Jo-Ann - Thank You for your very wise words. I don't know how long the psychology of nation can handle a constant state of war. I know my friends and relatives in Israel are not handling the stress very well. Israel's future is one big bunch of unknowns and that has to be resolved for the sake of it's people. The same is true on the other side.

What is going on in Gaza and what happened in Lebanon is anger demanding an outlet. The increasing stress is leading to increased anger until the entire thing blows up, to the detriment of both sides.

For the sake of eveyone, in Israel and Palestine, in the name of G-d, lets negotiate and put an end to this madness.

In re: "Disengagement"
Amira Hass in Haaretz

The United States and Europe knew very well how to punish the Palestinians when democratic, free elections gave rise to a Hamas government: with a political boycott and a freeze on financial aid earmarked for development and for encouraging independent production and rebuilding. True, the donor countries, primarily Arab nations, nearly tripled in 2006 the funds they donated to the Palestinians ($900 million, compared to $349 million in 2005), but these were provided mostly in the form of nonproductive grants to an impoverished population, as detailed in the paper prepared by economist Karim Nashashibi, a former International Monetary Fund official, for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

The generous donations quell some of the humanitarian fires set by Israeli policy, but at the same time they subsidize it. They encourage Israel to continue to rob the tax and customs monies that make up approximately two-thirds of the Palestinian treasury's revenues. Non-transfer of the funds, of course, creates a chain reaction of economic and social regressions in the private and public sector.

The countries issuing the warnings continue to purchase Israeli manufactured arms and other security-related products. They host military officers who are directly responsible for the killing of hundreds of Palestinian citizens and fervently implement the siege policy. They invite Israeli ministers who are responsible for the economic and social de-development of a whole people. Their representatives also meet with ministers whose remarks and actions negate the rights of the Palestinian people with no less determination than those of Hamas ministers, who refuse to declare their recognition of Israel's right to exist. The Western countries chose to punish the occupied with very concrete means - but not the occupier, which it sees as part of their Enlightened Civilization. They thus signal to Israel that it may adhere to the same policies whose impact the reports are warning against.

Lady, pray tell us who rejected Clinton's plan in 2000 and January, 2001? Was it Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, or was it that slimy weasel who hemmed and hawed and issued reservations about it, all the while secretly conspiring with Iran to import more arms with which to fight Israel. You remember: Yasir somebody.

You have no credibility on Capitol Hill even with liberal Democrats, let alone Republicans, for a reason--the same one that separated you from a progressive union like UNITE. You apologize for thugs like Arafat, and put the burden on Israel to be nice to Hamas.

If a bunch of racist, Jew-hating, red-neck, J.P. Stevens- loving crackers had lobbed grenades at Norma Rae and her ACTWU supporters in 1979, I'm sure you'd have wanted the U.S. government to be as RUTHLESS with those thugs as Israel needs to be with Hamas and the Islamic Jihad. Once Israel is as ruthless as it needs to be, your friend in Sderot can start to live a normal life again.

Okay, maybe we robbed this guy in an alley, but we were only stealing what was (we convince ourselves) ours to begin with. We knock him down and stand on his chest to keep him down. If he doesn’t agree to our taking most of his money, we will threaten to take more until he is satisfied with our negotiations. We kick him from time to time, and when his neighbor looks out the window, we kick him again as a warning.

We wonder why he doesn't recognize the truth of our claims when he is in such bad shape. Does he enjoy being beaten? But no, he doesn't accept our offer of peace even though we keep kicking him. True, our offer is less than he was entitled to after our original theft. But the longer we hold him down, the less our offer. So why doesn't he see the wisdom in just accepting our terms? Perhaps some more kicking...

All that is needed is a robust US president to take the reigns, join with the Europeans and engage, for the sake of the world....

May just as well have said, "All that is needed is for hell to freeze over." Sorry, I find this incessant chatter about Israel-Palestine frustrating. I see nothing that suggests even the slightest hope of a change in the situation. Attitudes seem only to harden. The conflict grinds on. What could any US president do that Clinton didn't do already? What bold step would satisfy the Palestinians, the Israelis, and AIPAC? There's an assumption that the solution is known (two states, 1967 borders plus or minus, divided Jerusalem, no right of return for Palestinians) and that the problem is only a matter of finding the right process, the right US president, the right international initiative. But let me tell you--the solution isn't the two-state solution--and the only process that will work is a process that creates one state. Either a pure Jewish or a pure Palestinian state or maybe, if some miracle happens, a multinational state (as happened in South Africa). Those are the three viable solutions now. Two-states is dead. Like Nietzsche about god, I announce it now, officially, publically, for all to hear so all will be enlightened: two-states is dead. Accept it and move on my friends.

"davai - You still don't understand the Palestinians. If they haven't given up their dreams of justice after 40 years, do you think something will change in the next 40 years? 100 years? "
Can you explain me what's so special about Palestinians?
Why Germans, Serbians, Cyprus Greeks, Chechens have given up on their dream of Justice and Palestenians have not ?

