Pre-conditions for Israel are a necessity but not for Hamas?

Okay, which is it? We're told Hamas should not be bound to any pre-conditions for Israel to negotiate but now Israel is told it must accept pre-conditions for any Arab-Israeli talks!

The outlook for peace talks seemed to dim as the LA Times reported Arab reaction to Olmert's invitation to hold such talks in Jerusalem.

None of the key Arab leaders had yet given a firm, public answer to Olmert's invitation by Tuesday night. The little that had been said, such as a pointed statement from the Saudi Cabinet, could be described as resentful. Rather than hopeful and curious, the reaction among Arab television pundits and newspaper writers ranged from tepid to cynical.

Arab reactions ranged from claims that Olmert was too weak a Prime Minister to be an effective negotiator to wishes for (unbelieveable as it may sound) an Israeli strongman in the mold of Sharon.

But perhaps most bewildering is the requirement that Israel adhere to pre-conditions before talks are held, a requirement Israel is castigated for in their demands of Hamas.

"They need to say, 'Yes, we accept this, total withdrawal for total peace, let's go for it.' If not, then there has to be another plan," said Abdel Khaleq Abdullah, a political analyst and talk show host in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. "They need to advance a plan of their own, no matter what it is, with maximum and minimum needs. For now, to say, 'Let's talk,' well, that doesn't make sense. What is your position? Clarify your position!"

Isn't the purpose of talks without pre-conditions to establish both sides positions and how (if possible) one may move towards mutual compromise and thereby peace for all?

•  HA!!!!!

  Awesome!  Even the JNEREBELs of the DKos world have finally realized how preconditions to peace talks are inherently non-sensical.  

  I loved how you quoted a "talk show host in Dubai" as proof that Arabs don't want peace.

  But laughter aside, pre-conditions are anti-peace.  It's nice that you have around; welcome to the discussion.

  by weasel on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:41:15 AM PDT

  •  That's nonsense

    Minimum pre-conditions are a necessity for peace talks.  

    They are as follows:

    1.  Recognizing that your negotiating partner is a legitimate entity

    2.  Foreswearing violence for diplomatic solutions

    3.  Understanding that if the deal is reached, neither side will attempt to later change the deal militarily.

    Otherwise these are not peace talks but attempts to simply weaken your negotiating partner until such time as you have military strength to attack.

    by Drgrishka1 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:54:26 AM PDT

    •  JNEREBEL?

      JNEREBEL, are you gonna answer this one now that you are on the "no-preconditions" side?

      by weasel on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:56:29 AM PDT

      •  head explodes?

        heh. Just wait until the UN issue resolution with no  pre-condition and a threat of global trade embargo ala South Africa.

        by fugue on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:06:44 AM PDT

        •  It will be a cold day in hell when that happens

          The way to a Palestinian state is through direct negotiations with Israel.  Anything else will result in continuing misery for the Palestinians.

          (As for "trade embargo" we saw how well that worked with Iraq.).

          by Drgrishka1 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 03:37:59 PM PDT

          •  yeah right

            The way to Palestinian state is to bludgeon Israel to submission.

            by fugue on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 04:28:10 PM PDT

            •  because 40 years of attempting to do that

              has really worked.

              by Drgrishka1 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 05:14:08 PM PDT

              •  Try international embargo

                and pulling the foreign aid plug. It'll take less than 5 years for Israel to start doing the "I wanna peace" dance.

                There should be a concerted international effort to give Israel one final chance.

                accept peace deal or

                permanent pariah status.

                1. permanent Interntional embargo. (Israel would have to eat sands and orange juice and tossing stones to start their next war. Nevermind F-16 or short range SLBM.)  None of their military equipment is sustainable without international trade.

                2. Offer Israel full international recognition in place of Palestinian independence and full and final  peace agreement.

                by fugue on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 05:49:04 PM PDT

                •  I haven't seen international embargo

                  working on Hamas.  Why would it work on Israel.

                  I also have not seen that really work on Burma.

                  Regadless, that will never happen (despite your dreams to the contrary).  If for no other reason than Israel being the only democracy and the only progressive country in the Middle East.

                  If 40 years of terrorism has not broken Israel, none of your empty threats will.

                  by Drgrishka1 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 06:10:24 PM PDT

                  •  It works nicely on south africa

                    And it works nicely to some degree on Hamas. (eg. Abbas still a PM, they form unity government)

                    With Israel, since it's actually a functioning country that depends on large inflow of intrnational money and weapon, the impact will be devestating. Specially to their core expansion strategy.

