Will there be peace if Palestinians lay down their arms?

[Israeli]

The world expects millions of people in Gaza and the West Bank to happily and quietly live under occupation. While laying down arms is a positive step towards peace, it is not enough to end this conflict.

Written with Dr. Marc Gopin

In the past few weeks the pro-Israel pundits have been recycling an argument that runs as follows:

If Palestinians were to lay down their guns tomorrow, there would be no war. If Israel were to lay down its arms, there would be no Israel.

This argument is based on two false assumptions about Palestinians. The first statement is based on the false assumption that the only impediment to peace is Palestinian violence, and the second is based on the assumption that the Palestinians’ main goal is to eradicate the Jews. The argument also rests on the false premise that Israelis are completely peaceful. Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish answered this argument in one of his poems.

The accusation is that I hate Jews.
It’s not comfortable that they show me as a devil
and an enemy of Israel.
I am not a lover of Israel, of course.
I have no reason to be. But I don’t hate Jews
I will continue to humanize even the enemy
The first teacher who taught me Hebrew was a Jew.
The first love affair in my life was with a Jewish girl.
The first judge who sent me to prison was a Jewish woman.
So from the beginning, I didn’t see Jews as devils or angels,
but as human beings.

Many Palestinians share Mahmoud Darwish’s opinion. They don’t hate Jews. They live, work and maintain friendships with Jews and Israelis, and have had good and bad experiences. But the argument is a cheap scare tactic. It demonizes Palestinians and equates them with Nazis. This kind of fear is counterproductive, and fuels the conflict rather than offers constructive solutions.

We – Marc and Aziz – have been working together for six years. Marc is Jewish, Aziz is Palestinian. Neither of us believes for a moment that one of us is waiting to kill the other.

continue reading @

http://972mag.com/will-there-be-peace-if-palestinians-lay-down-their-arms/94603/

[DetlefK]

1. No, Israel can't afford to live in peace with the Palestinians.

The one-state-solution is unacceptable to Israel because palestinian voters would outnumber jewish voters and it would negate the premise of Israel as a jewish state.

The two-state-solution is unacceptable to Israel because they would cede land that is theirs by divine authority.

The only option for Israel is neverending oppression of the Palestinians and hoping that they will one day simply leave for Lebanon or whatever.

[Shaktimaan]

20. Except.

Israel's already offered terms for a two state solution. On four-five occasions off the top of my head.

[DetlefK]

34. Except...

They keep on stealing palestinian land in the Westbank. What will happen to that territory once there IS a treaty? What are odds that Israel will demolish settlements????????????????

[Shaktimaan]

44. The odds? Around 100%.

Most settlements are right near the WB border. Those won't be demolished, as they'll need to become part of Israel. But they take up a very small amount of WB land. About 3%. Other settlements further out like Hebron and Ariel will have to be evacuated and possibly demolished depending on the terms of the agreement.

Israel's shown a real willingness to demolish settlements in return for peace and recognition. They did it in Egypt for that. They did it in Gaza in the hopes of achieving that. And everyone knows they'd have to do it in the WB too as part of any permanent peace accord.

[kayecy]

46. Not whilst there is a right-wing government.........

You are wishfull thinking again.......What evidence have you got that "Other settlements further out like Hebron and Ariel will have to be evacuated and possibly demolished depending on the terms of the agreement."?

As for Ariel......Has any serious Israeli party suggested it will be evacuated?

[Shaktimaan]

48. Really?

Right wing governments have thus far ALWAYS been the ones to demolish settlements and withdraw from occupied territory. Egypt under Begin. Gaza under Sharon.

[kayecy]

49. Not this one, and you haven't said who would evacuate Arial....

History is one thing, but the present government cares nothing for foreign opinion and you haven't said who would evacuate Arial....

Dream on

[JDPriestly]

2. There are two sides.

I have watched the situation in Israel/Palestine since 1952. I was nine. My father collected aid for refugees of the war including Palestinians and that is why I knew of the situation when I was so young.

I remember that the Palestinian terror attacks began in the 1960s.

Here is a history of the conflict. There are many different versions. This is one of them.

http://www.infoplease.com/world/countries/israel-palestine-conflict/early-history.html

Here is a list of Palestinian terrorist attacks from 2001-2011.

http://archive.adl.org/israel/israel_attacks.html

As I have written before, wars end in three ways: stalemate, a negotiated peace settlement in which both parties have at least some say although one usually has more and total surrender of one party and total victory by the other.

Peace negotiations have been tried several times. Even when progress is made, the Palestinians have not been able to reign in their terrorists and keep the peace. The Palestinians have never managed to get behind a government that wants peace enough to abandon violence and terrorism. That is the reason I believe that the Palestinians hold the keys to peace. It isn't that I think the Israelis are right and the Palestinians wrong, but that the Palestinians have not yet shown the ability to keep a negotiated peace long enough to earn the Israelis' trust. This is to a great extent because of the lack of traditions of self-government, formal self-government among Palestinians. They were for centuries either under Turkish rule -- the Ottoman Empire -- or under the British Mandate. Many of the Israelis on the other hand came from countries that had autonomy even if they had dictators. Russia is an example.

I want to see a negotiated peace. But both sides have to be ready to a) compromise (especially on Israel's side) and b) enforce the peace and treaty promises (especially on Palestine's side).

I think that Palestine holds the key because past efforts toward peace have failed when some faction among the Palestinians becomes impatient and fails to keep the peace.

Israel on the other hand has demonstrated that it can destroy and walk away from settlements and that it can arrest its own citizens if they commit acts of terror that are not under the command of the military of Israel.

The Palestinians' grievances could be resolved through international efforts if Israel thought it could get peace. That is my sense of the situation after so many years.

I cannot blame either side for being suspicious of the other. But it will be much easier to give back land to Palestine if Israelis believe that they will be secure if they give it back. Israelis understandably do not want to agree to trade land for peace if they aren't going to get peace.

