusion "I KNOW THE TRUTH" I give my opinion based on my personal experience and knowledge. Like everyone else, I struggle with the conflict. I desparately want it resolved so that Israel can come to it's full flower. Your post with 9 points comes closer to saying you have "THE TRUTH" than anything I have written.

If you examine the breadth of my postings on this issue I hope you will appreciate the agony that I am going through, whipsawed by conflicting emotions of fear and hope over my people and my faith.

I think the essential difference between us is I believe the risks associated with peace are far less than the risks associated with continued low grade warfare.

Because you don’t acknowledge that people who think that “ there will never be a genuine peace with the Palestinians” have any rational reasons to think this way.
Your only explanation for their thinking is “Israeli/Jewish paranoia”.

I'll break the unwritten rule and rate this a 5 but still comment on it. It is, I believe, an accurate statement of facts, without getting into the more controversial aspects of solutions, or even the more emotional comments on motivation.

You touch on a major problem of international law. By and large, especially in the Geneva and Hague Conventions, it does not deal well with entities that are not clearly recognized as nations. Due to this problem, it's hard to define the legal role of Palestine, or, even more complex, Hizbollah and Lebanon.

While I'm quite aware that the term, "the Zionist entity" is usually derogatory, I like the way you address Israeli identity. That way is consistent both with those Jews who think of their nationality as American or some other country, and, say, the definition of Saudi Arabia as those that accept the legitimacy and rules of the House of Saud. Regardless of the issue, I tend to cringe when self-appointed "leaders" claim they represent all of a given population. Elected ones are different, but, in this case, when Zionists say they speak for those who believe in Jewish national identity, and not for assimilationist Jews and Haredi Jews, I'm much more comfortable with the discussion.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

ALERT:

Using his new 3-Dimensional Computer, Howard is going to shoot Davai with a .44 Magnum

You don't pay attention:
MJR has said that arab democracies are dangerous for Israel.
Saudi Arabia is a monarchy and Egypt is a dictatorship.
[If you want to learn something about the subject, read Marc Lynch.]
Iran is under internal pressure from reformers and its reactionary government is neither as reactionary nor as repressive as it is depicted to be in the American press. We've had these debates here and I believe you've followed them.

Your language of respect is silly. I'm arguing with people who make moral claims for zionism; I'm not arguing over whether or not zionism exists. I suppose you consider it disrespectful for me to argue for a bi-national state, but I am far from alone in making the case. Is it rude to not accept the terms someone offers, especially when the logic they define as impartial is clearly not so?

And on another level the way the demographics are moving, in a few years the internal contradictions of the Israeli state are going to become even more obvious. There are already calls for the expulsion of the Arab population. My prediction is simple: Israel will become more and more like the old S. Africa and Rhodesia and will end in collapse. So what comes after that?

No discussion should be considered off limits. The question/limitations are only whether or not it makes sense, practically, to apply given ideas to a situation. If the Israelis are being intransigent it makes sense to point this out. If American government chooses to back the Israelis in their intransigence it makes sense to remind both our government and the Israelis that the american people and the people in other countries, including western Europe are losing patience.
You demand that I accept the terms of debate offered by zionists. As a matter of personal morality I would not do so, but as a matter of politics I would be willing if I had no choice. But in this case there is a choice.

On its present course Israel is committing suicide. What comes next?

can you hear me now?

Arthur: Yours was, as JohnW1141 pointed out, an interesting and thought-provoking post. An article in Haaretz mentions a recent poll that confirms your view that a majority of the Israeli populace believes the outlying settlements will go:

Evacuation compensation now

If Amir Peretz were to move from the Defense Ministry to the Finance Ministry, he would find in its coffers the money to realize the settlers' right of return to the State of Israel. Right after the government was formed, Peretz and Minister Yuli Tamir formulated a bill to grant an absorption basket to settlers who want to move before the government decides to evict them. MKs Avshalom Vilan (Meretz) and Colette Avital (Labor) were one step ahead, setting up an organization, One House, that started drafting plans and fund-raising for this project. Ami Ayalon also announced his support.

Kalman Gayer took a poll for One House two weeks ago. Of the 400 adult residents of Jewish communities questioned, a large majority (80 percent) support the bill (the cross-section and the interviews were conducted by the Dahaf polling institute, headed by Dr. Mina Tzemach). Fifty-seven percent support the immediate legislation of an evacuation compensation law, and another 23 percent support such legislation after the government decides to disengage from the West Bank. Further, 58.6 percent say the government should not wait for an agreement with the Palestinians and should start calling on interested settlers to move within the Green Line (among Kadima constituents, there was 63.8 percent agreement; Labor voters, 76.5 percent; and Meretz, 88.9 percent).

Most of those questioned (51.5 percent) feel that evacuating West Bank residents without a referendum would lead to civil war. According to the poll, a government that reaches an agreement with the Palestinians on the basis of "peace for territory" will win a majority in a referendum. Only 40 percent of these questioned said they would oppose an agreement that would enable Israel to annex 4 percent of the West Bank containing around 80 percent of the settlements, giving the Palestinians in return some 2 percent of Israel's territory near the Gaza Strip (based on the guidelines of the Clinton principle and the Geneva Initiative).

