Iran will still have leverage in the event of peace

Unless you bring Hamas in tune with what is happening on the peace side

Fantasy vs. Reality in Palestine-Israel

Heading for Annapolis By KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON

But, back in real life, where Palestinians live with the grim daily realities of the occupation and the remembrance of two wasted decades of unproductive peacemaking efforts, any mention of Annapolis is greeted with cynicism and black humor. To the assertions of wishful thinkers in the establishment that Condoleezza Rice has a good understanding of the Palestinian position going into Annapolis, the Palestinian man in the street offers a short video on his mobile phone -- a clip circulating so widely that it is difficult to find anyone who has not seen it -- showing a flirtatious Rice with bouncy curls and swinging hips, singing to a line-up of "moderate" Arab leaders seated in front of her (the ones known to be more or less in the U.S. pocket) that they are "good boys" for having done the U.S. bidding.

Israeli correspondent Gideon Levy touched on the essence of the conflict in a commentary in Ha'aretz that was completely at odds with Sunday's wishful front-page headlines and indeed with the very basis of the Annapolis summit. Addressing underlying Israeli worries that Israel will be pressed to make costly concessions, Levy noted that Israel is in fact not being asked to "give" anything to the Palestinians but only "to return their stolen land and restore their trampled self-respect, along with their fundamental human rights and humanity." This, he says, is "the primary core issue," but no one talks about this anymore; justice "has deliberately been erased from all negotiations."

Counter Punch

The "summit" will be nothing more than a photo-op for the Bush WH and will enable it to add kindling to the next fire the Bush/Cheney regime is wanting to start, this time in Iran.

Hamas is partly to blame for this state of affairs: they won elections and control of the Palestinian government with the support of a minority of the voters and proceeded to govern as though they had a mandate.

It is unclear who would be elected if free and fair elections were held now.

Hamas has made some attempts to impose their religious strictures on all the women living in Gaza.

You make a good point.

Your point would be even better if you quoted the Hamas Charter which, as usual, I don't have to hand.

However, BETWEEN the position and words slips the possibility.

People are often intractably opposed to X...until they are not.

It takes the right series of carrots, sticks...and the tide of events moving a certain way...and then "suddenly" people are no longer intractable.

(For example, let's say the WB becomes a much nicer place to live than Gaza. Just one such possibility.)

And they make up the usual stories for why they haven't changed, but are simply holding the same position and it's the OTHER side that's changed.

It should be noted that some factions within Hamas WERE open to negotiations a while back, I believe. And Daniel Levy has said that the West's big mistake was in not letting Hamas govern after they won elections. He believes they would have softened under the demands of having to govern. Who knows?

Anyway, risk and uncertainty are always involved.

A minority?

How so?

Forgetting bringing Hamas into tune with the peace process. When has Hamas been in tune with Fatah. There is a remarkable amount of fantasy by the experts who wish Israel would just give in to everything the Arabs want. The Saudis and the Eyptians were not able to make an agreement between Fatah and Hamas last more than two weeks.

Hamas not only killed seven Fatah members but they have rouned up Fatah members and journalists in Gaza. What is the ground on which Israel would negotiate a peace with Hamas?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

petermschwartz52,

And it could have been a win-win. Had they turned down the invite, they would have been seen as simply rejectionist--opposed to getting a state.

Sorry, but I really doubt that.  Hamas is rejectionist now, and Steve can rattle off a list of high-level diplomatic personalities who appear to insist otherwise.  It's not like it wouldn't be a nice to be able to bring Hamas -- screaming and kicking, if necessary -- into the peace process.  I am, however, intrigued by the virtual unanimity of diplomatic opinion suggesting that it would not only be required but easy to do, even as Hamas is on record rejecting the substance of the Arab League's Beirut/Riyadh initiative.  This quantum leap of faith in the idea that the actions and attitudes of the Palestinians and the Arab establishment remain altogether superfluous to the circumstances of the conflict, while Israeli actions and attitudes are all that obstruct its resolution, continues to amaze me.

bslev,

That said, with all of the naysaying surrounding the conference, I do take solace in the willingness of Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Arab League to attend the conference (at some political cost), particularly since this was done over and above the objections of Hamas and Iran.

