Israel's Rejectionist Front
Benjamin Netanyahu's phony flexibility on a two-state solution was always transparent--and it's now becoming apparent that Israel is the prime impediment to progress in the Middle East. Over the weekend, the State Department asked Israel's Ambassador Michael Oren to convey U.S. displeasure over continued Israeli settlement expansion in Jerusalem, which Netanyahu rejected out of hand. It also seems clear--according to U.S., Syrian and Israeli sources I've spoken with in the past week--that Israel is slow-walking peace talks with Syria (mostly because it doesn't want to give back the Golan Heights).
The notion that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel seems to me right and fair. But it is also the capital of Palestine. The Likudnik notion that Israel has the exclusive rights to a united Jerusalem seems as foolish as the Palestinian notion that those who were displaced in 1948 still have a right to return to their old properties in Israel.
George Mitchell is returning to the region next week. There is progress--and the promise of real breakthroughs--in several aspects of the peace process: Hamas seems willing to play, the Syrians are far more cooperative, the other Arabs might be cajoled into taking steps toward the recognition of Israel, Iran's influence in the area has diminished markedly. But not only is the Israeli government being uncooperative, it's actually becoming more intractable.
No one is saying that Israel should capitulate. And certainly, the Palestinians need to get their act together, complete their internal negotiations healing the Fatah-Hamas rift. But the peace deal remains what it always was: a return to 1967 borders, more or less; Arab recognition of the Jewish state; a real Palestinian state, with sovereign rights; no right of return for Palestinians; Jerusalem as the capital of both Israel and Palestine--with international supervision of the religious sites. It is a longshot, as always. But the Obama Administration--unlike almost any other in recent history--is intent on keeping up the pressure, working hard for a settlement. It's time for Netanyahu--who recently called David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel "self-hating Jews"--to recognize that the Bush neoconservative-evangelical alliance is gone. It's time for him to adjust to the new diplomatic reality.
-
1
Until we be willin' t' speak public (th' UN) an' be willin' t' cut th' purse strings, Israel be no havin' a whit o' incentive t' be doin' anythin' other than' whatever they be pleasin'. An' they don't be pleasin' t' have no peace, an' they don't be pleasin' t' be returnin' any o' th' land they be occupyin'.
It pret' much be boilin' down t' th' US not bein' willin' (aye, I be knowin' why, me hearties!) t' exercise th' influence we be havin', an' instead be continuin' t' try t' cajole an' coax 'em into doin' wha' be ri'. If this were any other State, ye'd be bettin' we'd be actin' diff'rent.
arrgh.
-
2
My recollection is the right of return was being negotiated, during the Clinton era, with numbers like 100,000 to 250,000 being discussed. I don't understand why Israel is so opposed to it. There are way more Israelis than there are Palestinians, so their chances of taking over Israel are next to nil.
Why don't they just make it too enticing to be a citizen of Palestine, and set the right of return to unlimited? It always seems to be the last issue in the way of a deal.
-
3
It will be hard to find a stupider statement written in the English language this year than:
.
"it's now becoming apparent that Israel is the prime impediment to progress in the Middle East."
.
Wait a minute! We have a late challenger:
.
"Hamas seems willing to play".-
3.1
Mrein
~
Israel is in violation of international law, as it has been since its inception in 1948. The 4th Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits the transfer of one's civilian population to another's sovereign territory. Israel currently has nearly 500,000 illegal settlers in the West Bank. These settlers are not immigrants, they are provided with government created settlements with Jewish only infrastructure in Palestinian lands. Israel is in violation of both the UN Charter and the 4th Geneva Convention in its illegal annexation of lands through military force. The Golan Heights from Syria, the Sheba'a Farms from Lebanon, and large swaths of land surrounding Gaza and West Bank have been illegally occupied and annexed by Israel. Jerusalem, as per the 1947 UN Partition Plan, is to be an international city, yet Israel has occupied it as its national capital in contempt of international consensus. These are the undeniable factual illegalities of Israel. Less reported on, however, are also the batant human rights violations, use of illegal munitions, and oppressive subjugation of the Palestinian people by way of blockades, illegal checkpoints, killings, beatings, torture, and more. So, yes, as it stands now, Israel is the chief obstacle to peace.As for Hamas willing to negotiate, this is also true. Since 2005 Hamas has wished to partake in negotiations, however has been blocked by US and Israel. While Hamas' tactics and random rocket attacks on civilian areas are not to be condoned, it is honestly their only way of defense against Israeli encroachment. Palstine has no army. Palestine has no way of organzing an internationally accepted resistance. Palestine is entirely subject to the say-so of Israel, which controls its borders, its resources, its access to aid, ability to travel, as well as airspace and sea. Palestinians, thus, if they wish to fight for their sovereignty,w hich is violated by Israel on a daily basis, resort to launching rocket attacks from within Gaza into Israel. These attacks are more symbolic than anything else. The death-toll has been negligiable. Yet people like you react as if these are unthinkable atrocities, while at the same time utterly ignoring Israel's blanket bombing campaigns of Gaza and Lebanon. In Gaza, for example, Israel killed 1300 in January, while Israel lost only 13 in that particular offensive. There is no equivalence here. Israel is the aggressor. Israel has disportionately sowed death and suffering. Israel is the obstacle to peace.
