Sharon will maintain roadblocks to peace

[Englander]

By Edmund R. Hanauer | December 11, 2004

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/12/11/sharon_will_maintain_roadblocks_to_peace/

After refusing to deal with Yasser Arafat for the last four years, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, backed by President Bush, now appears willing to open peace talks with a new Palestinian leader -- most likely Mahmoud Abbas, seen as a "moderate" -- following Palestinian elections on Jan. 9. However, it is unlikely that Sharon will seriously negotiate with Palestinian leaders if they insist, as did Arafat, that Israel respect the human and national rights of Palestinians.

Instead, Sharon will likely continue to seize as much land and water resources as possible from Palestinians on the Israeli-occupied West Bank, land and water for 200,000 Jewish settlers whose settlements are illegal under international law and preclude a viable Palestinian state.

Even Sharon's plan to pull settlers out of Gaza is, according to his chief aide, part of a plan to freeze the peace process and solidify Israel's hold on much of the West Bank. Washington's talk of creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel will remain lip service until the Bush administration forces Israel to stop colonizing the West Bank.

......Now Bush and Sharon will likely seek a Palestinian puppet willing to compromise the rights of Palestinians. This would prevent a just and lasting peace settlement, weaken moderates in both communities and lead to more Israeli and Palestinian deaths. It would betray the purported US ideals of democracy, justice, and self-determination and delight anti-American terrorists who will gain recruits convinced that the United States is an enemy of Arabs and Muslims.

Edmund R. Hanauer, an American Jewish human rights activist,
is director of Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel.

[pelsar]

1. never could figure it out....

sharon is planning on pulling out everyone from Gaza, and somehow that is a bad thing....I never could figure out why...isnt that what everyone has been screaming about for the last several years?

and to short cut the response, who cares what his sneaky plan is....who knows if whatever he is or isnt planning will or will not work, who know what the reactions will be on the ground....he plans on pulling out what could be better?

is this somekind of "well if sharon is doing it, it must be a bad thing?...lets figure out somekind of coniving sneak evil plan that he has up his sleave...because what ever he is doing it must be bad and evil....

shhesssh....so now were going to see protests from ISM and from the UG and from Egypt to tell sharon to STAY in gaza?...is that it?...and then we can switch sides.....

tell me something: do you think its a bad thing is sharon just pulls out the settlers from Gaza....or are you now going to explain to me that the settlers have to stay?....

[QueerJustice]

2. .....if Sharon is planning on pulling out of...

Gaza...uprooting all the Jewish settlements and giving/returning ALL of Gaza to the palestinians....


.....THIS must be a an impediment to peace....after all if Sharon is doing this it must be WRONG?

yes? exactly....

:eyes:

[Englander]

4. "Is There Life On Mars?".......

just asking for the locals' view....

[QueerJustice]

12. meant to be an insult?

Like water off a ducks back.....

[Englander]

3. "End the occupation,dis-mantle the settlements...."

which,of course is not what Sharon is suggesting.

Questions; how many actual settlements will be removed,and what's the time-scale?
Will control of the economy & infrastructure be given to the PA?
Does this mean an end to military operations in Gaza?

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/11/02/isrlpa9587.htm
'Disengagement' Will Change Little for Gaza

November 2, 2004

GAZA CITY — As the Israeli government prepares to implement Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to "disengage" from the Gaza Strip, political debate in Israel focuses on the fate of the 6,000 Jewish settlers slated for evacuation. Yet for the 1.4 million Palestinians who live in Gaza, the Israeli occupation will continue, albeit in a different form, even if Israeli troops largely pull back from the territory.Under Sharon's proposal, Israel plans to remove its troops from the Gaza Strip and "redeploy" them to bases just across the border. According to that plan, the goal of disengagement is to "dispel the claims regarding Israel's responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip."

But international law does not permit Israel to hold the keys to Palestinian economic development while it shirks its responsibilities as an occupying power to provide for the Palestinians' welfare. Under the Sharon plan, Israeli forces will continue to surround Gaza on land, patrol its coastline and its skies. That military cordon will allow Israel to continue to control the flow of all goods and people into and out of the territory. Gaza will remain dependent on Israel for water, sewerage, electricity, telephone access, trade and currency, which will remain the Israeli shekel.

.....Israel also plans to reserve the right to launch incursions into Gaza. What that could entail was illustrated in September after Palestinian militants fired Qassam rockets across the border, killing two Israeli civilians in Sderot. Israeli forces responded with a 17-day military operation that killed 110 Palestinians. Just hours after Israeli forces pulled out of the Jabaliya refugee camp, Human Rights Watch visited a neighborhood that the Israeli military had comprehensively leveled during the incursion, rendering hundreds of Palestinians homeless.

To the extent that Israel grants them the authority and ability, Palestinian security forces have a duty to protect civilians within Gaza and to prevent indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel civilians. Israel's "disengagement" provides a new opportunity for these forces to exercise these duties responsibly. Permitting or launching deliberate or indiscriminate attacks on civilians is flatly prohibited by international law. But even if Palestinian security forces fail in those duties, the wholesale demolition of many homes in response amounts to the collective punishment of civilians, which also violates international law and hardly stems the cycle of reprisals.

[pelsar]

5. Now your chance to show what you believe.....

let me get this straight: israel pulls out of gaza, lets the palestenians control their own security...and already there are those that are already preparing the ground work to condem israel for protecting its citizen who live WITHIN the green line.

according to the article if the palestenians shoot rockets into israel, israel will be breaking intl law by reprising.

But even if Palestinian security forces fail in those duties, the wholesale demolition of many homes in response amounts to the collective punishment of civilians, which also violates international law and hardly stems the cycle of reprisals.

True instead of a bulldozer, israel can do the more traditional military response to rockets:

massive artillary barrage!

Nows your oppertunity, show us what you really believe: The scenario, israel pulls out of gaza, they are now in charge of their own security, perhaps they even start building a port...but the kassams keep flying into israel....10s, 100s dead

and what is your realistic suggestion?

though the article doesnt surprise me, it does show for me that whatever israel does it will be condemmed. Instead of blessing this first step, it condems israel for not enough, and "warns" israel that it is not allowed by intl law to protect its citizens......

(we could send the UN in....but the jihadnikim will probably cut off some of their heads as infidels.....)

[Englander]

6. "Are Palestinians allowed the same level of protection?"

which side in this conflict has the greater military force;the helicopters,the tanks,the jets?

Whose homes are being demolished,whose schools are being hit by tank shells,whose daughters are being murdered?

As for these mythical kassam rockets,how many are actually fired,how many are accurate?

And again,I'm not surprised that the article doesn't surprise you;
I'd have thought that any "liberal" would have nae problems with Human Rights Watch.
Have a look at their take on other countries and see if they are being unfair;
http://www.hrw.org/

[pelsar]

7. Englander....you miss the point...

once israel leaves gaza...and the kassams still fly into israel from Gaza

what would be your suggestion for israel to do, something that you for instance would back and say

Israel has the right to defend its citizens by doing......