I agree entirely and share your hope.  Further, I see Annapolis as a beginning, not the ultimate act in the quest for the necessarily comprehensive resolution to the overall conflict.  I believe a healthy approach to the conference is as the long-awaited followup by the Arab League to its own initiative, and which finally gives Israel the diplomatic mechanism to respond to it in the fullest diplomatic sense possible up to this point.

Zionista:

You write:

"Further, I see Annapolis as a beginning, not the ultimate act in the quest for the necessarily comprehensive resolution to the overall conflict."

Indeed, ultimately Annapolis must be recognized for what it can only be, and that is a beginning of a process. After the barbs and overtures are exchanged at Annapolis, and after all the charges and countercharges and clever innuendos and analogies are broadcast to this or that audience around the world, the success of Annapolis must be measured by whether it creates an avenue for real negotiations to proceed.

The hard work, because it really wasn't done beforehand, must follow Annapolis and that is no simple task when negotiations are expected by all to proceed simultaneously. Annapolis from a negotiations standpoint essentially puts the cart before the horse.

In any event, things are the way they are and, instead of poking fun at Condi's hairdo and clothing and stuff as we see, for example in Merman's post above, I hope peace loving folks of all persuasions support her efforts, and let's hope she stays focused and really does facilitate the negotiating process as a true honest broker.

We can hope she succeeds and still not forgive her role in the fiascos (plural) that thus far so aptly characterize the overall foreign policy of the Bush Administration. Or, alternatively, we can just criticize her and her boss and join the choir and say I told you so. As cynical as I tend to be, I'll opt for the former approach this time (again).

Bruce

petermschwartz52,

However, it IS in Israel's best interest to end this conflict peacefully.

Agreed.  But might it also be in the interest of some regimes within the Arab establishment to sustain the conflict?  An effective bogeyman can be very convenient for maintaining regimes that may otherwise have worn out their welcome.

I don't see why Israel and Abbas couldn't have extended an invitation.

I can't see how Abbas could have done so after appointing Ahmed Qurai prime minister over the election of Ismail Haniyeh, which essentially deposed Hamas from its share of the Palestinian Authority.

You make good points.

Perhaps we have to wait for the next opening, whenever it comes, somewhere down the line.

davai,

What's your example to contrary? Based on good and bad examples what was the probability that Hamas would softened ?

Menachem Begin's Irgun/Likud.  Once upon a time, Ben-Gurion ordered Haganah to blow the Altalena and its Irgun fighters and their arms shipment out of the water.  Governing led Begin and his party to a whole new perspective.

Bad example.
1. Irgun was not Hamas.
2. When Ben-Gurion ordered Haganah to blow the Altalena and when Likud came to power and what happened between? But that time, Israel was fully functional democratic state.
3. Is this is the best example you have?

Ahh, the double standard.

I was under the impression that none other than Jimmy Carter had blessed the integrity of those elections.

Not to get into an argument about JC, but the "minority winning" doesn't strike me as what democracy is all about.

Unless they have something like our electoral college -:)

Let's get a few things straight.

Hamas and Fatah, under Saudi/Arab League sponsorship, created a unity gorvernment. Israel and the US objected and began the pressure to isolate Hamas and Gaza. This included putting enormous unrelenting muscle on Abbas to rescind the agreement and US "help" in choosing which portions of the Palestinian constitution Abbas could declare null and void in order to make his illegal usurption of power "legal".

