There have been some developments since 1967. In fact several arab “groups” (if you want to call arab countries “groups”) have not only negotiated, they have recognized and pledged peace with Israel. Its one of the reasons Israel doesn’t really seem to give a shit whether the peace process proceeds or not. If all the arab countries decided tomorrow that that they were going to actually stand by the three no’s they pledged themselves to at Khartoum, Israel might be more inclined to negotiate for peace.
I said “groups” because it included both NGOs and nation states.
Yeah, so if the Palestinians and their allies went back to the days of Nasser Israel would come around. :dubious:
This has to be one of the more foolish suggestions I’ve seen yet.
Maybe for an encore they should adopt Horst Wessel as the national anthem of Palestine and Abu Mazen should insist on being called Abu Adolph.
If you have history dating from the Roman Empire presented as legitimate and dispositive today, then hell, why not?
Well hopefully you now realize that arab groups (like Egypt) negotiated with Israel.
Perhaps. Right now there is nothing pushing Israel to change a thing. Things are more or less fine the way they are. Without Egypt and Jordan in the mix, Israel has nothing to be afraid of. Its not like Lebanon and Syria are going to successfully invade them.
You sound very confused.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. It’s certainly common for people to claim the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians is an ancient conflict but realistically it only stretches back about 100 years.
I also don’t see your comment supports the silly suggestion put forward that if the Palestinians and their allies were to return to the time of Nasser the Israelis would be wiling to negotiate.
Some in the Palestinian leadership have already suggested that the Camp David accords are null and void and this has done nothing to calm the situation.
Could you explain?
It’s “Arab” not “arab”.
Heh. Nice try.
Sure, but the claims to superior legitimacy go back as far as recorded history. The point being that clinging to history, especially via cherrypicking it, is a large part of the problem.
Since I haven’t made that claim, or any others you ask to be explained, I refer you to those making them.
Any peace deal has to be based on the future, not the past, and on recognizing “the other guys” as neighbors, not rivals. Isn’t that obvious?
My apologies. I thought this
was in response to my criticizing Damuri’s suggestion.
Never mind then.
Yes, I’d largely agree with that. I think the key stumbling blocks are that too many Israelis think this is Berlin 1938 and and too many Palestinians think it’s Algeria.
It’s an Israel thread. It’s on the exact same track they all end up on.
/sigh
OK fine.
Do you now realize that Arab groups have indeed negotiated with Israel despite the three no’s?
Do you now realize how silly it is to hold up the three no’s as meaningful of anything after Egypt and Jordan?
Do you now realize that much of the Hamas charter is at least somewhat rhetorical and should not be an absolute bar to negotiation.
Glad I could help.
You still seem very confused. For some reason, you seem to be conflating Nazis with Palestinians.
It seems clear that Israel has no interest in giving up ANYTHING in negotiations because they already have everything and they risk very little by maintaining the status quo. It would never happen but if you put Egypt and Jordan back on the board then they might feel differently about the relative risks and rewards.
I mean how many times have we heard Israel apologists say that the Palestinians should take whatever deal Israel happens to be offering at the moment before the deal gets even worse. Well, the thing that is driving the deals down seems to be Israel’s sense of security. Frankly they seem to think they are at the point where they don’t really NEED the US to maintain their security. If that sense of security were undermined by a repudiation of the treaties with Egypt and others and the development of nuclear capabilities by several of those countries, I suspect Israel would develop a renewed interest in negotiating a fair resolution.
Most peace deals seem to be based on the past. 1967 in particular.
Yes, it is somewhat Rhetorical, so why not abandon those racist articles?
They gave up quite a few settlements in Gaza, and have been willing to give up more in other offers. In fact, other than Jerusalem it seems most things have been on the table. True, the current Conservative Government seems less likely to offer generous compromises, but that too shall pass.
And Israel has been pretty careful when it comes to their conservatism of Jeruslam, as opposed to when it was divided.
wiki :"*After 1948, since the old walled city in its entirety was to the east of the armistice line, Jordan was able to take control of all the holy places therein. While Muslim holy sites were maintained and renovated,[207] contrary to the terms of the armistice agreement, Jews were denied access to Jewish holy sites, many of which were destroyed or desecrated. Jordan allowed only very limited access to Christian holy sites,[208] and restrictions were imposed on the Christian population that led many to leave the city. Of the 58 synagogues in the Old City, half were either razed or converted to stables and hen-houses over the course of the next 19 years, including the Hurva and the Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue. The 3,000-year-old[209] Mount of Olives Jewish Cemetery was desecrated, with gravestones used to build roads, latrines and Jordanian army fortifications. 38,000 graves in the Jewish Cemetery were destroyed, and Jews were forbidden from being buried there.[210][211] The Western Wall was transformed into an exclusively Muslim holy site associated with al-Buraq.[212] "
*
There are basically three ways for Palestinians to gain leverage to drive a deal.
