I don't know after reading this whether to laugh or cry......laugh at the MJ's unbelievable ability to ignore reality and/or delude himself, or cry that any thinking person could believe the city could be "shared". "Shared" means "DIVIDED" and "DIVIDED" means "DESTROYED". Look at the Palestinian towns under Palestinian rule, look at Gaza, look at the destruction, corruption, lawlessnes. Why do you think the Arabs of Jerusalem OPPOSE being under Palestinian rule, as Meron Ben-veniste pointed out last week in Ha'aretz?

Regarding "shared" sovereignity (particularly meaning "shared" between basically hostile groups):
Berlin had "shared" sovereignity from 1945-1990. Did that work? Nicosia had "shared sovereignity" under the power sharing plan the gave Cyprus independence.
Baghdad is a "shared" city between Shi'ites and Sunnis, Beirut is "shared" between Shi'ites, Sunnis and Christians. And these are all Arabs who "love one another". MJ believes that the Arabs would "share" Jerusalem with the Jews whom they DON'T like?

This should prove to one and all that Bush is no "friend" to Israel and, for that matter, not one particularly concerned about the interests and rights of his own Christian "brothers" in Eretz Israel, because if this plan, G-d forbid, were every carried out, the Christians in Jerusalem would be the FIRST to suffer. Islamic radicalism would snowball, seeing as how they succeeded in driving the Jews out of the Jewish holy city, and they would turn on the Christians in Jerusalem, just as happened in Gaza recently with the murder of a Protestant activist and desecration of churches, and is ongoing in Iraq where the Christians and Yazidis (another minority group) are being murdered daily and driven out of the country.

There is only one possibility for peace and prosperity for ALL groups, Jews, Muslims and Christians...i.e. for the city to remain UNITED under exclusive Israeli rule and Israeli security control.
Olmert babbles about giving up "outlying" neighborhoods and even that political demagogue Avigdor Lieberman is mouthing this. This is nonsense.....when the boundaries of united Jerusalem after 1967 were drawn, it was in order to secure the entire city. The fear was the if Arab terrorists got control of these outlying areas, they could shoot into the Jewish areas. This is exactly what happened in Beit Lehem when gunmen took over and fired at the Jerusalem suburb of Gilo.
Carrying out the "Clinton paramters" (i.e. what is "Jewish will be Israeli and what is Arab will go to the Palestinians") would mean barbed wire dividing isolated enclaves from each other and the need to travel in armed convoys between different parts of the city, whereas today everything is open .

It is true that Israel made mistakes in the Arab part of Jerusalem...not enough was invested there. But just because one mistake was made, the whole city should be destroyed?

Olmert is lying when he says this is a "new Palestinian leadership that recognizes Israel as a Jewish state". He is spewing out one untruth after another in order to save himself from the 4 (IIRC) criminal investigations he is under and so he is hoping to prove to the post-Zionist clique that in effect controls Israel that he will carry out their policies and they should "etrog" him (i.e. leave him alone).
However, people do FINALLY seem to be waking up and the Jewish people will NOT allow this to pass . If you looked at the Steinment Peace Center poll I posted in the previous thread, you will see that a large majority opposes this insane plan.

This shall not pass!

This is actually a far left site, not liberal, with a great deal of anti-Israeli bordering on anti-Semitic attitudes and statements.. M.J. represnets the dishonesty and myth makers of the far left. Bar Kochba is just his mirror image.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Do you mind telling us where you live in Israel? Perhaps it might help us to understand your mindset.

What a great piece.
Let's hope Hillary Clinton supports her husband's proposal.

Let's speculate, shall we, on WHY the city has grown more divided. MJ places the blame on the separation barrier that, it is true, has come into the city. But the separation barrier is only a few years old. How could that have been a factor in all those years before?

The real reason why the city has grown divided is that the populations reflect the antagonism of the overall conflict. When relations between Israelis and Palestinians were good - or at least civil - then relations in the city were OK as well. The real division of the city started after the first intifada in the late 1980s. Things got worse as Palestinians in Jerusalem, like their brethren elsewhere, were radicalized, both by Hamas as well as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs.

It's true that the antagonism that's a part of the conflict has fueled the divisive politics in Jerusalem, but your blame for it is misplaced. Here's what B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights group has to say:

Since East Jerusalem was annexed in 1967, the government of Israel’s primary goal in Jerusalem has been to create a demographic and geographic situation that will thwart any future attempt to challenge Israeli sovereignty over the city. To achieve this goal, the government has been taking actions to increase the number of Jews, and reduce the number of Palestinians, living in the city.
At the end of 2005, the population of Jerusalem stood at 723,700: 482,500 Jews (67 percent) and 241,200 Palestinians (33 percent). About 58 percent of the residents live on land that was annexed in 1967 (45 percent of whom are Jews, and 55 percent Palestinians). With the Palestinians having a higher growth rate than the Jews, Israel has used various methods to achieve its goal:

• Physically isolating East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank, in part by building the separation barrier;
• Discriminating in land expropriation, planning, and building, and demolition of houses;
• Revoking residency and social benefits of Palestinians who stay abroad for at least seven years, or who are unable to prove that their center of life is in Jerusalem;
• Unfairly dividing the budget between the two parts of the city, with harmful effects on infrastructure and services in East Jerusalem.

