Five blows that shrank Israel's peace camp

[shira]

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton was undiplomatic and only partially correct when he recently asserted that the Israelis who were skeptical about the peace process were mainly the recent immigrants from the Soviet Union and those from the Arab world. It's true that many Russian immigrants have not yet absorbed the "liberal" notions currently prevalent in the Western world and tend to look at Israel's Arab neighbors with a large dose of "realism" that goes back to their Soviet experience. And many Israelis who originated in Arab countries feel they have a better understanding of the Arabs than do Israeli Ashkenazi liberals who may be harboring unjustified illusions.

But the skepticism about the peace process in Israel is not limited to them. Over the years, this skepticism has embraced increasingly wider segments of Israeli society. The election results in recent years clearly prove this trend. The Israeli political scene is shifting to the right.

The peace process has suffered five successive blows that have led to a growing disenchantment of many who at one time or another saw themselves as part of the peace camp. The "shrinking left" in Israeli politics is no accident. First, much of the enthusiasm that accompanied the Oslo Accords has evaporated with the recognition that these agreements, despite the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Yasir Arafat, were a failure. Second, the unilateral withdrawal from the Lebanon security zone, initially a very popular move, encouraged Palestinian terrorists and resulted in the empowerment of Hezbollah in Lebanon and eventually led to the Second Lebanon War.

Third, the wave of Palestinian terror during the second intifada killed 1,000 Israelis and had to be put down by the entry of the Israel Defense Forces into Judea and Samaria. Fourth, the disengagement from the Gaza Strip, widely supported at the time, is now seen as a tragic mistake by many. And fifth, the Second Lebanon War resulted, in effect, in Hezbollah taking over Lebanon. The appearance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on our northern border earlier this month only served as a reminder to many of the danger threatening Israel from the north. There is also the danger from Gaza in the south. And who would want to contemplate a similar danger establishing itself in the east?

more...
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/five-blows-that-shrank-israel-s-peace-camp-1.321190

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. This falls under the heading,"If you have not lived there, you most likely don't get it"

[Celtic Merlin]

2. You could shorten that to just the last 6 words. [n/t]

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Just wait until the late nite crowd gets here.....

[ProgressiveMajority]

6. Right . Because the "late night crowd" (read: anyone who cares about Palestinians) is unreasonable?

Let's look at the opposite side of this.

The Palestinians have had their land stolen from them and many are forced to live in what's basically an apartheid state. The IDF build walls that separate families. The Gaza offensive and continued settlement building. If any side has had countless blows against it's peace movement, then it's the Palestinian peace movement.

EDIT: Also, as the comments on Haaretz point out, Hezbollah was created by Israel's invasion of Lebanon.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Not at all, but umbrage is free this week, take all you like

[shira]

9. Wrong. The late night crowd doesn't care about Palestinians at all, just sliming Israel.

It's why folks like yourself think it's a great idea to keep Palestinian refugees in their places right now...maybe for another 62 years wasting their lives in squalor lacking the same rights as their Arab neighbors....because you're so concerned about their collective right to retake Israel.

:eyes:

[ProgressiveMajority]

14. Nice GIYUS talking point

I've heard it many times before parroted GIYUS operatives: "Oh, the arabs don't really care about the Palestinians, so why should we?" It's a talking point thought up by the ex-IDF propagandists who run places like MEMRI and GIYUS.

Sorry, two wrongs don't make a right. Even if (IF) the arab states have intentionally kept the Palestinians down, it doesn't justify Israel doing the same thing. Anyway I think the Palestinians have remained refugees because they honestly want to return to their lands.

[shira]

21. GIYUS? Seriously?

No, it's not that the Arabs don't care about Palestinians, it's types like yourself masquerading as humanitarians pretending to have the best interests of Palestinians at heart.

As to Palestinians 'wanting' to remain in squalor in camps for more generations, are you kidding? There may be some, but there are many who'd choose to get on with their lives elsewhere. Are you for giving them that choice right now...rather than possibly wait another 62 years?

