Call me crazy, but I’m actually starting to think that this may be a unique opportunity for bold action in the Israeli/Palestine arena.
I mean, “Israel can give the Palestinians their state”.
The chance of a peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israel is greater now than it’s been for probably 20 years.
Sam - do you think it’s possible though for Israel to give the Palestinians a governable state? Ie, without the settlements peppered all over it?
In the (perhaps unlikely!) event that tomorrow the Palestinians elected a democratic leader, rooted out the terror, and recognised Israel, would Israel remove all the settlements, or hand them over to Palestinian control?
Ariel Sharon is saying that, today. He’s ready to put the settlements on the table. See my link a few messages above.
Israel doesn’t really want Palestinian land. Israel wants security. It’s a small country surrounded by a lot of very large, very hostile countries. This is one reason why I thought getting rid of Saddam was a key to the Palestinian problem. Make Israel more secure, and they’ll negotiate.
(My bolding)
Some settlements, huh? Small word, huge difference. If the PMs actual wording was referenced in a proper way by the guys at CNN, that is…
Randy: I still see the settlements as a big bargaining chip. While the Israelis may realise that they may eventually have to abandon all the settlements, they’ll never say that in public. I’m guessing they’ll try to squeeze out concessions for every last settlement they remove.
John: Maybe. Time will tell if Sharon meant anything more than lip-service. As of yet no commitment has been made.
Just wanted to kind of add this to my last post, didn’t see it earlier:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/palestinian.cabinet/index.html
It doesn’t look good to have the cabinet of the PM subject to approval by Fatah, but there’s so much going on right now that it might make sense…who knows.
Randy: I agree. I’m hoping Sam is right and that after Iraq is more or less taken out of the equation, the US will really lean on Israel for a change. What a differnet world it would be if the rabid anti-West Arabs no longer had that conflict to moan about.
Agreed - should you remove the “if the rabid anti-West Arabs no longer had that conflict to moan about” part. 
Why? Are you in favor of giving rabid anti-West folks something to moan about?
Cain, Jewish claims are too old despite never having been abandoned and despite maintiaining a presence in the area throughout. Native American claims are too old at 200 years or less for most of them. But the Arab claims hold at being about fiftey years old. How convienently you set the Statute of limitations.
As to the settlements, John. I can’t defend them, because I agree that they are a mistake and believe that settlers are selfishly putting their own agendas ahead of the well being of their country and region. But I can offer some explanation. Israel took over the areas after a defensive war. The options included annexation or keeping them as a bargining chip. The decision was made to not annex the areas and feelers were put forth to trade the areas for a lasting peace accord. This was met with bellicose rhetoric from Arab leadership. In face of that, settlers were allowed as a tempory measure. Remeber that settlers come from ultra-orthodox and ultra-nationalist camps … a minority in Israel but a minority that often swings who has the votes in the Knesset. It was hard for any Israeli leadership to take them on when under adverse conditions. Time passed and roots got set. It became more costly to take them on. Now setlements can only be removed with great political cost, and for significant benfit. A for sure long lasting peace. And maybe even then not every one, but some swap would have to be created in return.
Also, John, beware of the need of Arab leadership to have Israel to moan about. There is a vested interest in keeping the conflict roiling.
DSeid:
Points well taken.
I’m frustrated enough with the situation, though, to hope that Israel offers some incentive for the settlers to leave, and those that don’t will have to fend for themselves in a Palestinain state. That’s probably political suicide, as you have stated already, but it’s the radical extremes on both sides that are prolonging this conflict. Hopefully there is an Israeli diplomat with more tact than I have who has the patience and wisdom to figure out a politically realistic solution to that probelm.
It’s not about convenience its about a logical point of demarcation. What we refer to as modernity started in the late 19th century, anything before that was subject to its own normative and legal framework. I don’t think the Jews have a claim to that land just because God told them so in a several thousand year old book of recorded oral histories. They’d be better off citing Balfour as their legitimizing document, although I think that one doesn’t hold water so well either.
I am all for giving both rabid anti-West arabs and red-neck racist americans something to moan about. Ahem.
Keep your sweeping stereotypical generalizations to yourself, John. Or be more specific whom you refer to.
My take on this is that it’s very easy for Sharon to offer removing some of the settlements. It’s the easiest offer to make, because of course the Palestinians won’t accept it. It’s unrealistic to imagine that two countries that have been so hostile so recently can exist with one country containing masses of “pockets” of the other country. It will only represent insecurity for those “pockets”, and breed resentment in the pocketed country.
Yes - a “pocketed” system can and does work elsewhere. Here in the UAE, there are pockets of Sharjah in other emirates, and even pockets of Oman within the UAE. But those countries/emirates have long been friendly, there are no tensions over the pockets, and they were created (as I understand it) with the agreement and cooperation of all parties.
Not so Palestine and Israel, obviously. But in the eyes of much of the “west”, offering to remove “some” settlements it makes Sharon look like he’s trying, and helps him spin world opinion to perceive the Palestinians as the unreasonable ones.