I just reread something the "mythical kassam rocket"...are you suggesting that they dont exist? this is actually quite interesting, but I'll play

why dont you believe they exist (please dont tell me that because you've never seen one....do better than that)..of course it wouldnt be hard to find quotes such as:

Hamas spokesperson in the Gaza Strip Mushir al-Masri vowed to continue the firing of Kassam rocket

but you've definitly stunned me on this one....so what proof do you require.....

[Englander]

8. I'm saying that the rockets are being hyped-up;

that their accuracy & ability to cause damage is being exaggerated.
I should have said "these rockets endowed with mythical powers".

A lesson learned in the use & the power of language;

Mythical;

1. of,or having the nature of,a myth or myths.
2. existing only in myth.
3. imaginary or ficitious;not based on fact.

I,of course,was referring to def. 1. I'm astounded that you really thought I was denying they exist; you're definately stunned on this one,because I'm not suggesting it. Again,it is very illuminating that you could believe that I would really put forward such an idea; a clear example of illiteracy on my part,and bad faith on yours.

Why do you believe that Israel has the right of self-defence,while Palestinians only have the right to be subjected to occupation & collective punishment,to not defend themselves against an army which cannot tell the difference between a guerilla & a schoolgirl?

[pelsar]

9. i miss read the "mythical" wording....

...there have actually been over 500 launchings, with their payload, distance and accuracy improving (just a "fun fact" their made up of israeli street signs...the israeli bedouin take the sheet metal and sell it to the palestenians)

but you have avoided my question.....listen up, and go for just the question: (I promise to answer all of yours after....)

the situation: israel has pulled out of gaza......the security is now in the hands of the palestenians....and the kassam rockets and the newer "arafat" continue to hit israel.

what action would you suggest that israel do....(if any....)


(btw as far as my misreading the word mythical...i'll one day list the theories about israel and the jews that I've come across, it then wont seem so "out of place"-but I apologise for the bad faith that i read into it)

[Englander]

10. You're being presumptious in your assumptions.....

If/when all/any of the following conditions are fulfilled,your questions will carry more credibility..


Try sueing for peace,or acting like a "good neighbour",
stop the incursions,end the occupation,dis-mantle the illegal settlements,stop acting like an "international pariah state",end the policy of extra-judicial killings,& start respecting international law.

Start serious negotiations with the PA,maybe even assume they are equals,and capable of acting in good faith.

Using the Ulster/Northern Ireland analogy,during the 90's there were huge truck bombs in the centre of the City of London,the financial district,& in Manchester.In Warrington,in the north of England,a city-centre bomb killed two children. The John Major Tory Cabinet was nearly killed by a mortar attack,in Whitehall. Now,7 years after a PIRA ceasefire,there is (pretty much) stability & "peace" in Ulster,and Sinn Fein are part of the governing Assembly.

So,anything is possible.

As you may have noticed,I haven't answered your question,since I believe it is based on a false premise;that Gaza will be free of settlers & Israeli military,when they "leave". And,the occupation of the West Bank,what of that?

[pelsar]

11. just play along.....

humor me.......an important part of people getting along is simply understanding the concerns of "the other".

as a rep of a country which has had more UN resolutions against it more than any other country/society/organization (and yes we do compare and wonder why us and not sudan, etc.....)

lets just say for arguments sake that gaza is cleaned off of settlers.... (no settlers no military)

come on....enough of the "non answering. In fact if you would like you can add some conditions.....the bottom line being, which many of us believe will happen...that the attacks continue....

what is your suggestion to israeli policy makers, (when those rockets fly)....and to me, a typical israeli.

[Englander]

13. "Hypocritical hypotheticals"....

Forgive me if I don't answer your clearly sign-posted elephant trap of a question.
You can ask me again in a couple of years when/if this "disengagement" actually happens.

Again,why are you asking of the Palestinians something you do not ask of your military? Why do you insist that Palestinians must become pacifists,while the Idf can kill whoever they like,where ever,& when ever,using any means,legal or not?

Concerning the tally of unanswered quests., it looks like the score is your 1, to my 6!!!

[pelsar]

14. Englander.....i dont understand the problem.....

I mentioned and i mean it, i will answer all and any of your questions without any problem, you can write them any way you like.

but first please answer mine, Its not "entrapment." it is hypothtical,possible realistic scenario, something politicians, army people do in real life, so when a scenario happens they've already thought through the various responses.

Its is a possible scenario....but why do you find it difficult to answer?

again I have no problem in answering your questions, but then we'll veer off topic....so me first.

Under what circumstances do I have the right to "blast away at a city" that is sending rockets at me....if not 'blast away" what other response if any would your "recommend"..or perhaps i should do nothing......

lets assume its lots of kassams falling (avg 1 day).......on israel

come on.....I've noticed that in your posts, you find it always easy to debunk a specific link, or belief that someone has, this makes it easy not to debate them (like your trying here by saying when it happens then I can ask)..., but this time, no links, just a scenario and your own beliefs

lets pretend its happening.....( i dont mean to be sarcastic but what are you afraid of?, its only a question, on a discussion board in "cyberspace")

one last note..I'm not trying to debate you or convince you of anything,...I'm just very curious how someone with your beliefs views a particular situation and whether or not has a solution for it.....(i.e. how can I defend myself without being condemed)

[Djinn]

15. sigh

"Under what circumstances do I have the right to "blast away at a city" that is sending rockets at me"

under what circumstances do Palestinians have a right to "blast away at a city/nation" that sends bullets/missiles/assasination & occupation at them.

Why is OK for Israelto retaliate but not for the Palestinians who by any way you slice it have suffered FAR more destruction and casualties?

[pelsar]

16. djnn....since you have joined...

for reasons that I cant understand Englander refuses to continue a discussion that he/she started with an article that he put up..

since you have joined in....lets see if you can:

The article prepares the ground work for condeming israel for attempting to stop kassams that may fall into israel after (theoritical) the pull out of Gaza

But even if Palestinian security forces fail in those duties, the wholesale demolition of many homes in response amounts to the collective punishment of civilians, which also violates international law

so since you have taken the initiative to join in I assume you dont have a problem with responding to the scenario?

the scenario is that Gaza is devoid of israelis (and the IDF), yet the PA, or whomever is in charge is not able or will not stop the kassams from flying into israel....

what realistic response from israel would you back up to "stop the rockets". A response where you would say: israel has the right to do.... and I back them up (if any..)

I have my own theories why Englander wont respond, and I will respond to any question you put forth (including the above)...but since the article was put up by a "pro palestenian" something you seem to identify with, I have responded to the initial article


limit your response to the actual question, later you can divert.

GO!

[Djinn]

30. I don't take orders on what I can and can't include in my reponses

Englander is probably not responding to you because he is better at not rising to the bait from people who are resolutely unable or unwilling to see ANYTHING from the view of Palestinians - we wont be changing our view any time soon and you wont be changing yours, so perhaps he feels it's pointless. Perhaps he also finds your tone unessecarily patronising.

