Wusses. Back in Lebanon we’d just turn in bed and say ‘ayree b Isra’aeel’ then go back to sleep.
JC, I’m not sure I agree with you on the weakness of Arafat. Keep in mind that until the election of Ariel Sharon, the Palestinian Authority’s security services were capable of keeping Hamas et al relatively in check.
Then again, given how quickly Marawn Barghouti broke from Fatah and formed the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, you have a point. Still, presenting himself as the one who ended occupation would’ve strengthened Arafat, not weakened him.
Going back to Qadima, I agree with you that a shake-up is in order. But I’m not sure the people now in office, on both camps, have what it takes to make peace. But the others were tried and failed. And, the extremes on both sides declaring the end of the conflict de-legitimatises anyone still fighting.
If Israel were to withdraw, I doubt that it would leave the settlers to their fate. For one thing, the Palestinians are going to want to reclaim much of the land and water that the settlers now use exclusively, and I doubt the settlers would allow them to do that peacefully and miss their chance to drag the Israeli Army back in. For another, I doubt that the Palestinians would ask nicely in the first place. Effective negotiation tactic though.
Brain Glutton, why distinguish between occupied territories in East Jerusalem and elsewhere in the West Bank? Under international law Israel has no right to any land occupied in 1967.
Given the very shaky nature of the Qadima victory, it is way too early to make any even semi-educated guesses as to how things will proceed from here. Even Olmert, in his acceptance speech yesterday, began to sway towards (re)considering bilateral negotiations.
You have to realize that the Palestinian question is only part (albeit a very important part) of a more general struggle very much resembling the Blue/Red strugge in the US (that is, liberal-nonreligious-left leaning/Conservative-religious-right leaning). I’ll call it “Blue/Orange” rather than “Blue/Red”, because, well, the religious right in Israel has adopted Orange rather than Red…
Basicly what happened yesterday, in a nutshell, was:
The Israeli public voted “blue.” (some 59/120 Members of Knesset are recognizably “blue”, while only about 51 are recognizably “orange”)
This “blue” vote was far far less overwhelming than previously expected.
59 is less than 120/2 – no clear-cut “blue” majority.
Which means Olmert has something resembling a mandate for compromise/concessions vis-a-vis the Palestinians, but less than expected.
I, for one, an not willing to wager how things will turn out – certainly not from a distance of less than 24 hours from the closing of the polls.
Because Jerusalem as their capital obviously is one point on which the Israelis absolutely will not compromise, and they can’t really consider it “theirs” if there’s national boundary running right through the middle of the city, which is why they annexed East Jerusalem in the first place.
Good to see you here, Noone. Kadima will clearly have to seek a coalition partner, and Labour seem the obvious choice. What was Labour’s position on, say, Ariel? (The settlement, not the sleepyhead). Is “evacuate Ariel” a possible demand from Labour as a condition for coalition?
Remember the wall? This is the mechanism of unilateral border-setting on Israel’s part. If Hamas refuses to negotiate, Israel will simply annex the vast majority of the fertile land and water resources behind the $2.5M per mile wall.
On the other hand, if the future autonomous state is carved up by large settlements like Ariel, Palestinians would surely be justified in asking whether that’s really any better than the current situation. Are you any less of a prisoner if the guard stands in your tiny (dependent) cell with the door ajar than if he locks the door behind him?
As for what boundary line would be proper under international law – that’s a big enough question to warrant its own thread. Remember, international law, as developed after WWII, rejects wars of aggression as illegitimate, but I do not think it entirely rejects the legitimacy of taking territory by force, where the party doing so can plausibly claim not to have been the initiator of a war of conquest; and Israel would be on solid ground there (in the Six-Day War, Syria, Jordan and Egypt were clearly the aggressors). If you think otherwise, please provide a cite.
Fine, but the real news is the success of the ak list, the penioners that is.
All this talk about a “mapatz,” explosive change in the political landscape regarding Kadima, is a bunch of bull. The Likud and Kadima together got around what the Likud got last time. Labor around the same as last time. Now that Netanyahu is on the ropes in the Likud, well, if he gets ousted, the likud will join a Kadima co-alition. So where’s the change? The same people representing the same centrist realpolitic views are represented in the Knessest and probably the government in the same numbers as before, basically.
The pensioners is a welcome change. People recognized that the big parties are only pretending to represent an ideological view and will do whatever they want with watever ideological mandate they are given like Sharon, who betrayed his mandate by pursuing the disengagement against the will of his ideological constituency.
So they voted for a party that represents a most undeniable truth - you just gotta take care of your old people. You have to feed them and give them the medicines they (we, that is - gettin there soon) need.
According to the very convenient maps of the proposals of various parties published in my newspaper, the labor supported not to annex Ariel, but to nevertheless keep it until a definitive peace plan could be drafted with the palestinians. So, the labur would have no reason to make such a demand.
Theonly party envisionning to give back Ariel to the Palestinians was apparently the Meretz-Yahad, a pacifist, leftist, sionist party (though I’m not sure what the “sionist” part refers to. Is there any “non-sionist” Israeli party?)
Because the Arab “dream” has never been a small independent state on the West Bank. The dream has been to drive the Jews into the sea, and eliminate the state of Israel.
Did Arafat really believe in this dream, deep down in his heart? Probably- but let’s say he’d become something of a realist in his old age. Let’s say he’d finally come to understand that Israel was there to stay, and the best the Arabs could hope for was an independent state controlling most of the West Bank.
His problem was, after decades of proclaiming to his people that he was going to exterminate the Jews, he’d have been dead meat if he came to them and said, “Good news, my people we have won! No, we aren’t detroying Israel. No, we won’t be returning to our ancestors’ homeland. No, none of the things the PLO promised you will ever happen. But we’re getting 90% of the West Bank and a sliver of East Jerusalem as a capital!”
Arafat would’ve been murdered by his own people (a la Michael Collins) in short order, if he delivered them less than he’d led them to expect.
But don’t you think even Hamas, now that they’re actually responsible for running things, might learn to accept the reality of Israel’s permanent existence?
Sevastopol, if you wish to argue that the PLO did not call for the elimination of Israel (and the Jewish people) over the course of its history, then I suggest that you provide citations that explain how the statements in this PLO charter do not mean what they say or how the intentions of various PLO speakers have changed over the years. Calling a direct reference to a widely known document “pathetic” is, itself, not a very strong argument.
Had you pointed to the ten year old renunciation (accepted and rejected by successive Israeli governments) as an indication that the PLO had (at least publicly) changed its views, you would have a case. Pretending that calls for the destruction of Israel were never part of the PLO “dream” is silly and makes you appear to be debating in bad faith.