- Increase outside pressure from uninvolved third parties - boycotts, UN Resolutions, formal and informal diplomatic pressure.
Problem with this is that it has been tried and failed spectacularly. Condemnation of Israel has become rote and routine. Few nations care to put actual resources behind it - and why should they? There are much more important and pressing issues worldwide and in the ME.
- Increase, as you say, Israeli insecurity through threats of military action and/or local guerilla attacks or terrorism.
Again, a tried and failed strategy. It did not work when the entire Arab world was united in the cause - and the Arab world has never been as disunited as now, as you know. Even assuming by some miracle that the Arab world could be re-united, why would (say) Egypt risk a nuclear exchange with Israel - for Palestinians? Fact is, while Egyptians have no love of Israel at all, they have lots to gain from cooperating with them - and to a large extent they do. This is only likely to increase over time, particularly with the exploitation of natural gas in the Med. (Israel has access and Egypt is a major potential customer).
Palestinian-alone attacks on Israelis, either in the form of rioting, rocket attacks, or the like, have done nothing to benefit the Palestinian cause - quite the reverse: they only harden Israeli attempts to wall them off in various ways, embolden the right wing inside Israel, etc.
- Moral suasion - the Gandhi or ML King approach, in the absence of threats of force of the choice #2 variety. This at least has the virtue of not having already failed. Israel is by no means a monolithic society - there is an active left wing there who would be delighted with some sort of peace deal.
Problem with this is that Palestinian society is very militant. Even those who accept the legitimacy of some sort of deal insist at the least on conditions that even the most dovish of lefty Israelis find difficult to accept: return of Jerusalem and an unlimited “right if return” for Palestinians and their descendants.
This, then is the hard truth: that neither party can freely negotiate an unforced peace based on moral suasion for the simple reason that their minimum bargaining positions are fundamentally incompatible: in particular, sovereignty over Jerusalem and the “right of return”.
This means that any peace would have to be forced and grudging. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, this means that any peace will be to their disfavor, because they lack any realistic way to apply force.
Condemnation of Israel used to be meaningless when the worlds largest consumer market was your closest ally. Why did the Boycott work with South Africa but won’t work with Israel? How is BDS different from the boycott South Africa movement (in terms of its potential efficacy)?
[quote]
2. Increase, as you say, Israeli insecurity through threats of military action and/or local guerilla attacks or terrorism.
Again, a tried and failed strategy. It did not work when the entire Arab world was united in the cause - and the Arab world has never been as disunited as now, as you know. Even assuming by some miracle that the Arab world could be re-united, why would (say) Egypt risk a nuclear exchange with Israel - for Palestinians? Fact is, while Egyptians have no love of Israel at all, they have lots to gain from cooperating with them - and to a large extent they do. This is only likely to increase over time, particularly with the exploitation of natural gas in the Med. (Israel has access and Egypt is a major potential customer).{/quote]
Like I said, it is very unlikely that Egypt will attack Israel with more than a some very harshly worded statements (mostly for the reasons you describe). But if they did, I think you agree it would make a difference. Israel is not invincible and they have known it since 1973, the Egypt peace treaty was a direct result of the 1973 war. If Egypt, Syria, Jordan launched a surprise attack on Israel and they were backed up by the other Arab states, it could end them.
On the nuclear question, I’ve discussed this with others in the past and I think Israel would be really reluctant to use nuclear weapons unless there was actual genocide going on. Using nukes in an otherwise conventional war would fatally wound the Zionist movement and cause trouble for Jews worldwide.
I think Israel has baked the cost of these attacks into their current policy and decided that its worth the inconvenience.
Contemplates 1967 borders which is not a “return of Jerusalem” and is fuzzy on the right of return and is certainly not an “unlimited right of return”
These are certainly the two perennial sticking points.
For now, but see:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=845976
The Palestinians are almost the quintessential nothing to lose player in international relations.