If Sharon offers - seriously - to remove ALL of the settlements as part of a peace deal (with the Palestinians making similar appropriate concessions) then he will have the moral high ground back.
I think talking about length of claim to land is now irrelevant. We know jewish and muslim and christian arabs have all lived in that land under various civilisation and nations and descriptions for millennia. Israel as we know it today may only be fifty years old, but it’s there. There are other, much newer (or “renewed”) countries that we also accept are there to stay.
Similarly Palestine. The argument that these people weren’t self-defined before is spurious. They lived there before. They may not have been as organised, or as modernised as some other nations, but they live there. At least as long as Israel has existed they have defined themselves as Palestinian and their land as Palestine.
Israel self-determines, and so does Palestine. So to move forward, it needs to be recognised by both sides - and by the international community - that both entities exist.
Oddly enough, it ultimately revolves around the having the will to make it happen actually - peacefeul co-existence that is.
Regarding the settlements - it’s a bit like forced land reclamation when a major freeway or project has to move on through for the greater good. By and large, whilstsoever fair and equitable compensation is paid to those who are going to be disadvantaged by the project, most reasonable people agree that “Oh well, that’s just something that happens occasionally for the greater good… at least they were handsomely compensated…” and everybody moves on.
But could such a philosophy be adopted by the Israeli government? Towards the settlements in the disputed territories? I mean, really? Could anyone WITHIN Israel ever just simply let all of the settlers either become Palestinian by passport? Or offer them handsome compensation packages to move back to Israel?
Also, and perhaps far more tellingly, I believe it was DSeid who made the somewhat cyncial, but equally true observation that there are many, MANY power bases within the Palestinian world, and the Arab World at large, who are actually EMPOWERED by the Palestinian conflict. Just look at the dreadfully cynical manipulative ways in which Saddam Hussein exploited the Palestinian problem so as to position himself as some sort of Arab Nice Guy who was sticking up for the underdog. As the days unfold, Iraqi’s themselves are vomiting at the obscenity of privilige which Saddam lived in compared to their own hardships. Such cynicism is justifiable without doubt - and the targets of such cynicism are far and wide.
There are oodles of competing power bases within the Palestinian population alone which stand to be “decommissioned” if a lasting peace were to break out. All of the major Palestinian refugee camps in the region have a different team (as it were) who are trying to export terrorist tactics INTO the West Bank and Isreal proper - and they are currently marshalling their resources from outside of the disputed territories - in foreign countries actually. Those guys are the loose cannons. Just like Syria’s mercenaries going into Iraq are loose cannons, so are the terrorists entering the West Bank from outside the West Bank or the Hezbollah region for example.
“Decommisionsing” such groups can, in some respects, be achieved by following the IRA model of decommissioning - but geez it’s gonna take some commitment. And also, it’s going to take a genuine commitment by the Arab World to stand down their manipulation of their peoples towards stirring up troubles towards Palestine. Much distortion of the truth takes place in the Arab World it seems to me. At the very least, as Istara has pointed out previously in other threads, the media with the Arab World is certainly manipulated to shut out points-of-view from WITHIN Israel - include active censoring of Israeli websites etc.
Israel can afford to re-settle the settlers into Israel proper. It is my understanding that Israel provides governement-subsized housing in the settlements themselves. In fact, Israelis who do not fit the religious zealot caraciture are choosing to live outside Israel proper because it is cheaper (although expensive to Israel as a whole since each new settlement needs a security force to protect it). Furthermore, I remember reading somewhere that it would be far cheaper for Israel to re-settle these individuals within Israel proper instead of providing more subsidized settlement housing that the IDF will wind up having to protect.
I don’t understand how this is any different that what some US politicians do with any issue, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A politician whether democratic or dictatorial will do anything that will get them good PR with the masses. If our politicians were really concerned about ending the conflict or showing support for the Palestinians, you would think at least one of them would say something to that effect. Or at least try to present an unbiased soultion to the conflict. Right now is the perfect time to do this.
The conflict is indeed empowering a lot of politicians, but not just Arab ones. The pandering to either side is nauseating.
Randy:
Perhaps my post was unclear. I certainly didn’t mean to say that all arabs are rabid anti-Westerners, although I can see how you might have read it that way. There are some anti-West arabs, such as ObL, whom we need to disarm intellectually. Getting a handle on the I/P situation is a good way to do that.
Having said that, I’ll leave it up to you to keep the “redneck racist Americans” moaning. But then, you eschew sweeping generalizatins, right?
I think that’s an excellent analogy. Sadly, I don’t think many of the settlers will look at it that way, because as I understand it many move there for religious reasons.
Anyway despite the illegality of the settlements and the fact the onus should be on Israel to compensate financially, in the interests of moving forward I would even be willing for the international community to assist in the payments, just to speed up the process. If nothing else, it will appease some Israelis over the extra money the international community is going to have to donate to Palestine (compared to Israel) for infrastructure etc, as so much has been destroyed. At least then there can be no claim of bias.