Palestine & israel? What do you think about that situation?

[jaysabi]

the land doesn't belong to Israel.

Yes it does. They were attacked and beat their attackers and took the spoils of war.
c'est la vie...

There is a related question I've brought up more than once:

Is Breslau occupied by the Poles?

There are consequences to losing wars.

But I do think I understand the position of many of those who say that the "West Bank" is Palestinian land occupied by Israel but Breslau is not German land occupied by Poland. Many people believe in some concept of "international law" which means that these kinds of questions are answered by certain "international bodies" (often offshoots of the United Nations). So the West Bank is occupied because certain "international bodies" say so, and Breslau isn't occupied because there aren't "international bodies" who say it is. I find this to be a scary way to look at the world, outsourcing one's judgement to "international bodies" -- but many people find it more comfortable than thinking things through for themselves.

I don't know enough about Breslau to have a qualified opinion. What are the circumstances that would lead you to question its status as occupied or not? Does Germany contest the land? Does the civilian population express a German identity rather than Polish?

Apparently not. It's Poland's 4th biggest city, it doesn't have a significant German minority and people living there have no interest in becoming a part of Germany.

If we discuss moving the borders and giving everyone back what was taken we'll face a big problem: the restoration point (date).
Your example - Poland fits here perfectly because in 1939 a large part of today's Ukraine and Belarus belonged to them, so you'd have to give back to the Germans but take from someone else.

I'm just trying to understand why anyone would ask if it's occupied. If no one is even seriously questioning it's status, the analogy JJ tried to draw between Breslau and Palestine isn't valid. Perhaps then the reason no international body has deemed Breslau occupied territory is because there's no basis for it because nobody is disputing the territory today.

[1714613707]

1714613707

[tvbcof]

the land doesn't belong to Israel.

Yes it does. They were attacked and beat their attackers and took the spoils of war.
c'est la vie...

The converse would appear to be true as well by this logic.  Were they not to 'beat their attackers' then there 'spoils of war' would be negative.

I'm disgusted enough by observing and funding the 'Zionist entity' aspects of the state of Israel over the years that I am most likely to take a 'live by the sword, die by the sword' attitude toward future kerfuffles in that region.  This was not always the case.  The American citizen to died face down on the steel deck of a ship in international waters with an Israeli bullet in the back of his head, and with nary a peep of protest from 'our' leadership and media, was probably the turning point for me on this issue.

[tins]

the land doesn't belong to Israel.

Yes it does. They were attacked and beat their attackers and took the spoils of war.
c'est la vie...

The converse would appear to be true as well by this logic.  Were they not to 'beat their attackers' then there 'spoils of war' would be negative.

I'm disgusted enough by observing and funding the 'Zionist entity' aspects of the state of Israel over the years that I am most likely to take a 'live by the sword, die by the sword' attitude toward future kerfuffles in that region.  This was not always the case.  The American citizen to died face down on the steel deck of a ship in international waters with an Israeli bullet in the back of his head, and with nary a peep of protest from 'our' leadership and media, was probably the turning point for me on this issue.

It was the palistinian cheerings and support for the 9/11 attacks that was turning point for me.

[tvbcof]

the land doesn't belong to Israel.

Yes it does. They were attacked and beat their attackers and took the spoils of war.
c'est la vie...

The converse would appear to be true as well by this logic.  Were they not to 'beat their attackers' then there 'spoils of war' would be negative.

I'm disgusted enough by observing and funding the 'Zionist entity' aspects of the state of Israel over the years that I am most likely to take a 'live by the sword, die by the sword' attitude toward future kerfuffles in that region.  This was not always the case.  The American citizen to died face down on the steel deck of a ship in international waters with an Israeli bullet in the back of his head, and with nary a peep of protest from 'our' leadership and media, was probably the turning point for me on this issue.

It was the palistinian cheerings and support for the 9/11 attacks that was turning point for me.

You must have a soft spot in your heart for the Iranians then, right?  I remember reports of some fairly impressive candlelight vigils in that country directly after the 9/11 event before most people (including myself) realized what that thing was all about.

BTW, I also remember Sharon saying right after 9/11 something like 'Oh yes, this is very good for Israel' before catching himself and being a little less impertinent.  This is, in fact, why I personally doubt that Israel had anything to do formally through their military and intel services with 9/11.  Had they I am pretty sure that Sharon would have been at least dimmly appraised of the event and prepared with a somewhat more careful message.

Actually, it looks like it was Netanyahu who had that response.  Same idea though.

[BlitzandBitz]

the land doesn't belong to Israel.

Yes it does. They were attacked and beat their attackers and took the spoils of war.
c'est la vie...

The converse would appear to be true as well by this logic.  Were they not to 'beat their attackers' then there 'spoils of war' would be negative.