Much of the land that is disputed and is arguably beyond the original borders envisioned in the UN resolution for partition was acquired by Israel in the course of wars that the Palestinians and their various supporters began. The more Palestinians resist, the worse off they are.

I am taking a practical view of things. Revenge is not a practical solution. Righting perceived wrongs is just a form of revenge. Both sides need to negotiate peace.

I would propose an incremental, slow process. Palestine agrees to demonstrate that it can keep the peace for two years. Israel clears some of the contested land on the borders with Gaza and the West Bank. A No-Man's-Land is established in that area and for the first two or three years, a number of peacekeeping teams made up of one Israeli, one Palestinian and perhaps one American and one from some other country chosen by the Palestinians patrol the area using a lot of electronic gear to be sure they are safe. If the parties have established peace in that time, they move on to the next step which would involve more cultural and social exchanges, say among students from the two countries and, if peace was maintained during the first few years, more land is cleared, and either the No-Man's-Land is moved or enlarged depending on what the parties agree to at that time. Gradually, land can be made available to the Palestinians that is now under Israeli control. The person-to-person contacts should increase as time passes, and land exchanges, cultural exchanges, etc. should also increase. It seems to me that a 20- or 25-year incremental process should be planned.

I would like to add that any peace agreement should include a commission of Palestinians and Israelis with appointments to be renewed in a staggered manner every four years. That commission would meet frequently either in person or through other means (but not through just written reports) and consider any complaints about breaches in the peace and what should be done about them. Perhaps the commission could include representatives from other countries.

Palestinians not in the Gaza Strip or in the West Bank should not be permitted to move back during the 20-year period, and similarly, immigration into Israel should be ended for that time. That's my proposal. If the two parties don't like it, they could permit immigration on both sides but not just on one side.

The issue of Jerusalem should be about the last thing the parties talk about because if both sides can establish trust with the other, Jerusalem will be easier to deal with.

I keep reminding people that Alsace-Lorraine was fought over by the Germans and French for something like 100 years. I have lived there, and even in the 1960s, it was peaceful. It is now a part of France, and I believe there is no longer any hatred or problem.

Palestinians and Israel can achieve the same kind of acceptance of each other. It just takes time.

The other alternative as far as I have been able to figure it out thus far is for one side or the other to completely conquer the other. That is a primitive solution but think of Russia and East Germany or even the US at the end of WWII.

Another possibility is a solution like that of the two Koreas. Also not very good for either side.

Disputes either continue or end. Both sides have to decide what they are willing to give up to get peace.

Ultimately religious and cultural tolerance in all areas would be very desirable. But I think it would take a long time to reach that point.

[ReRe]

4. You need to OP it, JD

... that was one erudite stab at explaining the whole I/P problem. You never cease to amaze me. Bravo! Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[JDPriestly]

5. I'd probably not get any answers. What I am saying does not

appeal to many DUers. But I am trying to work for peace, and it is getting later and later for all concerned.

[ReRe]

8. Maybe you're right...

... you probably know better than me, as you have been posting allot longer. Well, it's their loss, They are cutting themselves short. It's like having knowledge laid at your feet and kicking it away. Life sucks, though, and maybe they just really don't have time.

The way I look at it is: if only one person learns, then that's a victory.
I certainly do appreciate your words. You're like E.F. Hutton. When you speak, I listen.

[JDPriestly]

15. Had no idea who E.F. Hutton was.

I just type fast. The result of playing a lot of piano and taking a lot of typing jobs.

[ReRe]

17. I play the piano too...

... and typing came real easy for me because of it. The "E. F. Hutton" reference was an old commercial about 100 years ago. Some investment company or something. "When E. F. Hutton talks, people listen."

[shaayecanaan]

9. a lot of that is probably persuasive to casual observers...

but only just.

I think that Palestine holds the key because past efforts toward peace have failed when some faction among the Palestinians becomes impatient and fails to keep the peace.

Negotiations broke down in 2008 when Olmert was indicted for corruption. They broke down in 2001 when Israeli elections resulted in a government that refused to be bound by the negotiations in the taba talks. And they broke down this year because netanyahu failed to carry out the prisoner releases that he promised.

This current war started because netanyahu attacked Hamas for a murder which it seems they did not commit. "Hamas is responsible and Hamas will pay" were his words. Turns out only the second part of that sentence was correct.

[JDPriestly]

14. This war is about the tunnels that Palestinians dug out from under the border

between Israel and Palestine. Read this list of Palestinian terror attacks over the years and you will understand that many speak up for Palestinians but no countries are rushing to their military defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrorist_attacks_attributed_to_Palestinian_militant_groups

The list is so long that it is shocking. It would take at least a day to read all the reports.

I see things differently than a lot of people on DU because I have been watching the situation since about 1952, and I remember the many landmark events that are listed in that list.

The Achille Laura was a particularly offensive terrorist attack as was Entebbe. The list of horrible terrorist attacks on civilians is appalling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrorist_attacks_attributed_to_Palestinian_militant_groups

The attack at the Olympics is just one event that I remember.

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

With each attempt to fight the Israelis, the Palestinians lose ground. It's incredible. Why do they do it? Why don't they focus on trying to improve the lives of the Palestinian people?

[kayecy]

30. But 1952 was not the start of this conflict, was it?.......

"I see things differently than a lot of people on DU because I have been watching the situation since about 1952, and I remember the many landmark events that are listed in that list."

The conflict started about 1920 after the Balfour declaration. Zionist Jews persuaded Britain that Palestine would be a good place to allow mass Jewish immigration in order to create a Jewish homeland, irrespective of the fact that only about 15% of Palestine’s population was Jewish and the local Arabs made it clear they did not want Jewish immigrants.

So, what would you have done had you been a Palestinian Arab in the 1920s?

[shaayecanaan]

31. The Israelis killed about 500 Arab returnees a year

during the 1950s, mostly just peasants wanting to get back to their farms.

