As I said in previous threads, removal of exclusive Israeli control of Jerusalem means the DESTRUCTION of Jerusalem. Whereas you may be right that Arab residents of Jerusalem might not want the barbed wire, minefields and anti-sniper walls that existed before 1967, what they want is of no importance to the terrorist leaders (see what happened in Gaza since HAMAS took over). Jerusalem, without exclusive Israeli security and political control will become like Baghdad, Belfast or Beirut---a destroyed city. This week Meron Benveniste, veteran post-Zionist journalist and former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, in his column in Ha'aretz said clearly and unambiguously that the Arabs of Jerusalem DO NOT WANT TO LIVE UNDER PALESTINIAN RULE, and want to remain under Israeli rule (this does not mean that they don't hate Israel, it is just that they view this as the best deal they can get).
(Ben-veniste's views on Israel are close to those of MJ so this should carry special weight with the readers of this blog).

Bush, after destroying Iraq, now seems set on bringing hot war back to Israel as well. This conference is a farce, and is forcing people into takings stands that will antagonize a LOT of people on both sides, and still will not bring about an agreement. Olmert will have no choice but to offer EVERYTHING, including withdrawal to the pre-67 lines, division of Jerusalem, including handing the Jewish holy sites over to the Arabs, and he will get nothing in return. Truly bizarrre.

I disagree with Don about Olmert. I think he'd go for a deal but, like MJ says, the crazy right, the Russians, and the Orthodox will shoot down anything that looks like peace.
Also, Bush is too stupid to do what Carter did and Clinton tried. I doubt he could find Jerusalem on a map.
MJ makes a good point about J. Sharing Jerusalem does not mean dividing it. In fact, it's divided now. Sharing it would unify it.

I would be genuinely pleased to be wrong but this conference is doomed to fail.

It twould be wonderful if Israel agreed to dismantle its 'illegal' settlements, if it froze all settlement activity and if it dismantled checkpoints and if that then allowed Abbas to sign a peace treaty that led to a viable two state solution. Two problems with this scenario. First Israel may agree to the three ifs but we all know that they will never carry them out. They have agreed to do so too many times before to expect them to change now. Second, Abbas represents only a fraction of the Palestinian people. No peace agreement will be viable if Hamas is excluded. And we know that Rice and Bush insist on this condition. Saudi Arabia knows this; that is why they tried to involve Hamas.

MJs optimism seems like another pony hunt.

Bush is too stupid

Reality is not intended for We, the Citizens of America.

If any analysis has any consideration of the “stupidity of Bush” or
if it questions the administration’s capability or results, it is
a conclusion based on disinformation and propaganda.

The results we see are the goals of the administration.

Any other analysis and results are false
and the result of intended propaganda.

Please make a note and keep the above
in front of you at all times.

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

Let's set the scene.

The Israelis are warning of a large invasion of Gaza....maybe after the meeting.

Avi Dichter is harrassing the Egyptians by insisting that they could stop the smuggling into Gaza in one day if they wanted to. Yeah sure Avi. That's why that silly idea of building a moat has been floated at the highest levels of both governments. It's suggested the US taxpayers fund it.

Food and medicines are running out in Gaza. Hamas wants te negotiate with Fatah but the puppets are forbidden by their masters in DC and TA to do so.

Things are getting worse in th WB too thanks to needless and increasingly abusive policies imposed there:

"The Israeli government is a lying government that is out to destroy the Fayyad government and the peace process," said Ashraf al-Ajarmi, PA minister of prisoner affairs.

The minister said this in response to the Internal Security Ministry and Israel Prison Service's decision to prohibit the delivery of sweets to Palestinian prisoners for the Muslim holiday of Eid il-Fitr.

This is the first time since 1967 that Israeli bodies prevent the Palestinian government of delivering sweets to prisoners.

snip]

The minister said that even during the period of the Hamas government Israel allowed the entry of sweets to Palestinian prisoners. He said that over the past few weeks Israel has been making it hard for him to pay for and arrange a kiosk for the prisoners.