I'm disgusted enough by observing and funding the 'Zionist entity' aspects of the state of Israel over the years that I am most likely to take a 'live by the sword, die by the sword' attitude toward future kerfuffles in that region.  This was not always the case.  The American citizen to died face down on the steel deck of a ship in international waters with an Israeli bullet in the back of his head, and with nary a peep of protest from 'our' leadership and media, was probably the turning point for me on this issue.

It was the palistinian cheerings and support for the 9/11 attacks that was turning point for me.

That has been disproven you know that right?

[J. J. Phillips]

the land doesn't belong to Israel.

Yes it does. They were attacked and beat their attackers and took the spoils of war.
c'est la vie...

There is a related question I've brought up more than once:

Is Breslau occupied by the Poles?

There are consequences to losing wars.

But I do think I understand the position of many of those who say that the "West Bank" is Palestinian land occupied by Israel but Breslau is not German land occupied by Poland. Many people believe in some concept of "international law" which means that these kinds of questions are answered by certain "international bodies" (often offshoots of the United Nations). So the West Bank is occupied because certain "international bodies" say so, and Breslau isn't occupied because there aren't "international bodies" who say it is. I find this to be a scary way to look at the world, outsourcing one's judgement to "international bodies" -- but many people find it more comfortable than thinking things through for themselves.

I don't know enough about Breslau to have a qualified opinion. What are the circumstances that would lead you to question its status as occupied or not? Does Germany contest the land? Does the civilian population express a German identity rather than Polish?

Apparently not. It's Poland's 4th biggest city, it doesn't have a significant German minority and people living there have no interest in becoming a part of Germany.

If we discuss moving the borders and giving everyone back what was taken we'll face a big problem: the restoration point (date).
Your example - Poland fits here perfectly because in 1939 a large part of today's Ukraine and Belarus belonged to them, so you'd have to give back to the Germans but take from someone else.

I'm just trying to understand why anyone would ask if it's occupied. If no one is even seriously questioning it's status, the analogy JJ tried to draw between Breslau and Palestine isn't valid. Perhaps then the reason no international body has deemed Breslau occupied territory is because there's no basis for it because nobody is disputing the territory today.

I can explain why I ask. No analogy is perfect, of course, but in many ways the status of Wrocław (which I'm provocatively referring to as Breslau) mirrors the status of the land west of the Jordan river.

As Bryant Coleman pointed out, Breslau was part of Germany and was ethnically overwhelmingly German in 1900. It continued to be a major German city until after WWII. As part of the post-war reparations, this part of Germany was given to Poland. The reason it is now called Wrocław and is overwhelmingly Polish is simply because the German population was essentially expelled after WWII.

This happened in the late 1940s, the same time period in which the British mandate for Transjordan ended and the state of Israel declared independence. This is the same period of time in which many Palestinians left their homes in the new state of Israel. (Those against Israel would say they were "expelled" while those pro-Israel point to the fact that neighboring Arab countries warned Palestinians to leave in advance of Arab countries going to war with the newly declared state of Israel.)

In the late 1940s, Germans lost Breslau to Poland and part of that involved a significant population displacement. It happened as a result of losing WWII. As I've pointed out before, significant Palestinian leaders were allied with Hitler. In this sense, at least, they were also on the losing side of WWII. The two cases are quite similar.

The situations are also different. There is no outcry to return Wrocław (Breslau) to Germany. There certainly could be. Germans unhappy with the outcome of WWII could start hijacking airplanes and bombing restaraunts. One of their demands could be the return of Breslau. The fact that this isn't happening is largely due to the vast majority of Germans being (apparently) reasonable people who accept the loss of WWII and its consequences. But lets suppose some small minority of German neo-Nazis started committing acts of terrorism to try and return Breslau to Germany. Would international bodies start taking the case more seriously? I doubt it. First of all, the German authorities would obviously say that Wrocław is a Polish city and take steps to catch and imprison the neo-Nazi terrorists. The neo-Nazi terrorists would not be the "militant arm" of any political force in today's German government.

In essence, terrorist acts by German neo-Nazis would be counterproductive if the goal were the return Breslau to Germany.

Why have terrorist attacks by Palestinians resulted in their demands being taken more seriously? I think this is largely due to prejudice against Jews, but also prejudice against Arabs. Of course, many people (including many Jews) who have a problem with Jews, reflexively side against the Jews. In addition, whereas Germans are expected to be civilized, many people do not have the same expectations of Arabs. This is itself a form of bigotry. When Palestinian Arabs commit terrible acts of terrorism, instead of seeing it as something that should undermine their cause, it is seen by many people as the result of throwing someone in a lion's cage. No one's surprised when a lion kills and eats someone. It's a lion. I would prefer it if Arabs were held to the same standards as, say, Germans. But they aren't.