Israel’s policy gravely infringes the rights of residents of East Jerusalem and flagrantly breaches international law. East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Therefore, it is subject, as is the rest of the West Bank, to the provisions of international humanitarian law that relate to occupied territory. The annexation of East Jerusalem breaches international law, which prohibits unilateral annexation. For this reason, the international community, including the United States, does not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem.

It's the Israeli tactics used to seize Jerusalem for themselves, and in an attempt to restrict and reduce the Palestinian presence in the city that have led to much of the animosity. And, for that matter, one can't separate the Israeli efforts to drive Palestinians off the land in other areas of the OT, efforts which escalated in the 80s and 90s, as a cause for increased animosity. Stop the settlements, return the seized land to the Palestinians, stop opposing the formation of a viable Palestinian state, and most of the reasons for the radicalization that you refer to would be greatly reduced. But in the far-right Israeli world view, the Palestinians have no justifiable complaints, and have become increasingly radicalized just for the hell of it.

To insist, as so many far-right Israel supporters do, that peace has to happen before a successful settlement to the conflict, is patently absurd, and again demonstrates the obscurantist anti-peace spin that so often takes place in these discussions. Peace is a result of negotiations. To try to make it a precondition is nothing more than an obstructionist tactic.

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

Here's the deal, Bar Kochba. Nobody here much cares what you think except that you illustrate MJ's points about extremists.
This is a liberal American site and MJ is talking to Americans.
Other than the trolls here, your Russian settler point of view is not very interesting to anybody.
By the way, do you think Russians like yourself have more right to live in Palestinian territory (i.e. the West Bank) than Palestinians do.
I know your answer. I took a course a few years ago on the Boers of South Africa.

"THIS SHALL NOT PASS"

Brave words, big guy!

Bar K is from California. Sweet. He did learn to write English poorly though.

Do you regard PACBI as an "unbiased source"?

Why are settlers banned? Are Russians okay?
What about Sefardim? What about Leftists?
Could you provide us with a politicall-correct checklist of approved people?

Yes, but...

Hamas doesn't want peace, either...but victory over Israel...not just in "the territories" but over all of the land.

The same goes for Hezbollah.

These points are written into their charters and voiced by their leaders.

The asymetry in military power obscures these points.

As to the ad hominens, isn't there enough blame on this point to go around? Do you complain when folks beat up on BK?

Do you criticize Abdul Hass, who's said the most outrageous things?

To be honest, I've been on a LOT of sites, and this one is by far the most balanced I've seen.

Hi back, MJ,

The Israeli (and American Jewish) fanatics have their counterparts among the Palestinians....

And I would add, keeping within the style of parenthetical amendments, "(and American and European)," since much of the self-styled progressive fanaticism of the PACBI and International Solidarity flavor seems to be coming from the UK and USA.  All too often, as we see right here in TPMCafe fora, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gives way to a mindless and soulless proxy war between self-styled progressives and cynical wingnuts.

[Update] MJ, please tell us you are not proud of the way this discussion is rapidly descending into an excuse to pile on bar_kochba132.  "BK" and others (as well as myself) have often enough been able to argue coherently within your discussions without this sandbox bullshit.

I may have to kick myself, but this time, and this time only, I totally agree with you. I still think, that countries rarely share sovereignty and it will be difficult the convince the Olmerts and the Abbasses to do it. I still agree though.

I fear it's the Wild West out here.

One of the real problems with the proposed boycott of Israeli academics is that they are boycotting one of the most progressive segments of Israeli society.

Quite counter-productive and ironic given how counter-productive the West's actions have been in responding to terror.

The last time Jerusalem was truly undivided was before the Jordanians took over East Jerusalem and erected a wall separating it from West Jerusalem in 1948. The Israelis took a giant step toward unifying the city when, following its Six-Day War victory in 1967, it tore down the walls and allowed Arabs and Jews to move freely in one city.

Unfortunately, every year since 1967, Jerusalem has grown more and more divided. The Israelis have even extended the security wall into Jerusalem, cutting some Jerusalem neighborhoods off from each other.

So when the Israelis tore down the walls that were put up by Arabs to prevent Jews from reaching their holy places, among other reasons, that was a step forward for unity.  But "every year since" the city has grown more divided. 

Let's speculate, shall we, on WHY the city has grown more divided.  MJ places the blame on the separation barrier that, it is true, has come into the city.  But the separation barrier is only a few years old.  How could that have been a factor in all those years before? 

The real reason why the city has grown divided is that the populations reflect the antagonism of the overall conflict.  When relations between Israelis and Palestinians were good - or at least civil - then relations in the city were OK as well.  The real division of the city started after the first intifada in the late 1980s.  Things got worse as Palestinians in Jerusalem, like their brethren elsewhere, were radicalized, both by Hamas as well as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs. 

So given the overall state of enmity between the Palestinian people and Israelis, it seems to me that the fears that "sharing" will quickly deteriorate into a de facto "division" are not misplaced.  Like everything else in this conflict, it all depends on how much good will you want to assume exists in the Palestinian people.  If the Palestinians relations with Israelis are good overall, then it can be assumed that it would be possible to "share" the city without it becoming divided again. 

