We are running out of time for a two-state solution

By Akiva Eldar, Haaretz Correspondent

Tags: Sari Nusseibeh

At the end of my conversation with Sari Nusseibeh at the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem, the highly respected president of Al-Quds University - and cosignatory of "The People's Choice," a peace plan that he formulated with former Shin Bet chief Ami Ayalon - told me he wouldn't be surprised if one of the Palestinian residents of the city ran for mayor in the municipal elections in November. The candidate would not run as a representative of Jerusalem per se, Nusseibeh stressed. Rather, he would be running on behalf of all Palestinians in the occupied territories.

"Why don't you do it?" I blurt out. The 59-year-old son of Anwar Nusseibeh, a Jordanian government minister, does not smile. "It's possible," says the professor of Islamic philosophy, who briefly replaced Faisal Husseini a few years ago as the top Palestinian official in East Jerusalem. "Anything is possible," he adds without batting an eyelid.

Nusseibeh's previous contention that the Oslo "house of cards" had begun to collapse was further confirmed by this week's report in Haaretz regarding Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's latest peace offering (Israel would annex 7 percent of the West Bank and compensate the Palestinians with territory in the Negev, which would be equivalent to 5.5 percent of West Bank land; an agreement on the future of Jerusalem would be postponed to a later date; there would be no right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel; and the entire plan would be implemented after Hamas is removed from power in the Gaza Strip).
Advertisement

Nusseibeh says he knows full well what happens during negotiations - or, to be more specific, what does not happen. For over 20 years the Palestinian leadership has been trying to persuade their people to agree to a state along the June 4, 1967, lines, while Israel has been destroying that option, Nusseibeh explains, adding: "You cannot negotiate anything about final status if you don't talk about Jerusalem. Final status consists primarily, I believe, of Jerusalem and refugees. If you want to postpone Jerusalem, you postpone refugees. Really, you are not dealing with the problem. You have to discuss these issues, and that is exactly where the trade-off has to be made."

Is Sari Nusseibeh, the secular Palestinian, the symbol of moderation, Ayalon's guy, burying the two-state solution?

"I still favor a two-state solution and will continue to do so, but to the extent that you discover it's not practical anymore or that it's not going to happen, you start to think about what the alternatives are. I think that the feeling is there are two courses taking place that are opposed to one another. On one hand, there is what people are saying and thinking, on both sides. There is the sense that we are running out of time, that if we want a two-state solution, we need to implement it quickly.

"But on the other hand, if we are looking at what is happening on the ground, in Israel and the occupied territories, you see things happening in the opposite direction, as if they are not connected to reality. Thought is running in one direction, reality in the other."

read on...
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1011859.html

Sharon killed it. He was an idiot, it's true, but that was what he did, and what he intended to do.

This is the future. It's a matter of time, but the end result will be one binational state.

Either that or an apartheid state.

Even aside from the pragmatic issues - how to resolve issues - there is no political will on either side to move in that direction. All the political action lies in stirring up the conflict, dick-waving, and belligerent posturing. Political forces are fractured and fractured again, most of the time they are focused on internal squabbles and power struggles. And thats just the politics.

share the land with equal rights for all, the Jews wipe out the Palestinians or the Palestinians wipe out the Jews.

I'd prefer choice #1~!

In other words, a return to the status quo throughout most of history, local rule along cultural and tribal lines. As the central government becomes weaker and less legitimate, power devolves back downward. One can discern a drift in this direction on both "sides", although in different ways, as one would expect. The difference is that for Palestinians, that will be an improvement in their situation, for Israelis, it will not be an improvement.

I like #1 too, but I see no reason to think it will happen.

One ought, in thinking about these things, to consider ecological issues, and related issues about population and carrying capacity, water supply, etc., but mostly it's just too depressing, so nobody does it much.

Can you explain that choice?

Just curious....

If you want to claim the current offer of 2-states was not "generous", let's at least admit it was fair. All western govt's were behind Taba 2001's Clintonian proposal. Do you honestly believe Palestinians will be offered a significantly better deal in the near future?

Maybe you should tell me why Taba 2001 was not really a good, generous offer. What more should have been included?

and what more? lets try water rights and Palestinian control over resources, also the access road between Gaza and the West Bank which should be under Palestinian control not Israeli.

I think Shira's got some things wrong in their post and possibly doesn't understand what the Taba talks were. Or that the only real similarity between Taba and the recent 'offer' is that both happened when political time was running out before elections or a change of leadership. Taba wasn't an offer, but a last ditch attempt to restart negotiations that would lead to final status negotiations and after that an end to the conflict. Taba, being negotiations, involved Palestinian and Israeli negotiators sitting down together and working through the issues. On some they were in disagreement, and on others they were either in agreement or very close to it. How Taba should be looked at is not as being unfair, because that falls into a trap of not acknowledging that Israel as well as the Palestinians had learnt from Camp David and realised what the position of the other side was and moved to close the gap between them. If Taba had been an Israeli offer, then Israel should be acknowledged for having come up with something that was leaps and bounds light years beyond Barak's 'generous' offer...

Access between Gaza and the West Bank was one of the issues discussed at Taba. From the Moratinos non-paper, which is a record of what took place and which was agreed by both the Israeli and Palestinian teams as being accurate:

1.3 Safe passage/corridor from Gaza to the West Bank
Both sides agreed that there is going to be a safe passage from the north of Gaza (Beit Hanun) to the Hebron district, and that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip must be territorially linked. The nature of the regime governing the territorial link and sovereignty over it was not agreed.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=130196&contrassID=2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y


I agree that the West Bank and Gaza must be territorially linked. But I disagree with Palestinian sovereignty over it for the same reason as I disagreed with Barak's 'generous' offer, which had Israeli sovereignty over 'safe passage' roads from the Jordan Valley to Israel. Giving Palestinian sovereignty over a link between Gaza and the West Bank would result in Israel being cut in two, and while it might only be a road, it then results in Israel not having contiguous territory. Which is why I lean towards Israel retaining sovereignty and the link being jointly controlled by Israel and Palestine with some international oversight for the first few years.

Anyway, while I think the recent 'offer' was vague crap and was a shelf-offer where Israel didn't actually have to do anything but would gain a lot immediately, I think Taba has to be appreciated as a great starting point for any future genuine negotiations. This bit in particular will lead to a few exploding heads here in this forum if it's read by one or two people who have made their absolutism on the refugee issue and Israel's role very loud and clear :)

3. Refugees
Non-papers were exchanged, which were regarded as a good basis for the talks. Both sides stated that the issue of the Palestinian refugees is central to the Israeli-Palestinian relations and that a comprehensive and just solution is essential to creating a lasting and morally scrupulous peace. Both sides agreed to adopt the principles and references with could facilitate the adoption of an agreement.

Both sides suggested, as a basis, that the parties should agree that a just settlement of the refugee problem in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 242 must lead to the implementation of UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

3.1 Narrative
The Israeli side put forward a suggested joint narrative for the tragedy of the Palestinian refugees. The Palestinian side discussed the proposed narrative and there was much progress, although no agreement was reached in an attempt to develop and historical narrative in the general text.

3.2 Return, repatriation and relocation and rehabilitation
Both sides engaged in a discussion of the practicalities of resolving the refugee issue. The Palestinian side reiterated that the Palestinian refugees should have the right of return to their homes in accordance with the interpretation of UNGAR 194. The Israeli side expressed its understanding that the wish to return as per wording of UNGAR 194 shall be implemented within the framework of one of the following programs:

A. Return and repatriation
1. to Israel
2. to Israel swapped territory
3. to the Palestine state.

B. Rehabilitation and relocation
1. Rehabilitation in host country.
2. Relocation to third country.
Preference in all these programs shall be accorded to the Palestinian refugee population in Lebanon. The Palestinian side stressed that the above shall be subject to the individual free choice of the refugees, and shall not prejudice their right to their homes in accordance with its interpretation of UNGAR 194.

The Israeli side, informally, suggested a three-track 15-year absorption program, which was discussed but not agreed upon. The first track referred to the absorption to Israel. No numbers were agreed upon, but with a non-paper referring to 25,000 in the first three years of this program (40,000 in the first five years of this program did not appear in the non-paper but was raised verbally). The second track referred to the absorption of Palestinian refugees into the Israeli territory, that shall be transferred to Palestinian sovereignty, and the third track referring to the absorption of refugees in the context of family reunification scheme.

The Palestinian side did not present a number, but stated that the negotiations could not start without an Israeli opening position. It maintained that Israel's acceptance of the return of refugees should not prejudice existing programs within Israel such as family reunification.

The offer, among other things, was a Palestinian capitol in E.Jerusalem, billions in compensation for refugees, and nearly 100% of the pre-1967 land. The minor points could have been hashed out except for the fact that both Clinton and Dennis Ross claim that the Palestinian leadership refused to negotiate - preferring only to say 'no' and waiting for more. Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia called Arafat's refusal a crime. Evidence exists showing Arafat planned Intifada 2 on the heels of Camp David, showing Taba had no chance to succeed.

Now what's interesting is that you and Violet will probably come back with something that in effect calls leftists of that time like Clinton and Barak liars while giving a free pass to Arafat and his cronies. As if for some reason we should trust the Palestinian version of these talks moreso than the US/Israeli version (which was negotiated by LW politicians, not RW).

Did you not even bother to read my post about Taba? If you have something constructive to say about what I actually said, as opposed to what you want me to say about something else, then go for it...

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000555.html

The Taba offer wasn't written down. It was dictated to the Palestinians by Clinton for the PA side to record. It went much further than Camp David. It was rejected wholesale. Of course you're welcome to believe the progressive negotiators (USA and ISRAEL) lied and that the regressive PLO's version is more truthful.

The twit who runs that website, not Dennis Ross, claimed there was an offer made by Israel at Taba. The offer yr getting all confused about was made at Camp David. That offer wasn't written down. When it came to Taba there was no offer made. It was discussions between the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators. Do you understand that the concept of talks as opposed to an actual offer? Also, how can you make the blatantly untrue claim that the Palestinians rejected everything at Taba out of hand when I've actually posted the record of events (its accuracy was agreed to by both parties) where while there was disagreement on some issues, there was agreement and near-agreement on others?

There was Camp David and then by the time of Taba, there existed a better deal for Palestinians than what was originally offered at Camp David months before - due to ongoing negotiations. Camp David was rejected by Arafat. Everything negotiated in the progress between Camp David and end of December 2000 (Taba) was also rejected.

Agreed?

That plan wasn't put forward until December 2000, and both Israel and the Palestinians accepted it with reservations. The plan was used as a basis for the talks at Taba....

So, no. I don't agree...

The Palestinian negotiators or Arafat? In that interview with Dennis Ross, he said Arafat said 'yes' but in reality rejected everything.

Why was it 'wise' (your words) for Abbas to reject this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast

Read the above if you don't mind. What's so wise about rejecting this? And if you believe it's not even as good as what was on the table in Taba, I agree...it's not as good....most likely due to the last 8 years and knowing Hamas would never agree to anything....Israel can't make a deal only with Abbas and let Hamas continue.....Abbas needs to build up trust and show he can stop the terror machine, etc. Once Abbas can be trusted and Hamas is out of the picture, more can be negotiated.

'The Palestinian response was as fast as it was dismissive, a decision taken by people keenly aware that there can be no repeat of Israel and the US's Camp David PR triumph; the Palestinians won't (even unjustly) be able to receive the blame for peace talks collapsing this time around.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast1

Fine. If Israel's going to offer a shelf-deal then it'd be only fair that NOTHING is implemented immediately and it all waits. That's what this shelf-offer didn't do...

btw, Israel doesn't trust Abbas? But, like, I thought he was their buddy...

98.5% of the the land prior to 1967 was offered with the other 1.5% being the road connecting Gaza and the W.Bank (maybe a bridge). At least there could be agreement on that. Final borders means......shhhh....listen up.....no more settlement expansion protruding into future Palestinian territory.

As for Abbas, he's the best the Palestinians have as a leader. No one recognizes Hamas and Hamas definitely won't do a peace deal. I think the PLO and Hamas both need to go and someone like Sari Nusseibeh needs to be put in charge (with major international backing).

"a single state for a single people: The Palestinian people."

The Arabs/Palestinians have never really wanted two states.

They don't accept Jews or Israel or "the Zionist entity".

The goal has always been to expel all Jews, take back the land, and run it as a single state for Palestinians only, or JEws who remained as dhimmi.

That is why every peace offer has always been rejected by the Palestinian leadership, whether Arafat or Abbas.

The goal on the Palestinian side was never "two states for two people" but "one state for one people".

That rhetoric only strengthens the Israeli resolve to never allow that to happen.

I wonder why some people insist on ignoring all evidence to the contrary in order to try to paint the Palestinians as evil antisemitic types. Maybe in some cases it's down to ignorance and a lack of interest in dealing with facts, and in some cases it's down to willfully ignoring facts and instead misrepresenting the Palestinian positions in negotiations in order to cling to their distorted view of the conflict...

Now, before I post the entire record of negotiations at Taba and what the negotiators agreed and disagreed on, here's a question for you. Israel has also rejected peace offers. Where's yr outrage over that and yr flood of accusations that Israel is bigoted against Arabs? Or is it yet another case of double standards at play?

Now for some facts:

'On the question of the boundaries of the future state, the Palestinian position, formally adopted as early as 1988 and frequently reiterated by Palestinian negotiators throughout the talks, was for a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. At Camp David (at which one of the present writers was a member of the US administration's team), Arafat's negotiators accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlements, though they insisted on a one-for-one swap of land "of equal size and value." The Palestinians argued that the annexed territory should neither affect the contiguity of their own land nor lead to the incorporation of Palestinians into Israel.'