The tendency on the political left to attempt to hammer the round peg of this situation into the square hole of the South Africa precedent is not helpful.
Suffice it to say that the various condemnations of Israel have not worked to date, and it would take the most wild optimist to assume that more of the same is at all likely to work in the future.
Moreover, there are particular reasons why this approach has not worked.
First and foremost, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is much more like an ethnic conflict in the Balkans than the situation in SA (or the situation of, say, Blacks in the US). It is a competition over land and resources in which both groups have good reasons to view the other as the oppressor.
For example - half the current Jewish population of Israel derives, originally, from the rest of the ME.
The fact that the condemnation is wholly one-sided undercuts the ability for it to act as genuine moral suasion.
For a threat to exist, it must be at least somewhat credible. Syria doesn’t even exist as a country any more. I doubt the conditions will ever exist for united action by these three in the future - if they did, the facts would be so different as to be quite unpredictable.
They would use them if faced with an existential threat - as would any country.
The wiki article lacks the actual text of the plan (which Hamas has never agreed with anyway).
This is better:
The relevant part:
[Emphasis added]
Resolution 194 is incorporated by reference in the Arab Plan, but only in the context of refugees:
As can be seen, the Arab plan calls for making East Jerusalem the capital of a Palestinian state, and for an unqualified right of return: "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date … ".
The only “qualification” is that said returning refugees want peace: " wishing to … live at peace with their neighbours …" [Emphasis added]. To what extent this is puffery is hard to determine (could Israel, if this resolution had legal force, require returning refugees to sign some sort of permanent peace bond - which would effectively make them second-class citizens? I doubt it.)
Indeed, the return of lands seized (including, specifically, East Jerusalem) and the return of refugees are practically the only concrete details in the Arab Plan.
Needless to say, these are the two details that (current) Israelis find difficult to accept, as they involve losing control over the composition of the country, and divvying up their current Capital city with another nation - two items that are pretty basic elements of national sovereignty.
This is an utterly moronic statement.
I never made any such conflation and unlike yourself have visited the region and know Palestinians.
It’s also quite ironic coming from someone who insisted that Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger couldn’t be sympathetic to the Palestinians or the Arab cause because they were both Jews(or at least in your mind they were Jews).
The main difference AFAICT is that Israeli Jews are not a tiny minority compared to the Palestinian that they oppress.
Otherwise how do they differ from the South African whites?
It depends on whether or not the Palestinians get a nuke. Nuclear weapons are a great equalizer.
What good reasons does the largely immigrant (or descendant of immigrant) population in Israel have to view the Palestinians as oppressors?
And well over half of the Jewish population in Israel derives originally from Europe and other Western countries.
The fact that a quarter to a third of all Jewish babies born today are of mixed western and middle eastern ancestry lets you make your claim but the Jews in Israel seem to be mostly of western ancestry.
I’m pretty sure people condemn suicide bombing of cafe’s and school busses. Or did you mean something else?
I agree the situation is highly unlikely.
What is an existential threat short of genocide? Is the likelihood of losing its status as a majority Jewish nation an existential threat?
Have the Palestinians been experiencing an existential threat? Would they be justified in using nukes?
Lets say both Israel and the Palestinians have nuclear weapons. What sort of deal would they reach?
They should return East Jerusalem. see 1967 borders.
I say the right of return is fuzzy, you say that I am wrong and proceed to say (in effect) that the right of return is fuzzy.
Is it as moronic as a statement that CLEARLY implies an analogy between Nazis and Palestinians? Unless your reference to Horst Wessel and Abu Adolph were not references to Naziism. At some point Israel’s apologists really should stop conflating Palestinians with Nazis. Its really bad for your side of the argument.
For such a self professed expert it is shocking that you forgot that Egypt has in fact negotiated with Israel. I mean it was big news at the time.
Says the guy that forgot that Egypt negotiated with Israel after 1973.
cite?
I think you might be referring to statement made years ago that I corrected after I realized my error (perhaps you can acknowledge your error about the three no’s of Khartoum, considering how many times it has been honored in the breach). A statement that you would be grossly mischaracterizing and taking out of context by saying I 'insisted" on anything. Please provide the cite.
Dial back the rhetoric and stop trying to see how close to the line you can get lest you cross it inadvertently.
[/moderating]
He’s the one who’s been accusing me of racism whereas I was addressing his posts. Isn’t the former supposed to be more of a violation than the latter.