Israeli-Palestinian negotiations resume–no fanfare and no new peace religion

Posted By Daniel Levy Friday, May 14, 2010 - 5:39 PM Share

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process was finally re-launched this week following an almost year-and-a-half long hiatus during which new governments took office in both Israel and the U.S. Arguably the most remarkable feature of such a long-awaited resumption of talks (albeit indirect ones) was the absence of not only any fanfare surrounding the occasion but also of almost any expectation that these might produce results.

Sadly, this skepticism is more than justified. Many point to the format of the talks - that these are so-called proximity talks rather than direct negotiations--as being indicative of how deep into retreat the prospects for peace have sunk. In fact, these are not even real proximity talks, which normally imply ongoing mediation by a third party between two parties ensconced in the same location though in different quarters. The process launched by Special Envoy Mitchell might be more accurately described as indirect and mediated talks.

Tantalizingly, such a U.S.-driven back-to-back negotiating format, were it to be embraced as a new methodology, could actually be promising. The U.S. is better positioned to extract concessions from both sides, and delivering a yes to the U.S. is an easier political ask for the respective leaders. The back-to-back approach could also help compensate for the deep asymmetry between the parties and correct the false sense that these are two equal sides negotiating.

Alas, the American mediator is apparently committed to viewing "proximity talks" as a fallback rather than a preference and as a way-station to the resumption of direct negotiations between the parties.

Much of the focus has been on how wide the gaps now are between the parties. That description needs deconstructing for a moment. When more closely considered, it is clear that the Palestinian negotiators are the same people as in previous rounds and that their negotiating positions, including the flexibility on display, have remained consistent. The new found chasm is almost exclusively a product of the regression in the negotiating position of Israel's new/old Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (as gleaned from his public statements on Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley, settlements, etc.).

The almost universally held expectation in the region for these resumed talks is that they will collapse. The interesting subjects for speculation therefore become when, under what conditions, who will be blamed, and what will come next, especially from the Obama administration. Both sides already seem to be positioning themselves for both the blame game and for the post-negotiation failure phase of subsequent U.S. moves. Week one was rather confirmatory in that respect. Israel's right wing ministers competed with each other in declaring their filialty to settlement construction in East Jerusalem and to demolishing Palestinian homes while the PLO cried foul and U.S. officials chimed in with what one imagines will become an oft-repeated mantra of "chill out."

While almost no one is betting on success, the market on causes for failure includes some more interesting and dramatic prophecies. Might a new round of violence be launched as an ultimate distraction, could Israel introduce its own initiative involving some minimal pull-back in parts of the West Bank, or might September's expiration of the partial settlements go-slow occasion a new crisis? All of the above are possible, as is the much discussed prospect of the U.S. presenting some kind of plan of its own. Even that, perhaps more hopeful option, tends to lack a clear articulation of what might be new in a plan this time around and how it might deliver success.

It's hardly surprising then that the chorus of skeptics, naysayers, and non-believers is so deafening. But among that choir none have been more articulate, piercing in their critique, and justifiably paid attention to than Aaron David Miller. Writing here at Foreign Policy, Miller described "the false religion of Mideast peace," and in so doing he set off a fierce debate.

Miller was a long time peace policy practitioner serving six presidents, and his book, The Much Too Promised Land is one of the most informative and the most entertaining of the recent histories of American peace efforts.

Anyone serious about getting something done this time in the Israeli-Arab arena must be able to answer the challenges that Miller poses - which is what the rest of this piece will attempt to do.

To recap Aaron's argument, he rebuts what he claims are the three articles of faith of the false religion of Middle East peace, namely that it is a core U.S. interest, that it is only possible through a serious negotiating process based on land for peace, and that America has to be key in delivering it. I would suggest that the first half of Miller's essay, his attempt at refuting this being a core American interest, is simply wrong. The second half of his essay which deals with the assumptions and mechanics of peace-making is correct in most of its critiques but is too often addressing the wrong question and chooses not to offer prescriptions for what to do instead.

In denying the U.S. national interest impetus for resolving the conflict, Miller finds himself in unusual company. He is also apparently a recent convert to this belief. Part of the more dogmatic pro-Israel community have made linkage denial a pillar of their own religion - the idea being that Palestinian and Arab-Israeli issues do not have a costly effect for America in the region and beyond. Often that entails invoking a straw-man version of the linkage argument: that achieving Arab-Israeli peace would produce the pixie dust that could then be showered onto every other problem to make it melt away and disappear. This is of course nonsense. What is more serious is that this continues to be the gift that keeps giving for rallying anti-Americanism, it undermines America's allies and its own standing, and is the iconoclastic litmus test issue for so much of the Arab and Muslim world.

