Israeli wins Fatah top body seat

[FULL METAL JACKET]

A Jewish-born Israeli has been elected to the governing body of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party.
Uri Davis, 66, an academic who is married to a Palestinian, is an outspoken critic of what he calls Israel's "apartheid policies".
As the only Israeli member of the Revolutionary Council he says he wants to represent non-Arab people who support the Palestinian cause.

He called for an international campaign to boycott Israel to be toughened up. Dr Davis said his Israeli citizenship made no difference to his election.

"Within the conference itself the welcome was most heartfelt and enthusiastic - the Fatah movement is an open, international movement - membership is not conditional on ethnic origin, it's conditional on agreement with the main part of the Fatah political programme," he told the BBC News website.

Dr Davis said he did not define himself as Jewish but as "a Palestinian Hebrew national of Jewish origin, anti-Zionist, registered as Muslim and a citizen of an apartheid state - the State of Israel".

He was one of around 700 Fatah members competing for 89 open seats in the body, which oversees the group's day-to-day decision making.

Others elected to Fatah's revolutionary council included Fadwa Barghouti, the wife of the senior Fatah figure, Marwan Barghouti, who was jailed by Israel five years ago for the murder of five people.

The old guard of Fatah retained only four of the 18 elected seats. The rest went to younger men.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8203989.stm


I'm a little confused............ can't Israel try him for treason?

[GiladS]

Dr Davis said he did not define himself as Jewish but as "a Palestinian Hebrew national of Jewish origin, anti-Zionist, registered as Muslim and a citizen of an apartheid state - the State of Israel"


'Tool' is a more befitting definition.

Much shorter and to the point...

[Player]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8203989.stm


I'm a little confused............ can't Israel try him for treason?

So every critic of Israel who also happens to be a citizen of that country should be tried for treason? So much for liberty... :roll:

[GiladS]

can't Israel try him for treason?

His actions don't endanger the security of the State of Israel... so no.

[RoyB]

Weird.. never heard of him.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

So every critic of Israel who also happens to be a citizen of that country should be tried for treason? So much for liberty... :roll:
Yes because liberty is definitely considered when dealing with the war enemy :roll:


His actions don't endanger the security of the State of Israel... so no.
Well I guess if the Palestinians had an actual state then a treason charge would make more sense since Fatah would be part of the government. But still......

[Player]

Yes because liberty is definitely considered when dealing with the war enemy :roll:

What enemy are you talking about?

[Switek]

This case only strengths all conspiracy theories... Jews rule everywhere... They are Zionists and antisemitic as well.

[Octavariable]

So? just another nut-case no one will remember in about 5.. 4.. 3..

[Ordie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8203989.stm


I'm a little confused............ can't Israel try him for treason?

He was born in 1942.
He's technically a Palestinian during the British Mandate period.

[RoyB]

He was born in 1942.
He's technically a Palestinian during the British Mandate period.
..?
He has an Israeli citizenship.

[OrangeWolf]

"a Palestinian Hebrew national of Jewish origin, anti-Zionist, registered as Muslim and a citizen of an apartheid state - the State of Israel".

And this guy is a professor on an Israeli university, I wonder how he indoctrinates his students. At best he is very confused with his identity.

[Ordie]

..?
He has an Israeli citizenship.

I think he's dual British and Palestinian citizenship.

I recall a group of ulta-orthodox jews that forego Israeli citizenship in favor of Palestinian.

[Ordie]

And this guy is a professor on an Israeli university, I wonder how he indoctrinates his students. At best he is very confused with his identity.

If you can have Arab Israelis, why not Jewish Palestinians?

[RoyB]

I think he's dual British and Palestinian citizenship.
If he lived in Israel and teach in an Israeli university than he probably has an Israeli citizenship.

If you can have Arab Israelis, why not Jewish Palestinians?
Technically speaking, everyone who is born in the area is a Palestinian.

[budgie]

Yes because liberty is definitely considered when dealing with the war enemy :roll:


Well I guess if the Palestinians had an actual state then a treason charge would make more sense since Fatah would be part of the government. But still......

The Palestinian Authority is the 'enemy'? I thought Israel and Fatah, depsite disagreement over the details were committed to resolving a two-state solution. Time for you to hit the books my full-metalled friend.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

The Palestinian Authority is the 'enemy'? I thought Israel and Fatah, depsite disagreement over the details were committed to resolving a two-state solution. Time for you to hit the books my full-metalled friend.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=162144

Maybe it's time for you to hit the books my friend. Stop being so naive. These morons are still debating whether to recognize Israel or not.

[Isaac Kasabian]

yeah saw this guy on the news, and like someone said he should be charged with treason since what he is doing goes against the state of Israel and it's citizens.

[GB_FXST]

I think he's dual British and Palestinian citizenship.

I recall a group of ulta-orthodox jews that forego Israeli citizenship in favor of Palestinian.

People born in Palestine during the British Mandate do not hold British citizenship.

You are referring to the Neturei Karta; they are opposed to the modern, secular State of Israel on theological reasons. Essentially only the Messiah can herald a Jewish State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta)

They do not hold Palestinian citizenship.

[GB_FXST]

Yes because liberty is definitely considered when dealing with the war enemy :roll:


Well I guess if the Palestinians had an actual state then a treason charge would make more sense since Fatah would be part of the government. But still......

I agree; his actions are treasonous.

He should be tried for treason, and his jeopardy should include the possibility of revocation of his Israeli citizenship.

This is not a matter of freedom of speech, or the general right to criticize the government and country. Rather, he is now an elected official of a political organization that represents a diplomatic entity in negotiation with the state. Until that negotiation concludes to the satisfaction of Israel, this diplomatic entity is still a hostile organization, if not an enemy.

[Player]

I agree; his actions are treasonous.

He should be tried for treason, and his jeopardy should include the possibility of revocation of his Israeli citizenship.

This is not a matter of freedom of speech, or the general right to criticize the government and country. Rather, he is now an elected official of a political organization that represents a diplomatic entity in negotiation with the state. Until that negotiation concludes to the satisfaction of Israel, this diplomatic entity is still a hostile organization, if not an enemy.


You mean the same hostile organization which got provided with tons of weapons and money from Israel?

Is that a contradiction or just a double standard?

[GB_FXST]

You mean the same hostile organization which got provided with tons of weapons and money from Israel?

Is that a contradiction or just a double standard?

I'll take option three: The Israeli government made a bad decision.

The electorate has a mean to address objectionable policies if they so choose at the appropriate time and place through civil elections. Likewise, the media and private citizens also have means of redress through the press and organized protests.

However, matters of international relations are functions of the state; the sole prerogative of the state; but, not of a private individual.

[Player]

I'll take option three: The Israeli government made a bad decision.

The electorate has a mean to address such poor policies if they so choose at the appropriate time and place through civil elections. Likewise, the media and private citizens also have means of redress through the press and organized protests.



What makes it a bad decision or a poor policy in your opinion?

Strong and stable PA is better for Israel, both in terms of security and peace negotiations.


However, matters of international relations are functions of the state; the sole prerogative of the state; but, not of a private individual.

I don't agree. If the state doesn't follow some principles, why should the citizens do?