Another very important difference is that Germany explicitly agreed to the reparations at the end of WWII. The conflict is over. This is not the case for the middle east conflict. However, this implies that the conflict is, in fact, ongoing. The fact that Israel takes a series of military measures including bombing campaigns, blockades and checkpoints is hardly surprising when one accepts that they are in an ongoing conflict. The fact that one of the natural conclusions of this conflict would be the destruction of Israel and the murder of the millions of Jews there actually makes Israel's actions seem quite measured.

[J. J. Phillips]

...
It was the palistinian cheerings and support for the 9/11 attacks that was turning point for me.

That has been disproven you know that right?

It hasn't been disproven. There are video clips of it that was shown on 9/11 and surpressed shortly afterwards. It's easy to find on youtube now. But I assume you're not saying such video doesn't exist. By "disproven" you probably mean it's been "proven" that the video shows something else. The first version of this I heard around 2003 and said the Palestinian celebration video was just showing a wedding celebration. That's ridiculous, of course, to anyone who sees the video. There's another version now that says cameramen offered Palestinians candy to randomly celebrate for the camera. That's not such an outlandish claim since there's plenty of evidence that Palestinians are accostomed to playing for cameras (Pallywood). However, even in this version, the Palestinians are celebrating 9/11, right?

I understand that it's important for Palestinian supporters to paint them as sympathetic and that acknowledging Palestinians celebrate terrorism and the deaths of thousands of innocent people harms that cause. Consequently, Palestinian supporters sometimes make attempts to deny the obvious: Palestinians support terrorism.

Palestinians name their schools after suicide bombers. Why is it difficult to believe the people who name their schools after suicide bombers would celebrate 9/11?

Let's be honest:

The Palestinians celebrated 9/11. They celebrated 9/11 because they were happy about it. They were happy about it because they see the U.S. as the "great Satan" supporting Israel the "little Satan." They celebrate successful terrorist attacks against either the U.S. or Israel. Every sentence I've written in this paragraph is well-known and obvious, even to everyone on this thread.

It may be useful propaganda for Palestinian supporters to pretend the Palestinians didn't celebrate 9/11, but it doesn't change the obvious truth.

@tins: I took very little interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict before 9/11. Seeing the Palestinians celebrate on 9/11 was a turning point for me well. That's when I started reading about the conflict and realizing what a cartoonish version of the conflict is typically told.

Maybe those of you who support the Palestinians should learn something from those of us who side against them in the post-9/11 world. Maybe it's worth your while not to create more people like me. One way to accomplish this might be to try to train Palestinians not to celebrate and reward terrorism. Otherwise the next time there is a major terrorist attack and they celebrate it, there will be more people who see it and think: who are these monsters?

[J. J. Phillips]

@u9y42: This morning I spent time to read your post of May 1. Since the post is already very long, I don't think it's a good idea to respond to it in a single post, so I'll do it in more than one.

Let me start with this:

I don't think all criticism of Israel is based in ignorance or Jew-hatred*, but I think Jew-hatred plays a huge role.

If there were very little Jew-hatred in the world, the Arab-Israeli conflict would be considered about as important as the dispute over Kashmir or Cyprus.

* I tend to say "Jew-hatred" instead of antisemitism. Some years ago I found people were responding quickly to my use of the word "antisemitism" with the rote phrase "You know, the Palestinians are also semitic!" Then I read that "antisemitism" was a term devised by Germans to be a sterile scientific version of "Judenhass" (Jew-hatred).

Again, thanks for the post and I may respond to more of the specifics at a later time. One of the things I've tried to do in some of my posts is make some labelled clear unambigious statements that people could argue for or against. Thanks for doing this.

Personally, I'm less concerned about why people devote their attention to this conflict (nor do I see how that knowledge would help solve it) than I am with Israel's actions justifying that attention in spades - enough to turn away even those who once supported it.

We disagree about whether or not acknowledging the role of Jew-hatred in the conflict would help solve it.

You wrote a lot, but sentence quoted above provides the best summary of what I think you're saying. You think Israel's actions should be different. In particular, you think they should engage in less military action and be willing to make more concessions to reach some final status agreement. Is that fair to say? Would you like to be more specific about what actions you believe Israel should take and what the likely responses to those actions would be?

