Skip to main content

View Diary: Explosive leaked documents: The Palestine Papers (363 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  ya think? </snark>.............n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mets102

    I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

    by volleyboy1 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 12:33:54 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well, (3+ / 0-)

      Issacharoff in Ha'aretz appears to think the opposite - that they will actually stengthen Abbas. I go with the Chatham House take.

      •  I think this will strengthen (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mets102

        Abbas internationally and Hamas on the street and with the "rejectionist front" (for lack of a better term) in the long run.

        I mean Issacharoff is probably right when he says  it would embarass Abbas over the Gilo thing (stopping talks when you already conceeded that), but, I think it gives the PA traction with the Quartet, the U.S. and so forth because it shows a willingness to be realistic to a Two-State Solution.

        AND it hurts the Israelis, because honestly if this is what they agreed to, it is reasonable. I think a lot of people would see things that way.

        On the street, I think it can't but help those who won't accept the existence of Israel or a real "two State" solution. I think to them it makes the P.A. look like traitors and collaborators and ups the status of those who call for "resistance".  

        I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

        by volleyboy1 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:06:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ya will have to define which "rejectionist front" (7+ / 0-)

          you refer to from now on, vb.

          •  Hamas, Syria, Iran (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mets102

            Hizbollah, Pretty much anyone who doesn't accept the existence of Israel as the National Home and State of the Jewish people.

            And why do I "have to" from now on Wattle?

            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:26:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Re-read the diary and then comment, vb. (9+ / 0-)

              You should not have to be reminded of this.

            •  Because... (9+ / 0-)

              The PA offered Israel EVERYTHING YOU SAY YOU WANT IN A PEACE AGREEMENT and Israel "rejected" it.  Hence, from your position, Israel (and its supporters) would be the rejectionist front.

              I'm embarrassed to have to explain Wattle's quip so painfully, but I suspect that short of a painfully straightforward explanation, you would continue to fail to get it.  As I said above, the Liberal Zionist has no intellectual position left to stand on after the release of these documents.  

              "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

              by weasel on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:44:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Some people can never see something from (5+ / 0-)

                someone else's point of view.

                You may be asking too much.

                We can only hope to marginalize people like this and keep their damage to the minimum.

                •  At this point (8+ / 0-)

                  Some people can never see something from someone else's point of view.

                  At this point, I'd just ask him to see things from his own stated point of view.  There is one party that has offered everything and more that he claims he wanted.  

                  "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

                  by weasel on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:53:47 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes and... I am not the Israeli negotiating (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Mets102

                    team..

                    I think IF they got that offer, they should have taken it. Where have I ever said differently?

                    You still haven't shown me how Liberal Zionists (who support this idea) don't. Oh I know heath went into depth telling everyone that we don't support the Palestinian solution to this issue, but, heck I could have told you that a long time ago. I never said I represented the Palestinian solution. I said I represented and still do represent a Liberal Zionist perspective.

                    IF Kadima tossed this away, I would hope they had the good sense to go back to it. If they were smart they would.

                    I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                    by volleyboy1 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 09:32:01 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Right... thank you for admitting that. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mets102

                  I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                  by volleyboy1 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:05:00 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  What a stupid comment...... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                arielle, Mets102

                As I said above, the Liberal Zionist has no intellectual position left to stand on after the release of these documents.

                WTF are you talking about???? This doesn't change my opinion one bit. IF this is totally true then Israel is at at fault for not jumping on a good deal.

                More than that it supports the Liberal Zionist position that Two States are completely possible and should be worked for. It shows that there are negotiating partners who are willing to talk peace and thus that should be worked towards. THAT is the Liberal Zionist position. After all this time how don't you understand that?  

                How does this wipe my perspective or anyone else on the Israeli-Center Left?

                I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                by volleyboy1 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:57:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Because, of course, (9+ / 0-)

                  it simply makes you and the Liberal Zionists useful idiots, fighting day and night on the internet to promote and defend an Israeli government that has never had any intention of supporting such a peace agreement (under any party) and touting a "peace process" whose sole purpose is not to bring about an agreement you seek but to provide diplomatic cover for continuing expansion of the settlements.  Your job is to provide left-wing cover for the Occupation (and in fairness you have done an excelent job).  You support and defend a process of continued Occupation that can never get to the point you say you want, because Israel does not want that.

                  "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

                  by weasel on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:04:43 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  WOW... how much can you be wrong? (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    arielle, WattleBreakfast, Mets102

                    Because, of course, it simply makes you and the Liberal Zionists useful idiots, fighting day and night on the internet to promote and defend an Israeli government that has never had any intention of supporting such a peace agreement (under any party) and touting a "peace process" whose sole purpose is not to bring about an agreement you seek but to provide diplomatic cover for continuing expansion of the settlements.  

                    You really don't understand what any of us are saying here do you? I mean you really don't get this.

                    No one here that I know is supporting the Likud Government of Israel. Well ok, maybe some oddball posters but I am talking about the "regulars". Anyway, what we support is the State and the concept of Israel as a Jewish State and homeland of the Jewish people. All of us support some form of Two-State solution from something along the lines of 338 to Ehud Olmert's plan.