About 3000 Arabs died in massacres by Jews during 1948 alone. In fact more Muslims died at the hands of Jews in a single year than the number of Jews killed by Muslims in the preceding 500 years.

Even today, Israeli soldiers can kill Arab children with impunity:-

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/24/israel

[whosinpower1]

12. Palistinians hold the key to peace?!?

What a joke. You are fantasizing far more power than they possess, and at the same time obscuring who truly does hold all the power.

Palistinians hold no power. They have no state military. They have no state. Their economic well being is subject to the will of Israel. To suggest that the palistinians are capable of transforming the dominance exerted by the State of Israel, by abandoning the singular thing that happens to cast the world's eye towards the treatment of Palistinians in the middle east is the height of blind fantasy. That is like saying, "if only they didn't toss rockets, we could truly sympathize with 47 years of occupation, a life of uncertainty, unequal rights and domination. We would do something then.......If only they didn't toss rockets, we might object more forcefully to the night raids, economic blockade, lack of human rights, imprisonment without justice."

How cheap and convenient for us. How lucky for us we can just kick it down the road, once again, imagining the unimaginable - that palistinians are somehow magically going to overthrow Hamas in favor of___________. (insert some unknown savior), when the strength and might of the state of Israel cannot.

And then you might say, "But if they didn't toss rockets, we would not need to do any of that." This may seem like a fair point, but I would then comment, "clearly, clearly, clearly.....these policies are not working, because if they were, there would not be any rocket fire."

Hamas is not in control of Israeli firepower, period.

You should read "47 years a slave, a new perspective on the occupation".

[JDPriestly]

13. Look at this list of Palestinian terrorist acts over the years.

I am older and remember most of these events from current news reports. It is appalling. Palestinians need to negotiate and enforce a peace among their own people. I cannot blame Israel for being fed up. The world is not rushing to the aid of the Palestinians. Here is why. Please read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrorist_attacks_attributed_to_Palestinian_militant_groups

[whosinpower1]

16. As you well know, there are two sides

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

Here is another list which adds both sides to see all the violence in a fuller context.

I did read some of them on your list. You are correct in that the list is appalling. The list of Israeli assassinations is pretty long too..... Consider for a moment that the actions of harsh reprisals by Israel has not had the effect of stopping terrorism either. Your long list is exhibit A in that effect. Definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. Same can certainly be said of palistinian terrorist groups.

Unless both (?) sides know full well how the other will react, and proceed anyways. At which point, the region is lost forever, and generational hatred so ingrained by both groups now that it is impossible to erase - ever.

But somehow, you seem to believe, wish, hope, dream, delude, fantasize that it is palistinians who have the strength, personality and fortitude to change their ways, when Israeli's do not, or perhaps, because they are the dominant, are not required to.

[JDPriestly]

18. Both sides need to work toward peace.

The list of Israeli assassinations does not begin to match the list of Palestinian terrorism. The assassinations were targeted at Palestinian terrorists for the most part. The list of terrorist acts were targeted at innocent civilians. And now, the Palestinians show pictures of the children being killed.

It is unclear to me what set off Israel's reaction this time, but I gather it was caused by the fact that while the two sides were supposedly negotiating for peace, the Palestinians were building tunnels under and into Israel so that they could invade and either kidnap or kill Israelis.

Talk about stupid. The Palestinian tunnels really match anything tried before. Just ridiculously foolish. And two-faced. You don't plan such things while pretending to be negotiating peace.

At the same time, I realize that not all Palestinians are terrorists or constructing tunnels to circumvent the Israeli defenses -- the wall and the shield.

But I do believe that the fact that Israel built strong defenses and yet the Palestinians tried to breach the existing border was an act of war, a pretty definite statement that the Palestinians did not want peace.

[whosinpower1]

19. come on now

we are not going to tally up each others list and lay more blame to the other based on civilian deaths are we?

You know, as well as I do, how one sided the result would be.

It is not helpful to meaningful dialogue. And, no, the tunnels were NOT the reason Israel initially attacked. Stop trying to change the goalposts. A wide-eyed Netanyahu exclaiming tunnels, tunnels, tunnels, does not make it so. First it was teenagers, then it was rockets, then it was tunnels.

Israel was aware of tunnels all along. Do not tell me they had no idea whatsoever how Shalit was kidnapped. I refuse to bite that load of garbage.

Netanyahu disgustingly used the kidnapped teenagers as an excuse to attack Hamas, after they signed the unity agreement with the PA. For two weeks, they rounded up people, attacked hamas leadership, even though they knew full well that the group who did kidnap the boys were never controlled by Hamas. Sin Bet themselves confirmed that they knew within 24 hours of the kidnapping, who the kidnappers were, where they were taken from, and that they were probably dead. THEY KNEW, but still used this excuse as a cover to attack Hamas and overthrow any possibility of ANY palistinian unity government, period.

Just as Hamas is entirely and completely predictable, so too is Israel. That long list of terror attacks, combined with that long list of assasinations, combined with the longer yet list of conflict points to BOTH parties doing the same thing, over and over again, but somehow expecting different results.

Yes, JD, that is the definition of stupid.

But you know what the real problem is? It isn't the rockets, or the tunnels, or even the kidnapping. The real problem is pride. Right wing pride.

[JDPriestly]

28. And Palestinian pride.

Both sides need to forget pride and violence and make peace. The tunnels and the rockets and other harassment of Israelis were the reasons given for the bombing and subsequent invasion of Palestine. Makes sense to me. You can't pull your dog's tale constantly and beat your dog and then be surprised when your dog turns on you.

Palestinians constantly push Israel's buttons. They should not be surprised when Israel reacts.

Both sides need to get serious about peace. What more could Israel do? They built a wall and then a shield, and now the Palestinians are using the tunnels and rockets that still can hit within Israel. I think Israel had done all it could do to protect itself before bombing and invading.