Abbas is known as the Palestinian Pinochet for good reason; he is the kind of weak leader preferred by policy makers in DC and TA. Who do those who whine about the Hamas takeover think trained, armed and supported the cowardly and corrupt thug Mohammed Dahlan and his hapless Fatah fighters to take on Hamas in Gaza? US. Do the same people who prefer to ignore that recent history also think the US- supported Israeli slow motion strangulation of Gaza has nothing to do with the state of affairs there, AKA Hamas "inability" to run the place?

Evidently, the signers of the letter AND the Israelis who support the notion of dealing with Hamas are aware of the real state of affairs and don't discount the facts that when Hamas declared a cease-fire, they kept their word and that Hamas isn't going away. Don't even think for one second that there aren't influential Israelis who support this effort and dealing with Syria and Iran; former head of the Mossad Efraim Halevy among them.

I was glad to see an exasperated Olmert finally tell American Jews to butt out of Israeli business re Jerusalem and hope that this attitude grows to encompass more areas of Israeli concern such as their trade dealings/diplomatic accomodations with their neighbors. (The US dept of Agriculture demands that Israel stop importing Iranian pistachio nuts from Turkey in favor of the CA product is a silly example. Americans pushing Israel into starting the stupid summer war in Lebanon was a disastrous one.)

For decades, American interference/influence in Israel's business has provided a crutch for Israel that has proved to be crippling over time. Israelis who have experience making secret diplomatic deals and/or doing battle with those "enemies" their American friends object to know better. It's about damn time that they tell some of the well-meaning but essentially clueless (and sometimes dangerous) supporters, "Thanks, but no thanks. We know what's in our own long-term national interest(s) better than you do, thankyou very much."

It could be argued that the Soviet empire fell/softened under the weight of having to govern and not being able to do it.

Maybe it will take Hamas 70 years to softened.
So what should Israel do meanwhile?

I think this depends on what kind of example you require

"sraeli and Palestinian leaders agreed Tuesday to immediately resume long-stalled peace talks with the aim of creating an independent Palestinian state by the end of next year."

As reported by Matthew Lee of the AP and posted on tpmcafe.

Well, so far, so good.

petermschwartz52,

But to take the other side here for a moment, what makes you think they [Hamas] won't throw the wrench?

Isn't it in their best interests to do so (from their perspective, I mean)?

I am pretty sure they will try.  I'm not kidding myself here.  But their success at throwing a wrench into the process will depend largely on the response.  My heart's desire is that Israel resists the impulse to rise to the bait, treats Hamas' inevitable tantrums as irrelevant to the process and does not reward Hamas by overreaction.  In the meantime, Arab states could effectively offset any such grim potential by substantiating its initiative, not just by sustaining its diplomatic channels with Israel but by progressing toward normal relations with Israel.  For example, diplomatic exchange beyond Arab League member nations like Jordan and Egypt which already have diplomatic relations with Israel; lift the Arab League boycott and collective policy of isolation against Israel through cultural exchange and other expansions of communication; invite Israeli sports clubs to compete within the Asian Leagues that currently reject them.  Consider the cost-benefit analysis of such moves.

I agree with Olmert's comments 200 %.
Main my disagreement with American Jews on the right or on the left, such as MJ or Daniel Levy, that they think that they know better than Istaeli people and Israeli leaders what's the best for Israel, and they (American Jews) have no respect and trust for Israeli people.
I hope we still remember MJ's comment about Israel being ovetaking by Russian and religious Jews and so on. Hopefully MJ, Daniel Levi as well as American Jews on the Right will back off.

petermschwartz52,

If Israel can resist using overwhelming force when inevitable violence breaks, she can keep moving forward with the Palestinians who want to move forward.

Of course, but the dynamic is bigger than only Israel.  As much as you have been trying to get your point across to davai, I have been beating my head against a wall trying to get this point across to just about all but a handful among our beloved virtual community.  Namely, this is not a simplistic 2-party dispute and, as you had agreed with upthread, it is not exclusively Israel's actions and policies that sustain the conflict and obstruct progress in the peace process. 