That said I guess I feel that in the scenario you propose:

(highly unlikely as any proposed "pullout" from Gaza is illusory when Israel will still control the flow of people and goods in and out of the territory

they will control its coastline and its skies. They will control utilities like water, sewerage, electricity, telephone access, trade and currency - in short it's a pullout of of responsibility for the Palestinians welfare nothing else...but I digress)

I guess I feel that Israel should have the same rights to respond as any people who have missiles/bullets or bombs directed at them by another people, in short that is why I beleive the Palestinian people have every right to respond when THEIR people including MANY children are harmed by the FAR superior military capabilities of Israel.

Are you really going to try and compare kassam rockets to Israel's arsenal?

[pelsar]

32. debate/conversation......

actually I believe I see very well the palestenian side, I understand their needs for their own state for their own security, to wake up and not hear the loudspeaker claiming a new curfew, seeing the israeli tank parked outside etc, and to defend themselves.


What I dont see is the palestenians ability to create a state that will live peacefully side by side with us. And once that state is created we will probably not have the realistic option of dismantelling it if it turns out to be a state that eithe directly or indirectly supports attacks against us.

You write that we do have the right to defend ourselves.....see my response at no. 31

btw, what you call bait, is actually a very real aspect of israeli culture. By discounting aspect/values that are important to me as an israel, be it through misinterperation or lack of patient does not show willingness to understand. A large part of this conflict is based on not understanding the cultures involved....its important to show patience even to those aspects you dont understand.

[King Mongo]

51. Their situation is their problem, let them be them

Well, that is really their problem, not your problem.

How they choose to live their lives is their problem, not your problem. Let them do what they must or want to do. It's their choice, their problem.

Israel's problem is that of defense, defending itself behind the green line, which can be enhanced through trade and military alliances.

If Israel wants their problem to be its problem, then it must recognize equality and citizenship for everyone. If one cannot let them be themselves, allowing them to be independent, then one must at least give them equal rights, recognize their identity and allow them to vote.

[Englander]

36. Exactly,Djinn....

Although I don't feel any discussion is pointless yet.And that just probably means I haven't been here long enough..

[King Mongo]

50. Problems related to immigration

Well, the situation is quite simple:

The immigrants want to remove the natives to make room for more immigrants.

Thus, the main question is, how can the international community encourage the immigrants to accept and tolerate the natives so that they will be treated equally, given the understanding that racial cleansing is unacceptable.

Of course, the practice of equality can be avoided if the immigrants are willing to withdraw to a certain point. Yet, this is most likely not going to happen.

[Englander]

23. "Collective Punishment"

I don't accept the premise of your question. I don't believe that Sharon will "leave" Gaza; give control of the economy & infrastructure to the PA. You're not drawing a distinction between PA & Hamas. You're avoiding the question of the West Bank.

My solution,is sue for peace.Start serious negotiations.


btw,I'm a bloke.

[The Magistrate]

18. Your Arguments In No. Six Above, Mr. Englander, Are Beside The Point

The relative disparity in military force conveys no moral superiority to either side. Assuming Israel actually did clear out of Gaza, any launching of attacks against Israel from Gaza subsequent to that would constitute an act of aggression, and that it was largely ineffectual would make not one whit of difference to the matter. No state can be expected to refrain from taking military measures to deal with attacks against its citizenry from foreign soil.

[Englander]

21. I'll concede that my arguements in No.6 ....

are beside the point,they are an emotional response.

Again, I don't believe Gaza would be "foreign soil",if Israel controls the air/sea/land & the infrastructure?

"No state can be expected to refrain from taking military measures to deal with attacks against its citizenry from foreign soil."

Except,of course,if they're Iraqi,or Syrian,or Egyptian,or Palestinian,&tc

:evilgrin:

[pelsar]

24. Englander...congrats...

excuse my sarcasim...but that wasnt very hard.... As far as sharon leaving gaza, I actually dont believe him either, but things here sometimes have a way of moving whether or not they were planned that way.

as far as differentiating between the PA/Hamas/Jihad/Hizballa, etc.....the lines are blurry. Though I know the official lines of distinction, the reality is somewhat murky.... serious negotiations is impossible when both sides have zero confidence in the other. There has to be concrete steps on the ground by both sides to start that....Gaza is just that step

but back to the situation.

To let the palestenians have a state in one single step, right now, where they can import heavy weapons we would have to be fools.

Ready? another scenario, the PA gets lets call it an interm state in Gaza (to be joined at a later date with the westbank) where they have complete control over air/sea etc....and like any state they import heavy weapons...and since none of us have any idea what kind of govt there will be (theorcracy?, dictatorship? republic?) we have no idea what its character will be (do you agree up to here?)

and they use those weapons against us....we'll pulverize them in return......

do we risk it? letting a state be established when its might or might not become an enemy state? why on earth would we take that chance? We've already have to fight off our neighbors 3x. (we dont need a fourth)...and if they do use their independence to attack, those in the west bank will have zippo chance of joining them in statehood....for the avg israeli if gaza in whatever shape becomes a base for attacking us, their brethren in the west bank will get no support from any of us.

more than that....you may hate the idea but i would suspect that for the avg palestenian in gaza who is not a hamas supporter, would prefer a step by step approach, one that insures a republic that doesnt attack israel. Imagine if hamas takes the govt over there and they continue the attacks....guess who will suffer the most?

will we "care" about our illegal reprisals to the "illegal attacks"......no, but it would be a shame for the palestenians not to take advantage of the situation and do themselves some good and improve their lives, give us confidence in their willingness to live along side us....and then they'll have the westbank as well, since our soldiers will not want to guard the settlers if they see the palestenians really do want to live with us in peace.

[Englander]

37. I think you've misunderstood this comment....

"No state can be expected to refrain from taking military measures to deal with attacks against its citizenry from foreign soil."

Except,of course,if they're Iraqi,or Syrian,or Egyptian,or Palestinian,&tc
______________________________________________

To put it another way;

"When a state or people are attacked by US/UK/Israel, they shall have no right of self-defence,of taking military measures to defend their citizenry against these foreign attackers."

The above comment appears to be your view,that the Palestians should be good subjects & not fight against their jailer?
If you think that I have even begun to accept the premise of your question,let alone answer it,then you are mistaken.

I believe that the legitimate use of military force by the Palestinian people when used against the occupying forces (ie soldiers & settlers) is a legitimate part of the overall strategy of bringing an end to the occupation. Targeting civilians is wrong,& does not bring any benefits to the Palestinians cause.

Of course,I can think of nothing better in this season of goodwill than for this whole horrific conflict to be resolved,for a sudden outbreak of peace,& brotherly (&sisterly) love.Hopefully in my lifetime.

[The Magistrate]

38. You Are Putting Words In Others' Mouths, Mr. Englander

No one has said no right of self-defense exists. But merely because the right to do something exists does not mean it is the right thing to do, in the sense of being a wise thing to do, or a thing likely to achieve a desired aim. It seems to me very difficult to sustain the position that use of military force by the various armed Arab Palestinian bodies forms any useful part of a strategy to end Israeli occupation of lands over-run in '67, particularly in the Jordan Valley. It seems much easier to demonstrate that such action prolongs Israeli occupation, and certainly increases the straitness with which it is applied to the Arab Palestinian people. In the absence of such violence, it would be more difficult politically for Israel to sustain the occupation, and few reasonable arguments for even "ultras" in the Israeli polity to make against the formation of an Arab Palestinian state.