I could imagine the conflict ending if the Palestinians generally accepted that they have lost the war. Germany didn't accept its loss from WWI, but has accepted its loss in WWII. Frankly I'm skeptical that anything could convince the Palestinians they've lost. However, suppose if there were a military campaign against the Palestinians similar to the one against Nazi Germany, a campaign that included events similar to the fire bombing of Dresden. Suppose as a result the Palestinians essentially gave up. Suppose most moved to Jordan or Egypt and the ones who remained were given, say, 50% of the disputed territory to form one or two Palestinian states. In that case, would the WWII level military campaign have been worth it? Everyone has to decide for themselves, of course. I don't feel bad about the military campaign against Nazi Germany, and I see the modern Palestinians as occupying a lower moral plane than the Nazis.

It's natural that the Palestinians haven't accepted that they've lost. They haven't lost. In the end they will probably win, and six million Jews will be dead. I think this is the most likely way the conflict will end. The only silver lining for people like me will be watching Hamas and Fatah (or whoever the tribes are at that point) fight for control in the aftermath. Well, that and watching the nanorobots bring about human extinction.

[J. J. Phillips]

Re the Gaza sanctions:

At one point, among the items denied entry into the occupied territory were crayons, paper, books, clothing, newspapers, baby formula and a variety of other food products, and so on ...

I hope you'll forgive some skepticism, but I remember how people lied about the Turkish flotilla some years ago. Can you give me a source for these items being denied entry? Are they generally forbidden or are you referring to some specific shipment?

A good dose of skepticism is always healthy; feel free to ask for any source you'd like - in fact, ideally, I would be providing them as I go, but that's not always how it turns out.

The following sources mention the restricted items, and provide some more background information about the blockade of Gaza:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/amira-hass-israel-bans-books-music-and-clothes-from-entering-gaza-1.276147, "Israel bans books, music and clothes from entering Gaza".
http://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications/Products060610_Eng%281%29.pdf, "Partial List of Items Prohibited/Permitted into the Gaza Strip".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8654337.stm, "Details of Gaza blockade revealed in court case".

As you can see in the linked material, the most restrictive sanctions lasted from 2007 up until 2010, at which point, international outcry pressured Israel to ease the blockade somewhat - as the occupying power, comparisons between Gaza and "open air prison" were doing wonders for Israel's image; to quote David Cameron: "The situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp".

...

I'm happy to let you have David Cameron on your side. It looks like Gazan children have been able to import their crayons for a few years now. Good to know. I wonder what kind of pictures they're coloring?

People should keep in mind that 2007-2010 followed the dual conflicts in 2006, one of which was in Gaza following the kidnapping/capture of Gilad Shalit. Gilad Shalit was being held prisoner during all of that time. Hamas (who had been elected by Gazans in 2006) had a huge card they could've played to lessen the sanctions. They didn't play that card until 2011, and even then Shalit was released to secure the release of about 1000 Palestinian terrorists held by Israel.

As with everything else, one always has to ask what alternatives Israel had. It's clear that they would be condemned regardless.

But, we already know what the "logic" behind such decisions was, as I posted before: 'As Israeli officials themselves put it at one point, they wanted Gaza's economy, and the over 1.5 million inhabitants "on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge", and "functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis"'.

Reading this positively, it says Israel wanted to avoid a humanitarian crisis. Obviously they could've responded by fire bombing Gaza. I'm not sure what good options Israel had after Hamas took control of Gaza.

The people of Gaza voted for Hamas, more decisively than Germans voted for the Nazis. I don't feel bad for the Germans who died as a result, and I don't feel bad for the Gazans who live under sanctions as a result.

Fortunately, following the latest war there and renewed international pressure to ease the blockade, it seems Israel has recently started allowing a few exports out of Gaza, which should go some way in helping to restart the economy there.

As your sources say, the sanctions are far less restrictive and the blockade has been eased. Has Israel gotten more positive press as a result?

The only reasonable strategy I could imagine for dealing with Gaza is for the U.S./Israel to pay Egypt a few extra billion dollars (on top of the billions Egypt already gets from the U.S.) to annex Gaza. It was previously under Egypt's control already. In an effort to avoid a war with Israel Egypt might be willing to fight Hamas and other terrorists in Gaza. This would likely involve killing 100,000 or so people in Gaza, but if Egypt did it the world would likely look the other way. Egypt got rid of their Jews a long time ago. Even this wouldn't really work. Even if Egypt took care of Gaza, the world would spin it as the Jews being their usual puppetmasters and so on. Jordan killed several thousand Palestinians in 1971 and the Palestinians still blamed the Jews for it (Black September).

[J. J. Phillips]

Re whether or not the Palestinians want a peace deal:

In fact, ever since 2006, Hamas has clearly stated that the issue of recognizing Israel wasn't their responsibility, but rather, to be left up to popular vote - a vote which they would abide by, even if the results went against their beliefs.