                    Their economy will be pretty much imploding in less than 5 years. (observe during intifada where Israel economy contracted 3-5%) and that was not even a big event in term of economy.

                    by fugue on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 07:29:30 AM PDT

                    •  Keep dreaming

                      Israel has a track record of negotiating equitable peace deals.  See, e.g., Egypt, Jordan.

                      Hamas can't even decently negotiate with Fatah.

                      Israel is not the one that needs a kick in the ass.  

                      There will be no negotiations with anyone committed to the destruction of Israel.  You, however, by virtue of the First Amendment are free to bemoan that.

                      by Drgrishka1 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 09:18:50 AM PDT

      •  Mixing agreements with demands

        One would hope that reasonable people who desire peace would be willing (on both sides) to disengage from provocative activities, i.e. settlement advances, violence on both sides while the negotiations were undertaken.  If one side is not willing to do so it would speak volumes as to their intent in seeking peace.

        I believe recognition must be an outcome of any talks.  Israel exists and will continue to exist (despite Hamas' pronouncements and Arab text books to the contrary) and I believe a Palestine must also for there to be peace.  Therefore, any agreement would naturally include mutual recognition.

        A military offensive after talks is certainly a deal-breaker but is it necessary to include in the framework?  I don't know as common sense would seem to dictate any military/terror action by one side against the other after peace and recognition are established could be considered an act of war. And as such would implicitly violate any agreement....

        I am on the side of peace and as Israel has offered to talk to the Arab States without pre-conditions I believe the Arab States should do the same.  I believe if these talks are successful this would also largely alleviate Israel's need for pre-conditions with Hamas as well.

        But that is my hope only and I certainly don't claim to predict the future.

        by JNEREBEL on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:14:06 AM PDT

        •  Mixing preconditions with negotiated terms

          You are mixing up preconditions with negotiated terms.  I certainly believe that everything Israel has demanded as a precondition (end to fighting, recognition, respecting prior agreements) must be part of a FINAL peace.  Indeed, Israel would be crazy to sign any peace that did not include those terms.  But demanding material preconditions makes no sense.  You have literalists like Eric S who point out that every negotiation has SOME preconditions.  Obviously, sides need to know where to meet, what they will talk about, and who is bringing the potato chips.  But PROCEDURAL preconditions just set the state.  Demanding SUBSTANTIVE concessions is the opposite of negotiation, it is saying you do what I want, then we'll discuss if I will do what you want.  

          As for the Arab response, there hasn't been one yet, so it is not clear what they are thinking (unless you still cling to the belief that TV hosts call the shots).  If the Arab countries demand that Israel agree to their final conditions BEFORE negotiation, then this is just posturing and they aren't really interested in talking.  If they are waiting until Olmert explains what he's offering, if this is to be final status negotiations as opposed to a press op for a failing leader, than that makes sense.

          BTW, has Olmert invited the Palestinians?  If he is attempting to conduct negotiations about Palestine without the Palestinians, it could cause one to question whether there is anything to negotiation.

          by weasel on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:28:39 AM PDT

          •  asdf

            The Saudi Cabinet echoed those sentiments Monday in even stronger terms, releasing a statement that declared, "Israel should understand that peace requires it to put an end to violations, repression and constant, inhuman practices against the Palestinian people before any other matter."

            This is not the response one would expect from a government seeking talks without pre-conditions.

            If they are waiting until Olmert explains what he's offering, if this is to be final status negotiations as opposed to a press op for a failing leader, than that makes sense.

            My understanding is that these are to be discussions involving the Saudi framework.  Any Israeli position should be discussed as part of the negotiations and not demanded as a pre-condition for talks.

            by JNEREBEL on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:41:02 AM PDT

            •  Unclear at best

              That is not a precondition, it is a political statement.  Saudi may well attempt to impose preconditions, but if that is what they have said, then they haven't created any preconditions yet.  Saudi is certainly right about what peace will require.  That must be part of any peace agreement.

              by weasel on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:47:46 AM PDT

              •  Let us hope you are correct.

                I guess we will know for certain when a formal response is made.

                by JNEREBEL on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:54:58 AM PDT

                •  I'm just shocked

                  ...that Saudi Arabia has a cabinet. Seriously, who knew?

                  by MBNYC on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:11:20 PM PDT

                  •  Of course they do!!

                    Where else would they lock up the women so that the menfolk aren't offended by the view of all that flesh around the eyes?

                    by Paul in Berkeley on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:23:21 PM PDT

              •  The Saudi offer has one major precondition

                As I understand it, the Saudis are offering normalized relations with Israel once Israel withdraws from the occupied territories, yada yada yada.  So essentially, the Saudis have one big precondition -- Israel needs to solve the dispute with the Palestinians before the rest of the Arab world will normalize relations with it.  And once the Palestinian issues are resolved, everything will fall into place fairly easily.  That's my interpretation of the Saudi proposal.  