"The Prison Service's legal advisor said the money, that is meant for a kiosk, encourages terror," he said.

snip]

Al-Ajarmi said that despite promises he had received from Internal Security Avi Dichter regarding possible concessions toward the prisoners, "the Israeli government is doing everything in its power to make things difficult for us".

"They (Israelis) talk about helping the Rais (Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas), but making every effort to embarrass and weaken us to prevent the advancement of the peace process, this in addition to the daily raids on Palestinian towns, the targeted killings and the roadblocks that they refuse to remove to this day," he said.

According to Al-Ajarmi, the Israeli government "has not taken any step to help the efforts of Fayyad's government to improve the economic and security situation in the territories".

The minister said Israel has recently begun attempting to influence the content of the Palestinian matriculation exams. "Israel is forbidding exams in physics and chemistry under the claim that they would contribute to terror activity," he said. "What good is a diploma without these subjects?"

Al-Ajarmi said the prisoners issue could have a positive affect on Palestinian public opinion, but "instead the Israelis remain rigid on this matter, which could lead to violence in the prisons that may beget violence throughout the entire Palestinian Authority."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3458934,00.html

Do our congresscritters think that it's a good idea for the Israelis to forbid Palestinian kids to study Chemistry and Physics?

Do they even know what the hell is going on in the OT? Do they care? O' great patriots and true believers in democracy and human rights that they are.

The complicity of my government in this crap is an outrage.

I'll just bet that, if we stopped wasting any more money on the middle east, that 'peace' would break out pretty quick...

You shouldn’t hold your breath.

I'm tempted to add: "or waste it."

Sorry MJ--I admire your devotion to this issue, but I fear the only thing more futile than discussions about the so-called "peace process" is the peace process itself.

Please explain why any of those three Democrats could make things change. Has Obama told you anything that would indicate he will press Israel to make concessions which its democratically elected leadrers--including Labor Ministers in the Cabinet-- consider dangerous?

As if Israel and the Palestinians don't have enough problems, there's nothing that can't be 'solved' by a quick bit of Cowboy Diplomacy, especially given the deep, nuanced and evenhanded view of the ME that Bush and Rice have--riiiiight...

otoh, perhaps there is some promise to be found in Bush's recent proclamation that 'Childrens do learn!'

MJ-I challenge you to name me ONE Arab who says Israel's settlement called Tel-Aviv is "legitimate".
Labor Party of other Leftist politicians who say Tel-Aviv is "legitimate" whereas Hevron and Beit EL are "not legitimate" are simply hypocrits. They may claim that anything over the Green Line (1949 Armistice line) doesn't "belong" to the Jewish people or Israel but NO ONE in the world, except for the Israeli Left recognizes the Green Line as any sort of international border. The Palestinians do NOT recognize the Green Line as a border in that the will not recognize Israeli sovereignity inside of it...this is manifested through their demand for the phony "Right of Return". If they can force Israel to accept outsiders in whom they don't want, that means they don't recognize Israeli rule within that territory. In any event, the Green Line does NOT demarcate in any shape or form and limitation on Jewish rights to settlement in Eretz Israel. Before 1948 and the creation of Israel, Jews lived CONTINUOUSLY, for centuries in areas over the Green Line such as Hevron, Shechem (Nablus), Jenin, Gaza, and later in Gush Etzion and other places. NO ISRAEL GOV'T HAS THE RIGHT TO ABROGATE JEWISH RIGHTS IN ANY PART OF ERETZ ISRAEL.
I can understand if someone says "Yes, we Jews have a historical right to live over the Green Line but for practical reasons we should compromise and give it up for the time being", although I disagree, but it is honest, for for them to phrase it as MJ does, that Jewish settlement in the historic heartland of Eretz Israel is "not legitimate" is simply false anad itself, illegimate, null and void.

of course, the Israelis have no legit claim on any land in the mideast. However, at this point, were they to treat their neighbors as they would wish to be treated, it might eventually lead to acceptance of their claim to the land they stole. It looks like their present goal is to steal as much more land as possible, so that when the scat hits the windmill they will be able to claim a larger portion that they were originally given (without the consent of the inhabitants).