Miller's version of denial comes perilously close to tackling this straw-man obfuscation. He claims that the region has become nastier and more complex and there is no simple fix or magic potion. Breaking news! But is the unresolved conflict a debilitating and complicating factor for America of low or high significance? It is clearly the latter. In perhaps the most perplexing claim in his essay, Miller takes issue with the predictions made for years by State Department colleagues, "An unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict would trigger ruinous war, increase Soviet influence, weaken Arab moderates, strengthen Arab radicals, jeopardize access to Middle East oil, and generally undermine U.S. influence from Rabat to Karachi." But most of those things have happened. Arab moderates are weaker, radicals are stronger, U.S. influence is undermined, there have been wars (okay, the Soviets are no longer around but Russia is reemerging, and the oil argument was always tangential).

The ongoing Palestinian and Arab grievance and how that interacts with American foreign policy is central to all of the above. It has become even more so since 9/11 as has been recognized by every U.S. Centcom commander in the intervening period. Much was made of the prepared testimony by current Centcom head Gen. David Petraeus before the Senate Armed Services Committee recently. Petraeus claimed:

"The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [area of responsibility]... The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world."

The denialists (not Miller) wasted no time in going after Petraeus. Yet in the weeks that followed and in clarifying his case, Petraeus never stepped back from his basic, obvious, and logical assertion. At the Woodrow Wilson Center last month, Petraeus explained that the unresolved conflict wasn't putting U.S. soldiers at risk and that of course Israel is an "important strategic ally," and that he should have recognized that [pdf]. Then Petraeus said this: "...[T]he fact is that I did, indeed, offer, during the transition to the new administration, our view that the lack of progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace is, indeed, something that does very much shape the environment." Petraeus in other words stuck to his guns.

In stating this, Gen. Petraeus was simply repeating his own testimony from a year earlier (albeit this time in a more charged U.S-Israel political environment), and following a mantra developed by his three predecessors at Centcom since 9/11 - Gen. Tommy Franks, Gen. John Abizaid, and Gen. William Fallon, everyone of whom made the same basic assertion.

Gen. Abiziad, for example, in Senate testimony from 2006, argued for the U.S. to, "focus on three strategic objectives... defeat al-Qaeda...deter Iranian designs for regional hegemony... finally, we must find a comprehensive solution to the corrosive Arab-Israeli conflict."

That the uniformed military sees it this way should hardly be surprising. Take just one of the many for instances - this recent New America Foundation report on al-Qaeda Central and the internet by Daniel Kimmage, which found that the al-Qaeda affiliated as-Sahab's websites were having difficulty getting an audience for their Pakistan/Afghanistan-related postings as Gaza and the Palestinian issue were attracting the lion's share of attention.

Indeed the post-9/11 enhanced urgency of addressing this issue was something belatedly accepted by the Bush administration when it launched the Annapolis peace effort and has been continued with greater determination under President Obama. Linkage was the driving logic behind the Iraq Study Group led by Messrs. James Baker and Lee Hamilton, devoting one third of that report to how the region impacts America's Iraq effort and focusing most intensively on the need to for an American role in resolving Arab-Israeli affairs.

Recently, Secretary Clinton has taken to including the following remarks in her speeches about the region:

The lack of peace between Israel and the Palestinians... destabilizes the region and beyond.

I told some of you this, that one of the striking experiences that I had becoming Secretary of State and now having traveled something on the order of 300,000 miles in the last 15 months and going to dozens and dozens of countries, is that when I compare that to my experience as First Lady, where I was also privileged to travel around the world, back in the ‘90s when I went to Asia or Africa or Europe or Latin America, it was rare that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was raised. Now it is the first, second, or third item on nearly every agenda of every country I visit.

What does that mean? Well, it means that this conflict has assumed a role in the global geostrategic environment that carries great weight.

Having started from this premise, Miller goes on to explain why he considers that even if it were a priority, America cannot lead the parties to achieve a negotiated peace. He contends that the political risk is too high for the local leaders, even life-threatening, that there are no longer strong leaders, and that America no longer has the carrying capacity. America's reach is limitedby the U.S. not owning the issue, its loss of mystique, and the limits imposed by domestic politics.

Structural flaws in the peace process do indeed exist. Miller is right in pointing them out, and there is little to disagree with in his conclusion that pursuing the same format of peace process that has been tried for so long will not succeed. In calling for a profound re-think, Miller is doing a service for any future peace effort.

The particular peace architecture in which the U.S. is still engaged was begun in 1991 (at the Madrid Conference) and gelled in 1993 (with the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles). After nearly two decades which have witnessed not only failure but also a collapse of the Palestinian national movement, a tripling of the Israeli West Bank settler population, a Second Intifada, a collapse of the Israeli peace camp, a withdrawal from and then blockade of Gaza that took place outside of the peace process, and a re-shaping of the map of regional power, one would think that a fundamental rethink and re-conceptualizing of the problem and the approach to solving it might be in order. It is very much in order.