[The Magistrate]

26. Those Are Somewhat Better Points, Mr. Englander

But it would seem to me that Gaza would still constitute foreign soil. It would certainly be perverse to attempt an argument that it was part of Israel. Though a situation where a territory is totally surrounded by another country, which would perforce be able to control such things as trade access in consequence, is certainly unusual, doubtless a student of political geography would be able to point out other instances. In such a situation, the enclosed jurisdiction would be well advised to maintain the friendliest conceivable relations with the encircling power; it would be the height of folly for its leadership to execute, or countenance, violent pinpricks against the encircling power, particularly where this possessed an absolute military superiority.

As to your second point, Sir, since it has been some time since the last occassion of my commenting here on this issue, and you seem to have arrived in that interim, you may forgive me for stating a couple of points that old lags in this place will be aware of. It has never been my position that the people of Arab Palestine have no right to self-defence, or to legitimate exercise of military force, in their conflict with the people of Israel. It is my position that they may not be wise to exercise this right, in current conditions, and that in many instances, when they have exercised this right, they have done so most unwisely, and in a clearly criminal manner. That they have done so has had an extremely deletorious effect on the prospects for their legitimate aspirations, and had a similar impact on the lives they lead day to day.

[The Magistrate]

17. A Couple Of Points, Mr. Pelsar

Withdrawl from Gaza by Israel is a good thing in itself; that much is certainly true. But just as facts have little independent meaning, but only take on such from the theory by which they are organized, the acts of a govenment must be assessed by the strategy they are a part of the implementation of, and if that is a poor one, or a covetous one, this must reflect on the assesment of its individual elements.

Many months ago, some may recall, there was floated a suggestion that Gaza become the Arab Palestinian state, that Israel retire from there, and continue to hold the ground in the Jordan Valley over-run in '67. This proposal was roundly denounced in many quarters, and certainly in progressive and left quarters, as a mere fig-leaf over a land grab, and properly so.

It is a measure of how much conditions, and prospects for a just settlement, have deteriorated recently, that Sharon's plan for evacuation from Gaza has come to be seen by so many as a good thing, for it seems to me it is really little more than a modification of the above proposal. He does not say he will hold all of the Jordan Valley lands, but it is clear he means to help himself to a healthy slice of them, and to continue further proposals that would make effective exercise of Arab Palestinian sovereignty in those lands an impractical proposition. It may be taken as certain, for instance, that any land west of the security barrier will become a de facto part of Israel in the future.

[pelsar]

19. Magistrate....thanks for the response.

The best laid plans of men and mice.... everyone always talks about "breaking the cycle of violence"....I cant think of a better way then clearing out of Gaza. Sharons plans whatever they maybe, are limited as is his term in office. (that seems to be forgotten in the conspiracy theories)...what do we care what an 'old man" thinks or plans while he is retired on his ranch?

Israel is talking about leaving Gaza.....how can it be a "conspiracy" or some fool proof plan as sharon does not hold all the cards.....and is a pm with a limited term.

[The Magistrate]

20. It May Be A Useful Beginning, Sir

If carried out in the proper spirit, on both sides, it could be a foundation for further progress to an equitable settlement.

But it does not seem to me there is any certainty of Sharon's retirement any time soon. To the best of my knowledge there is no limit to the number of terms a Prime Minister can serve, and the old fellow may win re-election at the close of his current one.

It does seem there are some useful political developments flowing from his Gaza plan, though. It has split Likud itself somewhat, and split off some of the ultra-nationalist elements, both secular and religious, from the governing coalition. That he has had to appeal to Labor for a Knesset majority may possibly be translated into electoral weakness for Sharon, if Labor plays ruthlessly enough in the coming months.

But it remains the case, to my view, that if Israel is not ready to abjure further settlement in the Jordan Valley, and unwilling to liquidate a great many settlements established there already, or, in short, to break the political cachet of the settlers' movement and risk a civil war of Jew on Jew, there will not be much lasting good come of this. The best that can be hoped for if developments follow current lines is a "victor's peace" imposed on the vanquished, and while this may well reduce greatly the amount of carnage, it cannot be viewed as a wholly favorable outcome.

[pelsar]

22. it has to start in pieces....

Gaza is all about a small beginning to break the deadlock. Given the lack of confidence in both parties, the beginning steps have to be small. i believe this is psych 101.

There is no way the palestenians will get a state "all of a sudden" when we have absoltuly no idea who will be in charge and who will be calling the shots (hamas? Hizballa? PA, Al akksa, tanzim .......anybody?)

Leaving Gaza is us making that very first step. The palestenians in return have to prove to us that they can control those that want to shoot at us....its called tit for tat. (for all we know, they all want to shoot at us and remove the zionist entity, or so some of their polls indicate-thats what we want to find out-and for every "declaration that says one thing, there is an opposite one-hence actual actions are what we are interested in.)

If they cant do it there, where the area is continuous with no israelis in the area it would be folly of us to do the same in the westbank, which is far more complex, let alone East Jerusalem....

In your equation you've ignored the israeli "in the street" the one who sends their sons to guard the settlements etc. Israel has a very strong grass roots movements, and belief in them as well. No politician can stand up to his/her son when they tell them what they are doing in the army is a farce and dangerous (thats why oslo got started). If Gaza works, the pressure to leave the west bank will increase immeasurably.

If Gaza fails and worse, we are condemmed for attempting to stop the firing of the kassams (as Englander seems to justify), it will simply "prove" to us, that its not independence they want. but like the hizballa (who claimed they just want israel out of lebanon), they want our blood as well.

at that point, why would we bother with more concessions?

[pelsar]

25. Gaza

I find this absurd...i am arguing why its good for us to leave Gaza and the responses are, more or less that its not enough.

HELLLLOOO, we've have fought 3 wars for our survival we are now involved in another very cruel war and we're willing to risk (or so it seems) to give our enemy a hugh chunk of land without our interference, where they might possibly use it as a base to attack us....and the responses are, that its not enough!

I expected from both the "world" and others a wow, thats a great first step. lets work with the palestenians to fix up gaza, improve their lives there, prove to the israelis that they can live side by side as neighbors...and then we'll move on to take care of the west bank....

was I mistaken...just shows how different we think....

[The Magistrate]

27. That Is, Sir, How Most Hope Matters Will Develope

But unfortunately, pessimism in this matter has proved a better predictor over the years than optimism, and a sound appreciation of the motivation of leading players is indispensible. It seems to me that Sharon wishes to retain as much of the Jordan Valley as he can contrive, and to prevent the emergence of any real viable sovereign state of Arab Palestine. It also seems likely to me that a majority of the people of Israel feel otherwise, though a hard knot among them agree whole-heartedly with his aims, and it remains to be seen which will prevail. In democracies, a loosely committed majority does not always prevail over a highly motivated minority.