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15502

EU description of the outcome of permanent status talks at Taba

Introduction
This EU non-paper has been prepared by the EU Special Representative to the Middle East Process, Ambassador Moratinos, and his team after consultations with the Israeli and Palestinian sides, present at Taba in January 2001. Although the paper has no official status, it has been acknowledged by the parties as being a relatively fair description of the outcome of the negotiations on the permanent status issues at Taba. It draws attention to the extensive work which has been undertaken on all permanent status issues like territory, Jerusalem, refugees and security in order to find ways to come to joint positions. At the same time it shows that there are serious gaps and differences between the two sides, which will have to be overcome in future negotiations. From that point of view, the paper reveals the challenging task ahead in terms of policy determination and legal work, but it also shows that both sides have traveled a long way to accommodate the views of the other side and that solutions are possible.

1. Territory
The two sides agreed that in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 242, the June 4 1967 lines would be the basis for the borders between Israel and the state of Palestine.

1.1 West Bank
For the first time both sides presented their own maps over the West Bank. The maps served as a basis for the discussion on territory and settlements. The Israeli side presented two maps, and the Palestinian side engaged on this basis. The Palestinian side presented some illustrative maps detailing its understanding of Israeli interests in the West Bank.

The negotiations tackled the various aspects of territory, which could include some of thesettlements and how the needs of each party could be accommodated. The Clinton parameters served as a loose basis for the discussion, but differences of interpretations regarding the scope and meaning of the parameters emerged. The Palestinian side stated that it had accepted the Clinton proposals but with reservations.

The Israeli side stated that the Clinton proposals provide for annexation of settlement blocs. The Palestinian side did not agree that the parameters included blocs, and did not accept proposals to annex blocs. The Palestinian side stated that blocs would cause significant harm to the Palestinian interests and rights, particularly to the Palestinians residing in areas Israel seeks to annex.

The Israeli side maintained that it is entitled to contiguity between and among their settlements. The Palestinian side stated that Palestinian needs take priority over settlements. The Israeli maps included plans for future development of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The Palestinian side did not agree to the principle of allowing further development of settlements in the West Bank. Any growth must occur inside Israel.

The Palestinian side maintained that since Israel has needs in Palestinian territory, it is responsible for proposing the necessary border modifications. The Palestinian side reiterated that such proposals must not adversely affect the Palestinian needs and interests.

The Israeli side stated that it did not need to maintain settlements in the Jordan Valley for security purposes, and its proposed maps reflected this position.

The Israeli maps were principally based on a demographic concept of settlements blocs that would incorporate approximately 80 percent on the settlers. The Israeli side sketched a map presenting a 6 percent annexation, the outer limit of the Clinton proposal. The Palestinian illustrative map presented 3.1 percent in the context of a land swap.

Both sides accepted the principle of land swap but the proportionality of the swap remained under discussion. Both sides agreed that Israeli and Palestinian sovereign areas will have respective sovereign contiguity. The Israeli side wished to count "assets" such as Israelis "safe passage/corridor" proposal as being part of the land swap, even though the proposal would not give Palestine sovereignty over these "assets". The Israeli side adhered to a maximum 3 percent land swap as per Clinton proposal.

The Palestinian maps had a similar conceptual point of reference stressing the importance of a non-annexation of any Palestinian villages and the contiguity of the West Bank and Jerusalem. They were predicated on the principle of a land swap that would be equitable in size and value and in areas adjacent to the border with Palestine, and in the same vicinity as the annexed by Israel. The Palestinian side further maintained that land not under Palestinian sovereignty such as the Israeli proposal regarding a "safe passage/corridor" as well as economic interests are not included in the calculation of the swap.

The Palestinian side maintained that the "No-Man's-Land" (Latrun area) is part of the West Bank. The Israelis did not agree.

The Israeli side requested and additional 2 percent of land under a lease arrangement to which the Palestinians responded that the subject of lease can only be discussed after the establishment of a Palestinian state and the transfer of land to Palestinian sovereignty.

1.2 Gaza Strip
Neither side presented any maps over the Gaza Strip. In was implied that the Gaza Strip will be under total Palestinian sovereignty, but details have still to be worked out. All settlements will be evacuated. The Palestinian side claimed it could be arranged in 6 months, a timetable not agreed by the Israeli side.

1.3 Safe passage/corridor from Gaza to the West Bank
Both sides agreed that there is going to be a safe passage from the north of Gaza (Beit Hanun) to the Hebron district, and that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip must be territorially linked. The nature of the regime governing the territorial link and sovereignty over it was not agreed.

2. Jerusalem

2.1 Sovereignty
Both sides accepted in principle the Clinton suggestion of having a Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods and an Israeli sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods. The Palestinian side affirmed that it was ready to discuss Israeli request to have sovereignty over those Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem that were constructed after 1967, but not Jebal Abu Ghneim and Ras al-Amud. The Palestinian side rejected Israeli sovereignty over settlements in the Jerusalem Metropolitan Area, namely of Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev.

The Palestinian side understood that Israel was ready to accept Palestinian sovereignty over the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, including part of Jerusalem's Old City. The Israeli side understood that the Palestinians were ready to accept Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and part of the American Quarter.

The Palestinian side understood that the Israeli side accepted to discuss Palestinian property claims in West Jerusalem.

2.2 Open City
Both sides favored the idea of an Open City. The Israeli side suggested the establishment of an open city whose geographical scope encompasses the Old City of Jerusalem plus an area defined as the Holy Basin or Historical Basin.

The Palestinian side was in favor of an open city provided that continuity and contiguity were preserved. The Palestinians rejected the Israeli proposal regarding the geographic scope of an open city and asserted that the open city is only acceptable if its geographical scope encompasses the full municipal borders of both East and West Jerusalem.

The Israeli side raised the idea of establishing a mechanism of daily coordination and different models were suggested for municipal coordination and cooperation (dealing with infrastructure, roads, electricity, sewage, waste removal etc). Such arrangements could be formulated in a future detailed agreement. It proposed a "soft border regime" within Jerusalem between Al-Quds and Yerushalaim that affords them "soft border" privileges. Furthermore the Israeli side proposed a number of special arrangements for Palestinian and Israeli residents of the Open City to guarantee that the Open City arrangement neither adversely affect their daily lives nor compromise each party sovereignty over its section of the Open City.

2.3 Capital for two states
The Israeli side accepted that the City of Jerusalem would be the capital of the two states: Yerushalaim, capital of Israel and Al-Quds, capital of the state of Palestine. The Palestinian side expressed its only concern, namely that East Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine.

2.4 Holy/Historical Basin and the Old City
There was an attempt to develop an alternative concept that would relate to the Old City and its surroundings, and the Israeli side put forward several alternative models for discussion, for example, setting up a mechanism for close coordination and cooperation in the Old City. The idea of a special police force regime was discussed but not agreed upon.

The Israeli side expressed its interest and raised its concern regarding the area conceptualized as the Holy Basin (which includes the Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives, the City of David and Kivron Valley). The Palestinian side confirmed that it was willing to take into account Israeli interests and concerns provided that these places remain under Palestinian sovereignty. Another option for the Holy Basin, suggested informally by the Israeli side, was to create a special regime or to suggest some form of internationalization for the entire area or a joint regime with special cooperation and coordination. The Palestinian side did not agree to pursue any of these ideas, although the discussion could continue.

2.5 Holy Sites: Western Wall and the Wailing Wall
Both parties have accepted the principle of respective control over each side's respective holy sites (religious control and management). According to this principle, Israel's sovereignty over the Western Wall would be recognized although there remained a dispute regarding the delineation of the area covered by the Western Wall and especially the link to what is referred to in Clinton's ideas as the space sacred to Judaism of which it is part.

The Palestinian side acknowledged that Israel has requested to establish an affiliation to the holy parts of the Western Wall, but maintained that the question of the Wailing Wall and/or Western Wall has not been resolved. It maintained the importance of distinguishing between the Western Wall and the Wailing Wall segment thereof, recognized in the Islamic faith as the Buraq Wall.

2.6 Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
Both sides agreed that the question of Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount has not been resolved. However, both sides were close to accepting Clinton's ideas regarding Palestinian sovereignty over Haram al-Sharif notwithstanding Palestinian and Israeli reservations.

Both sides noted progress on practical arrangements regarding evacuations, building and public order in the area of the compound. An informal suggestion was raised that for an agreed period such as three years, Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount would be under international sovereignty of the P5 plus Morocco (or other Islamic presence), whereby the Palestinians would be the "Guardian/Custodians" during this period. At the end of this period, either the parties would agree on a new solution or agree to extend the existing arrangement. In the absence of an agreement, the parties would return to implement the Clinton formulation. Neither party accepted or rejected the suggestion.

3. Refugees
Non-papers were exchanged, which were regarded as a good basis for the talks. Both sides stated that the issue of the Palestinian refugees is central to the Israeli-Palestinian relations and that a comprehensive and just solution is essential to creating a lasting and morally scrupulous peace. Both sides agreed to adopt the principles and references with could facilitate the adoption of an agreement.

Both sides suggested, as a basis, that the parties should agree that a just settlement of the refugee problem in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 242 must lead to the implementation of UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

3.1 Narrative
The Israeli side put forward a suggested joint narrative for the tragedy of the Palestinian refugees. The Palestinian side discussed the proposed narrative and there was much progress, although no agreement was reached in an attempt to develop and historical narrative in the general text.

3.2 Return, repatriation and relocation and rehabilitation
Both sides engaged in a discussion of the practicalities of resolving the refugee issue. The Palestinian side reiterated that the Palestinian refugees should have the right of return to their homes in accordance with the interpretation of UNGAR 194. The Israeli side expressed its understanding that the wish to return as per wording of UNGAR 194 shall be implemented within the framework of one of the following programs:

A. Return and repatriation
1. to Israel
2. to Israel swapped territory
3. to the Palestine state.

B. Rehabilitation and relocation
1. Rehabilitation in host country.
2. Relocation to third country.
Preference in all these programs shall be accorded to the Palestinian refugee population in Lebanon. The Palestinian side stressed that the above shall be subject to the individual free choice of the refugees, and shall not prejudice their right to their homes in accordance with its interpretation of UNGAR 194.

The Israeli side, informally, suggested a three-track 15-year absorption program, which was discussed but not agreed upon. The first track referred to the absorption to Israel. No numbers were agreed upon, but with a non-paper referring to 25,000 in the first three years of this program (40,000 in the first five years of this program did not appear in the non-paper but was raised verbally). The second track referred to the absorption of Palestinian refugees into the Israeli territory, that shall be transferred to Palestinian sovereignty, and the third track referring to the absorption of refugees in the context of family reunification scheme.

The Palestinian side did not present a number, but stated that the negotiations could not start without an Israeli opening position. It maintained that Israel's acceptance of the return of refugees should not prejudice existing programs within Israel such as family reunification.

3.3 Compensation
Both sides agreed to the establishment of an International Commission and an International Fund as a mechanism for dealing with compensation in all its aspects. Both sides agreed that "small-sum" compensation shall be paid to the refugees in the "fast-track" procedure, claims of compensation for property losses below certain amount shall be subject to "fast-track" procedures.

There was also progress on Israeli compensation for material losses, land and assets expropriated, including agreement on a payment from an Israeli lump sum or proper amount to be agreed upon that would feed into the International Fund. According to the Israeli side the calculation of this payment would be based on a macro-economic survey to evaluate the assets in order to reach a fair value. The Palestinian side, however, said that this sum would be calculated on the records of the UNCCP, the Custodian for Absentee Property and other relevant data with a multiplier to reach a fair value.

3.4 UNRWA
Both sides agreed that UNRWA should be phased out in accordance with an agreed timetable of five years, as a targeted period. The Palestinian side added a possible adjustment of that period to make sure that this will be subject to the implementation of the other aspects of the agreement dealing with refugees, and with termination of Palestinian refugee status in the various locations.

3.5 Former Jewish refugees
The Israeli side requested that the issue of compensation to former Jewish refugees from Arab countries be recognized, while accepting that it was not a Palestinian responsibility or a bilateral issue. The Palestinian side maintained that this is not a subject for a bilateral Palestinian-Israeli agreement.

3.6 Restitution
The Palestinian side raised the issue of restitution of refugee property. The Israeli side rejected this.

3.7 End of claims
The issue of the end of claims was discussed, and it was suggested that the implementation of the agreement shall constitute a complete and final implementation of UNGAR 194 and therefore ends all claims.

4. Security
4.1 Early warning stations
The Israeli side requested to have 3 early warning stations on Palestinian territory. The Palestinian side was prepared to accept the continued operations of early warning stations but subject to certain conditions. The exact mechanism has therefore to be detailed in further negotiations.

4.2 Military capability of the state of Palestine
The Israeli side maintained that the state of Palestine would be non-militarized as per the Clinton proposals. The Palestinian side was prepared to accept limitation on its acquisition of arms, and be defined as a state with limited arms. The two sides have not yet agreed on the scope of arms limitations, but have begun exploring different options. Both sides agree that this issue has not been concluded.

4.3 Air space control
The two sides recognized that the state of Palestine would have sovereignty over its airspace. The Israeli side agreed to accept and honor all of Palestine civil aviation rights according to international regulations, but sought a unified air control system under overriding Israel control. In addition, Israel requested access to Palestinian airspace for military operations and training.

The Palestinian side was interested in exploring models for broad cooperation and coordination in the civil aviation sphere, but unwilling to cede overriding control to Israel. As for Israeli military operations and training in Palestinian airspace, the Palestinian side rejected this request as inconsistent with the neutrality of the state of Palestine, saying that it cannot grant Israel these privileges while denying them to its Arab neighbors.