There is no place in their present policies for success, however, it is doomed for failure.

It seems I start to hear the glimmerings of dissatisfaction in the USA political scene for the crimes Israel is committing. Israel might be wise to consider US support temporary, and begin to make friends with their neighbors. I doubt that will happen, They will continue to cry "holocaust!" at the merest hint their policies against Palestine are unjust, just like GWB brings up 911 every time he wants to take away our civil rights, and torture more people.

I wonder if Americans will ever come to view our support of Israel as one of the sources of terrorist attacks? If it does, hmmm....

Freeze Settlements? How about move back within your borders? I have a checkpoint.... no one can pass that believes they have a right to take things that don't belong to them. Lets put up that checkpoint.

I disagree. Clinton is the next NEOCON choice. if you want to see GW's policies go forth, vote for her. If you want change, listen to Ron Paul.

Abbas is not the legally elected leader of the Palestinians. Fatah did receive the majority of Palestinian votes. That the Palestinian consitution allowed this outcome due to the fact that Fatah ran multiple candidates in districts and split their own votes does not remove their moral authority as the group with the support of the majority of Palestinians.

...of course, the Israelis have no legit claim on any land in the mideast.

I'm generally considered to be pro-Palestinian here at TPM Cafe (although I would instead define myself as being pro-peace), so I understand the frustration with the Israeli actions which have harmed the Palestinians and obstructed efforts toward peace. But, while you're correct that the Israelis have indeed been trying to make use of the facts-on-the-ground gambit to ensure as much land as possible remains theirs in any eventual settlement, the claim that the Israelis had no legitimate claim to any land just isn't accurate. There has been a continuous Jewish presence in the ME for centuries, long before the creation of Israel. Although there are many idealistic reasons for wishing that a single non-sectarian state had been formed at the time of the partition, as the arabs had been promised by the British, the fact remains that it wasn't, and there is absolutely no likelihood that such a state could be successful at this time.

Where the problem arises is that legitmate Jewish historical presence for most of the time preceeding the creation of the Israeli state represented only a small percentage of that of the arab population of Palestine. A massive Jewish immigration occurred in the first part of the 20th century, in response to very real horrors occuring primarily in Europe. So while the creation of Israel was justified from the Israeli perspective, it was unjust from the perspective of the Palestinians. These two different perspectives on the conflict are rarely recognized as existing concurrently, the partisans of either "side" generally selecting one or the other to promote to justify their own claims. The truth lies somewhere between the two extremes.

Whatever the actual facts of the historical record may be, neither the fact of a continual presence, nor the 2,000 year old claim of a Jewish presence in biblical times, justify the additional appropriation of land that had been Palestinian for centuries. It's not Israel's legitimacy that should be questioned, but the Israeli opposition (and that of anti-peace Israel "advocates" in this country) to the legitmate aspirations of the Palestinians for a viable state of their own.

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow

Your post (unsolicited)does not answer the question I have which was directed at MJ--not you. Your use of the word settlements in quotation marks and the phrase "as you call them" (as though that isn't what everyone calls them and has for years) and the general tone of your post is combative for no reason at all.

I am looking for a reasonable answer to a reasonable question. That's all. You may be exactly right, I don't know, but the tone and tenor of your post alone casts doubt on it because it seems like just another highly emotional response wherein you score your points, but little else is accomplished.

One of the things I find most frustrating about any discussion involving Israel is that it becomes increasingly difficult to hear and understand important facts and points as a result of all the noise and static caused by the exraordinary emotions behind much of what is said. I don't know you or who you are. I only know what I see of you on MJ's posts and that leads me to believe you are so highly invested in one side of this question and one outcome that what you have to say is necessarily tainted by that investment.