One element in your comments deserves a particular response. It is my view that the sooner an actual Arab Palestinian state is established, the better it will be for all concerned. A state authority will have a better chance of actually controlling private militant elements than an entity which, when all is said and done, is merely one more faction in an armed melange, albeit possibly a more numerous one with a greater armament. It seems to me that the establishment of such a state would do much to soothe the feelings of the people of Arab Palestine, restoring to some degree their pride, and thus tend to reduce the popular support enjoyed by the "ultra" factions, and so make it more difficult for them to operate. The deliniation of the borders of such a state would have a most salutory effect, by putting paid to expansionist desires on both sides of whatever boundary was fixed: any boundary fixed short of "from the river to the sea" would require both sides to recognize the existance and legitimacy of the other, and leave go any desire to augment their territory further. The inadmissibilty under current international law of seizing territory from another state would operate to the protection of both.

[pelsar]

28. Magistrate.....

you write very clearly and precise....and for the most part your arguements are clear and convincing...but I believe you are mistaken in the character and power of the israeli population as a whole.

Let me explain:
It also seems likely to me that a majority of the people of Israel feel otherwise, though a hard knot among them agree whole-heartedly with his aims, and it remains to be seen which will prevail. In democracies, a loosely committed majority does not always prevail over a highly motivated minority.

I am of that majority that though i have no problem with leaving the settlements, i find myself guarding and protecting them. We know the settlers are the minority, and we also know that when the time is right, we'll "revolt" as we did during intifada I. What caused the israeli govt to go to oslo was the people. Our revolt came through the lack of reservists showing up for duty, it came through the sons of politicians convincing their dads that something is wrong with what they're doing, it came from moms worrying about their kids. ....(just as it happened in lebanon). Israel is a very small country, whos people do have an affect on policies. The sole reason the people are not putting any pressure on our politicians is that we simply dont believe the palestenians will live side by side in peace with us. As we see it, there willingness to destroy their own society (suicide bombers have proven to be more destructive to their own society than ours...) in order to inflict damage to ours is not an enouraging sign.

as far as them having an established armed force that will offer them pride and keep the fanatics at bay...thats one theory, the other goes that, that armed force will be "riddled" with hamas, jihadniks thereby making it an ineffective force.....we simply dont know, do we.

In trying to decern the future palestenian society, as that is of the upmost importance to us,( will it be iranian theocracy or republic) we look at their next generation, what are their children learning, not so much out in the street (that cant be very positive) but within their society, we also look for how we, israelis are portrayed as that too indicates how they see us......not very reassuring.

and since we are in the middle east with influences all around, we look at Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabi, Iran. Even more depressing. (Egypt has nor forbidden israeli arab film directors to participate in their film festival.....). When does all that stuff stop?

Whereas your theory may be correct....it may not be as well. Too many players too many events that cant be predicted are yet to happen, too many unknowns. Taking a risk like that, of having a palestenian state appear without "baby steps" is simply too great a risk for us......the deaths and destruction would be in the 10,000s were it to prove to be an enemy state.

We have no reason to trust the palestenians, yet here we are possibly leaving Gaza.....they should take advantage of this oppertunity, if not they'll lose the israeli popluation that so much wants to support them, an without us, they wont have a state.

[The Magistrate]

29. The 'Revolt' You Speak Of, Sir, Cannot Come Soon Enough

There probably are differences in the play of forces in a democratic polity of small size compared to one of great size, that, coming myself from one of the latter condition, may be difficult for me to appreciate. It is certainly my hope that the majority of Israelis will act to rein in the Gush Einem types, for the aspirations and actions of the settlers' movement are as debilitating to the long run prospects for a secure and stable Israel as the aspirations and actions of Hamas et al are for the prospects of satisfying the legitimate aspirations of the Arab Palestinian people. There are, indeed, some unfortunate mirrorings between the two opposed extremities here. Both are based on a religious fanaticism that will brook no comprimise; both disregard utterly the rights and needs of the group they are diametrically opposed to. If Hamas, et al, enjoys the connivance of the Palestine Authority in many ways, so to does the settlers' movement enjoy the assistance of the Israeli government, with a variety of money subsidies and military protections, without which they would be unable to exist beyond the Green Line.

It is very true that one of the most destructive results of this ludicrous "Second Intafada" is the effect it has had on the political landscape of Israel. As you point out, it has gone far to convince the average Israeli that hostility towards them among the people of Arab Palestine is a permanent feature of the situation, and in the face of such a widespread sentiment, any steps towards peace that are not unilateral impositions by Israeli power cannot find a very wide support among the Israeli people, and any recognition that mutual trust between the opposed peoples is necessary to a lasting peace will be dismissed as idealistic moonshine. These feelings, however, and however well-rooted and understandable they might be, tend to blind those who hold them to another great fact of the situation, which is that the ordinary Arab Palestinian does not see, and has not seen for a long time, any particular reason to believe Israel wishes to live side by side in peace with them. This perception will have its effects on that polity as well, and they are not too dissimilar from the feelings now so widespread among ordinary Israelis.

The settlers movement in the Jordan Valley is one of the chief reasons the ordinary Arab Palestinian does not feel Israel really wishes to live side by side with them in peace. This movement amounts to a project for creeping annexation of the whole of the territory of the old Palestine Mandate, and the complete marginalization or displacement of non-Isralis within it. Whatever the actual case may be, from the point of view of an Arab Palestinian, this project seems to be the long settled policy of Israel, if not the very essential heart of the Israeli enterprise, and it is understandable to me this view should be widespread among that people. Since the '67 war, settlement expansion has taken place regardless of what party ruled Israel, and enjoyed government connivance at least, and more often open government support, throughout that time. Each settlement, and the roads and garrisons that support it, has resulted in restriction and dispossession of Arab Palestinians. Among the settlers are many extremists, who behave with a racialist brutality towards their unwilling neighbors that must come to poison the latter's view of Israelis, as so much of their interaction with Israelis occurs with this unsavory crew, who are quite strident in their desire to supplant the Arab Palestinians entirely.

At any time an Arab Palestinian state is established, it will be an unfortunate fact that extremist parties will comprise an element of its political life. It is an unfortunate fact that, at the establishment of Israel, extremist parties based on the Irgun were a part of its political life, and extremist parties based on ultra-Orthodox belief were a part of its political life. Both these elements caused a good deal of instability in the early days of Israel, and Mr. Ben Gurion had to stand off at least one serious threat of putsch by Begin and his followers in those early years. Certainly in the days of clash between Zionists and Arab Nationalists in the Mandate, and of rebellion against the English authorities after the Second World War, Mr. Ben Gurion was unable to even wholly check the extremist elements, let alone wholly neuter or dismantle them completely. This is in the nature of things, and it seems unreasonable to expect the people of Arab Palestine to be anything but normal in this regard. Difficult it may be, but it is going to have to be lived with sooner or later, or else the bullet must be bitten, and a policy of marginalization and displacement openly acknowledged and hewn too, whatever the consequences to moral feelings and self-image among Israelis, and Jews throughout the world, that must necessarily follow.