I hope and pray that the two sides will finally negotiate peace.

[whosinpower1]

40. Why do you do that?

Quote - Palistinians constantly push Israel's buttons.

Do you think a 8(?) year blockade has zero effect? How about the 800 000 palistinians who have been arrested from 1967-2012, many of which languished in prison without charge and held indefinately - do you think that has no effect? How about the night time raids, where the IDF arrest children? Think that has no effect? Or the deliberate blatant destruction of any sort of economic, or civilian infrastructure - factories, dairies, schools, mosques, power plant, seaport, airport....think that has no effect? Restricting movement - think that has zero effect? Do you know that the average age of a gazan is 17? If a palistinian shoots and kills an Israeli - it is a terror attack. If the IDF shoots and kills four boys playing ball on the beach.....it is errant airstrike. (TWICE errant, btw)

At every turn, Israel dominates the palistinians. Economic opportunities, food and water security, freedom of movement, ongoing and persistant fear of arrest without charge, held indefinitely, fear of airstrikes, destruction of homes, settler violence.

And somehow, through all of this, you are inferring that Palistinians constantly push Israel's buttons. What sort of a one eyed blindness do you have to the other all the while sympathizing of the horror of rockets that mostly fall into open fields. That is like the wife-beater who adamantly maintains it is all her fault he fails to control his rage and beats her. Either she bends over and takes it, or sometimes, she fights back.

Realize that your metaphor only has true meaning in that the dog is clearly palistinians, and the dominant one is clearly Israel. Why would any dog owner "negotiate" anything with a lowly dog. If the dog turns on him - what is the owner supposed to say he is sorry? No, the dog will be beaten, with the intent to force submission...... YOUR metaphor, by the way - not mine.

Of course the repeated disproportionate attacks by Israel have one main goal.....JD - it isn't peace. Netanyahu could not even stomach the word - he said quiet......but we all know he means submission.

There will never be peace. Hamas has to go, and so does Netanyahu. Likud policies have been disastrous. Even the wide eyed bellicose rantings of Hamas breaking the ceasefire by kidnapping a soldier.....and arrogant chest thumping, groin grabbing statements that Israel will NEVER negotiate any ceasefire.....and today we finally know that that soldier was killed by an Israeli airstrike when they fought 3 Hamas militants.....which is what Hamas stated.

[Miumer]

35. Winners and losers

"But somehow, you seem to believe, wish, hope, dream, delude, fantasize that it is Palestinians who have the strength, personality and fortitude to change their ways, when Israeli's do not, or perhaps, because they are the dominant, are not required to"

It's not strength the palestinians need, it's reasonable thought. When you loose a war(cannot win a war) the reasonable thing is to give up and cut your losses. You are right: Israelis aren't required to change their ways because they are dominant (the winners), thats the whole point of war. They have no incentive to change their ways first when they already are the winners. And lets not talk about their willingness to take risks of loosing what they have won. War was inevitable under the circumstances these two sides were thrown into, often even genocide is inevitable. War is war. There are winners and there are losers. And when the war ends the losers aren't very well off for obvious reasons.

The next step is trying to rebuild your state, social group, or whatever by every means possible. In this case civil rights activism and education etc. to raise global awareness and also awayness in the territory itself, among palestinians ans jews both, thats how integration and peaceful means work.

You say the Palestinians don't have the strength nor personality nor fortitude to change. They should work on it then, and fast. Until there is still something to save. THe only ones that can help are themselves and then everybody else can chip in. They have to open the door.

The Israelis and the US are oppressors obviously, but they will not go against public opinion and public opinion is to be generated by peaceful means, the public is much more willing to support the peaceful palestinian who is being wronged because its much more obvious who is the bad guy.

Also everything JD said in his/hers first post.

[Dragonfli]

36. "often even genocide is inevitable"

I don't believe that genocide is ever inevitable, or that it could be anything ever besides pure evil.
What a truly horrible thing to say.
You really should consider editing that bit out.

[Miumer]

37. Evil

It is pure evil, the worst kind. The fact that it is so evil is the why it is inevitable. Once a group of people come to the horrific conclusion that the only way to achieve its goal is to take the life of another group of men. It will happen. They don't come to that conclusion in doubt. It becomes inevitable, as in you really cant prevent it from happening when the decision is made. You could say that if history would've been like that it wouldn't have happened, but you cant turn back time.

[Dragonfli]

38. I suppose Darfur would be an example of that

I just hope that wherever or whenever a group of people comes to that conclusion, we do not give them money and sell them arms to do it.

Edited to add: I still believe it is only inevitable if allowed to happen and I hope the world community will do a better job in future of intervening when the first symptoms of that mental illness present.

[Miumer]

41. Me too

It mostly happens in a context of a bigger conflict, so its hard to pin point when exactly say a civil war becomes genocide. Also even when noticed the intervention takes time and it can be too late. I don't think ive ever heard of a genocide being prevented or stopped. The I/P conflict could've easily become a genocide in the early days and it still can become one. How do you prevent it? They are always talking about signs of it happening that should help prevent it. In reality every armed conflict is the sign of the possibility of genocide imo. So dint think it is actually really really preventable. As long as there is war and as long as people are different and have opposing views.

But at the same time i think that the possibility of it happening is reduced in time and as a society develops. But even then unforeseen circumstances could still lead to it. I tend to think 1940s germany was quite a developed country...

[Dragonfli]

42. Thank you for your thoughtful answers

And Welcome to DU

[whosinpower1]

43. Public opinion has very little effect - sorry to say so

But the only public opinion that Israel cares for is the Israeli public. I point them out because they are the dominant party in this. American public opinion holds very little water - and even less Europe and the rest of the world.

There were countless MILLIONS actively protesting the run up to the Iraq war around the world.......what did it get them....over a million dead Iraqi's, popcorn chewing shock and awe media showstoppers, a global recession, etc, etc.

