Skip to main content

View Diary: On the impossibility of Palestinian recognition of the State of Israel (307 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What reductionism and essentialism! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, Keith Moon, Mia Dolan, zemblan, jhritz

    By disengaging from the Gaza Strip and a few settlements in the northern West Bank, the Israeli government demonstrated a willingness to give up territory. Not enough, but not nothing.

    By accepting the Clinton Peace Parameters, the Israeli government made it its policy to negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip, most of the West Bank, and part of Jerusalem (with land swaps to compensate Palestine for whatever part of the West Bank the parties agreed to annex to Israel).

    We have good grounds to believe that a majority of the Israeli public will support an end-of-conflict settlement on this basis, provided they are persuaded that it's the real deal.

    Al Gore should be president.

    by another American on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 05:21:01 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It's not me you need to convince. (3+ / 0-)

      It is the affected party - the Palestinians.

      And quite frankly, given the track record, its hard to blame them for being skeptical.  I mean look where the "Clinton parameters" ended up.

      'Be the change you want to see in the world.' Mahatma Gandhi

      by maracatu on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 05:35:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rejected by Arafat; accepted by Israel. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shpilk, Mia Dolan, zemblan, jhritz

        See The Myth of the "Myth of the Generous Offer".

        You've linked to an article about the Camp David talks. It's not an accurate account, but the important point here is that it's not about the Clinton Peace Parameters.

        Al Gore should be president.

        by another American on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 05:43:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Shlomo Ben Ami on Camp David (3+ / 0-)

          if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well


          •  Ben-Ami and Robert Malley on Clinton's Parameters (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shpilk, Eric S, zemblan, jhritz

            Shlomo Ben-Ami writes in his book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy:

            The negotiations continued after Camp David. More than fifty meetings between the parties and the American mediators, both in Israel and in the United States, took place throughout the summer and autumn of 2000. This was a sequence of round tables that culminated on 23 December in a meeting in the Cabinet room adjacent to the Oval Office, where President Clinton presented to an Israeli delegation presided over by this author and a Palestinian team headed by Yasser Abd-Rabbo his final parameters for a peace treaty between the parties. The parameters were not the arbitrary and sudden whim of a lame-duck president. They represented a brilliantly devised point of equilibrium between the positions of the parties as they stood at that particular moment in the negotiations." (p. 270.)

            Robert Malley wrote in Israel and the Arafat Question:

            "Arafat had the best deal he could ever get. He could not get more and he had hit the proverbial wall. At the time, this was quite clear to American and to Israeli leaders. And in hindsight, it is now painfully clear to many more, including Palestinians."

            Al Gore should be president.

            by another American on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 05:58:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You're right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          it's not about the Clinton Peace Parameters.

          ...although you were the one who brought them up in the first place.

          I say lets look at the forest instead of the trees:

          What the Israeli governments do not realize is that neither Hamas nor Hizbullah need Israel. It is Israel that needs them, and needs them desperately. If Israel wants not to become a Crusader state that is in the end extinguished, it is only Hamas and Hizbullah that can guarantee the survival of Israel. It is only when Israel is able to come to terms with them, as the deeply-rooted spokespersons of Palestinian and Arab nationalism, that Israel can live in peace.

          Achieving a stable peace settlement will be extremely difficult. But the pillars of Israel's present strategy - its own military strength and the unconditional support of the United States - constitute a very thin reed. Its military advantage is diminishing and will diminish steadily in the years to come. And in the post-Iraqi years, the United States may well drop Israel in the same way that France did in the 1960s.

          'Be the change you want to see in the world.' Mahatma Gandhi

          by maracatu on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 06:40:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site