[Celtic Merlin]

29. YES! The Palestinians SHOULD be allowed to get on with their lives!

And they should be permitted to do so on the land from which they were uprooted. On that we agree - the Right of Return should be honored by Israel and the rest of the nations of the Middle East. These refugees must be allowed to return to their homes!

Good thinking, shira. Glad you're on board with this.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azurnoir]

8. Oh not at all in fact IMO articles like these are worth their weight in gold n/t

[azurnoir]

5. related article-Poll: 76% of American Jews think Arabs want to destroy Israel

51% of U.S. Jews approve of the way Obama is handling his job - a 6% drop since March; 95% think that the Palestinians should recognize Israel as a Jewish state in any peace settlement.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/poll-76-of-american-jews-think-arabs-want-to-destroy-israel-1.318669

so who is the AJC? the article states that they represent AMERICAN JEWS so do they ask all American Jews most American Jews or do they just poll their members or some of their members, I just love it when something claims to represent JEWS or BLACKS or WHITES as if any group speaks with one voice

[shira]

38. AWRAD poll of Palestinians: 85.2% reject peace deal with Palestinian state if requires compromise

If Palestinian negotiators delivered a peace settlement that includes a
Palestinian State but had to make compromises on key issues (right of
return, Jerusalem, borders, settlements, etc.) to do so would you support
the result? Yes 12.2% No 85.2% Don’t know 2.6%

With regard to the final status of Palestine and Israel please indicate
which of the following you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable,
Tolerable, or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

Historic Palestine – From the Jordan River to the sea
Essential 64.8% Desirable 18.3% Acceptable 8.8% Tolerable 4.5% Unacceptable
2.6% Don't know 1.0%

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=49912

[whosinpower]

10. Another title could be

Five landmark events that helped the rise of extreme right politics in Israel.

No mention that it was a radical right wing settler that assasinated Rabin....not that that was a reason for the failure of Oslo....but it should be stated that there are/were elements within Israel that fought against land for peace right from the very outset. And it is those elements that hold the reins of power now.

I think it a bit disingenuous to lay the entire blame of the fall of the left on the palistinian/Arab enemies of Israel...some of it could certainly be...but not all. The extreme right profited handsomely over the cynicism - and in some ways fed it directly. That is the essence of politics. I am reminded of Netanyahu campaigning aggressively and actively against the proposal that Olmert offered Abbas. I am reminded of Livni stating to the Americans that the Olmert offer should not, in any way be promoted or accepted.

The exteme right will bring Israel no closer to peace than the extreme left....no more than Hamas will bring peace to the palistinians faster than Fatah.

[shira]

11. Pretend you're in charge of Israel....

And you have enough of a coalition in government to get things done your way.

Now suppose you take all steps necessary - in your opinion - to make things right. You end the Gaza siege, pull out of occupied territory, uproot settlements, open the borders, and prove by other actions and guarantees that you're serious about peace.

And then the suicide bombings start again.

Rockets fly into Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Israel's main airport.

What do you, leader?

Who's in power? You're in power.

How do you respond, unlike a Rightwinger?

[shira]

12. I welcome anyone to respond to this, not just whosinpower. n/t

[whosinpower]

13. The article posit's that....

Russian immigrants have not absorbed "liberal" notions prevalent in the western world, given their soviet experience. Israeli's who originated in Arab countries feel they understand the Arabs better than Ashkenazi Liberals. And the growing skepticism of the peace process can be attributed to terrorism and failed peace attempts.....and this is leading the electorate to shift further to the right.

You may not find it very palatable that the right have benefited, and in the case of Lieberman, extreme right - but it is the truth. Lieberman profits from the cynicism, and he pushes Israel down a road that challenges the very foundations that Israel was created in.

Now Lieberman does what he thinks is best for Israel. I do not doubt that. I disagree with his ideology, I reject it, and find parts quite offensive, but at the same time, I think he does what he does because he believes it is best for Israel.

