To find peace in the middle east we have to carve it up.
There IS peace between Egypt and Israel, for example. It took a lot of work, and a constant cash flow to both nations from the US to make it happen.
There IS peace between Jordan and Israel as well.
Peace COULD occur between Syria and Israel, but that will take much longer.
Lebanon needs to be rebuilt. It was once a vacation destination for much of Europe. Swedish hotties cavorted on the beach while billions of dollars went through the banks. Getting Syria, Israel and Palestinian interests aligned in a desire to rebuild Lebanon would be monumental - but it is possible.
We need to stop talking about peace between Israel and Arabs, and instead focus on peace between Israel and individual Arab nations. This includes Palestine.
Peace COULD occur, but it will take a decision regarding Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. A simple solution would be to finish the wall, close all settlements, and work from there. Keeping Israeli troops around who protect settlers and private settler roads does not lead to a good situation. The occupation by Israel does not work, has not worked, and needs to be ended. It costs Israel too much in military supplies, and it does not accomplish anything in terms of a peace movement.
You base this on what? The Palestinians had their own country in 1948 and the first thing they did with it was attack Israel. They now have regions under their political control and these regions are being used as bases to attack Israel. The elected political party governing Palestine has declared its goal is to eliminate Israel. All the evidence is that Palestine views political and economic stability as resources to better prepare them to attack Israel.
Well, the reason you do not remember the specifics is that they were never made public (assuming you are referring to the Camp David talks in, I think, 2000). It is therefore hard to judge the legitimacy of Arafat’s claim that the offer was unacceptable. However, it is certainly true that Arafat’s decision to walk away from the table rather than to treat the Israeli offer as a basis for further negotiations was a colossal mistake.
What is “on the table” today is the Saudi peace plan first floated in 2002 and currently endorsed by all Arab League members except, I think, Libya. This plan calls for the entire Arab world to recognize Israel in return for Israel’s departure from the Occupied Territories. Israel has not accepted this plan, nor do they seem to be in any hurry to use it as a basis for future negotiation. Attempts to place all the blame for this conflict on one side are simply not supportable by the facts.
Little Nemo , you are mistaken on some important points. Although the 1948 UN partition plan offered the Palestinians a state, they, unlike the Israelis, had not developed the social institutions which were capable of quickly evolving into a government; the attack on Israel was carried out by the armies of neighboring Arab states. It is certainly true that peace is unlikely to break out as long as Hamas remains in charge of Palestine, but is equally true that there is little room for optimism as long as Yisrael Beteinu is part of the Israeli coalition government. A Palestinian partisan could claim, with as much validity as your post has, that Israeli settlement of the West Bank has been continuing since 1967 and that “all the evidence is that Israel views cessation of terrorist activity as an opportunity for further colonization of Palestine”.
I’m going to stand by my original statement that we need to stop accepting one side’s refusal to do the right thing as an excuse for the other side’s refusal.
Actually no…I was speaking to Oslo (which, IIRC was in the mid-90’s). The Palestinian’s COULD have had quite a bit at that time but chose (deliberately) to piss much of it away.
You bring up a good point with Camp David…or maybe more a re-curring theme for the poor bastards in Palestine. Missed opportunities seem to be practically a way of life for them.
Nor am I attempting to place all of the blame on any one party. I broaden the ‘blame’ to well outside of the two principal parties in fact. I place the MAJORITY of the blame on the Palestinian’s/Arab neighbors, but I certainly concede that Israel and even the US (and lets not leave our Euro buddies out of the blame game either…at least for the historical fuckup that is the region) has a non-zero percentage of the ‘blame’ as well.
The first Intefada ended in 1991. The second began in 2000. How can the first Intefada be said to have ended if there was just as much violence and unrest among the Palestinians as in the preceding years?