Aaron Miller describes the problem well, but the one prescriptive paragraph in his essay is devastating in its lack of originality or internalization of the lessons that should have been learned from failure. Here it is:

The United States needs to do what it can, including working with Israelis and Palestinians on negotiating core final-status issues (particularly on borders, where the gaps are narrowest), helping Palestinians develop their institutions, getting the Israelis to assist by allowing Palestinians to breathe economically and expand their authority, and keeping Gaza calm, even as it tries to relieve the desperation and sense of siege through economic assistance.

So Israelis and Palestinian should just continue negotiating core issues, just keep building incremental confidence after almost two decades of ripping that confidence apart, and to continue building Palestinian institutions of future statehood under conditions of occupation when there is no end to that occupation or real statehood on the horizon.

So what can be done differently?

Having spent so long in indulging my own critique of these failures, it's probably advisable to offer some suggested reframing or new thinking. Not a comprehensive peace plan (for now) but some considerations to bear in mind, a partial list to be sure:

1. It's not peace now. We might want to think about this more as an exercise, initially at least, in arranging a de-occupation rather than a historic handshake between two great leaders that ushers in immediate peace, reconciliation, and an end of claims. Yes peace is still a convenient shorthand way of describing an urgent two-state outcome but it is very likely that a full peace and reconciliation will only be achieved after the modalities for de-occupation are in place rather than in parallel with them.

This is not a negotiation between equals. There is a huge asymmetry between the parties - occupier versus occupied, coherent functioning state apparatus versus non-state actor with collapsed national movement, and so on. Structuring a negotiation process as if there were symmetry and without factoring in the above is not smart. The way forward may end up looking more like the U.S. together with international and regional partners negotiating arrangements with Israel for it to evacuate the territory and create the space necessary to allow for the creation of a viable Palestinian state, rather than a classical Israeli-Palestinian negotiation (even one with U.S. mediation). That space would have to be on 100 percent of the '67 territory, allowing for minor modifications of the '67 lines in a one-to-one landswap.

2. Seek a comprehensive new regional equilibrium. Traditionally the consensus has been that you can do the Palestinian track or the Syrian track but you can't do it all together. Today's regional realities suggest a need to rethink that equation. If this is an effort exclusively focused on Israel-Palestine (and just PLO/Fatah Palestine at that) then one is likely to have not only Iran but Syria, Hezbollah, and half the Palestinian political forces (including Hamas), and by extension Lebanon and other Arab actors opposed or at least sitting on the sidelines. That is unlikely to deliver conditions for a new equilibrium or an Israeli ‘yes.'

If one addresses the Syrian and Palestinian issues simultaneously then one impacts (and limits) the likelihood of strong Palestinian opposition (including Hamas). If one gets Lebanon, the entire Arab world, and the Organization of Islamic Conference on board, then one offers Israel the positive reassurances that are in the Arab Peace Initiative and a finality on borders that while not a simple deal, can be embraced given all the additional benefits that would accrue to Israel. Iran would have to reluctantly come on board or be more isolated and find its ability to leverage the Palestinian grievance castrated.

3. There needs to be a compelling plan for getting to an Israeli ‘yes.' No solution for de-occupation can be imposed on Israel. The Israeli public and the Israeli body politic will have to deliver its own ‘yes' if this is ever going to be resolved and a new equilibrium achieved. Given contemporary Israeli realities, it would be ill-advised to expect Israel to generate and embrace a de-occupation of its own volition.

The two core ingredients worth considering in getting to that Israeli ‘yes' might be: (a) a package deal that addresses Israel's legitimate concerns and offers benefits to Israel while also delivering genuine de-occupation, real Palestinian statehood, and parameters that can be acceptable to the Arab side; and (b) a recalibrated incentive/disincentive structure toward Israel in the face of acceptance versus rejection. This should be designed to generate a re-calculation of what is in Israel's best interest by enough Israelis and their leaders. The package or plan would need to be well-constructed and marketed to the Israelis who would need to hear much more volume from an Arab ‘yes' than silence or a ‘no.' The U.S. would need to be able to sustain over time its demonstrable support for the package and its displeasure towards any rejection.

4. Be realistic about what current Palestinian political structures can shoulder. A divided national movement is less capable of delivering historic compromise than a united one, even if it affords the mediator the luxury of dealing with uber-moderates in isolation. Reunifying the national movement would help, as would dealing with all key elements of the Palestinian body politic (an imperfect but perhaps helpful comparison would be the All Party Talks in Northern Ireland).

Limitations to Palestinian capacity should be factored in--there will be no perfect Palestinian state birthed from the womb of occupation, including in the security sector. It may be more realistic to consider a Palestine which accepts certain limitations on its own sovereignty for a number of years in cooperation with international partners--for instance on security (with an international force) and even a degree of political oversight (again, an imperfect comparison but perhaps useful one would be how East Timor or Bosnia became independent states) This cannot of course be the replacement of one occupation with another.