If you think for a moment that I, as an individual, am not sympathetic to the abuses that Israeli citizens have had to bear, in terms of terrorism and attacks - you are totally off the mark. But, I find myself also sympathetic to a people who were there before - and so, I see two victims -both the Israeli's and the Palistinians. Used and abused by foreign and domestic powers - both victims. To be willfully blind to one over the benefit of the other is not fully grasping the entirety of the situation they both find themselves in.

It appears that each time Israel "defends" itself, its enemies morph and change and coalesce into something even more hardline and radical. And each attack upon Israel translates into further entrenchment of right wing ideals and alienation of the left.

So - you ask me what I would do. As prime minister with a strong coalition. Well - here is a question - what could I do, as Prime Minister that would encourage the PA to come to me, instead of their Arab counterparts? What could I do to encourage an atmosphere of strategic partnership and respect? What could I do to foster a relationship that benefited the palistinians more than terror attacks? What could I do to show them how we can, in fact, live at ease with each other, and at the same time be respectful of each our own challenges, and our own beliefs. Both sides possess elements within their own group that viscerally hates each other. How can we both battle against that hatred? I guess that is a whole lot of questions. And no quick easy fixes or answers.

I also think that Netanyahu has come a ways addressing a few of these questions. The West Bank is in a far better position than it was before - and terror attacks have dwindled. But both parties need to do more...and I think both parties need to acknowledge and reinforce each others positive efforts - PUBLICALLY.

You are well aware of my position regarding settlements. I do not embrace the notion of ANYONE being forced from their home - neither jewish, or Arab. But that comes from a principle not of us vs. them - but just us. For every terror attack upon a jew, is an attack upon the freedom of the palistinians...and for every attack upon an Arab, is an attack upon the freedom of Israel.

Now - to the crux of your question. If I addressed all those questions I asked in the best manner that I could muster, and we had successfully negotiated a partnership of living and worked to faciliate a strategic partnership - and understanding that within each one of our camps, were elements who did not see the value of our efforts at peacemaking - I would go to Abbas and ask him what I could do to help him fight those elements that were attacking me, and by association - him as well.

[Celtic Merlin]

15. Your supposition has no basis. Hence, the scenario is not a valid one.

Were Israel to end the siege of Gaza, pull all of its citizens back behind the Green Line - including those nasty colonists, and prove by actions and guarantees that it is (for the very first time since Rabin was leader) serious about peace with the Palestinian People, there would be no reason for the Palestinians to create and send suicide bombers and rockets into Israel. They would be much happier with Israel than they've ever been before. Their focus would be on building their country - governmentally and economically. What reason would they possibly have for hating on Israel? Once they have their own nation - something they've wanted since 1967 - and Israel has acted in good faith to help this become a reality, there is no basis to believe that terrorism would have any support.

If the Palestinians were to launch ANY "rockets" then, they would be only celebratory fireworks over their newfound freedom from oppression.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[Jim Sagle]

17. You're putting us on, right? It's a comedy act, it's gotta be.

[Celtic Merlin]

18. The REALLY funny part is the belief that

"All Palestinians/Arabs are terrorists."

It is a belief held by some who support Israel and by far too many Americans. There are those who say that the one-state solution would be a disaster for Israel and those who feel that giving the Palestinians their own state would be a disaster for Israel. What's left is the status-quo, which is immoral and unsustainable.

The Palestinians deserve something which is not less than what Israel already has - a state. Anything less is a joke.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[shira]

19. Wow!

I can't believe you wrote that with a straight face.

Israel completely ended occupations in Gaza and Lebanon, but rather than bringing more peace Hamas and Hezbollah were strengthened and things have only gotten worse.

You see, to Hamas and Hezbollah (Iran and Syria too) these actions by Israel are seen as a sign of weakness that just empowers these creepy far Right extreme fascist organizations and governments.

[Celtic Merlin]

22. So EVERY Arab must be a member of a bad organization, huh?

Can't trust those filthy Arabs, can you Shira? Can't trust those damned Palestinians who've been peacefully protesting the Apartheid Wall and being shot at by the IDF, can you Shira? Can't trust the people that Israel has been oppressing since 1967, can you Shira?