I'd like a source for this as well. It would surprise me if Hamas said this, but you seem well-informed. In any case, I think if such a vote among Palestinians to explicitly recognize Israel were held, it would fail in a landslide. If the Palestinians surprised me, I think we'd quickly find out Hamas was lying.

I find it interesting that, at the same time you're admitting something would come as a surprise to you, you immediately move to try and frame it in a way that negates any possible value coming out of it.

I don't trust Hamas. Maybe we feel differently about that. Even so, the quote from the Hamas leader you included isn't particularly promising.

Riad Mustafa, in 2006: "I say unambiguously: Hamas does not and never will recognize Israel. Recognition is an act conferred by states, not movements or governments, and Palestine is not a state. Nevertheless, the government's program calls for the end of the occupation, not the destruction of Israel, and Hamas has proposed ending the occupation and a long-term truce (hudna) to bring peace to this region. That is Hamas' own position. The government has also recognized President Abbas' right to conduct political negotiations with Israel. If he were to produce a peace agreement, and if this agreement was endorsed by our national institutions and a popular referendum, then - even if it includes Palestinian recognition of Israel - we would of course accept their verdict. Because respecting the will of the people and their democratic choice is also one of our principles." The article goes on to say: "In March, Hamas released its official legislative program. The document clearly signaled that Hamas could refer the issue of recognizing Israel to a national referendum. Under the heading 'Recognition of Israel,' it stated simply (AFP, 3/11/06): 'The question of recognizing Israel is not the jurisdiction of one faction, nor the government, but a decision for the Palestinian people.'" And from the Aljazeera article: "Carter said his understandings with Hamas called for a referendum to be preceded by reconciliation between the group and Abbas's Fatah faction. In his news conference, Meshaal said Hamas would 'respect Palestinian national will, even if it was against our convictions'."

Hamas believes all the land is occupied. An "end of the occupation" for them implies the destruction of Israel. Any "truce" Hamas makes only until they are strong enough to fight for more land/dead Jews. I agree that in your quote above Mustafa of Hamas said in 2006, "calls for the end of the occupation, not the destruction of Israel." Hamas was lying in order to further their position. There's a long history of this in the Islamic religion, dating back to Muhammed. Taqiyya.

Here's a further quote from the Haaretz article you linked to:

The Hamas charter, drafted in 1988, regards all of the land of Palestine, including what is now Israel, as the heritage of Muslims. The idea of a referendum on a future peace accord with Israel was rejected by some Hamas leaders when it was proposed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas several months ago.

If Palestinians voted in a referendum to accept a two-state solution, it's clear Hamas would not accept it. If they pretended to accept it, it would only be as a temporary measure to move to the next stage of the Jihad.

But, would the Palestinian people actually vote for the explicit recognition of Israel? Well, there are several polls on this and other issues, and at times they seem to present contradictory information, both on the Palestinian and Israeli intentions. Going by polls from the Policy and Survey Research (http://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/596), on the one hand, they seem to show that, were such a vote to happen now, it would probably receive no more than 40% support.

40% sounds plausible. I'm skeptical of the other polls showing higher percentages for more specific questions you included, but maybe someday we'll find out.

The polls go on to show that Palestinians believe "The most serious problem confronting Palestinian society today is poverty and unemployment in the eyes of 28% while 26% of the public say that it is the continuation of occupation and settlement activities; 22% say it is the spread of corruption in some public institutions; and 19% believe it is the siege of the Gaza Strip and the closure of its crossings" - Israel, as the occupying power, plays a major role in most, if not all of these issues; so, addressing them would be an easy way to improve its support within the Palestinian population.

I reject the idea that Palestinians are playing a minor role in these issues. They are the ones choosing to place such a focus on hating Israel/Jews instead of being more productive.

As for the possibility of Hamas going back on their word, I see it as somewhat of a moot point, since they would quickly find themselves: (even more) isolated and marginalized; expelled from the unity government they're currently in; losing popular support and the relatively insecure grasp on power they have; probably taken over by a more popular faction; and/or, risking a civil war they would be unlikely to win.

I don't think it's a moot point. Whether or not Hamas would continue to hold power in the new government, Hamas would continue to attack Israel. Israel would respond. The world would rise up in anger against Israel attacking a "sovereign state of Palestine" as opposed to the current anger about Israel attacking "occupied territory." Basically Israel would have to give some things up and would get nothing in return. Not even good will from the world.

[J. J. Phillips]

(2) - Then, we should probably work to better inform that "significant percentage of Israelis".

I take it the negotiations you're alluding to were those held throughout the year 2000, the most commonly known being those at the Camp David Summit, and later at Bolling Air Force Base, which saw the introduction of the Clinton Parameters. So, what was the proposal - the so called "Barak's generous offer", as described in American and Israeli press at the time - that Arafat rejected?