It also can't be stressed enough how important and traumatic was the experience of 1948-1967, when Jerusalem was truly divided and Jews were not allowed to go to the Jewish holy sites.  Think about how despicable that is, how utterly disgusting.  Imagine if Mecca were occupied and Muslims were not allowed in.  Imagine if Catholics were not allowed to go to St. Peter's.  Then you might get some sense about why Israelis and Jews are so attached to the idea of maintaining full, undiluted, undiminished, unquestionable sovreignty over the whole city.

For a full, real, lasting peace, Israelis might reconsider.  But as always, the peaceniks like MJ are asking Israel to take it all on faith. Sorry, ain't gonna happen.  Peace and reconciliation need to happen BEFORE any changes in sovereignty, not after.   

MJ does not blame the separation barrier which he mentions only in passing and which separates Arab neighborhoods from each other. His whole piece is about the separation between Arab and Jewish neighborhoods which he blames on mutual hostility.

I find Brad's thinking very interesting. He is so locked into the Zionist mindset that he is utterly incapable of judging any issue related to Israel on the merits.

I just read this on a website called Magnes Zionist. The author writes about "liberal Zionists" like Brad. He specifically addresses Samuel Freedman who trashed the Mearsheimer book in the NY Times.

"Here you have, in a nutshell, the faith of the liberal Zionist.... the Israel-Palestinian conflict could have been solved via Oslo, were it not for the al-Aksa intifada, "that brought terrorism as deeply into sovereign, pre-1967 Israel as the Tel Aviv beachfront."

"As I have written before, this is pure balderdash.

"Nobody in Israel, except those on the extreme left, have ever supported the establishment of a Palestinian state -- rather, they support an emasculated demilitarized "state" that could survive only because of its neocolonial relation to Israel, and that would never pose a threat to the security of the Jewish state.

"That the state of Israel would pose a threat to the security of the Palestinian state is dismissed -- after all we are Jews, and we honor agreements.

"Freedman, qua liberal Zionist, seems to believe that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. That is also balderdash, as many people have written many times. Israel never "withdrew" from Gaza; it redeployed its troops for the most part on the other side of the "Green Line" and later imposed a crippling siege against Gaza, when the Palestinians elected Hamas.

"So what really happened was that the Israelis who felt that Gaza could be most effectively controlled by the presence of settlers and IDF troops lost out to the Israelis who felt that Gaza could be most effectively controlled by withdrawing the settlers and the IDF. But the control of Gaza "for the security of Israel" was never once in doubt. This is the classic Zionist debate – the sort of "Jew vs. Jew" that Freedman should have written about: How does one control the maximum amount of territory with the minimum responsibility for the native Arabs?

"Had Ariel Sharon been interested in giving peace a chance – and, to his credit, he never once even hinted in that direction – he would have negotiated a withdrawal with the PA, and, more importantly, he would have negotiated a final settlement. But the Gaza withdrawal was never about paving the way to peace – and Sharon had the guts to say that. In fact, the unilateral Gaza withdrawal was intended to humiliate the Palestinians by implying that negotiating with them made as much sense as negotiating with wild animals.

"(Remember the liberal Zionist Benny Morris's solution for the Palestinians in his interview with Ari Shavit – put them in cages.) Only a liberal Zionist, who identifies troop-redeployments with peace overtures, can spin the Gaza withdrawal as an opportunity for peace.

"Because Freedman is a liberal Zionist – and I criticize not him for that, only the editors who asked him to review the books without demanding him make full disclosure -- he is shocked that Walt and Mearsheimer lump Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross in the Israeli lobby. How dare they throw these two liberal peacemakers into the same camp as Abe Foxman, AIPAC, Daniel Pipes, and Norman Podhoretz? I mean, how many times were Indyk and Ross called self-hating Jews by the rightwing? And how hard did they labor for peace? But the truth is that virtually all Jews in the US, from the far right to the Peace-Now-Meretz-Tikkun left, are a part of the Israel Lobby, or if you don't like that term (I don't), they are strong supporters of Israel, each in their own way.

"Again, this is not a criticism – believe me, some of my best friends are liberal Zionists (full-disclosure: I am a card-carrying member of Meretz, although, in my defence, I joined the party just to vote for Yossi Beilin in the primaries) . To see how deeply Zionist a Dennis Ross is, one needs only read a few pages of The Missing Peace. The fact that he doesn't share the "Islamofascist" neuroses of Podhoretz and Pipes doesn't make him into a centrist on Israel-Palestine. So, who is on really in the middle and not just in the "middle"?

"Well, Walt and Mearsheimer, Carter, Chomsky, Khalidi, for a start. They are all willing to allow a strong Zionist state in Palestine -- more than I can say for most Israelis with respect to Palestine. In fact, most of the one-statists I know of are in the center -- they do not call for a transfer of populations against their will. If you are for transfer -- either Palestinian or Israeli Jewish -- then you are most definitely not in the middle. If your willing for you national self-expression to come at the expense of the other group's national self-expression -- then you are definitely not in the middle.

"Because the Zionist narrative has been accepted by the mainstream liberal press in the US, (but not by Middle East experts), one doesn't need an AIPAC or a Foxman or a Dershowitz to make the case for Israel. The latter will always serve as the "bad cops" to "good cops" like Tom Friedman, Richard Cohen, Dennis Ross, etc.