4.4 Time table for withdrawal from the West Bank and Jordan Valley
Based on the Clinton proposal, the Israeli side agreed to a withdrawal from the West Bank over a 36-month period with an additional 36 months for the Jordan Valley in conjunction with an international force, maintaining that a distinction should be made between withdrawal in the Jordan Valley and elsewhere.

The Palestinian side rejected a 36-month withdrawal process from the West Bank expressing concern that a lengthy process would exacerbate Palestinian-Israeli tensions. The Palestinian side proposed an 18 months withdrawal under the supervision of international forces. As to the Jordan Valley the Palestinian side was prepared to consider the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces for an additional 10-month period. Although the Palestinian side was ready to consider the presence of international forces in the West Bank for a longer period, it refused to accept the ongoing presence of Israeli forces.

4.5 Emergency deployment (or emergency locations)
The Israeli side requested to maintain and operate five emergency locations on Palestinian territory (in the Jordan Valley) with the Palestinian response allowing for maximum of two emergency locations conditional on a time limit for the dismantling. In addition, the Palestinian side considered that these two emergency locations be run by international presence and not by the Israelis. Informally, the Israeli side expressed willingness to explore ways that a multinational presence could provide a vehicle for addressing the parties' respective concerns.

The Palestinian side declined to agree to the deployment of Israeli armed forces on Palestinian territory during emergency situations, but was prepared to consider ways in which international forces might be used in that capacity, particularly within the context of regional security cooperation efforts.

4.6 Security cooperation and fighting terror
Both sides were prepared to commit themselves to promoting security cooperation and fighting terror.

4.7 Borders and international crossings
The Palestinian side was confident that Palestinian sovereignty over borders and international crossing points would be recognized in the agreement. The two sides had, however, not yet resolved this issue including the question of monitoring and verification at Palestine's international borders (Israeli or international presence).

4.8 Electromagnetic sphere
The Israeli side recognized that the state of Palestine would have sovereignty over the electromagnetic sphere, and acknowledged that it would not seek to constrain Palestinian commercial use of the sphere, but sought control over it for security purposes.

The Palestinian side sought full sovereign rights over the electromagnetic sphere, but was prepared to accommodate reasonable Israeli needs within a cooperative framework in accordance with international rules and regulations

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=130196&contrassID=2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

I'm not sure why you'd think anyone would believe yr nonsensical accusations about things like recognition of Israel when the mutual letters of recognition exist...

September 9, 1993
Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel
Mr. Prime Minister,
The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era...I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself...to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations...the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators...the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.
Sincerely,
Yasser Arafat.
Chairman: The Palestine Liberation Organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Palestine_Liberation_Organization_letters_of_recognition#1:_Letter_from_Yasser_Arafat_to_Prime_Minister_Rabin

Do you just ignore that the PLO officially recognised Israel back in 1993 and hope that no-one else notices? How does this work?

And were both the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators at Taba lying when they said the following about how close they came to agreement?

'We made progress, substantial progress. We are closer than ever to the possibility of striking a final deal," said Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's negotiator. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, said, "My heart aches because I know we were so close. We need six more weeks to conclude the drafting of the agreement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit#Reasons_for_impasse

All of the above shows support for a two-state solution. Why are you insisting otherwise?

Hamas has repeatedly said it will never acknowledge Israel, will not negotiate with Israel and will not compromise with Israel.

They want one state, without Jews, as all of their political and religious rhetoric openly says.

I simply believe them, and don't know why you are so naive that you don't.

Fact: Hamas doesn't govern the West Bank

Fact: You claimed that Arafat and Abbas (who everyone else knows isn't Hamas) want a one-state antisemitic motivated thing. I hope you took the time to read the information I posted for you so you don't make the same mistake again...

The PLO have acknowledged Israel, yet you insist they haven't. If Hamas were to acknowledge Israel you'd just ignore it and claim they didn't. Also, while I detest Hamas, unlike you I don't make up mindless bullshit about them. By entering into a ceasefire they're compromising, so it's not naive to do what you do and go all absolutist, but downright silly...

You quoted Shlomo ben Ami, but I wonder whether you ever read his account of Camp David/Taba, to see how his report of it mirrored that of Dennis Ross.

http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/comartin/israel/ben-ami.html

While the negotiators came extremely close - or close enough for a real agreement - Arafat was always in charge and he was the SOLE reason for the failure at Taba. It wasn't some "extremist" factions - it was none other than Arafat. Abbas right now is no different. If he were given the same deal that the Palestinian negotiators agreed to 8 years ago, he would also reject the deal.

While you read Shlomo ben Ami's account, recognize exactly WHO he is and WHAT he represents (dove / peace now activist) and you will find why MANY doves in Israel's peace camp have sobered up due to Camp David/Taba and why Israel has moved more towards the political center. Unlike some people who bury their heads in the sand and ignore reality, many doves in Israel's peace camp didn't let the actual facts blind them into holding the very same positions they once had about Palestinian leadership (Arafat) prior to Camp David.

When I spoke about a disconnect from reality, I was responding to this rubbish:

'The goal has always been to expel all Jews, take back the land, and run it as a single state for Palestinians only, or JEws who remained as dhimmi.

That is why every peace offer has always been rejected by the Palestinian leadership, whether Arafat or Abbas.

The goal on the Palestinian side was never "two states for two people" but "one state for one people"'

That's why I posted the Moritanos non-paper and the comments from two of the negotiators at Taba. That alone shows the complete bullshit of the comment I was responding to. Apparently this was lost on you to a preference to indulge in more simplistic Blame Arafat For Everything nonsense. Anyone who has even the slightest bit of knowledge about Taba knows that time ran out as Clinton's and Barak's times in office were coming to an end...

Well, duh. I'm very familiar with Ben-Ami and have enormous respect for him. Have you read 'Scars of War, Wounds Of Peace'? It's a nuanced and lacking in partisanship account of the conflict, so I suspect it wouldn't appeal to you....

A final note. Why is it that Americans like you take it upon themselves to try to portray the Israeli left as being soul-mates in the extremist views of American 'supporters' of Israel? What reality is it you think people are ignoring, Shira? Given yr posts in this forum, would that reality be that Palestinians are genocidal antisemites, and fishermen and uni students are terrorists solely because they're Palestinian? I'd tell you where people can shove that bigoted sort of 'reality', but I tend not to talk about body parts that have more than twenty euphemisms existing for them :)

Mutual reservations to the Clinton Plan.

Israeli and U.S. officials point to the Palestinians response to the Clinton plan as further proof of Palestinian rejectionism. Their charge that the Palestinians said yes but offered reservations that vitiated the plan is largely true.The Israeli/U.S. view omits the other half of the story, however: Israel also had serious reservations that undermined the Clinton plan. If the expression of major qualms was tantamount to rejection, Israel too rejected this plan. Indeed,Barak presented Clinton with a twenty-page document of reservations, later implying that two of his major reservations concerned Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary and the right of return.55 In early January 2001, Barak publicly stated that he would not accept Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary, even though the Clinton plan called for Palestinian sovereignty only over the Noble Sanctuary (the Haram).In a speech to the Israel Policy Forum on January 7, 2001, Clinton used parallel language to sum up the standing of his plan. He stated, “Both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat have now accepted these parameters as the basis for further efforts. Both have expressed some reservations."56 (bolding is mine in the hope you digest this)

http://www.samed-syr.org/CampDavidAndTaba.pdf

BARNES: Now, Palestinian officials say to this day that Arafat said yes.

ROSS: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.

HUME: What was he supposed to give?

ROSS: He supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be for the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected that.

HUME: He rejected their being able to have that?

ROSS: He rejected that.

He rejected the idea on the refugees. He said we need a whole new formula, as if what we had presented was non-existent.

He rejected the basic ideas on security. He wouldn't even countenance the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian airspace.

You know when you fly into Israel today you go to Ben Gurion. You fly in over the West Bank because you can't – there's no space through otherwise. He rejected that.

So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him he rejected.

How come yr ignoring what he said, Shira? Here's what he said again, seeing as how you missed it the first time:

'In a speech to the Israel Policy Forum on January 7, 2001, Clinton used parallel language to sum up the standing of his plan. He stated, “Both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat have now accepted these parameters as the basis for further efforts. Both have expressed some reservations."

As Dennis Ross stated, Arafat said 'yes' but really meant 'no' with all his reservations. Clinton didn't actually lie by saying Arafat accepted, even though he really didn't. And Clinton was not so stupid as to say at the time these talks were still going on what Arafat's "reservations" were (meaning Arafat rejected them and could be blamed). That would have probably ended negotiations immediately.

The fact is Clinton NOW blames Arafat for everything, just like Ross.


on edit, here's Dennis Ross:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2031
Later on, with the Clinton ideas in December, they were asked to give a response, and they did not...The Chairman said to the President, in my presence, on January 2, 2001, "I accept your ideas." And then he proceeded to tick off three reservations, each of which completely vitiated the ideas. So the answer was, he never formally said no, but his yes was a no...

You haven't read anything I've posted about the Clinton Plan, have you? Because if yr going to say that Arafat really said no even though he said yes, then the same applies to Barak. And if yr going to discard Clinton's own words as lies, then you can't just do it when what he said doesn't fall into yr Palestinians = Bad, Israel = Good mindset. Everything he says must be treated with extreme caution...

Can I ask why yr wasting my time when it's very clear that yr not the slightest bit interested in doing anything else but insisting on painting a picture of blaming the palestinians for everything and exhibiting a fairly consistant lack of knowleddge of the issue (let's see, claiming that there was an offer at Taba that was refused by the Palestinians comes to mind)? You clearly aren't interested in looking at the events of Camp David and Taba with the slightest bit of objectivity...

This isn't rocket science. Even Dennis Ross says Arafat said "yes" (with reservations that equated to a "NO"). Why is this so difficult for you to accept? The fact of the matter is to this day Clinton holds Arafat solely responsible for Oslo/Camp David/Taba failure.

And what was being negotiated at Taba was a significant upgrade over Camp David. To not call it another 'proposal' is just semantics. This significantly better Clintonian upgrade over the original Camp David proposal was accepted by Barak and ultimately rejected by Arafat - and moreso - Prince Bandar called Arafat's rejection of it an absolute crime. By Taba's end, what was on the table wasn't the 'ceiling' of proposals, it was the ROOF. There could be nothing better. Ross believes PA negotiators would have accepted it (afterall, they had sat down with Israelis and Americans for months upgrading the Camp David proposal). But they didn't make the call. Arafat did, and he said 'no' and opted for war instead.

Not a 'wise' choice.

Perhaps you're not interested in objectively looking at the facts....pitting Dennis Ross against Clinton when anyone with half-a-brain can see what was going on. If Clinton had reported on Jan 7, 2001 that Arafat said "yes" but meant "no", that would have ended all negotiations. Is this so difficult for you?

And Dennis Ross omitted mentioning that if that's what he thinks, then the same applies to Barak, who also said "yes" (with a 20 page list of reservations that must also equate to a "NO"). Or is there some different rule when it comes to Palestinians? The reality is that both of them accepted the Clinton Plan, both had reservations, and if either had rejected the Clinton Plan, why do you think it formed the basis for negotiations at Taba?

Maybe you could point out where I said that Taba wasn't a signficant upgrade from Camp David. In fact, I pointed that very thing out in my first post about it. But trying to label it an offer isn't merely playing semantics, but probably displaying an inability to understand the difference between negotiations and actual offers. Or do you think every time the Israelis and Palestinians got together for talks, that's really an *offer*?

While I'm aware that nothing will dissuade you from blaming Arafat for everything, what happened at the end of Taba was that time ran out. Clinton's term ended, and Barak lost the election. I'm curious to know how you explain away the fact that Barak ran on a platform of picking up the talks from Taba if he'd been elected if what you claim about it being a Palestinian rejection of an offer is to be believed? It makes no sense...

No, it's you who isn't looking objectively at the events, which is what I've explained to you in several posts now. You jump on things that agree with yr mindset that Israel was faultless and it was all the Palestinians fault, and ignore anything to the contrary. Are you honestly trying to tell me that Dennis Ross is the be all and end all when it comes to why Oslo failed? That anyone who doesn't agree with some of his observations on the failure only have half a brain? I think yr opinions are very clouded by two things - an inability to recognise or acknowledge mistakes made by Israel and the US, and a desire to blame everything on the Palestinians. I take the much more rational line, which is one supported by the events, which is that there were mistakes made by all three and trying to lay blame on just one is a mugs game...

http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/comartin/israel/ben-ami.html

Time didn't just simply "run out" at Taba. You cannot seriously blame both sides "evenly" for mistakes.....doing your utmost to paint Barak's camp as bad as possible and give Arafat every possible benefit of the doubt. That's a false and deceptive "balancing act" (very popular these days to show moral equivalency in the I/P conflict) that in no way shows there were just "mistakes on both sides" or blame that could be applied "equally".

I'm not dismissing Clinton, BTW. Shlmo ben Ami says precisely what Dennis Ross claimed. That "yes" was really a "no".

Last but not least, you like saying that Arafat and Co. recognized Israel....and this somehow shows they're serious peace partners despite all the actions they've taken ever since. Are you aware that very recently Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly said he will NOT recognize Israel as a Jewish state?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929978.html

===================================================
Report: Abbas reiterates refusal to recognize Israel as 'Jewish state'

By The Associated Press

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas reiterated his refusal on Saturday to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Israel Radio reported.

"Historically, there are two states - Israel and Palestinian. Israel has Jews and other people, and this we are ready to recognize, but nothing else," the radio quoted Abbas as saying shortly after he landed in Saudi Arabia after brief stops in Egypt and Jordan.

===================================================

Then I'll move on to the rubbish in yr post about me that proves you don't bother reading other people's posts...


