Roadmap to ....Peace in the Middle East?

06/19/2003 - Updated 04:03 AM ET Thursday's debate
Israeli-Palestinian conflict
The tit-for-tat pattern of violence between Palestinians and Israelis has left thousands dead since 2000, including at least 60 in the past 10 days. With both sides reverting to familiar bloodletting after a short stab at diplomacy, bold ideas are needed to rescue the proposal President Bush embraced just six weeks ago from landing on the heap of failed Middle East peace plans. One idea worth considering is suddenly gaining broad currency: sending an international force to the region.

Is that is what is needed? Should US troops be included?

No no no no NO. Definately not international troops. G-d forbid international troops be sent to the region. That would be unfair to the Israelis. We can't send US troops to the region, because that can only lead to disaster, and it might be percieved as being unfair to the Palestinians. We also should not send US troops because, remember, the United States is NOT the Police-country of the world. We have acted that way in the past, and it has brought us no advantage and only disadvantage.

Crunch,

Would you then consider that the United States end its many (and large) subsidies to the Israeli government and economy. They take the form of cash, paid in full the instant the annual appropriation becomes effective, more favorable trade conditions than we give any other country, unparalleled access to our Defense industries and markets, and, of course, indispensable international political support. Alternatively, we could give the same things to the Palestinians.

OK. Putting on my galoshes and snowsuit, expecting a blizzard.

In my mind, Israelis are an endangered species, and our financial and political support is, in large part, what has perserved them.

Yes, they do get preferential treatment, but I believe they require it.

I also believe, admitting to bias, that any financial assistance we gave to the Pals would be transformed into weapons against Israel in the blink of an eye.

Israel's goal-------to exist.
Palestinian's goal---------to wipe Israel off the map.

I root for Palestinians to get behind a peace movement, but I haven't been able to find any evidence of it, so far. I do believe Sharon has taken steps toward peace.

As much as I question and disagree with our excessive financial aid packages to other countries, I feel our assistance to Israel is indeed 'humanitarian.'

Roadmap seems to need a few adjustments

Sofia,

I believe the Palestinians would say that the Israelis immediately turn our financial assistance into weapons to be used against them. Further they would likely claim that what they want is merely their continued existence in the region, and that Israel's clear intent is to drive them out and keep the whole thing. In short, fears and suspicions on both sides are the same - and both have more or less equivalent evidence to support them.

Why do Israelis require preferential treatment from us? Is the value of their lives greater than that of Palestinians? Is the value of their culture greater? Do you consider Israelis to be "an endangered species", or is it Jews to whom you refer? Clearly Jews are thriving in the United states and other places, so your reference is likely to Israelis. Who are the "Israelis" who are endangered? Does the term include the Arab citizens of that country? Do we not have the right to consider Palestinians living for 35 years under Israeli military rule as Israelis? Must the protection of these endangered people come exactly under the terms they require, or can we establish some conditions for it? What if those terms include injustice for the Palestinians? Should we merely accept the Israeli suggestion that the Palestinians don't deserve justice, presumably because of their bad behavior. After all before 1947 the early Zionists used essentially the same terror tactics against the Palestinians.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a vehement supporter of Israel. IMO, sending troops is too much.



What do you mean "believe?" Any financial aid that goes to the PLO goes for traning camps and propoganda and any that goes to Hamas goes to the corruption of the youth of Palestinian minds.

Are you suggesting that there is no difference in the behavior of these two groups? Or--in the alternative--are you suggesting that you don't care how they behave, we should just give them money without strings? (Or is it some third option I've not considered?)