"The real question is – and Walt and Mearsheimer don't raise it – why has Israel been so successful in getting the Zionist narrative accepted? It is not just the alleged political clout or money of an Israel Lobby. There may be many factors -- liberal Christian guilt for Christian antisemitism, sympathy for the Jews after the Holocaust, the shared Judaeo-Christian heritage on the Bible (the secret weapon of the Zionist), the success story of Jews in the US, including the high intermarriage rates, which makes it more difficult for Christians to act against members of their family. The Palestinians have failed to make the same impact on the consciousness of American non-Jews as have the Jews. They haven't been around as much. And they are "oriental" in the a way that ashkenazi Israelis are not. And they are Arab, and, mostly, Muslim."

I agree that extremists cause problems, but in this case, it's not so clear what's really going on. Here is a PACBI statement on the issue:

Celebrating Peace or Camouflaging Apartheid? Boycott the Jericho-Tel Aviv Public Event on October 18th!

On October 18th, One Million Voices, an organization led by Israelis and international figures with the support of some Palestinians, is organizing a public event in Jericho and Tel Aviv, simultaneously. The event will include performances by renowned artists Brian Adams and Ilham Madfa'i. As stated on the organization's English webpage, the objective of the event is to “mark the first time that massive numbers of Israelis and Palestinians gather simultaneously to unite against violent extremism.”

According to the widely accepted boycott criteria advocated by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), the event falls under the category of normalization projects and violates the call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), endorsed by over 170 Palestinian civil society organizations, trade unions, political parties, and grassroots movements, for the following reasons:

1. Participants are required to join the One Voice Movement and sign a mandate -- ostensibly based on a "two-state solution," but without any commitment to international parameters -- which assumes equal responsibility of "both sides" for the "conflict," and suspiciously fails to call for Israel's full compliance with its obligations under international law through ending its illegal military occupation, its denial of Palestinian refugee rights (particularly the right of return), and its system of racial discrimination against its own Palestinian citizens.

2. The event is sponsored by Israeli institutions (mostly from the private sector) and endorsed by mainstream Israeli political figures from parties including the Likud, Labour and Shas. These Israeli "partners" are unquestionably complicit in maintaining Israel 's occupation and other forms of oppression. [emphasis mine]

We believe this event is being organized to promote a "peace" agreement that is devoid of the minimal requirements of justice, and that will leave the Palestinian people as disenfranchised as previous agreements have. The unfortunate and harmful support of Palestinian businessmen, religious and political figures, among others, for this event indicates either ignorance of the hidden agenda inherent in the whole initiative, deceptively camouflaged as a collective call for peace, or willingness to forfeit the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in return for advancing selfish interests.

We call on the Palestinian public and international supporters of a just peace in Palestine not to take part in this public relations charade that conceals a misleading political program that falls significantly short of international law tenets and the Palestinian national program.

We call on Arab and Palestinian artists, in particular, not to participate in this or any similar event whose real objectives have nothing to do with genuine peace.

We call on Palestinian board members of the One Million Voices to withdraw their support for this movement that only serves to blind the Palestinian public and sidetrack it from struggling, with the solidarity of its international supporters, for its UN-sanctioned rights, for justice, equality and freedom.

* Endorsed by tens of cultural and other civil society organizations in Palestine and the Arab World.

My first reaction was as yours, MJ, that only extremist would shut down a "peace concert." But if the information in item 2 above is true, it does give one pause, doesn't it?

I feel I don't have enough info from unbiased sources to make a judgement on this.  

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

I realize that many in Israel, and many of the hyper-philo-Israel people here, describe as antisemitic any call for a boycott of Israel and any mention, such as that made by President Carter in his recent book, of it's engagement in apartheid actions in the Occupied Territories. PACBI is involved in actions involved with the boycotting of Israel.

It would seem to me that those who are vehemently opposed to the boycott effort, or who rushed to define W&M's work as antisemitic, etc., etc., might then be considered suspect when reporting the actions of PACBI. In all honesty, I don't know much at all about PACBI - they raised issues which did give me pause, but I don't know enough about them to be able to judge any of this at this point - so for me, the jury is out.

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

Peace is a result of negotiations.

In a narrow sense, this is true.  Often, after a war, there is a treaty and peace is declared.  That was the pattern through centuries of European wars.

Problem is, that model doesn't really fit this situation.  We're not talking about ending a war between two matched armies by coming up with a political settlement.  We're talking about trading something tangible - land and peoples' homes - for something intangible - peace. 

The fundamental challenge to overcome is how to make the party giving up the tangible items, in this case Israel, have enough trust to make the concession.  After all, once they give up the land, getting it back would be extraordinarily difficult.  Meanwhile, all the other party has to offer is, essentially, promises.  Sure there are various mechanisms that would be put in place to deal with security.  But if the crowd turns ugly, they aren't worth a hill of beans.  And there are few effective mechanisms that can reliably change peoples' hearts.

The leftist argument is that once the Palestinians get a state, they'll be satisfied and they'll be willing to live in peace.  Thus Israel should make the concessions and have confidence that peace will ensue.  But given the history, why should Israel believe this?  Isn't the most likely outcome, assuming a deal got done, that some Palestinians will continue the fight, that the new state of Palestine will erupt in a civil war and that Israel will still be an enemy? 

