First off, there is little to no difference between Obama and Bush's stance on the negotiations (or lack thereof). Second, Netanyahu is the one who stated he supported land swaps. The US diplomat he was meeting with happened to include it in the summary of the cable. You stated "the borders were unchanged from 1949 to 1967." That is plainly false. Israel's border with the West Bank has been changed numerous times. And the way they have went about it is disgusting. Ethnically cleansing entire neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. Making the "security wall" cut off East Jerusalem completely from the West Bank. A wall that takes up numerous Palestinian families' private property.
Forgive me beforehand if I repeat anything that’s already been stated in this thread. I didn’t have the opportunity to sift through all ten pages, so if I end up re-hashing arguments that have already been made/settled, I apologize. Points/thoughts on this discussion: -Obama’s speech to Arab world, Netanyahu, and AIPAC: Very surprised that Obama had the courage to broach the topic in the manner he’s done. Obviously, there are demagogues on both sides that are going to chastise any effort he makes for not satisfying their criteria of what the peace process should look like, which, more often than not, is disproportionately in favor of their side. What Obama did was put the peace process in Israel’s court- if they are serious about mutually agreed upon peace, then they need to show it. And this is the truly bizarre part of the entire discussion at hand- in the immediate aftermath of Obama's speech, Israeli enthusiasts have lambasted Obama in the media, not realizing that its in their own best interest to create an independent, autonomous Palestinian state (especially if they want to retain a Jewish State). Current Israeli policy is headed towards a single Israeli state, which would be a Jewish state with a Jewish minority ruling over a Palestinian majority. It would inevitably operate in an apartheid-like fashion, and it would only be a matter of time before the entire world- US included- began to ask a number of uncomfortable questions- should the US support a theocratic state, even if its political underpinnings are ostensibly democratic? How can we reconcile our support for human rights on the one hand and Israel's policies that undermine Palestinian human rights, on the other? To be fair, Palestinian enthusiasts have also come out aggressively saying the president hasnt done enough. And this too, misses the point. If they want an independent Arab governance and self-determination over their own people, then they need to realize that it's not going to get much better than '67 at this point. -Native Americans vs. Settlers is actually a very salient analogy given what’s taking place. Total colonization over America took place over the course of centuries, and was not an easy process. The tribes that showed the most resistance, like the Comanches, were most successful in retaining their independence. Treaties were enacted with Indian tribes, only to be transgressed upon days later (by one party or the other). Indian tribes were depicted as barbarians, and once that image was shown, settlements continued and brutal raids were conducted in Native American lands. There were no knights in shining armor on either side- Indians would scalp their enemies, pillage cities for fun, and steal caravans. There was no such thing as distinguishing between innocent civilian and armed combatant. And there were few attempts made to understand the other side. It is impossible to extrapolate that political reality and apply it today as an equitable moral standard to judge conflicts upon, but it is a useful use case for assessing how the Mideast conflict may or may not play out. If we learn anything from it, its that you cant simply displace a native people from a land they’ve lived on for hundreds of years without expecting some level of resistance. It also shows us that for treaties to have any meaning, both sides have to be both stringent in their individual monitoring of treaty stipulations, and willing to work together to resolve minor breaches. Meaning, if Israel concedes its borders, a solitary settlement should not be sensationalized by the media, characterized as Israeli treachery. Nor should every Palestinian act of violence, or statement of intolerance be extrapolated as a political statement made on behalf of the entire populace. In short, both states would have to have a working relationship. -Palestinian nonviolent resistance: a point I read on this forum over the past few weeks was related to Palestine needing its own Gandhi. The problem with that analogy is that it lacks political and cultural scope. Civil disobedience is typically responded to with violence in Israel, and protesters are routinely killed, imprisoned interminably, or characterized as terrorists. The world community doesn’t support them, and a hunger strike would do little to alleviate or shed light on what’s taking place. Rachel Corrie, for example, was a human rights activist who attempted to protest Israeli settlements, only to get run over by an IDF bulldozer. Aside from her, there have been many, many individuals who have sought peaceful protests and civil disobedience; the majority are nameless, and some have actually been Israelis themselves who've lost credibility amongst their ranks, disowned, and at times, arrested. -All of that said, I don’t think 1967 is the answer. Nor do I think a two-state solution can work. As small as Israel is today as a nation, Palestine is minuscule, and speaking about it as a state is almost comical. Ultimately, I think a one-state solution needs to be sought, and in order for it to be sought, there need to be agreeable terms to make that a reality: -The state absolutely cannot be ruled as a theocracy. The state can not identify itself as a Muslim state or a Jewish state, just a democratic one. -Measures need to be enacted to preserve the rights of both people. A constitution with both sides represented. -Integration has to be sought- schools, workplaces, political institutions, etc. -Right of return is almost impossible logistically, but reparations are not. -The religious justifications for Israel's 'manifest destiny' has to end. I'm not a biblical scholar, but what it says in this issue should be immaterial to this entire discussion. Those are just a few conditions off the top of my head- I'm not optimistic of this prospect at all and am almost 100% sure it wont happen. The political realities don't lend itself to it, and both sides would view their side as capitulating on an issue that they have the perceived moral high ground. Anyways, just my 2 cents.