[pelsar]

31. no revolt....not yet.....

I seem to come across two aspects when the palestenian state is discussed which I, and many israelis simply dont buy.

why is it believed that the palestenians state will act responsable towards us?...whereas there are no guarantees in life, we dont even see any signs toward that end. And lets just say for arguments sake, they fail to contain the attacks against us.. and obviously we will hear the "well we dont have the manpower/political will/ability etc....Infact there will be intl pressure to NOT do anything to "help along this new govt". Yet, like many failed states they may very well need the "outside" enemy to blame their failures on and we will be it.

Hence we will find ourselves in a trap: taking the risk to establish the state, without the option of defending ourselves, if it turns out to be a failure.

Secondly the attempt to show that the irgun/lechi are comparable to the jihad/hamas/hizballa/tanzim/al aksa/PFLP etc is only in organization, the rest is superficial: Not only that, but they lay ground work, just as you have written above to excuse the future attacks upon us. Granted complete control is impossible, and in fact we still get attacked once in a while by a jordanian or egyptian border guard, but we understand that the govts work to control the borders...will we see that with the PA? I'll give you an example of the ambiguity we can expect:

the use of the word Hudna. for some its been translated as cease-fire, for others it means "temp truce while I rearm and attack later". Both are correct. Thats what we've learned to expect out of the PA, intentional ambiguity and that is not very reassuring.

the irgun had but two major acts (king david hotel/two english sergents) that provide that excuse. The similarity ends right there (compare our embarrasement/unease to the PAs celebratory reactions....). Those acts were not accepted by the general jewish population, and remain an embarrasement today, more so the irgun/lechi were hunted down, not just by the British, but by the hagana as well. When the British left, so too did their main enemy, when the state was established, they had a leader who understood the need for unity, and not bloodshed between jews. This will not be so of the various groups (they already have internal gun battles) in the PA as some claim all of israel, and their "enemy" will not have left...so we can expect the attacks to continue.

The PA today is a fractured, violent society, what makes you belive that with statehood they will suddenly become responsable for their actions?....which actions on the ground lend you to believe this

and more to the point, lets just say that as a state, the attacks both verble and physical continue. We base our military reactions usually on how many dead israelis, the more dead, the more "points" we get to react stronger.

How many dead, before we can declare this fledging state a failure and "get permission" to dismantle it? Obviously a "bus here or there" wouldnt be enouh, but lets say two large bldgs in Tel Aviv are blown up (the mega attack). Wheres that line?

[The Magistrate]

33. Forgive Me, Sir

But this seems a little below your accustomed level, and somewhat of a disappointment.

Nothing in particular leads me to believe an Arab Palestinian state will behave in a reasonable manner, beyond some commonplaces of human nature. People with nothing to lose act irresponsibly; people with something to lose often act in a manner calculated to preserve what they have. People who are frustrated entirely lash out; people who have had some desires gratified are calmer.

Beyond this, it does not seem to me that it much matters, or that Israel has any particular say in it. Israel certainly has no legal right to prevent or quash a declaration of Arab Palestinian statehood; the land beyond the Green Line is not Israeli territory by any legal construction, though it is territory under military occupation. That does not convey a glimmer of sovereignty, nor is the doctrine of terra nullis any longer in operation in international law, enabling state seizure of stateless ground despite habitation because a state is capable of the doing. To my mind, the most basic reason the Arab Palestinian political leadership has not yet declared a state is one neither of us would find too encouraging, namely that any declaration of such sovereignty must declare a limit to what ground sovereignty is claimed over, and that must necessarily exclude a signifigant portion of the land "between the river and the sea", and in so excluding much of that land would constitute a real recognition of Israel's existance, not some cheap formula of words mouthed in expediency. Should such a state be declared, it may act wisely or otherwise; should it behave in a hostile wise towards Israel, Israel would have every justification for a declaration of war in self-defense, and the consequences for an Arab Palestinian state in that case would be horrendous but deserved, and wholly legal.

Your analysis of the Irgun and Lechi seems to me most superficial, and while certainly a comparison between them and the jihadists is not perfect, there is a degree of practical overlap. The two well-publicized incidents you mention are hardly the sum of Irgun activity, and are both in fact things that strike me as wholly legitimate: the King David Hotel housed the English command offices, and the unfortunate sergeants were uniformed members of a military force in occupation. More important in assessing the similarity is a pattern of random killing of Arabs during periods of hostilities in the late thirties and forties; merely because, say, a cafe or a village has a reputation as a gathering point for Nationalist fighters hardly demonstrates that any man seen there and shot actually was a gunman. Nor can it be argued that the political successors of these elements have been a particularly beneficial portion of the polity of Israel; they have contributed a good deal to existance of the present impasse.

[pelsar]

34. good point....about the irgun etc.

though I never really gave it much thought, as an "ex organization" those members contributed little to the stability of the state (Begin being the exception, in many social and security matters...up to Lebanon).

I accept your premis in terms of why they have not declared a state, as they will then have to declare its borders, something they cannot do yet, due to political reasons.

The assumption remains that with hope of security, of a future, the palestenians will then act responsable and accept "western values" that define that responsability....we are now entering the "twilight zone" of culture vs human nature, leadership vs "groupthink".

Will they accept their responsability as western values and states define them? or will they have a different definition. I state strongly....I do not know. I do know the arab/islam ( the combination) is different from the west in both logical thinking and responses.

I can only give examples, of actions that I do not understand yet, raise the many questions of how they define their responsability:

for instance, Egypt, a country we are at peace with recently showed on their TV a new version of the Protocols of Zion. A jordanian journalist was blacklisted for coming to Haifa for a conference on palestinians......). I'm sure I dont have to list everything as its long and disgusting. The point being, these demonaziations of me and country are not the actions of responsable governments at peace with their neighbor using western values.

(True neither jordan nor Egypt are threatening at this point, but they are dictatorships, and subsequently not stable.)

So again the impass remains one of belief. With hope and security that they will act responsable according to western style values......as that is "human nature." or is that being ethnocentric by that claiming human nature is identical to western style values.

But let me be very clear here, I am raising the question as I do not have the answer, nor is there a definitive answer. Just by bringing it up, one gets very near the line of being called a racist/bigot etc. yet, i cannot ignore that there are differences.

just an additional thought, though we may be in our legal rights to attack and dismantle a failed palestenian state that continually attacks us, that would put us in a very similar situation that we are in now. And though we may be able to say "told you so..." it will do nothing to resolve our problem, and no doubt the propaganda spin will start soon after that. Thats why i believe this has to go slow and careful, babysteps if you will, because if it goes too fast, the consequences will be much worse (but then I'm just guessing, playing a what if game....)

[The Magistrate]

35. Thank You, Sir

It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance.

Perhaps the most important point to deal with in your comments above is this: action in one's own best interest is hardly an exclusive Western value. An Arab Palestinian state will quite likely differ greatly from the long established Western states in the character and practice of its political life, and it can hardly be required that it resemble them more than otherwise as a condition of its coming into existance. Nor is it accurate to imply, as you do above, that acting responsibly is somehow a Western value. It is a feature of any successful human enterprise, in any place or time in this world: what does not act responsibly does not long endure.