                The Saudis can't negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians, so really, the Saudi proposal is essentially an offer to work things out later. The interesting question (among others) is how the Saudis and other Arab countries will respond if the Palestinians work out a deal with Israel that involves Israel retaining some West Bank territory -- will the other Arab countries accept that as concluding the dispute? For that matter, will certain members of the DailyKos community accept that?

                by Paul in Berkeley on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:22:13 PM PDT

                •  Painfully stretching

                  You are really stretching here.  Saudi offered Arab recognition IN EXCHANGE FOR a Palestinian settlement.  This is not a precondition, it is an offer.

                  by weasel on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:30:33 PM PDT

                  •  That's what I said!!

                    The Saudis are saying "make peace with the Palestinians, and we'll make peace with you."  So making peace with the Palestinians is a prerequisite.  The Saudis can't do it for the Palestinians.  Israel has to negotiate and work out a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Once that is done, they can be buddy buddy with the Saudis.

                    by Paul in Berkeley on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:36:02 PM PDT

                    •  no they can't

                      But they are the biggest palestinian sugar daddy. They have the finance power to make it happens. The palestinian has to listen.

                      by fugue on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 07:33:27 AM PDT

          •  Recognizing someone's right to exist

            (within SOME borders) is a necessary precondition to any talks.  Otherwise, it is unclear why talks are evn undertaken with an "illegitimate" entity.

            That does not imply that Hamas needs to concede that Israel will exist with 1948 or 1967 or any other PARTICULAR borders.  But that post-negotiations it will exist.  Just like Israel when coming to the table is recognizing that post-final status Palestine will exist.

            by Drgrishka1 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 03:41:16 PM PDT

      •  ridiculous

        Asking as a precondition that Hamas forswears the complete destruction of Israel is akin to asking the other side to promise not to shoot you when you enter the room for negotiations. In other words, it's a reasonable precondition.

        by nycdemocrat on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:38:59 AM PDT

        •  Well, no

          Agreeing to live in peace is the end of war.  That is what you negotiate to, not negotiate from.  If Hamas wants to unilaterally declare peace, good on them.  But if Israel demands it BEFORE negotiations, then Israel doesn't really want peace negotiations.  

          by weasel on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:50:36 AM PDT

          •  here! here! weasel

            by Dems need balls on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:00:01 PM PDT

          •  not the same

            Hamas doesn't have to declare peace. It has to forswear genocide. That's the difference.

            by nycdemocrat on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:26:55 PM PDT

            •  For some here

              ...that's too much to ask.

              by MBNYC on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:15:44 PM PDT

            •  Or to put it more diplomatically

              It is an acknowledgement by Hamas that they are not going to achieve their goals through violence -- that a political solution is the only acceptable solution.

              by Paul in Berkeley on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:27:19 PM PDT

    •  Did the ANC

      recognize the Apartheid regime of South Africa as a "legitimate entity"? Making recognizing the "legitimacy" of your historical enemy a condition for talks is a way to prevent talks from occuring. No group claiming to speak for the Palestinian people could recognize the legitimacy of Israel so long as the present intolerable conditions continue.

      The question here is being treated in an overly abstract manner. Pre-conditions for talks generally come in two types. The first are good faith gestures that the other side can reasonably make that make it easier to convince your own side that talks are worthwhile. The other are calculated as being unacceptable to the other side and thereby likely to prevent talks from occuring at all. These latter are made largely for propaganda purposes to paint the other side as intransigent.

      An important consideration is assessing which is which is the symmetry or asymmetry of power relations between the parties. While Israel is militarily the most powerful state in the Mid-East by a considerable margin, preconditions for talks with the Palestinians should not be judged by the same standards as state to state talks with its neighbors. Simply put, the Palestinians are in little position to concede anything as a precondition to talks while Israel has enormous latitude to establish its genuine intentions. The Palestinians don't have a state, they don't have the means to enforce a cease-fire on all factions (and doing so precipitously would undercut the authority of anybody who tried), and they don't have any territory that they can concede. Meanwhile the Israelis are engaged in continuous seizures of Palestinian lands which they could cease, control the finances of the PNA, operate checkpoints and so on.