And you seem to shrug so casually about genocide....you know, because war is war....blah, blah, blah. Genocide is a conscious decision whose moral/ethical underpinnings have no place in modern society - anywhere, period.

[Miumer]

45. You are underestimating the Israeli civilians.

I'm pretty sure there are a lot of Israeli people who are empathetic towards the Palestinians. Thats what I'm saying, Israel cares for the opinion of the Israeli public, and public activism, protest, education by the Palestinians and more and more empathetic Israelis will effect the jewish own peoples mindset.

Most of the population aren't animals, I'm sure of that, they have the power of empathy and they can surely understand when another human being is wronged and put down and oppressed and discriminated against who is NOT DOING ANYTHING TO THEM. The same as black in US, things started to change when the white opinion started to change. Like in South Africa where things started to change when the international stance started change.

Public opinion has all the effect in the world. You don't change public opinion by war. Mass suicide and pointless killing has no effect what so ever, time has shown us that. Now its time to try the other way. What has been lost has been lost, it's time to move on, pride and religious fanaticism isn't the way of reason.

[kayecy]

47. Public opinion wasn't strong enough to.....

Public opinion wasn't strong enough to force Israel to allow sea access to Gaza which could have stopped the rockets and invasion.

[Miumer]

50. You dont battle agression with purblic opinion while being agressive yourself.

Last edited Sun Aug 3, 2014, 08:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Public opinion doesnt work and isn't strong enough when Hamas is in power, thats whats im saying. The blockade happened because of Hamas seizing power. You can't hope for change due to public opinion when you are killing people yourself. Even if hamas and their activities is just an excuse, dont give them the excuse, and im sure the Israelis have reason to be worried about Hamas. They cant afford to take any risks.

The Palestinians need a strong peaceful leader to publicly drop all connections with the violent and agressive fractions for a longer period then 6 months.

[kayecy]

51. I agree with you but......

I agree with you but have Gazans any reason to think that even if they managed to kick out Hamas and replace them with a non-violent government, Israel would make any concessions?

Abbas has been treated as a patsy by the Israelis.......The number of settlers in the West Bank has increased every year even as the number of violent attacks have reduced.

All Israeli governmnets claim to want peace but what they mean is peace on their terms with them holding all the cards. It has been like that since Balfour.

[Miumer]

52. between a rock and a hard place

I agree that the Gazans and the palestinian people as a whole have a reason to be very skeptical. Israelis already hold all the cards, the war has been won and they have the "right" (or feel they have the right) for their terms because of that, they wont give that up, that would be unreasonable.

I'm just saying that when choosing between two bad options. Aggressions can only make things worse. It prolongs the cycle of violence and lengthens the time by when the concessions will be made and loosening the leash on Palestinians will happen. By peaceful means that will happen, thats the natural course of human development. (again: the black in the US, South Africa etc.).

Also you can look at the Sovietisation process in the USSR of Stalin. First they were oppressing the people and eliminating the potential threat (murder, deportation, arrests etc) and the actual threat to their end goal. (Not saying it was good or anything, they just had a goal and violent means were the only ones to achieve it in their vision) .The terror in turn turn brought about more upheaval among the occupied nations, and that in turn more terror until the local people accepted defeat and aggressive resistance was replaced by passive resistance and the grip started loosening and loosening. They are in a lot of ways totally different situations but the process is the same in a lot of ways.

The process of reconciliation has to start somewhere and keeping up aggressive resistance going will just keep the endless cycle going and going, cause at this point the Israelis will just not bow down to aggressive resistance. In my mind peaceful resistance will have a bigger chance or at least have some chance of making a change in the policies of the Israelis, while aggressive means have no chance.

[Shaktimaan]

22. Backwards.

What a joke. You are fantasizing far more power than they possess, and at the same time obscuring who truly does hold all the power.

You have the causality reversed here. No one is saying that the Palestinians have the power to unilaterally impose peace. But that's the tricky thing about any conflict. No one side ever has the power to do such a thing.

The Palestinians, as powerless as they are in many respects, do possess one critical ability. The power to reject a peace that's on any terms they oppose. We've seen Israel attempt several treaties for permanent two state solutions, all on terms rejected by militant palestinian groups like Hamas. Hamas has the ability, proven during Oslo and after the Gaza withdrawal, to scuttle any peace whose terms they reject.

This is far from being "powerless." We've already seen that Israel is willing to make concessions for peace and stand by their agreements. They've done it before. But we've yet to see if Palestine has the ability to negotiate a peace they can enforce from their end.

[whosinpower1]

25. Must be embarrassing then

When Netanyahu was boasting how HE scuttled Oslo.....

[Shaktimaan]

27. Well.

You've got me there. The inanity of trying to use a single quote to refute an obvious reality demonstrated over years of conflict is beyond me. I wouldn't even know where to start. I could point out your misunderstanding of a quote taken out of both it's immediate political and historical context. Or cite the effects that suicide bombing, qassams, and the second intifada had on Israel politically and the Oslo process at large.

But I'll instead just suggest to you that perhaps you should consider that any single quote might not be sufficient to serve as evidence of much of anything at all.

Especially a quote referencing the results of events I described. Not the causes. (Like I said, backwards.)

[whosinpower1]

33. Causality

I said it must be embarrassing.

Nauseatingly embarrassing to have the leader of the state of Israel proudly declare that he caused Oslo to fail.

The duplicitous nature of the current Israeli leadership causes many in the world to seriously question the overreach that is the Israeli response in Gaza.

That is causality too.

Palestinians are, by and large, victims of really bad leadership. Unfortunately, so is Israel. Funny thing though....those who pay the highest price for both parties horrifically bad leadership is gazans.

[Israeli]

58. could not agree with you more ....

BTW I found that video .....

...its contained within this very very recent post on 972 ....says it all really :

This is Netanyahu’s final status solution

The Gaza war should be seen as part of Israel’s overall strategy, which aims to maintain the current status quo in the Palestinian Territories.

