Israel is under no obligations to withdraw to the 1948 borders, but to “secure” borders to be determined by negotiations.
Since the Palestinians have never negotiated in good faith in 35 years, Israel is now going to just impose a settlement. All in all, it’s much more generous than other nations would give.
“The Green Line is arbitrary. Happens to be where hostilities ceased. Nothing magical about it.”
OK if it’s arbitrary then Palestians can reasonably negotiate for territory on the Israeli side of the Green Line, right? When Israeli supporters say the Green Line is arbitrary they seem to mean it only in one direction. Everything to the west is 100% sacrosanct Israeli territory. It’s only arbitrary only on the Palestinian side.
BTW the Palestinians did accept the principle of land-swaps where they would give up some land on their side of the Green Line for some territory on the Israeli side. That is the basis of the Geneva accord as well. Actually I agree that the Palestinians should give up the right of return and for all practical purposes their negotiators did that in the Geneva accords. However what they won’t give up are the Arab parts of East Jerusalem and nor should they be expected to give them up. I don’t see any Israeli government which is willing to make concessions on East Jerusalem. Until that happens Israel is a big part of the problem.
“Israel is under no obligations to withdraw to the 1948 borders, but to “secure” borders to be determined by negotiations”
However it is and has been under the obligation for decades under both Geneva Conventions and UNSC resolutions to not build settlements in the occupied territories.
“Since the Palestinians have never negotiated in good faith in 35 years, Israel is now going to just impose a settlement.”
Israel has never really negotiated in good faith either. It violated parts of the Oslo agreement and continued building settlements in large numbers even after Oslo. That’s one of the big reasons the peace talks in 2000 collapsed.
OK if it’s arbitrary then Palestians can reasonably negotiate for territory on the Israeli side of the Green Line, right? When Israeli supporters say the Green Line is arbitrary they seem to mean it only in one direction. Everything to the west is 100% sacrosanct Israeli territory. It’s only arbitrary only on the Palestinian side.
Yeah, and the Germans can negotiate for Polish or Czech territory.
Sorry, but the winner of the war gets the advantage in negotiations for peace. The fact that Israel completely crushed their opponents yet has offered the bulk of the land back shows them to be far more generous than the nations that criticize them.
**However what they won’t give up are the Arab parts of East Jerusalem and nor should they be expected to give them up. I don’t see any Israeli government which is willing to make concessions on East Jerusalem. Until that happens Israel is a big part of the problem.
**
Why should Israel make a concession on East Jerusalem? It’s one of the few areas of Palestine that Jews had a large presence in continuosly. Israel has more of a right to East Jerusalem than they do to Tel Aviv.
Not to mention the fact that Israel has been much better about letting different faiths worship at holy sites than the Arabs were when they had control.
**However it is and has been under the obligation for decades under both Geneva Conventions and UNSC resolutions to not build settlements in the occupied territories.
**
The legal status of the territories is contested by Israel, and the Security Council doesn’t have jurisdiction. Israel can also make the case that they are only repopulating the West Bank with Jews after Jews were expelled from the area in 1948.
**Israel has never really negotiated in good faith either. It violated parts of the Oslo agreement and continued building settlements in large numbers even after Oslo. That’s one of the big reasons the peace talks in 2000 collapsed.
**
Israel took the initial steps required in Oslo in the face of continued terror attacks, something the Palestinians agreed to put a stop to.
And you forget that Israel has concluded peace agreements with two former adversaries. Israel has proven it’s willingness to negotiate. The Palestinians have no such track record. As a matter of fact, they’ve commited violence against not just Israel, but Lebanon and Jordan, acting in extremely bad faith towards nations that had harbored them.
Releted article
Related article
I see the Bush administration is still chasing negotiations despite their proven track record of failure.
Every administration wants to be seen as the one that brought peace to the Middle East. I would imagine that any administration, Dem or Repub is going to do the same for a long time to come. After all, what other options exist?
Israel’s option has a better chance than anything else. If terrorists can’t get into Israel, and Israeli troops aren’t messing with Palestinians, you have peace.
My last sentence was not specific enough. When I ask, “What other options exist?”, I am referring to the US Administrations options concering trying to bring peace to the Middle East. I see them as very limited and none except trying to push negotiations look very attractive.
Cyber, You do know that during CD2 Israel had offered land swaps into the Israeli side of the Green Line and control over most of East Jerusalum, don’t you?
They won’t get that Jerusalum offer again for a long time because such requires trust that security would automatically flow as a result from a negotiated peace; that is now realized to be naivete. OTOH, peace might result from security, and I mean real peace, not just the absence of current hostility, but cooperation in building a better future for all involved.
Start a war, lose some land… then whine like you deserve it back… and even convine others that you have some right to land you lost in a war that you started…
weird…
Who started what war, and why is it weird?
Well here’s someone with simple opinions and a simple grasp of history. Welcome.
Tiggis, I suggest you need to work out the distinction between, say, the former government of Jordan, and the former Jordanian (and Palestinian Mandate) citizens who have been left stateless and in someone else’s occupied territories. And do a little reading.
Adaher,
Your main argument seems to be that Israel won the war so it can do whatever it wants. That has no validity under international law. It is still bound by the Geneva conventions and UNSC resolutions. There are restrictions on what it can do as an occupying power in both East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The most important is that it cannot build settlements.
