Does anybody know how much of the West Bank Israel has offered? If no responses to this, I may have to trek off to the Net. [/quotes]
It depends on who you believe (90-97% and both sides claim tht the good land would have been held by the other side). I think the offer was not just but the Palestinians do not have leverage.
Lash Goth wrote:A good point.
An oft overlooked point. Many consider settling outside your borders to be an act of war. The current situation's complexity precludes an rbitrary judgement on the legality of the settlements but they are ill advised at best.
Lash Goth wrote: This sounds almost worse than what's going on now. Aren't they living side by side in Jerusalem? I'm thinking of some forced busing (example) and putting them side by side in equal numbers all through the territory, and calling it something else.
Israel probably won't even consider this idea (the Palestinians might consider it). The US has promised to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital but they must pacify the situation before the embassy is moved.
Lash Goth wrote:Here, I think the Israelis are only responding to Palestinian suicide attacks and gunning down its settlers. Do you think Israel is doing more than that?
Yes, I believe that some Israelis are playing the game superbly. Many people opposed the fence because they didn't want it to become a border, many Israelis still dream of growing Isreal at the cost of it's security. They think it's a goal worth the procastination and sequentialism of the process. They ignore opportunity to end the conflict and are perfectly willing to wait the Palestinians out. The rest of the Israelis demonstrate an uncommon (in the mideast) sanity and realize that fault is not relevant to the solution. Until the leaders (not necessarily the people) of both sides want to make peace with "painfull concessions" there will be no peace.
Sharon's offers have IMO been calulated moves to delay a final status agreement for as long as possible. He conceded it was a Fait Accompli and is now only interested in stalling the final status and avoiding parallelism.
Lash Goth wrote:I have seen these 'targeted killings, as quid pro quo for Palestinian attacks. I think it was meant to dissuade further attacks, but it hasn't worked that way. Otherwise, the Palestinians kill with impunity. What would you do as Israel's PM, in the face of a Palestinian suicide/homocide attack? Not confrontational-sincerely want to know...
I have no qualm with certain of the targeted killings, some are legitimate targets. Others are simply knee jerk reactions and poorly targeted. Many miss the target and manage to kill children (and the Palestinians will subsequently whip up a war cry).
My serious qualm with Israeli targeted killings is when Israel stalls any negotiation until there is a lull. The PA issues a more forecful (but still wishy washy) call for respite. It's wishy washy because it's as strong as political capital would allow. The lull happens, and when it reaches a point where pundits are expecting a move toward negotiation a targeted killing takes place, the assasination is of a insipid nature. A bomb is planted on a wall where the target is known to walk by, the target can easily be apprehended but the target is a folk hero so a killing ends the lull and negotiations are stalled. Parallelism is fought on every level and people talk of not rewarding terrorism. The solution remains elusive.
Lash Goth wrote:
Where Israeli intel has found hotbeds of Palestinian terrorists.
Israelis call all of them hotbeds of terrorism. It des not mean that proper protocol to avoid collateral damage should be ignored. When they accidentally kill women and children (it happens quite a bit) the Palestinian extremists feel justified in their aims. Israel can and should do more to minimize collateral damage. There is a direct correlation between the collateral damage Israel inflicts and the periodicity and intensity of the attacks they suffer. The assasinations have not been shown to diminish the attacks and often serve the very opposite purpose.
"The Palestinians would accept foreign peace keepers but Israel won't. Foresign peace keepers would help greatly. Due to the animosities Israelis are the worst people to police the Palestinians. It only validates the complaints about occupation etc."
Lash Goth wrote:This is a fact.
The fact that Israel has rejected proposals for intervention indicates to me that theyprefer the maintenance of the ability to dictate the terms of the agreement than the immediate resolution of the conflict. In other words they prefer to "win", the end of the bloodshed is a secondary goal.
Lash Goth wrote: IMO, Pal's rejection casts serious doubts on their claims to want peace. Israel's seems more like "Well, if you don't want it, we're not leaving it out there..."
That would be consistent with your already stated opinions. I do not share your bias and think that they simply overestimated Israeli flexibility, took insult at etty things and acted in a belicose manner. They played a card they did not have and held out for more. The Israeli peace camp could not maintain their momentum. The Palestinians wasted a critical oportunity. Clinton wanted a legacy, Israel had a rare moment of reserve and Arafat was stupid.
I also happen to think that Israel ignoring the unprecedented Saud offer was a far greater opportunity missed. For Israel it was a good moment to negotiate (the Palestinians had everything to gain in negotiations and Arafat was trying to remain relevant).
Israel downplayed the significance of the offer, a blanket attempt at reconciliation was on the table. An offer that was worded with sufficient flexibility to allow Israel wiggle room on Jerusalem, settlements and refugee status. This was a desperate attempt of Arab nations to end what they considered a sistematic destruction of the PA and an end to the process. They were as moderate as they could go in a first offer and Israel missed the opportunity.