      Israel is being asked to recognize the principle that the 1967 borders should be the basis of a two-state solution as a starting point for negotiations. Israel can't reasonably expecte to be recognized as legitimate while it sits on lands conquered in 1967 and refuses to declare its own borders. This is a reasonable demand that Israel could easily meet if it genuinely desired a negotiated settlement. But Israel doesn't in fact really want that. Permanent war is the meal ticket of the Israeli elite, if not the average ordinary Israeli.

      by Christopher Day on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:26:51 AM PDT

      •  double standard

        Hamas doesn't recognize the 1967 borders. Hamas wants no Israel. They are the apartheid regime in this case. Their official stance is to call for genocide. Let's see that change. It's only a gesture, but it is the key to unlocking the problem, because such a gesture would then force Israel to make the kinds of concessions necessary to make peace. Until that gesture is made, Israel can and will sit on its hands. That won't bring peace, and will hurt Israel, even if they don't realize it.

        If Hamas wants peace, it must simply say, we want peace, i.e., we won't try to eliminate you any longer. That is a precondition for negotiations, and it should be.

        by nycdemocrat on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:45:15 AM PDT

        •  You should tell Israel

          The Israeli government disagrees with you.  They have repeatedly stated that recognition by Hamas would NOT be enough.  They have several other preconditions.

          But as you say:

          Israel can and will sit on its hands. That won't bring peace, and will hurt Israel, even if they don't realize it.

          by weasel on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:52:16 AM PDT

        •  Hamas is the legitimately elected representatives

          of Palestine.  Sorry, but Bush and the neocons gave us that gift. Now, as the government, they must be included in any peace talks.  Rhetoric is rhetoric--at the negotiation table where the outcome is recognition of both the legitimacy of Palestine and Israel, Hamas will ultimately back down.  

          Frankly, this hysterical insistence that Hamas wants to drive Israel to the sea is a smoke screen for not wanting a settlement to the conflict, let alone an end to the occupation.  I support the Saudi call for withdrawal to the 67 borders, etc, etc. It might not happen, because it is all subject to negotiation, but the plan is out there.  Israel needs to respond in full and the best place to do that is at the negotiating table--not through the media.

          by Dems need balls on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:06:09 PM PDT

          •  not an excuse

            Hamas is the legitimately elected representatives of Palestine.

            This does not preclude them from changing their obstructionist position.

            Frankly, this hysterical insistence that Hamas wants to drive Israel to the sea

            ... is not in the least bit hysterical, once you read their charter.

            I support the Saudi call for withdrawal to the 67 borders, etc, etc. It might not happen, because it is all subject to negotiation, but the plan is out there.

            The Arab League made it quite clear in the last week that, no, it's not subject for negotiation, but is a take-it-or-leave-it offer. Olmert's response was to invite the leaders of the Arab Leage, including King Abdullah, to Jerusalem to begin discussions.

            by zemblan on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:56:20 PM PDT

            •  Have you ever negotiated anything? I did it

              for a living and believe me charter, shmarter, once they sit at the table, they will come to an agreement.   Surely, if Sinn Fein and the Orange can sit at the same table, so can Israeli's and Hamas.

              by Dems need balls on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:25:12 PM PDT

              •  In terms of Sinn fein

                they agreed (before being let into any government) that the solution is political and not military.

                by Drgrishka1 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 03:45:49 PM PDT

          •  Actually, Fatah gave us that gift

            By the corruption of its officials, and by running multiple candidates in the same districts, thereby splitting its support.

            by Paul in Berkeley on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:29:09 PM PDT

            •  You are right about Fatah. Nevertheless, the

              insistence on elections, given what Fatah had done (actually did not do) gave us Hamas.

              by Dems need balls on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:45:09 PM PDT

          •  Not necessarily

            Joerg Haider was legitimately elected in Austria but European governments refused to deal with any Austrian government that included him. Not unusual at all.

            by Drgrishka1 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 03:45:01 PM PDT

      •  If Israel can recognize

        ...a terrorist organization like the PLO, Hamas can recognize Israel. End of Story.

        by MBNYC on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:16:51 PM PDT

        •  End of story?

          Thanks for that declaration.  Does it mean we won't have to hear any more of your simplistic answers?

          by weasel on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:24:23 PM PDT

          •  Heh. Nice dodge, weasel.

            I wouldn't not want you to have troll-rate material.

            by MBNYC on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:40:47 PM PDT

        •  Israel dragged out recognizing the PLO until

          Arafat took it out of the Charter.  It was a ridiculous pre-condition and did not lead to a peace settlement.  What will Hamas gain by changing the charter before negotiations?? Nada

          by Dems need balls on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:27:30 PM PDT

          •  More interestring question is what will they lose

            by not taking it out of the charter?

