No recognition required for peace talks

[bemildred]

Your editorial ("The rebuilding of Gaza", March 3) claims Hamas must recognise Israel before negotiations can begin. Many Israelis disagree, including former government ministers, advisers and heads of Mossad and Shin Bet. Professor Yossi Alpher says: "Israel never demanded recognition from Egypt or Jordan as a precondition for negotiating recognition is a logical way to conclude successful peace talks, not to begin them."

Alpher also says Israeli governments have failed to abide by the Oslo agreements, continuing to seize land by force in the West Bank, yet demand Hamas sign up to Oslo before beginning talks. Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami signed an open letter saying: "Hamas must recognise Israel but a diplomatic process and not ostracisationwill lead them there. The Quartet conditions set an unworkable threshold for negotiations."

Shlomo Gazit, the former head of Israeli military intelligence, called Israeli pre-conditions "ridiculous, or an excuse not to negotiate".
advertisement

Efraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad, also says Israel should negotiate. Israeli historian and IDF veteran Avi Shlaim says: "The only way for Israel to achieve security is through talks with Hamas, which has repeatedly declared its readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with Israel within its pre-1967 borders for 20, 30 or even 50 years." Does the Israeli government want peace or does it just want more land at any cost in Palestinian and Israeli lives?

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.2493126.0.No_recognition_required_for_peace_talks.php

[Malikshah]

1. Shades of Oslo....mutual recognition demands...or are they???

Same ole same ole...

[iconicgnom]

2. It's so ridiculous. Does the US "recognize" a "Palestinian state"?

Is there a level playing field?

Well?

OK, no, there isn't a level field. Anything but. As long as the game is played at this ridiculous level, where actual thought is forbidden, a resolution is impossible.

[azurnoir]

3. Shlomo Gazit is absolutely right

the preconditions are nothing more than a stall tactic, it would seem that Israel is willing to "endure" constant low level conflict with minimal causalities to keep the West Bank.

[LeftishBrit]

4. I think that anyone should be able to take part in peace talks if they wish

It should however be made clear that the abolition of Israel is not on the table. And neither is the prevention of a Palestinian state.

[iconicgnom]

5. What does "the abolition of Israel" mean?

Does it mean that Israel can never compromise on an absolute Zionist model? That any compromise = abolition?

[LeftishBrit]

6. Ceasing to exist as a safe homeland for the Jews

What do you mean by 'any compromise'? Ending the occupation and returning to the 1967 borders wouldn't abolish Israel. But the expulsion or subjugation of the Jews, and replacement of Israel by an Arab state, would.

[iconicgnom]

7. So you think that to question the scope of Zionism is equivalent to advocating

"the expulsion or subjugation of the Jews"

The dichotomy that you draw is insane. You're saying that the only Israeli state that can exist is one that exalts or subjugates "the Jews". One or the other - black or white. There can't be a state of Israel that treats all people as equal, giving equal rights regardless of race, religion, or gender. In your opinion.

Don't tell me about how "the other ME states don't do it", making it an argument as to which is worst. Explain to us all why Israel can't live with a multicultural population where all have equal rights, including a "right to return". As a fucking "concession" to winning a war.

Or are there no concessions? Hmmm?

[LeftishBrit]

8. 'why Israel can't live with a multicultural population where all have equal rights'

Because how do you think this is going to be imposed? Who will enforce it?

It would be great if Israel could live with a multicultural population where all have equal rights. It would be great if ALL countries could. But at the moment there would be so much antagonism between the warring populations that you would end up with either the destruction of one or other population, or, more likely, a state of long-term civil war, similar to Lebanon.

Politics is the art of the possible; war is the art of the impossible. And we don't want war.

[iconicgnom]

9. "how do you think this is going to be imposed? Who will enforce it?"

It gets enforced the same way as it's enforced in any truly democratic country. By the power of the people who've come to their senses.

As for the claim "we don't want war", I don't believe it. You say that Israel can't be a country that respects equal rights of all, because this would result in the destruction of one or the other of the various cultures. Yet there are several democratic countries in the world which do in fact respect the equal rights of peoples of various cultures and backgrounds, religions and races. Albeit, with checkered histories, and in every case "a long way to go". To deny that is to deny that "progress" in the sense of "progressive dem" is impossible, it is to be a flat out liar.

[cali]

10. OK, Candide.

Look, maybe someday a one state solution with peace and prosperity will be possible. It ain't now. Oh, and Israel already has a multicultural population. Over one million of its citizens are Arabs. On the books, at least they enjoy equal rights. Yes, there's ugly discrimination, but Arab Israelis do have representation, voting rights, etc. Oh, and can you name these multicultural countries you referenced but didn't specify? Aside from say the U.S.?

You don't put two people with the history of hate and conflict together in one country and expect things to go well. Human nature doesn't work that way. And I can think of no country in the world where it has worked or is working. It's bad science. A lousy experiment.

[iconicgnom]

11. Not good enough.

Two paragraphs, one big contradiction.

[Shaktimaan]

12. I don't understand.

Explain to us all why Israel can't live with a multicultural population where all have equal rights

It already does. Israel exists exactly as this sort of nation.

including a "right to return".

Why a right of return for Palestinians? The people in question aren't Israelis. Israel already has provided a right of return for all of the Jews who were expelled from the rest of the world. As a Jewish state it can fulfill certain needs and responsibilities for its majority ethnicity. This is one of the main benefits to having achieved self-determination. But it in no way means that the non-Jewish citizens of Israel are in any way less equal or are discriminated against. Germany, Greece, Japan and many many other ethnic nation-states offer this kind of advantage to members of their respective tribes.

I think you are asking the wrong question, ie: "Why shouldn't Israel become a single state with Palestine?" The better question, considering the full scope of the history of both groups would be, "Why SHOULD Israel become a single state with Palestine?" What potential benefits would it offer Israelis or Palestinians to merge together with their longest-running enemy to form a single state of two distinct nations separated as they are by decades of violence, mistrust and fear, as well as the clear educational, economic and social/cultural rifts which exist between them?

In other words, what in the world makes you think it would be successful? Can you offer even a single similar example which resulted in a successful state? Would you also recommend merging Bangladesh, India and Pakistan again? Or Syria and Lebanon? Kuwait and Iraq? How about Rome and everything else?