Both sides feature moments of astonishing stupidity.
Lash Goth wrote:Will have to look up these terms. If sequentialism is a little carrot on a stick, and after that nibble, another little carrot on stick, I can understand this. There is no trust. I'd want to see the other guy's progress before I offered them another carrot.
Sequentialism is either "give us statehood and we'll stop killing you when we get around to it, but we'll still call the bombers martyrs" or "stop all terrorist attacks for the nest 10 years and we can think about statehood for you. Meanwhile we will strategically settle your land".
Sequentialism has failed for years and both sides extremists try to use it to their advantage.
Lash Goth wrote:Why America?
Russia the EU and the UN have absolutely no leverage on the parties involved. They can just wring their hands and hope for positive action on our part. The US is not an impartial player but we have been succesful in extracting concessions from our greatest ally many times. When we pressure them they usually pay attention because we are usually the last nation to do so. They can't raise anti semetic history like they do when Europe speaks on the issue and the US is the only nation with the clout to even suggest this.
I think this needs to be more than a suggestion. I'd deploy and warn both sides that resistance to a imposed partition will mean less favorable terms for that side and that the process gets kickstarted regardless of their wishes. Then I'd nuance both against the middle.
Lash Goth wrote:I think its a little more than teaching a lesson. They are being blown to bits in the street, and in restaurants. To characterize it as you have here, I feel is a little unfeeling, and simplistic toward the reality of life in Israel. As a pre-emptive strike, I am also horrified by the daily life of Palestinians, but they bring the worst of it on themselves, IMO. Agree with your Ghandi statement as it applies here.
I share an equally low opinion of your take on the issue. Emotions have done nothing to solve this conflict. If unfeeling ratiocination means a move toward reconciliation it is ultimately eleemosynary. You seem to care only about stating Israel's case and that the Palestinian causalties and interminable limbo are entirely their fault. I don't give a damn about who is at fault, determining blame is a distraction from my goal. I care only about ending the conflict. Not settling the issue of blame. There will always be simpletons who refuse to admit to any responsibility whatsoever. There are always idiots who will never try to see beyond terms of black and white. Determining responsibility is futile.
I care only about determining capability t resolve said conflict. I believe that a US president with a political death wish can solve it.
Lash Goth wrote: Again, I think this point is more complicated than you assert. Any President, who through sheer force of will and poll avoidance could drag peace into the region would be hailed as a hero. I think certain Americans hatred of the crimes against the Jews historically, is loathe to appear to them to be knifing them in the back.
If you mean the situation isn't as simple as a sentence I award you the most obvious assertment 1st prize. Solution of the conflict is indeed a nice addition to a presidential legacy. But the risks are enormous. Clinton tried to secure his legacy this way in a last ditch 2nd term effort bt it did not work and his effort was criticized. It's a gamble, to do this you need to finesse the pressure on both sides to avoid having the narrow minded think that an attempt to solve a pressing problem is "knifing in the back" and you always run the risk of being vilified for your efforts.
I am aware that we have polarized and highly biased constituants who do not look at the big picture. I do not think it will be easy to appease them. I also think they are idiots and thus the political suicide will be commited for a good cause.
Lash Goth wrote: Look at the global support of the Jews/Israel. Pretty skinny. Bush is among those, who morally can't bring himself to abandon the Jews, or be percieved by them as abandoning them. I am another.
Bush is both the president least likley to abandon Israel as he is the first president to try to guarantee a Palestinain state (albeit eventual). The only way a sucessfully imposed peace on the terms I have begun to detail can be construed as abandoning Jews is if you had in mind as the casualty of said happenstance the end of the ream of "Greater Israel".
Israel would get their huge economic package, Palestine would get chump change from us until we trust them to use the aid to advance their society and we police the new DMZ and wonder what new depths of stupidity humankind will attempt next.
Lash Goth wrote: Craven, I richly valued your time in laying out your ideas and beliefs.
I agree with most, and hope these ideas will find their way into action.
I used to be very hung up on the Jews being able to peacefully return to their homeland. Now, I just want them all to live in peace.
Don't believe they ever will.
The refugees will die off soon, then it's one less thing for Israel to negotiate. I do believe there will be a lasting peace. I just think Israel might waste time securing a more favorable negotiating position only to lose it due to outside intervention. It will then have wasted much time and blood.
Your questions had very limited scope, beyond trying to determine Palestinian fault (I think they are largely responsible for their predicament but think Israel has the ability to accelerate the process but doesn't out of a myriad of reasons) and precluded a balanced discussion.
Can we just out and state that we disagree on the exact degree of blame to be leveled at each party (I think both are to blame) and move on to a more impartial and objective search for solutions?