            Are they willing to spend another couple of decades in present conditions?  If so, good luck to them.

            by Drgrishka1 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 03:47:08 PM PDT

          •  So what?

            Does Hamas care more about whatever obscure reasons are keeping them from doing what they need to do anyway if they want to negotiate, or do they care about securing the future of the Palestinian people?

            My guess is the former, and oddly enough, the Hamasniks here wailing daily about whatever don't seem to mind that.

            by MBNYC on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 04:13:12 PM PDT

  •  Well, I could have also quoted

    others from the article that also decried the Israeli offer and/or demanded pre-conditions.

    "Israel should understand that peace requires it to put an end to violations, repression and constant, inhuman practices against the Palestinian people before any other matter."

    "It's a gimmick"

    But the sentiment is mostly all the same.  One that does not harbor hope for peace nor showing any willingness to work towards it accomplishment.

    There has been enough fighting, it is time to talk.

    by JNEREBEL on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:57:01 AM PDT

  •  2 misrepresentations for 1 low price!

    That talk show host in Dubai actually read "a political analyst and talk show host in Dubai."  And you ignore the very different nature of televised media in places with autocratic governments, where broadcasters are regularly used to transmit political messages.

    And it does not appear that this diarist has forsaken pre-conditions, but merely asked why the two sides should be considered differently in that regard.

    by Eric S on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:59:51 AM PDT

    •  I'm a political analyst

      What a meaningless title.  And you ignore the ability of Arab governments to speak for themselves.  

      But I suspect you are right.  The diarist's silence suggests that he has not given up on preconditions, he just thinks they should be applied to Palestine and not to Israel.  So maybe he is still in the anti-peace-talks camp.

      by weasel on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:03:31 AM PDT

      •  That's 3 misrepresentations.

        The diary (never mind the diarist right now, I'm sure you will get your response soon enough) says quite the opposite of what you suggest - that both sides should deal on the same terms.

        And when you get your own TV show or newspaper column, then your claim to being a political analyst will have a bit more meaning.

        by Eric S on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:09:56 AM PDT

•  convenient misframe

  israel will never agree to return all of the occupied territories. i's difficult for many in hamas to recognize a so-expanded israel as legitimate.

  by essexgreen on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:48:25 AM PDT

  •  Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist,

    period, so that's a problem in and of itself.

    by steve davis on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:57:11 AM PDT

    •  and

      israel has no intention of returning all of the lands it stole, period. another problem.

      by essexgreen on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:08:49 AM PDT

      •  Mindreader or clairvoyant? n/t

        by Eric S on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:12:44 AM PDT

      •  I love the description...

        ...of territory gained in a declared war as being "stolen", particularly by Americans.  You're no hypocrite; you're a leftist.

        When neoconservatives talked exactly like this about the British hostages in Iran, lots of people said that they were rooting for a non-peaceful resolution.  Heaven forbid anyone say that of you, right?

        What bugs me most?  I pretty much believe that preconditions are stupid, and that Israel ought to withdraw from the occupied territories unilaterally.  But you can make sure, just with words, that we'll never be working together to achieve that.  Bravo.  You're sure helping the Palestinian people get their nation.

        by Jay Elias on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:15:36 AM PDT

        •  That gets me too

          as we "stole" quite a bit of land we now call the USA.

          by JNEREBEL on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:18:52 AM PDT

        •  Stealing and stealing

          There are two distinct processes being conflated here. the first is the military conquest of Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. The second is the ongoing displacement of Palestinians from their lands on the West Bank and colonization of those same lands by Israel.

          In the first case, the use of the term "stolen" is imprecise at best and tendentious at worst. In the second its right on the money. For over 25 years I've listened to progressive Zionists say that they oppose the settlements, but in that period despite many changes in government, they have only ballooned, doubling in size during Oslo (and thereby ensuring its collapse). At what point do you recognize that the ongoing colonization of Palestinian lands is not some sort of weird abberation but lies at the heart of the state you defend?

          by Christopher Day on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:37:25 AM PDT

          •  Ah, but are the lands stolen?

            Or just borrowed?  The Gaza withdrawal indicates that the land is just borrowed (albeit without permission), and can be returned at some point.  Anyway, as Shakespeare suggested, neither a borrower nor a lender be.

            by Paul in Berkeley on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:55:36 AM PDT

            •  Borrowed my you know what.