5. Be creative about solutions and honest about the alternatives. Some issues may still benefit from new and untried ideas. As an example, a Canadian-sponsored group recently presented ideas for the Old City of Jerusalem. A comprehensive regional effort may open up new possibilities--for instance, arrangements for Jewish refugees from Arab countries and possibly reciprocal arrangements for Palestinian refugees.

However, the alternatives if a package is rejected should also be spelled out. Holding out would not lead in the future to Palestinian refugees attaining the full justice that is associated with return and restitution. Likewise, an Israel that rejects genuine de-occupation would be expected to take seriously the demand for full democratic rights for all those living almost half a century under its control.

6. America should not go it alone. The prospects for success would benefit from America working in closer cooperation with other states both in the international community (including the E.U. and the Quartet) and in the region. American solo-ism is not an asset, the Quartet has been underutilized, Europe can bring both sticks and carrots to the table and help persuade all sides. Arab and Muslim states buy-in will be integral to a successful effort.

7. If you can't manage the domestic politics, don't even try this. A meaningful U.S. effort will need to be capable of leveraging some of America's enormous untapped influence with Israel. The U.S. may well have to sustain over multiple months its advocacy for a package of proposals and find meaningful ways to demonstrate that rejectionism will not be met by a business-as-usual approach. That does not mean dropping Israel as an ally, ending aid or security cooperation. It does mean being able to launch an effective public diplomacy campaign with Israelis, to communicate the benefits of the proposals being made.

That's the easy part--and that is likely to win over many and very probably a majority of Israelis, but not perhaps the given leader at a given moment. It therefore also means sustaining appropriate expressions of displeasure--using the public soap box and other tools such as withholding of the veto at the U.N. Security Council on a relevant vote. And being able to do so in the knowledge that there will be a domestic political cost. I won't go into estimating that cost here and I think that it is less than many assume. The degree of support in Israel can be expected to stifle some of the U.S. domestic opposition, but the point is clear--this needs to be treated as a domestic political campaign.

8. Always remember why the U.S. is doing this. This is not just because peace is a good thing,its not to win a Nobel Peace Prize (the current president has one of those already), and not even to help save Israel. It is because this is an American interest--but not just that, it is also the absence of any better alternative.

The U.S. essentially has three options (imposing a solution on Israel is not an option). First, America could accept the status-quo but that is costly as we have proven and it is not static. The structural dynamics dictate a deterioration that will be ever more debilitating for the U.S.

Second, the U.S. could give up on solving this, but not accept the costs of the status-quo and seek rather to off-set those costs by distancing itself from Israel or at least from the occupation. I would suggest that is an even more difficult path to take vis a vis domestic U.S. politics and that America owes its ally Israel a good faith effort to avoid this path. It would also clearly be a bad option for Israel. So to the third option, namely taking a re-framed approach to resolve this, to get that new equilibrium. This is arguably the best option available for the U.S.

Daniel Levy is an editor for the Middle East Channel

*The Middle East Channel held its official launch at the New America Foundation with a discussion on this chaired by Marc Lynch, Aaron David Miller, Rob Malley, and myself. It can be viewed here.

AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, MIDDLE EAST, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

(23)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

J THOMAS

3:13 AM ET

May 15, 2010

Why would you assume there is

Why would you assume there is any room for a deal?

Imagine that in middle 1942 the USA tried to get a peace treaty between Germany and the USSR etc. We propose that the Germans should move their lines back, keeping only half the Ukraine and perhaps half of Finland, and return half of the Vichy government's land in France. Everybody should then agree to peace.

If the Germans thought they were strong, they would wonder why they should give up land they conquered for "peace". If the Russians want peace, let them have peace in the land they can hold onto. Why would anybody suppose that Russia would actually keep a peace after they get back land for free? And what about all the people in occupied countries who hate Germans? Germany would have to keep them occupied, or possibly give them away to enemy nations where they could help the war effort, or kill them. Such a plan simply does not make sense when Germany is strong.

If the Germans thought they were weak, they would wonder how they could afford to give up so much. If they can push through they might achieve a stunning victory. If they must retreat, better to have more depth to retreat through while their scientists look for secret weapons. Why would anybody expect the USSR to keep a peace when they could have a victory instead?

The exact same logic applies to Israel. Why should they give up anything -- much less 50% of their water! -- for words on paper?

"The way forward may end up looking more like the U.S. together with international and regional partners negotiating arrangements with Israel for it to evacuate the territory [...]. That space would have to be on 100 percent of the '67 territory, allowing for minor modifications of the '67 lines in a one-to-one landswap. "

Why ever would Israel agree to such a thing? A whole lot of Israeli homes would suddenly no longer be in Israel. In exchange for words on paper, for nothing they can believe in.

"No solution for de-occupation can be imposed on Israel."

Then how can it possibly be done? Perhaps Israel has a silent and utterly discredited but large peace movement, that would come out of hiding if there was somehow a chance for peace? I don't think so.

