Israel: "Peace? Thanks, But No Thanks"
Thirty-eight percent of Israelis support the Arab League Initiative (formerly, the Saudi peace plan) while 69 percent of Palestinians do.
That is the finding of a September poll conducted jointly by the Harry Truman Institute at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah.
The Saudi plan was first issued in 2002 and re-issued in 2007. It calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories in exchange for full peace, recognition, and normalization with the Arab world. Every Arab state has signed on to the plan committing themselves to peace with Israel in exchange for territories which have, over the past 41 years, been transformed from an Israeli asset to an Israeli nightmare.
The Saudi plan is not perfect. But it is not a peace treaty and does not claim to be the last word on anything. It envisions negotiations between Israelis and Arabs to work out the modalities of peace agreements, as called for in United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, which the plan specifically endorses. Under its terms, all final status issues would have to be worked out to the satisfaction of both Israelis and Arabs. The framers of the plan (most notably, Saudi King Abdullah) put it forth with the hope that Israel would accept the offer in principle so that negotiations on the particulars could commence.
So what was Israel's response?
Fifty-five years after the Arab world rejected Israeli statehood, it reconsidered and offered peace and recognition, and the Israelis yawned.
Professor Ian Lustick, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, writes in the fall issue of Middle East Policy that this Israeli attitude is something new. Traditionally, it was the Arabs who were the rejectionists while the Israelis said that they would go anywhere, at any time, to negotiate peace with the Arabs.
Most famously after the Six Day War, the Arab Summit in Khartoum issued the famous "three no's" which governed pan-Arab policy for thirty years: no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel. This rejection occurred at a time when the Israelis might have been ready to withdraw from the territories (when there were as yet no settlers).
That is when everyone started saying that the Arabs "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
That shoe is on the other foot now.
So what changed?
According to Lustick, Israel abandoned the "Iron Wall" concept which governed its policies through its first five decades.
The "Iron Wall" was the creation of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the father of right-wing Zionism and spiritual leader of today's Likud Party.
Jabotinsky, who died in 1940, believed that the Jewish state would not be able to achieve acceptance by the Palestinians because the two nationalisms were in fundamental and irreconcilable conflict over the same territory.
He wrote this about the Palestinians in 1923: "There has never been an indigenous inhabitant anywhere or at any time who has ever accepted the settlement of others in his country. Any native people views their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. . . . Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement."
Accordingly the Jews should not even seek Palestinian consent to Jewish settlement. They should, instead, build a Jewish state behind a metaphorical "iron wall." They should build a state so strong that the Arabs would have no choice but to accept its permanence. Peace would be achieved not by any Arab recognition of Jewish rights, but rather by recognition of the Israeli reality.
Jabotinsky wrote: "As long as there is a spark of hope that they can get rid of us, they will not sell these hopes, not for any kind of sweet words or tasty morsels, because they are not a rabble but a nation. . . . Only when not a single breach is visible in the iron wall, only then do extreme groups lose their sway, and influence transfers to moderate groups. Only then would these moderate groups come to us with proposals for mutual concessions. I am optimistic that they will indeed be granted satisfactory assurances and that both peoples, like good neighbors, can then live in peace."
In other words, the Israelis should simply build their state and wait the Arabs out. Once they understood that Israel wasn't going anywhere, the Arabs would agree to peace.
The "Iron Wall" concept was first vindicated in 1977 when, after failing to defeat Israel in four wars, the Egyptians essentially threw in the towel. President Anwar Sadat announced that he would go to Israel and sign a peace agreement. Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Jabotinsky's political heir, welcomed Sadat and returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in exchange for Egyptian recognition. Begin had no illusion that the Egyptians had come around to accepting Israel, just that they accepted reality. That was good enough.
The Israeli-Egyptian peace has held for almost 30 years, 30 years without a single dead Israeli or Egyptian soldier.
"The Iron Wall" concept was also vindicated when Jordan agreed to sign a peace agreement with Israel in 1994. The Jordanians did not suddenly accept the premise of Zionism; they accepted reality. Most significantly, the Palestinians did the same when the PLO accepted the two-state solution in 1988 and signed the Oslo Agreement recognizing Israel in 1993.