              Gaza was given up to keep West bank settlements.  Sinai was given up to protect west bank settlements.Sorry, folks, but Israel is colonizing the west bank.  It is hiding behind national security, but it is colonizing.  Didn't the government recently acknowledge that much of the appropriated land belonged to Palestineans?  Oh yeah, the map that showed that was replaced by a map that obfuscated the issue.

              by Dems need balls on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:10:28 PM PDT

            •  Grotesque Orwellianism

              You have a talent for the sort of amoral bureaucratic euphemism that has long been favored by the technicians of colonialism and genocide. There might be some money in that. Its sort of like Germany borrowed Poland or Iraq borrowed Kuwait I suppose. If the definition of "borrowed" is anything one takes and ultimately returns or might return in the future we could extend the use of your euphemism even further. Indian lands, the labor stolen from generations of enslaved Africans, Hawaii wre all just borrowed and the victims should just learn their shut their yaps.

              by Christopher Day on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:00:21 PM PDT

              •  Hey, it's YOUR terminology

                You're the one that referred to the lands as "stolen."  What, did you see some pesky Zionist slipping the land into his knapsack?  Maybe Winona Horowitz?  The land is right there, where it always has been.

                As for your linquistic talents, I just love reading your comments -- it takes me back to the days when naive 19-year olds would spout the latest textbook jargon from their Marxian Dialectic 203 seminar.

                by Paul in Berkeley on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:04:07 PM PDT

                •  The Orwellianism

                  is your suggested use of "borrowed." But no matter. If I can remind a bitter old man of the sweeter days of his youth I've done my job. Have a nice day.

                  P.S. Smash Imperialism!

                  by Christopher Day on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 04:44:55 PM PDT

          •  Well...

            ...I'm not claiming it is a weird abberation, nor do I ever defend it.  In fact, I materially abandoned Israel due to my objection to it.  They lost my service as a soldier, my taxable income, my intellectual capital (such as it is) and any support that I might be inclined to give to any Zionist charity or activist group whose primary reason for being is to end the occupation.  I have nothing more than those things to offer any nation; that Israel lost it over these settlements is not something that I consider idle.

            That being said, the distinctions in your post are good ones.  Of course, the comment that I replied to lacked any such insight.

            by Jay Elias on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 04:45:08 PM PDT

            •  Jay

              Despite our evident differences I've generally been impressed with your relative sobriety here. This comment helps me understand why. I applaud your decisions and don't mean to diminish them. But the question remains, how long can a state persist in a colonialist enterprise before you say the state itself no longer deserves support?

              by Christopher Day on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:16:01 AM PDT

          •  I mistyped...

            ...no Zionist charity or activist group who does not exist to oppose the occupation gets any support, material or otherwise, from me.  To make that clear.

            by Jay Elias on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 04:46:16 PM PDT

        •  right on as always

          Mr. Elias.

          by nycdemocrat on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:46:36 AM PDT

        •  ahh, caveat emptor

          i hope you don't strike a match near that nonsense, jay.

          by essexgreen on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:01:18 PM PDT

          •  Yeah...

            ...god forbid you learn to say what you mean coherently.  Just keep pointing the finger at me, mate.

            by Jay Elias on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 04:46:47 PM PDT

  •  Well

    If you believe no agreement is ever possible, then maybe there is never any point in peace negotiations.  But if you believe, as I do, that peace is possible (albeit difficult in practice), then you need to lay your conditions on the table during negotiation and not try to force the other party to be bend to your will in advance.  Preconditions are the opposite of negotiations, they are saying "I will force you to accept this, not negotiate with you to accept this."

    by weasel on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:59:32 AM PDT

    •  Preconditions are just preliminary

      negotiations.  You are making much ado about nothing, particularly when it is the preconditions themselves that are what is important, as this diary makes all to clear.

      by Eric S on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:03:32 AM PDT

      •  Not really

        When you say, I won't negotiate until you agree to this, you are avoiding negotiations (As Israel has done for years).  It's an attempt to solve the issue by force, rather than by negotiation (specially when you are killing hundreds or thousands while you refuse to talk).

        by weasel on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:05:34 AM PDT

        •  Every negotiation is preceeded by a framework

          for discussion.  Every.

          by Eric S on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:11:21 AM PDT

          •  And the framework

            here is the Saudi Plan.

            Any pre-conditions forcing Israel to accept the document in whole are simply an attempt to thwart peace before talks are even held.

            Talks are not a guarantee of success but they are certainly better than the alternative.

            by JNEREBEL on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:23:51 AM PDT

            •  Agree 100% n/t

              by weasel on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:43:51 AM PDT

            •  Playing to the balcomy

              ...is really what much of this is. The Saudis are saying that their demands are non-negotiable and proceed to ask for negotiations. Hamas says it's not going to recognize Israel. Fine, sit down at a conference table with people who's right to be at that table you don't recognize, and explain how that makes any sense. Olmert is saying he'll never recognize the so-called "right of return", which is also an opening statement.