That's why it makes no sense from the Israeli point of view to give up ANYTHING until there is a new "history" to compete with the old history of unremitting Arab hostility.  Only after it is clear that Palestinians have given up their fight to destroy Israel, or at least that the proportion of people who are unwilling to live alongside Israel is diminshed to a point of insignificance, can Israel develop the trust needed to make the tangible concessions.

It is simply unreasonable to ask Israel to have faith in this instance.  Not in an area so core to the survival of the state.  The best thing Israel can do now is try to help build the civil institutions that will form the backbone of an eventual Palestinian state.  Furthermore, Israel should aggressively pursue peace with the rest of the Arab world, as that is a completely different dynamic.  But with the Palestinians, there is a limit to what can be expected at this time.

Thanks to Sean for posting that exposure of the Brad mentality. Then Brad walked right into the trap. BINGO!

"Show me which liberal Zionist "spun" the Gaza withdrawal as an opportunity for peace. On the contrary, liberals like me supported the unilateral Gaza withdrawal because peace negotiations had become plainly impossible."

Well...

It is often said, "Hey, we pulled out of Gaza...gave them the land...and look what we got in return."

In other words, the Gaza withdrawal was "spun" as Israel acceding to Palestinian desires and thus as a move toward peace.

It was seen as a "painful" Israeli concession, yes?

Here's a question I've pondered for a while:

Why would a Palestinian state in Gaza and on the WT be more of a threat to Israel militarily than what exists now?

In fact, if there were a Palestinian state, it could be held much more accountable for the actions of its citizens and security forces than the divided, quasi government that exists now.

Israel would retain an overwhelming military advantage.

It could retaliate if it was attacked.

And Abbas et al couldn't claim that they had insufficient authority or control to handle its own miscreants and extremists.

The Palestinian people and the world couldn't argue credibly that they were under occupation nor that their rights were being tradduced. They'd be less interested in pissing off the Israelis and provoking a retaliatory attack.

Even if Palestine had a standing army, perhaps especially so, it would become a clearer and easier target for the Israeli army should retaliation be necessary. There'd be a "return address."

And if Palestine actually went to war against Israel...that would be it.

Anyway, Brad, can you give me your thoughts on this?

After all, once they [the Israelis] give up the land, getting it back would be extraordinarily difficult.

Yes, just ask the Palestinians!

Well 1982 in Beirut we lost those 242 marines fighting on somebody's side. Somehow, I recall it was Israel that got us involved.

And, of course you will reject this mightily, but why are we fighting in Iraq today: Israel again I am afraid.

Brad - I can understand from an Israeli point of view that the arabs have been absolute enemies for a minimum of 60 years. That is the history you reference. Do you really believe we need "calm" for another 60 years before Israel ends the occupation?

The problem with waiting for any meaningful period of time is that there will be no territory left for a viable Palestinian state. The settlements and outposts are expanding. New ethnic roads are being built. The ground has already been prepared for the massive settlement expansion in the E-1 corridor. That cuts the northern west bank off from the south. Ariel keeps expanding eastward leading to another territorial cutoff. More settlers and industry are moving into the Jordan Valley. In 5 years(maybe earlier) a two state solution is dead. What then?

Good point. So many of the far right supporters of Israel seem to think that the return of the Occupied Territories to their rightful owner represents a "concession," and fails to see (or perhaps the better word is acknowledge) that the land issue is what drives much of the violence in the first place. The argument is circular.

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

The problem with waiting for any meaningful period of time is that there will be no territory left for a viable Palestinian state.

JD, I suspect many who make Brad's arguments understand this but see it not as a problem but an opportunity.

It also can't be stressed enough how important and traumatic was the experience of 1948-1967, when Jerusalem was truly divided and Jews were not allowed to go to the Jewish holy sites. Think about how despicable that is, how utterly disgusting.

Yes, the Jews couldn't get to their holy sites in Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees couldn't get to their homes and orchards in Israel. Now that the Jews have access to their holy sites again, how about giving the Palestinians access to their homes and orchards?

Despicable and disgusting, indeed!

Jews have been living CONTINUOUSLY in the Land of Israel far longer than the Arabs.

But you were living in California.

forget your lame attempt at being Politically Incorrect, Brad--why don't you just go all the way, and refer to them as untermenschen?

This should prove to one and all that Bush is no "friend" to Israel and, for that matter, not one particularly concerned about the interests and rights of his own Christian "brothers" in Eretz Israel, because if this plan, G-d forbid, were every carried out, the Christians in Jerusalem would be the FIRST to suffer. Islamic radicalism would snowball, seeing as how they succeeded in driving the Jews out of the Jewish holy city, and they would turn on the Christians in Jerusalem, just as happened in Gaza recently with the murder of a Protestant activist and desecration of churches...

Nonsense. These statements completely distort the truth of the situation. Most Palestinian Christians support the creation of a Palestinian state every bit as much as the Muslim Palestinians do. Yet Israel has the gall to actually attempt to interfere in church decisions, as this BBC article reveals:

Israel's minister in charge of Jerusalem affairs in the prime minister's office, Tzachi Hanegbi, earlier this month warned the patriarchate not to inaugurate Theophilos III.

