The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is grievance-driven and its resolution is all about ending the occupation. Israel needs and deserves security and peace but those things don't coexist cozily with occupation.

To really be credible, the Annapolis process will have to overcome two remaining taboos: that Palestinians can deliver ongoing security to Israel under conditions of occupation and that a divided Palestine can midwife a sustainable peace. The Hamas spoiler potential is not solely or even principally about its ability to deploy violence. It is also about the credibility and legitimacy of a process that excludes the party that polled most votes in Palestinian elections.

Also, Can you finally explain how do you suggest to engage Hamas? Do you have a proposal?

Why would any sane Palestinian leader be willing to concede to Israel the one thing it wants more than anything else (Palestinian recognition of its right to exist) before even sitting down to begin negotiations?

Well even though I did not beat Davai here (no one did) I'll get on now before he has an 8-1 post ratio over everyone else.

Firstly there's the obvious - Bush is out of his mind dangerous. The man lacks virtually any redeeming qualities and has zero diplomatic or scholastic skills. It's an invitation to witness stepping on toes, bruising of egos, embarassing comments and in general all but ensure things are worse after than they were before. This is a terrible tragedy because US involvement in this process is virtually as equally important as is Israel's and Palestine's. Not a very good beginning in my book. And if this (Bush) represents us taking this seriously then my cynicism to follow will not have been misplaced.

Second, this entire process - the whole Annapolis 'thing' - strikes me as election year charade and little more. There's all the right people saying just not enough to give the entire thing a whiff of legitimacy but it all ends about there. Everyone in the middle east knows that an election year in the US is important. Whether you're Isreal getting cash and guns or Syria & Iran waiting for the other shoeless American foot to drop, everyone has a stake in the upcoming elections. What do we do in a case like this one may ask? Why we have a dog & pony show of course. Here's a number I'd be interested in seeing - of all those in attendance in Annapolis, what is the grand total we the United States have paid them over say...the last 5 years? How much 'aid' has crossed some of these 'leaders' palms? How many have strings firmly attached to thier arms and jaws? I'd be interested if that full amount of info where ato be made vailable. I won't be holding my breath.

With out any serious effort made to clean up the disaster we've made in the region, nothing will work. And turning off all news coming out of Iraq for 6 months and then telling the 'buy my piece of crap book' Sunday morning crowd everything is swell now isn't going to work on me. And guess what? Anyone who buys into this half-baked charade of a negotiation & is then surprised when it fails now or in three months... you're kidding me right?

1. Stop selling ALL weapons to the region.
2. GTFO of Iraq. Sorry defense contractors that means no bases for you to leech more tax dollars out of the growing homeless American population.
3. Lock GWB in a closet and only let him talk to one of those Spin-n-Speak toys that makes animal sounds. In fact maybe do this first.
4. Admit that the people that live in the region are FIRST on the list of 'who gets taken care of'.

I'm just not going to get suckered by these idiots againt. And I won't play make-believe with them either...

I really don't take pleasure from being a pessimist but seriously, I'm also not mentally impaired either. I'll bet anyone, any amount that this will all result in at best... nothing whatsoever. If this is the best WE have to contribute to the process then obviously WE aren't taking it seriously.

Is this why you wanted to beat me here? :-)

Barack Obama thinks that security of Israel is important

I spoke with Prime Minister Olmert today, and assured him of my strong support for this effort and my unshakeable commitment to Israel's security as a core principle as negotiations move forward.

Annapolis also generated so much buzz that it conveniently overshadowed the signing of the Declaration of Principles for Permanent Bases in Iraq agreement.

...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers

Yeah. Damn the fickle American public! They just don't seem to respond to the whole terror threat level thing anymore...and after spending all that money on trademarking all those expensive Pantone (R) colors too!

Such a tragedy.

"Abboud"...?

Daniel's analysis - that the speeches of Olmert and Abbas were uplifting, while Bush's seemed to only rehash much of his usual failed ideological nonsense - seems sadly accurate.

