Daily Kos

Israel vs. Palestine

Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 02:33:34 PM PDT

The Israeli Prime Minister suffers a serious stroke sending a shockwave through the Middle East, profoundly affecting the course of the peace process but here at DKos it barely causes a ripple? Does Iraq completely engulf the field here, leaving no room to pay attention to the rest of the Middle East? I don't think that's what it is... I think, that despite this site's high aspirations which it usually lives up to, people are afraid to discuss Israel vs. Palestine because they think it's too sensitive.

But that's just the thing. It isn't Israel vs. Palestine; at least not in the minds of many on both sides. Lets not delude ourselves, there is quite clearly a conflict that has no easy resolution, but there are plenty of people on both sides who, while in disagreement on many points, come to the discussion in good faith. This discussion should be one we are having here.

More on the flip.

There are lots of people, and many on DKos I'm sure, who are honest, reasonable, and honorable, on both sides of this debate. I think we are stifling them - every discussion need not descend into people calling each others butchers and terrorists. There are very few saints in this conflict, both sides have their hands dirty, both sides have done unforgivable things. If we want to get caught in that cycle of recriminations we could, there would be merit to points made on both sides, but it leads us nowhere.

I don't know if there will be peace in the Middle East in my lifetime, but there will be a two state solution. Everyone knows pretty much what it's going to look like, even though the devil is very much in the details here. It also doesn't take a genius to recognize that it will not be a just peace, in the sense that the outcome is truly fair, because that outcome is impossible. There are overlapping claims to justice that simply can't be reconciled; we will have to live with a degree of injustice, that's life, but it should be minimized as much as possible.

So where does that leave us here at DKos?

Let me just say this: I'd like to see an open, honest, supportive, and constructive conversation happen here, like it does on many important issues. We - by which I mean those people, like me, who would like to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict solved as justly as possible, and an end to the violence - all want the same thing. Sure we disagree about many things, that's inevitable, and the whole point of discussion. We need understanding not name calling.

And to get us started:

I'll be the first to admit, as I've posted earlier, that I've got serious reservations about Ariel Sharon and his character as a human being. But I was, before his recent stroke, optimistic for the first time in years, that he was leading the peace process in the right direction. There is cause for skepticism about what Sharon is trying to achieve with the separation wall and it's placement, even though I believe, as a concept it may have some merit.

At the same time, what we witnessed this summer, with the handover of Gaza, was something only Sharon could have achieved. Because of his stature and his history, Sharon was able to withdraw from Gaza in a way that a leftist government could not have. In the same way, Sharon was in a unique position to make peace with the Palestinians because he could make concessions coming from the right that would never be allowed of the left. With the establishment of the centrist Kadima party, Sharon was on the way to forming a coalition government with the Labor party that would have a majority in the Knesset and was well positioned to move towards peace. I believe that this was a major development and a huge opportunity to move towards lasting peace.

Now that Sharon has suffered this stroke, all this is up in the air. It could collapse back to where we were before, or worse. From recent polls however, Netanyahu's Likud party still is only getting 17 seats (of 120) and people are still behind Kadima (37 seats) and, to a lesser extent, Labor (20 seats). It's possible that recent developments have created an inertia in the political and social landscape that do not require Sharon to proceed. Maybe it will succeed better without him. But there is no obvious successor to Sharon, at least none with great credentials (unless you consider Peres' Nobel Peace prize a great credential, but he has failed politically too many times to have much credibility any more; see Bills, Buffalo).

Who will succeed Sharon as the head of Kadima? What will the consequences be - will they still win in the elections? Palestinian elections are coming soon, too. What will the reaction be to events in Israel. Hamas will be running in these elections. How will they do? What will Israel's response be. How will Hamas govern - will they be able to be a political party and conduct terrorist attacks at the same time? How will the respond when they have to lead instead of criticize?

What will happen next is anybody's guess. I'd like to hear yours.

Poll

I support:

28%28 votes
24%24 votes
46%46 votes
2%2 votes

| 100 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Ariel Sharon (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 89 comments

  •  Dangerous waters? (none / 1)

    I really hope that we can have a supportive and constructive conversation here. That's what this community is all about to me.
  •  Ariel Sharon (4.00 / 2)

    There was an interesting column by Henry Siegman the director of the New York based US/Middle East Project and former head of the American Jewish Congress in today's edition of The Observer.

    linked text

    In his view Sharon had absolutely no intention of pursuing the policies necessary to achieve a just settlement and thus peace with the Palestinians. If he is correct, and I think he is, then Sharon's health problems and the end of his political career are unlikely to make a long term difference to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict unless his successor moves Israeli policy in a different direction.

    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. William Ewart Gladstone

    by uklibdems on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 02:49:43 PM PDT

    •  Read the article (none / 0)

      Just one reading of what's going on, and not a particularly insightful one. He basically looked at what was going and said, "nope, may look good but I don't believe it." He may be right, but has no real justification for his positions, and is in disagreement with a lot of other people. Do we know what Sharon would have done? No, we don't. But his surging popularity, particularly with the left which used to hate him bitterly, is on the basis of his promise to bring peace. So even if he is not being honest, he may still be an unwilling agent in the move towards peace.
  •  A More Revealing Poll Would Have Been (none / 1)

    Which party bears greatest responsibility for the continued violence between Israel and Palestine?

    A. Israel
    B. Palestinians
    C. USA
    D. The entire Arab world
    E. Neocons

    The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by easong on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 03:00:07 PM PDT

  •  Man of peace? (4.00 / 5)

    In my view, Sharon was doing all he could to make a two-state solution impossible, by making any sort of VIABLE Palestinian state impossible.  The "abandonment" of Gaza, I think, was intended as a counterfoil to further encroachment/control/domination in the West Bank.

    I don't know enough about Israeli internal politics to comment, and so won't even try to predict what sort of political constellation might form there in the post-Sharon period, but I have the feeling that, due to relentless Israeli efforts to create "facts on the ground", the window for any reasonable two-state solution may already have closed.

    On the Palestinian side, it seems to me that the recent trend toward more radical and Islamist-oriented politics is likely to continue, to the benefit of no one, but in a sense as the inevitable result of the situation the Palestinians are in.

    I look forward to comments by others who are more knowledgeable (and hopefully more optimistic) than I, but find it hard to see a happy ending anywhere on the near horizon.

  •  I would like to see peace in Israel/Palestine ... (none / 1)

    ... so that both Israelis and Palestinians could go about their lives in safety and security and have genuine hope of making a better world for their children.

    However, I will admit my prejudice. The long-term safety and security of the Israeli people comes first in my priorities. Part of my feeling comes within the context of what has happened to Jewish people during and since WWII. I buy into the meme "never again."

    The removal of Ariel Sharon as a political player will undoubtedly delay any peace process. It will take a while for a new Israeli government to consolidate itself after the March elections and be strong enough to agree to new peace proposals and sell them to the people of Israel.

    A bigger problem for the Israeli government will be in finding a peace partner. The Palestinians are badly divided (e.g., Gaza is essentially lawless by all reports), with Hamas forecast to make large gains in the upcoming election to be held this month in the Palestinian areas.

    I can't see a new Israeli government agreeing to negotiate with Hamas, or a Palestinian government with major Hamas representation. So, the immediate prospects for peace do not look promising. At best, I think it will be an achievement just to keep the situation from deteriorating further.