To me this sounds more like a silly excuse to justify the state in whatever it does. But then again, this 'entity' is not hostile nor is an enemy.

[GiladS]

What makes it a bad decision or a poor policy in your opinion?

Strong and stable PA is better for Israel, both in terms of security and peace negotiations.


Last time there was a strong PA/Fatah Movement, we had the Second Intifadah... of course that was under Arafat.

[GB_FXST]

What makes it a bad decision or a poor policy in your opinion?

Strong and stable PA is better for Israel, both in terms of security and peace negotiations.

... snip ...



An enemy wrapped in the façade of moderation is still an enemy.




... snip ...

I don't agree. If the state doesn't follow some principles, why should the citizens do?

To me this sounds more like a silly excuse to justify the state in whatever it does. But then again, this 'entity' is not hostile nor is an enemy.

Israel (like the US and many other countries) is a nation of laws.

The realm of international relations is reserved by law to the state.

Individual citizens simply cannot act as independent actors with foreign entities as they do not represent the interest of the whole, the common weal.

The citizens of the state have legal means to address and redress the state’s policies. They can publish newspapers, organize protests, form opposition parties, run for office, etc.

Speaking of laws, how does he travel to Ramallah (I assume) legally?

[Rayber]

And this guy is a professor on an Israeli university, I wonder how he indoctrinates his students. At best he is very confused with his identity.

What do you know about him not being able to split work and personal beliefs ?

[baboon6]

If you can have Arab Israelis, why not Jewish Palestinians?

Good point!

[Yoni-R]

What makes it a bad decision or a poor policy in your opinion?

Strong and stable PA is better for Israel, both in terms of security and peace negotiations.

I don't agree. If the state doesn't follow some principles, why should the citizens do?

To me this sounds more like a silly excuse to justify the state in whatever it does. But then again, this 'entity' is not hostile nor is an enemy.

in the fatah summit, they said that there are going to continue their armed struggle against israel and would not recognise israel.

seems like a hostile enemy to me...

[OrangeWolf]

What do you know about him not being able to split work and personal beliefs ?

Because of his pathetic identity crises he sounds incapable enough, or perhaps that's just ordinary behavior for far-left intellectuals

[GB_FXST]

in the fatah summit, they said that there are going to continue their armed struggle against israel and would not recognise israel.

seems like a hostile enemy to me...


+1

Ah yes, the recent Fatah conference …

… Commitment to an armed struggle …

… no Jewish State …

… Palestinian Jerusalem …

… Arafat assassinated by Israel …

Sounds to me like the rhetoric of an enemy, a hostile state, not a partner for peace …

Sounds to me like Fatah is banging a drum, a war drum .. (my apologies to T Rex )

http://www.newsmax.com/herbert_london/fatah_israel_palestinians/2009/08/17/248904.html (http://www.newsmax.com/herbert_london/fatah_israel_palestinians/2009/08/17/248904.html)




… snip …

Fatah leaders argued they would continue their armed struggle against Israel, engaging in whatever force is necessary to undermine the Jewish state. They made it clear that there wouldn’t be any modification in their charter, thereby avoiding any possibility of recognizing Israel as a legitimate nation. To gild the lily, a number of spokesmen contended that Israel was responsible for the death of Yassir Arafat, a claim made without reference to any evidence.

While Obama has adhered to what he would describe as an “even-handed policy,” it is clear that his effort to employ Fatah as the moderate counter-weight to radical Hamas will not work. The difference between Hamas and Fatah is that the former want to kill Jews now and the latter want to kill Jews after concessions have been vouchsafed.

The conference comments should disabuse Obama administration officials of the dubious notion that settlements in the West Bank stand in the way of some accord between Israelis and Palestinians. There is little doubt the settlements argument is a ruse designed to make the Israeli government pliable. Moreover, the issue creates a separation between the Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu governments that can be exploited by the Palestinian leadership. An illusion has been created over settlements that the Israelis are intractable and unwilling to come to the negotiating table in good faith.

Yet the conference in Bethlehem reveals an undisguised truth: Fatah is unwilling to modify its hateful stance towards Israel. In an effort to compete with the sanguinic aims of Hamas, Fatah engages in rhetoric that is remarkable similar. Notwithstanding the words that are used, the Obama administration continues to search for a silver lining. This commitment to Abu Mazen, a man without any real influence or standing in the West Bank, would be comical were it not so tragic.

… snip …



(Emphasis added)

[Player]

Last time there was a strong PA/Fatah Movement, we had the Second Intifadah... of course that was under Arafat.

Like you said yourself, that was under Arafat, times change, we move on. Oh and by the way, I meant economically strong.


An enemy wrapped in the façade of moderation is still an enemy.

This kind of rhetoric will surely bring peace one day, not.


Speaking of laws, how does he travel to Ramallah (I assume) legally?

AFAIK he's married to a Palestinian, but I'm not a lawyer though.


in the fatah summit, they said that there are going to continue their armed struggle against israel and would not recognise israel.

seems like a hostile enemy to me...

I don't think they would be stupid enough to actually do it, looks more like a typical Middle Eastern politics.


Sounds to me like the rhetoric of an enemy, a hostile state, not a partner for peace …

Sounds to me like Fatah is banging a drum, a war drum .. (my apologies to T Rex )

I get your point but you should look a little bit further;

The situation on the ground is not as simple as it seems to some people, there are many factors which are involved in this political game between Fatah and the Israeli government. There are few obvious reasons why the Palestinians dislike the State of Israel, which include: The Israeli occupation plus radicals' propaganda that makes it even more complicated. On the other hand we have the corrupt Fatah, which on one day they say they're committed to peace and on the other day they say they're committed to armed struggle. These are just political maneuvers to achieve their goals by pleasing both Israel and the Palestinian public and nothing more.

Now, the Israeli government proposed economical assistance to the Palestinian Authority, and surely Fatah is not stupid enough to refuse such an offer. I believe that when the Palestinian Authority would get economically stronger and richer, they would lose their desire for ending the occupation through the means of war and would gain a lot more from allying with Israel rather than from fighting it. From this point, Israel would see that the PA is more or less stable and now it's the time to help them create their own independent country.

However even this is just a little part of the whole issue going on here, the conflict is very complicated, and both the Israelis and the Palestinians have equally the same right for freedom and wellbeing. Therefore when looking at this conflict, it should be looked from the eyes of both sides.

Sorry for the OT.

[XShipRider]

If he lived in Israel and teach in an Israeli university than he probably has an Israeli citizenship.

Technically speaking, everyone who is born in the area is a Palestinian.

Wouldn't that be subjective depending upon how far back in history one draws map borders?

[timetraveller]

Good point!


Exactly ....

[GB_FXST]

... snip ...

I get your point but you should look a little bit further;

The situation on the ground is not as simple as it seems to some people, there are many factors which are involved in this political game between Fatah and the Israeli government. There are few obvious reasons why the Palestinians dislike the State of Israel, which include: The Israeli occupation plus radicals' propaganda that makes it even more complicated. On the other hand we have the corrupt Fatah, which on one day they say they're committed to peace and on the other day they say they're committed to armed struggle. These are just political maneuvers to achieve their goals by pleasing both Israel and the Palestinian public and nothing more.