Hezbollah has never (to my knowledge) been reported to be in control of the West Bank. If you have evidence that they are in charge of anything important in the West Bank, show it.

Hamas controls ONLY the Gaza Strip. They ARE NOT in control of the West Bank. In fact, there are great tensions between the PA (the group which actually DOES control the West Bank) and Hamas.

SO ! ! !

Under your wholly fictitious scenario (where for the first time in over 63 years, Israel finally makes the good-faith effort to bring peace to that region by pulling all of its citizens BACK BEHIND THE GREEN LINE where they belong) there would finally be a greater chance for PEACE in that part of the planet than there has been in over a half-century.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. ESPECIALLY when you're considering a wholly different group of people. If you have ANY evidence showing that the Palestinians of the West Bank would lose their minds and attack the most heavily-armed country for 5,000 miles in any direction from it - PRESENT IT or STFU. I contend that if Israel would FINALLY do the Right Thing, they'd see a much more positive reaction from the people they've been killing for 60+ years than they've been seeing.

Oh, and one final point about your argument:
I can think of few organizations on this planet which better fit your definition of "creepy far Right extreme fascist organizations and governments" than the current government of Israel. Loyalty Oath, anyone? Avi Lieberman, anyone? Likud, anyone? YB, anyone? And the list goes on and on and on from there.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[shira]

23. So Hamas and Hezbollah are now every Arab?

The PLO was in charge of the West Bank during the start of the 2nd Intifada, right when they were rejecting a peace offer that would have created a Palestinian state a decade ago and ended the settlement enterprise. They decided to go to war with Israel rather than even make a counter-proposal at Camp David. They decided they'd take their chances against "the most heavily-armed country for 5,000 miles in any direction from it".

I know it confuses you, but each time Israel offers something substantial or does something big in the interest of peace, Arab leadership senses weakness and smells blood.

Maybe you don't think Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah don't mean it when they say they'll never accept Israel's existence no matter what they do. Is that it? Do you think they're just kidding?

Finally, I loved George Carlin. You're no George Carlin.

[Celtic Merlin]

28. You're not a well person.

Your characterization of the Palestinians and of the peace processes attempted in the past are - at best - less than honest.

"I know it confuses you, but each . . ."
You know shit.

Iran and Hezbollah are not party to the peace process we're discussing. Yes, they all look the same to you - but they aren't. Hamas is, at best, a marginal player in this - if a player at all. Bring up HAMAS - OMG!! all you want, and Iran and Hezbollah, too - that won't make Israel look any better.

You couldn't have loved George. You never knew the man. Were you even a minor fan of his work, you'd never take the horrible positions you take on these issues. Your poor attempt to make it seem as though I have any claim to George's work, ideas, or career is absurd and is yet another abject FAIL on your part.

But keep trying! You'll might come up with a winner some day - for even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[alanquatermass]

30. Give me a break. Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah have NEVER said --

-- that they would never accept Israel's right to exist. Why the CHRIST would they ever say that?!!! That's a load of crap and you know it.

Israel's neighbors are DESPERATE for peace. Have been for years.

Rosie O'Donnell said it best, "We have nothing to fear from the terrorists; they're mothers and fathers too!"

[shira]

31. The best offer Hamas can accept is full 1967 withdrawal, full Right of Return....

....and then Hamas promises a 10 year ceasefire in return.

What do you make of that?

:shrug:

[alanquatermass]

32. Hold on -- did Hamas REALLY frame it in those terms, Shira?

Did they actually tell Israel: Hey Jews, if you agree to roll back the clock to 1967 and grant us full ROR, we will leave you alone -- not permanently, of course -- but for 10 measly years?

Forgive me if I'm a little dubious.

I assume you have sources to back this up?

