That quote does not say what you want it to say.
= = =
Regardless: EVERYONE will knock off the personal attacks in this thread. Stick to debating evidence and logic and leave the personal qualities of your opponents out of the thread.
[ /Moderating ]
DA honestly I can’t tell if you seriously do not understand my points or are purposefully being dense.
You seem to insist on understanding every issue in either-ors and it is rather tiresome.
No, Palestine was not all unclaimed land, but certainly there was much more unclaimed space than in Germany. In point of fact there was much space for Jews to join the Arabs who had lived there and for many more Arabs to move in specifically to near where the Jews had moved in to take advantage of the economic opportunities the European Jewish investments afforded. Which is what had happened from 1900 to 1947. What also happened was that some Arab elements resented the Jewish immigrants who were not the dhimmis of the past. Unpleasant events occurred.
Yes, if the Arabs (not the Palestinians per se, as it was not the Palestinians who attacked the nascent state of Israel, but rather a combined multi-national Arab force) had gone along with the original UN partition plan, then there would be a largish state of Palestine today (unless other Arab countries would have taken it from them) and a very very small state of Israel. Maybe. It is unclear if Israel as it would have existed (three small cantons) would have been able to make it economically as a state. Ironically the Arab nations repetitive attempts to destroy Israel paradoxically ensured its survival. And if there had been no Arab riots attacking Jews in the 20’s and 30s and no planned attack on Israel by the Arab nations, and no kicking Jews out of Arab lands and confiscating their property, then there very likely would have been NO displacement of Arabs out of the nascent state. Don’t get me wrong, the UN partition was an odd solution - each had three cantons around were they each had existing population densities, with Jerusalem under international control, and they were supposed to have an economic union. Making that work would have been hard.
I find it … amusing … that you claim to think it is just hunky-dory to displace people almost all of their ancestral homes for the crime of their having a German national identity, not for anything they as individuals had done, but find it horrific to have thought that Arabs could live side by side with Jews in a Palestine partitioned as the original partition had as its planned.
All three major monotheistic religions had Israel as their country in their past and their sole location of all their holy places and the sole focus as the place to return to for nearly two thousand years and no land otherwise in which they were a majority, no land in which they were not “other”? Who knew? Certainly not me. Or in fact anyone, as of course it is not true.
I’ve “listened to myself” but you clearly have not listened to me as your response has nothing to do with what I said. If you had actually read what I wrote then you’d understand that I am discussing the ability of a relatively small number of “insurgents” within a state to cause major problems even when the leadership of each side wish to cooperate with each other. Those minority extremist elements would be impossible to contain in a single state. Nothing about that implies an expectation that a Palestinian state would be a state sponsor of terrorism.
My alternatives have been laid out repetitively in these threads. If you have not understood them by now then I can only assume such is a conscious decision not to on your part. I will try to recap one more time but at this point I wonder about my intelligence in continuing to try.
Those who believe that the concept of having any Israel at all was and is an injustice have no potential overlap with what they believe is “fair” and what Israelis believe is fair. The focus MUST get past redressing each sides beliefs of past injustices, which each believe in their hearts, and perhaps you believe on one side in your heart, and onto forming a better future for all involved parties, a future that looks to investing in the long term best interests of all involved.
The negotiations that this thread had been opened to discuss had apparently gotten very close to doing that. At this point however the current leaders of the PA would not be able to deliver their end of any deal.
At this point the Abbas administration needs to have something to show for their attempts at negotiations and without that they have less and less credibility with their own people. The current Israeli administration is being very shortsighted and ultimately very foolish in not doing that. Settlement construction needs to stop. The Israeli administration needs to make some major gestures that they are serious about making some compromises. Such may take the US withholding aid. You may be surprised to learn that many American Jews, nay, American Zionistic Jews, would support such an action, if that was what was needed to get Israel to bargain in good faith.
This vision of the future may not be what many Israelis think is fair nor what many Palestinians think is fair. It may not redress many past grievances both real and imagined. Neither may feel it is just. But both sides would have a much brighter future as a result.