I agree with pretty much everything else you said. I just want to point out that with Ghandi's non-violent protests hundreds and thousands were killed. That's the point. The Palestinian non-violent protestors need to have the fortitude to stay the course despite them being slaughtered by Israelis. Yes the authority they are going up against will always try and discredit them, and harm or kill them. That's the point is to show the injustice. They are going to die if they choose to violently oppose Israeli authority anyway. Only then it's easier to show them as terrorists and trouble makers. I don't think anyone should ever claim that non-violent protest is a safe harmless and peaceful alternative. It should be clear from the outset that non-violent protest will be met with brutal and violent opposition. They just need the the strength to persevere.
What does that have to do with the price of bread? The Palestinian protesters are war criminals. They attack Israeli civilians and use civilian human shields when they do (attacking from roofs of hospitals and other such places). These are war crimes by the Geneva convention. They are not non-violent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2010 The Israeli government on the other hand has committed no war crimes, as they simply responded to these rockets.
now multiply Egypt by Israel's magic "third rail" properties. any surprise that the United States wouldn't support but would help suppress non-violent Palestinian protesters? Israel defenders are always up in hysteria about how Palestinians seem naturally inclined to violence. This isn't the case. Yes, the PLO and other leaders have been very poor, and there have been very many tragic instances of misguided extremism, but when your non-violent protests are suppressed so violently, and you have no other avenue for protest, then well...as we saw in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen, violence seems to be the only way to fight back.
simply not true. I also find it laughable how you say Israel has committed no war crimes since every action they do is justified by rocket attacks! well, then using your faulty logic, I also erroneously conclude that the rocket attacks are justified because Israel murdered 1000 largely non-violent protesters, and beat children during the First Intifada.
incidentally, since the Geneva Convention seems to be your rulebook on this one--- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1682640.stm
The Palestinian government could always sit down and negotiate with the Israeli prime minister. Israel has offered this many times and still does. There is never a justification for targeting civilians, that's why it is classified as a war crime. It is not a last resort as you make it out to be.
"Widely Accepted" my ass. If it was then Israel would be booted out of the UN or found guilty. Anytime someone uses language like 'widely accepted' you know they are spewing crap.
because terrorists and crazies are controlled by the PA. Trust me, Palestine has tried. If you want to see how laughable it became eventually--- http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/ Now you're negotiating with an Israeli leader who refuses to think of land swaps and encourages settlements? forget it. It's like asking a union leader to negotiate a collective agreement with Scott F**king Walker.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html seriously lol at how the votes are always something ridiculous like 14 for, 1 against. go go US veto!
lol, no worries. I agree with what you're saying, and I think had Palestinians consistently demonstrated en masse, they'd garner a lot more of the worlds support for their cause than they have through wanton violence. The only thing I'll say in their defense is that the Palestinian response has been one of not only desperation, but of fear. I know the argument of, "oh, why not go back three hundred years then, or two thousand years, etc." cynically gets thrown out time and again, but from 1948 onwards the Palestinian state has almost always been under attack. All attempted acts of defense and war were systematically defeated. The state of Israel has launched innumerable raids into Palestinian territories since '48 and has gone on to dispossess people of their homes and regulate their movement. Suicide attacks are a relatively new phenomenon, as the first of them was conducted in the mid-90's. All of that is just to say that there is justifiable reason for them to be intimidated by Israeli strength and scared for their own future. When people live in fear, they rarely act rationally (look at us in the US, or at Israel's actions following suicide attacks) and more often than not end up doing things that work against their own strategic interests. Combine the psychology of fear with attempts at civil disobedience resulting in imprisonments and fatalities, and its understandable why it never caught on as a strategy. Recently, it's becoming a larger thorn in Israel's side- the Flotilla was perhaps the most noteworthy protest in recent memory, and just a few weeks back Palestinians along with Arabs from neighboring states, protested along Israel's borders which received some headlines. It's not clear what impact they've had, but one has to think that the protests played some role in pushing Obama to bring up the '67 borders. Perhaps he was trying to preempt what he fears might be a growing number of demonstrations along and inside Israel? On a side note, I'm curious as to whether Tibet would serve as a counter example to this, but I'm admittedly not as familiar with their independence movement as I am of others.
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lixYEZ9M_dU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
explains the unfortunate dilemma of Israel-Palestine---we have an Israeli prime minister that is still thinking "1967"---1967 before Israel acquired nukes and before the IDF's military technology was overwhelmingly advanced thanks to US milk money, and before Israel killed non-violent protesters and beat Palestinian children during the first Intifada, and before American money bought out the Saudis, and helped install tyrannous (but pro-Israel!) dictatorships in Egypt and Jordan. We now live in an age where the PA is sitting knee bent at the negotiation table---and Israel has refused to reasonably deal. Point blank.