Irineos I
Irineos refused to recognise his dismissal

"The state objects to holding this ceremony, which is intended to validate the removal of Patriarch Irineos, a move that has not been recognised by the State of Israel, as is required by law," he said in a letter obtained by Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

Mr Hanegbi said that his government planned to appoint a committee to deal with the matter and that Theophilos would only be able to claim the patriarchate after it had made its decision.

The patriarchate replied angrily to Mr Hanegbi's demand.

"With all due respect, the Patriarch, the Synod and the Patriarchate find your letter surprising and unacceptable since it constitutes an outright and inappropriate interference in their autonomy as a religious sect and in the religious freedom of members of the Greek Orthodox congregation," it said.

"There is no need and no place for a 'ministerial committee', whether ordinary or special, and it is fitting for the government to hurry up and recognize the patriarch, unless it is indeed extraneous and improper considerations that are guiding you."

And it's not just Palestinian Orthodox Christians, but Palestinian Roman Catholic Christians who also decry the occupation. See this 2005 BBC article:

Bethlehem a 'prison' - patriarch
Jerusalem Patriarch Michel Sabbah
Michel Sabbah said winning hearts was the key to peace
Israel's most senior Roman Catholic leader has said Bethlehem has become an "immense prison" since the erection of the West Bank barrier.

Michel Sabbah, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, called for all barriers between people to be dismantled.

He was joined by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, ambassadors from several countries and thousands of Christians for Christmas Eve mass in Bethlehem.

Israel says the barrier is defensive, but Palestinians see it as a land grab.

There may indeed be Palestinians who oppose those Evangelical Christians who are funding the illegal Israeli land grab in the West Bank (and not all Evangelicals are involved in this effort, it's important to point out). Tell me, Bar, do you support them? Do you support those Christians from the U.S. who are sending millions of dollars to settle the West Bank with Jews who they expect to convert or die?

Also, I've seen you refer on a couple of occasions to the Ben-Veniste article about the Jerusalem poll. I find no reference to it but your comments when I google. I can't help but wonder if the poll results are being given a spin, as the Palestinians of Jerusalem want to live in a Palestinian state just as much as the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank. Could it be they oppose being transferred to the Palestinian Authority because they recognize that such a proposal is merely an attempt for Israel to avoid it's responsibilities as an occupying power to the arab population of Jerusalem? (Israel hasn't been providing a decent level of services in East Jerusalem.) That strikes me as a very likely possibility. There may be other possibilities, but I can't know without more information about the poll. Could you post a link? I'd also appreciate a link to the Steinment Peace Center poll. Again, googling gives me only references to your post here.

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

I look at large and old European cities or even many large American ones and I see communities within the larger whole. These are varied and diverse communities which have held onto their traditions, cultures and in many cases their languages. Sure, there may be tensions now and then between those different communities but in the end they find a way to coexist as a part of the whole. Why can't Jerusalem behave in a similar manner? Why should it be so controversial to suggest that is does? Resistance to this kind of coexistence strikes me as a racist/supremist position more than anything else.

MJ seems to prove bar_kochba132 point:

The last time Jerusalem was truly undivided was before the Jordanians took over East Jerusalem and erected a wall separating it from West Jerusalem in 1948. The Israelis took a giant step toward unifying the city when, following its Six-Day War victory in 1967, it tore down the walls and allowed Arabs and Jews to move freely in one city.

The three religious faiths who hold Jerusalem holy lived in peace with one another in the past.

This is a liberal American site... point of view is not very interesting to anybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism:
liberalism emphasizes ... the free exchange of ideas.

Although it is true Arab parties are not generally part of the coalition, they do get benefits in return for their votes on the budget and the such. And it is important to remember that both the Oslo Agreements and Sharon's destruction of Gush Katif were dependent on Arab votes and the parties were paid handsomely for their support.

What do you say about the "ethno-religious" state called Pakistan who creation lead to the deaths of something like 1 MILLION people and the uprooting of several million Hindus from Pakistani territory?

What do you think of the "ethno-religious" state called "The United ARAB Republic" founded by Nasser in Egypt which expelled virtually all non-Arab people in the country, including Jews, most of whom had been born there?

What do you think of the Irish Catholic minority in Northern Ireland demanding that the Protestants there be forced into the "ethno-religious" state called "the Republic of Ireland"?

What do you think of the creation of "ethno-religious" Bosnia which caused a huge war with hundreds of thousands of casualties.
What about "Ethno-religious" Kosovo?

What about virtually all the Arab states that define themselves as "Arab", such as Algeria, that discriminates agains non-Arabic minorites like the Berbers? In addition to them calling themselves "Islamic" states which discriminate against non-Islamic minorities?

Or is your problem only with Jewish national/religious self-determination?

If you want a lesson in racism, I suggest you read Arab propaganda, and I mean the official state-run media. For example, there was the Imam in the Mosque in Gaza, whom in Arafat's presence said that it was incumbent on all good Muslims to kill every Jew they can. Mike Wallace of "60 Minutes" confronted Arafat with the tape of this. Arafat replied that he didn't hear it.
Then there is the golden oldie "Jews are decdendents of pigs and monkeys.
Go ahead, read what they themselves write. See how "tolerant" they are.

"How Israel can negotiate with Palestinian Leaders if they have no clue what they really want?"