The time has come to admit that the only difference between Fatah and Hamas pertains to relation to religion. Both organizations share extreme anti-Semitic ideology, in some aspect more radical than this of Nazis. The latter did not plan the final solution before 1942 (initial plan of Hitler implied expelling Jews from Europe to Madagascar), they did not attack Jewish facilities in the neutral countries, they even did not force such allies of theirs as Spain, Bulgaria, Finland and Hungary (in tenure of Horty) to deport their Jews to Auschwitz...

answering georgeob1 --Why do Israelis require preferential treatment from us? I believe they have been hunted down and killed more than any other group of people. I believe they are the most hated group of people on the face of the earth, and would have been ethnically cleansed from existence had it not been, primarily, for US intervention. Is the value of their lives greater than that of Palestinians? No. Is the value of their culture greater? No.Do you consider Israelis to be "an endangered species", or is it Jews to whom you refer? I meant Jews, but as you show, American Jews are much safer than international Jews, IMO. Clearly Jews are thriving in the United states and other places, so your reference is likely to Israelis. Who are the "Israelis" who are endangered? Does the term include the Arab citizens of that country? No. Although the Arab Israelis are as valuable as Jewish Israelis, they do not bear the global stigma, and IMO are not targets.Do we not have the right to consider Palestinians living for 35 years under Israeli military rule as Israelis? Certainly, and while you may not agree with my reasoning, I think you know the distinction of being a Jew in this world. I know my view is 'tainted' with emotion, but it is also based on historical fact, and current news. Must the protection of these endangered people come exactly under the terms they require, or can we establish some conditions for it? Conditions are OK, if they are designed for real protection. What if those terms include injustice for the Palestinians? I am not a proponent for injustice toward the Pals. But, as I watch the drama play out, I can't find any body of opinion within the Palestinian leadership, or community, striving for peace with the Israelis. Should we merely accept the Israeli suggestion that the Palestinians don't deserve justice, presumably because of their bad behavior. Certainly not. Everyone deserves justice.

While I do defend Israelis and Jews, I don't necessarily agree with everything their govt has done, or currently does.

I do hear Sharon agreeing to give back almost all of the properties taken in the war. I see him opening borders. As Craven pointed out somewhere else--maybe these aren't well-thought gestures, but they are gestures in the right direction-->toward conciliation. I've read the Roadmap Sharon's agreed to, and see that it is mostly 'giving' on the part of the Israelis. (Of course, this is logically offset, due to the fact they are considered to have done most of the 'taking', previously.)

I just don't see the Pals stepping up to the plate. Neither Arafat, nor Abbas will take on the three major Arab terrorist orgs. They are the ones who are thwarting the peace process, IMHO. They have free rein. I definitely wouldn't support unfairness, but to me nothing is being demanded or expected from the Pals.

edit--Sorry for meandering. The down to the bone truth is, I am afraid for Jews, most specifically the ones living in Israel.

Israel employs all the methods possible, but possibilities are limited. When the Oslo agreements were signed, the leftist government of Rabin-Peres abandoned the Palestinian collaborators on the territories, and they were physically extinguished by Arafat's special services. This made recruitment of the new informers very problematic. The intelligence network of Israeli General Security Service was virtually destroyed by the rampaging doves. Contribution of Rabin and Peres to the current situation is almost equal to this of Arafat, and Mr. Sharon is trying to fix the things damaged by them.
About full-scaled military operation. IDF is able to manage the one, but it causes criticism of the White House. Even the best friend of Israel in the U.S. administration, President Bush, called for cessation of the operation "Defensive Shield" that was aimed for complete destruction of the infrastructure of terror. Later the President sufficiently softened his criticism (especially after the further terror attacks against the Israeli civilians), but IDF had to act very carefully for not to embarrass the American friends in the global public opinion. This helped to the enemy to keep intact quite a sufficient part of the military infrastructure.
I do not blame, Heavens forbid, Mr. Bush for failure of the mission (he is the most favorable toward Israel American leader since President Truman in 1947), but as a public politician in a democratic country he has constraints of his own. Israel does not have the same freedom of action that the USA and UK enjoyed in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is a small country having no natural resources, hence it is dependent on imports and sensitive to possible economic sanctions. This and only this makes complete victory over the enemies practically impossible.

Thank you for the informative explanation.
--------------
I wanted to say you cracked me up on the main board on a couple of threads. I would have mentioned it in those locations, but I was very late to the threads, and your remarks were too far back.

...being white not an achievement to be proud of (except maybe for Micheal Jackson... ...whiteness is not a crime, yet... I always expect you to be so serious, and when I come across your gems (the sex threads ), camouflaged so neatly in your sensible narratives, I spurt my iced tea. You have a unique, enjoyable sense of humor.