Bruce.

".. after the last cocktail weenie is snatched up in Annnapolis? In particular, how do you engage Hamas and bring them into the process, either secretly or in public?"

I'm beginning to doubt more and more that the Palestinian issue is THE issue that's driving Annapolis. Too many analysts from the ME, including Arabs, and those from the Israeli right & left think it's all about isolating Iran more than anything else. The structure of meetings certainly suggests that's the case.

Barring the current Israeli politicals deciding to engage Hamas et al; unlikely given their political jockeying for power and/or survival, regime change in DC is the prime factor that could ease the way.

It would also help if the influential congresscritters with direct ties to Israelis such as Halevy could be convinced of the utility of dealing with Hamas, etc and the dangerous counterproductivety of the slew of resolutions they sponsor targeting Israel's "enemies". Do any Israelis with distaff opinions get called to testify before Congress? Are thier voices even heard by those who vote on issues they know nothing about save for the "educational" packets distributed by AIPAC?

It will/would be a long hard slog, but I'm encouraged by signs indicating the endeavors to support Israel's REAL security and independence have started to take on a new shape and direction.

hamas softening? why is the entire impetus in this discussion on hamas when israel has much yet to soften on it's own? fatah has accepted being house negroes to israel's occupation and hamas would be the field negroes. perhaps if israel simply set them all free, as israel has no right to perpetually occupy and abuse palestinian's as a people, then this whole softening of hamas would be moot. israel has no more right to tell hamas how to think and what to do than hamas has to tell israelis what to do. israel should evacuate to pre-1967 borders, build a wall to the sky if they want, and then it will matter little if hamas softens or not. deal with palestine as israel does egypt or syria or whomever, as a separate and sovereign nation, not at sub-humans unworthy of citizenship in israel.

it's this simple, and the onus is clearly on israel to create the peace...

give the palestinians citizenship in israel proper and truly be the democracy it claims to be, *OR* get out of the way to an independent palestine

"It will/would be a long hard slog, but I'm encouraged by signs indicating the endeavors to support Israel's REAL security and independence have started to take on a new shape and direction."

Lally:

If you're encouraged then that is encouraging. Thanks.

Bruce

any good for who?

besides, good for whomever or not, israel has no right to rule as overlords of the palestinians for generation after generation.

invite the palestinians into israel as citizens (and give up the dream of a jewish-dominated state) or get out of the way of an independent palestine

peter.

Practical, experienced people don't base their evaluations of dealings with Hamas on the Hamas charter. Don't cling to b a mindset that has become irrelevent given the current realities.

Here's an example snipped from a WSJ article (sorry can't access the original published on 8/1/07) that gives background info and Efraim Halevy's "realist" assessment. The last two paragraphs are key:

....the dialogue option is receiving renewed attention amid widespread doubts about the viability of the Bush administration's latest plan for dealing with the Palestinians. The Gaza takeover effectively split the Palestinians into Gaza, controlled by Hamas, and the West Bank, politically dominated by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of the more secular Fatah party and his appointed prime minister, Salam Fayad.

In response, the White House has rolled out what it calls a "West-Bank-first" strategy. It envisions financial, political and diplomatic support for Mr. Abbas in an effort to improve West Bank life so dramatically that Palestinians will be wooed away from Hamas in both enclaves. At the same time, Washington plans to work with Israel to further isolate Hamas in Gaza, a policy that prohibits contact with the group.

Ms. Rice is expected to emphasize that strategy today and tomorrow in meetings with Israeli leaders and with Mr. Abbas.

But Mr. Halevy believes this strategy amounts to political fantasy, especially given the weakness of Fatah and signs it is fracturing inside the West Bank. "If there is a secret assessment somewhere which says this is going to do the job and is going to turn things around, I salute them," says the former spymaster, who retired from the Mossad at the end of 2002 and went on to briefly head Israel's National Security Council under then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. He has since maintained his public profile as a commentator and author.