              This is international conference prep 101, playing to your domestic audeince and setting markers to start out with. Bismarck would have understood this perfectly.

              by MBNYC on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:26:42 PM PDT

              •  Ha

                Bismarck was more interested in results than in posing.  Interesting story.  After the 1870 Franco-Prussian War, the new Germany annexed Alsace and Lorraine.  Bismarck opposed this and fought against it.  Even though the new Germany was stronger than France, Bismarck foresaw taking territory France considered integral would arouse a permanent hatred in France and tension and inevitably lead to war.  He was right, Germany lost the war, and the German Empire was destroyed.  Sharp dude.

                by weasel on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:33:49 PM PDT

                •  Bismarck didn't have to deal

                  ...with public opinion.

                  by MBNYC on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:46:32 PM PDT

    •  Weasel--can't you pull your hair out?

      You are laying out a reasonable position, yet the usual suspects are laying out the same old arguments against a path to peace.  Because of the usual suspects, I have given up on being a Jew.

      by Dems need balls on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:12:57 PM PDT

      •  Well, if you gave up on being a Jew

        because of a post on DKos, then I don't really have much to add.

        by dfb1968 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:18:32 PM PDT

        •  It's not the post on DK, it is a life time (and

          I am old, well middle aged actually) of fighting this fight in the Jewish community.  It keeps getting worse.  I have better fish to fry.

          by Dems need balls on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:29:43 PM PDT

          •  And you really don't think

            you can avoid the topic of Israel without "giving up on being a Jew"?  When a LOT of American Jews (the entire Reform community for instance) is against the current Israeli government?

            by dfb1968 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:39:06 PM PDT

            •  I left my reform congregation when the second in-

              tifada began.  While the Rabbi was opposed to the brutalization of Palestineans, the rest of the congregation was not.

              It is heartening that the reform movement opposes the current government, but I'm not sure about the people on the street.  

              To be actively engaged in Jewish life means embracing right wing Zionism.  Michael Lerner and Brit Tzadek not withstanding.

              by Dems need balls on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:49:14 PM PDT

              •  Well, all I can say is

                you should come to Israel, where being observant, and opposing the government, is the in-thing.  In fact, your reasons don't even matter.  EVERYONE here hates the government.

                by dfb1968 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:54:00 PM PDT

              •  Bollocks.

                To be actively engaged in Jewish life means embracing right wing Zionism.

                Bollocks.

                by zemblan on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:56:36 PM PDT

•  If Israel would just

  pull back to UN recognized borders that would solve a lot.  They could wall their own borders to stop suicide bombers.  

  But, they must pull back to have ANY chance of negotiating...

  by kursk on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:07:31 AM PDT

  •  not happening

    If you look at entire Israel history, the point of its existence is to enlarge territory. It has never reverse its goal so far. Pulling one settlement, build 5 in another area.

    talk peace now, two months later doing invasion.

    by fugue on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:14:31 AM PDT

    •  Yeah...

      ...it never returned a section of land three times its current land mass for peace with Egypt.  Totally didn't happen.  

      You'd think, with all the shit things that Israel does, it wouldn't be so hard for people to actually be factual in their condemnations.

      by Jay Elias on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:28:11 AM PDT

      •  True

        But eating up Suez Canal is too much for the world to take.

        Actually if you want to prove me wrong. Southern Lebanon would be far better example.

        Israel main strategy in land aquisition is two: a) create buffer b) Zionism.

        The fringe area such as golan height, Sinai, Southern Lebanon are in "buffer category"

        Jerusalem, Judea+Samaria, Jordan if at all possible are the zionism reason. The area Israel feel entitled too because Torah says so.

        So, giving back any area in Judea and Samaria earnestly never happens before. It is counter to the idea of Israel and zionism (creating home for Jewish population.)

        by fugue on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:48:27 PM PDT

        •  Wrong

          I recently viewed a documentary on the demolition of the settlements in Gaza (another case of giving land back rather than expanding).

          At the same time they were moving folks out of Northern Samaria.  

          The government had undertaken the secular policy of dismantling the settlements and were confronted with the religious fervor of the settlers.  

          The government of Israel is secular, and representative.  The settlers were ruled emotionally by religion.  

          There was some racism expressed by the settlers, which I found disgusting.  But the government's position does NOT echo the position of the messianic Jews who feel the entire area was given to the Jews by God.  

          It's a mistake to equate the Israeli government with hard-line messianic Jews.  They are at odds.  