So Jabotinsky's terms have been met. The Arabs (not the extremist minority but the mainstream) are finally reconciled to Israel's permanence. They are, essentially, suing for peace.
But now the Israeli government says that is not good enough. Now there's a new demand.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says that the Arabs must "recognize the State of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state." Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has also said that they "must not only recognize Israel's right to exist but to exist as a Jewish state."
Suddenly, Israel needs not just security, but an endorsement by Arabs of its special character. But states don't recognize each other as anything in particular. The United States recognizes Canada without regard to the special character of Quebec. Germany recognizes Belgium without regard for whether the Flemish or the Walloons are dominant.
Why would Israel need Arabs to recognize its right to exist as a Jewish state? That is nobody's business but Israel's. As the late Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban once put it, "Our right to exist is independent of any recognition of it." That is even truer about Israel's right to exist "as a Jewish state."
Those who seek that kind of acceptance from the Arabs are barking up the wrong tree. Listen to Jabotinsky: it's not going to happen. The Israelis can argue among themselves about the nature of their state. The Arab world, and especially the Palestinians, can only offer security and peace. That used to be enough. It should be now.
This ratcheting of demands by triumphalists always ends badly. They never understand that negotiation wins by securing the buy-in to the end result by the other side. Cramming a maximalist position down the other side's throat does nothing but breed resentment and a thirst for future revenge. While usually served cold, in today's world revenge can come swiftly with the heat of the surface of the sun. This new Israeli position represents a total failure in protecting their own nation. How can the current leadership be called patriots?
September 13, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
the offer of peace and security has to be credible. You can't have Arabs openly supporting the goals and aspirations of Hamas and Hezbollah and guaranteeing peace and security at the same time. That would mean they would have to dismantle these radical groups. Does anyone seriously believe they would ever take that step? If the offer was viewed as credible, perhaps more Israeli's would support it.
September 13, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even Gov Palin's phrase 'Thanks but No Thanks' has also been discounted; she never utter that phrase according to the current mayor of Wasilla. She never said nor told Congress 'Thanks but No Thanks' as Gov Palin claimed in her V.P. Acceptance speech.
Last evening, an interesting interview with Drew Westen on the state of the Obama campaign and polling numbers: "Are tactical mistakes by Obama going to cost him the election? Maybe, says psychologist and Democratic political consultant Drew Westen. The author of "The Political Brain," talks to NOW's David Brancaccio about how appealing to voters' emotions reaps bigger electoral rewards than hammering home policy proposals. Westen is a Professor of Psychology at Emory University and the founder of Westen Strategies, LLC, a political and corporate consulting firm."
Reported yesterday from the NYT blog, "Ms. Palin was a subject of conversation everywhere on Friday, it seemed, except at Mr. Obama’s rallies in New Hampshire, where he strived to steer the conversation back to the men at the top of the ticket. “I’m glad that the debate now is all about change, and we are going to spend a lot of time talking about who can actually deliver change in Washington,” Mr. Obama said. “I think it’s Obama-Biden and not McCain.”
I would add, replace "I THINK"... with "WE WILL...."
I would add, replace "If I'm so priviledged to be your POTUS...." with "WHEN WE'RE IN THE WHITE HOUSE..."
September 13, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, you just don't get it. The demand for "recognition" means that a peace agreement will mean the end of the conflict and the end of further demands by the Arab side against Israel. Egypt and Jordan signed "peace agreements" but they both have further demands that are the excuse for the lack of full normalization and the continuation of hostile antisemitic propaganda in both countries against Israel. Israel would be giving up tangible things like land in return for vague promises. All the Arabs states that talk about peace present it to their people as nothing more than a partial, temporary cease-fire.
And another thing...what about the so-called "Palestinian Right of Return"? You progressives always dismiss as merely posturing on the Arab side done for reasons of "pride". This is totally wrong. They don't look on the "Right of Return" as merely a "humanitarian issue", i.e. a question of where to send the 1948 refugees to live. It is rather an existential weapon against Israel. As far as the Arab world is considered, refugees have NO RIGHT to accept compensation and to go live elsewhere. That is treason. They MUST demand actual implementation and the right to return to Israel. This is an integral part of the Saudi plan.