Meretz, Labor and Kadima voters had similar views on this matter. Only 31 percent of respondents oppose evacuating the territories under a political agreement. A peace agreement that ends all Palestinian demands from Israel and provides full normalization with the Arab states (much like the Arab initiative) and includes all the territorial concessions Israel is required to make under the Clinton proposal (including a compromise on Jerusalem and a limited return of refugees) was supported by 41.5 percent; another 24.7 percent were "inclined to support it."

(The poll also found that 2/3 of the supporters of evacuation "believe such a move must be part of a political agreement," and 62% believe there should be no negotiations with Abbas until there is recognition of Israel by the Palestinian government.)

Although it does appear from the poll that many Israelis are becoming resigned to giving up the outlying settlements, sadly, there is also evidence pointing in the exact opposite direction. There is, for instance, ongoing and escalating Israeli settlement building in the Jordan Valley (settlement on both sides of the Wall has actually increased since the construction of the Wall began), which Israel also wishes to retain (for it's water resources and strategic value):

While no wall has been constructed, a near impenetrable system of permits, checkpoints and closures restrict the movement of goods and people into and out of the Jordan Valley. The ongoing construction of a permanent border-like terminal at Tayasir checkpoint, the main access point to the northern Jordan Valley, is a stark physical manifestation of the intended permanence of these restrictions.

Also, as with elsewhere in the West Bank, Israel has aggressively pursued settlement construction and expansion in the Jordan Valley, resulting in massive confiscation and expropriation of Palestinian land. Some 7,500 settlers live in 26 settlements, alongside some 47,000 Palestinians. These settlements control some 90 percent of the land, to which Palestinians are denied access. Recently, the Israeli government announced its decision to establish a new settlement in the northern Jordan Valley, which it appears will be used to re-settle Israeli settlers removed from the Gaza Strip in August and September of 2005.

In addition to constituting clear violations of international humanitarian law, when taken in their totality, Israeli actions and policies in the Jordan Valley clearly indicate an intention to retain control over the area in any future political settlement. Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has referred to the Jordan Valley as "Israel's eastern border."

(Just FYI, b'Tselem, an Israeli peace group, has an excellent series of maps detailing the route of the Wall.)

Regarding the discrepancies in what Israel is doing, I'd have to say that I'm hoping for the former (your idea) to turn out to be what happens, but I'm deeply worried that the latter (annexation of Palestinian territory to the point that no viable Palestinian state can form) will be the ultimate outcome.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

On April 1, 2007 - 2:34pm Zionista said:

Please allow me to rephrase it as a challenge. I am a Jew, but I am not religious. Define that.

You're a non practicing Jew as I'm a non practicing Catholic.

How's that?

bar_kochba132, Yahir Koach! I'm glad another pro-Israel poster has arrived on this site. I fully agree that peace agreements by themselves, do not prevent wars, but I differ with you on whether Israel should explore the extent to which Abbas and Dahlan are prepared to take real risks in excahnge for what was essentially the Clinton Plan from 2000. I would like Olmert to offer it and when Hamas prevents its acceptance, at that point your prescription for what Israel should do will be quite valid.

JohnW1141,

You're a non practicing Jew as I'm a non practicing Catholic.

How's that?

Not good enough, John.  You say "When you reference a Jew, you reference a religion; when you reference an Israeli you reference a nationality."  You would still define me according to your limitations; in other words, you offer me only the Knesset or the rabbinate as if you were entitled to limit my options. 

Seth, you can surely apply for naturalized Russian or Italian citizenship (you don't even have to renounce your American citizenship regarding Italy; not sure about Russia).

Howard,

...when Zionists say they speak for those who believe in Jewish national identity, and not for assimilationist Jews and Haredi Jews, I'm much more comfortable with the discussion.

Indeed.  Further, it is necessary to understand the historical context whereby Zionism was not only a national liberation movement from political statelessness, but also as outgrowing the rabbinic function as a government in exile -- and wholly committed to a fatalistic messianic redemption theology -- without necessarily prohibiting the adherence to halacha (rabbinic law) from those who are comfortable guiding their lives by it.  

I think, to my pleasure, we are moving to a common set of definitions. Perhaps I can try an analogy, and build on it for other reasons.

San Francisco has a small but fascinating Basque restaurant district. They are culturally fascinating to outsiders, who are also welcomed by the common table and sharing aspects.

These people simultaneously can be Basque, but also Americans; their state is the United States. While there has been a Basque diaspora, with increasing autonomy of the Basque country, or even independence, I can say, with some confidence, that a substantial number of American Basques have no desire to emigrate there. They may or may not want to visit, but they are secure in their culture.