I have to say that what impressed me most was Olmert's acknowledgment of Palestinian suffering. I just hope that the Israelis and Palestinians may be able to achieve some sort of breakthrough, despite Bush.

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

I guess you could say the same thing about the brains of the Palestinian leaders, Hamas leaders included.

Presumably one doesn't have to renegotiate everything from scratch each time the Palestinians change their minds about who their leader is.

I guess, at some point, the Palestinians will figure out that shooting rockets at people, even little ones, doesn't incline those people to give you what you want...or to stop firing back.

They will accept the will of majoriry.

I agree that it doesn't necessarily mean that Israel should re-negotiate old agreements, but practically speaking, why wouldn't they?

If they are serious about wanting to achieve a negotiated peace, then they will want to please as many Palestinians as they possibly can.

I guess your point is that they really aren't serious about the effort, so why bother?

If that is your point, then perhaps we are in agreement.

but practically speaking, why wouldn't they?

Also if you believe Aluf Benn of Haaretz and Salon and the former head of the Israeli Bar Association the Israelis care a lot less about Palestinian recognition than those who would risk Israeli exist think. The Israeli economy raising living standards to near European standards. Israel is well integrated into the global economy and the wall that anti-Israel crowd denounces has greatly reduced acts of terror within Israel.

The Saudi foreign minister,who refused to shake Olmert's hand, got it backward. Israel hasn't tried war and it hasn't work so they should try peace. The Arabs have tried war since 1921 and have promised their peoople that they would get rid of Israel. It has been a major failure but it has locked the Arabs into a position that is disasterous for the Palestinians and for the Arab World even as Israel continues to prosper. Daniel A. Greenbaum

James Kroeger,

I agree that it doesn't necessarily mean that Israel should re-negotiate old agreements, but practically speaking, why wouldn't they?

Perhaps they wouldn't because doing so would establish an expectation to renegotiate fundamental agreements with every change in circumstances.  Similarly, for example, the Bush administration demands less judicial oversight over clandestine surveillance -- FISA is "old," we have new technologies, Nine eleven changed everything, etc., etc.  It doesn't necessarily mean that Congress should revisit the Constitutional enshrinement of the separation of government powers, but practically speaking, why wouldn't they?

Modify your number 3 to have Bush apologize to the bridge players and get him into tournament play. Remember, 1/4 of the time in a bridge game, he's supposed to be the dummy.

More seriously, a few observations, although I doubt they would be of use this late. As I understand some of the oral tradition of Arabic, which is a language I wish I spoke simply because it lends itself to beautiful expression, I do understand that there are certain opening aspects of a speech or negotiation. It might be very well if Israel, in whatever language, used some of these conventions, and finessed some of the issues that already have been addressed.

For example, the usual opening phrase is "In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate". Someone literate and eloquent in Hebrew, Arabic, and English might be able to craft something that captures the spirit of both religions -- perhaps along the lines of "In the name of the one God and his prophets, may his mercy and justice guide this meeting." Interfaith, but perhaps acceptable.

An Arab speech often begins with a review of the historical perspective, sometimes (as with the elder Assad) for hours. In a more concise way, a presentation, in the style of Arabic perspective but said in Hebrew or English, might review the Oslo accord along with any other points of agreement.

If one Arab could open with a mixed Hebrew and Arabic invocation that combines the traditions, such as the Hebrew "Blessed art thou, master of the universe, who has...(specific thing being thanked)" with, perhaps, then a traditional reference to Muhammad, "Praise be unto is his name (PBUH)," again, there might be some useful mindsetting.

Serve traditional mint tea, but perhaps with (Israeli) Jaffa oranges and the best of Arab dates (I understand the best come from Iraq). Invoking common heritage won't solve anything, but it will help.