-
-
4
It seems that Mark Regev admonished the PA negotiator for meeting with the Iranians.
The problem I see there is that since Netanyahu doesn't want to play, he doesn't really have anything to say, really, about just who the Palestinians talk to.
Unfortunately for Netanyahu, it hasn't occurred to the Palestinians to just roll over and play dead.
mrein:
We have an even later challenger. You.
-
4.1
Zing!
-
-
5
Joe:
I also think (actually more of a hope, really) that Obama is slowly building a bulletproof case for cutting off Israel's foreign aid.I'm sincerely hoping that he is considering this, we are going to need a big stick to get these recalcitrant bigots to line up.
It's more important than just US - Israeli relations, this is a piece of the puzzle that Iran is part of too. If it can be shown that Israel is interested in peace rather than war, then Iran's posturing toward Israel can be shown for what it is. It will help to isolate Iran, particularly following the diplomatic debacle brought on by the recent elections.
-
6
53_3, why should we take anything you have to say seriously. First of all, your take on Iran and freedom (in previous posts) is plain sick:
.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443842931&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
.
Second of all, do you really get how utterly stupid the Obama Administration's demands are. No Jewish building in East Jerusalem? Is that even possible under Israeli law? Moreover, Israelis would simply point to the ability of Arabs to build in West Jerusalem. -
7
Let's be honest, Bibi has no interest in negotiating peace with the Palestinians. He is only willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. And it has been that way with every prime minister since Ehud Barak.
Barak at least had an excuse. Arafat was playing fast and loose with the Israelis in what he was willing to give up. Now that Abbas has done everything that Arafat would not (decreasing the violence, which was the primary Palestinian objective), the Israeli government is clearly not satisfied.
There is no way to satisfy the Israeli government, they can never get enough. Not happy with 78% of historical Palestine, they want to reduce the Palestinians to living in Bantustans of the West Bank filled with Israeli settlements and "Jewish only" roads. Bibi wants a demilitarized Palestine, which does not even exist today. What he wants is a Palestinian Authority which is so weak that if Hamas attacks Israel, Israel will have an excuse to retake the West Bank.
Israeli apologists seem to forget that Abbas is a democratically elected president. He has given far more concessions that the Palestinian electorate is willing to accept. How many times must Abbas bend over and take it from the Israelis before they realize they will never get a better opportunity? I guess fighting Hamas and arresting militants in not enough for the Israeli government. The Netanyahu government will settle for nothing less than total capitulation.
If I were the Palestinians, I wouldn't talk to Bibi either. Omert only talked and talked and Bibi is offering less than Omert did. As along as Israel takes more and more Palestinian land with impunity. what is there to negotiate?
As long as our tax dollars subsidize the Israeli military and colonizing of the West Bank, the Israeli government has no incentive to negotiate. It is time to cut the purse strings.
-
8
What I find ironic is the only American President to hold Israel's feet to the fire over settlements was the first George Bush. He told Prime Minister Shamir that the U.S. would cut aid if settlements continued. Shamir blinked and settlement building froze.
Unfortunately, the second George Bush gave recognition to the settlements even though it was a point of negotiations. It is just like Chamberlain giving the Sudatenland without Czech imput.
Now it is time for the Obama administration to follow the lead of the older Bush, who certainly understood foreign affairs much more than his son.
-
8.1
Good point. Recall Bush's famed press conference on the eve of the Madrid Conference when he took Israel to task publicly on its actions and enunciated the astronimical amount of US aid it receives while doing so. AIPAC launched a massive campaign following this and pressured Congress into fighting the President on the matter.
-
-
9
I wonder if the people who actually live in Golan would want to go back to Syria. Probably not.
-
10
"It is just like Chamberlain giving the Sudatenland without Czech imput."
.
Gotta love those Nazi references when discussing Israel. But naaaaah, no one's anti-Semitic.-
10.1
If the analogy fits, use it . . . . . . . .
It is funny because Bibi uses the Nazi Germany analogy to describe Iran even though . . . . .
Iran did not expel Jews like the Arab states in 1948 . . . .
There is Jewish representation (granted it is token) in the Iranian partliament . . . . . .
Iran has the largest Jewish population outside of the U.S., Europe and Israel.
-
-
11
"The 4th Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits the transfer of one's civilian population to another's sovereign territory. "
.
