The separation imperative

The separation imperative

By Gilead Sher



Ending our rule in the territories and ceasing to
manage the lives of millions of Palestinians is an
existential Israeli interest. In less than a
decade the Palestinians will constitute the
majority of the population between the
Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. In other
words, unless Israel divests itself of rule in
Judea-Samaria and the Gaza Strip as far as
possible, though not necessarily in the form of an
agreement, it will with its own hands put an end
to the Jewish state and bring into a binational
state into existence.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/363553.html

The termination of our
presence in the territories
and the establishment of
peace will not "happen" by
themselves. Hundreds of
Israelis and Palestinians are
working indefatigably to find
a way out of the cycle of
bloodshed. The ideas put
forward by President Clinton

in December 2000 were the result of thousands
of hours of negotiations between Israelis and
Palestinians. They were accepted by the
government of Israel; they were accepted very
tardily, and implicitly, by the Palestinian
leadership as well.

The other initiatives, including the "People's
Voice" initiative of Ami Ayalon and Sari
Nusseibeh, are "private," in the sense that
they do not reflect an official position of the
Israeli government. Not that there is anything
wrong with that. On the contrary: Every such
effort influences public opinion - on both
sides - and instills hope by the very fact of
positing an alternative.

Yossi Beilin, Yasser Abed Rabbo and their
partners in the Geneva initiative went about
their formulation of an agreement in the same
way. Each of us should be grateful for the
determination to propose a possible model for a
permanent solution amid the cycle of blood and
the atrocities of Palestinian terrorism.
Unfortunately, though, the model is not a good
one. The debate over the content has not yet
begun, but there is definitely place to conduct
such a debate, and very soon.

There is rarely that I would disagree with Haaretz. They're more reasonable and realistic then some of the media elsewhere that just compete which would be more pro-Sharon...

:shrug:

Not misrepresenting the Camp David 2000 offer would be another :shrug:

. Frankly there will be a solution eventally and both sides will still believe their own myths about each other. Look at India and Pakistan.

that the Haaretz English edition is a watered-down version of the original? So, they leave out some stories that they don't think American readers should be reading.

Until Kashmir gets sorted out, there hasn't been a solution there. The original partition was a solution for the British, and by the time it happened, a solution for the Muslim League, but the INC opposed it. I mean, partitioning the sub-continent into two separate states with an inbuilt hostility towards each other wasn't the wisest move in the world. And there really wasn't two sides until the British embarked on their 'divide and rule' tactics...

But I know what you mean about sides believing their own myths. I've read both Pakistani and Indian accounts of the clash over Kashmir and to read them you'd think they were talking about two completely different things...

Violet...