Israelis can no more be persuaded to abandon the whole West Bank than Germans could have agreed to withdraw from the Sudetenland in 1942. If you can't impose it on them, then it will not happen.

"[...] a package deal that addresses Israel's legitimate concerns and offers benefits to Israel while also delivering genuine de-occupation, real Palestinian statehood, and [...]"

Gotcha. So we offer Israel various goodies provided they agree to give up the West Bank. Presumably we offer them goodies that are worth more than the West Bank and Golan. Half their water? Maybe we make Palestine and Syria agree to sell Israel that water, and we pay for it?

OK, so Israel agrees, and leaves the West Bank, and gets the goodies, and then they say "Perfidy! There has been an act of terrorism! The deal is off!" and they re-invade. Back to square minus fifteen except that Israel keeps the goodies. Doesn't that seem plausible?

"The U.S. would need to be able to sustain over time its demonstrable support for the package and its displeasure towards any rejection."

So we offer bribes and threats both. If the threats, the "disincentives", are too small then the Israelis do not agree. If they are large enough that Israel musto agree, then we are imposing a solution. Which you said must not happen. I think you are building cloud-fairylands here, using cloud-bricks that are round and also square, that are red or blue depending on which color you need them to be at the moment.

"[...] Palestine which accepts certain limitations on its own sovereignty for a number of years in cooperation with international partners--for instance on security (with an international force) [....] This cannot of course be the replacement of one occupation with another."

So the occupying force will provide "security" for Israel, but it is not an occupation. More cloud castles. More round squares.

"[...] an Israel that rejects genuine de-occupation would be expected to take seriously the demand for full democratic rights for all [...]"

We tried that in Virginia. First we imposed full democratic rights for all. But after some years we got tired of keeping an occupation army in Virginia so the Yankee troops went home. It took 100 years for us to finally end racial discrimination in Virginia once and for all.

If we can't impose de-occupation on Israel, how can we expect to impose an end to apartheid? It didn't work in Virginia even using an occupation army.

"If you can't manage the domestic politics, don't even try this."

That's been the most compelling reason not to attempt a peace. Israel does not want an agreement. US Zionists want an agreement even less. How powerful are they really?

My guess is that while the mainstream media doesn't report what they're doing, they are very powerful. But the more that nonzionist voters see what's going on, the weaker they get. So, how much influence do they have over the media? I don't know.

"I won't go into estimating that cost here and I think that it is less than many assume."

You would have to think that, because the "many" believe that it is overwhelming and therefore we should not even try.

"America could accept the status-quo but that is costly as we have proven and it is not static. The structural dynamics dictate a deterioration that will be ever more debilitating for the U.S."

This is the default. But the less of a world power the USA becomes, the less it matters what we do about Israel or what the world thinks of us for it.

"U.S. could give up on solving this, but not accept the costs of the status-quo and seek rather to off-set those costs by distancing itself from Israel or at least from the occupation. I would suggest that is an even more difficult path to take vis a vis domestic U.S. politics and that America owes its ally Israel a good faith effort to avoid this path."

I don't see that the USA owes that to Israel at all. But it is clearly harder for domestic politics.

"[...]a re-framed approach to resolve this[...]"

I like that best too. But what are the chances?

First we have to win the political battle in the USA against the zionists. Maybe if Israel likes our peace plan the US zionists will back off some? When has that happened before?

Second we have to impose a solution on Israel, while making it look like we are not imposing a solution on Israel. But of course zionists would sob that we are imposing a solution even if we weren't.

Third we have to impose a solution on Palestine. That one is easier in the short run, but for it to really work we have to make them say they like it. Harder.

We will need an occupation force for Palestine that is both ready to repel Israeli incursions and airstrikes, and also stop token Palestinian attacks on Israel. Two distinct missions. If they actually fought off an Israeli attack they might get a lot of arab praise, but isn't it more likely that Israel would demand that they leave first, and they go, and then Israel attacks?

The virtue of the disengagement approach is that this is one we can do ourselves. We don't have to argue about whether we are imposing on somebody else, we don't need for other people to make agreements they don't want to make. We can just do it. So that is the easiest course, apart from local zionist opposition.

My alternative suggestion: Offer Palestine a chance to become a US commonwealth like Puerto Rico. If they accept, then we occupy them and give them full protection against any enemies. We also catch whatever terrorists we can find, just as we do in the USA. We give them US passports and let them travel anywhere in the world and come back when they want to.. They can look for jobs in the USA and send money home. Settlers can stay or leave, subject to US law and protected by US law. Their land claims would be adjudicated in US courts.

The USA would monitor their elections Occasionally they might vote on whether to declare independence, or ask to become a US state.

Israel could become a US commonwealth if they wanted to. Their laws would have to be made compatible with US law. Probably they would not want that.

SIR_MIXXALOT

2:46 AM ET

May 17, 2010

"The exact same logic applies

"The exact same logic applies to Israel. Why should they give up anything -- much less 50% of their water! -- for words on paper?"