It has been suggested by various social scientists that there has been less of a tendency, in the US, to have radical Muslim violence from citizen Muslims, because the US has been sufficiently assimilationist that immigrants become part of the larger culture. I don't know if this is true, but it's a reasonable supposition. In like manner, someone might consider themselves culturally and/or religiously Jewish, but still see their state as the United States.

Some of those people may actively support Zionism, but, for various reasons, do not want to emigrate. Some, such as Hasidim, do not feel that Israel represents their view of Judaism.

Israel is a state with an electorate, admittedly a vibrant political one, that still shares some basic principles that not all Jews worldwide share.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Emet18.

"I'm glad another pro-Israel poster has arrived on this site."

So am I as I don't think most Americans have enough exposure to these viewpoints unless thet read Arutz Sheva or "talkbacks" on Israeli news websites.

Howard, I'm sorry but you are such a nudnick (-:

Howard, I'm being nitpicked to death over this, but I stand by my statement; When I referenec a Jew I reference a religion, when I reference an Israeli, I reference a nationality.

Maybe the operative word is "I"

Another NY Times US media filitered propaganda piece... Utter Bullshit...

The thing it reveals to me is the reality that Olmert and Israel has no intention of negotiating.

All this crap about the Palestinians not wanting to recognize Israel is continually twisted by those who do not want to negotiate with Palestinian elected officials, by saying that the Palestinians wish to destroy Israel. Although once true, I believe that scare tactic no longer applies (Hamas no longer has in its mandate to destroy Israel).

Currently, Palestinians do not have a state of their own, also they know full well that Israel has not agreed to a Palestinian state, nor a Palestinian state with borders that are acceptable to the international community and international law, (plus a GREAT set of borders for peace). Instead, Israel has, what looks to the Palestinians, tried to EXPAND its state boundaries by building Israeli APPROVED settlements - on what Palestinians deem as part of their future state. So, personally, I can see why there is some hesitation to recognize Israel, and what it means to recognize Israel.

Two-Thirds of Palestinians Want a Peace Settlement -- deal with that fact and negotiate! (March 25, 2007)

Palestinian Israel Recognization problem:

ANALYSIS / Meshal declaration basic shift in Hamas position By Zvi Bar'el, Haaretz Correspondent "Khaled Meshal's declaration outlines a Hamas road map toward recognition of Israel. According to this outline, Meshal recognizes that the State of Israel is a "fact," but this "fact" still requires formal recognition. It is not clear what this entails.

In practice, Meshal is trying to create an equation in which sovereign states recognize one another; but, for this to occur, we must first wait for the establishment of the Palestinian state, so that a similar legal entity can recognize its neighboring state- Israel.

This is a fundamental shift in Hamas' position. In the past, Meshal made it clear that there was no point in accepting earlier agreements with Israel, which included recognition of Israel, so long as it did not fully implement them...

(e.g. Israel FURIOUSLY building settlements in the West Bank - MAP supplied to push my point)

...By this he hinted that the issue of recognition was not ideological but political. However, Wednesday's statement is his most direct reference to this issue.

This statement joins earlier ones by Meshal and others in the Hamas leadership, who said that they accepted the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital. Nonetheless, Meshal's framework may raise another fundamental issue: If only a sovereign Palestinian State can recognize Israel, this undermines the basis of recognition that was established in the Oslo Accords..."

Also, Gaza is not an armed fortress, it's a pathetically armed PRISON ghetto.

Plus, even within Israel's political ranks Olmert's words of working with the Palestinians and neighboring Arabs states apparently rings hollow.

Olmert hiding behind hollow words, Beilin says 04.01.07 / Israel News

"It's hard to believe Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's desires for negotiation "after he refused to negotiate with the Syrian president and decided to boycott the Palestinian government, including ministers who are not from Hamas," said Meretz Chairman MK Yossi Beilin..."

Yeah! most of us are sick and tired of the dog and pony shows.

JohnW1141,

Howard, I'm being nitpicked to death over this...

Funny -- you look like a victim when you write stuff like that.

When I referenec a Jew I reference a religion, when I reference an Israeli, I reference a nationality.

"What is still more important is unity of religious background; and reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable” (T.S. Eliot, After Strange Gods, 1934).

I agree.

The Zionist organization site doesn't tell you much, but when you visit the McLaughlin site it does give you insight into their er... marketing model, especially with clients such as:

"OneJerusalem.org — Web site established as part of a worldwide grassroots campaign with the objective of keeping Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel."

MJ: "I agree that no Jewish settler should have to leave the West Bank."

Why? Do you also agree with open borders and open, unregulated immigration for the US and Mexico also?

Did you really mean what you said?

Unabated diaspora immigration is what started off the whole problem with the Palestinian/Israel dispute in the first place.

Zionista I've read your link. Considering that the Palestinians currently have no autonomy within the Gaza Strip nor the West Bank, which is also Palestinian soil, I think it's a HUGE leap to read into the remark that he meant:

lands that include "...all of British-mandated Palestine, including what is now Israel?"... also does it mean that the Palestinians will also be attacking Jordan as well?

