Story here.
I’m frankly astonished. How can Netanyahu possibly think what he’s describing would be accepted by the Palestinians or the world as an 'independence" settlement?! He’s talking about a situation where Palestine is like Lesotho, an enclave within another state, all its borders entirely controlled by that one state – and in this case, a state unrelentingly hostile to it.
Well, was watching the thread hoping for some responses. Maybe Finn will wander in and give us his views on it. My, perhaps less than fully informed take is that this seems a pretty straight line progression for the Israeli’s, and is hardly shocking, especially in light of continuing periodic Palestinian attacks launched against Israel from within the territory of Palestine.
In addition, it strikes me that, when a nation (or a person) gets ready to negotiate, the thing to do is to make demands far above those that you will eventually settle on. If you stake out a position that is asking more than what you expect and hope to get, it gives you some leeway in granting eventual concessions.
Finally, I think the Palestinians are going to have to face up to reality…any negotiations they embark on with Israel at this point is going to have them starting off in an inferior position. The ship has sailed for when the Palestinians COULD have come to any such talks on a near equal playing field. Reality is that they have squandered any chance they ever had or will ever have to such talks, so they are going to have to make major concessions AND realize that they are going to get less than half a loaf at this point.
-XT
And the new state of Palestine wouldn’t be unrelentingly hostile to Israel? Of course it would, regardless of any concessions made, which is the reason no Israeli PM can afford to give an inch over security issues (and wouldn’t survive long if he did).
So I guess, the Israelia and palestinians had better resign themselves to a state of constant conflict/ Why have peace talks?
Bonus Question: Which nation will host the Israel/palestine peace talks in 2100?
Judging by the 9 billion threads on the subject; the whole Israel/Palestine thingamajig is the only conflict where it is more rational for both sides to continue the current situation then to square up and resolve things. The west shouldn’t be under any delusion that they have the power to “usher peace;” things will be resolved when they are resolved.
However, it is of my opinion that Israelis can’t wait forever. As time passes they must deal with a growing percentage of Palestinians in the OT. IMO the withdrawal from Gaza is just a sign of things to come.
I take it you’re using the words “afford” and “survive” in terms of internal electoral politics?
Obviously.
Is there something wrong with that?
Once again, the only chance for a sustainable Palestine state is for Jordan to give up some land to patch it together with. Preferably, say, the areas that are full of Palestinian refugees.
That bein’ said, it’s probably in Jordan’s best interest to have that line guarded, too. Egypt seems to think guarding its side of the border with the Palestinian lands is pretty important. Important enough to turn people away.
You mean like the West Bank?
The Israelis presently have the upper hand and so are unwilling to compromise. Someday the Arabs will be on top and they will be unwilling to compromise.
Since when were the Arabs *ever *willing to compromise?
Well, offer the leadership huge bank accounts in Switzerland, and we’ll see what compromises can be made.
Well, the treaty between Israel and Jordan would probably count, right? Israel–Jordan peace treaty - Wikipedia I mean, it seems to be full of compromise-ey goodness. And there’s the Egyptian treaty as well.
I’m not saying the Arab states are all sweetness and light with regard to Israel - but to dismiss them as wholly unreasonable and unwilling to compromise is simply not correct.
This is the political fall-out from the situation in Gaza. It is driven by internal Israeli concerns - mainly, to not act as a target for random rocket attacks from the WB. I doubt any Israeli politician could be re-elected, particularly a strongly right-wing one like Netanyahu, who proposed a Gaza-like solution which would run the risk of Hamas taking over and firing rockets into Israel - voters would not stand for it, and he cares more for them than for Palestinan or world opinion.
Lemme see. The Jordanian treaty, the Egyptian treaty, and the Saudi peace (and recognition) for a Palestinian state offer all come to mind.
It will be real nasty if the Arabs return the Israeli policy turn for turn.
Wait one second - aren’t these also examples of Israeli willingness to compromise?
Last I recall, the Egyptians traded a peace treaty for getting the Sinai back.
Seems to me that both the Israeli and Arab states have been willing to compromise in the past. The odd man out is the Palestinians, mainly I think for lack of a single voice capable of offering compromises; certainly Arafat was not willing, and perhaps not able, to do so in the past; and now the Palestinian Authority is shaky in the extreme, divided as it is between the remains of the PLO and Hamas. They may simply be in no position now to offer anything like a coherent deal of the Egypt-Israeli variety.
I admit I was a bit out of line - the Hashemites seemed willing to compromise, and the Egyptian ruling junta will maintain a chilly peace so long as the Americans pay them for it. The Saudi “peace offer”, though, was bullshit.
We differ, you and I, on what we see as the cause of the conflict. You seem to think that it’s Israel’s actions; I disagree. I think the heart of the matter is Israel’s existence. Arabs are quite willing to forgive Arabs who kill other Arabs; what they won’t accept is the presence of what they erroneously see as a “colonial” state in their midst. Until they change their perceptions, nothing will change around here.
No; it merely makes clear that you are not talking about a Palestine with control over its Jordanian border as, for that reason, posing an actual threat to Israel’s survival.
As I recall, neither Israeli or Egypt had any real use for the Sinai. The Egyptians demanded it only as a matter of national pride, and the Israelis, once made to see that clearly, were willing enough to give it up.
Wrangling over territories where significant numbers of people actually can live is, of course, much more complicated.
Clearly, that isn’t what is at stake. An independent Palestine will not be in a position to directly threaten Israel’s survival for the foreseeable future.
The issue is whether it will be in a position to prevent elements within the WB - Hamas or others - from launcing harrasing rocket or other attacks aimed at Israeli civilians.
To be clear: Israel is not threatened by official Palestinian strength, but by official Palestinian weakness - namely, the inability (or possibly unwillingness) of the Palestinian government to guarantee physical security from cross-border harrassment.