You and I know that if the Saudis were really serious, they would send their king, and Abbas and Bashar Assad to the Knesset, Sadat-style. If they did this and said they were willing to make peace WITHOUT implementation of the right of return, no Israeli gov't, even one of the "Right" would be able to turn it down. So why don't they make this gesture? Because THEY DON'T WANT PEACE. This "initiative" was made in the wake of 9/11 when there was a very anti-Saudi feeling in the West, by doing this relieve American pressure from them for be "obstructionist"
MJ, you and your "progressives" seem to think peace is in Israel's hand. IT ISN'T. The Arabs do not want peace with Israel and will never present an offer that even the most Leftist gov't in Israel could live with.
September 13, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, you just don't get it. The demand for "recognition" means that a peace agreement will mean the end of the conflict and the end of further demands by the Arab side against Israel. Egypt and Jordan signed "peace agreements" but they both have further demands that are the excuse for the lack of full normalization and the continuation of hostile antisemitic propaganda in both countries against Israel. Israel would be giving up tangible things like land in return for vague promises. All the Arabs states that talk about peace present it to their people as nothing more than a partial, temporary cease-fire.
And another thing...what about the so-called "Palestinian Right of Return"? You progressives always dismiss as merely posturing on the Arab side done for reasons of "pride". This is totally wrong. They don't look on the "Right of Return" as merely a "humanitarian issue", i.e. a question of where to send the 1948 refugees to live. It is rather an existential weapon against Israel. As far as the Arab world is considered, refugees have NO RIGHT to accept compensation and to go live elsewhere. That is treason. They MUST demand actual implementation and the right to return to Israel. This is an integral part of the Saudi plan.
You and I know that if the Saudis were really serious, they would send their king, and Abbas and Bashar Assad to the Knesset, Sadat-style. If they did this and said they were willing to make peace WITHOUT implementation of the right of return, no Israeli gov't, even one of the "Right" would be able to turn it down. So why don't they make this gesture? Because THEY DON'T WANT PEACE. This "initiative" was made in the wake of 9/11 when there was a very anti-Saudi feeling in the West, by doing this relieve American pressure from them for be "obstructionist"
MJ, you and your "progressives" seem to think peace is in Israel's hand. IT ISN'T. The Arabs do not want peace with Israel and will never present an offer that even the most Leftist gov't in Israel could live with.
September 13, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, you just don't get it. The demand for "recognition" means that a peace agreement will mean the end of the conflict and the end of further demands by the Arab side against Israel. Egypt and Jordan signed "peace agreements" but they both have further demands that are the excuse for the lack of full normalization and the continuation of hostile antisemitic propaganda in both countries against Israel. Israel would be giving up tangible things like land in return for vague promises. All the Arabs states that talk about peace present it to their people as nothing more than a partial, temporary cease-fire.
And another thing...what about the so-called "Palestinian Right of Return"? You progressives always dismiss as merely posturing on the Arab side done for reasons of "pride". This is totally wrong. They don't look on the "Right of Return" as merely a "humanitarian issue", i.e. a question of where to send the 1948 refugees to live. It is rather an existential weapon against Israel. As far as the Arab world is considered, refugees have NO RIGHT to accept compensation and to go live elsewhere. That is treason. They MUST demand actual implementation and the right to return to Israel. This is an integral part of the Saudi plan.
You and I know that if the Saudis were really serious, they would send their king, and Abbas and Bashar Assad to the Knesset, Sadat-style. If they did this and said they were willing to make peace WITHOUT implementation of the right of return, no Israeli gov't, even one of the "Right" would be able to turn it down. So why don't they make this gesture? Because THEY DON'T WANT PEACE. This "initiative" was made in the wake of 9/11 when there was a very anti-Saudi feeling in the West, by doing this relieve American pressure from them for be "obstructionist"
MJ, you and your "progressives" seem to think peace is in Israel's hand. IT ISN'T. The Arabs do not want peace with Israel and will never present an offer that even the most Leftist gov't in Israel could live with.
September 13, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, you just don't get it. The demand for "recognition" means that a peace agreement will mean the end of the conflict and the end of further demands by the Arab side against Israel. Egypt and Jordan signed "peace agreements" but they both have further demands that are the excuse for the lack of full normalization and the continuation of hostile antisemitic propaganda in both countries against Israel. Israel would be giving up tangible things like land in return for vague promises. All the Arabs states that talk about peace present it to their people as nothing more than a partial, temporary cease-fire.