A little far-fetched methinks.

On April 1, 2007 - 4:16pm Zionista said: You can apply your curiosity and expand your knowledge, or remain ignorant in your certainty. It's a choice.

I have no interest in studying the history of Israel, the Israel/Palestinian issue, or how you define Jews and Israelis.

If this makes me ignorant, so be it.

On the other hand, you can apply your curiosity and expand your knowledge in the idea that different people, with no hidden agenda, see things differently or remain ignorant in your certainty.

I find it interesting that you "define" me with abandon.

If it were simply a matter of constituting a state on cultural elements, that would be one thing. It is quite another when the state, and its adherents, claims that it represents people who share some of those elements, or that those people automatically should support it rather than their own countries.

I submit that Israel is arguably as Jewish a state as the member nations of the Arab League are Arab states.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Zionista, are you an Israeli citizen?

"And I have known the eyes already, known them all-
The eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase,
And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin,
What now?"
T. S. Eliot
The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock
1917

So what do you want?
Is your concern about Israeli Arabs?
They have many more rights compare to blacks in Alabama in 1925
or 1964 or even today (in some places, housing for example)
BTW Black are probably segregated today in US more or equal than Arabs in Israel.
BTW There were no African country in the war with USA.

"Israel behind its Berlin Wall will become more and more isolated."
From whom? From palestinians?

BTW, Berlin Wall was designed to prevent people from escaping to freedom,
the Israeli fence is designed to prevent terrorists from killing Israeli children and forcing Israel to react and occasionally hurt Palestinians children. Then enemies of Israeli and Palestinians children calibrate the death of Palestinian children and use their death for PR war with Israel.
There is no other reason for terrorism against Israel except to provide PR material for terrorist accomplices in the US and West Europe.

Daniel.

"like the firing of missiles that occur regularly from Gaza"

Tell you what. Go to Sderot and ask the residents whether they would rather be hit by missiles or rockets.

I'll bet, being on the recieving end of the latter, that they would opt for rockets over missiles any day or night.

Let's hope that Islamic Jihad et al don't manage to get missiles.

Make up your mind. In your more recent posts, Palestinian terrorism is merely a means of getting media attention. Previously, it somehow was going to annihilate Israel, with, I suppose, light weapons.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain." [Frank Herbert: Bene Gesserit Litany against Fear]

Thank you for the welcome.

Look at this quote from MJ's column:
--------------------------------------------------------------
MJ's column:
That is what Israel probably must do if it is not to repeat its tragic error of 1971 when President Sadat offered peace negotiations in exchange for a two mile pullback from the Suez Canal. Although the Nixon Administration pushed Israel to say yes, the Golda Meir government ignored Sadat's offer (with the vociferous support of the pro-Israel community here which warned Nixon not to "pressure" Israel). The result: a war with Egypt two years later that cost 3000 Israeli lives and not just two miles of Sinai but every last inch of it.

---------------------------------------------------------------
bar_kochba132's response:
This is typical of the mythology the post-Zionist Left spreads.
This comment is made with 20/20 hindsight. First of all, I am not sure that Sadat's "offer" was serious, because at the time
it was made, he kept saying publicly there was going to be a war. But let us say that he really made such an offer. During the 1949 Armisitice talks, Israel gave up territory, to the Arabs, particularly in the Sinai, in return for only a cease-fire, not an actual peace agreement. It was claimed that there would be peace negotiations which would follow. These were never held because the Arabs didn't want them. This led to the 1956 Sinai War ("Mivtzah Kadesh") with Egypt. Israel captured the entire Sinai.
American pressure forced Israel out of the Sinai, again, not for a peace agreement, just for a cease fire and the stationing
of UNEF (United Nations Emergency Force) forces to monitor it, and in addition, Israel was given free passage through the Straits of Tiran, which had been blocked before the war. This led 10 years later to the Six-Day War. This time the Israelis declared openly, there would be no withdrawal without full-scale peace negotiations and fulll peace agreements. Israel had been burned twice and they were not going to fall into that trap again. They had learned their lesson. Now, Sadat's supposed offer was, according to MJ, that Israel withdraw a couple of miles from the Suez Canal in return
for some sort of "cease fire" agreement, but not a peace agreement. Sadat may have indicated that he wanted to reopen the
canal. If you were Israeli Prime Minister, what would you have thought..."here we are sitting on the Canal which is a major strategic asset, blocking easy access to the Sinai by Egyptian Forces (bar_kochba132 comment-yes, I know that was shown not to be the case in October 1973, but this was not known yet in 1971 when Sadat's supposed offer was made). Why should we give it up in return for some vague promise in which we make concessions and then get burned for a third time?". As I said, Sadat was making open warlike statements at the time.
Today, of course, the post-Zionist Left, people like MJ, Yossi Beilin, Yossi Sarid, Shimon Peres and others say that Israel was "foolish" for demanding that the Arabs agree to make "real peace" with Israel before making concessions. Peres, in one of his immortal statements said "you can't have 'peace' (i.e. signed agreements that give the signers Nobel Prizes) and security at the same time". (remember Rabin's and Peres's calling terrorist victims "victims of peace"?)
First, give the Arabs everything, and then eventually they will consider stopping their wars and terrorism. But as I have shown, at the time, their position made a lot of sense. What if Israel had pulled back and Sadat had then attacked? Everyone would be saying how foolish the government of the time was.