    •  I agree with your initial sentiment, but!! (none / 0)

      Israeli policies radicalise Palestinian politics and then you complain that they have no one with whom they can do a deal..........interesting!

      "The long-term safety and security of the Israeli people comes first in my priorities". So the dispossession of the Palestinian people and their long-term  safety and security is only a secondary issue. Are they not entitled to enjoy exactly the same human rights as the Israelis or are they somehow a lesser people in your mind?

      Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. William Ewart Gladstone

      by uklibdems on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 03:17:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Read my first sentence ... (none / 0)

        ... and you will see that I wish peace and posperity for all people in Israel/Palestine, both Israelis and Palestinians. However, I know the history of the Jewish people and cannot ignore the political context of the past 60 years, so, yes, my first priority is the safety and security of the Israeli people. Having that as an initial assumption for any settlement in the area does not preclude having the same for Palestinians. It is simply that I am not willing to see the U.S. work for any Middle East peace that does not absolutely guarantee the safety and security of the nation of Israel and Israeli people. If that is seen as a hindrance by those whose primary allegiance is to the Palestinians, then we have a problem.
        •  There are no guarentees of safety ever (4.00 / 2)

          so the Palestinians will have to live in limbo forever in your book.  We all know the histroy of the Jewish people, it doesn't mean they have a right to do what they have been doing.  It hasn't kept them safe anyway. The most unsafe place on earth to be a jew is Israel, and the reason they are unsafe is they are segregated.  Palestinians live as second class citizens and if you attack and is Israeli area no arabs are killed.
          •  No, the Palestinians must simply ... (none / 0)

            ... guarantee that people living within Palestinian territory will not attack Israelis, and they must establish a government with enough control to enforce such an agreement. That guarantee can be made by the Palestinians if they do indeed want peace with Israel. The U.S. or U.N. can be brought in to monitor the guarantee. Okay, crazies will be able to cause an occasional disruption, but the overall guarantee can be implimented.
            •  They have recognized Israel already (none / 0)

              They don't have much of an ability to implement anything, the Israelis won't let the pa have guns.  The other issue is that Israelis simply want the land palestinians live on, and nothing the Palestinians say will change this. The bulldozings continue even in times of relative peace.

              The issue is that there simply can be no equality under the rule of an officially Jewish state, any more then there can be equality under an ethnic state. It just can't happen. Israelis don't want Palestinians living there and they will seek any excuse to move them.

              •  Gaza has shown ... (none / 0)

                ... that it is not Israeli occupation that is the problem with respect to establishing civil order among Palestinians.
                •  That presumes wrongly that the occupation (none / 0)

                  ended with the pullup of the settlements.  It didn't.  The Israelis make regular incursion on the west bank and control its Israeli and Egyptian boarders. They also maintain no fly and no float zones all around it.  Furthermore it has been less than 6 months since Israel left which is hardly anytime to recover, particularly given a nearly 60% unemployment rate.  
                  •  Well, even making allowances ... (none / 0)

                    ... I can see no evidence that the Palestinians in Gaza are any better off under purely Palestinian control than they were under Israeli control, and I have heard no reports of any sustained movement toward setting up a political infrastructure that would give any hope to the people living in Gaza. Perhaps a peace-craving Palestinian structure will develop in Gaza, but, if it doesn't, the problems there can no longer be blamed on the Israelis. This is put-up-or-shut-up time for the Palestinian people living in Gaza. Their fate is in their own hands now. We will see just how peacefully they are willing to live.
                    •  ok (none / 0)

                      but I don't see any evidence the Palestinians are under purely Palestinian control, particularly given there obvious imprisonment, with Israelis deciding what goods go in and out. Setting up a political infrastructure requires cash and with a 60% unemployment rate, and 30% of its children malnourished. Two states is just a reservation or bantustan system anyway.
                      •  So, even if a Palestinian state ... (none / 0)

                        ... is set up, we are still supposed to blame Israel for its failures? I don't think so. The Palestinian people have a chance in Gaza to forge their own destiny now. They have Arab allies with billions of dollars of petro-profits they can go to for assistance. If their kids are malnourished, they can buy food instead of guns and ammunition and plastic explosives. The curtain on self-determination has gone up in Gaza. It's a totally Palestinian show. Let's hope they can get their act together, for their sakes and for the future of their children.

                        PS--The border crossing with Egypt is under Palestinian control.

                        •  They don't have arab allies (none / 0)

                          the petrodollar arabs could give a shit.  Gaza is not big enough to be a state, and frankly the weapons are one of the few things that contribute to the economy given the blockaid.  It won't ever be a Palestinian show, because they don't govern the place.  The israelis do and always will. So they should just fight for citizenship in Israel.
                •  Well I never refuse to swim with sharks (4.00 / 4)


                  ..and have waded into the Isr/Pal conflict many times.

                  For myself I don't buy into the Jews "never again" side or the Hamas  'drive them into the sea side"...I do buy into cut out the bullshit excuses and settle this period.

                  This has been a land grab fight since the begining. All the other "rehortic" is just that.

                  If the US had a congress that was not Israeli occupied and the taxpayer financied weapons brokering ponzi scheme with Israel and our military industrial complex weren't so profitable for them and their paid hookers in congress this would have been settled long ago.

                  To end it is simple...cut off Isr's aid money until they completely vacate all their setlements...send in international troops  to help control Gaza and hunt down terrorist on both sides if necessary, pump money and outside human talent into Palestine to jump start them into getting organized and get their economy going so their focus is on having a life for a change.

                  And to all the Israel supporters who say the Arabs have done nothing to help...guess what, you are right...but if enabler sugar daddy US put it's foot down and did as I said above, the Arabs would jump on the bandwagon so fast it would make your's, mine, the Israelis and everyone's head spin.

                  Each state keeps it's original boarders and it's natural resources...if Israel wants water from Palestine, they have to BUY it...if Palestine needs to travel roads and use ports or facilities of the Israelis, they have to PAY for it...

                  This is a rare case where I would say enforce it at the end of a gun barrel if necessary, this game and killing has gone on long enough.

                  And now that we have now created a hell on earth in Iraq and pissed off the entire world it is even more imperative that we settle the Isr/Pal issue before the entire region becomes a huge nuke crater.

                  Hypocrisy in anything may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it....

                  by Cal45 on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 07:41:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  impossible (none / 0)

              The United States government can not guarantee that there are no Al Queda terrorists in our own country. Neither can the UK, France, Germany, Spain, etc. It's simply impossible for Palestians guarantee no Palestine will ever attack Israel.

              "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert

              by Monkey In Chief on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 04:40:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Read my initial reply.......... (4.00 / 3)

          ......which acknowledges and agrees with your opening comment.

          I'm not sure why the suffering of one people trumps the suffering of another people over the same timescale in your mind. Any settlement which does not provide for the peace and prosperity of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples will not succeed. I find it very sad that you would be willing to accept a resolution which addresses your priorities without at the same time also ensuring equivalency of outcome to the other human beings involved in this conflict.  

          Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. William Ewart Gladstone

          by uklibdems on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 03:47:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  well, as an American (none / 1)

          ..I have a problem with that statement...

