Peace will come later

For now, all we need here is relative quiet, rather than grandiose peace plans.
Yoaz Hendel
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3872244,00.html

... (snip)

Those who real want to see peace around here should stop connecting it to the word “now.” Let’s start with managing this conflict, from there we can shift to relative normalcy, and after that we’ll be able to drink coffee and talk around elegant tables.

The last two years have been good for Israeli-Palestinian ties. The regiments under US General Dayton are deployed on the ground, the cooperation with them is reasonable, and for the time being the IDF makes sure to supplement the weaknesses of the other side – that is, to pulverize terror, and mostly the Hamas opposition to Abbas.

The only reason for the relative quiet is that the Americans as well as Israeli peace fans stopped nudging them for a relative long period. Without talks, without long-term initiatives, and without trying to turn them into something they’re not. We had quiet, instead of talks about quiet. This is all they needed in order to start working, boost Fatah’s strength, and build new government and leadership institutions.

Talks mean diplomatic decisions, and they are not ready for this and won’t be ready in the coming decade. Even if tomorrow morning there were no longer any settlers in Samaria, Abbas would not be able to renounce the right of return or Jerusalem. Educating people to support peace and diplomatic compromise takes a generation or more. For the time being, the Palestinians are engaged in survival.

If the dreamy Left requires its seasonal Viagra – that is, talks, visits, and new peace initiatives – it should look for it elsewhere, in respect to other conflicts. Around here, all we need is relative quiet. Peace will come later.


----

I think this article perfectly highlights why considerable external pressure on Israel - BDS, American diplomatic pressure, or some other form - is the only hope for Israel. For most Israelis, the status quo (with continued expansion of settlements) is perfectly OK; for as long as it remains so, they aren't interested in peace, especially not peace that will require what they see as concessions on their behalf.

They imagined peace would come in 1956 Suez Campaign
They imagined peace would come in 1964 PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) founded
They imagined peace would come in 1967 6-day war. (after Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser closes the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and dismisses UN peacekeeping force)
They imagined peace would come in 1973 Yom Kippur War
They imagined peace would come in 1979 Peace treaty signed between Egypt and Israel.
They imagined peace would come in 1981 Israel destroys Iraqi Osirak nuclear
They imagined peace would come in 1982 Massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon to fight PLO.
They imagined peace would come in 1993 Oslo Declaration of Principles - Israel and PLO agree to mutual recognition.
They imagined peace would come in 1995 Oslo Interim Agreement signed. Palestinian Authority to be established.
They imagined peace would come in 1995 Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin assassinated by right-wing Israeli fanatic Yigal Amir.
They imagined peace would come in 1996 Right-Wing Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu elected Prime Minister
They imagined peace would come in 1996 "Al-Aksa tunnel riots
They imagined peace would come in 1997 Israel and Palestinians reach agreement on Israeli redeployment in the West-Bank city of Hebron
They imagined peace would come in 1998 Wye River Plantation talks result in an agreement for Israeli redeployment and release of political prisoners
They imagined peace would come in 2000 Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations fail when Hafez Assad rejects an Israeli offer relayed by US President Clinton in Geneva.
They imagined peace would come in 2000 Palestinians initiated riots after Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount
They imagined peace would come in 2002 Israel conducts operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank,

Not even a vulture is this damn patient.

If the choice is between allowing the W.Bank to become like Hamas occupied Gaza or Hizbullah occupied Lebanon - and this time rockets are within very easy range of all major Israeli cities and airports, then BDS and pariah status it will be.

Incidentally, are/were you in favor of the Geneva Initiative? This type of deal (backed by people like J. Carter and N. Chomsky) was basically offered by Olmert in 2008 and rejected without a counter-offer by Abbas. What more should Israel reasonably offer if PA leadership is uninterested in another failed Arab state that leaves Israel safe and intact and the conflict considered over?

Here's a map of what Olmert actually offered - 7% of the West bank, in large "fingers" jutting in, taking much of the best land and splitting the remainder up into a "comb", to remain under Israeli rule. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135699.html

The Geneva initiative, by contrast, calls for less than 3% of the West Bank to be handed over for Israel.

I know you know this, and are deliberately lying rather than simply misinformed. because I've pointed it out to you often enough. However, for the benefit of lurkers: be aware that what Shira says about Olmert's offer being the same as the Geneva initiative is not "controversial", "disputed", or even a "misrepresentation", it's simply "untrue" - made up out of whole cloth, on the principle that if you lie enough people will start to believe you.

There are lies, damned lies and Israeli peace offerings.

In fact, here's an article that compares Olmert's plan to Geneva...


http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/olmert-s-legacy-an-adoption-of-the-geneva-initiative

Doesn't mean it's not nonsense, though.

What Sheffer doesn't say is

1) Any proposed swap of land "equal in area" actually means Israel offering desert for land in the heart of the West bank
2) The extent of these anything-but-equal land "swaps" proposed in the GI is less than half - less than half! - what Olmert demanded.

So no, they aren't "nearly identical" or "basically the same", they're completely different; Olmert demanded even larger concessions from the Palestinians than the GI does.

He made himself very clear that the main obstacle was RoR, not land issues. It's why Arab refugees have been caged up like animals around the Arab world the past 62 years. A sick and delusional wet dream to flood Israel and make it a defacto Arab state in any future 'peace' deal. Not that your pro-Palestinian friends have much to say about these refugee pawns whose human rights have amounted to nothing the past 62 years in Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere.

Pretend all you want that this isn't the main obstacle.

Under Olmert's plan, 60 thousand settlers would be sent packing. It was a very serious offer and it was utterly rejected. Also, land used for settlements in the W.Bank was dessert as of 1967 so your argument that Israel is offering dessert land for built-up settlement area is poor.

BTW, do you support the Geneva Initiative?