Although I don't know what the exact wording of the PLO's 1988 declaration was, it was presented to their own people as "recognizing the fact of Israel's existence". The Palestinians have NEVER officially recognized the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in Eretz Israel. After Oslo was signed, the problem came up about the "PLO Covenant" that said Zionism was invalid and all Jews who came after 1917 would be forced to leave, and the PLO Covenant overrode any other declarations Arafat or other heads of the PLO made. Arafat was asked about it and he said the clause that contained this statement was "caduc" in French. Then began a big discussion about what this meant. To Westerners and Israelis it was said to mean IIRC "annulled" (although Arafat didn't have the power to annul anything in the Covenant). To his own people he said it means "not currently enforceable" or some such phrase. Netanyahu then demanded that the PLO formally change the Covenant, leading to the farcical meeting of part of the PLO's official governing body (that met something like once every 20 years) that Clinton attended in Gaza. I don't recall the details but a vote was taken and the clause was supposedly cancelled, but then it was pointed out IIRC that the vote was not taken by a legal quorum, so nothing really changed. As I understand the clause is still listed in the Covenant as presented in FATAH's web site, although I heard this second hand and didn't check myself. Of course, HAMAS doesn't accept any of this.
The problem arose again at Camp David when Barak demanded that in return for Israel handing over the Har HaBayit(Temple Mount) in Jerusalem, Judaism's holies site (which people wrongly think is the Western Wall), Arafat would accept a declaration that although the Palestinians would have sovereignity over the Har HaBayit the Arabs would recognize that the Jewish people view it as a holy site. Arafat categorically refused, saying Islamic history teaches that the Bible is a fraud, and Judaism is a fraud, and they would never accept any false Jewish claim to the place. As I understand this led to a famous shouting match between Clinton and Arafat, but Arafat, after telling in Clinton in private that he would accept it, he came out and told reporters that he wouldn't. I believe it was either over this matter, or the Palestinian "right of return", or both, that Arafat told Clinton that he would be assassinated if he made any concessions (I guess he can dish it out but he can't take it!).
Thus, we see the Arabs do NOT recognize Israel's right to exist, they only recognize their own right to struggle against it continually, even if there is some sort of peace agreement (as both the Palestinians and Egyptians have done), until Israel is (G-d forbid) eradicated.
Recall that this is what former Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami stated in the excerpt I posted here some time ago. Ben-Ami's views on Israel are close to MJ's but he acknowledged the truth of what I stated here.

Au contraire oleeb:

The dialogue on this thread has been as good as it gets, and I think MJ and just about all posters, bar kochba included, deserve kudos. The notion that bar kochba or anyone cannot or should not direct a poster, even when that poster directs someone directly, is a "rule" or protocol I am not aware of at the TPM Cafe. The additional notion that emotions can always or even should be divorced from this topic is flawed at the core I submit.

I want to thank MJ and others on here for a rather informative and civil discussion this time, one which I have learned from while perusing it comfortably from the back seat.

Bruce

It isn't that I object to a response per se. It's the manner in which you respond. It detracts from what you have to say.

Oleeb:

I hear you. I agree with you in particular that the self-righteousness of certain folks on both sides of these issues can be frustrating and counterproductive. FWIW, sometimes I might not know what I'm talking about, but I have learned not to be afraid to say that I do not have all of the answers. This is certainly true with respect to the Middle East and the I-P conflict in particular.

Also, fwiw, I do not always agree with what you post, but I do find your contribution valuable and a net positive to say the least. I hope you didn't think I was suggesting the contrary.

Bruce

No problem. Just wanted to clarify.

What the Palestinian leadership may concede privately and what they declare publicly are often two very different things.  Plus you have to pay attention to what they say in Arabic, as opposed to English.  Arafat was famous for cooing about peace when he gave English interviews and then saying the exact opposite when he gave a speech in Arabic. 

Regardless, if the Palestininans actually do accept that Jews have a right to live in the West Bank, why are the settlements, as you say, such a red-line issue?  They shouldn't matter if the goal is actually to get a state established.

Why are you so credulous with regard to everything related to the Palestinians? 

I'm not responding to questions framed that way. Do you want me to ask why you are credulous vis a vis the Israelis.
With all due respect (seriously), I don't want to engage that way.

