So we're back to Oslo?

[Violet_Crumble]

The goal of the current Israeli-Palestinian peace talks should be a comprehensive agreement, not an interim deal.
By Zvi Bar'el

A comprehensive and permanent solution is not possible under the current conditions, Yossi Beilin has said. His argument: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not want peace and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is unable to meet the Israeli conditions for peace. The solution, which has already become a political slogan: a long-term interim agreement.

There is a great deal of appeal to such a proposal, which dresses up as an appropriate and possible solution. What exactly is that interim agreement? To please Israel it will have to include an article allowing it to continue pouring cement and people into the West Bank and Jerusalem, refuse the return of all the Palestinian refugees and prevent the division of Jerusalem. And perhaps, if the two sides agree, it will include an empty statement about the establishment of a Palestinian state in the future. An interim agreement that does not include these elements will not reach the Knesset.

And the Palestinians? What will they gain from an interim agreement? A package of benefits that will include the lifting of checkpoints, freedom to trade and a release of prisoners - always an excellent product that is plentiful in Israeli prisons. They will also get complete control in Area B and the cities in Area C (civilian control to be more precise, since the Israel Defense Forces will retain the right for "hot pursuits" ). And of course, they will get a declaration of support for the Palestinians' right to an independent state, but in two or three generations.

Anyone who claims that the Oslo Accords were a failure because they did not meet the Palestinians' demands and threatened the settlements cannot honestly support an interim agreement that will be less than Oslo, or an interim agreement in general. Is it not those same opponents of the Oslo Accords who attribute the outbreak of the intifada to them? And what will be novel in the interim agreement? Another guaranteed intifada?

The supporters of an interim agreement are right in their claim that we have a real difficulty in reaching a comprehensive and final agreement at the moment. But that's the same difficulty that has accompanied Israel and the Palestinians at least since 1992 and has made every interim agreement very dangerous. Because if an interim agreement fails - and this is certain because it would be empty of substance - a final agreement is pushed even further into the future. Such an agreement's supporters are essentially saying that there will be an eternal interim agreement.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/so-we-re-back-to-oslo-1.314539

[Ken Burch]

1. Things that will be needed for a TRULY final resolution of all this

(these are not in order of importance, btw)

1) A declaration of "parity of esteem", that is, an admission by the Israeli government that the Palestinians have a deep, ancienc andlegitimate heritage in these lands and a cultural and economic history that is equally deserving of respect(no more insistence on calling Palestinian Arab culture backward and barbaric)with that of Israeli Jews. In exchange for this, an acknowledgment on the Palestinian side that there has been a long-standing Jewish presence in Palestine and that, while the Askenazim are newcomers, the Mizrahi aren't and therefore should never have been treated as "the enemy".


2) If there's to be a renounciation of an ACTUAL "right of return" for all the descendants of those displaced in 1948 by the creation of Israel, then there needs to at least be such a right for those people who themselves were displaced and are still living.
There also needs to be apologies for their treatment, and an admission that they did nothing to deserve being driven away(since most Palestinians were not THEMSELVES combatants in that year).

3) There needs to be a "Truth and Justice Commission" on South African lines so that those(on both sides)who suffered as a result of this conflict can be given the chance to confront those who inflicted suffering upon them and to get expressions of remorse and compensation for their suffering.

4) Histradut support for the creation of a real labour federation to protect Palestinian Arabs living in Israel from exploitation and discrimination(if the Histradut still refuses to admit them, that is-and they should admit them anyway).

5) PALESTINIAN control of the Palestinian water supply. No nation ANYWHERE, should EVER be denied control of its own water supply. No possible objective could justify such inhumanity.

6) A recognition that Palestinians, in their own state, have just as much right to a defensive army as the Israelis do in theirs.

7) For Palestinians living in Israel, an end to ALL discrimination, all exploitation, all harassment. You can't ask people to be loyal to a state if the state doesn't treat them as equals with everyone else who lives in it.

8) The right of an independent Palestinian state to have its OWN international airport, and an end to ALL restrictions on the right of Palestinians living in Palestine to travel outside of Palestine.

(These are just a start. And none of these endangers Israeli security in the slightest).

These are just a few.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. That's a good start...

I'm pretty sure the Histadrut does admit Arabs as members. I don't really get how membership works, as I thought it was an umbrella organisation covering a whole bunch of trade unions, much like the ACLU here and if that's the case, I would have thought the unions get membership to the Histadrut, not individual workers. If eyl or pelsar are round at some point and know, maybe they can clarify it?

[Shaktimaan]

5. Many of these are good ideas.

But some seem unrealistic at best.

1) Great! But shouldn't the Ashkenazim have also been welcomed instead of being treated like the enemy?

2) This seems unlikely. You're talking about Israel admitting hundreds of thousands of mostly elderly, impoverished people who don't speak the language and wouldn't be allowed to bring their families. An apology also seems unlikely. It implies that what Israel did, in not allowing the Palestinians to return, was wrong. Something that most Israelis probably wouldn't agree with.