Mr. Halevy started advocating talking to Hamas last year, before the Gaza takeover. He now sees no other choice. "I don't say we should talk to Hamas out of sympathy to them. I have no sympathy whatsoever for Hamas. I think they are a ghastly crowd," Mr. Halevy says. "But I have not seen anybody who says the Abbas-Fayad tandem is going to do the job."

Mr. Halevy says defeating Hamas politically is unrealistic, given its enduring popularity among Palestinians. Hamas defeated Fatah in Palestinian parliamentary elections last year.

"The danger is that they will not be defeated, that they will become more despairing...and they will no longer feel constrained by anything, because there is nothing left for them to hope for," he says.

In the end, he fears, that will mean that the only option for Hamas will be to return to a strategy of larger-scale terrorist attacks on Israel. The conflict currently plays out in almost daily low-intensity fighting between the two sides.

Mr. Halevy says pressure should be used to reach a favorable, long-term armistice, similar to those Israel reached with hostile neighbors after the Jewish state was founded in 1948. Hamas has repeatedly said it is willing to discuss such a deal.

"We signed armistice agreements with all of the Arab world," Mr. Halevy says, adding that many Arab nations agreed to end hostilities without formally recognizing Israel. The U.S. and Israel have pushed for a formal recognition of Israel from Hamas before agreeing to possible talks."
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2007/08/jaw_jaw_mossad_edition.html

You mean in favor of a Palestinian-dominated state?

Prior to 1967, they DIDN'T rule as overlords of the Palestinians.

Palestinian land was Jordanian and Egyptian land.

Why were THEY standing the way of an independent Palestine?

re: more practical proposal how Israel can protect itself

yes, timid and trembling israel, so unprotected. look, they did quite fine fighting off multiple nation's militaries 40 years ago and one has to assume that with billions a year in subsidies from us since then, they are even stronger militarily now. hamas has crude rockets. israel has jets and nukes. get real.

the fence comment was facetious. it's israel that wants the 50 foot fence, for safety they say. it's about defending against individuals with pipe bombs etc (i.e. palestinians with a grudge), not a defense against invading armies. that's what their air force is for.

and iran is just a distraction to this argument. just as in the nuclear theory of mutually assured destruction, iran will never actually try to destroy israel. it would be state suicide and they know it. the US and israel would flatten it in return. scary this whole MAD thing, but we survived it with tens of thousands of warheads pointed our way for decades. israel can do the same.

then give the land back to Jordan and Egypt. it's not the israeli's to take. the people who live on that land are not the israeli's to rule over for all time.

funny, how you diverted the discussion away from talk of where the borders should be.

can I assume you favor israel retaining west bank settlements and "giving" the palestinians a swiss cheese of a country? continuing the apartheid, more or less, with a stamp of approval from the international community?

I asked a substantive question and got ad hominem in return.

would you prefer to jump in and answer the question?

west bank settlements or no? pre-1967 borders or no?

just put it out there how you feel. don't distract by attacking my person

"can I assume you favor israel retaining west bank settlements and "giving" the palestinians a swiss cheese of a country? continuing the apartheid, more or less, with a stamp of approval from the international community?"

Oh please. Must this always happen?

Peter is a valued contributor at this site and you appear to be assuming nonsense about what he thinks for the sake of argument.

There has been a good faith and substantive discussion going on in this thread, notwithstanding and dare I say despite your overly simplistic and canned talking point contributions today.

Play nice Mr. "Twirling fartknocker" (oy).

Bruce

Which one was supposed to be the substantive question, twirling fartknocker?

peter.

Israel, the US and the Fatah puppets are complicit in killing and arresting scores upon scores of Hamas members, most of whom don't belong to the militant wings. They are also intent on starving Gaza of food, funds, medicines, fuel and other goods such as building materials/raw supplies that are essential in maintaining the physical infrastructure and the manufacturing sector. Gazans are refused the right to export whatever goods they can cobble together.