And who is sovereign over the West Bank?-
11.1
Spob
~
I think we can all agree that it's certainly not sovereign Israeli land. -
11.2
And, further, East Jerusalem isn't sovereign Israeli land either, to address your other fart.
I'd lay off the hot links spob...
-
-
12
Zero fer four on real content. Try something besides talking points and propaganda, spob...
-
13
Exiled, but isn't that a problem for the "settlements are illegal" claim? And don't forget, they won that territory in a defensive war.
.
To the Israelis it is sovereign--you moron. And didn't candidate Obama say that Israel was going to be undivided?-
13.1
If it is so cut and dried, spob, then why is it that the rest of the world refuses to recognize any soverignty beyond the 1967 borders?
As usual spob, you try to hide in the minutiae, but the broader picture is clear.
And, just to emphasize this particular point, everyone knows that's what the Israelis think.
Tell us something substantial.
-
13.2
Spob
~
Fact 1: West Bank is not part of Israel
Fact 2: West Bank is administered by its own governing apparatus, the Palestinian Authority
Fact 3: The international community recognizes West Bank as sovereign Palestinian land
Fact 4: Israeli government transplanted nearly 500,000 setters onto these lands, providing the resources, capital, and IDF security and linking these settlements throughout the West Bank on roads that Arabs are not allowed to access
Fact 5: Israeli settlements violate 4th Geneva Convention -
13.3
spob,
Israel has never claimed sovereignty over the West Bank. While they have claimed East Jerusalem, and made its Palestinian inhabitants "citizens" of Israel, they have not done so for the West Bank at large.
When Israel conquered the West Bank, the Israeli government had intended to trade it for peace. In fact, it was ILLEGAL under Israeli to settle in the West Bank for several years. What happened?
Religious zealots started claiming the West Bank as the Judea and Samaria and that it belonged to the State of Israel. At first, when they started settling in the West Bank, the Israeli government tried to stop them. After awhile, the religious zealots were viewed as a political weapon to be used against the Arabs. Settlements suddenly became a negotiating tactic, the same way Arafat used Islamic militants against Israel as a way to gain a advantange at the negotiating table.
The problem is that the religious zealots were unleashed and have since be used as a political football in Israeli domestic politics. Both the left and the right catered to this minority and granted them all sorts of favors (Ehud Barak, the so-called "dove" INCREASED settlement building during his tenure).
Now there are so many settlements, it does not look like you can create a Palestinian state that does not look like Swiss cheese unless you remove a number of them which are not suburbs of Jerusalem.
-
-
14
Neo, perhaps, just perhaps, the idea that Israel won the land in a defensive war has some relevance. Oh guess not.
-
14.1
Even then, they still have responsibilities under international law, and no, it's not relevant, as Israel is attacking the population that lives there, not the losers of that land.
Sorry Neo. Over to you!
-
-
15
I'm out.
Neo:
Playing "whack a mole" is a lot easier with two people!
-
16
spob 0, 53_3 30.
-
17
Spob
~
International law prohibits the annexation of land through war, defensive or otherwise. This is simply the way it is. Since WWII, expansion through military means is no longer admissable. -
18
The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled the settlements illegal. And that's the way it is.
-
19
[...] in Mideast Conflict at 10:24 am by LeisureGuy It’s becoming ever more evident. Joe Klein in TIME’s Swampland: Benjamin Netanyahu’s phony flexibility on a two-state solution was always [...]
-
20
Neoexile -
I were wantin' t' be havin some serious discussion wi' ye, bu' wi' th' spongy feedin' fest goin' on 'ere it be no' worth it. Too much trouble avoidin' th' depth charges strewn about.
I be settin' sail fr'm this 'ere thread.
Bon voyage, mates!
YARR!
-
21
First of all, guys, I was talking about Jerusalem when I mentioned Israeli sovereignty.
.
Second of all, the right of self-defense is the one rule that trumps all others. To the extent that settlements in an area taken in a defensive war buttress self-defense, they are legal. Moreover, the territory was not sovereign when conquered--Jordan doesn't claim the territory any more. Moreover, guys, when the territory was administered by the British, Jews had the right to settle anywhere in Palestine--nothing has changed that. Even further, let's not forget that some settlements are simply the reversal of Arabs forcing Jews off land owned by Jews either before the War of Independence or during the war. Certainly, nothing in international law prohibits that. -
22
"To the extent that settlements in an area taken in a defensive war buttress self-defense, they are legal."
Citation?
Furthermore, though I believe the Israelis were largely justified in pre-empting what appeared to be an impending Arab assault in 1967, "self defense" in this usage would suggest an overly broad interpretation of the word. The war was pre-emptive.
"Moreover, the territory was not sovereign when conquered--Jordan doesn't claim the territory any more."