Now, the Israeli government proposed economical assistance to the Palestinian Authority, and surely Fatah is not stupid enough to refuse such an offer. I believe that when the Palestinian Authority would get economically stronger and richer, they would lose their desire for ending the occupation through the means of war and would gain a lot more from allying with Israel rather than from fighting it. From this point, Israel would see that the PA is more or less stable and now it's the time to help them create their own independent country.

However even this is just a little part of the whole issue going on here, the conflict is very complicated, and both the Israelis and the Palestinians have equally the same right for freedom and wellbeing. Therefore when looking at this conflict, it should be looked from the eyes of both sides.

Sorry for the OT.

Nothing in life is as simple as it seems; life is a mosaic of shades of grey.

A set of fundamental principles is needed to navigate something as complex as this problem. People are solely responsible for their actions; Actions and words are indicators of intent.

Peace is not a principle; it is an objective.

Give Peace a Chance is not a principle; it is wishful thinking.

I admit that I once had high hopes and expectation for the peace promised under the Oslo accords.

My high hopes were a product of the rhetoric of Arafat and his handlers, Rabin’s endorsement, Clinton’s charisma, and my very own mindset. My experience in the schtachim during Intifada I was still raw and fresh; I was in undergrad, which is a time when the human potential appears to be unlimited.

My high hopes were not a product of realty; they were a product of my wishful thinking and others’ deceit.

A dream built on wishful thinking and lies is nothing but a sandcastle, easily swept away by crushing waves of realty.

So, my hopes for that long sought peace were dashed: dashed by Arafat’s subterfuge, Hamas’ bombs, Fatah’s blood lust, and the general moral bankruptcy of so-called Arab moderates and the left.

That experience has taught me that the Palestinian leadership is not interested in peace; the burden of peace making does not lie solely upon Israel; concessions are not the key to unlocking intransigence.

Occupation is neither the key issue nor the main complaint. For, if it was the Palestinian leadership would have surely leapt at deals previously offered to them

No, the key issue, the main complaint, is the existence of Israel. It was always Arafat’s issue. Fatah and Hamas present the same basic solution to that complaint; they only differ in strategy.

The idea that I should not take the statements of Fatah at face value because they are intended for internal consumption and political reason, and do not really reflect their intent is patently ludicrous. They say what they mean, and they mean what they say. Any other inference is an insult to intelligence.

The idea that Palestinians are not responsible for their atavism is just wrong. They choose a path of violence, and bear the moral burden of that choice. It is not mine, nor is it Israel’s burden.

Palestinians need to stop the belligerency, and need to start nation building. No excuses and no crutches.

Until then, the status quo may be the best and only option.

[Player]

Nothing in life is as simple as it seems; life is a mosaic of shades of grey.

A set of fundamental principles is needed to navigate something as complex as this problem. People are solely responsible for their actions; Actions and words are indicators of intent.

Peace is not a principle; it is an objective.

Give Peace a Chance is not a principle; it is wishful thinking.

I admit that I once had high hopes and expectation for the peace promised under the Oslo accords.

My high hopes were a product of the rhetoric of Arafat and his handlers, Rabin’s endorsement, Clinton’s charisma, and my very own mindset. My experience in the schtachim during Intifada I was still raw and fresh; I was in undergrad, which is a time when the human potential appears to be unlimited.

My high hopes were not a product of realty; they were a product of my wishful thinking and others’ deceit.

A dream built on wishful thinking and lies is nothing but a sandcastle, easily swept away by crushing waves of realty.

So, my hopes for that long sought peace were dashed: dashed by Arafat’s subterfuge, Hamas’ bombs, Fatah’s blood lust, and the general moral bankruptcy of so-called Arab moderates and the left.

That experience has taught me that the Palestinian leadership is not interested in peace; the burden of peace making does not lie solely upon Israel; concessions are not the key to unlocking intransigence.

Occupation is neither the key issue nor the main complaint. For, if it was the Palestinian leadership would have surely leapt at deals previously offered to them

No, the key issue, the main complaint, is the existence of Israel. It was always Arafat’s issue. Fatah and Hamas present the same basic solution to that complaint; they only differ in strategy.

The idea that I should not take the statements of Fatah at face value because they are intended for internal consumption and political reason, and do not really reflect their intent is patently ludicrous. They say what they mean, and they mean what they say. Any other inference is an insult to intelligence.

The idea that Palestinians are not responsible for their atavism is just wrong. They choose a path of violence, and bear the moral burden of that choice. It is not mine, nor is it Israel’s burden.

Palestinians need to stop the belligerency, and need to start nation building. No excuses and no crutches.

Until then, the status quo may be the best and only option.

Finally a post that is really worth to think good about, which doesn't happen too often here. :)
I must however add that hope is what moves us closer to this universal goal - peace. We shall never lose hope.

As much as it may sometimes seem like the Palestinian leadership has no interest in a real peace, there are ways to bribe them for that. ;-) To be honest I'm not a big fan of Fatah myself, it is a corrupt organization and it lost my credibility long time ago, not to mention its policy which involves discrimination and more. However that is our partner for peace, as bad as it may be it's still better than Hamas and other organizations.
Like I said before, IMO helping the PA to build economy and to get a better quality of life would dramatically decrease the rate of terrorism and warmongering among the common Palestinians, which would hopefully lead to a potential peace. Current Israeli government is in favor of this and for now I have some hopes for it.

[GB_FXST]

Finally a post that is really worth to think good about, which doesn't happen too often here. :)
I must however add that hope is what moves us closer to this universal goal - peace. We shall never lose hope.

... snip ...



Thank you for the compliment. An intelligent and civil exchange of ideas is always good. Likewise, you cause me to think too.




... snip ...

As much as it may sometimes seem like the Palestinian leadership has no interest in a real peace, there are ways to bribe them for that. ;-) To be honest I'm not a big fan of Fatah myself, it is a corrupt organization and it lost my credibility long time ago, not to mention its policy which involves discrimination and more. However that is our partner for peace, as bad as it may be it's still better than Hamas and other organizations.

... snip ...



I think it is futile to work with Fatah. As you note, they are corrupt; they are not interested in a peaceful, mutually beneficial solution. But more importantly, from a strategic perspective, are they stable in the face of Hams’ growing power? That is, what s the value of an agreement with Fatah, if they are overthrown by Hamas, who then refuses to abide by that agreement? That question pre-supposes that Fatah would, if it could, honor the agreement, which is questionable in and of itself.

No agreement may be better than a fundamentally flawed agreement. The latter constitutes a concession with no corresponding benefit.




... snip ...

Like I said before, IMO helping the PA to build economy and to get a better quality of life would dramatically decrease the rate of terrorism and warmongering among the common Palestinians, which would hopefully lead to a potential peace. Current Israeli government is in favor of this and for now I have some hopes for it.

Here, I am in agreement. It is in everyone’s interest that the economic health of average Palestinians improves. For if there is to be a peaceful, mutually beneficial solution, average Palestinians must realize that the path offered by the current leadership is not in their interest. Economic health is a strong alternative to death cults and nihilism.