3) Interesting idea!

5) I actually think that a good deal of their water supplies are shared. The two nations would share the responsibility of managing that resource.

6) This is just a horrible idea. Really, really awful. First of all, what possible reason could the Palestinians need a standing army for? What possible benefit would it convey? None really, except maybe bolstering pride in their new state? There's no reason Israel shouldn't handle their international defense for the time being. And here is one really awesome reason. Palestine would be a very new democratic state with political parties made up primarily of the liberation groups that managed to evolve enough to write mission statements. Ensuring that the democratic process doesn't break down into violence will be a major endeavor even if the state lacks a general who leads the national army that's ultimately loyal to him alone. Look at how so many coups go down in developing nations... it's always the general who takes over. Sometimes there's a few of them working as a group. They should get a police force and that's it.

7) Sure sounds great. While you're at it can you end those things in America too? Also poverty. And I want a unicorn for my birthday. Seriously... that is one tall order you've got there. And it's gonna be anything but simple to implement. Israel isn't like America where you just outlaw segregation. How would you recommend handling issues like mandatory army service? Remember, this is a part of the population for whom the national independence day is a symbol of defeat and loss. Do we expect them to fight for Israel just like their Jewish counterparts? Probably against other Arabs should war break out?

8) Of course. It would be a real state after all.

[aranthus]

6. Indeed

Numbers 1 and 2 simply aren't going to happen. Nor are they necessary. Israel doesn't need to declare that the Palestinians are an equal sovereign nation. Once they have a state, they will be an equal sovereign nation. End of story. Also, I think you might have meant that the Sephardim were treated like outsiders, rather than the Ashkenazim.

Number 3 is a good idea, but let's include all the surrounding Arab states in the mix. Most of them have done pretty terrible things to both Israelis and Palestinians.

Number 5 is a bit more complex than that. Not only are water supplies shared between Israel and Palestine (the Judean Aquifer), but there is also a shared source (the Jordan River) with Syria and Jordan. As tight as water supplies are in the region, a regional solution is going to be necessary. Israel and Palestine should try to come to a tentative agreement on the use of the Aquifer, but that could change a lot depending on how much River water they get.

Number 6 is a really bad idea that's going to happen anyway, openly or clandestinely. Better it should be in the open.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Question

Israel doesn't need to declare that the Palestinians are an equal sovereign nation. Once they have a state, they will be an equal sovereign nation.

If you believe there's no need for Israel to recognise a Palestinian state, why would there be a need for the Palestinians to not only recognise Israel (already done), but to move the goalposts even further by Israel demanding the Palestinians recognise it as a Jewish state?

[aranthus]

10. Fair question.

The answer is that Israel has never officially denied Palestinian national existence, and the Palestinians have officially denied Jewish national existence. Israel did not go to war to destroy the Palestinians' chance for a state in 1947, but the Palestinians did go to war to deny the Jews a state, and that denial is at the core of the conflict today. So it is reasonable to ask that declaration from the Palestinians (to indicate that the war is over), while the reverse is not true. By the way, I never said that Israel doesn't have to recognize a Palestinian state. I said that they don't need to recognize the Palestinians as a equal sovereign nation. That's not the same thing. It's obvious that Israel will need to recognize Palestine once it comes into being.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. How many times has the current Israeli prime minister said he opposed a Palestinian state? N.T.

[aranthus]

12. You're seriously going to try and compare

the equivocal words (he's also said he supports one) of one man to the general feeling over the length, breadth, depth and history of Palestinian existence? Apples to toads much? Seriously, is there anything of similar stature in Israeli politics to the PLO Charter or the Hamas Charter that says the things in either of those documents?

[Violet_Crumble]

13. The Likud Platform states official opposition to any Palestinian state...

From the Platform:

Self-Rule

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.

The Jordan River as a Permanent Border

The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan is a desirable partner in the permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians in matters that will be agreed upon.

http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm


Reading yr earlier reply, we do agree that there will have to be recognition by Israel of Palestine once it comes into being, and Palestine will have to reaffirm its recognition of Israel. There's no compelling reasons not to do it, and the reasons to do it (eg good-will, trust, getting off to a good start) are compelling...

[Ken Burch]

8. There are several reasons the Palestinians need their own army

1)It is arrogant to say that Israel should have a defense force, but NOT Palestine. Furthermore, it's disturbing to say that Israel should be responsible for defending Palestine from external attack when, until very recently, the Israeli government was adamantly opposed to Palestinians getting their own nation at all.

2)If Palestine denied an independent military, it implies that they aren't equal to Israel as a national entity-it sends the message that Palestine ISN'T a "real" country.

3)They have just as much reason to distrust possible future Israeli intentions as Israelis have has to distrust those of the Palestinians. Maximalist instincts are not confined to only one side.