Davai - Do you reaally think Israel knows what kind of borders etc IT WANTS and NEEDS? The Palestinian situation is complex because the needs of the greater muslim population must be considered due to the Holy sites as well as the Palestinian refugees. The Israeli situation is equally complex when one considers the needs of the settlers as well as the desires of the world of Judiasm which considers Israel the core of our religion.

In the 1940's when Jews were fighting to throw off the yoke of occupation, they did not know the contours of their independent state but they did know they wanted a Jewish state. The Palestinian desires are similarly undefined.

As you well know, there is no political party sitting in the Knesset, even on the so-called "far right" that advocates violence or "annihilation" against the Palestinians. On the other hand, the OFFICIAL FATAH and HAMAS charters call for the eradication of Israel. Also the PLO Charter, which has not been officially recinded. I would certainly expect someone as knowledgable as yourself would not fall in to the "moral equivalence" trap. Arutz 7 never called for violence against Arabs, nor their expulsion. OFFICIAL Palestinian media calls for violence against Jews.

Finally, somebody uses word “COMPLEX”.
I agree, I/P conflict is complex.
However, my point is that in 2000 there was yet another chance for Palestinians to get an independent state but their leadership was not ready.
When Jews had a chance to get an independent state, Jewish Leadership were ready.

Wordie:

Here is the link to the Steinmetz Center Poll (I am sorry I didn't spell their name right):

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

I am also sorry I didn't post Ben-veniste's article, but I can assure my quoting of it was correct: The Arab residents of Jerusale do NOT want to live under Palestinian rule.
Also look at the following link. Those like "Leftist" Ha'aretz and "Rightist" Avigdor Lieberman who advocate redividing Jerusalem in order to rid Israel of excess Arabs (yes, that is Ha'aretz's argument) and to save "national insurance payments to the Arabs" have been shown to be using demagogic arguments by the following study by an organization that favors dividing Jerusalem. Israel would be forced to offer ALL Jerusalem Arabs full Israeli citizenship and the right ot move anywhere in the country they want, and even those who would remain in the Palestinian-controlled areas would have to be able to continue to receive Israeli National Insurance payments:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/915139.html

It appears you misread the Haaretz article, which says this:

...there is also a majority (63 percent) [of Israeli arabs] that favors transferring Jerusalem's Arab neighborhoods to Palestinian sovereignty...

Just to make sure, I downloaded a pdf of the Steinmetz study (available here), and it says:

There is also a majority, unlike in the Jewish public but again not an overwhelming one, that favors transferring the Arabneighborhoods of Jerusalem to Palestinian sovereignty—63%...

As a side note, this comment in the Haaretz article regarding opinions on the proposal to civilianize the operation of the checkpoints may also apply to some of the opposition to the transfer:

As for civilianizing the crossings, a majority among the Israeli Arab public also opposes this decision - 50 percent vs. 28 percent. Very possibly, though, the Arab public opposes this civilianization for completely different reasons than the Jewish public, in part because of their general opposition to checkpoints.

As I mentioned earlier, the reasons behind the answers for the 37%* of Palestinian Arab respondents who did not support the transfer of Arab neighborhoods to Palestinian sovereignty may not be consistent at all with your interpretation. You have assumed a motivation unsupported by anything in the poll. That 37% may indeed be motivated by concerns for the livelihood of their families. After all, it's undeniable that there have been severe economic effects experienced by Palestinians throughout the occupied territories. These concerns might be assuaged by a settlement that ensures that the Palestinians have a good level of support from the international community until they are able to rebuild their own economy.

* 37% (100%-63%) would be a maximum number - there may have been many who answered "don't know" or some other answer. Unfortunately, the Steinmetz center didn't post either the raw data or the questions, so we can't know for sure.

Also, it appears to me that you misread the second Haaretz article you linked as well, which, rather than advocating the division of Jerusalem as you claim, is a description of a report by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies (JIIS). The report describes the reasons why that group's (not Haaretz') previous support for a division was unwise. From the article:

The institute's researchers now question whether Israel actually stands to "profit" (demographically and economically) from the removal of Arab neighborhoods from East Jerusalem, as the supporters of the city's division had until now assumed.

Because the word "division" in the context of Jerusalem is at times ambiguous, it's difficult to know for sure, but it appears this article refers to a unilateral separation:

According to the researchers, a unilateral separation from the Arab neighborhoods could raise questions about Israel's obligations to their residents from the perspective of the international community. In terms of international law, a unilateral separation could be interpreted not as a restoration of the pre-1967 situation but rather as a blatant violation of the principle of equality, in the distinction that it makes between Arab and Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. "This argument is particularly serious in light of the violation of minority rights," the authors write.

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

Falcon 10.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

For those who might need them, the current, although subject to revision, Falcon Codes. I am morally certain that the Israeli Air Force has its own version, probably the Jordanians and Kuwaitis, and perhaps the Egyptians. I just can't see a sense of humor in the Syrian, Saudi, or Iranian militaries...although perhaps the Regular Iranians, but not the Revolutionary Guard.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

These concerns might be assuaged by a settlement that ensures that the Palestinians have a good level of support from the international community until they are able to rebuild their own economy.