I have just started reading Benny Morris’ latest book, OneState, TwoStates, and I believe that the basic thesis of the book is that neither a one state solution nor a two state solution are viable. Rather, that Palestinian self-determination can only be achieved by somehow conjoining or federating with Jordan. It is a pretty powerful idea coming from someone like Benny Morris.

[Korath]

Well, Jordanians would have to agree and I really doubt that. That would spell the end of the current political order in the kingdom.

With regard to the very interesting post on Palestinian default in implementing Oslo. I think that that accord failed because a fundamental, philosophic mistake. The accord was based on the assumption that the two parties will act in good faith to slowly build trust between them in order to deal with fundamental, disputed issues (e.g., borders, refugees, Jerusalem, water, etc.) Therefore the accord only dealt with non-core issues which were not really disputed. If there was an issue, it was worked around.

The title of PA's leader is an example. Palestinians wanted to have a president, Israelis objected, they wanted to see Arafat merely as chairman. Therefore the text of the accord, which was signed in English, said that the head of PA is the "rais", which can be construed as president or chairman.

However the trust was never built because in my opinion, neither party really worked in good faith. Instead of using the accord to advance peace, both parties used it to win the conflict. We all know all to well where it.

The fault was in the process based on small steps designed to lead to grand finale somewhere in the future. It seems that the opposite approach should be implemented. Both parties have to find a quiet spot somewhere in a forest and work out the complete deal. Away from media! It has to be a workable deal. To implement it charismatic, popular leaders are required. Neither party has them.

Until then status quo would be an option if there was a status quo. Situation on the ground is dynamic. Israel is working on establishing facts on the ground and large parts of Palestinian society seem are moving in the direction of Islamic fundamentalism. No good news in sight.

[OrangeWolf]

The Hashemites are less native to the land than many other tribes there, including those who identify themselves as Palestinians, just by the way.

[GB_FXST]

Well, Jordanians would have to agree and I really doubt that. That would spell the end of the current political order in the kingdom.

... snip ...



Agreed. But, it is telling that Morris would propose such a far-fetched proposal, as I believe the only other alternative is the status quo, even if it is at risk of deteriorating.





... snip ...

With regard to the very interesting post on Palestinian default in implementing Oslo. I think that that accord failed because a fundamental, philosophic mistake. The accord was based on the assumption that the two parties will act in good faith to slowly build trust between them in order to deal with fundamental, disputed issues (e.g., borders, refugees, Jerusalem, water, etc.) Therefore the accord only dealt with non-core issues which were not really disputed. If there was an issue, it was worked around.

... snip ...



I disagree. Oslo failed because of the untenable burden of Hamas’ homicide bombers, and because Fatah secretly encouraged Hamas’ crimes.

But for the moment, to avoid a tit-for-tat review, lets agree to disagree.

A question or two for you. Do you think that Arafat was an honest broker at the 2001 Taba Summit? Did he really intend to negotiate a deal? And if so, why did he not take the deal?





... snip ...

The fault was in the process based on small steps designed to lead to grand finale somewhere in the future. It seems that the opposite approach should be implemented. Both parties have to find a quiet spot somewhere in a forest and work out the complete deal. Away from media! It has to be a workable deal. To implement it charismatic, popular leaders are required. Neither party has them.

... snip ...



If the parties cannot work out the minor details, how can they work out the major details?

[Korath]

A question or two for you. Do you think that Arafat was an honest broker at the 2001 Taba Summit? Did he really intend to negotiate a deal? And if so, why did he not take the deal?

Absolutely not. The process failed much, much earlier. It took time to unravel, though. It's hard to pinpoint a turning date. I'd say that Igal Amir fired the final round. Death of Rabin in 1995 effectively ended any chances for the settlement. Israel lost a charismatic, non-nonsense leader. Peres couldn't do it not to mention Barak or Bibi. Arafat also finally opted for strengthening his 'military option'. His strategic mistake, however, was not to finish Hamas of, when he had the chance. In 1993 Hamas' support was around 3 - 5%.

I think that the bombing were the tool to break the process, not the reason. On the other hand, Israel kept increasing the number of settlers and that was as disenchanting for Palestinians as the bombings were for Israelis (I'm taking about early 90s). Therefore the good faith of both parties can be questions. I remember, for example, when Israel negotiated a deal concerning archaeological findings in Gaza. The deal was nice. Israel was to provide digs documentation for the start. However Israelis appointed a military guy as the head of its cooperation commission who knew just a singe word - "no". There was no cooperation whatsoever. Palestinians were certain that Israels were not willing to implement the deal from the moment the signed it. That was just a little thing, but it was symptomatic. The process was designed to overcome such minor issues, to gradually build trust. It, however, required honest and charismatic leader. I have serious doubts concerning honesty of the Palestinian leader back then. People around him, however, and leaders on the ground (guys leading the First Intifada) were really willing to go all the way. The were genuinely enthusiastic about it. Fish rots from the head, however... Israel lost the leader who was capable of doing it in 1995.





If the parties cannot work out the minor details, how can they work out the major details?

The parties can workout the whole details. The intellectual potential is there. Both parties are capable of innovative thinking. Negotiators, however, need a political mandate from their leaders. Negotiations MUST be secret. Otherwise they become political, through media, not substantial. Only when a plan is agreed, it could be presented to the public as a ready, complete deal. A huge information campaign should follow. It would be easier for people to swallow difficulties if they see a positive end game and safety guarantees in place to secure implementation by both parties. This, however, requires charismatic leaders willing to stop the nonsense and there are non.
I agree that it's an utopia. But hey, people didn't dare to dream that Israel and Egypt would stop fighting one day and that happened... So maybe we will live long enough to see some change... it wont' happen with the current leadership, though.

[GB_FXST]

Absolutely not. The process failed much, much earlier. It took time to unravel, though. It's hard to pinpoint a turning date. I'd say that Igal Amir fired the final round. Death of Rabin in 1995 effectively ended any chances for the settlement. Israel lost a charismatic, non-nonsense leader. Peres couldn't do it not to mention Barak or Bibi. Arafat also finally opted for strengthening his 'military option'. His strategic mistake, however, was not to finish Hamas of, when he had the chance. In 1993 Hamas' support was around 3 - 5%.

I think that the bombing were the tool to break the process, not the reason. On the other hand, Israel kept increasing the number of settlers and that was as disenchanting for Palestinians as the bombings were for Israelis (I'm taking about early 90s). Therefore the good faith of both parties can be questions. I remember, for example, when Israel negotiated a deal concerning archaeological findings in Gaza. The deal was nice. Israel was to provide digs documentation for the start. However Israelis appointed a military guy as the head of its cooperation commission who knew just a singe word - "no". There was no cooperation whatsoever. Palestinians were certain that Israels were not willing to implement the deal from the moment the signed it. That was just a little thing, but it was symptomatic. The process was designed to overcome such minor issues, to gradually build trust. It, however, required honest and charismatic leader. I have serious doubts concerning honesty of the Palestinian leader back then. People around him, however, and leaders on the ground (guys leading the First Intifada) were really willing to go all the way. The were genuinely enthusiastic about it. Fish rots from the head, however... Israel lost the leader who was capable of doing it in 1995.