And another thing...what about the so-called "Palestinian Right of Return"? You progressives always dismiss as merely posturing on the Arab side done for reasons of "pride". This is totally wrong. They don't look on the "Right of Return" as merely a "humanitarian issue", i.e. a question of where to send the 1948 refugees to live. It is rather an existential weapon against Israel. As far as the Arab world is considered, refugees have NO RIGHT to accept compensation and to go live elsewhere. That is treason. They MUST demand actual implementation and the right to return to Israel. This is an integral part of the Saudi plan.
You and I know that if the Saudis were really serious, they would send their king, and Abbas and Bashar Assad to the Knesset, Sadat-style. If they did this and said they were willing to make peace WITHOUT implementation of the right of return, no Israeli gov't, even one of the "Right" would be able to turn it down. So why don't they make this gesture? Because THEY DON'T WANT PEACE. This "initiative" was made in the wake of 9/11 when there was a very anti-Saudi feeling in the West, by doing this relieve American pressure from them for be "obstructionist"
MJ, you and your "progressives" seem to think peace is in Israel's hand. IT ISN'T. The Arabs do not want peace with Israel and will never present an offer that even the most Leftist gov't in Israel could live with.
September 13, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gaza would seem to be the perfect laboratory for distilling the truth of any offer to Israel. When it becomes a civilized neighborhood rather than a forward base for terrorism, then and only then, can Israel give away more land.
September 13, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peace is in the hand of the party with 200 nuclear bombs and which is occupying the other party's territory.
But you guys sure have your talking points memorized.
As I've asked before, do you memorize Bush administration talking points or just those from Jerusalem. They are equally reliable.
The fate of the Jewish state should not be put at risk by people, mostly here, who just don't know the facts. You can't just rely on AIPAC.
September 13, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
if peace broke out between Israel and the Palestinians/Arabs would that mean the neo-cons would have to find a new line of work?
September 13, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
YBD gets it exactly right. The Israelis want the Palestinians to relinquish all their claims to be reincorporated into the territory or polity of Israel and to say that Israel can legitimately exclude Arab refugees from the state permanently on the basis of their non-Jewish religious and ethnic character. By recognizing Israel specifically as a Jewish state, the Palestinians essentially would be granting their seal of approval both to the ethno-religious ideal of the Zionist state and to their own permanent exclusion from that state. I doubt at this point the Palestinians will ever to agree to such a complete capitulation. The Israelis have left them too little land to make such a capitulation worthwhile.
September 13, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for "their" territory, if you truly believe that they have a greater historical claim and Israel should relinquish their conquest, you should prove the validity of your belief by personal example. Find the closest native American and hand over your house.
September 13, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really need to read. The number of Palestinians killed dwarfs the number of Israelis 3 to 1. The media pays attention when one Israeli kid is killed but ignores the hundreds of Palestinian kids. Every week.
How long can you pretend that Goliath is David.
September 13, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, the Palestinians were killed by accident, not targeted, collateral damage while the Israelis were killed by design.
I ask again. Do you make the same excuses for America in Iraq? Would you have made them for America in Vietnam?
I know America is our country, and it's our obligation to oppose its self-destructive policies, but if you care about Israel, even a little, you might want to get real about its suicidal policies.
September 13, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was Jabotinsky talking about?
Certainly, he couldn't have meant the Palestinians -- those couple hundred bedu who occasionally visited that "Land Without People for a People Without Land"!
September 13, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jabotinsky's e-mail account was down. Never got the AIPAC talking points.
September 13, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did get YHWH's, though, didn't he?
You know, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates. Genesis 15:18
September 13, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen,
"You know, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates. Genesis 15:18"
Someone should use that passage in court to prove ownership.
September 13, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
God's e-mail always goes through.
September 13, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dont look twice. It's another day in paradise
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1020650.html
September 13, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can a state without borders be "recognized"?
This is just another stupid demand meant to be unmet.
What's next? No talks until all leaders of Arab states come before the Knesset, bow, tug forelocks and declare that Israeli hummus is the best in the world?
Screw the Saudi plan, it's a dead duck. The Saudis are losing their status as THE go-to-Arabs in the ME. Other Gulf states understand that the fortunes of the KSA as "leaders" in the region is tied to American (and quiet Israeli) backing. As US influence wanes, so does theirs.