                    Your accusations about continuing expansion of the settlements is complete and total bullshit and you are going to need to back that up. I and many others have spoken out against the most of the settlements in the past. We have commented on it and diaried it. We have been far more critical of those on our side than you have been on yours. So please spare the rhetorical bullshit.

                    Your job is to provide left-wing cover for the Occupation (and in fairness you have done an excelent job).

                    Thank you for the compliment but this is not a "job", just something I believe in. Funny enough but no one on my side really cares what I write. They don't know me from a hole in the wall. I believe my own stuff but for the most part, the Israelis would just say "meh"....

                    You support and defend a process of continued Occupation that can never get to the point you say you want, because Israel does not want that.

                    WRONG... WRONG.. WRONG... I don't want the Occupation to continue any more than you do. What the hell do I want to see Israeli troops tear gassing demonstrators, or sending Jewish kids out to man checkpoints in areas they are not welcome?  NO.. the Occupation has to end but it has to end with Israeli security. That can happen, and perhaps their passing on this deal (if it was true) was and will be a critical mistake.

                    Only one thing about this gets me... and heath says it below and in diary.. this is not a deal that would be accepted by those here or by the Palestinian polity. So, if it was not, would Israeli territorial concessions truly make sense?

                    However, I believe at some point you have to take a chance for peace. If this was offered.. this was a good one and if Israel passed on it then shame on them.  

                    I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                    by volleyboy1 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:21:15 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  As usual, I think we'd all benefit (8+ / 0-)

                      from not making this personal. Not merely for the sake of civility, bot for analytical accuracy: as volleyboy rightly says, what he as an individual writes and thinks is of no more significance than what I think, or what weasel thinks.

                      volley, weasel's substantive point is that American 'liberal Zionists' have in practiced been complicit in the occupation. By championing an obviously cynical 'peace process', by buying into the fiction (repeated by implication in your comment, despite being again debunked in the Palestine Papers) that the problem on the Israeli side is confined to Likud and the 'right wing', by perpetuating a narrative of false equivalence, and most of all by failing to do anything about any of this, aside from opposing BDS and so on, 'liberal Zionists' have, intentionally or otherwise, damaged efforts to end the occupation.

                      That's the substantive critique. It's being raised now because the content of the papers decisively debunk the standard 'liberal Zionist' positions - support for the "peace process" and the belief that the problem is confined to the Israeli 'right-wing' - and expose as hollow the reflexive 'liberal Zionist' rhetoric about the need for "both sides to compromise", the "rejectionists on both sides", "every side has made mistakes", and so on.

                      •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        livosh1, Captain C, Mets102

                        As usual, I think we'd all benefit from not making this personal. Not merely for the sake of civility, bot for analytical accuracy:......

                        I would thank you for saying this but you just uprated a comment calling myself and others "useful idiots" so pardon me if I don't.

                        'liberal Zionists' have, intentionally or otherwise, damaged efforts to end the occupation.

                        No, we haven't done things the way the Palestinians or their supporters want us to do things. That is not the same. We don't and won't support BDS because we view it as an attack on Israel in general. It's clear that despite trying to be all things to all people BDS' goals are to bring about a One State solution. WE do support a boycott on settlement made products, but that is not enough for the "Israel de-legitimization crowd".

                        I think what is clear here is that you are seeking a solution based on Palestinian terms or what you think would be most fair for the Palestinians. I am not. I am seeking a solution that would secure Israel in the long run as a Jewish State and as the National homeland of the Jewish people.

                        In that solution I believe that minorities in Israel and the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories should be treated fairly because it is the right thing for an advanced society to do. At the same time I don't believe in Israeli national suicide.

                        You talk about us being reflexive. Well, history didn't start in 2008 with Kadima rejecting a reasonable compromise (IFindeed this is all true). This conflict started a long time ago and so I (and I think) we take that into account.

                        I still believe negotiations are the best way to go, so I agree with J Street. However, frankly I am starting to think (thanks to you folks here) that a unilateral withdrawal along modified 1967 lines is what should happen.

                        I think we are simply arguing from two different places and there may not be a solution.

                        I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                        by volleyboy1 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:24:48 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

          •  I think we pretty much know now that (5+ / 0-)

            the rejectionist front is Israel. But don't underestimate the power of liberal zionism to delude itself that, despite the evidence outlined in this diary, that Israel never rejected massive Palestinian concessions.

            "I have a vision of our rights as indigenous people. We didn't migrate to Israel; it is Israel that migrated to us." Haneen Zoabi, interview in the New Stateman

            by Fire bad tree pretty on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:55:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I support a two state settlement (7+ / 0-)

          and I also think the papers reveal the PA to be corrupt, ineffective and pathetically servile (cf. the diary). So I don't think the contrast you draw - between those who aren't troubled by the contents of the papers, and those who don't support a two-state settlement - is a legitimate one.