Also From their pont of view justice = the right of return.

As I have written elsewhere the MUTUAL hatred between Palestinians and Jews is the root of this conflict. Emet18 is a prime example of that hatred.

This isn't going to happen - first, the U.S. hasn't the moral authority to broker it, secondly, the U.S. is biased in favour of Israel, and thirdly, it's a bad deal.

What needs to happen is that a third, neutral party broker a deal in which first, the mutual recognition of the right to exist, the right to equitable compensation and the acknowledgement that both sides caused and endured suffering that must end with this treaty.

Israel must move back to the 1948 borders and the generation of Palestinians born to those who were forced to leave at that time, and the one generation following that must receive fair and equitable compensation for the loss of property with the acknowledgement that their suffering can never be justly compensated.

Palestininians cannot be expected to demilitarize in a region which is explosive and volatile at the best of times. It must be allowed a defensive force with a third party guarantee of its safety and protection in case of an outside attack on its borders or integrity as a separate state.

Jerusalem must be an international city under the protection of U.N. forces for seventy years with safe access pledged for all religious groups with no prosyletizing for political agendas by any religious group inside the city limits. The cost of maintaining the city would be borne by those religious groups which would contribute one third of the cost each.

The right of return by Palestinians must be acknowledged by the Israelis, but the Palestinians must recognize in return the impracticality of any return and agree to accept compensation with all rights of compensation to be determined by a third party and settled within ten years from the date of the signed treaty.

Davai

You are dealing with anti-Semites and fantasists who deal in Jew hatred and make believe.

Why should it matter if Israel unilaterally got out of Gaza or negotiated a withdrawal from Gaza, which would never have been completed if negotiated, if the Palestinians were interested in establishing their own government who's goal was the betterment of their own people?

You are spitting into the wind.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Andrew Golis should fix his TPM front page squib. Kassam rockets are not falling in Gaza. The are launched from Gaza and falling in Israel.

Get it right.

BevD,

The cost of maintaining the city would be borne by those religious groups which would contribute one third of the cost each.

I'm not a big fan of conflating civil responsibilities with religious institutions.  For example, what keeps the Palestinian Muslim and Christian institutions from using your proposed Israeli refugee compensation to skirt their investment in the Jerusalem civil infrastructure?

A U.S. president needs to get engaged? Could any be more engaged than Clinton? Or for that matter, Bush I, and Carter? For whatever reason, the people who now call themselves Palestinians cower to gangsters and fanatics, eschewing a civil society they are surely capable of building and maintaining. They have the means— education, communications and national identity— but lack the will, to build a politically coherent movement that promises rewards beyond a heavenly cache of virgins. The thugs among them use children and the elderly as shields against Israeli measures to protect its population, further contributing to despiar and desparation. Israelis can flail their current leaders all they want, but the truth is no one can make peace with a people or nation that selects and tolerates leaders who lack the political courage to pursue it, and beat down those in its way.

Is anyone else having trouble with Jo Ann's link to the American Prospect articles?

The Prospect articles are here. With the exception of a discussion with Brzezinski they are available only to subscribers

Quite right.

What's falling in Gaza are missiles fired by IDF planes and drones, along with artillery shells. Over the last five days, they've killed 18 combatants and 18 civilians ("collateral damage").

Well it would seem to me that the Israelis would be just as likely to claim that their compensation of Palestinians would preclude their contribution to the fund. I'm not a fan either of conflating civic and religious obligations, but I don't see Jerusalem as a "holy city". I see it as a fount of malignant hatred, vindictiveness and contempt for the beliefs of others. Unfortunately, most people see it as the trophy in the competition as to who has the best imaginary friend, so a solution of some sort has to found that accomodates all three religions. The best solution in my opinion, is to make it an international city administered along the same lines as Vatican City in Rome - an entity separate from any and all states.

If the city is the center of the universe for three of the world's major religions, then surely they can contribute a third of its upkeep assessed by a neutral third party and administered by such. In fact, they could all compete to set goals in contributions and collection because what they're all really interested in is proving which religion is better than the other religions - perhaps a corporation for the protection and maintenance of monuments to the superstition and suspicion of human civilization

The best solution in my opinion, is to make it an international city administered along the same lines as Vatican City in Rome - an entity separate from any and all states.

You misunderstand the status of the Holy See. It is not an international city -- from a political perspective there is no such thing -- it is a country and, at the U.N., a "non-member state permanent observer". So you can see, even the U.N. acknowledges its status as a state, just not one that is a U.N. member.

Setting aside its religious status, from a secular perspective it is a small non-aligned country with its own land, military, currency, and all the other indications of sovereignty.

I am not against some sort of sharing agreement for Jerusalem, but you should recognize that there is no precedent for what you are describing in the real world, and certainly not at the Vatican. You can make Jerusalem independent, as the Vatican is, but it will then be its own state and need administering as such.

