Netanyahu is burying the two state solution

[azurnoir]

Matthew Gould, Britain’s first Jewish ambassador to Israel, thinks otherwise: he has predicted that public support for Israel is bound to erode throughout the Free World, and that Israel might find itself completely isolated in another decade. My impressions from travels in Europe and conversations with Western politicians and diplomats tend to confirm Gould’s prediction.

Netanyahu bets against this forecast. He counts on developments that might pull the West towards his hardline policies: if there will be more trouble from radical Islamists, Europe might well move further to the right. As a result Israel may gain the sympathies of political figures that share the worldview of France’s Marie Le Pen and of Geert Wilders, the Dutch anti-Muslim right-winger who is a great aficionado of Netanyahu. In this scenario Israel will come to be seen as the bulwark against radical Islam, and keep the West’s support, even though it will annex most of the West Bank.

Meanwhile Netanyahu can count on the Middle East’s Sunni jihadists and Iran’s Shiite clerical regime to keep him in power. Every jihadist attack, every anti-Israel statement by an Iranian official, and every regime that falls into Islamist hands make Israel’s electorate even more reticent to replace Netanyahu at the helm, particularly given the dearth of viable competitors for his job. Under these conditions he has no incentive whatsoever to change course. At least in the foreseeable future, his tactics seem to work.

His long-term strategy is bound to succeed as well: Netanyahu has bragged in the past that he effectively stopped the Oslo-Accords. He will soon take well-deserved credit for destroying the two state solution altogether.

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/netanyahu-is-burying-the-two-state-solution.premium-1.456857

[mazzarro]

1. So what will then happen to the Palestinians?

Will they just disappear from the surface of the earth? And how long will all the other Arab countries remain docile and unaffected by the humiliations and sufferings of the Palestinians? Or will the west embark on conquering another piece of land elsewhere - probably in Africa - to mass-ship the Palestinians off to? Well, time will tell! The UN and the west have completely messed up this particular issue from the start. And Britain especially bears the bulk of the blame.

[azurnoir]

2. well the going 'thought' of those so inclined seems to be that

Palestinians are ARABS and ARABS already have 22 countries so why don't ARABS take care of their own? Reality is that a number of Arab countries already have Palestinian refugee camps and are none too welcoming towards Palestinians, that said there is the 2002 Arab Peace initiative that Israel rejected out of hand

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighbourliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity.

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organisations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union.

For purposes of comparison, the following is an earlier draft discussed by Arab foreign ministers on 25 March, 2002, in advance of the summit:

The Council of the Arab League, which convenes at the level of a summit on March 27-28, 2002 in Beirut, affirms the Arab position that achieving just and comprehensive peace is a strategic choice and goal for the Arab states.

After the Council heard the statement of Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz in which he called for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel, and that Israel declares its readiness to withdraw from the occupied Arab territories in compliance with United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 and Security Council resolution 1397, enhanced by the Madrid conference and the land-for-peace principle, and the acceptance of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state with al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital, the Council calls on the Israeli government to review its policy and to resort to peace while declaring that just peace is its strategic option.

The Council also calls on Israel to assert the following:

Complete withdrawal from the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including full withdrawal from the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and the remaining occupied parts of south Lebanon to the June 4, 1967 lines.

To accept to find an agreed, just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees in conformity with Resolution 194.

To accept an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian lands occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and with Jerusalem (al-Quds al-Sharif) as its capital in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1397.

In return, the Arab states assert the following:

To consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over and to enter into a peace treaty with Israel to consolidate this.

To achieve comprehensive peace for all the states of the region.

To establish normal relations within the context of comprehensive peace with Israel.

The Council calls on the Israeli government and the Israelis as a whole to accept this initiative to protect the prospects of peace and to spare bloodshed so as to enable the Arab states and Israel to coexist side by side and to provide for the coming generations a secure, stable and prosperous future.

It calls on the international community with all its organisations and states to support the initiative.

The Council calls on its presidency, its secretary general and its follow-up committee to follow up on the special contacts related to this initiative and to support it on all levels, including the United Nations, the United States, Russia, the European Union and the Security Council.

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm

The UN did 'mess up' IMO not by the partition but by walking away from actively co-coordinating or supervising the results, they make an attempt however that resulted in the assassination of Folke Bernadotte the UN envoy in 1948 by Irgun forces lead in part by future Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Shamir

Britain at the time was too war weary itself to hold on anymore its forces in Palestine were being attacked by Jewish organizations such as Irgun, much the same as what happened in India with Indian forces , but with the added pressure of hundreds of thousands Holocaust survivors looking for a home

[LeftishBrit]

3. Netanyahu is a complete idiot, and yes, he is a serious threat to the two state solution

And yes (a) the jihadists are winning votes for him; and (b) there are poisonous Europaean far right-wingers that back him, because although they are generally a right bunch of antisemites, they hate Muslims even more than they hate Jews. (No one should think they are genuinely pro-Israel; it's just a tool for them.)