I need to think on the American principles that would tie into this context, still reflecting American values of religious freedom.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Rumor has it that the color code system is being revamped in shades of slimy grey and will reflect oil prices from now on. Since Cheney picked the color manufacturer last time, on a day when he was unfortunately suffering from shortness of breath, the President will get to choose this time. Senior administration officials say Bush is leaning towards Crayola. :-)

...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers

James Kroeger,

Any agreement with an ad hoc group of aspiring leaders (like the PLO at Olso) may very well prove to be 'meaningless' over time, since the political situation in the occupied territories is very unsettled.

Since 1964 the PLO has been recognized by the League of Arab States, and more recently by the United Nations when the PLO was awarded observer status in the world body, as "the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" and hardly "an ad-hoc group."  Hamas rejectionism of Israel's national legitimacy is not a renegotiation, but a broken treaty.

I used the term 'ad hoc' because (A) the PLO was not elected into its status as the representives of the Palestinian people back when everyone was giving it recognition, and (B) we are at such an early stage of Palestine's political history, when political evolution is to be expected. Once elections were held, the PLO's claim that they were the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people was exposed to be false, and so I think the term ad hoc is now appropriate...

Shrub has declared that he is giving this matter his utmost attention--granted, that was 5 minutes of 'studyin' after breakfast. His attention to minor details, such as the names of the parties involved speaks volumes.

Or, perhaps he's just being circumspect after having seen the souls of Putin and Musharraf.

It's ironic, isn't?

I seem to recall way back when that the progressive thing to do WAS to recognize the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Now, I guess, all those years, it wasn't really. It was just a whole lotta chin music. The Palestinians were "waiting" for Hamas to come along.

Davai - You are extremely confident in Israel's ability to defeat ALL enemies FOREVER. The Palestinians are not the ones who will defeat Israel - it will be ourselves. When our ugliness becomes more than we can tolerate, our hold on the land will start to dissipate and our society will start to unravel.

Do not dismiss moral criteria in society. The hatred now felt and expressed for Palestinians will soon spread to Israeli arabs. From there, depending on the demographics, it will spread to the haredi or the seculars. The occupation is a sickness and cancer speading among our people. I can testify that the IDF is NOT the same organization it once was. The Golani Brigade of my brother-in-law is NOT the same as his son's. My brother-in-law fought with passion and zeal in 1967 and 1973 - his son (my nephew and his buddies) are thugs.

I have been proud of my people and their thousands of years of struggle. I feel they have come out of that struggle as better people than most. What a disappointment to find out Jews are just like other people with all the same base instincts as arabs.

Jdledell,
You brought German France analogy, not me. I pointed out that your analogy doesn’t lead to the conclusion that Israel should withdraw from West Bank without leaving behind functioned Palestinian state that will not be a threat to Israel. Do you have a problem with my explanation of France/Germany post WW2 history?
It seems to me that you can’t argue with my point, but you don’t like the implications, therefore you switch to straw man argument that I’m “extremely confident in Israel's ability to defeat ALL enemies FOREVER”. Of course I don’t, but this was not what we 've discussed.

Not so fast. There are major differences between post war Germany and PoT. In the first place, Germans knew they were defeated, and aside from a few harrasments here and there, they generally cooperated with their occupiers. The Weimar Republic was only a decade or so in the past, and the population and politicians could easily adjust to the new political order. Also, most of Germany's industry remained intact, so getting the economy up and going again was a smooth process. None of these conditions are true on the ground for the PoT.

...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers

Sure, there the differences, however this is one of few cases in modern history where former enenemy neighboring countries became friends. Do you have a better example that can guide us to peaceful resolution of I/P conflict?

Peter - I understand the reasons behind being careful with this line of thinking. You are correct on the need to be careful. Yet, I cannot abandon all of my pride in my tribe. The urge to improve myself and my family and tribe will always be with me. To compare with the best and improve from there is a compelling motivation.

I have been accused of having higher standards for Jews than for "other people" and for that I am guilty. Our goal is not to regress to once again worshipping idols, even if the rest of the world does so.

I think America has taken the concept of exeptionalism to a far greater extreme than I ever advocate for Jews or Israel. I believe in Israel as a Jewish homeland but when it comes to judging do I compare us to Ruwanda or Tibet?