In terms of territory, the proposal called for the Palestinians to give up about 27% of the West Bank - that is, less than 3/4 of the West Bank would belong to the Palestinian state, and it would be surrounded on all sides by Israel. Within a very poorly defined time frame (maybe 10 to 25 years, maybe more), the Palestinian state would be allowed to take up to 91% of the West Bank (plus 1% coming from a land swap with Israel). However, as the Israeli activist group Gush Shalom points out, those 18% of the West Bank, the Palestinian state would eventually recover, have settlements of some of the "most extreme Jewish religious zealots" - so, forget the 10 to 25 years. Further, the percentages give a somewhat deceptive image of the reality on the ground; the territory that Israel would annex would leave the Palestinian state nonviable: Israeli settlements, land, roads and checkpoints would effectively divide the Palestinian state into several smaller, separate territories, plus the Gaza Strip on the opposite side, leaving the connection between these multiple areas to the discretion, and under the complete control, of Israel - which led to the inevitable comparison with South African Bantustans. Also, control over water resources in the West Bank would remain in Israeli hands. By the way, I should also note that settlements are typically built in important and resource rich areas, with access to farmland and water supplies - many of these areas would, of course, be part of the land annexed by Israel. In East Jerusalem, Palestinians would only be allowed to keep control of some isolated pockets of territory; the rest, including Israeli settlements, being left under Israeli control or also annexed.

Then, in relation to the Palestinian refugees and their right of return, the following quote from a Haaretz article (http://www.haaretz.com/culture/books/a-summit-clouded-by-suspicion-1.75548) offers some information: "At two points in the negotiations the Israelis evinced a lack of understanding and consideration of the feelings of the other side. The Palestinians were aware of the fears nurtured by Israeli propaganda about the 3.7 million refugees waiting, keys in hand, to return to their homes. Even before the summit, relates Beilin, Arafat met with Clinton and informed him that the solution of the refugee problem would be one that would take into account Israel's demographic concerns (page 106). - Sensitive issues - Sher, who, judging from his book is a careful and balanced individual, writes that the Palestinians 'are not demanding the practical right of return to Israel - which, in my opinion, is not an element of their 'core position'' (page 156). What Barak proposed was the return of 5,000 refugees 'in one blow' or 10,000 over 10 years. 'Generosity' is also a matter of geography" - I believe the number was eventually raised to 100.000, the rest being afforded some compensation and help in resettling (though all these with significant caveats as well).

The proposal also called for a demilitarized Palestinian state, for Israeli control of Palestinian airspace, the right to deploy troops inside Palestine, and for Israeli control over whom Palestine could form alliances with.

The idea of the Palestinian state gradually gaining authority over their territory sounds reasonable. They haven't shown so far that they're capable of living in peace with Israel or fighting terrorists.

If you find the Camp David deal unacceptable or unreasonable, that's fine. But don't be surprised by the results of choosing continued conflict over the deal.

Forget Arafat - no one would accept this "generous" offer (to make concessions).

Negotiations work this way right? Barak insists on having A and B and would like C. Arafat insists on having B and C and would like A. Barak offers C and part of B. It reads like you think Barak should've offered Arafat B, C and part of A.

Well, Israel's new government, led by Sharon, chose never to resumed those negotiations, despite knowing (or arguably because it knew) they would lead to a peace agreement (which would in turn almost certainly mean withdrawal from occupied territory and dismantlement of most of the illegal settlements in the West Bank - political suicide then, and something still controversial today, with many, if not most, Israelis against it apparently: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-peace-conference/1.601996). Of course, technically, negotiations did continue since then, but without the same commitment, and with proposals ranging from absurd (Elon Peace Plan), to worse than those presented at the Camp David Summit (which had obviously already been rejected by the Palestinians), to not significantly better; with a few of the negotiations pretty much sabotaged, to prevent any progress. Illegal settlements and land grabs, however, suffered no such setbacks.

In general, offering the Palestinians less in each successive peace deal sounds like a way to encourage the Palestinians to accept a deal. Leading them to believe rejecting peace deals leads to more generous deals being offered would encourage the opposite.

This specific case is more complicated, of course. Barak already offered more than many Israelis would be willing to accept, and lost the next election as a result. Expecting Sharon to offer more than Barak is irrational.

From then on, Israel has often pursued an unilateral policy when dealing with the Palestinians; at least as much as it can get away with. Sorry for repeating myself, but I believe this is a good example, and is quite relevant here - as I had previously posted, when you mentioned the disengagement plan from Gaza in a previous post: "here's what the then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser had to say about the plan, which goes to show its intent and predictable consequences: 'The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. [...] and 'The disengagement is actually formaldehyde [...] It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians'. Asked why the plan had been devised, he stated 'Because in the fall of 2003 we understood that everything was stuck. [...] Time was not on our side. There was international erosion, internal erosion. Domestically, in the meantime, everything was collapsing. The economy was stagnant, and the Geneva Initiative had gained broad support. And then we were hit with the letters of officers and letters of pilots and letters of commandos [refusing to serve in the territories]', and 'You know, the term 'peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did''."