The parties can workout the whole details. The intellectual potential is there. Both parties are capable of innovative thinking. Negotiators, however, need a political mandate from their leaders. Negotiations MUST be secret. Otherwise they become political, through media, not substantial. Only when a plan is agreed, it could be presented to the public as a ready, complete deal. A huge information campaign should follow. It would be easier for people to swallow difficulties if they see a positive end game and safety guarantees in place to secure implementation by both parties. This, however, requires charismatic leaders willing to stop the nonsense and there are non.
I agree that it's an utopia. But hey, people didn't dare to dream that Israel and Egypt would stop fighting one day and that happened... So maybe we will live long enough to see some change... it wont' happen with the current leadership, though.

No personal offence intended, but I think that you are magnifying events on the Israeli side and minimizing events on the Palestinian side. There is no doubt that Israel made mistakes, implemented some agreements poorly, and generally did some bad things. Likewise, the death of Rabin, as you correctly note, a charismatic trusted leader, was a significant blow to Israel’s morale and ability to trust. But, in my opinion, all of this pales in comparison to the reign of homicidal terror inflicted on Israel.

I fear that we will have to agree to disagree on the underlying cause of the failure of Oslo.

In regards to the future, I do not think that peace can be imposed top-down, but this is perhaps a tangential difference of opinion as it may be a question of personal philosophy and world-view.

But, more importantly, I share your prognosis of a bleak outlook. Peace is unlikely, but more conflict and war are probable.

We are, IMHO, at least a generation or two away from any viable peace. Equally unfortunate, a lot more sorrow and misery will occur between now and then. A causal example is Iran. Until there is a fundamental change in Iran, they will always play the spoiler.

[Korath]

No personal offence intended, but I think that you are magnifying events on the Israeli side and minimizing events on the Palestinian side. There is no doubt that Israel made mistakes, implemented some agreements poorly, and generally did some bad things. Likewise, the death of Rabin, as you correctly note, a charismatic trusted leader, was a significant blow to Israel’s morale and ability to trust. But, in my opinion, all of this pales in comparison to the reign of homicidal terror inflicted on Israel.

No offense taken. I think that the difference between our opinions is not as big as it may appear. I absolutely agree that the terror campaign inflicted on Israelis at that time was terrible. I had a sad duty of witnessing some of its outcome... but that's not my point. I generally try not to compare who suffered the most because it leads nowhere. Palestinians did and do suffer terribly, too. As long as people try to compare who suffers more or who has the stronger right to this field or piece of stone or that, it leads nowhere. IMHO, people have to put aside their pain, which is perceived subjectively by each and everyone, as well as the discussion on a number of centuries which give one right to something, and sit town to find a reasonable, rational solution with which both nations / societies could live in peace. IMHO, weighting relative suffering to justify rights is not a good starter.



In regards to the future, I do not think that peace can be imposed top-down, but this is perhaps a tangential difference of opinion as it may be a question of personal philosophy and world-view.

I would be happy to see what's your idea. Based on my observations, both societies are terribly fragmented and distrustful. The eventual negotiating process could not take place in the media spotlight because there would be enough people with political power to derail it. Subsequent rounds of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations showed that secret talks usually produced some results, while open negotiations all to often turned to media shows. Sadat and Begin did it top-down. Mustered public support and presented a comprehensive, workable plan. Do you think that it could be done any other way?



We are, IMHO, at least a generation or two away from any viable peace. Equally unfortunate, a lot more sorrow and misery will occur between now and then. A causal example is Iran. Until there is a fundamental change in Iran, they will always play the spoiler.


A few years ago an Israeli commentator (I don't remember the name) said that there was not enough pain for people to think about alternatives. In other words, the pain has to become unbearable for people to start looking for alternative solutions. I think that there is something to it. It's not a happy thought, is it?

[GB_FXST]

No offense taken. I think that the difference between our opinions is not as big as it may appear. I absolutely agree that the terror campaign inflicted on Israelis at that time was terrible. I had a sad duty of witnessing some of its outcome... but that's not my point. I generally try not to compare who suffered the most because it leads nowhere. Palestinians did and do suffer terribly, too. As long as people try to compare who suffers more or who has the stronger right to this field or piece of stone or that, it leads nowhere. IMHO, people have to put aside their pain, which is perceived subjectively by each and everyone, as well as the discussion on a number of centuries which give one right to something, and sit town to find a reasonable, rational solution with which both nations / societies could live in peace. IMHO, weighting relative suffering to justify rights is not a good starter.


[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

I would be happy to see what's your idea. Based on my observations, both societies are terribly fragmented and distrustful. The eventual negotiating process could not take place in the media spotlight because there would be enough people with political power to derail it. Subsequent rounds of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations showed that secret talks usually produced some results, while open negotiations all to often turned to media shows. Sadat and Begin did it top-down. Mustered public support and presented a comprehensive, workable plan. Do you think that it could be done any other way?

[/SIZE][/FONT]

A few years ago an Israeli commentator (I don't remember the name) said that there was not enough pain for people to think about alternatives. In other words, the pain has to become unbearable for people to start looking for alternative solutions. I think that there is something to it. It's not a happy thought, is it?

It has to be done another way.

There is a monumental difference between Egypt’s claim on Israel and Palestinians’ claim on Israel. The former wanted Sinai back, and the return of Sinai for peace was a pretty good bargain for all parties. The latter want Israel’s destruction, and there is no bargain to be had

But, before you reply, I do not disagree that the average people, the rank and file Palestinians want to live normal lives; play with their kids, eat bad food, watch TV and grow old and fat and content.

The problem lies with the radicals (secular, religious, leftist, they all represent the same pathology). It is the wellspring of their leadership (and I do not accept the premise that Abbas is a moderate; Erekat and Ashrawi may be moderate, but they are not leaders), and the reason for the constant conflict and atavism.

The radicals see no option that the destruction of Israel. I am not even sure that a Palestinian State is their goal.

No one but the Palestinians themselves can force out the radicals. Any action by anyone else simply emboldens and strengths the radicals.

So the people are going to have to want a peaceful solution badly enough that they force it upon their existing leadership, or appoint a new leadership; they need to force out the radicals.

And yes, such a thing is easy to say, but hard to do. One obvious idea, as has been mentioned above, is economic opportunities. I am at a loss for others. I would probably do something else in life if I knew how to implement a solution to unseat radicals, especially violent radicals that have no interest in losing their positions of power.

But, I also think that Israel would respond positively to a genuine push for peace by the Palestinian people. Israel is a healthy representative democracy and thus already has an infrastructure – a political/social feedback structure – to accommodate a push for peace.

Nevertheless, the analogy to Egypt may prove telling in a somewhat different way. The Camp David Peace Accords would not have been realized had Egypt not failed to militarily take back Sinai in 1973. That is, that failure convinced the Egyptians that there had to be another way to approach their Israel problem. Maybe the Palestinians have yet to have their moment of 1973, where they realize that Israel is here to stay, and honey is more enticing than violence.

(An off topic question or two for you: Are you Israeli? Did you serve in the IDF? You mentioned sad duty witnessing outcome of terror, and I wondered what you meant by that.)

[Korath]

It has to be done another way.