          We do not owe Israel a guarentee of anything more than we owe Palestine...Why do you think we do?..Israel is a foreign country, not part of the United States.

          I am concerned with two things only;

          Number One...What is FAIR to both sides.

          Number Two...That the US regain it's reputation for evenhanded fairness and treatment of EVERYONE and rid itself of the undue influence of the right wing Israeli lobby that has impeded a settlement and diminished the US in the eyes of the world.

          And in all kindness, with due respect to your feelings, but in total honestly  I have to say if you have a problem with this line of thought than you have a problem with being an American because that is what we are about..or were about and will be again.

          Hypocrisy in anything may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it....

          by Cal45 on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 07:55:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Bias under the guise of equality (none / 0)

        Israeli policies radicalise Palestinian politics

        That's an entirely one-sided view because it ignores the parallel process whereby Palestinian policies radicalize Israeli politics. It works both ways, and when you try to pass the buck entirely onto the Israelis, you're irresponsibily simplifying the situation.

        Are they [Palestinians] not entitled to enjoy exactly the same human rights as the Israelis or are they somehow a lesser people in your mind?

        As to your next question, of course Palestinians should be afforded exactly the same human rights as Israelis, and I think the grandparent would agree with that sentiment. I would guess that (s)he is looking at the bigger picture than you. Namely, you apparently only see dispossession of Palestinian lands in regards to this conflict, while the grandparent sees the dispossession of Jewish land as well.

        In other words, the Palestinian/Israeli conflict goes beyond just Palestine/Israel and involves global anti-Semitism. And by ignoring that concept, which is a key historical component to one side of the conflict, you're deluding yourself when you try to talk about a just solution.

        The ONLY thing the Republicans are successful in is marketing their talking points to the public.

        by jeffwass on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 03:40:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Israelis set up segregation though (none / 0)

          I don't think equality is possible under those conditions.

          The dispossession happened 2000 years ago. The disposession of the american indians less than 150 years ago.  The dispossession of the welsh by saxons from Britain less than 1500 years ago, and the dispossession of the celts by germans from austria happened at that time as well.  We shouldn't they take precedent?   The only way you make sense is if your advocating multiculturalism, which of coarse you aren't.  

          Rosalind Kurita for US Senate Unofficial Blog Just say no to Harold Ford!

          by Moonchild on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 04:47:55 PM PDT

          •  Are you a troll? (none / 0)

            Or are you just exteremely ignorant of history of the conflict that doesn't have an overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian viewpoint? I think you're either a troll or just naively blinded by your bias. For the time-being I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though.

            When I talk about dispossession of Jewish land, I'm talking about not just anti-Semitism of the past thousand years that has pushed them from place to place, but specifically events in the past century. Namely I refer to the the following three generalizations

            • Jews pushed off their land due to pograms in Russia and elsewhere in Eastern Europe (100-150 years ago)
            • Jews pushed off their land in German-allied countries before/during/after the Holocaust (60 years ago)
            • Jews pushed off their land from Arab countries after the creation of Israel (60 years ago to present)

            These instances are vital to understanding why immigration to Israel/Palestine occurred, the basis of the Zionist movement (and I mean real Zionism, not right-wing Likudism), and why the UN and nearly the entire world decided to create a Jewish state in the region.

            If anyone wants to settle the conflict, they must take these points into consideration. People like you pass the buck entirely onto the Israelis, and say it's their policies that radicalize the Palestinians, etc. However, a wider view of history suggests it works both ways and that after these Jewish dispossessions, Palestinian terror is similarly radicalizing Israeli policy.

            So if you REALLY want peace, and if you REALLY want a just solution to the conflict you better take these points into consideration.

            The ONLY thing the Republicans are successful in is marketing their talking points to the public.

            by jeffwass on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 04:16:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Palestinians didn't do any of those things (none / 0)

              and you are forgetting that the disposession from Arab countries was a responce to dispossesion of Palestinains that happened in 48 not to mention things like the Lavon affair.  Israel was segregated from the beginning.  People shouldn't get to take countries from others just because they were oppressed.  

              I am not a troll because I defend Palestinians.   People don't have an obligation to side with the Israelis.

              •  Historical Context (2.00 / 4)

                The Palestinians didn't do any of those things

                Of course they didn't, and I was anticipating you responding to this. Hence I'll repeate the paragraph I wrote previously. These instances are vital to understanding why immigration to Israel/Palestine occurred, the basis of the Zionist movement (and I mean real Zionism, not right-wing Likudism), and why the UN and nearly the entire world decided to create a Jewish state in the region.

                you are forgetting that the disposession from Arab countries was a responce to dispossesion of Palestinains that happened in 48

                That's the most asanine thing I've ever heard, are you really condoning this? Dispossessing some Jews because other Jews dispossessed some Palestinians? That's Anti-Semitism in its rawest form - punishing some Jews entirely because of the fact that they're Jewish. You really must be a racist, troll, or a total idiot. Did you also condone the anti-Muslim backlash in the US and around the world after 9/11? That's logically the same thing.

                And furthermore, according to your logic, if you justify Jewish expulsion from Arab lands in response to the Israeli War of Independence in 1948, then you have to also logically justify the Palestinian expulsion from Israel after the Arab invasions which initiated the War of Independence.

                Israel was segregated from the beginning.

                Yup, it was just as segregated as both Jordan and Palestine would be, as defined in the Balfour declaration as well as the UN partition plan. But wait - did you know that no Jew was allowed to live in Jordan after the partition? Yup, that makes Jordan even more segregated than you try to make Israel out to be. In fact, Jews still today cannot legally own land in Jordan. But who's counting?

                People shouldn't get to take countries from others just because they were oppressed.

                Yay, we finally agree on something! Hooray!

                But as I said previously, a just solution for ALL parties needs to recount WHY many Jews have been immigrating to Palestine for the past 100 years.

                People don't have an obligation to side with the Israelis.

                Certainly not, but if people really want peace and want a just solution, they must side with BOTH parties in the conflict. You, unfortunately, are just as ignorant, or dismissive, about key points of the conflict as a right-wing Likud guy.

                You have already sided AGAINST the Israelis, and are therefore not conducive to peace or justice in the region.

                You are also too steeped in one-sided bias, so I'm also not going to humor you with more responses on this topic. Good day.

                The ONLY thing the Republicans are successful in is marketing their talking points to the public.

                by jeffwass on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 05:06:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  land dispossession (none / 0)

              I do not find the dispossession of Jeiwsh land arguments compelling because nobody applies the same principle to other groups. For example, Native Americans were dispossesed of much greater quanities of land and I never see anyone arguing that large sections of the United States, much less most of it, should be given back to Native Americans. For the dispossession of Jewish land to be a logically compelling argument for dispossessing the Palestinians of their land, the argument would have be part of a larger framework for compensation of dispossed land for any ethnic group.

              "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert

              by Monkey In Chief on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 04:47:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Equality without bias (4.00 / 3)

          1/ I suggest you look at the day to day lives and
             experiences of Israelis and Palestinians and
             then perhaps you will understand why I take
             the view that I do.