          Are there expansionists in the government?  And Messianic Jews??  Of course.  But to state that "Israel" feels entitled to XX or YY because of the Torah is wrong.  "Israel" is not unified about that issue, and the government's policies - and actions - over the years put the lie to the idea that Israel will "never" give up land for peace due to "Zionism".

          by delphine on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 11:24:17 AM PDT

    •  right, sort of

      It has never reverse its goal so far.

      That's right. That's why they still control the Sinai Peninsula, including its oil fields.

      Oh, wait, sorry, forgot this was DKos Bizarro World.

      by zemblan on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:33:55 AM PDT

    •  Dead wrong

      little thing called the Sinai.......

      So the whole of Israeli history is about enlarging itself.....

      by redcardphreek on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:34:52 PM PDT

•  The Palestinian people deserve better than Hamas

  Sort of off topic, but frankly I don't have the leathers on today to post a diary on this story about the true nature of the Hamas "government".  

  It's a really upsetting story, both in the actual facts, the deaths of innocents, and in the fact that it illustrates the priorities of folks like Hamas, and of splinter groups.

  The Palestinian people deserve better!

  http://www.salon.com/...

  Gaza's militants use the [soccer] fields to shoot Qassam rockets over the nearby fence, trying and nearly always failing to hit targets in the southern Israeli town of Sederot. The Israelis respond from placements just beyond the fence with tank and artillery "counter-battery" fire. Militants try to set up the rockets, launch them and then flee before the shells come hurtling back at them.

  On July 11, militants fired rockets from the edge of the field while the kids of Beit Hanoun were playing soccer. The militants left, just before an Israeli missile came crashing down and killed three boys, Mahfouth Farid Nuseir, Ahmad Ghalib Abu Amsha and Ahmad Fathi Shabat, all reported to be 16 years old.

  [As it turns out, he was only 12 . . .]

  The locals had long asked the militants not to use the field as a launching pad because it endangered the kids. During the early summer of 2006, neither Hamas nor Fatah had used the field to fire Qassams, but not out of deference to neighborhood parents. They had agreed to a cease-fire with the Israelis and were, for the most part, observing it. The militant group Islamic Jihad, however, was not observing the cease-fire and often used the spot to lob rockets into Israel. None of the average citizens of Beit Hanoun had the wasta, the Arabic word for influence or clout, to get the militants to stop altogether.

  According to the story, Hamas showed up and offered his father money to allow them to make him a martyr.  He took the money to pay for his funeral, and to move.

  Just because Hamas didn't launch the particular rockets that invited the Israeli response that day doesn't mean they didn't put these kids in danger every other day they launched rockets from there.  From a soccer field.  

  Just because they were elected doesn't make Hamas the savior of the Palestinian people, who deserve leaders who have their best interests - down to the lives of each and every child on every soccer field - at heart.

  Is it any wonder the government of Israel isn't that keen on dealing with Hamas?  Just as the Palestinians are wary of Israeli peace offers.  This flows both ways.  

  Both sides need to do whatever it takes to clear a path for negotiations.  In this case, it's a bunch of rhetoric they want to hear from one another, you remove XXX from your charter, and you swear YYY before we sit down.

  If both sides can't do this, we're sunk.

  by delphine on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 11:14:53 AM PDT

  •  I understand Israel's reluctance

    to sit with Hamas and I agree the Palestinians deserve much better representation.  

    I also want there to be talks and truly believe that if Olmert's invitation is taken up by the Arab States and a deal is actually brokered it will largely eliminate the need for pre-conditions in direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

    It is only a hope but until it is dashed I will cling to it.

    by JNEREBEL on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 11:32:01 AM PDT

    •  I agree.

      See, you'll see diaries on what a lying sack of shit Olmert is that in the same breath talk about what diplomats Hamas are.

      When Olmert claims he fully supports a two-state solution, and prevents his military from responding even when a cease fire is broken, you get eye-rolls here, laughter and derision, etc.

      When Hamas says "look, we quit killing one another for three days, where's Israel's peace plan", you can count on the "usual suspects" (the other "usual suspects") to point fingers at Israel as if Olmert has no reason to mistrust Hamas leaders.

      And as if Hamas are a bunch of humanitarians like the Red Crescent and Olmert is just being petty or stupid or stubborn.

      Overtures are being made on both sides.  If anyone, on either side, really wants peace, they need to tell people to get real about this, STFU about dumbass rituals before sitting down, issue reasonable statements about their respect for one another and the peaceful negotiations, and sit the heck down and talk to one another.

      by delphine on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 11:46:22 AM PDT