There is a monumental difference between Egypt’s claim on Israel and Palestinians’ claim on Israel. The former wanted Sinai back, and the return of Sinai for peace was a pretty good bargain for all parties. The latter want Israel’s destruction, and there is no bargain to be had

But, before you reply, I do not disagree that the average people, the rank and file Palestinians want to live normal lives; play with their kids, eat bad food, watch TV and grow old and fat and content.

The problem lies with the radicals (secular, religious, leftist, they all represent the same pathology). It is the wellspring of their leadership (and I do not accept the premise that Abbas is a moderate; Erekat and Ashrawi may be moderate, but they are not leaders), and the reason for the constant conflict and atavism.

The radicals see no option that the destruction of Israel. I am not even sure that a Palestinian State is their goal.

I agree with you on two points. First, Abbas is useless. He was appointed more or less due to lack of a better choice at the time of Arafat's death. He is not a leader, either. I also think that there is a problem of radicals, who torpedo any move to normalize the situation. Most of them, however, are radical in their modus operandi, not goals. Very few Palestinians have any other goal than establishment of their state. Even most of radicals realize that Israel is here to stay. It would be easier to neutralize them than most Israelis realize. But it would require wit, not power.


No one but the Palestinians themselves can force out the radicals. Any action by anyone else simply emboldens and strengths the radicals.
They cannot do it themselves. It has to be done in cooperation with Israel. Please don't forget that they are under occupation (I'm talking about the West Bank, which is crucial and not Gaza, which is a very different story altogether). Palestinians feel helpless, frustrated, oppressed and humiliated... simply cornered. I agree that much of their predicament was caused by their own leadership, but nevertheless, they need help to break the process which feeds the radicals.




So the people are going to have to want a peaceful solution badly enough that they force it upon their existing leadership, or appoint a new leadership; they need to force out the radicals.

Their current leadership is useless. The whole Tunisian bunch is useless. I would put much more faith in local leadership, especially people brought up by the First Intifada. They spent years in Israeli prisons and many of them used the time very well. They call Israeli prisons "universities". Many of them were allowed to study at open universities. IMO, it was a very wise move by Israel to allow them to learn. They know Israel very well. Many speak Hebrew. They envy Israeli democracy, freedom of speech, personal liberty. They contribute a great deal to development of a civil society in the territories. I bet, current prisoners and detainees, have the same possibilities. There is a great potential for cooperation. Few Israeli realize that the Palestinian society (West Bank, again) is in many ways a mirror of the Israeli one. Do you remember Barak's interview, when he was ask what would he do if he was a Palestinian? It was a slip of tongue of an unexperienced politician, but he said that he would be a terrorist fighting for his country. It's very symptomatic. Of course it's not 1:1 similarity, so there is no point is listing things who would or wouldn'd do. Look, however, at pre-independence Palestine. There are many, may parallels.



But, I also think that Israel would respond positively to a genuine push for peace by the Palestinian people. Israel is a healthy representative democracy and thus already has an infrastructure – a political/social feedback structure – to accommodate a push for peace.

Israel is a representative democracy, even if not fully compatible with the Western mode of liberal democracy, but that's a different discussion. I think here we touch upon the main difference between our world-views. You tend to think that people would generate leadership if necessary, I think that people would support leadership, if provided an opportunity. As to a peace push by Palestinian people - as long as they are cornered, there is no chance of that because they won't be able to shake off the radicals who allow them to vent their anger. There is a need for an external honest broker who would guarantee two basic conditions for both societies: hope and security.

Security is crucial here. It's obvious for any Israeli. Buy Israelis tend not to realize that Palestinians are threatened by them. Palestinians feel oppressed and threatened by IDF, by settlers. They also perceive Israeli policies as a land-grab. They need security guarantees as much as Israelis do.

Hope is also required by both parties. The only way to give it is to present an end game solution with implementation guarantees. Right now USA is the only external power acceptable to both parties with enough resourced to push it through. I am not sure that Obama can do it. I tend to think that he can't. But the mechanism, in my opinion, is still valid.




Nevertheless, the analogy to Egypt may prove telling in a somewhat different way. The Camp David Peace Accords would not have been realized had Egypt not failed to militarily take back Sinai in 1973. That is, that failure convinced the Egyptians that there had to be another way to approach their Israel problem. Maybe the Palestinians have yet to have their moment of 1973, where they realize that Israel is here to stay, and honey is more enticing than violence.

(An off topic question or two for you: Are you Israeli? Did you serve in the IDF? You mentioned sad duty witnessing outcome of terror, and I wondered what you meant by that.)

Now this illustrates why our discussion is so interesting. You present a very Israeli word view (that's not a qualitative statement). From the Israeli perspective you are right. But please remember that it's a matter of perspective. Egyptians view it very differently. They are convinced that they won the war and the Camp David Accord were realized because they broke the invincibility perception developed after 1967 (the curse of "קונצפציה"). I don't want to start a discussion on Yom Kippur war, I just want to illustrate the importance of perception. Israelis tend not to see that things they do or say are often interpreted differently than intended. In order to facilitate a dialog, it's crucial to try and understand the other part.

That's the reason why for the purpose of the discussion I focus on Palestinians. Otherwise we wouldn't have the discussion, would we? And btw, no, I'm not Israeli even though I speak Hebrew. I'll PM you.

[GB_FXST]

I agree with you on two points. First, Abbas is useless. He was appointed more or less due to lack of a better choice at the time of Arafat's death. He is not a leader, either. I also think that there is a problem of radicals, who torpedo any move to normalize the situation. Most of them, however, are radical in their modus operandi, not goals. Very few Palestinians have any other goal than establishment of their state. Even most of radicals realize that Israel is here to stay. It would be easier to neutralize them than most Israelis realize. But it would require wit, not power.


They cannot do it themselves. It has to be done in cooperation with Israel. Please don't forget that they are under occupation (I'm talking about the West Bank, which is crucial and not Gaza, which is a very different story altogether). Palestinians feel helpless, frustrated, oppressed and humiliated... simply cornered. I agree that much of their predicament was caused by their own leadership, but nevertheless, they need help to break the process which feeds the radicals.




Their current leadership is useless. The whole Tunisian bunch is useless. I would put much more faith in local leadership, especially people brought up by the First Intifada. They spent years in Israeli prisons and many of them used the time very well. They call Israeli prisons "universities". Many of them were allowed to study at open universities. IMO, it was a very wise move by Israel to allow them to learn. They know Israel very well. Many speak Hebrew. They envy Israeli democracy, freedom of speech, personal liberty. They contribute a great deal to development of a civil society in the territories. I bet, current prisoners and detainees, have the same possibilities. There is a great potential for cooperation. Few Israeli realize that the Palestinian society (West Bank, again) is in many ways a mirror of the Israeli one. Do you remember Barak's interview, when he was ask what would he do if he was a Palestinian? It was a slip of tongue of an unexperienced politician, but he said that he would be a terrorist fighting for his country. It's very symptomatic. Of course it's not 1:1 similarity, so there is no point is listing things who would or wouldn'd do. Look, however, at pre-independence Palestine. There are many, may parallels.