Your opening comment is very close to trolling.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Why do you feel accomodation on Jerusalem would be the "easiest"? Do you think it is easy for the Jews to give up their holiest place? Or the Arabs their 3rd holiest place?
Westerners tend to dismiss considerations like these, but they are vital to a lot of other people.

Although I most often disagree vehemently with you, Bar-K, I uprated this comment in appreciation for your acknowlegement that Jerusalem is also holy for the Arabs.

It seems to me in such a situation shared sovereignty is the best, and perhaps the only workable solution, although I suppose that internationalization of the city also remains a possibility. The issue is certainly a more immediate one for those living in the region, but the city is holy to millions of Jews, Christians and Muslims, not only in the West, but throughout the world.

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow

bar.

Has the campaign to free Yigal Amir begun yet?

It's so interesting that an American billionaire/millianaire who is "anonymous" to everyone but the JPost has conceived and funded this multi-media extravaganza. I think the name of this group of worthies is sooooooo, well, American. The "Committee For Democracy" and the slogan for the postcard portion of the campaign, "A time for peace, a time for reconciliation. A time to free him," sound positively Frank Luntzian. The film-to-come featuring the potential harm a live Rabin could've caused and a bio of the young hero should be quite appealing to some.

What a proud moment for certain elements of the American Disapora! Why the author of this piece of work wants to keep his identity shrouded in darkness certainly is puzzling.

I realise that the conspiracy theorists who profess the innocence of Yigal most likely won't be impressed by the analysis of a mere woman. But, believe you me, it's doubtful that the lovely Larissa Trembobler would be scheduling the birth of their son for the anniversary of Rabin's murder if she didn't want to honor the contribution of her beloved husband to Israel's security.

I had understod in a previous discussion that Mr. Rosenberg unilaterally censored Daniel Gereenbaum's posts. If that is not the case, then I am pleased to be corrected on that point.

Actually , it was the SHABAK and the Prison Service that decided the date (i.e. the gov't). No doubt it will help the turnout at the annual demonstration in Rabin's memory.

The Shabak and the Prison Service did not time the lovely Larissa Trembobler's fertility treatments nor did they make her appointment with the hospital for the day of the murder. Her choices include inducing labor or having a ceasarian section if nature doesn't deliver the goods in a timely manner.

Yes indeed, I expect the turnout and enthusiasm among the celebrants would be enhanced if things go as planned.

One thing gives me some cheer; the thought that Chief of Staff Ashkenazi is disgusted by those who would free Amir Yigal. It bodes well if he is tasked with removing the violent squatters who would kill a fellow Jew to further their aims. Perhaps Sharon's blunt assessment that there are "Jewish terrorists" among the faithful will further his understanding that they are indeed, enemies of the State.

Well, if Sharon says so, it must be true. Just like his promise that the first war in Lebanon would not extend more than 40km north of the border.
The irony is, is that his Leftist friends accused him of "incitement to murder Rabin" as well. Just ask Yossi Sarid. So who are you going to believe? Do we draw the line at the "terrorists" that Sharon denounced, or do we include Sharon in that list as well, and everyone else who denounced Rabin before the murder, just like I and hundreds of thousands of others did as well?

Large majority of Jews in Israel opposes handing any part of Jerusalem over to the Palestinians. Also opposition to any return of even a small number of Palestinian refugees to Israel.
This poll is by the Steinment Peace Center and I have found their polls are honest and not made with leading questions in order to get the answer one side or another wants.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/913237.html

What about Gush Katif? 26 communities raized to the ground, 8000 people expelled from their homes. NO VIOLENCE.
Yes, Sharon was a big, corrupt liar . I worked as a volunteer for his election because he promised explicitly NOT to destroy Gush Katif, and yet he betrayed that promise without getting a public mandate by calling elections or a national referendum (he did call a party referendum which he lost and then said he would do it anyway after promising to honor the results). I have every right to despise him.
What about all the lies he told the gov't about his adventure in Lebanon?
Sharon was a lying, deceitful politician and would spew out any lie from his mouth to advance his interests. Don't you know any other politicians like that? Do the terms "WMD" and "Iraq" ring a bell?