Hamas is dealt out of any negotiation until they agree not to a ten year truce, but to accepting the fact that Israel is here and is going to stay here and that the future lies in working together to build a better future that accepts that reality. But then it behooves Israeli interest to show that bargaining to build a better future for all bears fruit. Pretty much the deal as they had gotten close to in the discussed negotiations including leaving the settlers as citizens of the new Palestinian state in the West Bank if that is what they want, subject to police protection as citizens and subject to prosecution under the laws of that state. Implement the accord in stages to allow trust to build. Once the West Bank as its own state sans Gaza shows the profit of coming to a peace agreement then Hamas may come around in Gaza. If not, then not. Israel’s only option then is what I have previously called the “snapping turtle” position: keep a strong defensive position against attacks originating from Gaza with very secure borders. Any attacks that do come through are responded to with brief attacks that are as targeted as possible. The analogy to the snapping turtle is that you stay in the shell as much as you can and if your enemy pokes in with a stick you come out to snap and then back in; you do not try to destroy that attacker, you merely snap hard enough that it thinks twice before poking with a stick again. Israel would have avoided much of its troubles if had stopped with such a snap in Gaza and Lebanon in the past, and retreated back into the shell after the snap.
Such a combination of tactics - going more than what Israel believes is halfway to come to terms in the West Bank while minimizing the ability to be hurt by Hamas’s intransigence - would be in Israel’s best interests and give those willing to work with Israel in building a future much in return - not the least a viable state with shared investments in future mutual success.
Right now I have less near term hope for that than I have had on occasions past. Abbas is in too weak of a positon with his own. Bibi is an ass and an idiot. And Obama is in no position domestically to threaten cutting off funds to Israel. Maybe in term two.
Well, as the Palestinian leadership had largely been devastated by infighting, and the concept of Palestinian nationalism wasn’t anywhere near as substantive as it would be decades later, it is technically correct to point out that “the Palestinians” didn’t attack anybody. But Palestinian irregulars were involved in the fighting.
While it would be best to set up a deal like that, where Israeli citizens become Palestinian citizens when their homes are annexed, it’s a difficult sell. The comments by the Israeli negotiating team was hardly out of left field. Incitement to violence and the destruction of Israel is still going on, even within Fatah. And there’s a long history of genocidal incitement.
Maybe Israeli should have agreed to the proposal, maybe not. But one bullet point in negotiations can’t be the sticking point in an entire series of discussions… and it doesn’t seem that it was.
Unfortunately that probably won’t happen, and if Egypt’s (eventual) new government repudiates its treaty obligations with Israel, it’ll be even harder to convince the American voting public that it’s time to cut off aid to Israel. The time to have done it was virtually immediately in Obama’s first term. It might work now through back channels, but making a public declaration of suspension of aid would be disastrous for Obama. But it’d be against the tide.
Support for Israel is at record highs, even while confidence in the peace process is at record lows. Putting pressure on Israel to jumpstart negotiations would not play well. Obama wouldn’t lose support from (most) Dems… most likely… but independents most likely would take too kindly to it, and the Dems are already somewhat disappointed with Obama’s term.
Both of you are ignoring the first stage of the hostilities, which lasted from November 29 1947 (the date of the Partition vote) and May 14 1948. It was a very different war then that following the May invasion, much closer to the Balkan civil wars of the 1990’s or the Iraqi collapse of the mid-2000’s, and it certainly involved “Palestinians” attacking “Israelis”, as well as vice versa.
Well, admittedly I covered a lot, too much, in under the phrase “unpleasant events occurred”.
Point taken. Those battles were more of an existential threat than I had appreciated.
Well, to be fair, I was only pointing out that the fighting didn’t involve “the Palestinians” as a group since they didn’t have a unified leadership or a true national identity. I wasn’t ignoring '47-'48, but perhaps I didn’t describe it in much detail. I do know that there was serious fighting going in at that time; my grandmother was sneaking in bullet molds at that point and her brother was working to coordinate the global smuggling network to supply the Jewish forces.