          2/ Leaving aside the obvious point that Palestin-
             ians are also a semitic people, they are not
             responsible for world anti-semitism and
             certainly they should not be deprived of their
             human rights because of it. Yes, I do only see
             the dispossession of Palestinian lands as a
             relevant issue in this conflict because it is
             within historic memory of the participants. I'm
             afraid I don't subscribe to the myth that
             Israel was a 'land without a people for a
             people without a land'.

          3/ Finally I may be deluded in seeking a just
             settlement to the conflict but so are those who
             think that this can be achieved without a
             solution based essentially on the 1967 borders
             and with the issues of Jerusalem and refugees
             addressed. Even Arafat couldn't deliver a deal
             without these issues resolved and certainly his
             much weaker successors will not be able to.

          Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. William Ewart Gladstone

          by uklibdems on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 04:13:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Responses (none / 0)

            Please see my response to moonchild above, it references very similar points to those you bring up.

            In order, though, here's a quick summary.

            1 - I have, have you?
            2 - I am referring specifically to the anti-Semitism and displacement of Jews historically from pograms, the Holocaust, and in Arab lands after Israel's creation. These are all just as recent as you say Palestine is. These points describe the fundamental tenet of why Israel exists in the first place, and the third of these is another example of why it's necessary.
            3 - You bring up good points and they aren't easily solved as perhaps you think they might be. When you say refugees do you also mean Jewish refugees of Arab countries, kicked out after Israel's creation, that I alluded to previously? Arafat REFUSED to compromise. He, and you, may have thought every proposal given to him was unfair. But he NEVER offered a compromise, he just kept saying NO NO NO NO.

            The ONLY thing the Republicans are successful in is marketing their talking points to the public.

            by jeffwass on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 04:22:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Responses (4.00 / 2)

              1/ Yes, my brother is a journalist who has worked
                 in Israel and the Occupied Territories and has
                 experienced at first hand the differing lives
                 of Israelis and Palestinians.

              2/ I guess I'm naive but I cannot accept that the
                 dispossession of Jewish people in Europe
                 justifies the dispossession of the Palestinian
                 people. One injustice simply becomes two. In
                 addition the expulsion of Jewish people from
                 many, although not all Arab countries, while
                 obviously not justified was a response to the
                 creation of Israel not a cause.

              3/ I don't think a solution is simple. I'm simply
                 pointing out that it won't be achieved without
                 addressing these points. Arafat was a very far
                 from perfect leader but he knew what he could
                 and couldn't deliver politically. The idea
                 someone more 'moderate' was going to come
                 along and deliver a peace deal on lesser
                 terms than him was always a falacy. With regard
                 to Jewish refugees from Arab countries I'm not
                 sure what you mean. If you mean should they be
                 allowed to enter Israel then the answer is yes.
                 If you are referring to restitution then this
                 would depend on bilateral deals with the
                 relevant countries. It might form part of a
                 final settlement but you can't expect a        
                 solution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to
                 be dependent on whether, say Libya agrees to
                 pay up.

               

              Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. William Ewart Gladstone

              by uklibdems on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 04:55:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Please (none / 0)

                read again, I think you're misunderstanding me. I think we have alot more common ground than you seem to indicate.

                Regarding Point #2, Of course anti-Semitism doesn't justify the injustices caused to the Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis, and I never ever said, nor implied, it did. My point is that if someone will find a real solution, a solution that doesn't just appease one side, but works for EVERYBODY in the region, it's going to have to ensure EVERYBODY has freedom, human rights, and security. I think we agree on that, right?

                Now, what I've been trying to say, probably pretty poorly because the resopnses don't seem to match what I meant, is that it's not only Palestinians that are pushed to violent extremes due to injustice, it's Jews as well. And given the pre-history of anti-Semitism (which certainly was a major factor in the UN partitioning Israel in teh first place) the more hawkish Jews in the region will need to be assured of their safety and freedom _if_ they will embrace a more peaceful plan.

                And finally, you misread me because I also never said that Arab displacement of Jews contributed to Israel's founding. It's an example of why hawkish Israeli Jews are prone to be hawkish, though. And if you want them to be dovish, then the solution will need to alleviate their concerns about feeling safe.

                For #3, we are in much agreement. There is no simple answer, and hey, if someone really was able to do something easily workable they'd almost be assured of the Nobel Peace prize.

                I think Sharon erred in that he didn't work bilaterally with the pullout in Gaza. If he had just allowed a bit more consultation w/ the Palestinian leadership then it could create more of a message that it was a mutual effort that lead to the pullout.

                Similarly I think Sharon also erred w/ Abbas, I feel Sharon should have embraced him more than he did, to give more credibility to a moderate such as Abbas. Especially now since Sharon is worried about Hamas in the elections. If he would have embraced Abbas more seriously, the Hamas threat would have been reduced.

                The ONLY thing the Republicans are successful in is marketing their talking points to the public.

                by jeffwass on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 11:31:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  History (none / 0)

            I guess if you reach back in your history books you will find anything to back up your arguments. Unfortunately, history does not equate to peace, it only equates to conflict. I can look at history and find something to back up the claim that the US is the most bigotted nation in history. I can find in history how liberals destroyed governments, declared unjust wars, you name it. What is the difference in 2006 what the history of the conflict is? If you want to relive 1948 history, that's fine. It won't bring peace, it will only make you feel better personally knowing you think you know everything about the conflict. Big deal. Buses will continue to blow school children up, poverty and oppression will still go on in refugee camps. Your history is meaningless.

            You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war..... Albert Einstein,

            by tazz on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 05:38:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  most of us agreed we would not (none / 1)

          ..get into the 'anti-semitism" stuff when discussing the Isr/Pal conflict..as it has nothing to do with "the Jews" as a group, especially since as many are against the occupation as are for it..and since 99.9% of people discussing this know very well what Israel does is by way of their government "leaders' not the bulk of Israelis or Jews.

          So let's not feed the beast.

          Hypocrisy in anything may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it....

          by Cal45 on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 08:01:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  huh? (none / 0)

            I'm not talking about anti-Semitism today regarding Jews or Israel, I was specifically talking about it's role in the past century (namely pre-1950) that helped lead to the creation of Israel. But hey, I was also watching Fiddler on the Roof today too, so maybe this was just fresher in my mind than for most others.

            The ONLY thing the Republicans are successful in is marketing their talking points to the public.

            by jeffwass on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 11:14:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting (none / 0)

        Arab countries started 4 wars during the last 60 years with the explicit goal of wiping Israel off the map, Palestinians walked away from a peace proposal 5 years ago without a counteroffer and started an intifada instead, only 2 out of 22 arab countries recognize Israel's right to exist... But that's Israeli policies that are radicalizing Palestinian politics. Come on.
        •  Why do you repeat the same old lies? (none / 1)

          It was Rabin not the Palestinians who walked away from the peace process.

          And yes, Israel's policies and day to day treatment of Palestinians has radicalised them. The blatant racism, the intimidation, the destruction and appropriation of property, the disruption of basic vital services such as ambulances, the loss of access to water resources, the refusal to allow Palestinians to build much needed homes in many areas, disruption of their economy. The list is endless. I'm afraid you need to start living in the real world. Any people would be driven to extremes under the stresses and pressures which the Palestinian people have to endure over the decades.

          Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. William Ewart Gladstone

          by uklibdems on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 04:30:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What does it have to do with Rabin (none / 0)

            I was talking about Arafat walking away from Barak/Clinton proposal without a counteroffer and starting intifada.