The only regional enterprise with a chance to advance stability and Israel's place in the region are the efforts by France, Syria, Turkey and Qatar. Israel is once again buckling under to the demands of the demented Disapora in DC and backing out of participation in these efforts to work up a deal between Syria and Israel.
Forget trying to deal with the I/P internal mess for now.
Focus on the bigger picture of how Israel can begin to integrate into the neighborhood. At the very least, SOME Israelis must realize that the plan for multiple seabed pipelines running from Ceyhan to Ashkelon requires cooperation and stability in the region instead of open hostilities.
At this point though, all is moot until elections in Israel and America are in the past.
September 13, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh, those picky Israelis! after decades of being attacked on all sides, peace plan after peace plan rejected, terrorist organizations and states promising a second holocaust and wiping them from the face of the earth: now they aren't just going to roll over and play nice? what's wrong with them?
look: Israel became a state in 1948; it won a whole bunch more land in the 1967 wars; they are the winners and in reality they don't HAVE to do ANYTHING for the Palestinians. that they are willing to at all shows that they share our democratic ideals of justice.
to the victor go the spoils. that's how countries get made. it's how the United States became a nation...it's how freaking ENGLAND became a nation. it's only because those events are "historical" that you think there should be a difference now.
September 13, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
gretz - I would have hoped that the world has moved beyond "might makes right" and "to the victor goes the spoils". From your comment, I guess you don't feel that way. Thus, I would expect no tears from you if the arabs some day get revenge and blow Israel to Hell.
September 13, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post, MJ, but you've bought into some myths about how Israel in the past always wanted peace. Well, no, not always, not if they didn't see any need to make concessions to the defeated. Sadat offered peace back in 1971, and at that time (because the 67 war had been such a cakewalk), neither Israel nor the US cared. The 1973 war, though it still ended in an Israeli victory, was a wakeup call, because it wasn't nearly so one-sided.
Link
September 13, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Donald,
You are right
September 13, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ says:
-----------------------------------
Peace is in the hand of the party with 200 nuclear bombs and which is occupying the other party's territory.
------------------------------------
Did you see HIZBULLAH or HAMAS quaking in their boots at the possibility of Israel dropping a nuke on them when they were raining rockets down on Israel? Of what use are Israel's nukes (if they indeed exist) anyway regarding the Palestinians?
MJ also said:
---------------------------------------
The number of Palestinians killed dwarfs the number of Israelis 3 to 1. The media pays attention when one Israeli kid is killed but ignores the hundreds of Palestinian kids. Every week.
How long can you pretend that Goliath is David.
----------------------------------------
I am really sorry that you don't think enough Jews are being killed to assuage your "moral feelings". I wasn't aware "hundreds of Palestinian kids are being killed" at the moment.
I DARE YOU TO WRITE THIS IN YOUR COLUMN IN THE JERUSALEM POST. You are really a two-faced person. You write this garbage here but you come across as a "concerned Zionist" in the Jerusalem Post. You are going to have to choose sides...either being a Zionist or an Israel-basher.
September 14, 2008 6:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the JP picks up the exact same stuff I write here. So do lots of other places.
And I've repeatedly written about the hundreds of dead Palestinian kids killed over the past few years. Check the Btselem site for the data.
http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp
I'm not two faced. Because I'm pro-Israel, I vehemently oppose the occupation. If I favored Israel's destruction, I'd support it.
September 14, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have stated here that "the Russian immigrants to Israel should go back where they came from" (since they don't agree with MJ's positions). If you had written that in the the JPOST , they would have fired you.
September 14, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ sure is chatty on this thread. Didn't you already have your say, Pal? You really don't answer any of those who would request you be more balanced, except to hold up the suffering Palestinians, as if their suffering justifies moral depravity, and the culture of death they have created for themselves. It doesn't. Both sides have stooped low in this conflict, and only outside intervention is going to solve it. Stop wasting posts trying to convince Israeli's to change their minds or Palestinians. A peace and a state is going to have to be imposed, and the int'l community has a right to impose it at this point. We're sick of it, and we're sick of the toxic poison it releases into int'l relations. In the words of Barack: "Enough!"