Seth says:

--------------------------------------------------------------

Israel behind its Berlin Wall will become more and more isolated.
And a state where any subgroup is given legal superiority is unacceptable to me and to most people.

---------------------------------------------------------------
bar_kochba132 replies:

Oh please, you don't really meant that. You are aware of course
that people residing in Washington DC have no representation in Congress. Same for residents in Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. I don't see you protesting that.
All the Arab countries officially designate themselves as "Arab and/or Islamic" and I think all say Islam is the official state
religion and there is a law giving forbidding, or even giving the death penalty for any Muslim who converts to another religion. Any so-called "Palestinian state" that should arise (G-d forbid!) would do the same. I don't see you worrying about that. Even Britian, Sweden, Denmark and other European states have state religions. I don't see you protesting that.
Now, I know what you are going to reply..."I am a Jew, I worry about Israel, I am not concerned with these other countries". But you just said you believe in "universalism" and "universal values". What really bothers you is that there is a Jewish state that has some Jewish values and customs paraded out in
public and that there are Jews dominating the positions of power. This is what bothers you. Well, your opposition to this would carry a lot more weight with me if you were consistent and you were out demonstrating for Congressional representation for the residents of the District of Columbia!

The article first says Americans oppose Israel giving land to the Palestinians by a 5-to-1 margin, but then says "60 percent of Americans rejected ceding land while 11% favored it..." Aren't those numbers contradictory? 60% doesn't equal 5-to-1.

And if the question was misleadingly worded (or even other questions in the survey were worded so that an inaccurate impression was formed by the survey itself in the minds of the respondents) so that it appeared that Israel was "ceding" land, rather than returning the Palestinian's land that it was illegally occupying, then no wonder they got those results. That's poor research design, unless the goal was not really opinion research but propaganda.

Even still, in a Harris poll of last year, 50% of Americans said that they believe that Saddam had WMD at the time of the invasion. So who knows...

Edited to add: The recent poll conducted for the ZOA by McLaughlin isn't mentioned on their website, but there is an earlier one, done in 2004. (http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/newspoll/np2004/040229cjcs.htm) It's pretty clear that poll was biased. Although this was ostensibly a poll about American's opinions about a united Jerusalem, they apparently started out with this question: "Did the September 11th attacks make you more sympathetic or less sympathetic with Israel's struggle against suicide bombings and other forms of terrorism?" Since this 2004 poll appears to be designed specifically to elicit the responses the researchers wanted to get; it wouldn't be surprising to find the recent one is too.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

On April 2, 2007 - 2:15am Wordie said:

The article first says Americans oppose Israel giving land to the Palestinians by a 5-to-1 margin, but then says "60 percent of Americans rejected ceding land while 11% favored it..." Aren't those numbers contradictory? 60% doesn't equal 5-to-1.

I think most non Jew Americans are like me, we have no in depth knowledge of the Israeli/Palestinian issue, so how the question is framed is extremely important if you want accuracy.

Where have I even tried to define you at all?

JohnW1141,

Zionista, are you an Israeli citizen?

What difference does it make?  

delete duplicate post

It makes no difference to me, but since you chose not to answer it may make a difference to you.

Look, I'll give you the last word on this thread.

JohnW1141,

It makes no difference to me....

Then why did you ask?

Minor technical note -- it would be much easier to read your posts if you put at the start of each of your paragraphs, or at least a blank line between them.
--
Howard

Have I ever suggested that Israel should totally withdraw from the West Bank without security guarantees? I have suggested that all civilian settlers be evacuated as soon as possible, but that appropriately located settlements be made into military observation points made by the IDF.

Apparently, however, now that you characterize the goal as media attention, you have backed away from assertions that the radicals have any serious chance of annihilating or exterminating Israel. I have had small children scream "Ihateyou Ihateyou Ihateyou I'm going to kill you", but not been terribly worried by it. Indeed, I have had a five-year-old deliver a painful kick to my shins, but he did not have the opportunity to try again.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

"Jews dominating the positions of power"
I defend representative democracy as such. You don't.

"Well, your opposition to this would carry a lot more weight with me if you were consistent and you were out demonstrating for Congressional representation for the residents of the District of Columbia!"

Why not put that as a question rather than a statement? Why the assumptions? Because you think everyone bases their arguments on outright self-interest I have have interests but I don't base my philosophy around them; I try to be more than that. You don't.
Liberal zionists want to think of themselves as modern, when their arguments are those of angry peasants. The disconnect is just sad.
The extremists are at least a bit more honest.