One of the Israeli Right’s greatest political achievements was convincing the public that “we tried the Left’s ideas, and they failed.” Some even say that the current reality is the outcome of “the left’s ideas.”

Naturally, this claim comfortably avoids the responsibility that the Right had in torpedoing any attempt for peaceful reconciliation, from 1987’s London Accord to Netanyahu’s unilateral decision in 1996 to stop implementing Oslo. (For some reason, the video in which Netanyahu boasted of killing Oslo and manipulating the Clinton administration didn’t leave the kind of impression one would expect.) Oslo itself was as far as one can get from a genuine two-state solution; it did not include the evacuation of a single settlement or the transfer of one square yard to full Palestinian sovereignty.

But these are the kind of historical debates in which nearly everything has been said. The fact is that we have been living in the age of the Right for many years now, and right-wing ideas – from Sharon’s disengagement to Netanyahu’s status quo – are the ones that shape reality on the ground.

All Israeli prime ministers from 2001 onward originally came from the Likud. Despite all sorts of “revelations” they experienced with regard to the Palestinian issue, and despite the new parties they formed, broke off from or returned to, none of them took active measures on the ground that were meant to lead to a fair compromise with the Palestinians. All they did was take several elements from the two-state solution, and incorporate them into the old right-wing approach: the Iron Wall, military power, colonization, maximum land and minimum Arabs.

This is how Olmert’s unilateral withdrawal plan was born (and floated again recently by Michael Oren), along with Netanyhau’s “economic peace,” Bennett’s “Stability Initiative” or the far right’s absurd “Israeli Initiative.” All of those are variations on the same theme, which most of the time doesn’t even get its own name, yet remains the blueprint for Israeli policies.

The Gaza disengagement in 2005, a crucial moment which led to the current state of affairs, was the opposite of compromise: its stated goal was the prevention of a Palestinian State. The drama surrounding the evacuation of some 9,000 people shouldn’t obscure the fact that the disengagement was a status quo-oriented idea – more a rearrangement than a disengagement – and the debate surrounding it remained within the right wing, between the radical right and the more pragmatic conservatives.

Netanyahu is the longest serving prime minister since David Ben-Gurion. Some people accuse him of lacking a strategy, but that is a shallow assessment. Netanyahu has been carrying out his strategy for years now. The failure of the peace talks and the war in Gaza are part of the same game, which is about maintaining the current status quo and doing so by force, if necessary.

Netanyahu’s approach is consistent. The conflict is for him a zero-sum game, and therefore one need not move beyond “a modified status quo.” One should use the regional and international system to search for ad-hoc coalitions, rather than rely on long-term relationship and agreements. One should try to avoid using military force, yet still prefer it to concessions; when decision time comes, the choice is clear. One should also continue to colonize land, but at a pace that takes geopolitical circumstances into account.

These ideas now represent the Israeli mainstream. Save for the issue of settlements, the differences between Labor’s Herzog, Livni, Lapid, Netanyahu and Liberman are minor. You hear the same thinking echoed by Israeli think tanks, op-ed pages and conferences. It is ironic that Israel accused Palestinians of a “unilateral move” when they tried to take their statehood bid to the United Nations (!), when unilateralism is at the heart of Israeli thinking.

Israel has been implementing these ideas for years, and the results are the only ones possible: brief periods of peace and prosperity (for Israelis) interrupted by periodic violent escalations. Things couldn’t have been clearer. What we are witnessing in Israel these days is the “solution” – the alternative to both two states and one state.

The decision to try and end the military operation unilaterally is particularly telling. For the government, the next escalation is always preferable to handing the adversary any form of achievement, while the war’s goal is to return the situation to how it was before the bombing started.

The current moment – when dozens are killed daily (most of them Palestinian civilians), when Israel becomes more and more isolated and when all policy choices are bad – is the direct outcome of the status quo strategy. This is when the real cost of the status quo becomes clear, rather than during the sunny intervals between wars. Only this time it is too late to go back. At every crossroad, Netanyahu doubles down on his bad bets, and the entire nation joins him willingly.

Source: http://972mag.com/this-is-netanyahus-final-status-solution/94938/

[Israeli]

56. outstanding Shaktimaan....

" But I'll instead just suggest to you that perhaps you should consider that any single quote might not be sufficient to serve as evidence of much of anything at all. "

Note to self ....must find that video ....

This will have to do for now .....

Tricky Bibi

Israel has had many rightist leaders since Menachem Begin promised "many Elon Morehs," but there has never been one like Netanyahu, who wants to do it by deceit.

By Gideon Levy | Jul. 15, 2010

This video should have been banned for broadcast to minors. This video should have been shown in every home in Israel, then sent to Washington and Ramallah. Banned for viewing by children so as not to corrupt them, and distributed around the country and the world so that everyone will know who leads the government of Israel. Channel 10 presented: The real (and deceitful ) face of Binyamin Netanyahu. Broadcast on Friday night on "This Week with Miki Rosenthal," it was filmed secretly in 2001, during a visit by Citizen Netanyahu to the home of a bereaved family in the settlement of Ofra, and astoundingly, it has not created a stir.

The scene was both pathetic and outrageous. The last of Netanyahu's devoted followers, who believe he is the man who will bring peace, would have immediately changed their minds. Presidents Barack Obama and Shimon Peres, who continue to maintain that Netanyahu will bring peace, would be talking differently had they seen this secretly filmed video clip. Even the objection of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to conducting direct negotiations with the man from the video would be understandable. What is there to discuss with a huckster whose sole purpose is "to give 2 percent in order to prevent 100 percent," as his father told him, quoting his grandfather.

Israel has had many rightist leaders since Menachem Begin promised "many Elon Morehs," but there has never been one like Netanyahu, who wants to do it by deceit, to mock America, trick the Palestinians and lead us all astray. The man in the video betrays himself in his own words as a con artist, and now he is again prime minister of Israel. Don't try to claim that he has changed since then. Such a crooked way of thinking does not change over the years.