          Issacharoff's argument was that the PA has effectively managed to portray Al Jazeera's leaking of the papers as a smear and a calculated attack by the network against Fatah, in the interests of Hamas, Iran, Syria, Quatar or Al Jazeera bosses who are trying to be the new Wikileaks, depending on which PA official you listen to. He pointed to the angry protests outside and inside the Al Jazeera offices in Ramallah today as evidence of this. But his claim is not that Abbas's supporters are happy with what the papers reveal; it is that the supporters don't believe the papers are genuine.

          Like I say, I think Chatham House's take is much more plausible, and I don't trust Issacharoff anyway.

          Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian suggests that the papers won't cause much of a stir inside Israel, and I think he's right. What they show, essentially, is that the Israeli government is as rejectionist in private as it is in public. They also show that Israel 'moderate' opposition is in fact borderline Kahanist, and that Palestinians have been willing (as everyone knows) to make major concessions on every issue at the heart of the conflict. But Israeli opinion has moved so far to the right that I doubt this will have much effect.

          Internationally, at the state level, the papers will surprise no-one. The U.S. government in particular will obviously not be surprised, given that it was one of the parties involved. One area in which the papers might make a difference is US public opinion - but that depends on liberal activists making the effort to publicise them and make them a political issue.

          •  heath... first of all "fair enough" response. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mets102

            and I would like to say the tone of your post is appreciated.

            I do have a quibble with your comment that you "support a Two-State" solution. I believe that you support two states one being Palestine, the other being a multi-ethnic state nominally called Israel (patterned on the U.S. or European democratic models WITH Palestinian RoR to that state of "Israel") but not having any of the features the Jewish State was created to have. I and most others do not consider that support of a "two State" solution.

            BUT... I generally agree with you that there will be a grassroots effect. I also agree with you that they could make a difference in U.S. public opinion.

            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:50:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  As for whether it 'strengthens Abbas' (7+ / 0-)

          abroad - with who exactly? The US and Israel already know about what he's been up to, which is precisely why they have built up his repressive regime.

        •  Except (6+ / 0-)

          I think it gives the PA traction with the Quartet, the U.S. and so forth because it shows a willingness to be realistic to a Two-State Solution.

          Except the US knew all of this the whole time (remember, the US was in those meetings).

          "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

          by weasel on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:41:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I should have clarified (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mets102

            it strengthens the Palestinians (I think) in U.S. public opinion. It may have no affect at all but I hardly see what is controversial about what I just said.

            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:52:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It *could* do (6+ / 0-)

              it won't automatically do so. As we see from the NYT coverage so far, or from Jennifer Rubin's piece in the Washington Post that manages to cite the papers as evidence of Palestinian rejectionism, if left to the mainstream media alone the papers will have little effect. If the American liberal-left decides to get off its collective arse and start publicising them, then some progress might be made. But sadly I haven't seen any sign of that happening. Did I miss something?

              •  Well you rejected J Streets (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                livosh1, Mets102

                statement above but they are doing exactly what you asked for. They are rejecting the Israeli narrative and for telling the U.S. to stop screwing around and be serious about getting both sides to the table.

                I mean that is the same conclusion I come too. That if indeed this is what was offered, then Israel "has some 'splainin" to do.

                I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                by volleyboy1 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:30:30 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  As soon as the papers were leaked (9+ / 0-)

                  J Street put out a statement calling for a return to the "peace process". Sorry, that's pathetic, and damaging.

                  More generally, it's not good enough to talk vaguely about the need for the U.S. to take a harder line. We know what needs to happen - the U.S. has to start conditioning military and other aid to Israel on and end of the occupation. For that to happen American progressives and liberals have to start seriously organising to change government policy and start winning over public opinion. A group like J Street isn't best placed to do that; American progressive activists and organisations are, not least because they can connect the issue of U.S. support for the occupation to broader issues of popular concern (corporate control of media, undemocratic policymaking, American imperialism, etc.). But unless I've missed something, they've been silent on the issue. If that continues then of course the Palestine Papers will have no effect - how can they?

                  •  Changing American policy is a toughie (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    livosh1, Mets102

                    The American polity despite claims of victory by the far left is not about to give up on the State of Israel. See your comment here:

                    American progressive activists and organisations are, not least because they can connect the issue of U.S. support for the occupation to broader issues of popular concern (corporate control of media, undemocratic policymaking, American imperialism, etc.).

                    tells it all.

                    America is a blend of people and our ideas are not dogmatic left or (despite what people here say) dogmatic right. U.S. progressives don't see us as always being the bad guy or seeing the things like International Solidarity as more important than dealing with things at home.

                    You need to understand, that if the other side is just as bad or worse than the current regime then why should American Progressive support that alternative?

                    American Liberals generally like Israel. Sorry but that is a fact. We may not like things about Israel (such as the Occupation, or this rejection IF it happened or Avigdor Lieberman) but over time we see Israel as an ally and we support the concept of a Jewish State.

                    My opinion is that if you want American Liberal support for this or you think it is going to happen then you need to define this in terms that American Liberals can get behind. There is far more history to this conflict than what Tzipi Livni or Ehud Olmert did in 2008. They may have squandered an opportunity then, would that same offer be still rejected if Kadima/Avodah/Meretz were in power now... I don't know.

                    I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                    by volleyboy1 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 05:01:10 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site