            And yeah, you can certainly come up with a list of palestinian grievances, some of which are legitimate and others are not. And I can come up with an equally long list of Israeli grievances - wars, intifadas, terror attacks, tens of thousands of civilians killed by palestinian terrorists etc.

            There are no saints in this conflict but you might as well take into account such "insignificant" facts as who did and who did not accept 1948 partition of  Palestine, who started wars, who vowed to drive the enemy into the sea, who still have not recoginized the opponents right to exist. When you recognize all these facts you can claim that you're living in the real world.

            •  He couldn't make a counteroffer Barak (none / 0)

              cutt off negotiations.   The Palestinains didn't start the first war. They were kicked out of their homes. They tends to rile people up.
              •  You've got to do better than that. (none / 0)

                Bill Clinton: "I regret that in 2000 he [Arafat] missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being, and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace,"

                "Right after the UN partition plan was approved, joint Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi troops invaded Palestine, which Israel, the United States, the Soviet Union, and UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie called illegal aggression.
                ...
                On May 14, the British Mandate expired. The State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation, and was quickly recognized by the Soviet Union, the United States, and many other countries.

                Over the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, 10,000 Egyptian, 4,000 Transjordanian troops and unknown number of Saudi and Yemenite troops invaded Israel."
                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                •  Bill Clinton was probably pandering to (none / 1)

                  some zionist groups.  Barak cut off negotiations. http://www.fair.org/... That is a fact.

                  "The Intifada began on September 29, 2000, when Israeli troops opened fire on unarmed Palestinian rock-throwers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, killing four and wounding over 200 (State Department human rights report for Israel, 2/01). Demonstrations spread throughout the territories. Barak and Arafat, having both staked their domestic reputations on their ability to win a negotiated peace from the other side, now felt politically threatened by the violence. In January 2001, they resumed formal negotiations at Taba, Egypt.

                  The Taba talks are one of the most significant and least remembered events of the "peace process." While so far in 2002 (1/1/02-5/31/02), Camp David has been mentioned in conjunction with Israel 35 times on broadcast network news shows, Taba has come up only four times--never on any of the nightly newscasts. In February 2002, Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz (2/14/02), published for the first time the text of the European Union's official notes of the Taba talks, which were confirmed in their essential points by negotiators from both sides.

                  "Anyone who reads the European Union account of the Taba talks," Ha'aretz noted in its introduction, "will find it hard to believe that only 13 months ago, Israel and the Palestinians were so close to a peace agreement." At Taba, Israel dropped its demand to control Palestine's borders and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians, for the first time, made detailed counterproposals--in other words, counteroffers--showing which changes to the 1967 borders they would be willing to accept. The Israeli map that has emerged from the talks shows a fully contiguous West Bank, though with a very narrow middle and a strange gerrymandered western border to accommodate annexed settlements. "

                  In the end, however, all this proved too much for Israel's Labor prime minister. On January 28, Barak unilaterally broke off the negotiations. "The pressure of Israeli public opinion against the talks could not be resisted," Ben-Ami said (New York Times, 7/26/01).

                  Also the fact that those countries attacked Israel doesn't mean Israel didn't tranfer the arab population. It did.  That is why there are refugee camps. That might be considered an attack on arabs. Don't yah think?

                  •  You article confirms (none / 0)

                    that it was Arafat who walked away from Barak's offer in 2000 during their Camp David negotiations.

                    The article also discusses Taba summit that  took place half a year later in the middle of the second Palestinian intifada during which both parties failed to reach an agreement.
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                    •  Pointless argument (none / 0)

                      God help us if other countries start using the standard, your leader acted like a jackass so Americans can be deprived of their human rights since we're currently governed by one the biggest jackasses to ever be a world leader.

                      "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert

                      by Monkey In Chief on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 09:22:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  I apologise........ (none / 0)

              ......I meant Barak. He walked away from the talks not Arafat.

              The intifadas and indeed terrorist attacks arose out of the treatment of the Palestinians which I outlined. Tens of thousands of Israelis have not died in terrorist attacks. The number is probably less than a thousand and although this is far too many it is far less than the numbers of Palestinians who have died.

              In case you didn't notice the Palestinians have recognised Israel's right to exist.

              Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. William Ewart Gladstone

              by uklibdems on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 05:07:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  How could Rabin walk away? (none / 0)

            Five years ago, he was dead.  

            In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

            by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 10:23:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Many people believe in "never again" (none / 0)

      but not many people buy into the idea that the Palestinians = Nazis.  Israel may get nuked some day, but it will nuke back. It is like America vs Russia in the 80s. and the Israelis aren't suffering as badly as the Palestinians who were left in utter poverty as a result of 48, and are still being made homeless. Whether the pa was corrupt is a non starter, because the Israelis have one of the highest corruption idexes in the west.  Look at Omri Sharon.  Israel empowered Hamas by refusing to negotiate with Arafat.  It also empowered them with faith based intiatives by allowing them to distribute food aid.   It simply doesn't want to negotiate, that was the point of disengagement. Israel was then going to annex the remaining settlements so it wasn't a big deal.  I think people who thought Sharon was going to create peace were deluded by right wing propaganda.  

      I used to be like you but I read Israeli messageboards, and I lost sympathy with them long ago. Even socalled leftists in Israel advocate what is clearly segregation to most liberals here.  The center over there is right wing.    

      I am not happy he is dead. I don't get happy over anyones death but he never gave me hope.  I pay attention to the news over there and Dov Weisglass made it clear that disengagement was a precurser to annexation.  Nothing was loss peace wise by this old mans exit from politics. Nothing was lost.

  •  Mabe now... (4.00 / 2)

    Palestine will get a 'partner in peace'. It's been long overdue & they deserve it.

    Either you're wit' us or a Guinness -- Brilliant!

    by Unforgiven on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 03:08:34 PM PDT

    •  Look up and down (none / 0)

      to the comments just above and below yours.  Your comment assumes that the Palestinians are standing around, ready and willing to do their part.  Reality says otherwise.  For example, just in the past few weeks in Gaza, we have this happening:

      1. Kidnappings of 19 aid workers
      2. Attempted kidnapping of Rachel Corrie's parents (real bright move there)
      3. Following the arrest of someone suspected in the kidnapping of a British aid worker and her parents, Palestinians demonstrated at the Rafah crossing with Egypt, then hijacked a couple of bulldozers and knocked a hole in the border...with hundreds of Palestinians streaming through and clashing with Egyptian troops...2 Egyptian soldiers killed and more than 30 wounded...oh yes, and the PA releasing the suspect as it often does with such arrests
      4. Palestinian militants storming the Rafah crossing a week or so back, and driving away the EU monitors at gunpoint
      5. Palestinian militants shooting up and occupying PA offices and Abbas's residence to protest various issues regarding the upcoming elections

      Clearly, the PA is completely unable to assert any kind of control over Gaza, and the area is in chaos. The PA can't blame Israel for that; it's an internal problem.  Under those circumstances, I'd say the PA is highly unlikely to be able to deliver on any peace agreement it might negotiate.  So why would anyone want to put the time in, when nothing good will come of it?  