Forget the Bar-Ilan University speech, forget the virtual achievements in his last visit to the United States; this is the real Netanyahu. No more claims that the Palestinians are to blame for the failure of the Oslo Accords. Netanyahu exposed the naked truth to his hosts at Ofra: he destroyed the Oslo accords with his own hands and deeds, and he's even proud of it. After years in which we were told that the Palestinians are to blame, the truth has emerged from the horse's mouth.

And how did he do it? He recalled how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from "specified military locations," and insisted he choose those same locations, such as the whole of the Jordan Valley, for example. "Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords," he boasts. The real Netanyahu also brags about his knowledge of America: "I know what America is. America is something that can be moved easily." For the White House's information.

He calls then-U.S. President Bill Clinton "extremely pro-Palestinian," and says the Palestinians want to throw us into the sea. With such retrograde beliefs, no one can convincingly argue that he wants an agreement.

These remarks are profoundly depressing. They bear out all of our fears and suspicions: that the government of Israel is led by a man who doesn't believe the Palestinians and doesn't believe in the chance of an agreement with them, who thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes. There's no point in talking about Netanyahu's impossible rightist coalition as an obstacle to progress. From now on, just say that Netanyahu doesn't want it.

What if Kadima joins the government and Yisrael Beiteinu leaves? Nothing will change. What if Danny Danon goes leftist and Tzipi Hotovely joins Peace Now? Netanyahu doesn't want it.

If he had said so honestly, as he did when he thought the camera in Ofra was turned off, then he could have been forgiven for his extreme positions. It's his right to think that way and get elected for it. The people will have gotten what they chose. But when Netanyahu hides his real positions under camouflage netting and entangles them in webs of deceit, he not only reduces the chances of reaching an agreement, he also damages Israel's political culture. Many people may want a right-wing, nationalist prime minister, but a prime minister who is a con artist? Is is too much to expect of Netanyahu that he speak to us precisely as he spoke in Ofra? Why do a handful of settlers deserve to know the truth, and not us? Tell us the truth, Netanyahu. Talk to us as if the cameras were off, just as you thought then, in 2001 in Ofra.

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/tricky-bibi-1.302053

[Aerows]

39. The only problem I see

Is that there isn't enough land for everyone to feel they are comfortable with the solution. A no man's land would take away even more land that both parties are loathe to lose.

I don't know the solution, though, and yours sounds as good as any.

[ann---]

3. No

Israel doesn't want peace - they never have. They want control of ALL the land, water and people of Palestine.

[JDPriestly]

6. And Israelis feel that that is what the Palestinians want.

That's what we have to understand. Both parties feel aggrieved. It's like a divorce. It takes two.

Except in Palestine/Israel, the parties cannot just agree to separate and leave each other alone. They have children. Both sides have children so they are going to have to deal with each other for a long time.

[Shaktimaan]

23. But...

Israel's actions would indicate otherwise. The Gaza withdrawal is a key example. If Israel desired ALL the land then why pay such a steep political and economic price to abandon control, and empower an independent Gaza both economically and politically?

Most Israelis saw the 2005 withdrawal as an experiment to determine if the Palestinians truly desired independence over the destruction of Israel. They were given all the tools they needed to succeed. Many Israeli peaceniks, and myself, were cheering for them. Unfortunately we were proven wrong, while the right wing's predictions were all accurate.

What happened sucks. But to deny that it occurred makes no sense. Gaza was an opportunity for the Palestinians to prove their commitment to peace and independence. Instead they proved their commitment to war and terrorism.

[Shaktimaan]

54. That's true too. In part.

Of course Israel and the US didn't like the fact that gazans elected a terrorist organization dedicated to destroying Israel. If anything that supports my point. But they weren't elected to "defend" Gaza against Israeli aggression. They were elected because they were the sole alternative to the PA, a corrupt organization that has stolen over a billion dollars of aid rightfully belonging to the palestinian people.

That said there was no Israeli aggression to defend from. Mere hours after Israel finished their withdrawal the gazans began rioting, (destroying the greenhouses donated by American Jews in the process), and Hamas renewed qassam attacks against Israel. Israel had JUST finished making preparations and granting concessions securing Gaza with all the necessary tools for self-sufficiency. What did they get in return? Reduced security, increased terrorism and an enemy terrorist group elected to palestine's government.

Hamas was freely elected. But it's not as though they were then forcibly removed by Israel. Even after their bloody coup to illegally secure their hold on the strip.

Democracy is supposed to be its own reward. Gazans were free to elect Hamas as their leaders. That does not mean they should be immune to the consequences of Hamas' actions though. To the contrary, it makes them responsible for their actions, as all democracies are responsible for the acts their elected officials undertake.

Gaza was free to elect Hamas, as they did. But that decision came with consequences. Far from defending the strip, Gaza antagonized Israel into first closing the border crossings, then instituting a blockade, and eventually launching devastating military strikes against them. Hamas has done a terrible job, both of governing Gaza, but far more in "defending" it from Israel. The haven't defended Gaza at all. They've seen it destroyed.

[Israeli]

57. you cant be serious !!

"" Most Israelis "" !!!!!!

"" "" Many Israeli peaceniks, and myself, were cheering for them. "" "" !!!!!!!

Speak for yourself please !!

"" while the right wing's predictions were all accurate. ""

Ahhh ....so Arik Sharon was a Leftist during the disingagement

...........

After that we spent a confused year and a half between the declaration of Sharon’s intent and its actual implementation on the ground, a constant dilemma on how should Israeli peace seekers react. It was clear to us that Sharon felt the need to take such a step because of the momentum gained by the Geneva Initiative, which was pushing for a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace, and because of the letter of the pilots who refused to bomb Palestinian cities as well as the objectors from the elite Sayeret Matkal commandos. From his viewpoint , as a man who had commanded armies and sent soldiers to die in battle, he was ready to sacrifice the settlements in the Gaza Strip in order to deflect the pressures and get a free hand to continue expanding settlements in the West Bank . He did all he could to make the evacuation of 7,000 settlers from the Gaza Strip into a difficult, long-drawn and traumatic event, so as to make the evacuation of hundreds of thousands from the West Bank seem an absolute impossibility.