Well the power of the church is not gone for all time even now. Charles V put the nail in the coffin. I would argue that the schism at the end of the 14th century, the suppression of the Templars at the beginning and many other factors that preceded the sack of Rome led to it. Remember Charles V was a contemporary of Henry the VIII, Martin Luther and Francis I. Most of us know what Henry VIII and Martin Luther did, but Francis I took a lot of Ecclesiastical land in France for the throne prior to Henry VIII doing the same. Emperor Charles V, King Henry VIII and King Francis I were all some of the wealthiest monarchs in all of history while they were alive due to their seizing of Catholic lands.
The reality of Islam is that the Individual Freedom isn’t one of their highest values. The irony of our desire for them to secularize is we want to impose the value of individual freedom against their will, that’s why it won’t work, it violates both the ideals of Islam and the ideals we would like them to adopt. Most people in the Middle-East WANT a country governed by Sharia, as hard as that is for many of us to accept. It’ll be interesting to see how it works out in Turkey.
As far as the European system working, it’s not like a computer operating system to be installed on a piece of hardware. Historical events like that are unique. Certainly the Nation-State system went throughout the world, but the only place where it really resembles Europe that I can think of that is a country with a non-European populace is Japan.
No, Israel has always done worse to the Palestinians than the Palestinians have done to them. However, that is only a matter of capability, not desire. I do believe that if the Palestinians had advanced weapons systems they would hurt Israel badly if they could. Israel has more restraint, but when they loose their restraint they are far more destructive.
I’ve got it: Simply detonate a dirty bomb in the heart of Jerusalem. The Jews and Muslims won’t be able to fight over it and God can have it to Himself.
Yup. And all of the above is why I say that we have to wait several hundred years for peace in the ME. Religion arouses strong feelings and so is divisive. As long as they have different interpretations of Islam and as long as they have theocratic governments there will be repression of the out-of-favor interpretations. The only workable solution that we, and I think that means the world where religion is divided into sects, have developed so far is a strictly secular government that is neutral on religion and enforces non-violence between sects.
No, Israel has shown it is willing to make genuine concessions in return for the same. It gave up occupied territory to Egypt. Can you show me any similar concessions made by the Palestinians?
But negotiation has to be something more than one side giving the other side everything it wants in exchange for nothing. The Palestinians want something from the Israelis. They need to start asking themselves “what can we offer the Israelis in exchange for what we want?”
So one side has killed as many of its opponents as it can and the other side, while capable of killing more of its opponents than the first, has chosen not to kill as many as it could have. I see the second group as holding the moral advantage. And if the first group is killing as many members of the second group as it is capable of, I certainly don’t see why the second group would want to increase that capability.
What I don’t understand is why Sharon didn’t at least try to get some concessions from Hamas in exchange for pulling out of Gaza. They may or may not have responded to the “carrot” by agreeing to recognize Israel, but if not, the Sharon should have used the “stick” and made sure the Palestinian people knew who to blame. Instead, by withdrawing unilaterally, he handed Hamas a clean victory in exchange for nothing.
Not really. Secularism is antagonistic to Islam. I know in the West we think of Secularism as being ‘neutral’ but it’s not neutral if part of your religion is a set of legal proscriptions for governing a healthy society.
I think the ME will be more PeaceFUL if we leave them alone and let them decide how to govern themselves. In the end it’s not up to us, it’s up to them.
Secularism is ideally suited for a predominantly Judeo-Christian society both having a tradition of separation of the spiritual aspect of their religion from the Temporal power, but in Islam no such separation exists.
The notion that the people of the Middle-East have less history than the west is pretty ludicrous anyhow. Around the time of the Crusades they were ascendant and the west was low, and we had moralists in the Latin nations complaining about the infiltration of ‘Eastern Decadence’.
I don’t think a linear model of progress is in any way meaningful.
What do you think the Palestinian’s would have or could have conceded? They had been offered almost all the OT’s if they would acknowledge Israel (not to mention they COULD have had their own, independent and UN sanctioned nation all along) and go off the warpath and they had turned it down. Repeatedly…violently.