These two statements seem to contradict each other and barely make sense. If territory is not "sovereign" it wouldn't need to be "conquered."
In 1967 the area in question (West Bank/ Judea and Samarra) was administered by the Jordanians. I believe they considered it their sovereign territory at the time, which is why in the second part of the statement you state that they don't claim that territory "any more." This obviously suggests that at one point they did claim that territory (up until 1967).
"Even further, let's not forget that some settlements are simply the reversal of Arabs forcing Jews off land owned by Jews either before the War of Independence or during the war."
Ultimately I agree that it should be prominently noted, especially in light of the concept of "right of return," that the number of Jews who were forced from their homes in Arab countries following the 1948 Partition nearly equals the number of Palestinians forced from their homes in historic Palestine during the same period, and thus there is no intrinsic justice in the claim of the right of return, your construct trying to make the obviously illegal settlements legitimate as a tit-for-tat demands a simple response: two wrongs don't make a right.
-
23
piper1, remember, the Egyptians were blockading Israel when Israel struck--last I checked, a blockade was an act of war, and can be responded to militarily. That means that Egypt started the Six Day War.
.
The point about Jordanian sovereignty is that (a) they didn't have it in 1967 (they did claim it) and (b) that's how it is now. Sorry for being a litle unclear. The point, of course, is that there is a strong argument that the Geneva Conventions simply don't apply to this situation, since settlement activity is not happening on lands to which a sovereign had "title" (for lack of a better word), and Jews did have a right, pre-1947, to settle in all areas of Palestine. And certainly, they cannot be held to bar Jewish resettlement of areas that were Jewish before the war of Independence.
.
The right of return simply is not going to happen. -
24
spob,
Settlements do not buttress self-defense. In fact it is the opposite, the more you extend your colonies, the harder it is to defend them, so the idea that settlement are for "defensive" purposes is at best disingenuous.
Second, the West Bank was claimed by Jordan, so you are wrong when you state the land was not sovereign when conquered, it belonged to Jordan.
Third, it is disingenuous to argue that somehow Israel was claiming land owned by Jews before the 1948 War. How many of these people actually returned to their homes? There are Palestinians who still have the keys to their homes in Israel proper, should they be allowed to claim those homes?
You and I both know that the zealots were not reclaiming their homes. Most of those moving into the settlements are religious zealots, many born in the U.S. or unsuspecting immigrants lured into the settlements by the promise of cheap housing.
The time for colonizing has ended. This is the 21st century, not the 19th.
-
25
Spob
~
Since you concede that a blockade is an act of war justifying a military response, then surely you stand behind Palestinian aggression against Israel's blockade of Gaza. It must be so.Israel blockades the Mediterranean Sea, preventing shiploads of humanitarian aid to the Gazan Coast. Israel controls Gazan air space. Israel has encircled Gaza by land, complete with military checkpoints to prevent crossings in and out of Gaza. Israel hasn't the right to deny access to and from Gaza, whether it be people, aid, or even arms. Israel's actions are nothing less than a complete blockade of Gaza. So, surely you support armed resistance of this.
- TIME The scoop on Google Buzz from @techland | http://su.pr/1zDlZ6 - 1 hour ago
- TIME Are the bible stories true? Evidence from archaeology | http://su.pr/2ekoPX - 2 hours ago
- TIME Why is NBC pretending Conan never existed? | http://su.pr/4Pbjbh - 3 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Undercover Boss Is Phony and Manipulative. But Don't Hold That Against It.
- NBC: There Was Never a Conan O'Brien
- NH Poll: Dems Face A Thumpin'
- Paul Ryan Won't Run For Prez In 2012
- Barack Obama: Then vs. Now
- Today's Health Care Checkup - GOP Plans Under the Spotlight
- Gibbs Mocks Palin, Tea Party Convention
- CO Gov Poll: Hickenlooper +4
- Do You Spend Less than $2,000 Annually on Internet, TV, Cell Phone Service, and Video Games?
- Love At First Byte: Your Nerdy Valentine's Day Guide
- Asian Carp Battle: Foreign Fish Threaten Great Lakes
- Is the Bible Fact or Fiction? Archaeology's Discoveries
- Spain's Troubled Economy: Fears Over Euro Zone Outlook
- Kennewick Man, Archaeology Find: Who Discovered America?
- Al-Qaeda, Yemen, Wedding: Unlucky Name, Celebration
- Tea-Party Convention: Lessons on Palin and the Movement
- Venezuela: Chavez Protests at Ball Game Over Electricity
- Jim Frederick, Black Hearts in Iraq's Triangle of Death
- Marja: Operation Moshtarak Tests Obama's Afghan War Plan
- Why China Needs The U.S. -- And Vice Versa
Quotes of the Day »
RSS