Ben-Ami says that while Barak just like Arafat, said yes with reservations, he claims that unlike Arafat's reservations, Barak's was a resounding yes because the quibbles were only minor. Barak's twenty pages of reservations included major quibbles, such as a refusal to accept Palestinian sovereignty over the Noble Sanctuary and the right of return.

'Israeli and U.S. officials point to the Palestinians´ response to the Clinton plan as further proof of Palestinian rejectionism. Their charge that the Palestinians said yes but offered reservations that vitiated the plan is largely true. The Israeli/U.S. view omits the other half of the story, however: Israel also had serious reservations that undermined the Clinton plan. If the expression of major qualms was tantamount to rejection, Israel too rejected this plan. Indeed, Barak presented Clinton with a twenty-page document of reservations, later implying that two of his major reservations concerned Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary and the right of return.55

In early January 2001, Barak publicly stated that he would not accept Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary, even though the Clinton plan called for Palestinian sovereignty only over the Noble Sanctuary (the Haram). In a speech to the Israel Policy Forum on January 7, 2001, Clinton used parallel language to sum up the standing of his plan. He stated, “Both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat have now accepted these parameters as the basis for further efforts. Both have expressed some reservations.'

http://www.samed-syr.org/CampDavidAndTaba.pdf

(I hope this time you actually bother trying to read it as you don't appear to have bothered before when I posted it in this thread)

Now for this crap: 'You cannot seriously blame both sides "evenly" for mistakes.....doing your utmost to paint Barak's camp as bad as possible and give Arafat every possible benefit of the doubt.'

Who said anything about blaming both sides evenly? I sure didn't. Also that accusation about me supposedly doing my utmost to paint Barak's camp as badly as possible just shows you haven't bothered reading what I say. Because I said very clearly in my first post 'If Taba had been an Israeli offer, then Israel should be acknowledged for having come up with something that was leaps and bounds light years beyond Barak's 'generous' offer...'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=221821&mesg_id=222031

See, unlike you on this issue, I am critical of both sides and am also not shy of giving kudos where they're due. And that's what you take issue with. If I was jumping up and down and frothing at the mouth about what a bunch of terrorists the Palestinians are, you'd be patting me on the back....

on edit: forgot to address that last bit of yr post. How on earth do you manage to twist an article that says that Abbas won't recognise Israel as a Jewish state, but that he does recognise Israel's existence into an accusation that he isn't a partner for peace? Did you even bother reading the article you posted? It appears not, seeing as how in the article it explains clearly why there was a refusal: 'The Palestinians recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, which Jerusalem demands, is meant to bolster Israel's position that rejects the return of Palestinian refugees to areas inside the Green Line - the border before the 1967 Six-Day War.'

The Taba Summit officially ended with a joint statement <7>, that included some of the following points:

The Israeli and Palestinian delegations conducted...deep and practical talks with the aim of reaching a permanent and stable agreement between the two parties...it proved impossible to reach understandings on all issues, despite the substantial progress that was achieved in each of the issues discussed...The two sides take upon themselves to return to normalcy and to establish security situation on the ground through the observation of their mutual commitments in the spirit of the Sharm e-Sheikh memorandum. The negotiation teams discussed four main themes: refugees, security, borders and Jerusalem, with a goal to reach a permanent agreement that will bring an end to the conflict between them and provide peace to both people...The Taba talks conclude an extensive phase in the Israeli-Palestinian permanent status negotiations with a sense of having succeeded in rebuilding trust between the sides...The two sides express their gratitude to President Hosni Mubarak...They also express their thanks to the European Union...

Yep, clearly these guys are lying, right?

Wait. There's more:

"We made progress, substantial progress. We are closer than ever to the possibility of striking a final deal," said Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's negotiator. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, said, "My heart aches because I know we were so close. We need six more weeks to conclude the drafting of the agreement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit

even Nussibeh acknowledges that you can't really force people who don't want to live together to live together.

If there comes a time when they can live together peacefully, then perhaps it will happen, although even then I doubt that it could be peaceful, as the economic differences between the Jews and Arabs will be so vast that there would already be an automatic second class citizenship, just economically.

How viable is that?

Without the people themselves wanting to live together, there will be a war, and we all know it.

This posturing for a "single bi-national state" is really a way of pushing for a middle east without Jews, because the Arabs have never wanted the Jews to be there anyway.

And Jews are not going away quietly this time.

It's interesting that the current apartheid conditions are perfectly fine for you Israel-only folks, but having to SHARE??? OMG!!!!! Unthinkable!

"Share" does not equal "death."

Apartheid does though.

It's so true and sums up the sheer stupidity of those claims that a binational secular state equals killing Jews.

Without leading to war that would kill both Jews AND Arabs?

In an absolutely ideal world, a secular binational state would be great! But if a secular binational state were POSSIBLE under the circumstances, then there wouldn't be all the problems going on right now.

Right now there's been nothing but violence that kills both Jews and Arabs, no sign that a viable two-state solution is going to emerge, and at some point in the future one secular binational state is going to be the only acceptable option left.

On edit: thought I'd make it clear I still support a two-state solution, though I think the chances of it happening are slim to none. What I take offense at is sentiments that are posted in this thread and have appeared in others accusing those who support one secular binational state as supporting the killing of Israeli Jews and making out that Arabs Hate Jews And Want To Kill Them All.

of 'Arabs Hate Jews and Want to Kill Them All'. It's a case of 'Israelis and Palestinians are Enemies and Want to Kill Each Other, or At Least Think They Have To, So as Not to Get Killed First'. One day I hope very much that this will change; e.g. the English and Germans haven't been trying to kill each other for quite some time; nor have the Americans and Japanese. However, as long as there is this mutual hostility between any two groups, forcing a one-state solution between them is going to be virtually impossible without major bloodshed.

One reason why establishing a two-state solution is relatively difficult is because of concerns about establishing border security. Change it to a one-state solution and you instantly have major conserns about establishing security *everywhere* in the state, not just on the borders.

As regards the 'secular' nature of such a state - do you think Hamas are going to come to terms readily with that? They are not even terribly keen on sharing power with secular Palestinians, let alone Jews. And though the religious right is a much smaller faction among Israelis, it is probably large enough to create trouble under such circumstances.

(1) Israeli reluctance to give up land

(2) Continued terrorist attacks by some Palestinian groups, which make some Israelis, who would otherwise accept a return to the '67 borders or similar, being anxious about the defensibility of such borders.

(3) Hawks on both sides!

(4) Religion.

(5) Difficulty in working out the logistics.

1) the Palestinian rigidly held demand about "right of return",

Right of return is the end of the Jewish state. It is an impossible demand, and will never be met by any Israel politicians. There is no political will amongst the Israeli public to make right of return ever a reality, and yet the Palestinians hold to this and will not compromise.

Right there, the deal is dead.

2) Ongoing terrorism, ongoing inflammatory rhetoric and anti-semitism, anti-Zionism, and general hatred towards Jews and Israelis, and categorical refusal by many Arab/Palestinian leaders to accept Israel.

3) Jerusalem. I think it could be divided, but it is a huge issue for many Jews, and not just the right wing nutters.

4) Expanding Israeli settlements.

I do think these are a big impediment.

5) Lack of trust and good faith, accompanied by years of hate, by both sides towards the other.

6) Weak leadership. No one has the courage to do what would be best for the people, which will involve lots of compromise on both sides.

7) Inability to compromise, which both sides are guilty of, although the Palestinians haven't compromised at all, and the Israelis have compromised, given up land, provided aid and services, and generally tried to be a good partner (although they could do more).

They've appeared in past threads when the issue of a binational state comes up, and I recall one poster going so far as to claim that they see support for a binational democratic state as antisemitic....

I've quickly looked at yr other posts further down in this thread and we see eye-to-eye on one state vs two states - that ideally one binational democratic state is what I'd support, but realistically it's got a snowflakes chance in hell of happening and can't be forced on two groups of people who don't want it. For pragmatic reasons I support a two-state solution (that's two viable and independent states based on the 1967 borders), but in my case when the time comes that a two-state solution becomes impossible, then given a choice between two options that have snowflakes chances in hell of happening without bloodshed, I'll opt for the fairer option, which is the single binational state...

I doubt Hamas have any interest in a secular state. It's not in the nature of religious groups. Israel manages to get along as a secular state because while its religious groups are powerful, they're not in a position where they can change the nature of the state to a religious one. Hopefully there'll come a day when the power that Hamas has fades and while they'll still have more power than I'll like (I've never made a secret of my intense dislike of religious political groups, Palestinian or Israeli), they won't have the power to turn a secular state into a theocracy...

It can always happen if people are determined. Whereas a real one-state solution is really pie-in-the-sky and will be so for a long time. If it ever happens, it will be the final successor of a peaceful two-state solution - not an alternative to one.

Frankly - and it practically chokes me to write this; it's so against everything that I generally believe in and fight for - if it *really* comes to a time when no other solution is possible without major bloodshed, I would prefer some form of temporary return to colonialism (we can call it 'international peacekeeping' but that's what it really comes down to) to enforce a peaceful solution, rather than have the bloodshed on both sides. But I prefer to consider Israel and Palestine as quite capable of working out a solution for themselves, and running two secure states in the way that is best for *them*.

It seems to me the most humane way to resolve this is to depose both Hamas and Fatah (somehow), go back to conditions pre-Oslo from 1967-1990ish (before Arafat) and work to find leadership that better represents the will of the people. This return to 'colonialist occupation' doesn't seem to be the greatest option but it's far more morally superior than the situation now under Hamas and Fatah, and exponentially better for Palestinians than what they had under Egypt/Jordan from 1948-1967. Sari Nusseibeh clearly agrees with this.

I understand why Arafat was allowed back (not only was he the PLO leader but it was thought under his 'iron rule' there would be order). But that didn't work out so swell, did it? Big mistake. Those who led Intifada I and were leading prior to Arafat would have probably made peace with Israel by now (at least by 2000-2001 Camp David/Taba).

No, can't say I agree with that in this case. The problem is that while both peoples do support a two-state solution, they don't really skim much past the surface of that and get determined about the things that are impediments to it happening. Israel has long been into creating facts on the ground and shows no signs of easing up. What I've always said is that one binational democratic state will emerge as a natural thing over time as mistrust and hostility fades. It's not something that could magically happen overnight...

I might be recollecting this wrong, and if I am can someone correct me, but Israel and the Palestinians have shown themselves capable in the past of getting together and starting to thrash out issues, including some of the real prickly ones, because that's what happened at Taba where the Americans weren't involved. It seems to me that given the right leadership for both people and keeping the Americans out of it will eventually lead to productive results...

Israelis and Palestinians met a month prior to the Taba summit with President Clinton in Washington where he presented a the proposal which formed the centerpiece of the Taba negotiations. In fact, some have argued that the reason for the lack of a breakthrough at Taba was due to the changeover in the US from Clinton to Bush.

That's what I understand happened...

and both people have expressed no desire to live with one another.

So what makes you think that two people who hate each other can be forced to live together>

Even Nussibeh doubts it would work.

who were kicked out and had their homes stolen from them?

Of course not.

They can't even visit, much less live there.

There are 1.5 million Arabs living in Israel.

The Palestinians and Israelis are at war.

They cannot live together, not now, and perhaps not ever.

Face reality.

Jews can certainly visit Egypt. What's the point of making up stuff like this?

but it is *not* the case that Jews can't visit. I know a number of Jews who have travelled in Egypt.

I do know a number of Egyptian Jews who lost everything when they were kicked out.

They have never been back, but that may be their choice.

I know they could never recover their homes or belongings, and certainly could never live in Egypt again.

Why can't Arabs "share" their states with 850,000 former occupants, who also happen to be Jews?

Why do only Jews have to share their state?

In fact, when I read their immigration requirements, they sounded similar to that of Australia. Not quite sure why anyone in their right mind would want to migrate to Egypt, but you seem to think there's 850,000 of them ;)

http://www.immigration.com/frame/egyptconsular.html

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

In yr quest to portray Egypt as not allowing Jews to visit, you omitted a few important details from yr 'account'. I found this at JPost and now I'm curious to know why you wouldn't think any country would react unfavourably to getting information that people were planning on entering the country and not leaving without the required visas. Over here we don't crap around. We dump them in detention centres and deport their arses out of here...

btw, it's against the rules to use Nazi terminology in this forum. Not that I suspect any rules are going to stop you...

A nasty rumor got around barring 45 old Jews (70-80 years old) from visiting their old country, going to the cemetary where their families were, etc...and the gov't made certain they were not getting in. What's so difficult about this?

Tell you what. You try entering my country on a tourist visa and immigration get information that yr planning on violating the terms of yr tourist visa. They'll not only deport you but they'll issue you with an exclusion order which bars you from entering the country again for a number of years. Maybe if you weren't so intent on peddling rubbish painting Egypt as a place that bars Jews from visiting (despite the fact that no restrictions exist on any ethnic or religious group), you'd grasp that simple fact...

Or do you think these 45 elderly Jews were really up to something nefarious and therefore they had it coming to them, not to ever return again to their country of origin?

I dunno. It's like you don't even read what yr replying to, Shira. Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, how about you focus on what I actually say. I just can't see the point of continuing if you've already got a script worked out and my involvement isn't needed...

45 elderly Jews wanted to visit Egypt. Very simple. They were rejected for some bogus reason by the Egyptian govt that made up accusations against them. The Jews of Cairo could either play along with the Egyptian govt or go up against them (poor choice).

There was no reason whatsoever for these Jews to be denied this opportunity. They were denied because they were Jews, plain and simple.