On top of the above, there's the worldwide effort to politically decaptitate Hamas and the obdurate refusal to respond to any of their overatures.

Taken altogether, it's warfare/collective punishment against Gazans which has served to strengthen the radicals and sideline the moderates.

This is their reality, not some demented symbolic notions of regaining Haifa in the future. Plenty of fodder there to keep on fighting and a threatened IDF invasion along the lines of Operation Defensive Shield II doesn't help to damp down the fires.

Until the Israeli/US/Fatah change their actions and policies, there's little incentive for Hamas to make nice.

Bruce.

Sometimes I get discouraged and think I'm engaging in a virtual version of clapping for Tinkerbell.

But I refuse to give up and do believe that the cadres of those who can clearly envision a fearsome future are joining ranks to change course before it's too late.

TFK:

You wrote:

"it's amazing how people want to talk about hamas"

While I am nobody to talk when it comes to swerving off topic, I will say that the subject of Mr. Clemons' post, the source of this thread, is specifically Hamas.

As to your other questions, I will reiterate what I've written time and time again on here, and that is that I believe that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is a principal impediment to a peaceful two-state solution.

I confess that I do not know what the final contours of a territorial settlement should be, but I do believe that such a settlement has to ultimately be as close as practicable to the pre-1967 armistice lines, and that, all things equal, it will be appropriate to compensate the Palestinians, with land or otherwise, to the extent that there are deviations from those lines that are to Israel's advantage. I also believe that ultimately arrangements will have to be made to allow for a safe and efficient connection between the West Bank and Gaza, which will necessarily involve the use of land possessed by Israel before 1967.

That's what I think fwiw, but I don't claim to know what the best and fairest solution to the I-P conflict is. I'm just a member of the peanut gallery with an aversion to solutions that seem attractive because they are simple.

Bruce

thanx for your straight forward answer. I think I largely agree, with the condition that Palestine not be dotted with non-contiguous "Israeli" territory.

it'll be ugly evacuating numerous very large settlements (look at Gaza and the difficulties with its tiny israeli population). it IS cheaper and strategically wiser for israel not to have to endlessly defend these spots of land claimed by expansionist zealots over the years.

I think in the end, if israel can take the high road and unilaterally (without conditions) disengage from land it should not have occupied over the last 40 years, then, and only then, it will be able claim the upper moral hand after an uncertain amount of time and the impetus will clearly be on palestinians. as the obviously dominant party in this tango, the obligation is on israel to do the right thing first. once palestine is its own truly independent state with no israeli interference, and given some room to breath on its own after a 40-year occupation, then they can negotiate as neighbors, just as other near-israel states do. if palestinians attack israel then, israelis are on much stronger ground morally to attack back. but to attack the subjugated with grossly superior fire power, no matter how wrong you think the subjugated are, is just morally indefensible IMO

thanx again for your honestly

choose not to "allow" self-determination and you likewise choose permanent resistance to your domination.

enough with the hammer/nail mantra

Thank you.

Hamas is partly to blame for this state of affairs: they won elections and control of the Palestinian government with the support of a minority of the voters and proceeded to govern as though they had a mandate.

I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh/cry at the parallels between Hamas and the Cheney/Bush cabal, circa 2000.

As always, davai, your double standard is showing--you want to go crying to the schoolyard monitor that the ugly kid is throwing rocks at you--while hiding the slingshot in your back pocket.

The whole world would feel a lot better about supporting Israel if they weren't such hypocrites in so many ways. How's Mordechai Vanunu these days?

All of these thoughts and discussions will be rendered moot by the coming economic collpase of the USA.

The mortage financing debacle will be the bubble that implodes and drives the US into another Crash of '29.

When people are pushed out of their homes and living in the streets and the dollar is only able to purchase a penny's worth of goods, America's Empire will be resigned to the dustbin of history.