      In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

      by Paul in Berkeley on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 03:19:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Myth: attempted kidnapping of Corrie's parents (4.00 / 3)

        ORSCP Press Release:

        News reports stating that the parents of slain American human rights activist Rachel Corrie were the intended targets of an attempted kidnapping Wednesday in Gaza are incorrect. According to Craig and Cindy Corrie, contrary to news reports, the Corries were never threatened with kidnapping, nor did gunmen burst into the house where the Corries were staying.

        In the early morning of January 4, two Palestinian men visited three American members of the Olympia-Rafah Sister City Project (ORSCP) in the home where they were staying in Rafah, a city on Gaza’s border with Egypt. The two men reportedly wanted to hold the three foreigners in exchange for the release of a family member who was arrested by Palestinian security forces for an earlier kidnapping. The Corries were staying in a nearby home and helped to talk the men out of going through with the plan.

        Cindy and Craig Corrie, who are close friends with the ORSCP participants, were visiting Rafah after attending a Palestinian conference on non-violence held last week in Bethlehem.

        The Corries were visiting the Nasrallah family in Rafah. The Nasrallahs had lived in the house that Rachel died defending. Rachel was killed when she was crushed to death by an Israeli military bulldozer in front of the Nasrallah’s home in Rafah on March 16, 2003. Rachel, who grew up in Olympia, Washington, envisioned a sister city project between Olympia and Rafah to promote cultural understanding. Five people from Olympia, friends of Rachel, arrived two months ago in Rafah to work toward that goal. Three of them — Rochelle Gause, Will Hewitt and Serena Becker — were in the apartment when the men arrived at 1:30 a.m. One of the two men was carrying a weapon. The men arrived in two cars with other passengers who remained inside the vehicles.

        ORSCP members had been asked by their Palestinian Rafah sister city counterparts not to travel without Palestinian escorts. Kidnappings have increased in Gaza in the run-up to the January 25 elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), the first PLC elections that Palestinians in Gaza have been able to plan since 1996 due to the Israeli occupation. The three Americans in the apartment remained inside when the two men knocked on their door at 1:30 am, and called Dr. Nasrallah to tell him what was happening.

        Dr. Nasrallah came and talked to the men and invited them to come down to his apartment. He learned that they, and the others in the two vehicles outside, were members of the family of Alaa al-Hamm, who had been arrested by the Palestinian police that evening on charges of involvement in previous kidnapping.

        The Corries, who were staying at Dr. Nasrallah’s home, got up and met the two men in the living room where they all drank tea together and discussed what they and the group of ORSCP participants were doing in Rafah. A neighbor, a Palestinian Authority security officer, also came over and joined the group. After a brief conversation with the security officer, the two men shook Craig and Cindy Corrie’s hands, and, according to Cindy Corrie, told the Corries that they had “great respect for our daughter and for us” and then left..

        Over the next few hours, ORSCP members from Olympia met with their Rafah partners to discuss the situation. “We weren’t just concerned for our own safety,” the ORSCP group said. “We were also concerned about being a burden on the people here who have put so much work into this project.”

        “There is a feeling that things will be calmer after the election,” Cindy Corrie said. “People in the Olympia-Rafah Sister City Project say they plan on continuing their work in Rafah and will organize more people return to Rafah. We plan to visit again as well.”

        Palestinian authority vehicles and cars driven by ORSCP’s Palestinian participants escorted the Corries and the five Olympia participants to Erez Checkpoint without incident Wednesday morning. “All the Palestinians that we worked with were going out of their way to make sure we all remained safe,” Serena Becker said. “We heard today and yesterday how embarrassed they were that these kinds of things were going on.”

        “We will continue to support the Palestinian struggle for freedom and human rights,” the ORSCP participants said in a group statement. “The Israeli occupation has led to the militarization of a portion of Palestinian society and the continued Israeli occupation undermines the ability of Palestinians to have a free society.”

        Cindy Corrie pointed to the upcoming Palestinian Legislative Council elections as a positive sign. “We need to pay attention to these positive things when they happen,” she said.

        •  ORSCP? (none / 0)

          What is ORSCP?  I've never heard of it. My source is Associated Press, a well known international news organization.  The AP story quotes the Nasrallah head of household as saying the kidnappers burst in and tried to hold the Corries, until he was able to convince them of who the hostages were and the kidnappers relented.  So to me, it sounds like the Corries are trying to whitewash what's going on in Gaza, for obvious but pathetic reasons.

          In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

          by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 09:00:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  See (none / 0)

        The original poster asked why this hadn't been brought up. It ends up an argument between the apologists & the realists.

        • There was an arab land
        • The west inserted other people to the land
        • There has been nothing but problems there ever since

        Let's look at Iraq:
        • There were arab lands
        • The west came in, evetualy left leaving an artificial state behind
        • The west came back in to 'fix' things
        • There will be problems from here on

        Either you're wit' us or a Guinness -- Brilliant!

        by Unforgiven on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 04:25:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No such thing as Arab land (none / 0)

          Or Christian land...or Jewish land...or white land...or black land.   There's just land.  Anyway, the UN is over in the east 50s in NYC. If you want to reargue the partition plan from 60 years ago that created two states in that region, have at it.  Ask for Kofi Annan.

          In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

          by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 09:02:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The Israelis.. (4.00 / 4)

         were shooting the Arab Christians and Arab Muslims in the 1940s and 50s.

        eg:
            5 JANUARY 1948 Haganah terrorists made a most barbarous attack at one o'clock in the early morning of Monday, 5 January 1948, at the Semiramis hotel in the Katamon section of Jerusalem, killing innocent people and wounding many. The Jewish Agency terrorist forces blasted the entrance to the hotel by a small bomb and then placed bombs in the basement of the building. As a result of the explosions, the whole building collapsed with its residents. As the terrorists withdrew, they started shooting at the houses in the neighborhood.

            Those killed were: Subhi El-Taher, Moslem; Mary Masoud, Christian; Georgette Khoury, Christian; Abas Awad, Moslem; Nazira Lorenzo, Christian; Mary Lorenzo, Christian; Mohammed Saleh Ahmed, Moslem; Ashur Abed El Razik, Moslem; Ismail Abed El Aziz, Moslem; Ambeer Lorenzo, Christian; Raof Lorenzo, Christian; Abu Suwan, Christian family, seven members, husband, wife and five children. Beside those killed, 16 more were wounded, among them women and children. (6)
        source:From United Nations Security Council Official Records, Supplements for 1948 - Palestine.

        Care to mention that Israelis did not know how to handle their nation?That will be an anti-semitic rhetoric , given the fact Israel now managed to control their own destiny.

        How did Ben Gurion handle these terrorists???

        He wrote to the British:

        "Although officially denouncing anti-British terrorism, Ben-Gurion and the Zionist authority he headed, the Jewish Agency, didn't cooperate with the British in apprehending terrorist suspects or even in calling upon the Jewish community to respect the law. On the one hand Ben-Gurion maintained that on principle he couldn't assist enforcing an unjust occupation. "Without in the least condoning the acts committed," he wrote to British officials, "the Executive considers the policy at present by the Mandatory Government...to be primarily responsible for the tragic situation which has developed in Palestine. The Executive cannot agree that it can in fairness be called upon to appear in the invidious position of assisting in the enforcement of that policy." On the other hand Ben-Gurion pleaded that he had lost control over the Jewish community, which no longer accepted occupation."

        same shit.just different epoch.