What's simplistic is giving a different version to the article from JPost. See, anyone who read that knows that the Egyptian govt diddn't make up accusations against them. It acted on information it was getting. Whether that information was correct or not isn't something to condemn a govt for - my govt has revoked visas based on information that was wrong. Do you seriously think no country is going to take any action if it gets information that people on tourist visas are possibly going to violate the terms of their visa? Or do you think this only happens to Jews? Also, you claimed they weren't ever allowed to return. Again, that's not what the article says at all. Read the last paragraph...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

(and I know four separate Egyptian Jews, not 850,000 :)) lost their homes and livelihoods.

What if they did want to return to their former homes (they don;t, because they have much better lives in Israel or the US than they would in Egypt)?

The point is that they would not be welcome. They would be barred, only because they are Jews,

Just like the rest of the 846,000 Jews who were expelled from Egypt or other Arab countries would not be allowed to return to live in those either.

There's no restriction that says people can't apply to live there if they're Jewish...

I'm not sure what yr point is, actually. Palestinians who lost their homes and land in Israel aren't welcome and you don't have any issue with that. So why would you have an issue with it if another country does it?

btw, how come you keep on claiming all Jewish refugees were expelled when you've been told many times that they weren't? And why do yr numbers keep on changing from post to post?

and did lose everything.

I don't know what you read, but these are real people, with real experiences.

They aren't welcome in Egypt, and were not compensated for their losses.

And it is well documented that there were about as many Jews who were expelled from Arab lands, as Palestinians who were expelled or left Israel.

It was pretty much an even population transfer.

What I've read is factual information, and not garbage from folk who are more interested in trying to draw exact parralels than focus on facts and try to make the false claim that a 'population transfer' happened....

It's a fact that some Jews were expelled from countries, some fled, and some left willingly to live in Israel...

You keep on insisting Jews aren't welcome in Egypt, but you haven't shown any evidence to support that claim. Any applications from these friends of yrs to migrate there that have been rejected? Anything at all to back up what you say?

Given yr very strong opposition to Palestinian refugees being allowed to return to Israel, isn't it just a bit hypocritical to turn around and have a problem with another country that you think is doing the same thing, but this time to Jewish refugees?

There are other possibilities than either maintaining the status quo (which I DON'T advocate!!!), or a one-state solution.

Now quite honestly: how do you think that the Jews and Arabs are going to share, without major civil war? It would mean death for both Jews and Arabs. This isn't because of something intrinsic to Jews or Arabs. It's because right at the moment, Israelis and Palestinians are enemies, and tossing enemies together doesn't usually lead to peace.

There IS one possible alternative solution. That would be some outside body MAKING them share, and keeping a tight reign on the situation. I don't know if anyone could be found that would be able and willing to do so: but even if there were, as I've said before, wouldn't that just be basically a return to colonialism?

Otherwise, what is your proposed solution for making these warring groups of people 'play nicely together' or at any rate not kill each other? How would it be easier to establish than a two-state solution?

with the status quo, but the reality is, for every Jewish person who goes there to live or to visit, or to have their bar mitzvah, or send their kids on one of the free create-a-zionist tours, while Palestinians are barred from going, you're giving a big high-five to the status quo.

I guess I think the honest reality is this: Israel is either going to have to share the land, share the power, or face armed conflict. I can certainly see that the status quo, which hogs the land, hogs the power, and wipes out only a few palestinians is preferable to most Israelis. But the status quo won't last. Resistance will get increasingly bloody and Israel's hand will be forced. Of course, Hezbollah has shown that with armed conflict, the IDF doesn't always win, so there is the chance that Israel could lose a bloody conflict.

Then there's the nuclear option.

I guess at some point, Israelis will have to decide if they want to share the land and/or power, or chance a military loss, or simply become mass murderers.

Personally, it's such a non-brainer that I can't quite see the quandary for anyone who considers herself or himself a moral person.

and I have no problem considering myself a very moral person.

I am and will continue to be a Zionist, and am opposed to any idiotic "single state" claims.

I continue to support Israel's right to both defend herself against terrorism, and not share land with terrorists who want to kill every Jew.

If the terrorists change their POV, accept Israel and Jews, then it might be a different story.

I also believe armed conflict is coming, which is regretable, but the losses with "sharing land" would be as great, or greater.

I have no trouble at all with my own moral compass.

So I am not at all surprised that you avail yourself of the things unconscionably denied to people who were actually born there.

and a fraction of the Palestinian people who lay claim to the land.

If it were only the original inhabitants...but it is all of their "descendants" too.

Again, do you support the 850,000 Jews who were expelled from the Arab countries, as well as all of their descendants, who are denied access to or ability to live in their former countries of origin?

And if not, why the double standard?

I'm not talking about refugees returning.

i'm talking about indigenous Palestinians going home to visit!

Hope your g-kids enjoy the free propaganda tour. Maybe if they swing by Gaza, they could throw a pic of my children over the fence? My father-in-law has never gotten to see his only grandson...

This coming from someone who has consistantly and loudly opposed the right of return of Palestinian refugees, but who demands that a whole different standard applies to Jewish refugees...

btw, you've been told many times before that 850,000 Jews were NOT expelled from Arab countries. It was very much a push/pull type thing with some being expelled, some fleeing, and some wanting to migrate to Israel and going...

and those expelled Palestinians (who were also in a push/pull type thing with some expelled, some fleeing, etc..) are a wash. Given that Israel offered over $30 billion for refugees at Taba/Camp David and given that the Jewish refugees plight at least equals Palestinians, that offer from Israel seems fair enough.

What a load of complete nonsense. No-one in their right mind can look at Jewish refugees (who all have citizenship and safety in Israel) to that of Palestinian refugees (many of who are in squalid refugee camps and are stateless). This attempt to paint some sort of bizarre equality in situations is totally ridiculous. Or maybe I've misssed those refugee camps full of stateless Jewish refugees? I'd like you to explain how on earth you come to the conclusion that the Jewish refugees have any plight at all, let alone one that 'at least equals' that of Palestinian refugees...

btw, did you read the information I posted about the refugee issue from the Taba talks?

But the difference is due to the fact that Israel treats its Jewish refugees better than the Arab countries treat their Palestinian refugees. In any case, I think we've got to live in the real world and not expect unlimited right of return for either group. Just as Jewish refugees 'all have citizenship and safety in Israel', Palestinian refugees need to have their own Palestinian state, where THEY will all have citizenship and safety.

I'm not really interested in discussing the *but* in yr post, because that wasn't what Shira was talking about, and anyway I agree with the *but*. What I'd like to know is how anyone could make a claim like the one Shira made and how they justify it....

granted the jews were kicked out/forced out etc, but they had a definitive place to go...for the Palestinian arabs, they had nothing but a bunch of tents with no real welcoming committee....

if one wants to talk of monetary compensation for properties lost/stolen etc for the jews from those arabs countries one has a legal leg to stand on..for the Palestinians who were part victim part instigator of the violence etc they too should get something....but, in my view, only to feed the peace process.

the jews were taken care of not just by israelis by but by jews all over the world....and are settled in their new homes.....the Palestinians got the bare minimum from their brethren.....and a lot of laws and rhetoric designed to keep them as refugees....(something that has been very successful) and they still arent settled....

unless there is discussion of equal compensation for Jews who lost their homes and property.

The fact that Arabs have been continually victimized by their own brethren is not our fault. They could have been welcomed and offered citizenship, but instead they are left in squalid refugee camps in poverty.

Why does Israel treat Palestinians the way it treats them now? Does terrorism not factor in? Were things better pre-Camp David or pre-Oslo? Of course they were! Why? Or are you not aware that Palestinians were treated far better by Israelis pre-Oslo? Even Sari Nusseibeh admits this.

The "Palestinian firsters" like to pretend that the Palestinians are blameless victims, that they hold absolutely no responsibility for their situation.

They refuse to admit that there was terrorism before any occupation, that there was a time when Palestinians traveled freely to and from Israel, benefiting from the good economy, before walls and checkpoints, which were erected ONLY because of Palestinian terrorism.

Until there is some honesty and some admission of their own culpability in their situation, things for the Palestinians aren't likely to improve.

that anyone who goes to live in or visit America is giving a big high-five to the Republican status quo?

For the rest: it's not even a question of being 'Israeli-first'. It's a question of being anti-war. For the record, and this may shock some people here on both sides: my *preferred* solution, *if* this were possible, *would* be a secular binational state. But I realize that this is not going to happen now, or probably within the next 30 or 40 years, without a war, indeed probably not without long-term civil war - and I don't like wars! Attractive but impossible solutions don't get one very far. I would also like all other countries in the Middle East to become secular liberal/left countries where all ethnic and religious groups are equal - but THAT isn't going to happen soon either, just because a white foreign liberal like me thinks it might be a good idea; and pushing the impossible is a recipe for war. Just the same for a secular binational Israeli-Palestinian state.

That's what I'm trying to get you to see.

The status quo doesn't work. The status quo is unacceptable. The status quo is a recipe for war! People are ALREADY DYING -- just not Jewish people in any great number!!!!!!!!!!!!

You still haven't addressed what I'm saying. You can talk until you're blue in the face. But as long as worldwide jewry supports the status quo with its presence and money, Jerusalem bar mitzvahs and propaganda trips, you're high five-ing the status quo.

-----------------

Are you actually equating israel's apartheid policies with the republican party in the US? On what grounds??

of a single state.

10,000 people in sixty years?

It could be 10,000 people in a week, or a month or a year.

I am not willing to support a massive amount of bloodshed, just because the Arabs aren't willing to compromise and because the global community doesn't support a Jewish homeland.

And I absolutely support the current status quo, over any alternative you have proposed.

A single state IS NOT POSSIBLE without MASSIVE bloodshed.

At least be honest enough to acknowledge that reality.

The two people hate each other and DON'T WANT TO LIVE TOGETHER.

Forcing them to do so is a recipe for a huge conflagration.

it is Jewish Israelis who experience it.

That comes through every one of your posts loud and clear.

...it seems you only care about sacrifice and suffering when it's Palestinians who experience it. Here's the rub, however. I realize Hamas and Fatah are more responsible (than Israel) for increased Palestinian suffering the past 8-12 years. So does Sari Nusseibeh. It's so obvious, it shouldn't even be debated. You ,however, don't seem to see things this way as you give Hamas and Fatah a pass for some reason. Why?

I support numerous anti-status-quo organizations and actions:

www.newisraelfund.org

www.bsst.org.uk

www.gisha.org

www.allmep.org


I may have a different view than yours about *how* best to change the status quo; but that doesn't mean that I support it.


'Are you actually equating israel's apartheid policies with the republican party in the US? On what grounds??'

Well, yes I am! Several grounds:

(1) The Republicans have started a war in Iraq that has led to about a million deaths of Iraqis; a continuing occupation that shows no signs of stopping; and deep divisions between different sections of the population.

(2) Support for policies that discriminate in practice against certain racial groups. Do you not think that people like Helms and Thurmond were supporters of what can only be called apartheid???

If you don't think that there are Republican-supported policies, that
to this day amount to apartheid in a number of places, then I have one word: Katrina!

(3) Related to the above, policies that lead to the disenfranchisement of voters from minority groups. Which could well have made the difference in both the 2000 and 2004 elections.

occupation that has robbed and murdered countless civilians.

Now I know how you guys feel when the occupation is compared to the holocaust.

What about nearly 100 years of finding EVERY possible way of blatantly defying the Fifteenth Amendment and restricting the right of Black people to vote? What about Jim Crow laws in the southern states until the 1960s? What about laws in some places that forbade interracial marriage - UNTIL THE LATE 1960S!!! What about the acceptance of lynching?

Yes, I know most of the politicians and leaders who allowed all this were nominal Democrats. The right wing of the modern repukes are their successors, and carrying on their policies, insofar as they are permitted to do so.

And once again, what about Iraq, and the war and occupation there? What about the deliberate whipping up of hatred of Muslims, and what amounted to punishing Iraq for 9-11, a crime with which they had nothing to do?

This isn't defending the Occupation; it is pointing out the long criminal record, both in domestic civil rights, and in foreign policy, of the modern Republicans and their ancestors.

Let me tell you flat out that "whipped up hatred" is ugly, but for you to compare it to to the ongoing theft, murder and random incarceration practiced by the occupation authorities leads me to one conclusion:

I know you're a decent person, but you need a serious reality check.

My daughters have been called names a few times; my 44 year old husband, living in the US for 17 of the last 19 years, still screams in his sleep, dreaming of escaping the IDF, or of his best friend dying in his arms at Bir Zeit university, shot dead for the horrid crime of throwing stones to resist the IDF.

Of all the pro-israel posters here, I find your posts are the hardest and most discouraging to read. You are a decent person, and though I know you can't see it, your most consistent theme is to minimize the crimes perpetuated by the gov't of Israel against the people of Palestine. You constantly downplay Israel's actions, by comparing them to others, always seeking to equalize blame, etc. Just yesterday, you actually wrote that Palestinians also engage in dehumanizing Israelis!

If someone like yourself, whose heart is nearly in the right place, can look at the situation, and walk away from it making these analyses, then I really am hopeless.

You've been my bellweather on this forum for a long time... thinking if *you* can see and understand, there is hope....

I guess in the end what any of us thinks doesn't matter much. We all know to be true what we know to be true.

There are Israelis who jump every time the phone rings because it reminds them of the day they got the call that their best friend was murdered in a Palestinian suicide bombing as they rode on a public bus.

There are Israelis who walk into a pizzeria and cannot help but be reminded of the seven children murdered by Palestinians as they sat peacefully eating their lunch.

For you to identify the suffering of the Palestians in the terms you do without being able to share a deep and profound empathy and sympathy for the fear and sorrow that many Israelis live with every day of there life leads me to the same conclusion:

That you are a decent person in need of a serious reality check.