It is certainly true that, although there exists a state of national peace between Israel and such Arab states as Egypt and Jordan, a fundamental hostility continues to exist between the peoples of these states and Israel, and that this hostility is often exacerbated by their governments for a variety of purposes. It is certainly possible that this hostility may endure for a long time, regardless of what Israel does or does not do. The establishment of a Jewish state on Arab land, and the consistent defeat of Arab armies by Jews, struck a tremendous blow to Arab pride, particularly galling because they had been long accustomed to viewing Jews as a timorous, frightened, and wholly unmartial people. But so long as a condition of peace holds, so long as these governments see they can gain no benefit by a war against Israel they are certain to lose, this hostility can be lived with. Not all neighbors like each other, and some nurse long and bitter grudges, but so long as they confine their hostilities to private curses in their kitchens, and do not destroy one another's property or assault one another, it is no matter for the police.

It seems to me that you do not give sufficient weight to the possibility that removing some of the most bitter points of friction could act over time to reduce the hostility felt, not only by Arab Palestinians but the Arab and Moslem world at large. An abrasion that is continually scraped over again will certainly stay fresh, but if not continually subject to fresh abuse will at least have a chance to heal over, and grow a new skin. In my view, it is certainly worth trying such a course. The current practice, though it is certainly sustainable for the foreseeable future, cannot really offer any prospect for improvement, only the likelihood things will not deteriorate too much further quickly. That last is, certainly, a thing of some value, from an Israeli point of view.

It is certainly true that, should the leadership of an Arab Palestinian state prove so foolish as to foment and provoke hostilities with Israel, the situation would be essentially what it is today. But there would be this difference: it would have been demonstrated conclusively, to fair-minded people everywhere, that what is viewed by most as the preferable solution to this conflict really is not a workable one. It would become impossible to argue within reason that the onus in this matter lies with Israel, or to deny that a refusal on the part of the other party to accept a condition of peace is the reason the conflict persists.

[pelsar]

39. the twilight area of reading the future...

it appears that what we are trying to do here is read the future, what kind of state will emerge from the palestenian people. One approach says let them have their state, and based on several assumptions it shall develop in to a responsable state that respects its neighbor borders.

approach 2 (mine) is more piecemeal, step by step. Milestones if you will. As each step is taken it is then evaluated with and end goal in mine.

Its obvious that each approach can simply backfire and in essence cause a terrorist state to develop. For the first, if the democracy movement, political will within Gaza/westbank isnt strong enough to overpower the other forces, hamas etc may simply take over.

For the second approach, the frustration at its slowness make cause the palestenians to become impatient and the hamas etc may take over.

Your base assumption the palestenian state now, presumes responsability in the western sense, improved lives, more freedom etc. Yet for some (the suicide bomber for example) has found self sacrifice to be his respsonability, to ensure a better future. Hence the definition of responsability of the palestenian state is not so concrete. But beyond that,
the first approach is also not practical from the israeli side. As we are very much a part of the equation, our internal politics demand that we isolate the settlers politically. That can only be accomplished when the majority of the israelis have confidence in the palstenians.

Without our "vote" the isolation of the settlers, the "gray rebellion" from within the IDF, will simply not happen.

I do understand that if we remove certain aspects of the occupation, improve their lives, this will increase the likelihood of a more favorable govt appearing. Unfortunatly our experience with "letting up" i.e. pulling back, usually results in some suicide bombings. (we usually "wait" for the next bombing to appear after a pullout is announced). But that is where Gaza comes in...this is the experiment. If the palestenians can make a society that we can live with, their expanding to the west bank are inevitable, since the argument that it endangers us will have proven false. And though it sounds patronizing to say to the palestenians " prove yourself first"....after 56 years of warfare, we are within those rights.

So what do we expect out of this "state"? and what right do we have to "judge it". Well for the second, whether or not we live in peace depends upon the character of that state, hence we do have that right. Our expectations is that be based on western democratic values. The reason being, with the exception of Turkey and Cyprus I dont know of any two democratic countires that fought each other. So we're going with that assumption democracies as a rule dont fight each other. Those values, along with the rest of the package such as civil rights etc must be present, as with those we can hope for a sociey that is intent on improving itself, that has a responsability towards that aspect and wont be looking for excuses. The palesteninans unlike their brethren in syria, iran, etc have been exposed to democracy (during their detentions in israel they organize various courses, amongst them are democracy in israel etc), and I believe the majority prefer that, but they will also need our help.

As you mentioned previously, a majority can lose to a smaller more vocal minority.. especially when they have the weapons. So though it may be hard to swallow for some, the Gaza first approach with us watching may in fact insure the implementation of a democracy within Gaza.

It may infact cost more in lives lost as the slow approach is taken, but once a path is chosen one never knows for sure what the path that wasnt taken would have meant. And if it fails there, our settlers will celebrate and the rest of us will accept that fact that they are right..... (that would be the implied result of a failed gaza)

[pelsar]

40. responsability of statehood

i just remembered about the 5 swedish kids kidnapped by their dad and are now somewhere in Gaza. I would think that the responsability for their lives now lie within the PA, a basic first step...yet i cant recall anything being done on the kids behalf...

[pelsar]

41. two corrections..

as i talk to myself, from the above posts. The 5 swedish kids have seen been freed, from what i understand to be behind the scenes diplomacy (no kids no money....) and the other democratic countries to fight each other was Argentina and England during the Falklands war.

[The Magistrate]

42. Please Forgive My Tardiness, Mr. Pelsar

My capabilities for concentration have been somewhat engaged, and otherwise diverted, over the last couple of days. You have raised several interesting points, and the most recent of them is perhaps best dealt with first.

You lay a great deal of stress on the idea that democratic states will not war with one another, and though this is a commonplace observation among the current punditry, it is a very foolish belief, that cannot really find any support in history. To point out that the two instances you raised as exceptions are not very good exceptions, since Argentina at the time of the Falklands War was ruled by a military dictatorship of extraordinary cruelty, and Greece at the time it provoked the Turkish invasion of Cyprus (not only legal but required under international treaty, by the way) was similarly ruled by a brutal military regime, might seem to rather diminish my point, but this does not concern me. The war from which the twentieth century flowed, World War One, was for the most part fought between countries with democratic political systems. Germany, France, and England, the powers that bore the greatest brunt of the military effort in that conflict, all had reasonably democratic systems: France was a republic, England and Germany were constitutional monarchies, and if the constitution restrained the Kaiser somewhat less than the King, his land was far from a police state and his rule far short of unbridled autocracy. As one traces back to the founding of the idea of democracy in elder times, the instances pile ever higher; the early wars of the Roman Republic were mostly against Greco-Italian polities with popular assemblies, or tribal polities with elective kingships, and the wars of the Greek city-states in the Classical period featured many conflicts between states with democratic features, albiet with more or less restricted franchises. The phrase "democracies do not fight one another" is simply a thing that sounds good to say today, particularly to commentators and audiences in democratic polities, but it is without foundation.