And why is Israel's "right to exist" even being discussed? America signed many agreements with the Soviet Union, and I don't recall us every having to acknowledge that the Communist State had a moral right to exist. Asking Palestinians to acknowledge this "right" is like asking Black South Africans to acknowlegge the "right" of White Apartheid to exist. "Hey, you have a right to exist and make my relatives refugees." What a farce.

Let's just focus on peace deal. Leave out the hugs and kisses.

Didn’t God tell Moshe to engage in ethnic cleansing and “steal” other people land in the first place? So, I’m not sure I would use G-d's law to justify two state solution.
There are real people live there. They don’t live their lives to fulfill our fantasies, they just want to live normal lives at least most of my friends and relatives want to. They are doing the best they can in very difficult circumstances and I applaud them and I don’t judge them.

Just saw the headline in the Sacramento Bee: 'Conference counters shadow of Iran'.

That is a good summary. The conference was to build an Arab/Israeli alliance against Iran. The IP issue was just a teaser to get the forces to come. It is also why the Iraq government was not invited since they would obviously not go along with any agenda like that. I think this explains why Aipac and the other West-bank expansion forces didn't feel threatened; they could see that there was no danger of Israel being forced to recognize any Palestinian state.

Apparently, you are unaware of the enornous economic growth that has been on-going in the Persian Gulf. The "Arabs"--whomever you are referring to--are actually beginnig to proper--and how. Of course, the Arabs who live under Israeli Occupation are falling further and further behind the rest of the region.

We are all aware of the enormous economic growth of oil producing countries all over the world.
It would wise for Hamas to stop being spoilers, stop throwing rockets, ask Persian Gulf states for help and deliver some prosperity and economic growth to Gaza.

It seems that we cannot be cynical enough. After years of watching these bastards dishonestly use charred corpses, soldiers, helpless children, brain damaged victims, all in cynical pursuit of the vilest agendas... this shouldn't be a surprise.

But somehow it is. There is nothing that they will not pervert. There is no truth. No honesty. There is not a shred of decency among the Bush administration.

They will go down in history as dedicated to human evil.

'Course under your theory of foreign policy, any such granting is only as good as the next election or coup by the next group of Palestinian leaders who must then be made to smile by their own version of generosity.

Ix-ney.

Of course.

But let me add this one bit.

Jewish exceptionalism, at its core, and admittedly this is my interpretation and others have acted otherwise, has always been based on an exceptionally severe critique of the Jewish people.

That is to say, the chosen people label has always carried the burden of being just, following G-d's law, etc., rather than being "pass-go" ticket to some sort of reward which exempts Jews from this or that or places them metaphysically above other people.

You see this in the prophets, where you might easily come away thinking that the Jews are the WORST people in the world based on their vile behavior.

Rashi has this commentary of a passage in the Torah having to do with "the land" in which he says the meaning is: G-d is promising you this land, but only if you act justly; otherwise the land will spit or vomit you out.

Well, you see, I'm NOT a fundamentalist, nor a literalist when it comes to interpreting Torah or getting real world guidance from it.

"I'm not better people than most, Israeli people are not better people than most, and please don't ask them to be better people than most, it's unfair."

davai - This is an interesting perpective. I guess you tell your children not to excel in academics, sports or the arts. I'm sure you tell them to be sure to follow the moral code of their peers, whatever that may be.

Life is a series of judgements, individual as well as collective. Where we establish the goal matters. I, for one, will not wear a banner stating I'm "Mr. Average" and I won't for my family or my people. That is my interpretation of the Torah - your mileage may vary.

That's an interesting explication that seems based in common sense somehow. To be special, you must try harder and because you try harder, you’re special. I think most major religions propose some form of exceptionalism for true believers. They just don’t say it out loud.