If someone like yourself can express nothing but surprise and shock when someone claims that Palestinians also engage in dehumanizing Israelis is beyond comprehension.

Can a Palestinian truly murder innocent Israeli children without some level of dehumanization? Can the Palestinians who created an exhibit celebrating the Sbarro's bombing complete with fake blood and body parts really think of Israelis as human beings?

I have very much felt that your points have been both thoughtful and thought-provoking, but for you to discount the suffering, the pain, the anguish of so many Israelis, for you to minimize the crimes supported or perpetrated by Palestinian leaders gives me a lack of hope as well.

Hamas has bragged proudly about the innocent Israeli civilians it has murdered. The lives of countless Israelis have been forever changed by a suicide bombing or a terror attack.

Israelis have been killed for the crime of riding a bus, or eating a slice of pizza.

Israelis scream in their sleep too, believe me.

First of all, I was responding to LB equating hatred of Muslims in the US with the Israeli occupation.

Period.

All of you Israel-firsters neglect to see that this is not a conflict between 2 equals.

it's a conflict between a nuclear-armed military state (backed by the world's superpower) that has been systematically oppressing an indigenous population for 40 years and a poorly armed civilian population that has tried numerous strategies to gain its rightful freedom.

Most of you have lost sight of the power differential that is core to this conflict.

As I wrote to LB yesterday, Palestinians don't have the POWER to strip Israelis of their humanity. DEHUMANIZATION REQUIRES POWER.

My point about my DH screaming wasn't to say that Israelis don't, but to compare the depth of psychic fear to the crap my kids face: no comparison.

Both Israelis AND Palestinians scream in their sleep because of their government's refusal to end its murderous occupation.

in Iraq, with the Israeli occupation in Palestine.

Actually, the American/British occupation has already led to more deaths, in a shorter period of time.

Neither is, to use your almost-British understatement, 'a good idea'; but the Republicans and other American right-wingers have done INCREDIBLE harm, throughout the world, over many many years. That's not a defense of the Israeli Occupation. It's just what seems to me to be a fact.

I don't think dehumanization does require power -except sufficient power to hate and to harm and to kill. It generally does more harm, when inflicted and encouraged by the powerful than the less powerful - the powerful usually can harm or kill more people. But anyone who hates, and is prepared to kill, someone just because of their nationality or ethnic or religious group, is dehumanizing them.

That is one reason why war is so evil. It cannot be waged without one, or most usually, both sides dehumanizing the other.

Would you not agree that terrorist attacks involve dehumanizing the people targeted?

First of all, I do not know what an "Israel-firster" is, but I certainly reject the implication.

The only thing that is "first" in my mind is a peaceful resolution to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. My first priority is doing everything I can to support those who have been working and continue to work towards the goal of two states living side by side at peace with one another.

I realize what you were responding to, but in doing so, you presented a very emotive and personal story about your own first-hand knowledge of the impact of the Israeli occupation on Palestinians. The treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis, however, makes no sense without understanding the horrors that Israelis have suffered at the hands of Palestinian terrorists.

Without incidents like the Sbarro pizzeria bombing (which, incidentally, was seven years ago this week), without the barrage of suicide attacks that followed on the heels of Oslo, without the sporatically succesful suicide bombing attempts that have taken place since that time, the situation for the Palestinians would be very different today.

It seems that you wish to ascribe no responsibility to the Palestinians for the current situation, when, in fact, the attacks on Israeli civilians have, indeed contributed substantially to the conditions of the Palestinians.

That does not mean that Israel's actions do not warrant criticism. But, any honest person, looking at the situation, must also look at the actions of the Palestinian leadership critically as well.

Palestinians, of course, have the power to strip Israelis of their humanity. Who is more powerful than someone who is willing to sacrifice his own life to murder others? Do you really feel that Israelis (and Jews) are presented as being "human" at, say, a Hamas run summer camp? Perhaps the difference is a semantic one and your definition of dehumanization is not "is a process by which members of a group of people assert the "inferiority" of another group through subtle or overt acts or statements" as the Wikipedia site would have us believe.

Israelis and Palestinians are both suffering because the Palestinians will not disavow violence against civilians and recognize Israel's right to exist. That is as valid a statement as yours. If the occupation ends, will the attempted suicide bombings cease? Or will the next step to be to "liberate the rest of Palestine"?

It is so frustrating because we ought to both be on the same side, fighting the same fight.

The occupation should end, the Palestinians should have their own state, the Israelis and Palestinians should be able to live in peace.

I really wish we all could rally around those goals together.

But as long as the Zionist left opposes effective nonviolent resistance because it singles Israel out, then there is really nothing we can do.

As for power and dehumanization, to me this argument is akin to when white people complaining about reverse racism... I am not talking about hating, or being willing to sacrifice, but of being systematically, legally, institutionally stripped of your rights and humanity.

apply nonviolent pressure on Israel to change, because they think exceptionalism is worse than occupation, what hope is there?

The hope is that progressives on both sides can reject the militancy and war-mongering of some of their leaders and embrace the idea of two-states living side by side in peace with one another.

That is why the Zionist left tries to reach out to those Palestinian progressives who are willing and eager to let the world know that there is a better way. That there does not need to be violence. That the dream of two states living at peace is a dream that can come true. That is how the Geneva Accords came into being.

If Israeli and Palestinian progressives, as well as those in the rest of the international community, are not willing to stand together and declare their support for peaceful solutions and difficult compromises, then what hope is there?

Our "hope" does nothing.

What I've come to realize over the last 10 years is that there is an occupation machine that exists outside of the popular, even outside the ruling party. That machine chugs on.

I suppose we differ in that I believe that leverage needs to be applied to the gov't of Israel. I don't think that the Palestinian demands -- 67 borders, East Jerusalem and fair settlement for refugees is asking too much.

I think that - though American financial sticks and carrots can play a part - the most effective sort of leverage on a government is electoral pressure. That means influencing Israeli and Palestinian public opinion, in the direction of more peaceful solutions. The people who can most effectively do this are groups and individuals' within Palestine and Israel themselves, though world opinion can make a difference and have an impact.

BUT I don't think that world Jewry's refusal to visit Israel, etc. would have the effect that you are hoping for, even if people were prepared to do this. Israeli hawks already have the attitude that 'we've got to defend ourselves as everyone else is hostile to us'. And the more hawkish types are often already slightly suspicious of Jews who, from their point of view, *choose* not to live in Israel, especially if they then criticize Israeli policies ("You have no right to criticize when you don't live here!") A public rejection of Israel by 'Diaspora' Jews would just confirm the negative, perhaps somewhat paranoid view of the hawks ('even our own brethren have abandoned us!), and make them dig in their heels even further.

It seems to me that the same is true to a degree of Palestinians. They have been isolated to quite an extent by the world, including Arab countries - and this seems to have led to a hardening of attitudes, and to stronger nationalism, rather than the reverse. The same happens with Israelis, and would IMO happen even more in the case of a boycott.

I favor sanctions, boycotts and divestment.

But I am beginning to understand that Jews who claim solidarity with oppressed Palestinians, but who still take advantage of perks availably only to Jews, should reexamine those decisions.

I don't think that the Palestinian demands -- 67 borders, East Jerusalem and fair settlement for refugees is asking too much....those are just demands.....too bad hamas/islamic jihad etc dont agree with you. Perhaps you can tell us which PA govt agency actually does agree to those demands? fatah? the traitors?

and there is also the other problem...if they dont get everything according to their view (gaza)..then, i'm just guessing here)..do you agree they get to start trying to kill israelis again...even if its just nuisance attacks like little guns and little rockets...and israel has to just let them attack?

I suppose we differ in that I believe that leverage needs to be applied to the gov't of Israel. I don't think that the Palestinian demands -- 67 borders, East Jerusalem and fair settlement for refugees is asking too much.

That was Camp David / Taba 2000-01. Arafat rejected it.

Also, PM....I'm curious to know what you think about people like Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brigitte Gabriel, Nonie Darwish, and Sari Nusseibeh. Are they progressives like yourself? Not progressive enough?

I know both of them are bigoted against Muslims, and maybe both of them are RWers, not just one...

The fact is not all these people are RW and they all have basically the same stance on the Arab/Muslim world, USA, Israel, etc. Whether RW or LW, there views are significantly more progressive than the average Islamic political POV.

Because both of them have made comments that are bigoted against Muslims. You have a real nerve lumping RW* bigots like those two in with good people like Sari Nusseibeh...

* there's no *probably* about the RW views I've seen expressed. It's a *definate*...

Sari Nusseibeh was just quoted by Akiva Eldar as saying Palestinians were happier under 1967-1993 Israeli rule (when they had the most freedom, best economics, education, etc..). All these other (former/recent) muslims, like Sari Nusseibeh, aren't just into Israel bashing 24/7/365 and give Israel credit where it's due. They would also claim the same as Nusseibeh, that as bad as occupation is, it's a helluva lot better than Egypt/Jordan or Hamas/PLO rule.

RW and LW bigots both suck. What makes a RW'er like Darwish a bigot whereas someone like Wafa Sultan or Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not a bigot? Their views are not significantly different from each other. They're all critical of Islam (religio-politcal) and give western democracies praise.

Is it bigoted to criticize Islamic religious or political positions? An Islamophobe is someone who has IRRATIONAL positions on Islam. Is it your belief that any critic of Islam is irrational, or just every RW'er? How about this one? Is it bigoted to claim that Islam (generally) is incompatible with western democratic values? Just wondering.

It is not bigoted to say that all theocratic movements; and all intrusions of religion into law; are incompatible with Western democratic values.

However, it would be IMO bigoted to say that this is true with regard to Islam, and not of Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism; or even secular ideologies (communism; fascism) when they become state-imposed ideologies, or what I call 'quasi-theocracy'.

Right at the moment (though not historically), true theocracy is more-or-less confined to Islam; but there are several ideological 'quasi-theocracies', and also many countries which don't meet full criteria for theocracy, but where religion intrudes into law to the serious detriment of many - e.g. the countries where abortion is absolutely forbidden.

aren't anything like the broadbrushing of all Muslims that Darwish, Sultan and Gabriel engage in. They don't just oppose Islamic states, or fundamentalism, or terrorism - they imply that ALL Muslims are a threat, and not just in the countries where they are a majority, but everywhere: that they want to 'take over the West', etc. It is not unlike the antisemitic conspiracy theories that imply that Jews/Zionists are everywhere; seeking to control, or already controlling, other countries and the international media; etc.

Comparing Nusseibeh with them is like comparing a liberal American who opposes the Iraq war, with one who truly hates America and wishes for its defeat wherever it goes. The American Right sometimes do this as a means of slandering and discrediting the former; but it is totally unjustified and incorrect. Same with Nusseibeh and Darwish or Sultan.

Because if you are and you fail to see the bigotry in what she's said, then I'm going to ask you to examine this comment of hers and insert Jew or Judaism in place of Muslim and Islam and then explain to me why you wouldn't think it wasn't antisemitic.

"I have decided to fight Islam; please pay attention to my statement; to fight Islam, not the political Islam, not the militant Islam, not the radical Islam, not the Wahhabi Islam, but Islam itself...Islam has never been misunderstood, Islam is the problem....(Muslims) have to realize that they have only two choices: to change or to be crushed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafa_Sultan#Religious_sentiment

Also, you need to read this and then explain why you wouldn't have problems with what Wafa Sultan says about Islam and Muslims. I've bolded a paragraph that I really think you should focus on:

Islam's Ann Coulter

RECENTLY I WAS one of about 100 L.A. Jews invited to attend a fundraiser for a Jewish organization that seeks to counteract anti-Israel disinformation and propaganda. The guest speaker was Wafa Sultan, the Syrian American woman who in February gave a now legendary interview on Al Jazeera television, during which she said that "the Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations" and "I don't believe you can reform Islam."

The audience warmly greeted Sultan, a psychiatrist who immigrated to Southern California in 1989. One of Time magazine's 100 "pioneers and heroes," she said she was neither a Christian, Muslim nor Jew but a secular human being. "I have 1.3 billion patients," she quipped early in her remarks, referring to the global Muslim population. Sultan went on to condemn inhumane acts committed in God's name, to denounce Islamic martyrdom and to decry terror as a tool to subjugate communities. Those statements all made perfect sense.

Then this provocative voice said something odd: "Only Arab Muslims can read the Koran properly because you have to speak Arabic to know what it means — you cannot translate it." Any translation is, by definition, interpretation, and Arabic is no more difficult to accurately translate than Hebrew. In fact, the Hebrew of the Bible poses many more formidable translation problems than Arabic. Are Christians and Jews who cannot read it ill-equipped to live by its meanings?

Another surprising remark soon followed: "All Muslim women — even American ones, though they won't admit it — are living in a state of domination." Do they include my friend Nagwa Eletreby, a Boeing engineer and expert on cockpit controls, who did not seek her husband's permission to help me dress the Torah scroll? Or how about my friend Azima Abdel-Aziz, a New York University graduate who traveled to Israel with 15 Jews and 14 other Muslims — and left her husband at home?

There is no subjugation in the homes of these and other American Muslim women I know. They are equal, fully contributing members of their families.

The more Sultan talked, the more evident it became that progress in the Muslim world was not her interest. Even more troubling, it was not what the Jewish audience wanted to hear about. Applause, even cheers, interrupted her calumnies.

Judea Pearl, an attendee and father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl, was one of the few voices of restraint and nuance heard that afternoon. In response to Sultan's assertion that the Koran contains only verses of evil and domination, Pearl said he understood the book also included "verses of peace" that proponents of Islam uphold as the religion's true intent. The Koran's verses on war and brutality, Pearl contended, were "cultural baggage," as are similar verses in the Torah. Unfortunately, his words were drowned out by the cheers for Sultan's full-court press against Islam and Muslims.