4)It will be far easier to hold a standing army to honorable rules of engagement than it is to do that with the irregular forces that have dominated the Palestinian physical force party-and far easier to sign a non-aggression pact with a country with a clear military chain of command.

It would be better if NEITHER country had an army. But if Israel has one, then Palestine can't fairly be denied one. And to essentially argue, as I think YOU even do subconsciously, that "it's ok for Israel to have an army because they're 'morally superior' to the Palestinians" is to approach the two-state solution with an attitude that ALL Palestinians will inevitably and justly find to be insulting. Peace means that the nations making peace must treat each other as equals.

[JDPriestly]

2. Three choices:

1) Fight to the finish. That's what we did in WWII. It's really ugly, and a lot of innocent people get hurt.

2) Compromise. Neither side will be happy. Hard to sell to ordinary people on both sides.

3) Take baby steps for the moment and just wait it out until generations pass and hopefully, one day, people will learn to trust each other or, if they can't learn to trust each other, will be forced to trust each other by horrible suffering.

Take your pick.

Nobody is going to get everything they want.

If the goal is to make as many people safe and secure and fed as possible, the suggested compromise is not bad at all.

If the goal is for either side to "win," then the stronger of the two will eventually hurt the weaker of the two very, very badly.

[regnaD kciN]

4. The problem is, any "compromise" that allows Israel to continue to create "facts on the ground"...

...in the West Bank and Jerusalem will go farther and farther toward making an eventual final solution more and more impossible.

Just as it has since Oslo.

[JDPriestly]

7. Each side has its own levers of power.

In compromises, each side exercises and agrees to give up certain of its levers of powers.

The more the Palestinians offer, the more likely Israel is to be willing to give up some of its leverage, and vice versa. That is what the process of negotiation is about.

When one side has all the power, then the first of the alternatives occurs -- the parties fight until one wins a complete victory.

If both sides have some power, then, eventually, each side will see the advantage for it in giving up some of its power in order to get something it wants more.

Therefore, the negotiator reviews the facts, assesses the strengths and weaknesses of each side, observes the relative strengths of the sides and most important discovers what it is that each side wants most. Once the negotiator knows what each side wants and can prioritize the wants and needs of each side, and also, once the negotiator realistically assesses each side's strengths and weaknesses in terms of its ability to win a total victory, then the negotiator can help the parties slowly but surely inch their way toward compromise. It is a delicate balancing act.

The negotiations in Oslo were not successful because the parties still believed that one or the other of them could obtain complete victory.

Looking at the situation strictly from a strategy point of view without concern for which side is "right," which "wrong," the Israelis cannot afford to give up anything unless they know that the peace will be enforced. That is because, at this time, the Israelis are in a better position to "win" a total victory than are the Palestinians. If the Israelis give up just a bit of their military and geographical advantage, they risk losing everything.

The Palestinians will argue that they are suffering the most. But as long as they prefer suffering to accepting the fact that Israel is unlikely to give up its ability to have a total win if necessary, the Palestinians will continue to suffer.

Israel wants peace the most, but has the most to lose if it cedes power in exchange for that peace.

Palestine wants vindication, what it considers to be justice. It is less interested in peace. Israel has only to wait for the right moment, the moment when Palestinians become so impatient that they respond irrationally in violence, and then once again Israel can exert its greater power and possibly win a "total victory," however Israel defines that.

Palestine would be smart to negotiate sincerely and enforce peace. The territorial issues will take care of themselves over time, especially if trust between the two peoples grows and they eventually become, first a common market, a free trade zone, and then for all practical purposes a single country. Hard to say how long that would take, but it could happen after a long, gradual process of rapprochement. It's up to the Palestinians to disarm the Israelis through good will and acceptance. I know that sounds pro-Israeli, but it is a matter of strategy, not which side is right or wrong.

[azurnoir]

14. Fayyad storms out of New York meeting with Ayalon

The Quartet canceled a planned press conference at UN headquarters in New York, shortly after Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad stormed out of a meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon on Tuesday.

Fayyad left the Ad-Hoc Liaison Committee meeting furious due to an argument he had with Ayalon, who refused to agree to a version of the meeting's summary because it included the words "two states."

Ayalon told Ynet that he suggested instead that it read "two states for two peoples - Jewish and Palestinian," and demanded guarantees that committee donations don't go towards incitement or boycotting of Israeli goods.

The Quartet of Mideast peacemakers shepherding newly started direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations abruptly canceled a planned a news conference at the United Nations, after failing to reach agreement on who would appear on behalf of the group.

Senior diplomats from Quartet — the U.S., the European Union, the United Nations and Russia — met on the sidelines of the United Nations anti-poverty meeting to discuss a way forward in the negotiations, which have made little visible progress since they resumed earlier this month and are at risk of collapsing.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=188879

gotta love JPost's weasel wording here