        "Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands.Remember all men would be tyrants if they could" - Abigail Adams

        by tinaF on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 05:22:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And this relates to current events (none / 0)

          How?

          Go ahead and pick at scabs from 50 years ago. That's a great roadmap to progress. In the meantime, we'll talk about what's happening now, rather than obsess over events when David Ben-Gurion and Gamal Nasser were running the show.

          In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

          by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 08:57:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Settlers run amuck in the WB (4.00 / 2)

        Recently, in the Occupied West Bank, we have this happening:

        • Jewish drive-by terrorists fired on two Palestinian teenagers, wounding both, near Nablus, Jan. 5th.

        • 2,400 Palestinian olive trees (the Palestinian farmers only means of livlihood -- many trees are generations old.) have been chopped down recently  at various locations in the West Bank by Jewish settlers.

        • Menachem Mazuz: "There's a feeling of lawlessness, that what is most violent prevails," he said. "This phenomenon is one element of the broader phenomenon of a lack of appropriate law enforcement against Israelis in the territories."

        • Judea and Samaria District police: 672 investigation files were opened in 2005 for "disruption of order by Israelis against Palestinian residents and security forces personnel in the West Bank, that included violence, use of force, sabotage, trespassing and similar offenses."  Note: Files opened, but few arrests and fewer still punished. Many Palestinians don't even bother to file complaints, knowing it unlikely that any serious effort to catch or punish the perpetrators will occur. See below.

        • Failure by the Army to take down, or halt the spread of, over 100 "illegal outposts" still being put up on the West Bank by militant settlers.

        • Failure to stop the illegal construction (admitted by Israel) in the settlement of Modi'in Illit on land belonging to the Palestinian village of Bil'in. Some 750 out of the 3,000 planned (by the settlement) housing units are currently being built.

        B'tselem
        All law enforcement agencies and judicial authorities demonstrate little interest in uncovering the substantial violence that Israeli civilians commit against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.

        [W]hen Israeli civilians attack Palestinians, the Israeli authorities employ an undeclared policy of leniency and compromise toward the perpetrators.

        Then there are the State sponsered moves that point to a lack of a "peace partner" on the Israeli side, such as the approved expansion of settlements, and approved seizure of Palestinian lands without compensation.

  •  Don't forget the Palestinians (none / 1)

    Very good diary.  You left out the Palestinian role in any movement towards peace, but there was a good article in the NY Times today (and that's a rarity, isn't it?).  It pointed out the utter disarray within the PA, and the complete chaos that has resulted in Gaza following the Israeli withdrawal.  The people running the PA are weak and corrupt, and now they are at war with themselves.  The article noted that even if Hamas takes over a leadership role in the PA, the likelihood of moderation is slim. As one person noted, Hamas isn't running for election in the PA to change itself; it's running to change the PA.  

    So I think there's a real sense that on the Palestinian side, there's either nobody interested in peace (Hamas, for example), or nobody capable of negotiating an agreement and delivering on it (Abbas).  And under those circumstances, the Gaza withdrawal and the separation barrier make sense. Sharon was pushing a policy of just hunkering down until the Palestinians got their act together, and that policy may be likely to continue under Sharon's successor.  Otherwise, you'll end up with Somalia on the Mediterranean, a failed state bordering Israel, Egypt, and Jordan.  In any case, due to elections this month with the Palestinians, and in March with the Israelis, don't count on anything happening in the next 4 or 5 months.

    In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

    by Paul in Berkeley on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 03:12:55 PM PDT

  •  The disposession happened 2000 yrs ago (none / 0)

    The disposession of the american indians less than 150 years ago.  The dispossession of the welsh by saxons from Britain less than 1500 years ago, and the dispossession of the celts by germans from austria happened at that time as well.  We shouldn't they take precedents?  The only way you make sense is if your advocating multiculturalism, which of coarse you aren't.  
  •  GREAT DIARY (none / 1)

    Thank you for this diary. I was dismayed to read some comments on DKos shortly after Sharon's stroke was announced.

    I think where this becomes sensitive for many liberal Jews as myself is this: where does the line between a legitimate critique of Israeli policy end and anti-semitism begin? Sometimes those of us who are Jewish can be be oversensitive due to our history. But accusing someone of anti-semitism for making comments critical about Israel is bit like accusing someone of treason for criticizing the Bush Administration.

    At the same time as a Jew I resent the double standard that Israel is are judged by. They live in a VERY rough neighborhood with potential terrorism every single minute. Yet much of the world hypocritically expects the Israeli's to make compromises and risks that they themselves would never make.

    Much of Sharon's career disgusted me quite frankly. But I saw him as the best hope for faciliating a two state solution. I hope the polls continue to hold as they are. Remember however, Shimon Peres initially led after the assasination of Rabin before Netanyahu prevailed after a flurry of terrorism.  Let's hope history doesn't repeat itself.

    http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

    •  Why do you have hope for a two state solution (3.25 / 4)

      being made by Sharon and his followers.  Have you not read Wiseglass?  http://www.haaretz.com/...

      If Sharon wanted a two state solution, it was a completely phoney one, with the settelements in tact. There isn't enough land for a real state after that. Just a bunch of wasteland with no water rights.

      •  I made a point (none / 0)

        of giving you a 4 rating upthread to offset the one I rated you here, but this post is, frankly, a trolling. What's the point of having open discussion in good faith if you respond in this way. What productive use comes out of a comment like this. Bring something to the table, we're all open to hearing it, but if all you have to say are things like this, then why even bother? Leave others alone to have a real discussion, please.
        •  I think the two state solution is just a way to (none / 0)

          put the palestinians in a reservations, and I offered proof, that this was Sharon's plan. I don't think that is trolling, and I am not sure why you do.
          •  Ah, reservations please (none / 0)

            So, a Palestinian state is actually just a reservation?  So you are advocating helping the Palestinians by NOT giving them a state?  Did anyone tell the Palestinians that their goal of having a state of their own is foolish?

            In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

            by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 09:04:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What Kadima and Sharon is offering is not (none / 0)

              the state they want.  It is just four lousy cantons, complete with settlements intact, and no water,  so it will not be possible to live on them.   No Israeli government will ever offer them one, so they should switch goals to citizenship in Israel.  
              •  Source? (none / 0)

                Kadima and Sharon aren't making any offer at this time, unless you can point to a reputable source that says otherwise. Indeed, there are no negotiations between Sharon (who is in a hospital, if you haven't heard) and the PA at this time.  So your comment, like most of your comments, is just made-up bullshit, intended to derail what could have been an interesting and useful discussion.

                In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 05:56:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Compromise (none / 1)

      In fairness what Israel often describes as compromise involves them actually complying with international law and/or UN resolutions.  

      Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. William Ewart Gladstone

      by uklibdems on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 05:17:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Makes me sad (4.00 / 2)

    but the poll says it all: more people prefer either the Israelis or the Palestinians to peace. At a place like this, how can this be true? The poll, when I posted it, was almost rhetorical; I assumed the overwhelming majority would be for Peace. Sadly I was wrong. Reviewing the comments, there are some thoughtful and interesting ones. Unfortunately, it didn't take long to get to the back and forth of empty rhetoric. When will people realize that there's no such thing as perfect justice in history, and two wrongs don't make a right, let alone 2000 wrongs. There are a lot of interesting developments in the middle east, some of which I touched on in the diary, most of which I didn't, is that not worth discussing? What's the point of rehashing the same points over and over again - they're mostly propaganda to begin with, and they move us nowhere. I hope to write another diary in the coming days and keep it focused on a specific topic in this mess of issues. Maybe then we'll be able to do something worthwhile. Until then, I'm very disappointed. My original point, that DKos isn't mature enough to discuss this subject, seems to be true, sadly. People don't want to discuss it because all they get in response to good faith posts is a steam load of empty rhetoric and rigid ideology. Grow up, people. Please.
    •  I noticed that (none / 1)

      perhaps there are too many Israeli supporters and Palestine supporters who are only interested in "winning"...which means neither will ever win.

      But the discussion would be more sane if people didn't clutter it up by dragging up history from the stone age to justify their various sides.

      It can be settled..the only question is who will settle it...or if it will continue to the point where outsiders come in and impose a settlement...which I like the idea of because then the Israelis and the Palestines could join together in hating the outsiders instead of each other....

      Hypocrisy in anything may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it....

      by Cal45 on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 08:23:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Historical Grievances (none / 0)

        of the Palestinians are decidedly of the 20th century. It is Zionists who justify their actions on the basis of ancient history.

        Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
        "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

        by Christopher Day on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 09:00:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am not implying that they aren't (none / 0)

          ..and as an observer with no personal dog in this hunt I happen to agree with you on that point....it is pretty clear that Israel's 'security issues' have been about getting as much in the way of land and resources from Palestine as they could.

          I am just saying let's cut to the chase (by applying pressure on our own US government) and settle this so people will quit dying for what I assure you will be nothing in the end for either  Palestine or Israel if this continues, because I am convinced that sooner or later someone will use a nuke and that will be that.

          Both people to their original boarders set by the UN in '48..that's fair to the Palestines and the Israelis...the establishment of Israel can't be undone and the world won't allow the expelling of the Palestines.

          Hypocrisy in anything may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it....

          by Cal45 on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 09:59:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is false on it's face (none / 0)

            Look at what's been done in this country because of one incident that killed around one hundredth of a percent of the population. In Israel it is nearly impossible to one person who does not have a close friend or relative who has died or been wounded. When Israel was invaded in 1973, they lost 3,000 people which, given the population at the time, was like one out of every 1,000 people dying. At it's narrowest point, Israel is something like 7 miles across. The PLO until recent agreements, and Hamas who currently looks to be heading towards electoral victory have as part of their explicit platform the destruction of the state of Israel. Has there been any land grabbing in the name of security? Yes, unquestionably. Is Israel's security the only important matter? No. But to even for a moment suggest that Israel doesn't have "security issues" is to be willfully blind.
            •  Bullshit (2.00 / 2)

              ..and now you have revealed your own little hidden agenda in starting this discussion as a closet propagandist. Your diary and you no longer have any credibility in asking for discussion when you can't accept discussion.

              Anyone...anyone.. with an I.Q. of 50 can plainly see what has gone on for 30 years and how Israel has created the majority of it's own security problems.

              Put up or shut up...You want security?...get out of the Palestine land, then we can treat your security problems as legimate...until then the only sympathy I have is for the civilians on both sides that your whinning illogic is killing.

              Hypocrisy in anything may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it....

              by Cal45 on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:05:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Give me a break... (none / 0)

                The problems go back way beyond 1967. No one ever said that the occupation was a good thing, but it sounds to me like you simply don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Israel wasn't in the west bank before '67, certainly not in 1956, or in 1948. Give me a break. Get some credibility or don't even bother.
        •  This is exactly (none / 0)

          the kind of bullshit i'm talking about. You have no clue what you're talking about, yet you see it fit to make statements that stem debate, putting one side in the right and the other side in the wrong. Honestly, do you have even the most cursory knowledge of the 20th century history of that region. Because if you don't, then just shut the hell up instead of making asinine statements that do nothing but end conversation. Honestly, it's just ridiculous. There are legitimate grievances on both sides, and legitimate rights, that in some case are overlapping. I think it would be worthwhile to acknowledge grievances and resolve or get past them where possible, but you're not even willing to acknowledge them.
    •  What Kind of Peace? (4.00 / 4)

      Even though I strongly disagree with your perspective I recommended this diary because I agree with you that this is an important discussion to have here. But if you are serious about having it you need to get off your high horse about how you were acting in good faith while others are engaging in empty rhetoric.

      Just because the exchanges are covering familiar ground and the impasse in the discussion is predictable doesn't mean that people are engaged in empty rhetoric. The terms people use here flow from the logics of their positions and the logics of the positions of the Israelis and the Palestinians. One group of people took another group of peoples land but justifies doing so on the basis of very ancient claims. They have been fighting a very asymetrical war (F-16s vs. rocks, AK-47s and belt bombs) more or less ever since. The first group thinks the second is intransigent for not surrendering while the second group thinks the first intransigent for not giving the land back or at least letting the people driven out return to the country.

      This is not a conflict that will be solved by talking it out on Daily Kos. There are other reasons to have the discussion (it is educational for people who haven't thought as much about it as the committed have).

      I voted for the Palestinians because I find the moral equivalency between the violence of colonizers and the violence of those resisting colonization offensive. That doesn't mean I don't want peace or that I think the Israelis should be driven into the sea. It means that I think "peace" in the abstract is meaningless. Are we talking about the "peace"  that presently exists between American Indians and the descendents (like myself) of European settlers who massacred them, expropriated their lands and hereded them on to reservations? Or are we talking about the (also imperfect) peace of South Africa where the dismantling of apartheid went hand in hand with a truth and reconciliation process?

      Peace is too important to be treated in the platitudinous manner that you have used here.

      Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
      "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

      by Christopher Day on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 08:57:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I still object (none / 0)

        to chosing one side over peace. Peace is obviously a vague term, the exact definition of which is negotiated each time around. When one side has no power, then this peace is often unjust, and I'm against that. And I do not suppose that we are going to solve the problems of the middle east by discussing them on the internet, but it would be nice to be able to see eye to eye with people who you respect and would like to see justice done to. This country has done a lot of terrible things; every country has. But it takes only a quick glance at this country's outrageous response to an attack on its soil, both domestically and abroad, to appreciate that Israel has been put in a very difficult position and has made mistakes, but has also done admirably well. The Palestinians living in Israel, for instance, fare much better than they do in Arab countries, such as Lebanon or Jordan. This is not excuse mistakes or injustices, but to put them in some perspective. My argument makes no sense, though, if you object to Israel's existence in the first place. But Israel's existence is not like America's existence. Jews didn't come to a land populated by others and decide to colonize it. This is neither a matter of historical grievances. Jews have continuously inhabited the land of Israel for 3000 years. There was a sizeable Jewish population in many parts of Israel before the 20th century. European powers played politics with the Jews and Palestinians and their land, but it is difficult to escape the fact that Jews would not fare well living in an Arab/Islamic state. Look at how they are and have been treated in countries such as Iraq, Yemen, or Morocco. Look at how they were treated by the Turks prior to the British mandate. I believe that they d