September 14, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep reading. Keep enjoying.
The days when only the rightwing xenophoic side of this debate went unchallenged are over. Get used to it. Or go to Free Republic or National Review where your side dominates. The lef/liberal blogosphere is, I'm happy to say, dominated by two-states types who think that (shocker) it's Israel, at least as much as the Palestinians, who have deep sixed the peace process since the anti-peace crowd murdered Rabin.
September 14, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reply to YBD and some informetion:
All that you have said about ARABS don't want peace and JEWS really wants etc. is ignorant colonialist BS!
First, the talking about "Arabs" and "Jews" and racial collectives as hard units instead of citizens that are usually not represented well, if at all, by their so called "representatives, is usual fascist way of referring reality, that enhances violence and prejudice, in the name of "nationalism", "patriotism" and other false-symbolic deities.
You won't like it, but the fact is that WE as a nation (Israel, not people but government) just don't miss a chance to miss a chance. Some fact, your welcome to look it up :
1948- Kamel Riad that was sent by Faruk King of Egypt to meet Elias Sasson in the second cease fire period was sent back by Ben Gurion. Ben Gurion instead proceeded with move of government decision a plan to renew combat with Egypt, without even mentioning King Faruk initiative to the parliament.
1949- Israel and the Arab countries meet in Lausanne, under the reconciliation council of the UN in Palestine. Israel does not accept a single territorial compromise. Ben Gurion claimed that the public is "victory drunken" and is not in a mood for compromises."Israel will not discuss any Peace that includes giving up on land… the neighboring countries are not entitled to one centimeter of the land of Israel."
1949-the Syrian leader Husni Zaim, openly declares on his willingness to be the first to make peace with Israel, and will give residence to half a million Palestinian refugees in Syria. Ben Gurion insisted to refuse.
1949- Abdalla King of Jordan, after not achieving one break through on any substantial subject for two years of negotiation with Israel : "I could justify peace by stressing the concessions the Jews would have done, but without any I'm defeated before I've started."
1952- Egypt's president Nazer, offered Ben Gurion, right after the 1952 revolution, peace talks, but without success.
1952-3- a negotiation with the Syrian regime under Shishkali, a pro-American leader anxious to get to an agreement with Israel, has failed because Israel insisted on full control on all of the Kineret's (small lake which borders Syria and Jordan) Banks, and the Hula swamp and the Jordan banks.
1956- Israel initiates war with Egypt, cooperating with France and UK.
1965- The head of the Secret service Meir Amit, is invited by Abd El-Hakim Omar, vice president of Egypt and deputy to head of armed forces to visit Cairo. There was a unanimous Veto by the Israeli government. Was it possible to prevent the 1967 war? We'll never know.
1967- Right after the war, Israel (that opened the war) sends governmental scouters to check the possibilities for an agreement.
The Palestinians were ready for peace talks, on the condition that the talks would be about an Independent Palestinian state, an Idea that Israel was not even considering. The Jordanians where also willing to take part on the talks, if and only of they will get a hold on the West Bank and especially the Holy Places. Israel annexes Jerusalem with 28 villages in addition that surround Jerusalem, and authorizes immediate construction plans for a settlement in East Jerusalem, and Blocks any chance to any possibility to peace, until further notice. (Still waiting.)
1968- On Passover Eave the first settlers are arriving to Hebron, and settle in a military base in the city. Yigal Alon proposes to the government to establish the first two colonies in Gaza (approved in 1970). Moshe Dayan Recommends the government to build Kiryat Arba right on Hebron (approved in 1970).the first settlements' of Nahal (by the Army) rise on the Jordan Valley.
1971-Sadat, Egypt's president, wrote to the UN announcing his willingness to proceed with peace talks with Israel. Golda dismisses the Idea. Could have the 1973 war prevented?
1070's- Arafat and other Palestinian leaders send scouters in the early 70's to discuss peace. Israel denies the existence of the Palestinians.
1974-right after the Yom Hakipurim war Hawara village on the west bank is turned to Alon More settlement, and the famous Sebastia takeover.
1975-Ofra settlement is set in the West Bank. Also Maale Edomim city.
10.11.1975- A Decision in the UN compares Zionism to racism. On December SEbastia settlers set to get Kdum instead.
