Land transfer is critical....but you have to address Israel's security concerns. (And it sure would help if Hamas would at least recognize a right for Israel to exist). I think we'll see a progress in the next 10 years. When it comes....like Ireland...it may be swift. Palestine's had democracy for just a short while.
The power is already today in the hands of the extremists. This actually would take it away. The Palestinians have shown they can stop the violence when it's in their interest to do so. There was peace between infitada I & II. And the Palstinian people would certainly turn against a sucicide bomber after a hard fought victory. Finally, just the economic improvement in the country that results from peace and the influx of dollars would help create stability and make it such that groups such as Hamas will actually be against terrorism. Giving the land back away is just unrealistic.
Democracy in Palestine isn't going to magically cure the issue. Democracy isn't the problem. Fundamentally, what many Israelis fail to comprehend is that they are seen as a brutal and illegal occupier with the intent to colonize and expand Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. I have always thought that the power to make a peace lies with Israel - they are standing on the higher ground still and need to extend the olive branch. What is that Olive branch? Israel has to put the return of all occupied terrorities on the table. If you'll notice, there was only 4 sucide attacks on Israel last year - none by Hamas. The way to defang the other groups is to make the fight to end Israeli occupation irrelevant.
If they are not being attacked, what is the incentive to give away the land. In fact, I can't see a single circumstance where it is in Israel's interest to give away the land. Israel gets the best of the status quo. The Palestinians have everything to gain and nothing to lose by trying to negotiate with Israel. Israel has almost nothing to gain and everything to lose by trying to negotiate with the Palestinians. At most, Israel gains popularity with the rest of the world. That is both a very tenuous thing (see American popularity after 9/11 and after invading Iraq) and a thing whose value is tough to define, especially since Israel is already on good terms with the big dog. From their actions such as unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza strip and the security fence plan, it seems that Israel agrees with me that negotiation with the Palestinians would be a fruitless endeavor. The solution that is easily available to Israel is to define their own borders (see: the security fence), evacuate everyone on both sides that is on the wrong side of the border, and disengage from the Palestinians, leaving them to do what they will in their newly independent country. After that, any attacks against Israel would be an act of war and could be responded to as such (see: 2006 Lebanon War).
Actually they can't. The peace came when the Palestinians thought there was something to gain. When they see what they believe is a real chance for a self-sustaining statehood the majority will procede peacefully. Sadly when Israel failed to follow through with its end of the bargain we saw what happened. I was speaking of extremists on both ends. All Israel has to do is provoke, or weasel out of agreements and it all starts up again.
Unless the Palestinians get land that is productive they won't see any significant prosperity anyway. That is one of the little talked about roots of the problems. They need land that will be able to sustain themselves. They need removal of edicts that forbid Palestinian businesses from being able to compete economically with Israeli businesses. They need water rights. Give them those things, and a greater peace will follow. But extremists will always be there. They must be dealt with, but they shouldn't be allowed to interfere and halt the greater peace.
You realize you have just argued that the Palestinians should continue suicide attacks? Anyway, I disagree. Until Israel returns the occupied territories and shows willingness to make the key concessions for peace, they will always be the target of terrorism.
As an independent state it will be their responsibility to build an economically viable one, and it will be in Israel's best interests to support them.
Yes it will be their responsibility but in order to even have the opportunity they will need some land that can be productive and water rights.
Not really, because on the other side of the coin, the Israelis should not bow to terrorism either. Like I said, there is really no circumstance under which it would be in Israel's interest to negotiate with the Palestinians. Terrorism is an annoyance for a nation, not something that needs to be avoided at all costs. That an action (or inaction) would make them a target for terrorism is not reason enough to go another direction. What they can do is make it more difficult to commit terrorist attacks against them (the same route that the US has gone, btw).
Moving a couple of million European Jews and eventually Jews from throughout the whole world to live with the Jews and Arabs of Palestine (and to make it worse try to create a dominant Jewish state) was problematical from the start. Sort of like Bush II's misadventure in Iraq. Tough to see a good outcome. Ottomaton's prisoner's dilemna analysis was interesting, though as I believe New Yorker pointed out history has shown similoar examples to have been resolved. I now think that a one state solution is the best and most just solution. Jews and Palestinians living together in the present Isael plus West Bank and Gaza. As an American and progressive person I don't really believe in the type of religious/ethnic Jewish dominant state proposed by many. In a larger analysis the desendants of the original Zionists are not to blame, and of course, neither are the Palestiains. I know it is tough to overcome racism and religious intolerance for both sides. Aparthheid South Africa, a valid comparison, I believe shows that this can be done. Unwittingly the extremists in control of the state of Israel in the last 40 years may have made the one state soloution inevitable and blown their possible chance for a two state solution. On further thought about the South African analogy, a crucial difference may be that in this case the Afrikaners (read Jews) have nuclear weapons so they remain confident militarily. I don't believe a nuclear regime has ever been overthrown, though as we saw with Russian change can come from within.