[shira]

33. Yeah, really.

"On the two-state solution sought by the Americans, he (Khaled Meshal) said: “We are with a state on the 1967 borders, based on a long-term truce. This includes East Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees.” Asked what “long-term” meant, he said 10 years."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/world/middleeast/05meshal.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=We%20are%20with%20a%20state%20on%20the%201967%20borders,%20based%20on%20a%20long-term%20truce&st=cse

[Celtic Merlin]

36. And now . . . shira speaks for Hamas!

I thought that they already HAD a spokesman. Glad that you're here to represent them.

[Jim Sagle]

34. And here's a pic of her saying exactly that:

[alanquatermass]

35. THANK YOU!

And just FYI: Rosie might be returning to TV in the next few months! No confirmation yet, but those are the rumors and I certainly hope they're true. She would be a welcome addition to MSNBC, if they had any sense.

...Which, in the wake of KO's recent KO, I am beginning to doubt.

[Celtic Merlin]

37. Bravo. Indeed - bravo, sir. [n/t]

[eyl]

39. Why do Hizbullah still exist?

Supposedly, their cause was to dive Israel out of Lebanon. With Israel withdrawing from South Lebanon in 2000 (a withdrawal which was certified as complete by the UN, mind), you'd think they had no further cause to launch attacks against Israel (and before someone brings up surveillance flights over Lebanon, even assuming that they weren't stopped after the withdrawal and then renewed - I don't know one way or the other - do you think that warrants lethal attacks?), or even to exist as an armed force, and yet they did so a number of times.

Or take Gaza. The Palestinians finally got a Gaza without any Israeli presence. True, it wasn't in consultation with them, but still, you'd think they would build on that. Instead, Gaza became a base for attacks against Israel, making proponents of withdrawal look like idiots.

Do remember - and Hizbullah is an example of this - that the militant groups don't particularly want to disband themselves, and that hostility to Israel is a great excuse not to do so (besides the loss of influence they'd suffer, fixing potholes is a lot less sexy than Fighting the Evil Opressors). So unless there's willingness on behalf of the Palestinians at large to crush them if they get out of line - and currently, I'm not seeing many signs of that - they'll still be a very great danger. And remember that with a full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, any such group will be in position to do a lot of damage to Israel - the margin for risk here isn't very great.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. I call in the flying pig brigade. N.T.

[shira]

20. So what would you do if it were you in power with that coalition doing what you believe...

....has to be done?

How would you respond?

Show us the way....

[JackRiddler]

24. I prefer to pretend I'm in charge of the US, which pays the bills.

The idea that Israel is going to make the moves you say under any leadership is laughable.

Long before your point when "the suicide bombings start again," at the first sign of "pull out" and "uproot settlements," the settlers and hardliners would have staged a coup d'etat, or started a civil war.

There are many territorial conflicts in the world in which US taxpayers do not lay out several billion dollars a year in military aid to one side. I/P could become one of those.

[arcticken]

26. Because coup d'etat's and

civil wars are so common in Israel.Fail.

[JackRiddler]

27. Your comment is of no relevance. (Oh, and "Welcome to DU.") ...

The OP presents a hypothetical sequence of steps.

I responded accordingly, in the hypothetical mode. That certain things never happened before is usually inherent to hypotheticals.

The OP pretends Israel would ever start uprooting West Bank settlements on its own, and speculates as to what the consequences will be. Uprooting the West Bank settlements wouldn't be "common in Israel" until now, would it? The Israeli state continues to do the opposite, and has always aggressively participated in putting settlers on to the land, which it claims. So my response the hardliners and settlers would never surrender the land they've seized without treating it as an existential fight, an absolute fight to the death.

Coups d'etat don't always go by that name, by the way. The term is sometimes used for planned surprise actions that don't involve direct seizures of power but radically alter the political conditions in a way that the actor intended. That description arguably fits Sharon's demonstrative invasion of the Al Aqsa area with 1000 armed guards, in September 2000. It was a planned, surprise action with the intent of sparking riots and a second intifada, so that Israelis would turn to Sharon as the man to lead them in crushing it. It worked, and Sharon became prime minister as a direct result.

[JackRiddler]

25. Here's a sixth...

Move in a million Russians and a few thousand fanatics from Brooklyn to change the population mix.