Thanks for acknowledgement of my sense of humor. Some people here think that I have none...

So does Star Trek's Mr. Spock

He's Spock-like.

Sofia,

Thanks for your reasoned and reasonable response to my earlier post.

Israel presents a problem of unusual historical and moral complexity for all serious observers. Indeed its historical evolution has involved particularly cruel historical ironies for all sides in this too often tragic story.

No one can fault the motives and drive of the European Zionists who founded Israel after WWII. Centuries of episodic European persecution, culminating in the grotesque horrors of the Holocaust convinced them that their safety could only be ensured by the creation of a Jewish state. I recall the euphemism for the European Jews who survived the Holocaust, often at the cost of family home and property, "displaced persons" - it accurately evoked the continuing injustice Europe dished out to them in the aftermath of the war. Similarly, no one can fail to admire the energy and creativity they applied to the creation of the new state in a largely hostile environment - a polyglot population, united by faith and common purpose, created a vibrant new nation and resurrected a dead language, Hebrew (while facilitating the death of a living one, Yiddish - this detail has always fascinated me).

However, I believe the essential idea that drove them - the necessity of a Jewish state - was flawed and contrary to the movement of history. In many respects Israel is more tolerant of its non-Jewish minorities than are its Arab neighbors of theirs. The difference is not as stark as some Israeli protagonists would have us think, but it is there nonetheless. However, the world hopes that the Arab countries will, in their inevitable evolution to a more liberal modern societies, evolve to a more tolerant polycultural form. Israel, on the other hand, is already a modern, liberal and somewhat secular state - and it is utterly based on, and dedicated to, its monocultural Zionist principles. That - in my view - is the essential problem.

Safety and justice for the Jews of the Middle East cannot be anchored in insecurity and injustice for the Arab inhabitants of the same land. Israel cannot guarantee immigration and dual citizenship for Jews throughout the world, while, at the same time, denying the right of return and property rights of Palestinians displaced in 1947. Freedom and justice for Palestinians cannot be found in a recreation of the Bantustands of the Apartheid government of South Africa.

Israel was founded in part based on the belief that the safety and security of Jews throughout the world depended on it. It is ironic to note now that the safety and security of Jews in the world is far more dependent on the actions of 5 or 6 million Jews in the United States than it is on those of 4 or 5 million in Israel. Indeed, as Stessid has noted, the security of the Jews of Israel is itself dependent on the United States. In short, Israel has not achieved the purpose for which it was created. I fear that it never will. I'm not advocating the end of Israel, nor do I wish any harm to it. However, I believe that the legitimate hopes of Jews for peace and security in the Middle East can be found only through actions that will also bring those blessings to the Palestinian inhabitants of the same land.

Stessid,

To my knowledge, no Israeli government has ever expressed a willingness to permit the unrestricted return of Palestinians - and their descendents - displaced in 1947. Every description of a potential Palestianian state I have seen involved numerous disjoint territories, each completely surrounded by Israel, and with heavily restricted rights to control of airspace, mineral, and water rights. Further, even you have indicated the future Palestinian government must be "demilitarized and neutral" - will Israel adopt these features as well? Will Israel permit the creation of a Palestinian state with the same rights it assigns itself? Will this Palestinian state have contiguous internal territory? Will it have external borders with any country other than Israel?

Israel, IMO, will agree with territorial contiguity of Palestinian state, water rights should be regulated by means of bilateral treaties. Gaza and West Bank should be connected by the overhead road passing above the Israeli territory. Aerial space usage must be under Israeli control for security reasons. It may have borders with Jordan and Egypt, and exit to the sea in the Gaza Strip. Of course, no Palestinians should be permitted to return to the proper Israeli territory: let them go to their country when it is established.

Stessid,

Thanks. I hope and pray that the current effort will bring improvements to the current situation for both Israelis and Palestinians, but I am skeptical about the long run. History, of course, has a way of confounding our predictions, and may well take unexpected future turns. Any improvement to the current situation should be welcomed by all, and, itself, may contribute to an unexpectly good subsequent evolution.

However, the history of the past 35 years does not make me optimistic.

I do not believe the United States can afford to continue its present policy in this area, without major improvements in the situation, for much longer.