Further, the idea that democracies are inherently less likely to war than other sorts of polities is untrue, though it is a staple, for example, of fascist doctrine that democracies are soft things unwilling to fight. The great imperial expansions of the nineteenth century were in by far their greatest part carried out by democratic polities, namely England and France, and these were nothing more or less than wars of predatory aggression waged deliberately for profit against peoples reckoned too weak to defend themselves. The only limitation on a democratic polity's going to war that is not operative on an autocratic one is that the effort must enjoy a good deal of popular support, and this can make a democracy much more dangerous as a fighting animal than many an autocracy. A widely popular effort will be pressed harder, and may be harder to call off; democracies at war tend not to stop until the other fellow is broken to smithereens. Popular judgement in these matters is not always the wisest judgement, and democracies are prone to poor judgement in deciding when and over what to go to war, and in how to prosecute it and how to end it: Athens foundered over just this cause. An autocratic state with a decently calculating strategist for an autocrat may prove to be a more comfortable neighbor, though of course an autocracy with a fool for a chief can be a disaster both for its neighbors and itself.

Thus it seems to me the idea that there would be any special promise of security for Israel in there being democratic rule in an Arab Palestinian state strikes me as false. If hostility, or even war, against Israel were the popular demand of the people of Arab Palestine, what could a democratic government of an Arab Palestinian state do but execute the people's will? If it did not, would they not turn it out at the ballot box in favor of one that would? Similarly, the formula of "Western" ideas of responsibilty and reasonableness strikes me as worthless: it seems to me most questionable that Western states have, in the matter of war and peace, any particular bona fides of either responsibility or reason. There have been perhaps two instances of relative quiesence among the warring of major Western polities, namely, the present day, and the period of about a century and a half after the Thirty Years War, and both of them seem attributable not to any higher developments but simply to having absorbed at least for a time the crudest lessons the utter devestation of a long bout of total war have to teach.

This is why it seems to me the only thing that might procure a reasonable assurance of peace for Israel is for Israel to take active steps to remove so far as is possible for it to do the real grievances of the people of Arab Palestine, for certainly so long as these are felt, democratic rule for that people can certainly be no guarantee of peace. And you have my free admission the effort to do this might not work. But is the only option that has any chance of working, and so it seems to me it had best be tried.

"As long as war is looked upon as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular."

[pelsar]

43. Magistrate.....

a quick reply.....first thanks for the info...seems I took the "democracies dont fight each other" hook line and sinker (didnt even research it). Guess I'll have to remove that theory from my ideas that "guarantee" a peaceful settlement.....

[pelsar]

47. Magistrate......well

so much for the illusion that democracies dont fight each other. You explained it very well....Inherent in my belief that democracies dont fight was the palestenians accepting many western values, an important one being feeling responsable for the well being of its citizens. Now you've brought me back to a very sensitive issue, that of culture. When the palestenian state comes into existence, I will be very fearful. Not just in the short term, but what of the long term?

I dont buy 100% that a settlement will satisfy them. No question it will not satisfy some, but what of the surrounding states? what will their particiapation be (hizballa, iran?)

I am looking at the palestenian culture and beyond that, the arab culture. I am wondering about "groupthink", i am looking at Iran.....Can this palestenian state act as a responsable state, what about in 10 years? What if they create a governing body that fails and we then get a fanatical theocracy next door? If the surrounding arab states continue with their anti jew/anti israeli line, can the palestenians reject that, or will they join in?

and if they fail....and they continue to attack.....do we defend ouselves in which case we'll be right back where we are now? (and will anybody support us?)

The problem in a nutshell is that present arab regimes do not inspire confidence. Now the palestenians are unlike any other arab people, but i dont know if that is good or bad. The simplistic view of "give them a state and all will be well" is simply niave....this is entirely new territory in the political arena, and the arab culture (which is all we have to go on) is not known for its stability in changing leaders..... which makes my view about Gaza first as being the right way to go.....It may sound patronizing, and in fact it may be, but I want to see the palestenians start governing themselves, start taking care of themselves show me that they can do it, before we go to the next precarious step of the west bank. Its not just for me, but for them as well, If gaza works, their perception of us will change as well, that we can be neighbors.....

[King Mongo]

49. Palestinian independence

One should not deny people an independent state or citizenship and equality based upon the unknown future. It is true that the future is unknown and very mysterious. Yet, the unknown future should not be used as a justification to not treat people as equals.

Understanding that Israel has a very powerful military futhermore helps us to understand how silly it would be for the Palestinian military to wage war against Israel, especailly given the understanding that Israel would be supported by the US and the EU. Palestinians simply wouldn't have a chance and the probability of such a war taking place is extremely unlikely. Yet, even if it did occur for one reason or another, Palestinians would greatly suffer, again, as a result of the war.

Thus, it really doesn't matter what type of a government Palestians form. Furthermore, when looking at Africa, one can see how difficult it is for people, who suffered from an occupation, to build a stable nation.

Thus, I think that we should:

1) Give people the ability to be independent
2) Give them help when they request it
3) Be a good example for others to follow

[King Mongo]

46. My pessimistic view of the Gaza retreat

Posted by pelsar
But that is where Gaza comes in...this is the experiment. If the palestenians can make a society that we can live with, their expanding to the west bank are inevitable, since the argument that it endangers us will have proven false. And though it sounds patronizing to say to the palestenians " prove yourself first"....after 56 years of warfare, we are within those rights.

From my observations, it seems as if most Palestinians don't trust Israelis. They don't believe that Israel will withdraw from the West Bank. They don't believe that Israel will let go of its control of Gaza and West Bank air space. They don't believe that Israel will give Palestinians full control over West Bank water resources. They don't believe that Sharon will give up east Jerusalem. Thus, the resistance will grow and continue fighting. The PA will continue to lose its control over the situation. The attacks against Israel will not stop. By withdrawing from Gaza, I think that not much will change. While the withdrawal is a nobel beginning on the Israeli side, more is needed to convince the Palestinian side that Israel will let go and accept Palestinians and accept an independent Palestinian state next to Israel.

[King Mongo]

44. Israel's two choices

I find that Israel has two choices:

1) Equality and citizenship for everyone
2) A two state solution

If there will not be a two-state solution, then there will eventually be equality and citizenship for everyone.

So, Israel must decide to either withdraw or to give the natives citizenship. The most difficult thing for Israel is to figure out how to create a two-state solution so that it doesn't have to accept citizenship and equality for everyone.

[The Magistrate]

45. There Is A Third Choice, Your Grace

It is not a particularly pleasant one, though it seems to be the one most likely to eventuate: that is a "victor's peace" imposed and sustained by the power available to the Israeli state, that will be a heightened version of the present condition in many ways. It is within that state's power to do such a thing, and to maintain it into the foreseeable future.

[King Mongo]

48. Correct

This is correct. The third option, also the current situation is (I think), given the situation of the illegal settlements, one of apartheid (a word that many don't like hearing).