My disappointment in and disagreement with Sultan turned into dismay. She never alluded to any healthy, peaceful Islamic alternative. Why, for example, didn't this Southern California resident mention the groundbreaking efforts of the Islamic Center of Southern California, the leading exemplar of progressive Muslim American life in the United States? Why didn't she bring up the New Horizon School-Pasadena that the center started, the first Muslim American school honored by the U.S. Department of Education as a National Blue Ribbon School?

You might wonder why a rabbi is so uneasy about Sultan's assault on Muslims and Islam. Here's why: Contrary to practically every mosque in the U.S., the Islamic Center has a regulation in its charter barring funding from foreign countries. As a result, it is an American institution dedicated to propagating an American Muslim identity. Maher and Hassan Hathout are the philosophical and spiritual pillars of the mosque. They also have been partners of Wilshire Boulevard Temple rabbis and others throughout L.A. for decades.

The Hathouts' mosque has twice endorsed pilgrimages to Israel and the Palestinian territories, its members traveling with fellow L.A.-area Jews and Christians. It invites Jews to pray with them, to make music with them, to celebrate Ramadan with them. This is the mosque whose day school teaches students about Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah alongside lessons in Arabic and the Koran. Recently, the Islamic Center joined the food pantry collective of Hope-Net, helping feed the hungry and homeless.

Make no mistake: I am not an Islamic apologist. But Sultan's over-the-top, indefensible remarks at the fundraiser, along with her failure to mention the important, continuing efforts of the Islamic Center, insulted all Muslims and Jews in L.A. and throughout the nation who are trying to bridge the cultural gap between the two groups. And that's one reason why I eventually walked out of the event.

Here's another: As I experienced the fervor sparked by Sultan's anti-Muslim tirade and stoked by a roomful of apparently unsuspecting Jews, I thought: What if down the street there was a roomful of Muslims listening to a self-loathing Jew, cheering her on as she spoke of the evils inherent in the Torah, in which it is commanded that a child must be stoned to death if he insults his parents, in which Israelites are ordered by God to conquer cities and, in so doing, to kill all women and children — and this imagined Jew completely ignored all of what Judaism teaches afterward?

In a world far too often dominated by politicians imbued with religious fundamentalism of all flavors — Jewish, Christian, Muslim — we need the thoughtfulness, self-awareness and subtlety that comes from progressive religious _expression. We have that in Judaism, in Christianity — and in Islam, right in our backyard. If only Sultan, applauded in many quarters yet miscast as a voice of reason and reform in Islam, were paying attention.

http://www.ncpa.info/news/view_newsdetails.asp?id=258


An Islamophobe is never going to admit that any positions they hold about Muslims or Islam are irrational, so therefore nothing they say is considered bigoted by them or their supporters.

And if you by chance do hold that particular view, then I suggest strongly that you take some time from solely posting in this forum and visit the DU Muslim/Islam Group and run that view past DU's Muslims...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=221821&mesg_id=222133

Do I think it's bigoted to hold a view like that? Only if that view is held about Islam and not any other religion, as no religion is compatable with western democratic values, well not unless someone tries to play favourites with one religion and translates its beliefs into being western democratic values....

These are all people who have suffered under extreme Islamism and who have reacted in a 'mirror-image-ist' sort of way by turning completely against their own culture and lumping *all* Muslims together for opprobrium. (Possibly Ayaan Hirsi Ali a bit less than the others mentioned). Trying to think of Jewish equivalents, they remind me of Norman Finkelstein at best, Gilad Atzmon at worst. And though they may be mostly 'single-issue' people, they have mostly been prepared to team up with right-wingers.

Here is a Rabbi's comment on Wafa Sultan:

www.ncpa.info/news/view_newsdetails.asp?id


For much more nuanced, liberal, views, though just as opposed to extreme Islamism, I would recomment Irshad Manji's "The Trouble with Islam Today", or the articles of Ali Eretaz. I have recently read a lovely, fasinating autobiography of a secular Muslim growing up in Britain: "The Making of Mr. Hai's Daughter" by Yasmin Hai, with discussion of similar and contrasting experiences of secular and religious friends and relations. Strongly recommended to anyone who might regard the Muslim world as monolithic (I never did, but it made me aware of lots of nuances that had never occurred to me).

I'd have spotted that you'd already posted a link to it :)

They could have their rightful freedoms in moments.

That is the core of the conflict.

Stop the terrorism, accept that Israel will be another state in the region (not a state to be annihilated and taken over), and there will be peace.

Settlements can be moved, or land swapped. The fence can be moved or taken away.

But first must come any sort of confidence building measure that terrorism and destroying Israel are not the most important goals of the Palestinian leadership.

If they want their freedom, all the Palestinians have to do is stop trying to kill and terrorize Israelis.

Israel has murdered MANY more Palestinians than vice versa.

of being in their homes,walking to school,playing soccer in the wrong place, living in what some Israeli's irrefutably consider "their territory" because God "promised" them six thousand years ago?

The pizzeria incident seven years ago while tragic, has become a well milked cow used to justify continued oppression. Why do the Palestinian not signal out an incident, perhaps because here are too many to count?

"Why do the Palestinian not signal (sic) out an incident, perhaps because here are too many to count?"

al-Durrah -- eight years ago

Sabra and Shatila massacre -- 26 years ago

There have been numerous times when posters have used a variety of examples.

9 months prior:

Nov 2, 2000 - Jerusalem
Two people were killed and 10 injured by a car bomb explosion near the Mahane Yehuda market. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Nov 20, 2000 - Gush Katif
Two people were killed and 9 injured by a roadside bomb that exploded alongside a bus carrying children to school.

Nov 22, 2000 - Hadera
Two people were killed, and 60 wounded when a powerful car bomb was detonated alongside a passing bus on the town's main street.

Nov 28, 2000 - Kfar Saba
Two Israeli teenagers on their way to school were killed in a suicide terrorist attack near the "Meeting Place of Peace" gas station in Neve Yamin. The bomber, from the Hamas terror group, blew himself up in a gathering of students waiting at a bus stop. Four other teenagers were wounded, one critically.

6 months prior:

Feb 14, 2001 - Holon
Eight people were killed and 25 injured when a bus driven by a Palestinian terrorist plowed into a group of soldiers and civilians waiting at a bus stop.

3 months prior:

May 18, 2001 - Netanya
A Palestinian suicide bomber detonated himself outside a shopping mall, killing five people and injuring over 100. Hamas claimed responsibility.

And then of course, there was the Dolphinarium disco attack that occurred just 2 months before the Sbarro's bombing.

That attack killed 21 young Israelis and wounded around 120.

Then there were the attacks after the "pizzeria incident".

One month after:

Sept 9, 2001 - Nahariya
Three people were killed and 90 injured in a suicide bombing near the Nahariya train station. The terrorist waited until the train arrived from Tel-Aviv and people were exiting the station, and then exploded the bomb he was carrying. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Three months after:

Nov 29, 2001 - Hadera
Three people were killed and nine others wounded in a suicide bombing on Egged bus #823 enroute from Nazereth to Tel Aviv near the city of Hadera. Islamic Jihad and Fatah both claimed responsibility for the attack.

And then just a few days after that, there were the two in rapid succession that killed 26 people:

Dec 1, 2001 - Jerusalem
11 people were killed and 180 injured by two suicide bombers on Ben Yehuda Street's pedestrian mall. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
Dec 2, 2001 - Haifa
15 people were killed and 40 injured in a suicide bombing on Egged bus #16. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Then, of course, we have the Passover massacre in March of the following year, where 30 senior citizens were killed as they celebrated a Passover seder.

That attack came shortly after the Egged bus bombing that killed seven people (which came right after the Moment Cafe bombing, claimed by Hamas, which killed 11 people).

And then, of course, there was the bombing at the Matza restaurant that killed 15 people at the end of March, 2002 - Hamas also took credit for that one.

In April there were the attacks two days apart, one on a bus, another in a market that killed 14 people between them.

Then there were the three bus bombings in June of that year that killed 44 people between them.

And, of course, the Hebrew University attack at the end of July, which Hamas took credit for, that killed five students at the university.

but of course it is always alright when Israel does it, they have a state and an army. Perhaps PM stated it best

:eyes:

the point is that when there are warring groups whi have been killing each other for many years, putting them into one state and telling them to 'play nicely' and share is not going to stop them from killing each other: it will just lead to much much MORE killing. 'Equal rights for all' is wonderful in theory; in practice, either one group will defeat, subjugate or expel the other; or there will be chronic civil war, perhaps a similar situation to Lebanon over the years. Haniyeh has recently said that Jerusalem should be retrieved 'not through negotiations... but through jihads and blood'. Is this an encouraging sign for the likelihood of the negotiations and compromises, on *all* sides, that would be needed for a single peaceful and egalitarian state?

In the current scenario the Palestinians would settle for a state in which there s a constant hostile presence that being the settlers and the IDF that guards them, so in reality the so called two state solution is not truly two states.

the settlers, or most of them, would leave; there would be land exchanges; and the IDF would guard the borders, but not the interior of the new state. What you are describing is the current situation, not a two-state solution.

will leave the settlers unguarded? I do not, that part has not been mentioned nor have the Israeli only roads which I believe would also remain.

the settlers remain in one general area...land that is agreed upon to become formally israel...in exchange the Palestinians get other land from present israel (pre 67) that becomes part of Palestine...each gets clear and defined borders...

thats was the principle behind Taba and what will eventually probably be....

My only point is that there have, unfortunately, been many terror attacks against Israelis, not just an incident that has been "singled out" and "milked".

Senior citizens celebrating Passover, young people dancing with one another, unsuspecting innocents waiting for the bus, college students chatting between classes, families for from groceries.

Attack after attack after attack on these and other innocent civilians, many times proudly claimed by the so-called legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people - Hamas.

According to Human Rights Watch there were 48 attacks on Israeli civilians between January 2001, and August 2002.

More From Human Rights Watch:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-03.htm

...and has murdered for no reason whatsoever, how many now?

that as time goes on and younger Israeli's have little to no contact with average Palestinians except for Israeli Arabs (whom some prefer to call Palestinians) it becomes easier to dehumanize, but that is not intentional targeting

it becomes easier to dehumanize, but that is not intentional targeting

the destruction of the morality of the israeli youth......its much harder to teach and internalize morality...and the orders they have to enforce by their very nature dehumanize the Palestinians....

I honestly think that you mistake my ideological commitment to united opposition to the Right in all its forms, and placing the left-right divide ahead of national divides, as a defence of Israel in particular. It's not. It's pointing out that ALL right-wing governments are dangerous.

My views about Israel/Palestine are as follows:

Opposed to the Occupation

In favour of a return to something similar to the 1967 borders (including division/internationalization of Jerusalem); though aware that final disposition must depend on an agreement between the negotiating parties

Absolutely opposed to new settlement construction

In favour of multilateral peace negotiations, including all who are *willing* to be involved

In favour of nonviolent protest and unilateral declaration of independence by Palestine

Against violent resistance and terrorism by Palestinian groups

Would accept one-state secular binational solution IF I thought it were possible without bloodshed. But don't think this will be possible for a long time.

Was against what I considered Israeli over-reaction in Lebanon, and VERY much against use of cluster bombs.

In favour of greater American pressures against settlement construction, including threats to cut aid if this continues.

Against cultural boycotts by other countries.


I don't think that this set of opinions is what most people would consider violently and one-sidedly pro-Israel; and except for the last item, I don't think it even differs all that much from your views. Where we really differ, it seems, is that you consider that Israel is somehow exceptionally or uniquely bad; that changing the situation or ending the occupation *depends* on taking such a view of Israel; and that people who refuse to treat Israel as significantly worse than many other countries are thereby supporting the status quo and the occupation.

I am opposed to all 'exceptionalism', for or against a given country. I object in general to the demonizing of specific countries or national or ethnic or religious groups, and will instead 'demonize' the Right wherever it occurs, in all its forms. And war, and its effect on all the people involved.

I realize that your life situation has influenced your views of Israel - and mine has influenced my views of all that is Right-wing, and of the dangers of all forms of national and ethnic hostilities.

It's difficult to say much more without sounding patronizing (there re few things worse than someone saying 'I understand your situation' when almost always they don't really). But I honestly think that our ultimate goals are more similar than you may think - our real differences are in *how* to achieve them,

Israel's occupation is as much a child of the left as of the right!!

EVERY gov't since 1967 saw settlement activity and expansion.

OCCUPATION IS NOT A RIGHT-WING PHENOM!!!! It's a ZIONIST phenomenon.

Why is the actual bloodshed of today not as bad as the "potential" bloodshed of a binational state?

Barak presented an offer that, if accepted, would have meant the end of the occupation, the dismantling of settlements, and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Your last question is odd. You do not think there are circumstances that would lead to more bloodshed than we have now? If you do, don't you think it's a good idea to avoid such circumstances?

every gov't since 1967, led by both Labor and Likud???

Oberliner, I'm surprised to see you hawking the "generous offer" myth.

And question is not odd at all. I don't get why a bi-national state with rights for all wouldn't be better than the current status quo, which is completely unconscionable.

It was an offer - it would've ended the occupation had it been accepted. That's my only claim.

The statement that I think is not true is that "Occupation is a Zionist phenomenon"

There are Zionists who have worked, and continue to work for an end to the occupation.

If you don't think that attempting to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state and replace it with some kind of Israeli/Palestinian joint confederation will lead to violence, then I think you do not have an accurate understanding of the Israeli populace.

on the part of the Israeli populace?

Violence against Palestinians? Can you please describe this in greater detail? This is getting more interesting. Even LB says that on paper this is the best solution. How can the status quo possibly be better?