“Why should Israel make a concession on East Jerusalem? It’s one of the few areas of Palestine that Jews had a large presence in continuosly.”
Another non-argument. Arabs have had a continuous presence in parts of Israel for many centuries. That doesn’t mean they can claim it for their own state.
“The legal status of the territories is contested by Israel, and the Security Council doesn’t have jurisdiction”
Just because Israel contests the legal status of the territories doesn’t mean much. As mentioned above they are still under the basic obligations of an occupying power.
DSeid,
IIRC in Camp David Israel was only prepared to offer some outlying suburbs of East Jerusalem. In particular it was not prepared to share sovereignty over the Temple Mount which is absolutely crucial for a peace deal. A detailed agreement on the sharing of holy places in Jerusalem as well as the Old City is the main contribution of the Geneva Accords.
Cyber,
I’d be happy to trade dueling citations with you about what was offered during and immediately after CD2. I’ve fought this one before: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2134663#post2134663 But suffice it to say that it depends on who you believe. According to both Ross and Malley (both of whom were there and the latter of whom is noted for his critical appraisal of all involved) Arafat walked away from a lot. The original link to the New York Times Book Review is no longer active but in that thread I quoted Malley’s article
And Arafat walked.
But it is moot to this discussion. While shared sovereignty or international aegeis for the Temple Mount is probably something that is doable if security is really assured, what if it wasn’t doable? How does control over the Temple Mount make for a more functional Palestinian state that can prosper in the future? If there was peace and security then these things wouldn’t matter; both would have access and say no matter if control was putatively Israeli or Arab or international. Without security such an offer is ridiculous for Israel to consider.
For a discussion of The Fence when it was a seed of an idea, I refer you to a thread from more than a year and a half ago (and you were there Edwino, and you Adahar and it was beautiful with an Emerald castle, and …): http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=111948 I hate agreeing with Sharon, but he is doing the right thing. If there is no partner able/willing to deliver on security, then negotiations are useless. Partial withdrawl behind a Big Fence to get security and then negotiate for a more real peace (which will still be in Israel’s interest) when the PA is really ready to look the future.
Your quote refers to the Clinton Plan of Taba not the Camp David offer. IIRC neither side accepted this plan in its entirety and the Israelis had reservations about Jerusalem in particular. The Taba negotiations ended not because of a Palestinian refusal but because of Israeli elections.
A useful NYTimes article:
http://www.peacenow.org/nia/news/sontag3.html
“Mr. Arafat did eventually authorize his negotiators to engage in talks in Taba that used the Clinton proposal as a foundation. Despite reports to the contrary in Israel, however, Mr. Arafat never turned down “97 percent of the West Bank” at Taba, as many Israelis hold. The negotiations were suspended by Israel because elections were imminent and “the pressure of Israeli public opinion against the talks could not be resisted,” said Shlomo Ben-Ami, who was Israel’s foreign minister at the time.”
As for the absence of a Palestinian partner, Israel has played a role in this as well by systematically destroying the PA’s ability to maintain security as well as its various repressive policies in the West Bank. If Israel accepted in principle a final solution along the lines of the Geneva Accords with the condition that it would be implemented only if the PA managed to maintain the peace for a certain period, it would make it a lot easier for the PA to crack down on terrorists.
No duh, there was a deadline of Israeli elections. Agree by then or you lose Barak and will have Sharon to deal with instead. That they dragged feet with that coming was the answer. But okay, what was discussed just at CD2? According to Malley http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380
Not perfect, not detailed, but a good start and clearly Malley believed that if Arafat negotiated a deal could’ve been accomplished that spelled out the details. But there was no compromising going on. For illustration
What exactly was offered by Israel? We’ll probably never know. As Malley put it -
All said, I like your proposal. It sounds like a hybrid of the road map and Taba. Here is the end point, contigent upon the PA’s proving that they can and will deliver on security. I’m just cynical enough to believe that Arafat would never deliver on that security … or even try. He’d say, “no you go first. You give us all this and then we’ll be able to convince the terrorists to stop. I promise. You can trust me.” He has vested interest in perpetuating his fiefdom and I really do not think that he gives a rat’s ass about the Palestinian people. I’d love to be shown wrong though!
I agree that the Palestinians should have been more active in negotiating in Camp David; however both the Malley and Sontag articles give the backgroud for their general reluctance at the talks, for which American and Israeli decisions were partly to blame. As for Taba I don’t see that the Palestinians can be blamed for not fully accepting the Clinton Plan at the last minute especially when crucial details were missing. I don’t believe the Israelis fully accepted it either. If the Clinton plan had been proposed earlier at Camp David there would probably have been adequate time to negotiate on its basis.
Cyber (and others),
At some point Israel needs to disengage and provide for security itself. It will need to do so in a way that security does result and that leaves items to use to negotiate with for a ore real peace. Whee would you place that point if not now?
I would dispute the notion that a fence which followed the Green Line in the West Bank would leave Israel with no bargaining chips for a real peace; after all it would still presumably control East Jerualem including its holy sites which are most important for the Palestinians.
In the absence of a political strategy I doubt a fence will increase Israel’s security in the long run either. The fence cannot stop rockets for one thing and Palestinian terror groups may focus their resources in that direction after it’s built.