Hey MJ:
Do us a favor and don't post on the Israeli issue anymore. I enjoy your posts, not that I agree with them. But they seem to bring out the same people making the same boring arguments ad nauseam. If you don't post, they don't get to either. I'd give it a rest for a few months. Your stuff appears in so many places anyway so that you can skip TPM and still know you are being heard.
Whadya say?

Zionista,

Should Israel be given the benefit of the doubt? I don't think I'm at all unreasonable for expressing doubts about Israeli sincerity. Israel, after all, has continued the illegal settlement-building unabated even while demanding that the Palestinians meet their demands. It's going to take more than mere professions of sincerity for the Israelis to convince me.

I ran across a couple of interesting articles today that outline some of the reasons why perhaps Israel should not be given the benefit of the doubt. From the first article in Haaretz:

Finally, five years after the idea was hatched at the Beirut summit, politicians in Israel and the West are beginning to recognize the virtues of the Arab initiative. Ehud Olmert told Haaretz that "the Riyadh summit is evidence of a change."

And what change is evident in the prime minister's policy after ratification of the initiative at the summit? Olmert is sticking with the policy of boycotting the Palestinian Authority and whoever is in contact with it. And what about dismantling outposts? First, Mahmoud Abbas should dismantle the government of the terrorist Ismail Haniyeh. And what about Syria? Olmert "wants to reach the possibility of peace," but Bashar Assad and the entire Arab League will have to wait until the prime minister "believes that the conditions have developed" for talks with Damascus.

Nonetheless, Olmert promises he would be happy to participate in a regional summit meeting. He is even ready to begin a dialogue with Saudi Arabia. This was, more or less, the response of his predecessor, Ariel Sharon, to the Beirut Declaration. Sharon also found positive signs in the Saudi initiative, and even invited himself to the Arab summit. The Labor Party also honor the Arab initiative - it allotted a full sentence to it in its political platform, and its chairman, Amir Peretz, mentioned it in his peace plan.

It is clear to all that the Arab League will not discuss with Israel the path of the eastern border and fishing rights in the waters of Gaza. The demand that the Arabs will concede their positions in advance - including the call for a withdrawal to the 1967 lines or mention of UN Resolution 194 regarding the refugee issue - contradicts Israel's traditional policy that rejects pre-conditions for negotiations.

The second article is from TomPaine.com, and is written by Michael F. Brown, a Fellow at the Palestine Center.

The growing clamor for substantive talks surely has Olmert's government reeling. He is now in the delicate position of having to engage and not appear intransigent. Cognizant of this, he played a weak hand well during Rice's most recent visit. At the end of that visit, Olmert agreed to meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas every two weeks to discuss security and economic issues, but not final status issues. In his view, he wins points for the style of talks while avoiding core-issue substance. Rice certainly did not publicly rebuke Olmert for resisting serious talks, but instead put the blame for slow movement on the unexpected Hamas-Fateh accord.

Now, however, the Riyadh summit has ratcheted up the pressure on Olmert. A comprehensive peace offer from the Arab League is on the table. Olmert presumably realizes that some sort of counter-offer is mandatory following the political evisceration of Yasser Arafat when  he offered a merely implicit counterproposal at Camp David. The Israeli prime minister aims for talks with the Saudis on Arab recognition of Israel while again sidestepping the substance of Palestinian demands. The Saudis are sure to see right through this. They are, after all, familiar with similar scripts.  

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

"These are Israelis who already know that they will have to leave but are not yet ready to say it."

No,

These are Israelis who wany to leave but don't know how to
achieve this without compromising Israeli security.

"I do not think Palestinians should be too worried about Israelis" Period!

"MJ is losing a lot of credibility with his posts lately"
Impossible. :-)

Well, at least we seem to be agreed that that there:

...are Israelis who want to leave but don't know how to achieve this...

You cannot leave without compromising Israel's security and you cannot stay without compromising Israel's security even more.

So, Israel's security will be compromised whatever you do. It's just a question of how much.

It is not surprising in these circumstances, that there should be a certain amount of cognitive dissonance in what Israelis say.

The fact that Israel's security will be compromised whatever you do takes a while to sink in for people in a state of denial, but its obvious when you think about it, so it is already sinking in.

Zionism did not make anyone secure. The wonderful conquests of 1967 did not make you more secure.

The stuff you say does not sound like someone who expects to be feeling more secure in the near future and the stuff coming from Netanyahu and Likudniks sounds like they really ought to be seeking treatment. As for the Zionist left, they have never sounded like they felt secure. Smug, but never secure.

Zionism makes you very insecure and your insecurity will continue to increase, not diminish, while you adhere to it -- and more rapidly and pathologically, the more you adhere to it.

Then, when it has sunk in, you will stop worrying about how settlers homes in places like Ariel, East Jersusalem, Ma'ale Adummim etc are:

...built up, too expensive to dismantle...

Instead, even while you still remain Zionist, you will start to think a bit about how they could contribute to security instead of contributing to insecurity.