Isolating Hamas and Iran are part of the same GWOT. This "peace" summit was announced a week or so after Hamas routed Fatah and took over Gaza while Eliot Abrams' people were helping Abbas subvert the Palestinian constitution. It was hastily created as a way to cement Abbas’ illegitimate government in order to salvage something from their coup fiasco.  Abbas is due to collect his payoff (in $millions) in a couple of weeks.

I didn’t mean that literally. Christians are taught that they must accept Jesus to reach paradise. Likewise Muslims, who are taught to respect other religions but a non-believer is still an infidel. Jews study Hebrew and are taught that they are the “chosen people.” Now that is pretty blatant, any way you look at it, and is at least a bit more honest. All of the main religions are exclusive and, so, a history of conflict.

mcboo,

...maybe Abrahamic religions (all of them) are inherently violent & destructive.

Too easy.  Maybe human beings are inherently violent and destructive.  In the geopolitical milieu of the Middle East, the violent and destructive aspect of human nature manifests through the twisted sibling rivalry of the Abrahamic tribes.  In any event, can we really say that the violence in the history of Eastern cultures is really "nothing like," as in defying and surpassing comparison with, the violence in the Middle East?  How do you measure this comparison?  Perhaps the appearance of the discrepency has more, or at least something, to do with the market the region presents to the international arms trade.

Yes, that is what Peter was explaining. I'm trying to be politic here about all of these faiths. My understanding is that Judaism is more pragmatic and about living a just life and less about obeisance to a dictating overlord. I’m not trying to conflate the tenets of these three religions, though as Mcboo points out, they are threads with one origin. I do think that fundamentally we have a tribal conflict and those tribes were formed and held together around their religion. I think there has been religious conflict in the Far East, but less so than the West. Certainly Hindus have clashed with Muslims. Perhaps there is less exclusiveness in Shintoism or other faiths, I don't really know.

Haven't all the facts...and all the arguments...and all the myths and half-truths...on every side... and every historical event regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict been laid out and chewed over ad infinitum?

As in the old joke, can't we give this whole discussion a "number" or maybe three numbers which will stand for all the arguments, just so they don't have to be written out again and again.

You know, I say, "3."

You say, "5."

Howard counters with "7."

Finally, Zionista and Jdell sum up with "10.5"

It would save a lot of time and we'd get about as far.

petermschwartz52,

And then there's the problem with de goyim...-:)

While appreciating the emoticon, I feel compelled to add that the translation from the Hebrew goy is "nation" -- plural, goyim means "nations."  Over time the word has assumed negative connotaitions, while in Jewish theological discourse, goyim tends to refer simply to "other nations."  But it is worth noting that, strictly speaking, the people of Israel (as opposed to Israeli citizens) is also a goy.

From my user page, as a starter. Falcon is used as Air Force, although I know Echo Charlie codes better -- is there a more appropriate Jewish bird?

Falcon Codes
I have applied an Air Force method of efficiently expressing displeasure and comments, called the Falcon Code, at least to I-P threads. If you are a Naval Aviator, Falcon Codes are equivalent to Echo Charlie. Continual adjustment is typical.

1. the person named is an [anti-semite] [hater of Arabs]
2. you aren't complaining about Lower South Slobovia doing this; why are you picking on [Israel][Palestine]?
3. designated politician is defying [AIPAC] [CAIR] and will pay the US domestic penalty thereof.
4. There will never be peace with [Arabs][Israelis].
5. The weapons being used offer an immediate threat of [war crimes] [genocide].
6. What [person] said is garbage and irrelevant.
7. Country X presents an immediate threat to the existence of [Israel] [Palestine] and must be dealt with harshly
8. That was a silly comment.
9. Somewhere, a village is missing its idiot
10. [Person] diverted by asking a superfluous question, rather than addressing the substance of what was posted. If, for example, someone had a plan, would they not have posted it, or just waited shyly to be asked
11. Criticism of the nation-state of Israel represents bias against Jews of any citizenship. That there are Jews of other citizenship that have no special loyalty to Israel, as they find their religion and culture respected where they live, is irrelevant to the argument. Perhaps they are self-hating.
12. I don't care if you are making a relevant comment about the general topic of the thread; my purpose here is to attack the guest poster/member of the proletariat that I hate.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

The Chinese invented gunpowder, but used it mostly for fireworks, including some intended to scare horses. Serious use in firearms and explosives is more a European invention from this weird powder that came from China.