I wish he'd be replaced by someone more reasonable.

[azurnoir]

4. It's not all too likely that Netanyahu will be replaced though is it?

especially seeing as how it seems right now that Obama will probably win the US election

no matter though the elephant in the room that everyone seems to ignore is how can Israel remove the settlers without causing a near civil war, after all Israel has made quite sure that they are well armed

[Bradlad]

6. Glad you noticed that.

after all Israel has made quite sure that they are well armed

Some here seem to think that the settlers would be useless in any real confrontation with Palestinians should armed fighting break out again. History shows that armed Israeli settlers - no matter where they were located and how poorly armed - were always a threat to Arab army movements and usually had to be confronted by Arab forces - in all the Arab wars against Israel.

These settlers today are much better armed than those in '67 and '48 and I assume almost all the men and many of the women have had army combat training if not experience. I'd guess that they could cause a significant problem for the lightly armed Palestinians police units and even trained militants on the WB should they try to attack the settlements or move freely near them. Also, that they could probably delay and tie up even more formidable Arab forces until regular IDF units could be moved in.

I'd bet the settlers are better prepared for such an early warning role than most realize.

[azurnoir]

8. so you seem to be saying that the settlers are not really civilians at all

but a sort of national guard, thanks also it should be noted that while Israel allows settlers to carry automatic assault weapons Palestinians can not possess any weapon even rocks can be counted as weapons and result in arrest and detention for Palestinians 2 different sets of laws for people living in the same territory, hmmm what is that called again?

[Bradlad]

9. It's called keeping the peace.

It is disarming those who claim the right to attack others and exercise that "right" when they can get away with it. It is arming those they attack - sometimes successfully. When defenders are better armed than aggressors things are far more peaceful.

If you think that's unfortunate, imagine what it would be like on the WB if the Palestinians had automatic assault rifles and the settlers only had rocks. The settlers would be dead. The fact that the WB Palestinians are doing pretty well economically - better than Arabs in any other nearby Arab states - shows pretty clearly who are the aggressors there and who are the defenders.

[azurnoir]

18. oh those innocent settlers are just 'keeping the peace'

how about if no so called civilian in the WB had automatic weapons? However you've confirmed that what ever you call them home-guard or 'peace keepers' the settlers are really not civilians and have brought there children in battle with them and here we see yet another double standard the feigned outrage at Palestinians who 'teach their children to hate' is laughable and is shown for exactly what it is

by the way the word is apartheid and yes it does exist in the West Bank

[Shaktimaan]

11. that depends...

2 different sets of laws for people living in the same territory, hmmm what is that called again?

Occupation? If your whole point is that the settlers are a kind of national guard then shouldn't they be armed?

Palestinians can not possess any weapon even rocks can be counted as weapons and result in arrest and detention for Palestinians

It is not against the law for Palestinians to possess rocks. Give me a break. And plenty of Palestinians possess guns legally, you are out of your mind.

[azurnoir]

17. " you are out of your mind." nope I am not

what you really mean by "plenty of Palestinians possess guns legally" is PA security and police remember we're talking about the WB not Gaza, a frequent tap dance move in these parts, but the point here is that we're told the settlers are merely innocent civilians when by the words here they are apparently indeed not and more over choose to bring their children into this 'armed struggle '

[Ken Burch]

12. There weren't "settlers" in the West Bank sense in the 1949 or 1967 wars

Last edited Fri Aug 10, 2012, 05:21 PM - Edit history (2)

There were just people living in areas generally accepted by the world as being part of Israel. The settler movement, as we know it now, didn't actually exist prior to 1973, when Ariel Sharon, as IDF chief of staff, decided to create it.

The kibbutzim of 1949 and 1967 had nothing at all in common with the West Bank settlers of today. Unlike the settlers, the kibbutzim had humane, secular, progressive democratic values-they weren't messianic and they weren't in favor of taking land just for the sake of taking land. They wanted to build a whole new model of life.

The West Bank settlers, by contrast(I'm speaking of the ideologues now, not of the ones who just became settlers because it was the only way they could get subsidized housing) have no ideals at all, no positive vision and no intention of ever, at any point, seeking to live in peace with Palestinians or other Arabs. They are nationalists in the most negative and dangerous sense, with the potential of doing great damage to a people, the world's Jewish communities, that have already suffered far more in history than anyone should have to.

I believe the settlers are holding all of Israel hostage to their ideology and their arrogance.

[Bradlad]

16. There are several members here who write well.

And you Ken are one of those. You always make an effort to get your meaning across using good writing skills you must have picked up in school when you were younger. I just wanted to mention that because it does make the exchange of complex ideas much easier. I say that even though the ideas we each express here are usually opposite ideologically.