They shouldn't -- but if one day the public in the US wakes up to the fact that we are supporting a war criminal apartheid state, there may be impetus towards a one-state democratic solution. Do I think this will happen -- yes in a few year, due to electronic media.

Here is what print media brought us -- Max Frankel of N Y Times acknowledges the
impact his own attitude had on his editorial decisions: 'I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert . . . Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognised, I wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective.' " (From his memoirs)

ARVAY

5:29 AM ET

May 15, 2010

translation

that is an even more difficult path to take vis a vis domestic U.S. politics

translation: Congress is occupied Israeli territory and America will not be permitted to make this choice

America owes its ally Israel a good faith effort to avoid this path

translation: as a Zionist this seems clear to me.

It would also clearly be a bad option for Israel.

translation: Israel uber alles

AEL

8:12 AM ET

May 15, 2010

One Person, One Vote

Mr. Levy forgot a fourth option.

Equal human rights in a greater Israel.

Enfranchise everyone between river and sea and let them work out their problems on the floor of the Knesset.

LITZ

9:46 AM ET

May 15, 2010

forget it AEL

there is no reason to give palestinians the right to vote in a country that they want to see destroyed. Hamas leaders openly declare that their sole intention is the destruction of israel. so by the same token, you might as well suggest allowing al-qaeda and taliban to vote in the american elections, "and let them work out their problems on the floor of the congress". sounds stupid, doesn't it?
the palestinians themselves have never wished to become israeli citizens, because they loathe israel so much. they want their own state and their own parliament. so it sure makes me wonder why you're so eager to deny both israelis and palestinians their right to self-determination.

J THOMAS

9:57 AM ET

May 15, 2010

"Mr. Levy forgot a fourth

"Mr. Levy forgot a fourth option.

"Equal human rights in a greater Israel."

Equal human rights is no more possble for Israel today than for South Carolina in 1875.

Less so -- South Caroline was a defeated nation that had no choice but to comply to some extent.

AEL

12:31 PM ET

May 15, 2010

Franchise

Palestinians are humans.
They are deserving of human rights.
In a democratic country, this means they deserve the vote.

Everything else is noise.

J THOMAS

1:24 PM ET

May 15, 2010

AEL, Americans of the

AEL, Americans of the african-american persuasion have officially had the vote in South Carolina since 1865. But the official vote was not nearly enough.

LITZ

2:06 PM ET

May 15, 2010

that's right AEL

palestinians deserve to vote - in a palestinian state.
palestinians will vote in israel when iraqis vote in america.

BETZ55

11:26 AM ET

May 16, 2010

"Hamas leaders openly declare

"Hamas leaders openly declare that their sole intention is the destruction of israel."

Yea? Well, all you have to do is go to the Likud-Platform website and read about all about how Israel plans to keep on ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, the indigenous people, from their land.

Hamas isn't going to go away. It was a democratically elected body. And Israel only has itself to blame, you are ignoring the fact that Israel helped Hamas rise in the 1980s to defeat the PLO and then when the PLO ceased being effective advocates for its people, it embraced it and sidelined Hamas.

Zionism is the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from ‘Jewish’ land. You can’t accuse Hamas while ignoring all the right wingers, like Lieberman, in Israel who call for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. You’re a hypocrite and not very good one at that.

Your Moldavian thug of an FM who emigrated into Israel and now wants to ethnically clean Isreal of the Palestinian-Israelis whose families have been there for hundreds of years.

He is an explicit racist whose fascist political party, Yisrael Beiteinu, recently proposed that Israeli Arabs should be banned, on the grounds of “national unity,” from commemorating the 1948 Naqba, or Catastrophe, when they lost their homes and homeland in the war that led to the establishment of the state of Israel.

If an extremist with Lieberman’s profile rose to power in Europe, Israelis wouldn’t hesitate to characterize him as a neo-Nazi. Likud is the death knell for Israel.

SIR_MIXXALOT

2:49 AM ET

May 17, 2010

Editorial bias is found in

Editorial bias is found in papers like the New York Times.

The Times occasionally criticizes Israeli policies and sometimes concedes that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but it is not even?handed. In his memoirs, for example, former Times executive editor Max Frankel acknowledged the impact his own pro?Israel attitude had on his editorial choices. In his words: “I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert.” He goes on: “Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognized, I wrote them from a pro?Israel perspective." "

REF:
Max Frankel, The Times of My Life And My Life with the Times (NY: Random House, 1999), pp. 401?403.