Israel is a representative democracy, even if not fully compatible with the Western mode of liberal democracy, but that's a different discussion. I think here we touch upon the main difference between our world-views. You tend to think that people would generate leadership if necessary, I think that people would support leadership, if provided an opportunity. As to a peace push by Palestinian people - as long as they are cornered, there is no chance of that because they won't be able to shake off the radicals who allow them to vent their anger. There is a need for an external honest broker who would guarantee two basic conditions for both societies: hope and security.

Security is crucial here. It's obvious for any Israeli. Buy Israelis tend not to realize that Palestinians are threatened by them. Palestinians feel oppressed and threatened by IDF, by settlers. They also perceive Israeli policies as a land-grab. They need security guarantees as much as Israelis do.

Hope is also required by both parties. The only way to give it is to present an end game solution with implementation guarantees. Right now USA is the only external power acceptable to both parties with enough resourced to push it through. I am not sure that Obama can do it. I tend to think that he can't. But the mechanism, in my opinion, is still valid.




Now this illustrates why our discussion is so interesting. You present a very Israeli word view (that's not a qualitative statement). From the Israeli perspective you are right. But please remember that it's a matter of perspective. Egyptians view it very differently. They are convinced that they won the war and the Camp David Accord were realized because they broke the invincibility perception developed after 1967 (the curse of "קונצפציה"). I don't want to start a discussion on Yom Kippur war, I just want to illustrate the importance of perception. Israelis tend not to see that things they do or say are often interpreted differently than intended. In order to facilitate a dialog, it's crucial to try and understand the other part.

That's the reason why for the purpose of the discussion I focus on Palestinians. Otherwise we wouldn't have the discussion, would we? And btw, no, I'm not Israeli even though I speak Hebrew. I'll PM you.

The objective is not in dispute; the path is.

I fear that the only obstacle to a radical/Hamas take-over in the West Bank is Israel’s continued presence. Gaza sets the precedence for this, and Dayton’s Palestinian police force does not inspire confidence. So we are between a rock and a hard place: Israel’s occupation or a radical takeover. For me, there is no question that the occupation is preferable to carnage in Tel Aviv.

Now, continued occupation is matter of necessity, and need not be a policy objective. It can be – and, I believe, is – dynamic and elastic as threats present themselves.

However, a separation of the two people is a matter of necessity and a healthy policy. The lines demarcating Israel and Palestine need to be established and inviolate. We have not touched upon, but it should not come as a surprise I am in favor of the security wall.

Yes. I recall Barak’s statement. It caused a lot of controversy, and I attribute it to the heady halcyon days of Oslo. Nevertheless, it was an inappropriate and haunting comment.

I agree the current leadership is useless; I also agree that Israeli’s culture has influenced Palestinians. Time is still needed to replace that existing leadership with a more nuanced leadership; a leadership attune to the needs of the people and receptive to liberal and democratic ideals. That leadership needs time to assert itself; attrition of the current guard is key. This is one reason that I think we are still a generation removed from real progress.

The issue of an honest broker, acceptable to both parties, is another key element. I do not have high hopes on anyone being able to step up to this role any time soon

I agree that Obama cannot move the process forward. He is not an honest broker, and has lost his voice with Israelis, and is losing ground (finally) with American Jews. He has fueled unrealistic expectations on the part of Palestinians, and has played into some of Israel’s deep seated fears. His speech in Cairo was a disaster – with the implied equivocation of the Holocaust and Nakba, as well as the implied causality – and will not be soon forgotten. On a policy level, demand for additional Israeli concessions without demand on Palestinians will also ring hollow. The almost hysterical handling of the issue of settlement growth will backfire on Obama.

I have conversed with many Egyptians who truly believe that the Egyptian Army was victorious. Militarily speaking, that is not the case; the advance to the west bank of the canal, encirclement of the Third army, and Soviet intervention should be prima facie evidence of that.

Nevertheless, Egypt scored an undeniable political victory. The initial crossing of the canal was brilliantly executed and offered important rehabilitation to the psyche and prestige of the people and government. Egypt capitalized on that and subsequent Israel political disarray to achieve important diplomatic goals, such as the rehabilitation of the canal, dialogue with the US, and the opening of a political process to regain the Sinai.

I think it is undeniable that both Israeli and Egyptian perceptions were irrevocably altered as a result of that war.

You are correct that perception is very important; as the saying goes, perception is reality. And, misperception is obviously an obstacle to establishing common ground between Israelis and Palestinians. Common ground is lacking, and no agreement, no matter how well crafted, can survive without it.

But, perception is a two-way street. I will share my personal perspective on perception: In light of Oslo and the contemporary hysterical vilification of Israel, I as an individual, have lost interest in the 1) Palestinian perspective and 2) the impact Israel has on the world at large. That is, I perceive a general attack on fundamental, non-negotiable issues (obviously, present company excluded). This leaves no room for discourse, let alone negotiation.

So the burden of perception changing is of course shared.

[Korath]

Now, continued occupation is matter of necessity, and need not be a policy objective. It can be – and, I believe, is – dynamic and elastic as threats present themselves.


Agreed. There is no reason why people should be worried to board a bus. The occupation, however, became a policy objective years ago. Let's put Jerusalem aside, because it's a separate Gordian knot. Palestinians are certain that the occupation is first and foremost a land grab. I'm not the one to judge whether they are right or not. They, however, act on a premise that settlement not security, is the objective.



However, a separation of the two people is a matter of necessity and a healthy policy. The lines demarcating Israel and Palestine need to be established and inviolate. We have not touched upon, but it should not come as a surprise I am in favor of the security wall.

As a man brought up behind an iron curtain, I dare not to agree. I don't share Israeli faith in walls. Life, people ingenuity, human necessities are much too dynamic to be stopped by static barriers forced upon them. I understand the need to separate Israelis and Palestinians. However, it won't last and succeed, unless based on consent instead of coercion. Otherwise, people will find ways to circumvent it. It is not a solution. It may help to prevent known threats, but terrorists will, unfortunately, find other ways to hurt Israelis. The wall has become a political item. Politicians compete, who is the most vocal supporter of the separation. That's not a way to solve anything.

I think that Sharon have done a step in the right direction when he evacuated Gaza. It was a move to separate people. Unfortunately, the move did not succeed because it was not followed by any political move. Sharon, as an accomplished tactician, simply shorten friction lines. He failed to present any strategic solution. Of course, he had no time to present anything more comprehensive even if the thought about it.



Time is still needed to replace that existing leadership with a more nuanced leadership; a leadership attune to the needs of the people and receptive to liberal and democratic ideals. That leadership needs time to assert itself; attrition of the current guard is key. This is one reason that I think we are still a generation removed from real progress.

Yes, but that statement also apply to Israeli leadership. Right now neither party has any real leader. Israel is stuck in petty, internal struggles for influence and cash. Without a reform of an electoral system, nothing will come out of it. IMHO, a 3 - 5% Knesset threshold is required to consolidate the party system. Within some 15 - 20 years it may produce a stable and predictable political system. Otherwise governments will just keep drifting from one coalition crisis to another.