On the one hand, you talk about how unbearable the status quo is, yet on the other hand you seem to have no problem with the rejection of the Barak offer, which certainly would have had the effect of radically changing the status quo. That does not make sense to me. How is the status quo better than the Barak proposal of 1999, or even the Olmert proposal of last week?

As to your other questions, to quote Uri Avnery, "Israelis will not give up their right to a national state of their own." A one-state solution means that Israel will no longer exist. There are very few Israelis who will accept this willingly.

If you describe for me in greater detail the steps by which the one-state solution would be implemented and the parameters of what it would look like, then I can explain for you in greater detail where and among whom there would be violence.

What happens, for instance, if this proposal is presented to the Israelis and they reject it by an overwhelming margin? What would be the next step after that?

Their compromise -- territory and recognizing Israel -- has been made.

Now it's Israel's turn to do the right thing.

What Barak's 'generous' offer involved was formalising the mechanism of occupation. The offer didn't involve the dismantling of settlements and involved either annexation or long-term control of areas of the West Bank that would have meant that Palestinians wouldn't have been able to travel freely from one part of their state to the other...

When you speak of supporting a two-state solution, is something like Barak's 'generous' offer one you'd find acceptable because you could say the occupation is ended and the Palestinians have a state?

http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/bantustans.htm

Look around 2/3 of the page down at the 2 maps. Are you claiming the map on the left is what was really offered because Dennis Ross says this is complete bullshit.

Yr lack of ability to discuss issues like this with any shred of objectivity is incredible. There were no maps produced at Camp David...

1. I'm not objective because I prefer to rely on Clinton/Ross and Barak's version over Arafat's? Is Clinton not progressive enough for blaming the collapse of these negotiations entirely on Arafat and his intransigence?

2. If there were no maps produced, why does the PA side always show a map with cantons or bantustans? What about this?

http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm

Do you think Dennis Ross is full of shit?

1. Yr not objective, because people who are objective don't 'prefer' a version based on it fitting in with what side they're going for. People who are objective look at all the information and make a judgement based on the information, not based on deciding one guy is not full of bullshit and another is because the one they say isn't full of bullshit is saying what they want to hear...

Seeing as how you decided to ignore Clinton's own words further up in the thread, I take it Clinton isn't progressive enough for you when he states simple facts like the one he did about Barak and Arafat both agreeing to the Clinton Plan?

2. You didn't know there weren't maps produced at Camp David? I thought everyone knew that....

No, I don't think Dennis Ross is full of shit. I think he's portrayal of events at Camp David are from a perspective that was the Israeli/US one put out to the public and that what really happened isn't one where one side or the other were to blame for the failure, but one where both sides made errors...

1. I didn't ignore Clinton's words. Unlike you, however, I've put a reasonable explanation together that explains how Ross and Clinton viewed Arafat's "yes" in January 2001. To read your words, I'd have to conclude either Ross or Clinton were lying and there's no reason to think that.

2. With the maps, you're playing semantic games. Whether they were produced or just negotiated, there's hardly a difference. Here's the evidence for anyone bothering to keep up:

http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm

The 2 sides were negotiating without necessarily drawing up maps. After all negotiations ended, the PLO side tried to persuade the outside world that what they were offered was shit. Their version is what you believe was what was ultimately proposed in the final talks. Dennis Ross flatly refutes your version (the PA version of a swiss-cheese West Bank).

3. Finally, about objectivity - if you want to pretend you're objective and that you equally criticize both sides, you may want to change your tactics here and not bash Israel 99% of the time while criticizing the PLO/Hamas the other 1% of the time (and very mildly at that). You may want to stay away from absurd language that exposes your subjectivity like "apartheid". If I were to only bash the PLO/HAMAS 100% of the time like some here do to Israel, would that make me a mere 'critic' or a hater? I wonder.

Objectivity isn't about equally criticising both sides, though there are instances where the use of objectivity would lead to that happening. Though if you believe that's what objectivity is, then how can you try to say that yr objective at all?

Wow. According to you I 'bash' Israel 99% of the time? If that's the case, then it should be really easy for you to provide a long list of examples of me doing that. I won't hold my breath waiting. In case you haven't noticed, my first post in this thread said this: 'I agree that the West Bank and Gaza must be territorially linked. But I disagree with Palestinian sovereignty over it for the same reason as I disagreed with Barak's 'generous' offer, which had Israeli sovereignty over 'safe passage' roads from the Jordan Valley to Israel. Giving Palestinian sovereignty over a link between Gaza and the West Bank would result in Israel being cut in two, and while it might only be a road, it then results in Israel not having contiguous territory. Which is why I lean towards Israel retaining sovereignty and the link being jointly controlled by Israel and Palestine with some international oversight for the first few years.' Yep, there's some hardcore 'Israel-bashing' going on there! ;) Tell me, are there any other countries that you view any criticism of as being 'bashing'? And how is legitimate criticism of a countries policies or actions 'bashing'? I criticise my own country much more than any other. Does that make me an *Australia-basher*? Also, I don't recall mentioning apartheid in this thread. Maybe you could point me to it or anywhere where I've said anything about apartheid other than to say that Israel's policies in the West Bank are reminiscent of some of the aspects of Apartheid? And seriously, given what I've read in some of yr deleted posts, yr not in any position to be talking about absurd language...

As to yr points:

1. Already addressed in an earlier post, though you seem to be ignoring the point I've made about Barak also accepting the Clinton Plan with reservations http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=221821&mesg_id=222133

2. The two sides were negotiating without 'necessarily drawing up maps'? You make it sound as if there might have been maps drawn up of the offer for the talks. There wasn't. What was drawn up later were interpetations of what the offer was. And based on what was actually offered at Camp David, Ross' map took a fair few creative liberties and was not an accurate representation of what the new state would look like. For example, the Jordan Valley was to remain under Israeli control for between 6 to 21 years. If sovereignty is offered but another country is to control that territory, then the sovereignty is a fake one...

Finally, a lot of people were involved in Camp David and Taba, but you act as though Dennis Ross is the only one who matters. Why's that?

but to Israelis, it is survival.

They are not giving up their state, including the status quo, as long as there is constant threat of suicide bombers, terrorists, and other militants who are hell bent on destroying and taking over Israel.

That is what a single state is, and the Israelis are not stupid.

They will not give up their state without a fight, and that is why the current status quo is preferable to them than the alternative of your single state.

Two states is the only solution. Period.

Let's take all RW'ers out of the equation for the moment in the I/P conflict. Suppose you have power over a progressive US, Israeli (and British) negotiating team. What would you do differently to more quickly resolve this problem? Maybe give at least 1-2 examples of things a proper LW'er would propose and try carrying out to best resolve the I/P conflict. Let's imagine all RW'ers are powerless to interfere and mess up your plans. The conflict can now best be resolved with proper and stronger LW leadersihp. What do you do? I'm curious.

Thanks.

E.g. can we have Sari Nusseibeh as a negotiating partner?

If there are NO right-wingers from anywhere involved, then the solution becomes relatively easy.

My suggestion in any case: get a negotiating team together. Include in negotiations everyone who *wishes* to negotiate, regardless of party affiliation - but you can't force people to negotiate if they don't want to! Encourage input from grassroots peace organizations on the ground, such as the One Voice Movement and the organizations represented under the Alliance for Middle East Peace. They will have better contacts, and more knowledge of the logistics, than I (or other foreigners) will. Have as an inital goal: there's going to be a two-state solution; it will be something akin to the 1967 borders, but cannot exactly correspond to them after all these years, and land swaps will be necessary. The logistics of the land swaps, etc. will have to be sorted out.

The problem is not so much in the negotiations - a difficult enough issue- but in the *enforcement* of the results. Tight border security will inevitably be necessary. Probably some international support, and then there's the issue of (1) how does one arrange it; (2) how much is acceptable without becoming a new colonialism.

Over the long haul, more integration and contact between Israelis and Palestinians, especially in childhood and adolescence - but that increases the chances for peace in 20 or 30 years time, not necessarily now.

To be honest, such questions always make me think of the old farmer in a remote area, who was asked by a traveller how to get to a certain destination, and replied, "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here!" Yet we have no real choice but to 'start from here', and there lies the difficulty and potential tragedy.

Just how exactly do you propose to get Israelis to change the situation to one where they believe the number of dead Israelis will significantly increase?

Or do you propose a one-state solution imposed by an outside force?

that the status quo is already deadly, violent, and awful. How could change be any worse? it might be better?

What the heck is WRONG with equal rights for all? How can that be a bad thing?

How can a nation that prides itself on being progressive and democratic sysmtematically oppress millions of indigenous? How can it not consider all solutions? I just don't get that?

that Hamas has not and refuses to give up its goal of annihilating Israel, and that the supporters of violent resistance and terrorism are more than 50% of the Palestinian population.

Some of us peacelovers are just not stupid.

And again, until you care about the Jews that were expelled (and not compensated for their losses) from Arab lands, your argument holds no water.

There aren't MILLIONS of indigenous people either, not by any stretch of anyone's imagination. There are descendants, but those people have lived there no longer than even the most recent Jewish immigrants. They all have claim to the land.

just as it was preoslo....what do you think would happen next?...do you actually believe that hamas/islamic jihad wouldnt take advantage of the situation and start a renewed suicide bomber, shoot the israeli campaign?

merely a mindless "Israel Firster"? And why? Simply because she disagrees with you about the viability of a one state solution? There are few people posting in this forum as fair minded as LB. Your attack says nothing about LB. It says a great deal about your attitude toward anyone who doesn't agree with you.

disrupt it says a lot about YOU!

I have nothing but respect for LB and I think she knows that. She hardly needs you to protect her from me.

I am arguing that anyone who argues that the status quo is preferable to a potential solution does indeed put the interests of Israel first. I am not slamming anyone by saying that; I think that the position has to be re-examined.

I am arguing that anyone who says they support peace, but who won't help appy any real nonviolent pressure, anyone who tacitly approves of the status quo by vacationing, visiting, sending children, etc. should reaxmine their position and re-think that normal relations signal tacit approval.

And this is an open discussion forum. The idea that someone participating is "butting in", is simply silly. One does NOT demonstate one's respect by sneering at people. And that, in a nutshell, is what you did.

not to travel to Israel, vacation, send our children or grandchildren to visit, etc.

You are swimming up the creek without a paddle on that one.

Even the most secular Jews I know ache to visit Israel, and most send their children, even during times of unrest and war.

You seem not to understand the role Israel has played, for 2000 years, in our history, and the emotional connection most of us feel.

Until you try to look at the situation from another perspective, you will continue to live in denial.

Too bad so much convincing is required.

When did this apartheid start, by the way? Before or after the separation barrier? Apartheid is such a loaded hyperbolic term that it's difficult taking your position seriously.

Also, what makes you think the current Palestinian leadership will try to influence Palestinians to 'share' the state peacefully once a one-state solution goes into effect?

this is a fact, and one that could create huge divisions in any "single state".

I wasn't talking about Israeli Arabs, but of course you knew that.

If yr claiming Arabs are behind Jews economically and that'd make them second class citizens, how does that reasoning not apply to Israeli Arabs currently? Y'know, it's a FACT they're Arab and it's a FACT that they're one of the groups of Israeli citizens who suffer economically...

throughout the rest of the Arab world.

I think you know that too.

Heard of Dubai? Saudi Arabia? See, that's the problem with simplistically doing a 'Arabs are economically much worse off than Jews' sort of thing. And I find the rest of yr economic argument equally as simplistic. Think about the reunification of Berlin. East Berliners were very much worse off economically than their Western siblings. Sure there were initial problems, but the thing is that ecconomies don't stay separate in what becomes one state. Over a period of time, the economies integrate and become one...

I'd say it was more Arafat than anyone else. If not for Arafat, there's simply no way Sharon could have been elected in the first place. Had Arafat accepted Taba 2001 under the Clinton parameters, the last 8 years of bloodshed could have been avoided. Arafat knew Sharon was coming in and that Taba 2001 would be off the table, but he refused it anyway without so much as negotiating or compromising in any way.

If there will be a one-state solution, it will not come today or tomorrow. It's a long, protracted thing, not the ideal solution. Unless, in an ideal world, people really want to be together, then it is the ideal solution. The best solution, the one that causes the least pain and that can actually be instrumental to a one-state solution, is to have peace now, and acceptance of one another on the basis of two states."

and this:


"The PA has no use. If we fail to reach a peace agreement by the end of this year, I believe it would be best to go back to the period when we were living happily under occupation.

There is no single state. There will be no right of return for 4.5 million refugees.

Once the Palestinians realize this, they will have a peaceful state of their own.

"The PA has no use. If we fail to reach a peace agreement by the end of this year, I believe it would be best to go back to the period when we were living happily under occupation."

Now I wouldn't go so far as Nusseibeh in saying Palestinians were "happy" about living under occupation pre-Oslo (Arafat's arrival), but it goes to show tht life under Israeli occupation is far more preferable to a sizeable amount of Palestinians than the misery they endure under Hamas and Fatah.

At the very least, we should all agree that temporarily (short-term) it would be best for all if Hamas and Fatah were taken completely out of power so that conditions could go back to pre-Oslo when there was a FAR better chance for real peace.

Is a two state solution still viable?

yes-33.47%
no-60.74%
don't know-5.79%

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=Survey

I wonder what the results would be if an Israeli paper asked the question: Is a one-state solution viable?

Wonder more what the poll would say if the question was asked "Is the present situation in the West Bank maintainable"?

Two state is dead. We have one single state and two large reservation camps.

The question is what are we going to do with the camps filled with the native Palestinian people?

and are faced with three states.

Peace in the Middle East is not, I think, any longer a viable prospect.

Quite a pity that people are so intractable.

Peace is better than war and terrorism.