Disengagement sounds like a reasonable strategy when the other side is unwilling to make peace. Maybe the pro-Palestinian side should sponsor programs to convert Palestinians into Finns.

And, just in case the pattern isn't abundantly obvious by now, Sharon, at the end of his political career and before falling ill, apparently had plans to also conduct an unilateral "disengagement" plan in the West Bank - sounds good in theory; a "they're actually willing to leave the West Bank" sort of thing, until you look at the details. In practice, the plan called for the annexation of about 1/3 of the territory, and the Palestinians would get what was left - in effect, a worse deal than what had been proposed at Camp David, not to mention the violence that such a plan would have triggered. It's hard not to come away from all this with the conclusion that Israel is playing by the rule of "either you shut up and give us what we want, or we're going to take it by force".

This doesn't change the conclusion that the Palestinians chose at Camp David to continue the conflict. They may have been right to do so. As I keep saying, I think in the end they will win. The world loves dead Jews, and hates live ones.

(3) - "A lot of evidence supports the idea that Palestinians aren't willing to live in peace with Israel under any circumstances" - such as?

I think you might be conflating half a century of Palestinian opposition and resistance to the occupation, along with its predictable effects on the population over time, with this idea of yours that Palestinians don't want peace with Israel, no matter what - those are very different things.

They supported Arafat. They elected Hamas. They've voted for a Fatah politician who goes by the nickname Hitler. They name schools after terrorists. They put their children in plays in which they pretend to behead Jews.

The Palestinians do not have a culture which allows them to live in peace with Jews, and they are doing nothing to develop such a culture. They're encouraging a culture of open Jew-hatred. And it'll probably work out for them.

[J. J. Phillips]

Now the question is: why Poland doesn't fight for its lands taken by the Soviets and then given to Ukrainians? What happened in Potsdam was actually bad for them and they lost more land to the Soviets than they gained from the Germans.

Well, that analogy doesn't work as well because Germany lost land to Poland because the Germans were Nazis who lost the war.

Still, I'm willing to discuss it. Suppose some group of Polish nationalists started to hijack airplane and bomb pizza parlors with the demand to return Lwów from Ukraine to Poland. I suspect these Polish nationalists would get little to no sympathy from the world. With the current Russia-Ukraine there's no telling what would happen, but I doubt they'd make serious headway. Maybe Putin would fund some Polish nationalist terrorists or maybe he would kill them all. The rest of the world would probably hardly notice.

The reason this all sounds farfetched is because modern Germans and Poles are reasonably civilized. The same can't be said for modern Palestinians. Barbarism should neither be encouraged nor excused.

[J. J. Phillips]

Last reply to the monster May 1 post. This is regarding Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians. You listed a lot, but I thought it was enough to focus on one to make my points. Obviously I could list any number of examples of Palestinians committing atrocities against Jews/Israelis going back a century. It's not a one sided fight.

Two articles from Haaretz on this:
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/freeze-frame-1.336986, "Freeze Frame - In February 1988 CBS cameraman Moshe Alpert filmed four soldiers carrying out Yitzhak Rabin's "break their bones" order against two Palestinian teens. Their bones didn't shatter, but Israel's self-image and its international image did. Now, 23 years later, one of the victims speaks out."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/broken-bones-and-broken-hopes-1.173283, "Broken bones and broken hopes - When Palestinians are asked about Yitzhak Rabin, they remember a man who ordered Israeli soldiers to break their arms and legs."

Note that this case caused an uproar in Israel. Often the criticisms of Israel start in Israel.

It looks bad, of course, but in comparison to what? The world is a violent place. We could look at the surrounding countries and find similar or worse examples. The difference? That's Muslim on Muslim violence, so it's not treated the same way. When Jordan kills a few thousand Palestinians, Jordanian embassees aren't attacked and hatred towards Jordanians doesn't manifest itself.

The fact that people criticized Israel in this particular case is reasonable, in my opinion. I wouldn't attribute that to Jew-hatred. However, I would say Jew-hatred was the reason for the resulting attacks on Israeli businesses and embassies around the world after this story aired. Here's a description of it from one of the articles you linked to. It describes clear examples of Jew hatred.