Apropos of not much, pasta came from China. Tomatoes are New World. Corn, for polenta, is New World. It starts being interesting to figure out what the proto-Italians ate, unless you take the theory that pizza is American. :-)

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I think, Peter, that compassion is a better virtue than passion. That selfishness is no virtue at all. By the act of judging you invite judgement.

I think that suffering has nothing to do with justice. I think that killing is always murder. I think that a wrong never justifies another wrong. And I think that if you choose the pain of another person, then you must be accountable for that choice.

I think that it is incumbent upon us to make an effort to be a human being. I see some people not caring to make that effort.

Doesn't the military reserve that for the medical units to make Jewish penicillin? (and there are some small, but interesting, clinical trials of chicken soup for colds. It may actually be of benefit)

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

petermschwartz52,

Finally, Zionista and Jdell sum up with "10.5"

Sorry, I've never been good with fractions and decimals.

You must be thinking of the Turducken Brigade.

They fought bravely in some early battles, but eventually got stuffed.

Nice one! I think the Turducken is a nice metaphor for the situation--we are all standing around it, with some describing the Turkey, others the Duck, and trying to make sense of it as a single animal;>

Unless you actually needed to eat that Palestinian you killed, it's murder. And unless a suicide bomber is prepared to claim that it's all just a revolutionary way of reducing human beings to quarter pounders with fries, it's murder.

mcboo,

So violence in general is inherently human. The super-ego religious violence which I was referring to on the other hand is far more noticeable in the Abrahamic religions than it is in the religions of the far east. This I feel comfortable in saying. Perhaps you are right in that this violence is in part a "twisted sibling rivalry of the Abrahamic tribes" but that doesn't make my observation incorrect. In fact to me it supports it.

It is not an issue of how well you support your observation as it is the lack of substance behind it.  We get it -- you don't like religion (to be honest, I'm not a very spiritual person myself).  So, what difference does it make if the violence is over dogmatic differences or turf issues?  There is a violent dispute, and there are parties interested in resolving the confict.

Zionista,

Hmmm, lack of substance. I respectfully disagree. Incidentally I don't hate religion only what people do with and to it. But what I do hate in pointlessness. And that's something rather substantial to me.

I understand people fighting over something like food or water but dogma seems rather pointless to me. It also seems destined to create perpetual conflict with little hope for compromise. We're fighting for oil at the moment. I'm not happy about it but I understand it. When the battles for water begin I'll understand those too. These things are, through design or biology, vital to life and our very survival. But fighting over who's god is real or better and what city or hilltop is important to said god just doesn't strike me as being the same kind of struggle. I'm fine with people wanting their "souls" to survive but how about first things first. How about we try to keep this fleshy case called a body alive first then deal with the whole soul thing. With physical survival issues all sides can at some point reach a compromise. They can draw lines on maps and split or share resources. It's never done willingly and almost always begrudgingly but it can and does happen. But how do you do that with religions? In particular these religions. Turf issues (unless dogma is behind them) can be resolved through compromise and very often are. Meanwhile dogma issues drag on bitterly and bloodily and apparently permanently. All in all it IS a difficult problem and may go a long way towards explaining why there's still no peace.

But an Abbas-Hamas accommodation would be problematic at the substantive level because it would radically constrain Abbas' freedom to negotiate

I'd be interesed in Daniel Levy's response to Alpher's position.

I understand they ate rice. The rice paddies are ubiquitous in northern Italy.

Around the time Chinese were inspired to make rockets and cannon, gunpowder had percolated through Asia to the Middle East. I have to go back to a book on gunpowder, which had some fantastic names the Chinese appended to various designs, on the line of "Thousand-Flowers Death Lance".