I agree that Obama cannot move the process forward. He is not an honest broker, and has lost his voice with Israelis, and is losing ground (finally) with American Jews. He has fueled unrealistic expectations on the part of Palestinians, and has played into some of Israel’s deep seated fears. His speech in Cairo was a disaster – with the implied equivocation of the Holocaust and Nakba, as well as the implied causality – and will not be soon forgotten. On a policy level, demand for additional Israeli concessions without demand on Palestinians will also ring hollow. The almost hysterical handling of the issue of settlement growth will backfire on Obama.

Although I don't have much faith in Obama, I think that something positive may come out of it. Israeli governments grew used to the thought that they had American backing regardless of their action. Obama is undermining this believe. It may force Israeli politicians to consider consequences of their action before they act. I think that Israel is somehow repeating the greatest mistake which followed 1967 war, i.e., excessive self confidence. Ingenuity has always been the greatest Israeli asset. Israel seems to become over reliant on sheer power and external backing. The hope is that Obama may shake this self confidence strongly enough to force Israeli governments to look for more subtle, intelligent solutions.




But, perception is a two-way street. I will share my personal perspective on perception: In light of Oslo and the contemporary hysterical vilification of Israel, I as an individual, have lost interest in the 1) Palestinian perspective and 2) the impact Israel has on the world at large. That is, I perceive a general attack on fundamental, non-negotiable issues (obviously, present company excluded). This leaves no room for discourse, let alone negotiation.

So the burden of perception changing is of course shared.

That's a very honest statement. I have one remark, however. The "vilification of Israel" generally fits a development pattern of modern media. Development of news-entertainment has resulted in deterioration on quality of coverage. Most of media outlets produce just noise full of sensation. It is hard to find reliable sources of information and comment. When media start quoting blogs and Internet sources, it's becoming helpless. Media outlets, looking for maximization of revenues, are simply following popular taste in entertainment. Therefore I wouldn't be too concerned about stupid coverage for stupid people. I understand, however, that it's unpleasant. :roll:

[GB_FXST]

Agreed. There is no reason why people should be worried to board a bus. The occupation, however, became a policy objective years ago. Let's put Jerusalem aside, because it's a separate Gordian knot. Palestinians are certain that the occupation is first and foremost a land grab. I'm not the one to judge whether they are right or not. They, however, act on a premise that settlement not security, is the objective.

… snip …



I can understand why Palestinians would perceive the Israeli presence to be a land grab. On some level, that perception may not be a bad thing as it may serve as a sort of consequence or cost of continued rejectionism. That is, I think that the Palestinians made a fundamental blunder when they rejected Barak’s offer in 2001. Leaving aside for the moment the question of intent, the cost of that rejection is that they will never get an offer as generous as that again. Next time, the offer will be even less substantial.





… snip …

As a man brought up behind an iron curtain, I dare not to agree. I don't share Israeli faith in walls. Life, people ingenuity, human necessities are much too dynamic to be stopped by static barriers forced upon them. I understand the need to separate Israelis and Palestinians. However, it won't last and succeed, unless based on consent instead of coercion. Otherwise, people will find ways to circumvent it. It is not a solution. It may help to prevent known threats, but terrorists will, unfortunately, find other ways to hurt Israelis. The wall has become a political item. Politicians compete, who is the most vocal supporter of the separation. That's not a way to solve anything.

I think that Sharon have done a step in the right direction when he evacuated Gaza. It was a move to separate people. Unfortunately, the move did not succeed because it was not followed by any political move. Sharon, as an accomplished tactician, simply shorten friction lines. He failed to present any strategic solution. Of course, he had no time to present anything more comprehensive even if the thought about it.

… snip …



The Security Wall is not the Iron Curtain. The former is an extension of the will of the Israeli people; the latter was imposed on the peoples of Europe by a totalitarian regime.

Practically speaking, the cliché “good fences make for good neighbors’ is very appropriate here. Infiltration for the purposes of terrorist acts and economic migration are very real concerns. A physical barrier is prudent and appropriate and moral.





… snip …

Yes, but that statement also apply to Israeli leadership. Right now neither party has any real leader. Israel is stuck in petty, internal struggles for influence and cash. Without a reform of an electoral system, nothing will come out of it. IMHO, a 3 - 5% Knesset threshold is required to consolidate the party system. Within some 15 - 20 years it may produce a stable and predictable political system. Otherwise governments will just keep drifting from one coalition crisis to another.

… snip …



I agree, especially in regards to the need for serious electoral reform. But, principles, namely freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, are already well entrenched.





… snip …

Although I don't have much faith in Obama, I think that something positive may come out of it. Israeli governments grew used to the thought that they had American backing regardless of their action. Obama is undermining this believe. It may force Israeli politicians to consider consequences of their action before they act. I think that Israel is somehow repeating the greatest mistake which followed 1967 war, i.e., excessive self confidence. Ingenuity has always been the greatest Israeli asset. Israel seems to become over reliant on sheer power and external backing. The hope is that Obama may shake this self confidence strongly enough to force Israeli governments to look for more subtle, intelligent solutions.

… snip …



I disagree on two counts. First, Obama is not the first US president in contemporary times to be unfriendly towards Israel. Both Jimmy Carter and GHB come to mind.

But in regards to Obama, his generally polarizing policies may actually benefit Israel. He has moved too far too fast; the pendulum will swing backward forcefully.

One thing is for certain, Netanyahu’s government will basically play for time as Obama’s policies become more and more centrist, and attention shifts to the 2012 elections.

Secondly, I disagree in regards to the hubris. Any military hubris was dashed in 2006. Political hubris is of course a different matter, but I tend to agree with Caroline Glick’s assessment (now about a month old) that Netanyahu was pussyfooting on the settlement issue. And this too maybe evidence that Netanyahu has opted to wait out the storm.

Why do you think that Israel is overly self confident?





… snip …

That's a very honest statement. I have one remark, however. The "vilification of Israel" generally fits a development pattern of modern media. Development of news-entertainment has resulted in deterioration on quality of coverage. Most of media outlets produce just noise full of sensation. It is hard to find reliable sources of information and comment. When media start quoting blogs and Internet sources, it's becoming helpless. Media outlets, looking for maximization of revenues, are simply following popular taste in entertainment. Therefore I wouldn't be too concerned about stupid coverage for stupid people. I understand, however, that it's unpleasant.

I agree that the state of contemporary media is abysmal. As an example, this latest issue with Aftonbladet is a horrible terrible mess. IMHO, the proper response would be to just hire the biggest baddest civil trial attorneys in Sweden and go medieval on their a$$ (my apologies to both Pulp Fiction and The Sopranos :)). At any rate, the diplomatic bombast is not helpful

However, no contemporary Jew, who is responsible and intellectually honest, can dismiss the trend of anti-Israel or anti-Semitic propaganda.

A key problem is that the vilification of Israel is far from the realm of the base and tabloid media. My comments in the previous post were in reference to a growing attitude amongst the left (both media outlets and intellectuals) that the roots of all Middle Eastern problems stem from Jewish Nationalism. For them, nationalist movements of other stripes, particularly Islamic, are okay, but Zionism is the root of all evil. This what I meant by the lack of common ground. I have nothing to discuss with someone fundamentally opposed to Zionism other than the terms of my surrender or suicide. The status quo, as bad and unstable as it may be, is preferable.