The international response was unprecedented. "Angry viewers are calling Israeli embassies around the world with curses and threats," the main story in the edition of Maariv that followed the initial broadcast reported. Finnish state television warned viewers before showing the film: "Sensitive people and children are kindly requested not to watch this report." The top headline in Britain's Daily Mirror was "Israeli Torture Unit Captured by Television Crew." Le Monde led with "Fame and Shame," while a Spanish newspaper article titled "Sons of Hitler" was accompanied by a cartoon depicting the Fuhrer envying Israel's achievements. The Israeli embassy in Nicosia was attacked by an angry mob that Cypriot police barely managed to hold back. In Bonn, swastikas were painted on the walls of a building where Israeli embassy staff lived. A delegation of 180 Swiss reservist army officers announced that it was canceling its planned visit to Israel. In Amsterdam, angry graffiti was sprayed on the walls of an El Al office. The next day, Elie Wiesel said in an interview with the Yedioth Ahronoth daily, "I have never seen such intense hatred for Israel in the world."

The surrounding countries are currently engaging in military action against ISIS. If the media wanted to play supporters of ISIS as being sympathetic, I'm sure they could. They could also find some people who weren't in ISIS but were killed or wounded in a battle. At the moment, the consensus seems to be that ISIS is not only bad but savage, and that fighting them militarily is understandable. The same thing used to be true about Hamas. Maybe we'll live to see the say that Syria and Jordan are being encouraged to negotiate with the "political arm" of ISIS to make a peace deal with the "militant arm" of ISIS.

Israel is held to a higher standard by the rest of the world. This is dangerous. Israel is even held to a higher standard by itself. I suspect this may end up being a suicidal strategy.

[tins]

the land doesn't belong to Israel.

Yes it does. They were attacked and beat their attackers and took the spoils of war.
c'est la vie...

The converse would appear to be true as well by this logic.  Were they not to 'beat their attackers' then there 'spoils of war' would be negative.

I'm disgusted enough by observing and funding the 'Zionist entity' aspects of the state of Israel over the years that I am most likely to take a 'live by the sword, die by the sword' attitude toward future kerfuffles in that region.  This was not always the case.  The American citizen to died face down on the steel deck of a ship in international waters with an Israeli bullet in the back of his head, and with nary a peep of protest from 'our' leadership and media, was probably the turning point for me on this issue.

It was the palistinian cheerings and support for the 9/11 attacks that was turning point for me.

That has been disproven you know that right?

I was flying into Ben Gurion airport when the 9/11 attacks happened. When I landed, I saw the televisions with coverage and muslims watching, smiling, high-fiving. So, there is no disproving something I witnessed, in person.

[tvbcof]

I was flying into Ben Gurion airport when the 9/11 attacks happened. When I landed, I saw the televisions with coverage and muslims watching, smiling, high-fiving. So, there is no disproving something I witnessed, in person.

That kind of reminds me of the incident where the Israeli 'art students' or whatever were rounded up in New York after a lady reported them high-five'ing and taking photos of the smoking twin towers on 9/11 with a lighter held under it.

My personal belief is that this incident does not necessarily implicate Israel, and maybe not even these particular Israeli's who may have been fictitious.  If I were designing the operation I would have been most concerned about the follow-up in the media.  To thwart unwanted investigation, I would have made things be fairly clear to various editorial staffs where an exploration may end up.  I don't think it is particularly arguable that Jews are over-represented in the U.S. media, nor that Jews tend to have a propensity to not wish to see misfortune befall that state..and being implicated or framed would qualify as misfortune since much of Israel's national security is predicated on exploiting the U.S. and we still have enough of a democracy to where this would do damage.  For this reason I believe it would be (and was) an effective strategy to discourage very much real journalism around the event in mainstreamland.

[tins]

I don't think it is particularly arguable that Jews are over-represented in the U.S. media...

That's easily debatable depending on how you wish to define "over-represented".

[tins]

I don't think it is particularly arguable that Jews are over-represented in the U.S. media...

That's easily debatable depending on how you wish to define "over-represented".

Plus, given the definition, would it not then apply towards the over-representation of palistinians?

[Salman Anjum]

My sympathies are with Palestine......
Israel is an enemy of muslims...
Stop killing in Palestinee...
We all stand with Palestine...

[bryant.coleman]

Now the question is: why Poland doesn't fight for its lands taken by the Soviets and then given to Ukrainians? What happened in Potsdam was actually bad for them and they lost more land to the Soviets than they gained from the Germans.

Ethnic Poles constituted a minority in provinces such as Lvov, Ternopol and Rivne, which were given to the USSR. The majority of the population was composed of Ukrainians and Belorussians. And the remaining Poles soon relocated to the "new territories" (parts of former Nazi Germany, which were annexed by Poland after the WW2), either by force or on their own.

[vokain]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1'%C3%AD_Faith