Then you might stop brooding about the idea that:

in narrowest point Israel is just 10 miles, so every mile add 10 % and makes Israel less inviting target for a future Palestinian state

Instead you could think about how the built up housing you will not "dismantle"(!) can contribute part payment towards a just settlement of the problem of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees from Zionism whose disaster is at the very center of your insecurity, both psychological and military.

Reflect on the fact that Israelis will not be surrounded by backwards easily defeated autocracies forever and cannot hope to dominate hundreds of millions of people in modern industrialized Arab societies no matter how wide their territory is, so you have to eventually make peace with them.

Then you will start to think that every Palestinian refugee whose life is improved is one less angry enough to go to war during however much longer it takes you to recover from Zionism and to stop pretending that the modern world will ever accept ethnic cleansing as a "just solution" in Palestine any more than it was accepted in Kosovo.

Anyway, when you ask the US for more "modern weapons" the stirring speeches you will receive instead about solidarity against terrorism and Iran will assist you to think it through.

Or, first you could perhaps try bombing Lebanon again, or perhaps hope that the Christian Zionists will provide an adequate substitute for the erosion in support for Israel among Americans, including American Jews.

My impression remains that none of the Zionist tendencies have any serious proposal about what to do, other than accept what has been on offer from the PLO for more than a decade, and this fact is starting to sink in.

No justice, no peace.
Why don't you just "move on"?

aww.

> >statistics speaks for all Jews

No they don't. why don't you let "all Jews" speak for themselves on an individual basis?

right of return has become an excuse to do nothing towards peace -- and both sides dig in their heels on it. Hamas has already said the Arab deal is non-negotiable -- meaning accept the right of return or there will be no peace.

Meanwhile over 1 million Palestinians still have no place to call their own. What other region of the world would be allowed to get away with keeping people locked away in UN refugee camps for 50 years with no rights of citizenship? Where are all the civil liberties and human rights groups when it comes to this issue? This is just one example of how we give Arabs a pass time and again on their abysmal treatment of Palestinians and their own citizens while we never cease to bash Israel.

Ultimately I prefer a single democratic state including both peoples. But it isn't up to me and it is clear that it is not possible at the moment since there is no majority for it among either people, let alone both.

What I was pointing out in the last two paragraphs is that the Israeli state will continue to have a "demographic problem" even after a Palestinian State is established.

Within the 1967 borders there are about a million Arabs who have more rights than say blacks in the southern States of the USA a century ago, but are regarded by the Zionist state as a "demographic problem" rather than as fellow citizens of a normal democratic state that is not based on an explicitly supremacist ideology like Zionism.

There are probably something like one or two hundred thousand Hebrew speaking Israelis who actually have the sort of "normal" attitudes of people who happen to speak a particular language and be associated with a particular cultural background that one finds in typical West European societies these days, where one doesn't regard fellow citizens as a "demographic problem".

But even this minority of (overewhelmingly young) Hebrew speaking Israelis are still just vaguely "post-Zionist" rather than explicitly hostile to an ideology that proclaims a country inhabited by both Hebrew and Arabic speakers (not to mention the Russian and Yiddish speakers ;-) should be governed by a State that is explicitly of, by and for the Hebrew speakers.

This section of Israelis will grow rapidly when there are two states, as will a corresponding "modern" section in the Palestinian state.

But it will take quite a while for Zionism, islamism and Arabism to fade away, and it will require a civil rights movement in Israel that will be at least as disruptive to Zionism as the corresponding American movement was to white supremacy.

An international force could be a long term solution. My thought was that settlers, who may not go willingly, are still more likely to go with Israelis than with someone outside the area.

I'd also propose an idea I had for the Golan Heights: unmanned, tamper-resistant surveillance equipment with real-time telemetry to all interested parties. There has been a running debate among military theoreticians, especially between the US and USSR, whether war would have to take place in an environment where there was no true surprise as a result of sensors having gotten so good. In such an environment, however, the advantage goes to the side with better networking, such that it can respond faster, and this is the side with superior electronics and computing. Low-observability (e.g., stealth) technology destabilizes this model.

Just as an aside, stealth usually means radar-observing, perhaps coupled with infrared and sound suppression. There have been some interesting developments in selective visual-spectrum invisibility, the easiest being putting lights on the bottom of an aircraft, such that their output matches the sky glow. Some other techniques get more specialized and perhaps less plausible.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguisable from magic" [Arthur C. Clarke's Second Law]
"Any sufficiently advanced magick is indistinguishable from technology" [attr. Alistair Crowley, without much substantiation]
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo" [Murphy's Corollary of Clarke's Second Law, as evidenced at high-tech trade shows.]