In this case I don't want to argue with your generalizations of the character of the settlers. For one, I don't know much about them from that standpoint. I'll just say that in my experience there are very few human groupings who have homogeneous character traits. I'm sure even drug-dealing biker gangs and German holocaust camp guards have some kind souls who somehow found themselves swept up in something beyond their control.

Just as I would never suggest that all Arabs or all Palestinians or even all members of Hamas are foaming-at-the-mouth genocidal Jew-haters - my experience in life tells me that your statement about the settlers that "They are nationalists in the worst Slobodan Milosevic sense." is probably way off the mark. If you really believed that (which I doubt) would you not have to believe that the Fogel murders were somewhat justified?

Another thing to keep in mind is that for every human action there are many motivations behind it. It's always risky to delve into someone else's soul to extract whatever supports your thesis about them - especially if your goal is to tar some large group of humans you disagree with ideologically with a broad and dirty brush.

[Ken Burch]

19. OK, that particular comparison went a bit too far and I've now deleted it.

But a lot of the settlers are on the path to that...so I'd strongly advise any Israeli prime minister or defense minister to keep a close watch on them and to figure on getting them out of the West Bank sooner rather than later.

BTW, I condemned the murder of the Fogels, so please don't imply that I'd ever approve of something like that.

And yes, there are motivations for all human actions...but I'm not sure which motivations would, in the case of the settlers, make their actions more acceptable than would be those actions of anybody else. You really can't. for example, bring the Holocaust into the motivation question...Palestinians had nothing to do with that and couldn't have prevented it, so it's hard to believe that that would play into it. Also, many if not most of the settlers, from what I've seen are in their forties or younger and from places like Brooklyn. Such people would not have a living memory of persecution in the sense of things like the Kishniev Pogrom. Where are you going with that particular point?

BTW, my intention isn't to tar people...it's to warn about the dangers of violent craziness as a group phenemonon.

And Palestinians have some genuinely honorable and non-bigoted motivations for seeking the right to self-determination-it's a collective tarring of all of them to reduce the entire Palestinian struggle, as too many do in this forum and elsewhere, to antisemitism. Antisemitism exists in Palestine...but it's not like Palestinians wouldn't resist the Occupation if none of them were antisemites-and we can't assume the Occupation and the settlements wouldn't exist without the existence of Palestinian antisemitism. Moreover, I think that a lot of what reads as antisemitism among Palestinians comes from the demagogic Israeli habit of referring to the State of Israel as "the Jews", as if that state and the entire Jewish population of the planet were totally synonymous and indivisible. A discussion could be had about whether Zionism needs antisemitism to exist to justify itself, whether it possibly even depends on it, and thus has an interest in preventing the phenomenon from vanishing. I don't wish to have that discussion here, and it may not even be my place to start it, but somebody does need to have it, because it poses questions as to whether Zionism is a benefit to the world's Jewish communities or a threat TO those communities(that's a question I can't answer and don't wish to try to answer, but it worries me as a person who opposes antisemitism and wants to see Jewish people being able to live in peace and security wherever they live or wish to live).

[Ken Burch]

10. I've sometimes wondered if there isn't a back-channel relationship

between the Israeli Right and the jihadists/Hamasniks(after all, everytime Likud does something, it always works in Hamas' interest-and vice versa. Likud owes at least two electoral victories to Hamas bombings during Israeli election campaigns, and Hamas owes its victory in the PA elections, at least in some significant degree, due to the Likudnik decision to put Arafat under siege in Ramallah).

[oberliner]

5. Finally splurged for Ha'aretz premium?

Or is this one of the ten free with registration articles?

[azurnoir]

7. I actually don't know I registered when they first announced the subscription thing

and for awhile I had lots of blocked articles then that went away, I purposely posted the last 4 paragraphs because generally you can see the first part of an article, but no I have not splurged at all, seems like I've gotten more that 10 though

[Ken Burch]

13. does splurging for Ha'aretz premium discredit azur and the link she used?

Why are you making an issue of the subscription thing?

I hope you're not going to argue that everybody is supposed to refuse to link to Ha'aretz stories just because of the subscription charge.

Ha'aretz is one of the newspapers of record in Israel. Just because it makes some posters here uncomfortable and challenges the pro-war, pro-Occupation consensus in current Israeli politics doesn't change that.

[oberliner]

15. Of course not

I've been on the verge of making the plunge myself.

It's frustrating not being able to read the full articles.

[Ken Burch]

20. I'll probably make that plunge myself, since it's a great paper.

Wasn't sure where you were going in referencing the subscription fee.

[bemildred]

14. The one thing the extremists on both sides can agree on. nt