So basically you are saying under no circumstance should Israel return land. Terrorism is more of an annoyance for a nation...it's economically and psychologically draining. Perhaps in today's relative calm is has become that, but have you forgotten when there were 100's of attacks a year? Israelis didn't have a great life. Anyway, this goes beyond terrorism. having hostile neighbors isn't a good thing for a tiny country.
Right and wrong, living up to your given word is not a reason? Separately from NY's suggestion it would be in their interest because they would have greater security if they gave up the land, and lived up to all their agreements.
Man..what a strange thread. The oddest thing to see is people wishing a happy anniversary to the war. In Israel, no one celebrates war. There's a memorial day for soldiers, but that's it. It's actually against Judaism to celebrate war... So here you won't see that except editorials talking about it that mostly read like"40 years and what the hell happened?" It's one thing to celebrate the founding of a nation, but a war? The US celebrates the Fourth of July, but you don't see people high fiving each other for Vietnam day, or Bosnia Day, or "Abu Garab Day." Not just any war, but a war that suddenly changed the country into a very different place. The leadership of the war in '67 thought they had won a permanent peace, and most expected to negotiate it with the land they captured. That Israel is long gone. If anything, Israel before 1967 was the darling of even the snottiest of Gaulists and all about Ben-Gurionism, building a progressive society and remaining as politically independent as possible. The Six Day war killed all that, and what was left over died in the '73 war. It's not something to celebrate...especially considering it led to 40 years of occupation that benefits a few religious sentiments and some security concerns and that's about it. It left behind a legacy of internal division in Israel, the rise of terror, and a whole new breed of bigotry. Everyone suddenly had new reasons to hate everyone else. My favorite quote of all time is Ben Gurion's when he was told that Israel captured the Old City and the Temple Mount. He said something to the effect of "Who cares about a bunch of old rocks?" In June 1967, Israel became about a bunch of old rocks and not the people who lived here. Idealism, and progressive secular thinking died. Kooky religious wingnuts and consumerism replaced it. Israel became the unofficial 51st state and a pariah in the world as the ante was raised both in the Cold War and in the stakes for Israel's survival. Sorry to rain on the celebration...it's one of those things you don't really understand until you live in a place for a while...kinda like calling a Dr. Pepper a Coke. I think what Israelis and Palestinians want most of all is the same thing. Something their politicians can't seem to deliver: less corruption and a livable wage. When they can deliver that, then you'll have something to celebrate, and no one will have to stomach James Baker/Condaleeza Rice/Whoever telling them how to "make" peace to keep their money from the US taxpayer rolling in to build their respective armies and big box retail outlets. You might find young people in Israel willing to cheer with you, but I'm pretty sure you'll have a hard time finding anyone who actually fought in the war to want to celebrate it.
I don't think either side has lived up to any of the deals they have made in the past, rendering them all null and void. I disagree. I would say they would have less security if they gave up the land. They would have greater security if they deported all of the Palestinians, as the Jews were expelled from the Arab countries around them. How many acts of Jewish terrorism do you hear about in Egypt? Iraq? Get rid of the pool that terrorists are drawn from, and you won't have to worry about terrorism, the Palestinians can go back to being the Arabs' problem, as they were before Jordan expelled Arafat and his ilk.
In the past during the period between the first and second intifada and the Oslo accords when the deal has been presented and the Palestinians believed they were going to get land back, the attacks have stopped. That would seem to indicate that restoration of land or in the past even the promise of said restoration grants Israel more security.
I'm sure the promise of land can provide for a period of security. I don't think once the land is handed over that there will be no attacks. If they don't believe that there will not be attacks, as I do not, then they should not hand over the land. My plan does not depend on the good nature of the Palestinians, which would seem to be an advantage given their history (not to mention current events).
Based not just on this post but others in the past, it's probably fair to say that you openly support the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the lands the Israelis would like to annex. You're consistent with your posts regarding Israelis and Palestinians, that much I appreciate.