Howard:

Whoosh. (That's the sound of all discussions of military technology going completely over my head)

The relevant question is who is to monitor the technology? If it is the Israelis, not only does that open the door to possible abuse by the Israelis once again, but it leaves them in virtual control of an area that legally they are supposed to return to the Palestinians, much as they are now still in virtual control of Gaza. (Although Israel has withdrawn the settler presence in Gaza, they still maintain control over borders (it's profoundly difficult for Gazans to travel to other parts of the OTs), air space, utilities (for the most part) and territorial waters (their maritime harrassment of Gazan fishermen has caused serious economic loss for people whose livelihood depended on fishing). Israel would say such measures are warranted because of Palestinian terrorism, but that ignores the obvious. A Palestinian state, and freedom from occupation, would go far to eliminate terrorism.)

The only technology-related comment I have is that the problem with ever-advancing military and spy technology is that sooner or later, somebody's bound to use it, whether its legal or not. I happen to think there is a sort of wag the dog situation in the recent U.S. spy scandals:

The Government Is Spying on Americans Documents obtained by the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the FBI is using its Joint Terrorism Task Forces to gather extensive information about peaceful organizations. Recently, President Bush acknowledged giving explicit and secret authorization for warrantless electronic eavesdropping and physical searches by the NSA. There is proof that the Pentagon, too, is illegally gathering and sharing private and protected information.

The government claims that there is good reason for use of spy technology, but I think it is as much the availability of the technology that creates the problem. As long as availability exists, someone is going to feel compelled to use it. I'm sure that you, as a techie sort of person, know many people whose fascination with technology would no doubt drive them over this particular edge. Add to that any sort of politically- or religiously-driven ideology and you've got constitutional/legal infringements in the making.

So, in regards to your comment that there might still need to be an IDF presence in the short term, I think the best approach would be for Israel to give the settlers a time certain somewhat before the control of the land was to be returned to the Palestinians. If the settlers know that beyond that date they would no longer recieve protection from the IDF, the problem would be solved with a minimum of violence, imho. There still might be a fanatical core, who were driven to remain in a state of trespass, but a large majority of them would be rational enough to leave under this approach, especially if compensation were offered. Perhaps this is where interim steps make sense, and Israel could establish deadlines: this date is the deadline to evacuate the illegal settlements if one wishes compensation; this date is the deadline to evacuate if before IDF support is removed, etc.

I think the recent article in the NYT about Philip Zimbardo's work might give you a better idea of the sorts of problems I see with the IDF:

Q. You keep using this phrase “the situation” to describe the underlying cause of wrongdoing. What do you mean?

A. That human behavior is more influenced by things outside of us than inside. The "situation" is the external environment. The inner environment is genes, moral history, religious training. There are times when external circumstances can overwhelm us, and we do things we never thought. If you’re not aware that this can happen, you can be seduced by evil. We need inoculations against our own potential for evil. We have to acknowledge it. Then we can change it.

I see the same sort of blindness about the actions of the IDF by Israelis and U.S. supporters of Israel. (I should add that this phenomena is a universal one - it's not exhibited only by Israel.)

I also really would like to know your thoughts on the both articles - non-technology oriented thoughts, that is :-). The first article I cited in this subthread suggests that the Israeli government has lost control of the IDF. What are your thoughts on that?

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Thanks for your reply, Howard. I've noticed that you've said several times that Israel ought to maintain a military presence in the OT, even after any transfer of the land to the Palestinians, so your more nuanced reply here, recognizing that the IDF has been going too far, reassures somewhat on that point. (The IDF, just to clarify, had been going too far long before the Lebanon war.)

As far as Zimbardo's work is concerned, there was an excellent documentary about it on PBS last year - worth watching if you ever happen to notice it repeated. Also last year, I wrote a blog post about Zimbardo's findings in relation to Haditha and Abu Ghraib, Another Inconvenient Truth...about us. http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/30442 (Apologies for not providing a clickable link. My Rich Text Editor hasn't been functioning properly for a couple of weeks now.)
Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Howard: Looks like we don't agree on this after all. What you're describing, as far as I can see, would guarantee that attacks would continue.  The Palestinians, not unreasonably, would see this continued IDF presence as threat to their independence. The IDF would be a potent reminder of their decades of occupation. There would be a risk of the same sort of provocation-and-response, chicken and egg situation developing as we have now.

For instance, your #3 is an invitation for any extremist, on either side, who might wish to disrupt the process. 

#4 presumes the IDF ought to remain in military control of the OT. Under international law, I believe that would mean the OTs were still considered occupied by Israel. 

I have no problem with the IDF maintaining surveillance equipment, in Israel. But if it insists on staying in the OTs, the violence will never end.

Although I agree that there's going to have to be some sort of monitoring, there's no reason that it has to be the IDF that does the monitoring. The settlements were known all along by both the Isreali government and the settlers to be illegal. I am sympathetic to the Israelis security concerns, but in the OT, they brought the problem on themselves. Give a date certain, prior to the creation of the Palestinian state, for abandonment of all of them, and the return of willing settlers to Israel, then turn over the problem to an international force. It's the only way. And it will avoid internal Israeli violence as well.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

the language is clear -- Arab leaders will abide by the decision of the Palestinians on right of return, and Hamas has already said it's not negotiable. Back to square one.