Therefore you have to answer the question of who would govern this city-state of Jerusalem? Some sort of municipal administration can handle day to day work, but then when a conflict erupts where does it escalate to? What is a "neutral third party" in this context? Buddhists? Hindus? They would easily be influenced -positively and negatively - by the Muslims and/or Christians in countries with large Hindu and Buddhist popluations. A council of Christians, Jews, and Muslisms? The Christians and Jews would outvote the Muslims, and we'd be right back to the current status quo where Jews control the City with the blessing of the Christians. Give Muslims a majority? The last time Muslisms controlled Jerusalem (and based on their recent history of administering other religions holy sites in the Palestinian territories and across the Muslim world), there is a good chance that would lead to Christians and Jews being cut off from their holy places either intentionally or due to lack of security, or those holy places being destroyed.

Even if you came up with a neutral number of Jews, Christians, and Muslims to run your council, you would be left with additional problems. How many of each branch of Christianity? What Muslim sects - Shiite, Sunni, other? One reason Christians are always in favor of Jews running Jerusalem is because they act as a neutral arbitrater between the different branches of Christianity and maintain access and security for all branches.

Its all very well and good to say, "run it like the Vatican"... its like saying, "Peace on Earth"... yes, we all agree, until we find out that the peace infringes on our own liberty or interests or our neighbors won't go along. The devils in the details, as always. Without those, your comments are meaningless.

Vatican has its own currency? Not really. Vatican uses the Euro now, and it used to use so-called Vatican lira which just happened to be fully interchangeable with the Italian lira (and the San Marino lira of course).

The Vatican City is definitely a state. An unusual one, but a sovereign state nonetheless.

A curiosity - the Vatican has the highest per capita crime rate in the world. Nearly all of that is pickpocketing, and hardly any of the perpetrators are Vatican citizens.

Jdledell, I agree that world will not accept outright ethnic cleansing in this region. But I'm not convinced that most of the world (and all of the world that matters) won't continue to accept the de facto one-state solution that exists today. That one-state solution consists of a strong, vibrant Jewish state that continues to expand steadily into Palestinian areas while confining the Palestinian population behind fences in economically devastated, violent, and increasingly tiny and isolated enclaves. This is the reality today and it is very much a one-state solution--not ideal by any means but likely sustainable for many, many years.

I can see nothing that will make this one-state solution change anytime soon. The Israelis seem willing to tolerate the current level of violence--or at least continue to control it by cracking down whenever they have to. The Palestinians have little power themselves and no allies powerful enough to help them. The rest of the world is content to let things stay as they are as long as the level of violence does not significantly increase. In the meantime, the area remaining for a truly viable Palestinian state continues to shrink the longer the status quo persists. I seriously doubt such a state is possible anymore--and even if it is today, it will likely not be in a few years, and certainly won't be in a decade or two.

So what does this mean about two-state solutions and all this talk about re-starting some kind of peace process? It seems to me to be a vast, cynical, even cruel charade. In reality, all this talk does nothing but provide cover for those on the Israeli right who are content to continue to squeeze the Palestinians and for those on the Israeli left who want to delude themselves into thinking that the existence of Israel as a Jewish state does not inevitably require the displacement of the Palestinians.

Some will say, of course, that the Israelis are not to blame and that the Palestinians are responsible for their own fate for not accepting Barak's offer or for resorting to violence time and time again. I will not argue. It may be completely the Palestinians' fault. They could have seen the writing on the wall and accepted their fate, taking whatever the Israelis would give. But that's irrelevant now. The gap between the most Israel would offer and least the Palestinians would accept was always too wide. And the facts on the ground since Oslo--the declining area of Palestine, the chaos of Gaza, the emergence of suicide bombings, the building of fences, the settlment of the the West Bank and Jordan valley, the scarcity of water and other resources, the rise of Islamism, and the increasing power of the Israeli right--all present insurmountable obstacles. So what's important now is to recognize reality, and reality is that (as I said before) the two-state solution is dead. The time to talk of peace processes and roadmaps is over. Now we must move to the next phase and decide whether the one-state solution that exists today is good enough or whether something must be done either to incorporate the Palestinians into Israel or to remove them permanently. Frankly, I see no other possibility . . . everything else is a charade that perpetuates the status quo.

Those who advocate a one-state solution should understand that is exactly what Messrs. Netanyhu and Lieberman want too--only in their state Israel will rule over all of the West Bank and Gaza, and there won't be any Palestinians left. If there is to be one state, that is the state which will result.

I assume you don't want that.

There will never be as long anyone on this board is alive a one-state in which Israelis are not in full control. Israelis are quite prepared to kill every Palestinian to prevent that one state from ever eventuating.

Sensible people like me favor the Bill Clinton-Ehud Barak two-state plan (which Arafat rejected) that could be implemented as soon as the Palestinians are led by a government willing to accept it and enforce that decision against Palestinian thugs and thugs from Iran, Syria and Lebanon who don't.

Israel withdraws from Gaza, then receives in return rocket fire designed to kill innocent civilians. And... this is a surprise?