1976-Gush Katif in Gaza is established, by its first village Nezer Hezeni. 12.5.76-the US government denounces any form of settlement in the occupied territories.
1977-The Rabin Government approves of establishing the city Ariel outside the Green line on the West Bank. Also Beit El Settlement is established.19.11.1977- Sadat comes to Jerusalem.
1978- Sadat tries to expand the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty towards a solution of the Palestinian subject. Menachem Begin refuses to discuss anything more of (approved at 79). At 9.79 Maale Edomim city is approved outside the green line north to Jerusalem.) Palestinian "Autonomy". Elon More Settlement starts its siege on the Shchem Mountain.
1983-Neve Dkalim –the urban part of the Katif Block inside Gaza is set.
1984-the Israeli underground organization "the Jewish underground" were seized. They planned and where close to an attempt to bomb the Dome of the Rock (the 2'nd most holy in Islam). The members are convicted, but served prison from 20 months to two years at the most.)
1987-first Intifada bursts.
1988- Five years before the Oslo agreement, PLO represented more than 90% of the Palestinian people, publicly acknowledged the Israeli State within the Green Line. (78% of the whole territory), and expressed his willingness to enter peace negotiations. Israel banned the meetings with PLO until 1993.
June 1990- disappointed of the unwillingness of Israel to proceed onto a significant peace negotiations, the US State Secretary James Backer declared: "Everyone there should know the White House's phone is 1-202-45601414. When your' serious about Peace call us." The US even went further and stalled the guarantees to Israel for It to come to the Madrid conference.
1993- On the seven years of the "Peace process, the Labor and Likud parties doubled the number of Jews across the Green Line (Half a million Jews today out of 5.5 in the country), and enforced an un-presented siege (before the terrorist attack-sequence started), and in that have pulverized the Palestinian trust in peace. Today over 40% of the West Bank are in Israeli hands (Owned or occupied), and 60% present of the Bank is in Full Israeli Control according to an "Agreement".
2002- Sharon ignores the Arab liege peace proposal to acknowledge Israel, to peace in the whole area and to integration of Israel within the area- in exchange of stopping the occupation. (normalization according to the green line border, prisoners return, family unification, compensations agreement). The suggestion is still on the table.
2006-Olmert announces the "prisoner's document", in which all the Palestinian parties and movements agreed to a 2 state solution as "irrelevant". The suggestion is still on the table.
2006- Jr. Assad, Syria's president offers peace to Israel. Olmert replied at the same Day "We will never leave the Golan Hights." (Haaretz 22.8.06)
2008-January 2008- Khaled Mash'al of the Hamas governmental people, joined to an acknowledgment in the Green Line as a base to a two states solution, that was offered by Prime Minister Isma'il Heni'ya already in June 2006. They repeated the offeres on March and April. Most of the Israeli public wants to talk to Hamas (by majority of poles), but Olmert prefers to subjugate PLO to the conditions which he wants , even if PLO doesn’t really represent (in the flesh, not historically) the Palestinian public. The offer is still on the table.
Forgetting a couple of tens of settlements and examples, not talking at all about the apartheid agreement that was signed in Oslo and its consequences, as the important subject in itself of the phenomena called Ehud Barak (who is a lying Sadist), without talking at all about the daily occupation in the West Bank and Gaza…
Just a couple of Examples about our leaders who are infatuated with the peace Idea but only about talking about it and claiming the "ARABS" ( being a multiple headed beast) are not trustworthy and don't really mean it as they (or we- the Jews -as you like it) do mean it.
September 14, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Rosenberg
At least you've recognized the importance of Zhabotinsky and the validity of his ideas. That's great progress... but I would hardly say the Arabs/Muslims have given up. They've just changed their tactics.
The modern world is very different from that of 1923. Population and environmental pressures, and horrific new weapons, have completely altered the needs and fears of states. Under the new conditions it would indeed benefit everyone if an acceptable compromise could be found which would avoid the next war.
So far no such compromise is available. Pretending that Israeli capitulation to Arab demands is an acceptable substitute is an aspect of your behavior that absolutely mystifies me. Why do it? Who do you think you're fooling?
September 14, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do it for you. To drive you crazy. And I've succeeded.
September 14, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Rosenberg
Don't be childish.
September 14, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink