Israel’s Irrealism on Settlements
This paragraph from a Jerusalem Post editorial on US-Israeli relations in the Obama years highlights the extent to which Israel desperately needs a U.S. administration that’s willing to tell it some stuff it doesn’t want to hear:
There are other issues that may cause stress in the US-Israel relationship. Settlements, always a sore point, take on greater importance when American diplomats believe a diplomatic breakthrough with the Palestinians is achievable. There is little support in Israel today for relinquishing control of the West Bank, given its bitter experience after removing all soldiers and settlers from Gaza. Israelis no longer believe that territorial concessions on their part will bring peace with the Palestinians. Most believe that the real issue blocking “peace” with Hamas and its allies is Israel’s existence, not its settlements. With Hamas in firm control of Gaza and growing in strength on the West Bank, it stretches credulity to believe that the Israeli public can be persuaded to entrust its security to agreements signed with Palestinian leaders who can’t or won’t honor commitments.
Obviously, there’s a wide range of disagreement about how central the continued existence and expansion of Israel’s settlements are to preventing the emergence of peace. I would say they’re quite central. The Post, most Israelis, Jon Chait, and others disagree. But what the Post doesn’t have here is any kind of actual reason why Israel should continue expanding settlements or why it would be smart for Israel to resist U.S. pressure to halt their expansion. Whether or not Israel can or should “entrust its security to agreements signed with Palestinian leaders” it’s certainly not the case that Israel can trust its security to the settlements; they don’t help. And, again, whether or not the settlements are the crucial issue in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, they’re definitely an issue. And they’re a diplomatic issue for Israel in its relationship with relatively friendly regional states such as Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey and in world public opinion more generally. And they’re expensive! And, as the editorial notes, a perennial source of friction with the United States. A smart Israeli government would halt settlement activity and expansion and perhaps even begin to dismantle some settlements. But it’s clear that that’s not going to happen if the logic of Israeli politics and policy just plays out autonomously so the United States needs to step in with some firm pressure.
95 Responses to “Israel’s Irrealism on Settlements”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 12th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Shorter Matt: Israel is teh evil.
Israel gave up its settlements in Gaza. How’d that work out?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. There’s no room for two states west of the Jordan. It’s a tiny piece of land. The enlightened members of the international community ought to offer citizenship to the Palestinians and let them get on with their lives elsewhere. It would be cheaper and more humane than another sixty years of UNRWA welfare.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Gideon Levy’s take on the elections:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1061736.html
February 12th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
does anyone else think that “the settlements aren’t the problem” is often a cover for “i support the expansion of the settlements but don’t want to admit it”?
February 12th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Support for the settlements is just bizarre. I understand the motivation of the settlers, even if I think they’re crazy. But for everyone else, I just can’t imagine what the point is.
Just look at Fred here, missing the point just as completely as MY describes. The question is not whether removing the settlements will lead to peace. The question is, what is the point of the settlements??
February 12th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
‘Settlements’ is such a bogus word in this context. Like Israeli ’settlers’ are on some kind of wagon train and just building their futures in some kind of folksy hardscrabble way in undiscovered country. What Israeli ’settlers’ are doing is occupying land as a political act, the same as pro-slavery and anti-slavery ’settlers’ rushed to Kansas to in the 1850s to try to tip the state politically one way or the other.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
There’s a fairly substantial additional objection to Jon Chait’s claim that the settlements don’t matter: the settlements are illegal under international law. It’s a direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention! I notice that not even Jon Chait (at least in the post you linked to) denies that the settlements are imposing real and substantial hardships on the Palestinians since, after all, they very often have direct title to the land that is being seized by settlers or by the authorities to build access roads.
So, is that really Chait’s reply? That war crimes committed against civilians under occupation aren’t really a problem because we can always give the land back after ten/twenty/thrity/fifty years? Really?
February 12th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
The recent excellent report by Bob Simon on “60 Minutes” did a good job of explaining (1) why West Bank settlements are an obstacle to peace and (2) the present-day political impossibility of expecting the Israeli government to remove settlements.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Probably the most misleading point in the quoted paragraph and in Fred’s response is this idea that the Palestinians are in full control of Gaza. The Palestinians don’t even control their own borders or their own coastline. What sort of control is that? Gaza is essentially an enormous ghetto under a continuous state of siege. Why would the residents there have any beef at all with their besiegers?
Also, Fred’s cleverly couched call for the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank is rather disgusting and was not lost on me. If any state should give citizenship to the Arabs living in the West Bank, it is the state in occupation of that land–Israel.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Great post. Israel really does face serious, even existential threats. That’s not a paranoid fantasy. And some, though certainly not all, of the things that it does are justified (morally and/or strategically) by that fact. But there is simply no good argument in favor of the settlements. They are evil. Furthermore, they make it a lot harder to give Israel the benefit of the doubt on stuff. If they had no motives other than security, you might still not agree that every thing they do is justified, but you might cut them some slack on the grounds that the threats are terribly serious and they may know more than you do about what needs to be done to counter them. But when a large part of what they do is for the purpose of further entrenching the settlements, then it gets much harder to tell what is worthy of support and what is not. To date, this ambiguity has been resolved in favor of the settlers. Hopefull Obama will change that.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
“the settlements are illegal under international law. It’s a direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention!”
You would be right if the West Bank were part of Jordan, but as the land is no longer claimed by the state it was taken from in a defensive war (Jordan–which allowable until peace with the aggressor), the area is disputed and therefore does not fall under the Geneva Convention.
I am not saying the settlements are helpful, they aren’t. And I do believe that there should be a Palestinians state. But settlements have more to do with Israeli domestic politics and the bizarre way that coalitions need to be formed in the Israeli parliament (as this election is showing) than any desire of the vast majority of Israelis to settle the west bank. No one can afford to piss off the small far right groups or they can’t form a coalition government.
As a side note Israel has a long history of giving up settlements and land in exchange for peace going back to their peace treaty with Egypt in which they gave up the Sinai, removed thousands of Israelis from the Sinai, and gave up vast oil fields in the Sinai.
The real problem for even a peace deal, even one that is most favorable to the Palestinians (the Saudi Plan) is that Hamas controls 1.5 million Palestinians and will never agree to peace with Israel. Until there is one Palestinian government again, peace negotiations are futile.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
There’s a slight difficulty with Mr. Freds’ proposed solution, which was also proposed by the late and unlamented Meir Kahane. What happens if the Palestinians refuse to leave? Mr. Kahane indicated that in the event, he would impose an Eichmann solution to the problem. Somehow, I don’t think that even Avigdor Lieberman has the balls for that.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
On a related note, I wonder if Matt has any comments about the Obama administration now saying Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons in contradiction of the infamous NIE he pontificated about so profusely?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-usiran12-2009feb12,0,3478184.story
February 12th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
What no one seems to want to confront here is that mainstream Israelis believe that the land on which the settlements stand is part of Israel. The Likud platform declares the settlements to stand on Israeli land, and Likud is opposed both to giving any of that land away, and is opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state of any kind.
The Kadima platform declares that the settlements stand on Israeli land, but that Israel should be willing to trade some of that land to the Palestinians in exchange for a peace deal. Because it’s ours, Kadima says, we can exchange it for something.
And of course the far right parties believe that the settled land is part of Israel. What this means is that at least two thirds of Israelis believe that the West Bank is Israeli territory.
The US position has been to gutlessly dodge this question since 1967, and to maintain – somewhat ridiculously – that we should foster a process of getting people to the table, where a powerful state with 200 nuclear weapons and a poor, stateless group of refugees and exiles will sit down and decide among themselves who owns the land the nuclear state occupies.
The single most constructive and important thing the US could do is make an unequivocal statement on the status of the West Bank. Owned by Israel? Occupied by Israel? Or “disputed”?
February 12th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Here’s the reality: the settlers have gone from building on occupied land to setting up outposts commanding the landscape of Israeli politics. (YB is really just Russian ultranationalism, Zhirinovsky-style, transplanted to the West Bank.) It raises questions of what Israeli civic society will look like in 20 years, and the phrase ‘regression to the mean’ comes to mind.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
The Palestinian Authority warned that Hamas was intentionally working to persuade Israelis to vote for anti-peace process parties:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/02/09/europe/EU-Poland-Palestinians.php
The Palestinian foreign minister accused Hamas on Monday of trying to influence the outcome of this week’s Israeli election, pointing to the continued Palestinian rocket attacks on southern Israel.
Riad Malki said “Hamas wants instability in the region” and suggested rockets have continued to be launched from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as “a way to interfere” in the Israeli vote….
Malki said the Palestinian Authority — which is at odds with Hamas — is “very much worried” that such attacks might “really push Israeli public opinion and the voters to vote for an anti-peace government.”
And that’s just what happened. Hamas beats Israel like a drum.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
“What no one seems to want to confront here is that mainstream Israelis believe that the land on which the settlements stand is part of Israel. ”
Wrong
September 2008
79% of the Israelis believe that the best solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the two-state solution, i.e. the establishment of an independent state for the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and the state of Israel for the Israelis.
38% even supported the completely one sided Saudi Initiative
http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2008/p29ejoint.html
February 12th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Dave:
Sorry, what you say about the Fourth Geneva COnvention being inapplicable to the West Bank because Jordan no longer claims it is incorrect. The International Court of Justice, in its 2003 ruling on the Separation Barrier, ruled unanimously that the Fourth is applicable because the territory was acquired in war, and that it did not matter who laid claim to it or the legitimacy of said claims. Here is the link:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&case=131&k=5a
Incidentally, this applies to the sole dissenting justice of the fifteen justices who ruled on this. Thmas Buergenthal, in issuing his declaration, says explicitly that he was in agreement with much of the ruling of the majrotiy opinion. In particular, he wrote that he agreed that the settlemtns were illegal under the Fourth.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Also, the best synopsis on the illegality of the settlements and the relevant international legal documents appeared in the form of a blog exchange on Gershom Gorenberg & Haim Watzman’s blog South Jerusalem. Here is the link:
http://southjerusalem.com/2008/11/on-settlement-legality-with-thanks-to-our-readers/#more-534
Hope this helps.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
In the 15Jan edition of the New York Review of Books, Hussein Agha and Robert Malley report on a deal purportedly proposed by Olmert to Abbas in their one-on-one negotiations. The proposal was a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines with one-to-one territorial exchanges; a limited number of refugees coming into Israel; a Palestinian capital comprising the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem; and a special regime for the holy sites. It was rejected. Abbas, speaking in Aug08 in Lebanon, was still calling for an unlimited right of return. Question: How are settlements the major obstacle to peace? The “answer” is quite easy. Settlements are wholly Israeli’s doing, and Israeli is always the sole obstruction to peace so, ergo, the settlements are the issue. Simple, yes? Simple. Yes.
The Israelis have abandoned settlements in the Sinai and in Gaza, as well as proposing multiple times to abandon most of those on the West Bank. But how is the latter supposed to occur? The Israeli government has been willing to compromise on settlements, on territory, and on the status on Jerusalem. The one point they will never abandon is there will be no unlimited right of return. The state of Israeli will not commit suicide. So what Palestinian leader will compromise on right of return? Take a deal – even in progress – before his people? Speak for that deal? Campaign for that deal? Arafat wouldn’t. Abbas won’t. Will Hamas negotiate on that basis? The answer to all those questions is no.
For people who find (some kind) of satisfaction in endlessly ceaselessly hysterically blaming Israel for everything – the above facts are inconvenient. For people who lust for Israeli’s destruction (the latest fantasies run heavy to the One State Solution) the above facts are irrelevant. Those broad category of people aside, who’s left in this forum?
February 12th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Wrong
September 2008
79% of the Israelis believe that the best solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the two-state solution, i.e. the establishment of an independent state for the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and the state of Israel for the Israelis.
Yes, but as I said in my post, many of those Israelis believe that the land in the West Bank is Israeli land, and so they see the two-state solution as a process by which Israel graciously and generously decides to relinquish something they own in exchange for something else.
The “centrist” Kadima platform says:
The Israeli nation has a national and historic right to the whole of Israel. However, in order to maintain a Jewish majority, we must give up part of the Land of Israel to maintain a Jewish and democratic state.
That stands in opposition to most of the international community, according to whom some of these territories that Israel regards as part of the Land of Israel to which it has a right are in fact occupied territories.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
grb,
What one side or another “calls for” can never be as much of an obstacle to peace as facts on the ground that actually exist. If Palestinians did not just call for a right of return, but instead had massive settlements in Haifa and Tel Aviv that were operated as political units independent of the surrounding State of Israel, then they would be equivalent obstacles to peace.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Dave seems intent on proving the earth is flat when he writes:
The United Nations Security Council explicitly declared this interpretation untrue when it adoped Security Council Resolution 449 in 1979. This states in part:
Dave is wrong to assert that the Occupied Palestinian Territories are not occupied but disputed. They are recognized as occupied by the United Nations, the United States, the International Committe of the Red Cross – indeed everyone except some Zionist irredentists and a few flatearthers.
February 12th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
I agree with the main point of Ygelsias’ post and certainly think that the settlements are as serious a block to peace as exists. But it is worth noting that in this regard not all settlements are created equal, and not all reasons for being an impediment to peace are the same.
There are a certain number of settlers making a political statement by living in non-contiguous settlements which need to disrupt Palestinian lives to exist. These will have to be removed before peace is possible, and their expansion and growth in numbers makes peace more difficult.
There are also contiguous settlements which have more people living in them often for economic rather than political reasons. Peace would be easier without them because the states could just revert to the 1967 line. But the reality is that a final peace deal will likely involve a swap of land. These settlements will not have to be uprooted. And these settlements are not particularly more difficult to defend or more disruptive to the West Bank.
Expanding these settlements are bad for peace because they make the Israelis seem unserious, and infuriate the Palestinians who lack the power to change facts on the ground. But peace could be acheived consistent with such expansion.
As for Chait’s argument his view that his argument shows that the settlements are not the main barrier to peace is minimally incomplete. He does not give an example of another barrier to peace that could not be reversed more easily than the settlements.
February 12th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
“But what the Post doesn’t have here is any kind of actual reason why Israel should continue expanding settlements…”
Obviously the settlers themselves have all sorts of motivations, some relatively anodyne, others fairly crackers. The question is what are the motivations of the Israeli government (actually, many successive Israeli governments under different leadership with different philosophies). I don’t think it’s fruitful in general to ascribe irrationality (”irrealism” as you call it) to actors without exploring rational motivations (which however may depend on goals or values with which you disagree).
So here’s my assessment: The Israelis think — and I agree — that the outlines of a final peace deal have been clear for quite some time now. And that the Palestinians are dragging their feet getting to it. Not because they are irrational or irrealists, but because they believe time is on their side. In terms of negotiations, this means they believe that the longer they wait, the better the deal they will get.
So the Israelis are applying counterpressure to this dynamic, in the form of the settlements. The settlements raise the possibility that the longer it takes to get to a deal, the worse that deal will be for the Palestinians.
On this view neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis are acting irrationally, although their values and their assessments of the costs and risks associated with these respective strategies might be somewhat at odds with yours, or for that matter mine.
This by the way also explains, in my view, why the separation wall was placed within the occupied territory and not on the 1948 Armistice line. To place it on the 1948 Armistice line would make it clear that that was the Israeli bottom line on the borders of any final peace deal. Placing it elsewhere makes it clear that the borders actually need to be negotiated.
So the bottom line is, you might think this strategy is heartless, you might think it’s risky, but I don’t think you can say that there’s no “actual reason” for it.
This brings me back finally to the question I’ve asked a number of times here already: What is the mechanism whereby settlements prevent serious negotiation? I can understand why the Palestinians detest them. But what I can’t understand is why that prevents them from negotiating towards an agreement under which this detested activity would halt.
Well, to be honest, I can. If the Palestinians can make this a roadblock to negotiations, and get the Israelis to stop this beforehand — by, for example, convincing the United States that this is the case — rather than putting it on the table as one of the issues to be resolved, then the original dynamic is back in place, and their negotiating position is much improved. Which is good for them, and indeed quite rational. I don’t see why anyone else needs to go along with it however.
February 12th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Israel gave up its settlements in Gaza. How’d that work out?
There is a difference between occupation (maintaining sovereignty) and colonization (i.e. dispossessing the inhabitants).
The fundamental problem relationship in the I/P conflict has been between ownership of and sovereignty over the land. Without entirely discounting Israeli need to have actual land to live on or Palestinian need for autonomy in which to live worthy lives, the cultural Israeli need is for relatively more sovereignty (aka security) and the cultural Palestinian need is for relatively more land to live on. We now have each side with that which it doesn’t really need or can make good use of but the other side does.
The trouble is achieving an equitable exchange, obviously. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that what has been lacking is not plans so much as a guarantor power, i.e. the U.S., to limit the abuses and insecurities of the transition and a time thereafter. As for the desires of the sides to cheat, malign, and violently punish each other for their bitter history, the past eight years seem to have been opportunity enough to exhaust them for a time. (Well, at least I hope so.)
February 12th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
SLC,
“There’s a slight difficulty with Mr. Freds’ proposed solution, which was also proposed by the late and unlamented Meir Kahane. What happens if the Palestinians refuse to leave? Mr. Kahane indicated that in the event, he would impose an Eichmann solution to the problem.”
Was “an Eichmann solution” needed to remove the Israeli settlers from Gaza? Of course not. Financial incentives were offered first, and then those who refused to leave were forcibly removed, in a humane way, with no more force used than necessary. There’s no reason the same approach couldn’t be used with the Palestinians. In truth, the vast majority of Palestinians would probably be happy to leave in return for European citizenship. What could be sweeter for Europe than to replace the Jewish population it murdered with people who share Europe’s disdain for Jews?
February 12th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
“Dave is wrong to assert that the Occupied Palestinian Territories are not occupied but disputed.”
He’s right according to international law, as it is applied to every country except Israel.
February 12th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
cdx writes:
Without entirely discounting Israeli need to have actual land to live on or Palestinian need for autonomy in which to live worthy lives, the cultural Israeli need is for relatively more sovereignty (aka security) and the cultural Palestinian need is for relatively more land to live on.
I think the hundreds of Palestinian civilians who died playing their part in the Israeli election campaigns might have wished for a bit more security. Indeed, given the relative numbers of civilians killed in this conflict, the need for a safe and secure Palestine appears to be far greater than the need for a safe and secure Israel.
February 12th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I see Fred has come out as a flatearther. He was almost correct with his comment he merely got the comma in the wrong place. Fred would have been right had he written about my comment:
“He’s right according to international law as it is applied to every country, except Israel.”
February 12th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Blacks loved slavery. Whoever imagined back then that that was the problem was meshug. If only the world would come to see that the main problem with the so-called “Palestinians” is that they’re filthy shvatz goyimand hopefully a Netanyahu Administration will finally put this cockamamie “settlements” red herring in the gefilte fish platter where it belongs.
(”One settler…One bullet” – Slogan of the ANC)
February 12th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
“I see Fred has come out as a flatearther.”
Look up the definition of an occupied territory from the 4th Geneva Convention yourself, then explain how that describes Gaza or the West Bank. For the territories to be “occupied”, Israel would have had to conquer them from an internationally recognized sovereign power. The last such internationally recognized sovereign power was the British Mandatory government, which sailed off in 1948. Israel captured the territories from Jordan and Egypt, respectively, in 1967. Neither were recognized as sovereigns in those territories, and neither claim the territories today.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Once again – for the benefit of those who continue to claim the earth is flat. As I posted upthread, UN Security Council Resolution 449 states in part:
Furthermore, the “Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention Declaration” declared in 2001
It does not matter what Dave or Fred thinks about the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the Occupied Palestinian Territories BECAUSE the organization responsible for the Geneva Conventions has stated them to be applicable.
And so just as their is no dispute that the World is round so there is no dispute that the Palestinian Territories are occupied and that the Geneva Conventions are applicable. Just as there will always be charlatans selling snake oil to fools and there will always be people claiming an occupation is not an occupation.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Emmis, Fred. Like when the Nazis put the Jews on the trains to Auchswitz – where was it written that that was “inhumane“? Hello? It was a Eu-Rail Pass free of charge! Or, when, they gassed them with Zyklon-B – so what if it killed them – it was FDA approved! C’mon, people, get real.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Dear Fred:
You appear to have missed my comments and references (comment #s 17 and 18) where I gave references to the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the West Bank and Gaza, as well as ndm’s comment (#22) in which he quotes UN Securty Council Resolution of 1979 which also asserted the applicability of the Fourth. The fifteen jurists ruling on Israel’s Separation Barrier of 2003 for the International Court of Justice all asserted unanimously that the Fourth is applicable because the territories were acquired in war. Who had claim to it and which claims were valid are irrelevant.
Take a look at this reference:
http://southjerusalem.com/2008/11/on-settlement-legality-with-thanks-to-our-readers/#more-534
for the full text of the ICJ ruling as well as the jurists’ opinions on the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention, look here:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&case=131&k=5a
February 12th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I’m not a lawyer and I make no pretense to understanding what is or is not acceptable under international law in this situation. However reading some of the above — and this is unrelated to my previous comment — I thought it might be interesting to do a little research into the status of the 1949 Armistice lines (not 1948 as I used above).
From the wikipedia:
“The armistice agreements, except for the one with Lebanon, were clear (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent or de jure borders. The Egyptian-Israeli agreement stated “The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.” [11]
“The Jordanian-Israeli agreement stated: “… no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations” (Art. II.2), “The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.” (Art. VI.9) [6]
“As the armistice lines were technically not borders the Arabs considered that Israel was restricted in its rights to develop the DMZ and exploitation of the water resources. Further that as a state of war still existed with the Arab nations, the Arab League was not hindered in their right to deny Israel the freedom of navigation through the Arab League waters. Also it was argued that the Palestinians had the right of return and that the Israeli use of abandoned property was therefore not legitimate.[12]“
February 12th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
In truth, the vast majority of Palestinians would probably be happy to leave in return for European citizenship.
Really, Fred? You’ve asked them? Or has your diseased little mind come up with something that you think is sufficiently spiteful for the untermenschen?
February 12th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Fred says:
“In truth, the vast majority of Palestinians would probably be happy to leave in return for European citizenship. What could be sweeter for Europe than to replace the Jewish population it murdered with people who share Europe’s disdain for Jews?”
Racism just makes you stupid. So now you want the Europeans of 2009 to pay to ethnically cleanse Palestinians for the benefit of Jews as atonement for Germany’s actions in 1933-45?
Sigh. Zionism really does lower your IQ.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“You appear to have missed my comments and references (comment #s 17 and 18) where I gave references to the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the West Bank and Gaza, as well as ndm’s comment (#22) in which he quotes UN Securty Council Resolution of 1979 which also asserted the applicability of the Fourth.”
“It does not matter what Dave or Fred thinks about the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the Occupied Palestinian Territories BECAUSE the organization responsible for the Geneva Conventions has stated them to be applicable.”
This calls to mind Abba Eban’s famous quote:
You can call the earth flat, but that doesn’t make it so. Same with claiming that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied territories according to the definition of such in the Fourth Geneva Convention. The UN and the World Court have completly ignored the language of the Fourth Geneva Convention and stated otherwise.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Fred writes:
The European equivalent of Fred when not moaning about the evil perfidy of the Palestinian people is roaring about how Europe is getting taken over by Muslim hordes.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
“Really, Fred? You’ve asked them? Or has your diseased little mind come up with something that you think is sufficiently spiteful for the untermenschen?”
Wanting someone to live in Western Europe is a sign of spite for them? Are you serious? Have you missed all of Matt’s posts about how wonderful Western Europe is, with its free health care and lovely architecture? And you’d rather have Palestinians live in squalor in Gaza? It sounds like you’re the one being spiteful toward them.
“So now you want the Europeans of 2009 to pay to ethnically cleanse Palestinians for the benefit of Jews as atonement for Germany’s actions in 1933-45?”
The Europeans are already paying to support the Palestinians via UNRWA and EU aid. It would be cheaper for them, and provide a higher quality of life for Palestinians, to simply welcome them as EU citizens. Why do you think it would be a punishment for Europe to have Palestinians live among them? A few million Palestinian citizens would make Europe more vibrant and multicultural, and help replenish Europe’s population amid falling birth rates. It looks like a win-win to me.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Re: In truth, the vast majority of Palestinians would probably be happy to leave in return for European citizenship. What could be sweeter for Europe than to replace the Jewish population it murdered with people who share Europe’s disdain for Jews?
Good Lord. If there’s one thing Europe doesn’t need, it’s more creeping Islamization. Father Nazir-Ali has brilliantly pointed out the dangers of the creeping Islamization (and secularization, which amounts to the same thing) of Britain.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Fred,
Are you f–ing kidding me? Yes, the Palestinians would ‘increase the birth rate’ by adulterating the civilization of Christendom with harems, honor killings and cousin-marriage, among other immoral practices. Europe would do better to increase its birth rates by outlawing abortion except for health reasons, and condemning it as the barbaric butchery it is.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
In short, Fred, a two-state solution is the only solution. That means kicking out the settlers. And maybe, to sweeten the pot, Israel can cede the few Arab-majority districts of Israel proper to the new Palestinian state. Granting independence to the West Bank, Gaza, and all other Arab-majority areas is the ONLY way Israel can preserve its identity as a Jewish nation.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Showing how little he understands about Britain, hector writes:
Father Nazir-Ali has brilliantly pointed out the dangers of the creeping Islamization (and secularization, which amounts to the same thing) of Britain.
The reality is that Britain secularized when Britons finally realized that instead of reading the News of the Screws to find out what other people did in bed on Sundays they could skip church and do it themselves.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
No it isn’t, Hector. It can expel the Palestinians. If Europe doesn’t want them, then they can settle in Jordan or another Arab country. There’s plenty of sand for everyone to share. To sweeten the pot, the international community can throw some cash at the Palestinians if it likes, and buy each one a lovely McMansion to live in, instead of refugee camps. It’s time to move on — no one else in the world is classified as a refugee 60 years after they were displaced.
February 12th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
And by the way, Hector, isn’t the head of your church an Islamophile? I’m sure he’d be happy to welcome some Palestinians to his green and pleasant isle.
February 12th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Fred writes:
But isn’t the entire problem here caused by the fact that Jews have finally lost their refugee status after being displaced a couple of thousand years ago?
Israel can either continue the track it has been on for four decades and become a pariah state like South Africa under the Boers or move on and GENUINELY try to seek a peaceful solution. The recent election suggests that the Israeli people have decided to go the Dutch route – matched by the double Dutch written here by its so-called “supporters.”
February 12th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
ndm says:
“Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,”
Except this section says nothing about land use. Try reading it. So your citation is irrelevant..
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
February 12th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Wanting someone to live in Western Europe is a sign of spite for them?
If we were to kick you out of your home and drop you off at a KKK compound, Fred, you’d be no less dispossessed even though you’d be among like-minded buddies.
February 12th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
It does not matter what Dave or Fred thinks about the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the Occupied Palestinian Territories BECAUSE the organization responsible for the Geneva Conventions has stated them to be applicable.
Statements like this confuse the heck out of me … at least when they are made by people who are, presumably, “liberals”.
Let’s take ourselves back a year or two and try this one on for size: “it does not matter what Liberal X or Liberal Y thinks about the applicability of anti-terror laws to random people picked up in Afghanistan and parked at Gitmo BECAUSE the organization responsible for enforcing US laws has stated such people to be terrorists”.
One can debate the semantics of whether or not Israel is an occupying nation or whether it is not and whether the Geneva Convention #4 applies, but saying that “the UN says so” is as much of an argument as “everyone in Gitmo is a terrorist because Bush said so”. Since when do liberals defer so much to executive power of any sort? Are the reactionaries right about liberals wanting a one-world dictatorship?
In any case, if it is wrong to settle people on land you’ve won in a rather well-justified war, then perhaps we can start evacuating Russians from what used to be Eastern Poland, Poles from what used to be Eastern Germany (or getting into some less than well justified wars), “Anglos” from the American Southwest, etc.
Of course, those lands were outright seized by their conquerers. Would y’all be happy with Israel if it just seized the so-called occupied territories and ethnically cleansed the Palestinians in the first place? I think not. Yet, according to your international law, it would seem that is what Israel should have done?
February 12th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
ndm,
Explain how a peace agreement can ever be reached with Hamas controlling Gaza and 1.5 million Palestinians when Hamas has explicitly stated many many times it will never make peace with Israel? The Israeli elections are irreverent because the Israelis know that the Palestinians are completely unable to make peace until the PA regains control of Gaza and eliminates Hamas. The issue for Israelis now is only security as there is no one capable of making a true peace with them.
February 12th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
“But isn’t the entire problem here caused by the fact that Jews have finally lost their refugee status after being displaced a couple of thousand years ago?”
In a word: No. Jews didn’t spend two thousand years living in refugee camps on the international dole, waiting for the Romans/Byzantines/Arabs/Crusaders/Turks to give them back their land.
“Israel can either continue the track it has been on for four decades and become a pariah state like South Africa under the Boers…”
I confess I’m confused by your choice of analogies here. It would seem to me that, if the Palestinians ever become the majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, the most apposite comparison to Israel would be… Jordan, which also has a Palestinian majority, and yet isn’t ruled by Palestinians. Since Jordan isn’t considered a pariah state, why would Israel be considered one?
February 12th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
But isn’t the entire problem here caused by the fact that Jews have finally lost their refugee status after being displaced a couple of thousand years ago?
And yet, according to many people here, Israel is on “stolen” land. Which means that many Jews still have no real place to live … it seems that many people have a deep psychological commitment to ensuring we Jews maintain our refugee status. Or at least that’s how it appears to many Jews. I am amazed that a bunch of liberals who are normally so perceptive and empathetic can’t see this.
I agree … Zionism causes a shedding of IQ points (an easy way to be dumb is to buy into racist stereotypes that you must be smart because people of your religion/ethnicity are “too clever”). But apparently so does anti-Zionism.
February 12th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“If we were to kick you out of your home and drop you off at a KKK compound…”
I’m guessing you didn’t do too well on the analogies section of the SAT, because a “KKK compound” doesn’t seem to have much in common with the good life in Barcelona or Paris. In fact, it seems like it would have much more in common with a Hamas compound in Gaza: both are full of hateful people who are afraid to show their faces. It sounds like you’d prefer the Hamas compound in Gaza. I’d prefer Barcelona or Paris. I bet most Palestinians would too. Why doesn’t the EU give them that option?
February 12th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
The Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention Declaration declared in 2001:
Taking into account art. 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and bearing in mind the United Nations’ General Assembly Resolution ES-10/7, the participating High Contracting Parties reaffirm the applicability of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and reiterate the need for full respect for the provisions of the said Convention in that Territory.
Article 49 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of Warstates (in part):
So, once again. It does not matter what Dave or Fred thinks about the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the Occupied Palestinian Territories BECAUSE the organization responsible for the Geneva Conventions has stated them to be applicable. The so-called settlers are indictable war criminals.
February 12th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
NDM,
You are repeating yourself without addressing the points I made in #38.
February 12th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Re Fred
Hey, I was only quoting the late and unlamented Mier Kahane relative to an Eichmann solution. He stated on numerous occasions that any Palestinian Arab who refused to leave Palestine would be shot, which sounds like an Eichmann solution to me.
February 12th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
SLC,
That bears no relevance to my proposal, which does not advocate shooting Palestinians.
February 12th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
Israeli is not deporting or transferring anyone. The Israelis who live in the west bank choose to live there.
Second the Palestinians are not High Contracting Parties so it doesn’t apply to them.
Yor premise that if applies is fundamnetally flawed. The fact that resolution 446 (not 449 as you stated before) says that this section it applies to the Palestinians is in fact not law. It was made under Chapter VI and is therefore only advisory and not binding in any way.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Dave writes:
The official commentary to the Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 states:
Israel provides significant financial and military aid to accomodate the transfer of its citizens to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The fact that such transfer may be voluntary is irrelevant to its legality.
It is really, really, really hard to keep arguing that the earth is flat, Dave.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Re Fred
There are approximately 4 million Palestinian Arabs living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. How does Mr. Fred propose to remove 4 million people, assuming that someplace can be found to take them in, without mass violence? Does Mr. Fred have any conception of the military force that would be required to effectuate such a scenario if most of them refuse to leave voluntarily? That’s in addition to finding someplace to send them to as none of the Arab states will admit them. Does Mr. Fred propose that the various Arab states be forced to accept them? As Mr. hector points out, sending them to Europe, Australia, or Canada is a non-starter. Would Mr. Fred propose that all 4 million be admitted to the United States?
Much as I might favor such a proposal, I think it is impractical and impossible to implement, and in fact isn’t going to happen. I am afraid that Mr. Freds’ proposal is as much a non-starter as Mr. Marshalls’ and Mr. ottos’ 1 state solution proposal.
February 12th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Why is it a “non-starter” for Europe to accept Palestinian immigrants? Are you suggesting the Europeans are nativists?
Once you find a first world country willing to accept the Palestinians, the vast majority of them will leave. An additional financial incentive will convince most of the rest to leave. The relative few who are left at that point can be forcibly removed in a humane way, similar to the way the Jewish settler dead-enders were removed from Gaza. This isn’t rocket science.
A hundred years ago, most would have thought that creating a Jewish state in the Holy Land would have been “impossible”. This is child’s play compared to that.
February 12th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
SLC,
Given that you agree that relocating the Palestinians is not an option, do you also agree with me that Israel needs to get rid of the settlements, the territories, and possibly any remaining Arab majority districts if she is to remain demographically secure?
February 12th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Well, this discussion ended up in a useful place, as usual with this topic.
If it weren’t so important, it would be boring.
Yglesias actually got to the point of posing a pertinent question at least, viz., is there “any kind of actual reason why Israel should continue expanding settlements,” where by “actual” I suppose he means “rational” or “reasonable.” That’s a step forward, I supppose, compared with simply taking it for granted that they’re doing it in order to fuck things up.
Maybe at some point he’ll actually pose the question of why and how settlements prevent negotation towards a resolution that would curtail settlements, as opposed to simply assuming that they do.
Finally, apropos of a highly respected international organization that was mentioned in the above discussion, I must say it was big of the Red Cross to finally admit Magen David Adom after nearly 60 years and also to design that fancy new crystal emblem for them. Who knows, maybe after another 60 years they’ll even approve the use of the Star of David emblem.
Just sayin’.
February 12th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Wow. This is stunningly narcissistic.
Nobody has a commitment to ensuring Jews maintain any refugee status. Nobody opposed Apartheid because of a psychological commitment to ensure the Afrikaaners didn’t have a state of their own.
The colonial-era idea that already inhabited territory should be used, against the wishes of the people already there, as a homeland for different people was wrong from the start.
The racist idea that while any Jew from anywhere, even known converts with no historical attachment to the territory, should have a right to return to Israel, non-Jews, even those who themselves fled a war zone for their safety, should have no right to return is wrong today.
But nobody, nobody on the anti-Zionist side is motivated by a desire to ensure that Jews are refugees.
This paranoid narcissism that seems to infect, by your words “many Jews” is a thing to behold.
February 12th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Re Fred
Mr. Fred has provided not a scintilla of evidence that any significant fraction of the 4 million Palestinians currently living in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, not to mention the 1 million living in Israel, would agree to leave and go elsewhere. He has also not provided a scintilla of evidence that a number of European countries would accept them and has failed to respond as to whether the United States should accept them if nobody else will.
In any case, the entire discussion is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial as the shrimps will learn to whistle before any such scenario unfolds. It ain’t going to happen.
Re Hector
I only make statements like that to annoy the left wing goat fuckers like Mythbuster, ndm, otto, Ed Marshall, etc. I agree with Alan Dershowitz that most of the settlements are a bad idea and do not promote Israeli security.
Re Larry Birnbaum
I have stated on numerous occasions that the biggest obstacle to an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is the demand by the latter that inhabitants of refugee camps be resettled in Israel, which is tantamount to requiring that the Government of Israel go out of business. Mr. Birnbaum will notice that many of the Israel bashers, like Mr. otto, Mr. ndm, Mr. Ed Marshall, Mr. Mythbuster, etc, don’t dispute this because they agree with the Palestinian position. Mr. Birnbaum is wasting his time arguing with them because they consider that the State of Israel is illegal (I am only including the sane commentors in the list; obviously, people like Mr. Farid, Mr. Hack, and Mr. Trevor are quite round the bend). The settlements are completely irrelevant to their arguments as, in their view, they are no more illegal then the State of Israel itself.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Surly Little C*ck (SLC) says:
“I only make statements like that to annoy the left wing goat fuckers like Mythbuster, ndm, otto, Ed Marshall, etc. I agree with Alan Dershowitz that most of the settlements are a bad idea and do not promote Israeli security.”
You’re back to goats again. Somebody’s mind was not on the Torah in Hebrew School.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
“not to mention the 1 million living in Israel…”
I didn’t mention them because they don’t need to leave. They are Israeli citizens and can remain so.
By the way, no need to refer to me as “Mr.”.
February 12th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Outside of Zionist circles why should anyone be interested in exploring the psychopathology and/or strategic explanation for Israel’s clearly illegal and undoubtedly immoral colonization of the West Bank? If you are not a Zionist the explanation for the activity is clear and the balance of motivations is frankly irrelevant.
Israel is an expanding settlement.
Israel appropriates land and displaces Palestinians replacing them with Jewish immigrants because that is what it does, what it has done since its inception and what Zionists believe is its manifest destiny to do. An Israeli could truthfully say that the expanding West bank settlements of today are a kinder way of gradually retaking all of Eretz Israel than the Naqba and if it is not moral or legal to do so can any of non UN mandate Israel be considered legitimate?
Either you accept the logic of colonization or you do not.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Fred: “There’s no room for two states west of the Jordan.”
Right.
Which is why the US and the UN need to dissolve Israel and create a new Palestinian bi-national state with equal rights for Jews and Palestinians and anybody else who lives there.
The alternative is Israel eventually gets smashed flat and quite a few Jews get killed because there is no fucking way six million people are going to hold a billion at bay forever, nukes or no nukes.
Your choice – dissolve Israel or destroy Israel.
February 13th, 2009 at 12:26 am
“Your choice – dissolve Israel or destroy Israel.”
It’s always enjoyable to see a master of diplomacy and tact at work, isn’t it? What is the incentive to dissolve Israel for its inhabitants? Why would they find it different to destruction?
February 13th, 2009 at 6:29 am
Almost Sayz Morzer:
“What is the incentive to dissolve Apartheid South Africa for its inhabitants? Why would they find it different to destruction?”
February 13th, 2009 at 8:44 am
I think you have to look at it the way most Israelis seem to: you start with the conclusion that there can be nothing like equal status or a real state for Palestinians in Greater Israel, and then you find reasons to support that outcome. From this perspective, settlement expansion is vital.
February 13th, 2009 at 10:03 am
“It is really, really, really hard to keep arguing that the earth is flat, Dave.”
Let’s start with the issues you ignore.
1. Post 59
“Yor premise that if applies is fundamnetally flawed. The fact that resolution 446 (not 449 as you stated before) says that this section it applies to the Palestinians is in fact not law. It was made under Chapter VI and is therefore only advisory and not binding in any way.”
So all of your arguments are based on a false premise: that article 49 applies.
2. Post 51
“Explain how a peace agreement can ever be reached with Hamas controlling Gaza and 1.5 million Palestinians when Hamas has explicitly stated many many times it will never make peace with Israel? The Israeli elections are irreverent because the Israelis know that the Palestinians are completely unable to make peace until the PA regains control of Gaza and eliminates Hamas. The issue for Israelis now is only security as there is no one capable of making a true peace with them.”
This goes to the crux of the entire thread. Settlements can and have been removed in past. Hamas’s goal is the total destruction of Israel. Which seems like the real roadblock?
3. Now to your latest post.
This is just a commentary by the Red Cross. I could start a blog with my own commentary as well and then cite to it if I wanted to.
Any first year law student can tell you that either something is law or it is not. If those responsible for making something law wanted it to be law, they would have made it law. Otherwise it is just dicta.
February 13th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Oh Dave, please.
Hamas wants to destroy Israel while Israel has actually been in the process of destroying Palestine for sixty years. Hamas may talk about ethnic cleansing, Israel practises it. Hamas is accused of using human shields, there have been repeated documented cases of the IDF actually doing it, with children in some cases (go on google it).
Release your hatred and bigotry from the chains of faking a reasonable position, the cognitive dissonance will eventually drive you mad otherwise. It will be so refreshing to just say “Palestinians have no right to the land they live on.”
February 13th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Shay, my point is that for the Israelis, as opposed to the Palestinians, it’s hard to see why dissolving Israel is much better than destroying it. Is that such a hard idea to grasp? Personally, I think Israel is in an unwinnable demographic and strategic situation, one which has been made much worse by fantasies of being in a God-given land and the hollow dream of Greater Israel. But what else can you expect, when you attempt to practice apartheid while loftily talking about your own right to exist?
February 13th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Absolutely Morzer – I see your point, which is a serious one about a negotiated settlement. This is the Internet and strident, thoughtless meanness is a regrettable personal habit. Israel/Palestine makes me personally very angry not because it is the greatest injustice in the world but because as a Western European I am complicit in it.
Extensive reading and my brief personal experience of visiting the West Bank and looking at Ariel and the other settlements means that I can not see how one can make the moral case for the existence of an expanding Israel with an enforced Jewish majority. The good of Israel’s comfortable, formerly secular and in some ways idealistic society (not to mention its excellent night life, good education system and frankly hot girl soldiers) can not justify the wrong of the actions needed to create and maintain it.
It is very difficult to persuade the strong it is in their interest to stop exploiting the weak.
February 13th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
“Release your hatred and bigotry from the chains of faking a reasonable position, the cognitive dissonance will eventually drive you mad otherwise. It will be so refreshing to just say Palestinians have no right to the land they live on.’
I certainly do have hatred for Hamas. You obviously support Hamas. I certainly would like the Palestinians to have a state. Almost 80% of Israelis want Palestinians to have a state.
Let me put it in terms you might understand. If Israel accepts the maximist Palestinian proposals: a state on the 1967 armistice lines, removes all Jews from the west bank, and agrees to have east Jereusalem as the capitol of a palestinian state; Hamas and the 1.5 million Gazans it represents will still want to destroy Israel and Hamas would still wage war against Israel.
If the Palestinians agreed to the maximalist Israeli proposals, a state on 98% of the West Bank and gaza in exchange for some land in Israel and retaining some settlements right over the green line in exchange for equal amounts of land and no sharing of Jerusalem but keeping control of the temple mount and all muslim holy sites; the war would end forever.
(I have, of course left out the idea of a full fright of return for Palestinians to Israel and the idea of transferring all Palesinians to Jordan as these are obviously rediculous proposals.)
In other words, Hamas will never accept Israel even if all of the Palestinian Authority’s demands for peace are met. If Hamas does not accept the Palestinian maximalist demands how would it possible accept any compromise?
February 13th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
And if Israel accepted a compromise proposal, Israel would no longer attack any Palestinians (unless attacked).
If the Palesinians accepted a compromise proposal, of course, Hamas would still wage war on Israel even without being attacked.
February 13th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Wait, are you sure those are the maximalist positions?
Let’s make a spectrum
–Maximal Zionist
A: One Zionist state – stable Jewish majority (only accomplishable by ethnic cleansing – argued earlier in this thread, by people sympathetic to Zionism, that it is only accomplishable with violence)
B: Two states, one Jewish, one non-Jewish with land allocated disproportionally in favor of Jewish state
C: Two states, one Jewish, one non-Jewish with land allocated proportionally to population
D: Two states, one Jewish, one non-Jewish with land allocated disproportionally in favor of the non-Jewish state
E: One non-Zionist state – stable non-Jewish majority (accomplishable, as in South Africa, by giving the vote to people who currently do not have it and reforming race-based immigration laws)
–Maximalist anti-Zionist
Scenario B, which is very very far from a maximalist Palestinian solution has limited support among Palestinians. Scenario D, the analogous anti-Zionist position has no support among Israelis. If you’re saying Palestinians are wrong for fighting against scenario B, how wrong are Israelis that they would fight even against scenario C, much less scenario D?
You say the war would end if Palestinians accept B. OK. I say the war would end if Israelis accept E.
The Western position seems to be that if the Palestinians are starved enough, and other Arabs leaders are bribed enough and the US pays enough to keep a large enough regional military presence, then the Palestinians can be compelled to accept scenario B. I don’t know how much starvation the US wants to impose, but the amount that it has done so far hasn’t been enough. I don’t know how much the US intends to bribe corrupt Arab leaders, but the bribes so far have not been enough.
Hamas, by not accepting a Jewish state, is calling for scenario E, which is the most morally defensible position on its own merits. Hamas has also offered to accept Israel on a temporary basis to minimize bloodshed even while holding scenario E as its ultimate goal.
February 13th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
“If Israel accepts the maximist Palestinian proposals: a state on the 1967 armistice lines, removes all Jews from the west bank, and agrees to have east Jereusalem as the capitol of a palestinian state; Hamas and the 1.5 million Gazans it represents will still want to destroy Israel and Hamas would still wage war against Israel.”
Not proven. Of late, Hamas has been notably better than Israel about observing its agreements. This latest conflict began because of Israeli violations of the terms agreed by the two parties.
If the Palestinians agreed to the maximalist Israeli proposals, a state on 98% of the West Bank and gaza in exchange for some land in Israel and retaining some settlements right over the green line in exchange for equal amounts of land and no sharing of Jerusalem but keeping control of the temple mount and all muslim holy sites; the war would end forever.
And why should any self-respecting people become complicit in such preposterous terms? Why should they licence Israel’s ethnic cleansing, genocidal rhetoric, and land-grabs?
February 13th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
“Not proven” it’s a logical impossibility to prove a negative. You can however look at all the evidence. Hamas has many times said it will never except Israel. It has never said that it would accept Israel.
“And why should any self-respecting people become complicit in such preposterous terms? Why should they licence Israel’s ethnic cleansing, genocidal rhetoric, and land-grabs?”
I said it was a maximalist proposal. Neither side will, of course, accept the other’s maximalist proposal. They are starting points to negotiate a compromuse. But since Hamas won’t even accept the Palestinian maximalist proposal, what is the use of trying to negotiate a compromise.
February 13th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
The analogy to the Hamas position would be the Israelis starting negotiations by saying saying all settlements will continue to expand forever, all checkpoints will stay forever, and we can attack Palestinians whenever we want and that is not negotiable.
February 13th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
The analogy to the Hamas position would be the Israelis starting negotiations by saying saying all settlements will continue to expand forever, all checkpoints will stay forever, and we can attack Palestinians whenever we want and that is not negotiable.
Dave, that IS the current Israeli position. Hadn’t you noticed?
February 13th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Dave, that IS the current Israeli position. Hadn’t you noticed?
Cute, but rediculous. Present security measures are not the same thing as what the Israelis would do if they didn’t need security measures. The Israeli peace proposals have shown this.
February 13th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
And how,Dave, do you expect anyone to take seriously peace proposals that were obviously designed to be unacceptable? Did it ever occur to you that Israel has not negotiated in good faith for the past 20 some years? That it broke the last ceasefire deliberately? Oh, and by the way, it’s ridiculous, not rediculous.
February 13th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Bottom line
1. Israel and Palestinian Authority were willing to negotiate peace, and all disputed final borders and will be again at some point.
2. Hamas has explicitly stated many many times it will not negotiate for peace ever. Hamas is therefore the only permanant and definite block to peace until this position changes.
End of discussion.
February 14th, 2009 at 12:17 am
If supporters of Israel get to set the maximal position for Israel, and also the maximal position for the Palestinians, then only Israel’s opponents can be obstacles to peace.
If this weird contortion of logic makes you happy, then fine, it’s done its job. It isn’t convincing even to other supporters of Zionism, much less the Palestinians.
Describing the positions with anything resembling objectivity presents Hamas as just as reasonable as any other parties in this conflict.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:38 am
levitraVery interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:01 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:01 am
thanks !! very helpful post! viagra