LITZ

7:59 AM ET

May 18, 2010

betz55 - it's a pleasure to embarrass you by exposing your lies

obviously you have never read or seen the likud's platform. so here are some quotes:

1. "Peace is a primary objective of the State of Israel. The Likud will strengthen the existing peace agreements with the Arab states and strive to achieve peace agreements with all of Israel's neighbors with the aim of reaching a comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict."
2. "The overall objectives for the final status with the Palestinians are: to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of a stable, sustainable agreement and replace confrontation with cooperation and good neighborliness, while safeguarding Israel's vital interests as a secure and prosperous Zionist and Jewish state."

from the knesset website: http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

now let's take a look at the Hamas charter:

1. "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
2. "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement."
3. "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."
4. "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

excerpted from Yale law school website (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp)

those who take a one-sided stand in this conflict based on palestinian lies and incitement will eventually support palestinian terrorism, and any other kind of terrorism around the world.

JRACFORR

1:10 PM ET

May 15, 2010

Abrahams foot steps

If we compare Islamic history to Roman history the following sequence of events is likely to occur in Palestine / Israel
1. A Syrian / Iranian entity will force the Israelis out of Palestine into Egypt
2They will be absorbed into the Egyptian population to form a new ethnic group
3 Some of the Israelis will return to Europe
4 A Jewish renaissance will occur in Aswan Egypt decades later

ANNODOMINI77

10:50 PM ET

May 15, 2010

"The load, or weight, or

"The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbour's glory should be laid daily on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken. It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilization - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously - (no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption.) And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner - no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbor he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ veer latitat - the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself, is truly hidden." (C.S. Lewis)

ANNODOMINI77

10:55 PM ET

May 15, 2010

Jesus Died for All

"The supply is endless, the wealth from all its treasures!" (Bible, Nahum 2:9)

"4 The chariots storm through the streets, rushing back and forth through the squares. They look like flaming torches; they dart about like lightning." (Bible, Nahum 2:4)

There was a General in the U.S. Military who became Governor of New Mexico from 1878-1881. He wrote the book Ben Hur. It was the best selling novel until 1936. It was made into a movie in 1959.

In the Movie Ben Hur. Ben Hur grew up with Messala. Messala grew up and became a Roman Centurion. Ben Hur grew up to be a Prince of Juda. Then they Clashed. They put each other in various prisons and finally had a chariot race. Both Got Hurt. Then when they watched the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and Heard him say Father Forgive them for they know not what they do. They both became Christian and dropped there swards, and stopped fighting.

There was a man named Saul of Tarsus who who did much worse than what Messalla did to Ben Hur and much worse than what Ben Hur did to Messala to the Christians. But Jesus made him a Christian. And Jesus made him The Apostle Paul who wrote most of the New Testament Gospel.

"28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Bible, New Testament, Galatians 3:28-29)

"The Dispensationalist teaching of prophecy takes Jesus from the center of all prophecy and replaces our blessed Lord with the state of Israel. In Luke 24:44, Jesus says, "All things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Dispensationalists, in effect, have recast this section of God's Word to say, "All things written about the state of Israel in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Furthermore as Luther points out, Israel, even in the old Testament, has always referred to those who believed and followed God, not to a particular race of people or to a certain geographical area. The Psalms regularly refer to Israel. When the Psalmist is referring to Israel, he is pointing to those whom God has promised to bless. In there false understanding of scripture, the dispensationalists have misled millions to believe that the Psalms are referring to God blessing the state of Israel, when in fact, the Psalms refer to a blessing God wants to give to all who are worshiping him. In other words, the dispensationalist theology twists and redirects God's promises of blessings from children who are his through Baptism to those they believe are his through geography. Among themselves Dispensationalists would agree that the leading schools teaching their interpretation of the Scriptures would be Moody Bible institute in Chicago Illinois, and Dallas theological Seminary in Texas. One of the founders of Fuller Theological Seminary was also a major promoter of Dispensationalism." (Good News Magazine Prophecy Issue 35, Concordia Mission Society, P.O. box 8555 St Louis MO 63126)

"24These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother." (Bible, New Testament, Galatians 4:24-26)
"I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan." (Bible, New Testament, Revelation 2:9)

"9I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you." (Bible, New Testament, Revelation 3:9)

Jesus lived in all sorts of holes. The grave is one of them.
Foxes have holes. (New Testament, Matthew 8:20)
King Herod is a Fox. (New Testament, Luke 13:32)
Jesus brought us out of all of them.

"He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." (Bible, New Testament, Colossians 2:13-14)
"13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear." (Bible, New Testament, Hebrews 8:13)
Law with its religion is Satan if You don't have Christ and the Gospel. In fact we are no longer under the law but under Grace. "14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace." (Bible, New Testament, Romans 6:14) "13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."" (Bible, New Testament, Galatians 3:13) Law is like a hole. Law is like a Cave. Law is like a Mountain. "12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood" (Bible, New Testament, Ephesians 6:12)

Saul of Tarsus was a member of the Synagogue of Satan. He calls himself the "chief of sinners" But God made him The Apostle Paul who wrote most of the Gospel in the New Testament.