Especially since almost as many Israelis support the transfer option (ie the euphemism for ethnic cleansing)

Benveniste speaks Arabic and was Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem for many years, in close contact with the Arab population. He knows what they are thinking.
I reject his claim that "Israel destroyed Palestinian society through the 'occupation'. The Jews were under British occupation for 3 decades while the British were fostering splits in the Jewish community ('divide and rule') and yet the Jews built a protostate and its institutions.

Interesting case.

I'm not sure that Lebanon IS able to make this case vis a vis Hezbollah.

In fact, I believe that many in Lebanon BLAME Hezbollah for the summer war and have beefed up the regular army as a result.

As a matter of FACT, Hezbollah IS strong, does cause problems--but I'm not so sure that this is a viable excuse for the Lebanese.

Israel isn't blamed for retaliating...it is blamed for the WAY it retaliated.

Yes, I do reject this assertion.

It's obvious (to me, at least) that things are much more complex.

Not sure you're right about 1982, either. As I recall, we were there to keep, or establish, the peace between warring Lebanese factions.

The US has a long history of meddling in the Mideast...

Falcon 2.

I have a philosophical problem with almost all the states that you name, other than Northern Ireland, where it is a minority of a minority wanting Union.

I don't like ethnic/religious national self-determination wherever it occurs. On an operational basis, however, there are variables depending on the extent to which the US is perceived as sponoring the discrimination, and to the extent by which the US is threatened by the conditions in a particular ethnic/religious state.

Once there is a threat, the next question becomes what can be done about it, in the interest of the United States. If overthrowing a bad government would get something worse, then such, which is probably the case in Pakistan, is unwise.

Israel can damn well do what it pleases as long as it doesn't use American arms or money to do so, in a manner that creates propaganda opportunity for enemies of the United States.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I would say that "those promoting an unbalanced agenda" appear on both sides of the divide.

Abdul Hass is, most definitely, promoting an unbalanced agenda--and it is the agenda one sees on a LOT of leftist/liberal blogs.

Hass is promoting a one-state solution, which, although unpalatable to many, from a purely moral point of view is hardly unbalanced, and entirely consistent philosophically with liberal American values. The problem with such a solution is that at this point, after so much fighting, it's just not practical. Of course, there are many in Israel who may prefer that solution, and who work tirelessly to promote it by refusing to allow a separate and viable Palestinian state to develop.

I also see a number of folks criticizing davai, Bar Kochba, Brad, Daniel, Emmet1--including crits by Zionista, jdell, me, and MJ who is, after all, a Zionist.

If Zionista has actually criticized davai, Bar, Brad, or Daniel (G), I'm sorry but I missed it. Generally what I notice among the hard core Zionists here is complaints that those particular posters are being treated unfairly, even when they have clearly engaged in either ad hominems directed at M.J. (or other posters) or ranting about M.J.'s posts. If there is a significant history of this criticism, I would surely stand corrected. Please post the links so I can take a look. Please understand that I'm not defending the ad hominems that I have seen directed at the Zionist posters. I would prefer that we would all remain civil. But I'm hardly going to down-rate those later ad hominems when the person to whom they were directed was guilty of the same thing.

So if the plan is simply to chip away at Israel, take what it can get in terms of an agreement, and then keep chipping in the name of "resistance" because they are still fighting 1948 and the injustice done to the Palestinians... well, then, it's war...and the ultimate outcome is anyone's guess.

If Israel had at all been willing to engage in a serious effort toward peace before the rise of either Hamas or Hezbollah, your comment might hold more weight with me.

Here's something interesting I ran across recently:

The Matrix of Control: Rendering the Occupation Invisible
But what do we mean by a Matrix of Control? It is a system of control designed

1. to allow Israel to control every aspect of Palestinian life in the Occupied Territories, while
2. lowering Israel's military profile in order to give the impression to the outside that what Palestinians refer to as "occupation" is merely proper administration, and that Israel has a "duty" to defend itself and the status quo, yet
3. creating enough space for a dependent Palestinian mini-state that will relieve Israel of the Palestinian population while
4. deflecting, through the use of "administrative" image and bureaucratic mechanisms, international opposition and thus to maintain control indefinitely and, in the final analysis,
5. to force the Palestinians' to despair of ever achieving a viable and truly sovereign state and to accept any settlement offered by Israeli. ("Time is on our side" is, as Sharon has often said, a cornerstone of Israeli policy.)

Because it operates under a Kafkaesque guise of "proper administration," "upholding the law," "keeping the public order" and, of course, "security," the Matrix of Control renders the Occupation virtually invisible. In "normal" times (when active Palestinian resistance can be stifled), its outward appearance is legal and bureaucratic, the most effective means of control over a long period of time. The Israeli military government over the Occupied Territories is called, for example, the "Civil Administration," even though it is headed by a colonel under the strict authority of the Ministry of Defense, and is bound by the orders of the general commanding the "Central Front."

It does appear that the Occupation is invisible to a number of TPM Cafe posters, who generally never, ever, refer to it, nor acknowledge it's inhumane effects on the Palestinians (not to mention the cheapening of Israeli society by it's continuation). Why is that, Peter?

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

"Preparing a hell for those with the audacity to ask such questions".

Yikes! I'll consider myself forewarned, Howard. But don't expect any fewer "audacious" questions.

A further musing: Perhaps there is also a special place in hell prepared for those who respond to comments before the author has had an opportunity to correct the formatting.

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