There was a thought that IF Israel would just make a unilateral gesture then the Palestinian’s could back down and still save ‘face’. In fact, even today, even on these boards, there are plenty of people who think Israel should make MORE unilateral gestures toward the Palestinian’s…in the hopes that just one more gesture of peace unilaterally offered will bring the poor, misunderstood Palestinian’s around (or punish those evil Israeli’s…take your pick). I don’t think this worked out as planned though…
You aren’t referring to the fictional ‘great deal’ offered by Barak are you? The one where they would build walls around the Pal territories, and have the movement between them monitored by Israeli soldiers sanctioning who can and cannot move? That isn’t the one you’re referring to is it?
I’m refering to several things in my post…none of them have anything to do with "Barak’ (presumably Obama?). In fact, I’m unaware of any proposal by Barak…could you elaborate?
XT The Prime Minister of Israel directly preceding Ariel Sharon was Ehud Barak. Together with Clinton they worked out this landmark deal that pissed off everyone on both sides, but if it went through would have been the most concessions the Palestinians had ever received. The Israelis grudgingly accepted it, and Arafat turned it down. Oftentimes supporters of Israel throw this deal around as though it was something special, but if you read the actual terms of the deal, it was actually a pretty big shaftjob that required the Palestinian Authority to accept vassalage, so it was a no go.
Nemo, during periods when Israel has appeared relatively serious about moving towards granting Palestinian statehood, Palestinian support for terrorism has declined. This has not necessarily led directly to a decline in terrorist attacks, because such attacks are not carried out by “the Palestinians”, but by criminal organizations which do not base their strategies on public opinion polling. Indeed, these groups, which oppose any peace plan involving the continued existence of Israel, have typically responded to movements towards peace by intensifying their activities in the hopes that Israel will respond by collectively punishing the entire Palestinian people, thus fueling anti-Israeli resentment and extremist recruitment. Sadly, Israel has more often than not played right into their hands. As far as concessions by the Palestinians, the PLO did revoke the clause of their charter calling for Israel’s destruction in 1996 and reiterated that revocation in 1999. It is certainly true that Arafat contributed greatly to the failure of Oslo by not cracking down harder on terrorists; his capacity to do so was questionable, but at the very least he could have consistently and unequivocally condemned their actions. On the other hand, Israel was not moving to close settlements, crack down on settler violence, or make daily life less oppressive for Palestinians, either.
Numerous Posters, given that the vast majority of Palestinians today had not been born in 1948, I don’t think it’s relevant or appropriate to keep repeating that “they” had a chance at a state in 1948 but turned it down.
I do absolutely feel that Israel needs to be making unilateral gestures toward peace by evacuating settlements in the West Bank and by eliminating checkpoints to allow Palestinians increased freedom of movement - even if the Palestinians give them nothing in return! I also feel that the Palestinians need to absolutely renounce all terrorist violence and commit to a strategy of nonviolent resistance to the Occupation - even if Israel gives them nothing in return! They should do this because it is the morally correct thing to do, but I also feel that real, sincere moves toward peace by either side would result in shifts in public opinion on the other side and in the larger world community which would in turn lead to reciprocal acts of peacemaking. But it has to come from a real, sincere commitment to doing the right thing and trusting that it will bear fruit over the long term, not saying “well, we’ll try this and if the other side doesn’t completely change their attitudes in the next three months, it’s back to business as usual”.
skweels, I believe that Sharon sold the Gaza pullout to his own public not primarily as a gesture toward peace but as a strategic retreat that would allow the IDF to focus its resources on better defending Israel proper and the West Bank settlements. Of course, by using this argument, he lessened the chances that it would be perceived as a generous gesture by the Palestinians, and allowed Hamas to claim that it was in fact a victory for their terrorist strategy. Your notion that the Palestinians would have blamed Israel’s use of “the stick” on Hamas rather than on Israel itself strikes me as, um, improbable.