Knowing all of that - and still, faced with the choice between Sharon succeeding in implementing the "Gaza disengagement " and the possibility of the settlers thwarting the plan and the settlements in Gaza remaining intact, I found myself walking in a lukewarm Peace Now demonstration called to support the Disengagement and support Sharon. And there were many occasions on that year when I stood at roadsides and junctions to distribute to drivers the pro-Disengagement Blue Ribbons, to counter the settlers’ Orange Ribbons.

At the end of 2005 Sharon split the Likud and founded the Kadima Party which was intended to achieve "The Big Bang of Israeli politics". In the evening I sat with friends and heard TV commentators praise Sharon’s brilliant move and predict that Kadima led by Sharon would win the 2006 elections and garner forty or even fifty seats and that Sharon would bestride the political system like a colossus for many years to come. We were far from happy at the prospect. Would Sharon have managed to actually bring about all that, and how would he have used his power? Would he have become the Israeli de Gaulle? We will never know.


http://adam-keller2.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/sharon-and-me.html

[ReRe]

7. The answer...

... I'm afraid to say, is no. If the Palestinians laid down their arms, I don't think Israel would stop.

[hack89]

10. With a cessation of rocket attacks the blockade can be relaxed

and eventually lifted (after safeguards are put in place to ensure Hamas cannot rearm). It will take much longer to get back where Palestinians can once again work in Israel like they routinely did a decade ago - Israel will not tolerate a single suicide bombing so the Palestinian will have to demonstrate the ability and will to control their radical fringe.

[Igel]

11. No. But it's not a one-step process, is it?

If Palestinians lay down their arms, there'd still be issues.

How to reconcile all the demands that really have no compromise? For instance, both want territorial integrity. That works only if at some point there's a point at which both countries "meet," sort of like how Utah and New Mexico "meet" each other at the same point Arizona and Colorado meet each other. At the center point of a +. Hard to build a road there or do much else.

But even given all the competing demands, it'll push the violence into Israel itself. (In a way, that would be the harshest attack on Israel. Because as long as the extremes in Israel are facing a common enemy they can find times and places to feel united and work together. Take away that enemy and they'll have to find Israel-internal compromises.) Israel will have to exorcise its own demons before there can be peace.

That can never occur as long as there's a "Palestinian threat."

It's the same process that the Palestinians have to go through, except that Israel by and large isn't the one using offensive weapons first. Even when it does use them first, it's pre-emptive to avoid things like tunnels or threats that are plausible if not (highly) likely.

And in the case of the Palestinians, it's like finding peace in Eastern Ukraine. In both cases, without the massive support, moral, emotional, financial, and military from outside parties interested at least as much in fighting the "occupier" as they are interested in the people on whose land they're fighting and who are being killed, much of the problem would quickly be solved. Some say "Israel doesn't want peace." The same is true of other actors in the region: If the I/P issue goes away, they have a bogeyman they can't blame for problems, they have a bogeyman they can't scare their populations with. And what would the imams talk about for their khutbah?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

21. There will be Palestinian subjugation, which is really Israel's goal, don't you think?

[Israeli]

24. shalom/salaam ProgressiveMuslim ....

Its the goal of our Right wing yes ..... and most within this current gov .

I've thought it and feared it for many years .

By the responses to this OP I doubt many read the full article .... did you at least ?

[azurnoir]

26. If the Palestinians laid down their arms

it would be continued status quo and ever expanding settlements

and yes I read the article

[Israeli]

29. Yup ....

" it would be continued status quo and ever expanding settlements "

and eventually annexation.

Would it be a democracy tho ?

...not suprised you read it , maybe others might now

[intaglio]

32. Short answer, yes

Compare Northern Ireland.

Long answer it will also take Israel acting in good faith and refusing to treat the Palestinians like dirt.

[aranthus]

55. There are some serious misrepresentations in this.

Here's what Gopin writes:

"This argument is based on two false assumptions about Palestinians. The first statement is based on the false assumption that the only impediment to peace is Palestinian violence, and the second is based on the assumption that the Palestinians’ main goal is to eradicate the Jews."

Let's take the two parts of this one at a time.

"The first statement is based on the false assumption that the only impediment to peace is Palestinian violence"

This is a gross simplification of what the phrase means. While it is certainly true that there would not be an immediate peace agreement if the Palestinians were to lay down their arms, that isn't what the statement is or means. It says that there wouldn't be war. More than that, the two phrases taken together are a description of what the war is about. From the Israeli perspective, the war is about Palestinian and Arab denial of the legitimacy of Jewish national existence. It is the war to destroy the Jewish state. So if the Palestinians stop making war against the Jewish state, it won't bring peace immediately, but it is the one thing that will make peace possible.

Okay, now the second part of Gopin's "assumptions"

"the second is based on the assumption that the Palestinians’ main goal is to eradicate the Jews."

Except that isn't the assumption at all. It's just not true that the argument assumes that all Palestinians want to eradicate, slaughter, do away with or, murder the Jews. It's based on the assumption that they want to do away with the Jewish state; that they don't recognize the legitimacy of Jewish national existence. It's really more of an observation than an assumption, since so many Palestinians and Palestinian organizations either say that, or say things that can only be meaningful if you don't recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state. BDS, right of Return, the refusal of Abbas and the PA to recognize Israel as a Jewish state; almost the whole of the pro-Palestinian argument only makes sense if you assume that the Jews don't have a right to a state in Israel. And of course, Hamas really does want to kill Jews; the Hamas Charter is quite explicit about it. So the real question is whether Gopin is just clueless, or disingenuous.