With America no longer able to provide Israel with military, political and financial backing, Israel will be forced to make peace with its neighbors and stop its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

Interesting points.

As to #1, I'd like to hear your version.

As to #2, I think she has. Essentially, give the Palestinians something to lose.

True.

But why do you suppose Israel, US , and Fatah are against Hamas?

The conflict doesn't grow out of a vacuum, as if everyone just decided to pick on Hamas because they help the poor...

Israel encouraged Hamas in the beginning, why then turn on them?

Sounds like a plan. I guess you suggest Palestinians to wait for imminent collapse of the USA. I remember they bet on USSR winning cold war, on Iraq winning 1992 Iraq war, now their best hope is the collapase of the USA.
Good luck to them.

Geez, your comment sounds like the prophecy of a "hellfire and damnation" preacher, you put Pat Robertson to shame. Let me continue for you: Repent o ye sinful Americans and Israelis or thou shalt wallow in hell...the end time is coming...the aggrieved shall soon inherit the earth and woe and pestilence to their enemies...etc. Fun with fearmongering, it's priceless.

This statement is false: "It was Arafat who rejected it and started Second Intifada." Barak left the negotations first. And don't tell me that since Clinton blamed Afafat, that "proves" it was his fault. Clinton's wife was running for the Senate in NY. Enough said. Clinton obviously had the "courage" to take on the all-powerful Palestinian Lobby!

Peter,

I should have deleted that last paragraph anyway, as it was a reply to a different comment that I didn’t post. Those words do seem out of place and overstated here. That said, I do not think I’m out of line in explaining why Israel must be the one who gives in any settlement. And no, all nations are not built on the land of others. Much of the land was Jewish but there are hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and their sons and daughters who were driven from their homes 60 years ago and, even according to the UN and international law, still own their homes. Because their return has been dragged out for decades, the Palestinians are the only refugees whose descendants are considered refugees.

I wasn’t just assigning blame or painting Israel as the only bad actor here, but as a powerful military country that has dominated and suppressed the Palestinians, they have to lead the way out. The recent Hamas experience is just one example in a half century of keeping the Palestinian refugees from forming a strong government or institutions. Israel has a history of banishing or incarcerating leaders who rise in popularity, even pacifistic ones. Keeping the occupied territories under siege and economically deprived has furthered the growth of extremism and disunity. I have no delusions that this has all been accidental on Israel’s part and I do not see it abating any time in the near future, so if I use a little hyperbole to describe it, I believe it is warranted.

"...they have to lead the way out."

This is my position, too.

But leading can't mean doing it by themselves. This is simply impossible. Plus there are actors who want to derail the whole thing, and not just in Israel. In my view, neither side has completely given up on the idea that they can force the other to give them everything they want.

Old, strong hurts and fears constantly being renewed by the current situation.

But yes, it's common sense: The stronger party has to lead. I would say that Israel has a moral obligation to lead. It's what I would hope for a Jewish country.

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.

In my view, neither side has completely given up on the idea that they can force the other to give them everything they want.

And it seems that both sides become more entrenched over time. I think this is why it will take, not just exceptional leaders, but exceptional societies to reach accommodations. (Davai- I think the I-P conflict is a unique situation). But the status quo won't hold forever and Israel will eventually have to back off the occupation unilaterally. It’s what I’d hope for a democratic country. :)

jd, I wonder if this solution would be viewed as just by Palestinians? It strikes me as a very good solution for Israel's so-called "demographic" problem. But does it really give the Palestinians enough? Remember there are roughly as many Palestinian Arabs living in Israel/West Bank/Gaza as there are Jews (approximately 5 million of each). This solution has several problems from a Palestinian perspective I think. Here are the issues (numbers correspond to the numbers you gave your points):

Second. This amounts to a unilateral determination of the border. And it's a border giving Palestine even less land then they would have if the 1967 border were followed. The wall also is symbolic to Palestinians of their exclusion and expulsion. I don't think they'll agree to this. It certainly won't "restore their dignity."