My point was only that the violence going on wasn’t with the proto Israelis fighting an official army of the Palestinian people.
That’s essentially why they lost - the Jews were able to organize themselves into a more-or-less unified force, while the Arabs couldn’t.
The entire '48 war is a classic example of why having lots of allies isn’t always a good thing.
Right, but that applies to both halves of the war - the first half, where the Jews faced a numerically superior but un-unified collection of gangs, clans and private armies, and to the second, where they faced 7 uncoordinated regular military expeditions.
Sorry to break-up this fine exchange…
Back to my argument of misreading and re-stating far from original intent or actual situation.
Here’s an example of someone coming up with an unfair summary.
NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/world/middleeast/28mideast.html?_r=2&ref=books) in its lead up says:
Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister of Israel, says in new memoirs that he and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, were very close to a peace deal two years ago, but Mr. Abbas’s hesitation, Mr. Olmert’s own legal troubles and the Israeli war in Gaza caused their talks to end.
Please note that “but Mr. Abbas’s hesitation”.
Now you go through the details deep in the article only to realize that Olmert had a meeting one on one with Abbas in his (Olmert’s) house and made totally uncalled for ultimatum showing Abbas a map and saying sign right now. Even though Abbas told him that he’s not good with maps and he would like an opinion from some of his advisers. Olmert still insists and normally Abbas declines. And that’s it – Abbas was hesitant.
What a gross misrepresentation of events.
If it happens to NY Times surely it happens here.
I don’t get it. I read your poist twice and still fail to see any inherent unfairness in the characterization, let alone “gross misrepresentation”.
The summary isn’t saying that Abbas didn’t want a peace deal, or would not have accepted one eventually, but that events (Omert’s troubles and war) overtook them before a deal was signed. If Abbas had agreed, that wouldn’t have happened.
Now, Abbas was not to know that time was so limited, so perhaps he’s not to blame for hesitating, getting clarification, confirring with advisors, etc.
But the fact is that, because of events beyond the effective control of either party, the window of opportunity had passed.
Absolutely.
The first half of the war is of course much less known in the West.
Another vote for “Huh?”
The article purports to present information about the Olmert Memoir and in the first line states that Olmert says that they were very close “but Mr. Abbas’s hesitation, Mr. Olmert’s own legal troubles and the Israeli war in Gaza caused their talks to end.” It does not say that Olmert’s perception is truth, just that that is what he says. Do you claim that such is not what Olmert stated in his memoir?
Now is Olmert’s perspective going to be the same as Abbas’s? Would Abbas agree that if he had signed that day there would be peace now, and that failing that, if they had more time before events overtook them, Olmert’s domestic troubles and the break out of war, they would have come to a deal?
From what I’ve read, pretty much he would.
BTW, do you really think Abbas couldn’t read the map, that he is dysmappic or something? Do you really think that the deal presented was not the result of the negotiations that had been going on for quite a while already at various levels and that Abbas did not fully understand the deal being presented to him? Maybe he thought he could still bargain more if he stalled, maybe he was just a bit scared to sign, maybe he thought it wasn’t good enough and better to have no deal than that one, maybe he did not understand the depth of the trouble Olmert was in back home and that there really was no more time left, that the small window was closing and this really was the best they could do and likely the best they’d ever be offered. But he couldn’t read the map? The map both teams have been discussing every inch of?
Really?
I disagree.
I vote for “Bwah??”
Newcomer still has done nothing to dispute the fact that negotiations were ongoing until they were suspended by Abbas. It’s clear that he doesn’t like that fact, and that he prefers a narrative in which the Israeli government simply said “no!” to the PA’s position and that was that…
I’m still waiting for newcomer to actually explain why, even though it was Abbas who suspended negotiations, that newcomer’s position stands undisturbed and needs no alteration, at all.