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.