"15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?" (Bible, New Testament,Romans 11:15)

"4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." (Bible, New Testament, Romans 4:4-5)

So we gain the Spirit of God not by observing the law. (New Testament, Galatians, 3)

"16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (Bible, New Testament, John 3:16)

Men readily believe what they want to believe. (Caesar)

Saint Augustine said that if you want to believe you believe.

You have right standing before God.
You don't have to jump through any hoops.
Jesus did.
He died for you and rose again.
Heaven is your Home.

ANNODOMINI77

10:56 PM ET

May 15, 2010

"The load, or weight, or

ANNODOMINI77

11:04 PM ET

May 15, 2010

Legality is slanderous

ANNODOMINI77

11:06 PM ET

May 15, 2010

Gospel is not slanderous.

YK__

11:38 PM ET

May 16, 2010

I am confused. You should too.

It is quite clear that we can get from Israel whatever we want when we are serious by using enough pressure. see the '56 war with Egypt, and Kissinger's trips in the Middle East after the '73 war.
So, is our target acceptance of all of the Palestinian's demands? does that mean that Israel does not have legitimate issues?
If it is not, how do we get the Palesitnians to give up on any of their demands?
I am quite confused. And then, there is the issue of morality vs. expedience. Should we not have an in-depth discussion of the morals of this issue before we can decide which issues are so important to us that we don't care about who is right?

GRATT

6:38 AM ET

May 17, 2010

Is there any hope for the peace process?

In a word: No

In two words Hell No

NICHOLAS WIBBERLEY

10:07 AM ET

May 17, 2010

two steps

US long-term “strategic interests” would be better served by dropping Israel and taking up with Iran. and then:

The most enduring solution in the Holy Land will be one state with an autonomous Jewish region.

SAMI JAMIL JADALLAH

10:30 AM ET

May 17, 2010

Nothing will ever come out of such negotiations.

First of all, Israel which does not accept itself as Occupying power and never used the term “occupied territories” rather continued to use the term “Judea and Samaria” and of course never accepted the idea of a shared Jerusalem and always advanced “peace for peace” principal will never accept its occupation to end, since it is getting free land and free water and cheap slaves and a bunch of collaborators. The US was and will remain a party to the conflict and never acted as an “honest” broker” in fact always acted as a dishonest broker and one that continued to support and fund the occupation and continues to provide legal cover for Israeli war crimes and its illegal occupation and is hostage to the American Jewish leadership and community (which by the way is hostile to any peace for Israel with its neighbors). The Palestinian leadership was, is and will remain a bunch of stupid fools, crooks, too corrupt to stand up for the peoples rights, too vested in the continuations of the occupation as the largest single contractor and manager for the Jewish Occupation, and as we have seen before, during and after Oslo and is made of stupid incompetent leaders who should have been put on trial including the late Yasser Arafat. This same leadership continued to negotiate with Israel for over 17 years only to see more and more land confiscated for settlements (Quadruple since Oslo), it saw more and more Palestinians ethnically cleansed from East Jerusalem some 60% since Oslo, it saw more and more “security check points” to more than 600, saw the arrests and kidnapping of some 100,000 since Oslo with 10,000 remaining as hostage and in Israeli jails. The leadership that negotiated Oslo simply too stupid, too inept, too incompetent, too colluded with the Israeli occupying establishment to do any good for the people. What is needed is for Abbas to hand in his resignation as manager of the Jewish Occupation to Netanyahu, to give the keys of the occupation to Barack Obama and let him deal with it and Israel since the US is a partner with Israel, and for the UN to take over the negotiations and hire a professional team to represent the Palestinian people since even the best of them… the well known names are beneficiaries of the continued occupation and could never truly represent the interests of the people who want this nightmare that lasted 43 years to end..I truely doubt if any of the leadership in Ramallah or any of the best known leaders of civil societies wants this Jewish Occupation to end and end soon!

IAN

12:17 PM ET

May 17, 2010

The biggest problem I see...

The failure of the US to reign in Israel. The US has no legitimacy from the Palestinian viewpoint because Israel only follows the US ideals when it suits them. What the US needs to do is find a way to make Israel toe the line even when it doesn't suit them. Until then, these talks will be used for personal political gain by each ruling member while providing nothing substantial towards true peace.

Oh, and there's the whole Hamas terrorist/rocket attacks as well.

One of these peoples are going to have to put on a show of good faith and take the high ground so they can shame the other side into following suit. It's simple human psychology. If you do something good and show it to the world and then say, "I've done this, what can you do?" You force the opposing party into equaling or upping the ante in order for them to look good in the eyes of the world.

This isn't going to happen overnight, or over the next 5 years. Its going to be, if it works, a generational project that requires all the people from, oh say, 67 and back to die off. While it may take a long time, it still needs to be started on good faith. Lets hope said parties are willing to take the first step. In the meantime, Netanyahu gets a few points from the moderates, Obama gets some points back from the Israel Lobby and Abbas gets some legitimacy, hopefully translating into real power in internal Palestinian politics so he can actually be President instead of a mostly-just-a-figurehead.