Third. The settlers are being given a choice to stay. I think this is just, but I think Palestinians will not see this as fair, particularly if point eight (no return of refugees to Israel) is mandated.

Sixth. The connection between Gaza and the West Bank is a very large problem, since it would be controlled by Israel without a territorial corridor. A territorial corridor, however, would divide Israel in half, not a good solution either. The territorial corridor may need to be jointly controlled--a very difficult arrangement.

Eighth. I think this is the biggest problem. Israel really wants to get rid of the Palestinians and this does that. But the Palestinians don't want to be rid of. I don't think you can expect them to agree to this. Also the way the money is divided in this scenario won't be seen as fair. It gives 250,000 settlers (illegal occupiers in the minds of Palestinians) $50 billion for resettlement, while some 4 million Palestinian refugees (who believe they have the right to return under international law) half that amount. So the Jewish settlers are being reimbursed at a rate of $32 to $1 when compared with the Palestinians. (Plus the Jewish settlers are being given a choice to stay or leave--while the Palestinians are being told they can't return.) This sends a pretty clear message about who's worth more. That won't restore any dignity.

I guess I don't see this as such a bold solution. There's a lot in it for Israel and not much for Palestinians. If the Palestinians would agree to something like this, peace would be easy. But I don't think they will. Remember, they are 5 million people--a population equal to the Israeli Jews. I don't think Israel can get them to agree to any solution that gives them so much less than the Jews get. I think the Palestinians would rather hold out. If dignity is the issue, I suspect the Palestinians would find more dignity in refusing a solution like this than accepting it. I think they would refuse--as they've done before.

We need to try again, I guess. Or just continue the status quo.

All settllers will have to go, how much Israeli goverment will pay them is an internal Israeli matter. Palestinians are going to reimbersed by International community and not by Israel.
Palestinians can choose to hold out and continue to live in mysery. It's up to them. They can decide what's important for them "diginity" of future of their children.

Yes, correct both FDR and Hiltler put children and women in camps during WW2, however FDR was no Hiltler. US is not Hamas. There are some differences in attempts to impose their religious strictures on all people living in US and Gaza. They are very small but still ...

JD--the bold solution I've been toying with is some kind of federation that keeps Israel Jewish and creates a Palestinian state but that allows some freedom of movement for the citizens of both countries through both states and also allows for economic integration. I hate moving populations--I really think the Jewish settlers shouldn't be transferred out of their homes if they want to stay, but I also think Palestinians should have some right to live and work in Israeli territory.

I do think economic integration is essential for a real peace, because I doubt that the West Bank and Gaza will be able to maintain a viable economy without a great deal of integration with Israel. And if economic security isn't acheived any peace agreed upon will not last.

I understand the desire for a Jewish state. Honestly, my worldview doesn't like this kind of ethnicentrism, but I know all the history and understand the need for it in Jewish minds after all the tragedy. It's just that I can't accept that 5 or 6 million Arabs should be made to sacrifice their rights so the Jews can be happy and secure. That doesn't seem fair either. It seems like there must be some way to integrate these populations economically at least, even if both maintain some kind of independent nationhood. Without this integration I see no peace in this tiny strip of land.

I do think that the solution--whatever it is--is going to have to be something very different than what we've all been discussing since Oslo. I think that has failed for a reason. And not just because of the stubborn natures of the negotiators. I think there's a deeper and more fatal flaw. It just doesn't work for both parties and can't be made to work. The sooner we accept that and find some plan B, the better.

Davai, the 5 or 6 million are already there in that tiny piece of land. You aren't suggesting we remove them are you? I'm just suggesting they be allowed to travel, live, and work freely across the whole little area in which they live (rather than being confined behind a wall in some even smaller corner of it).