Why Olso failed (an essay)

[Violet_Crumble]

This is an essay I wrote last year that I thought might be of interest to some. The essay question was: "The Oslo peace process could have delivered a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, provided the Israeli right had agreed to it from the start. Evaluate this critically in relation to the failure of the Oslo process" My apologies for the absense of formatting when it comes to the footnotes :)

The Oslo peace process marked the first time in the Israel Palestine conflict that both parties recognised each other’s right to exist and agreed to negotiate in an attempt to end the decades old conflict. The failure of the peace process was inevitable considering the lack of trust on both sides and the opposition from Israeli and Palestinian hardliners who were determined to scuttle the peace process, and with it any chance of compromise being made.

Opposition in Israel to the peace process came from hardliners such as the mainstream Israeli conservative political party – Likud; other nationalist Israeli political parties, and settler groups..<1> While this opposition ensured the eventual demise of the peace process, it is doubtful that the peace process would have succeeded even with the full and genuine support of the Israeli right.

This essay will examine the part the Israeli right played in the failure of the peace process, and examine other factors that destined the peace process to fail, including the opposition of hardline Palestinian groups to any form of negotiation with Israel; the inability of the United States to take the initiative and not favour Israel when mediating between the Israelis and Palestinians; and the inability and unwillingness of Israeli and Palestinian leaders to inform their populations about the concessions that would be required to be made to reach a final settlement; and finally the vagueness of the Oslo Accords, which resulted in both the Israelis and the Palestinians having vastly differing views of what the results of the peace process would be.

There was strong opposition to the peace process by settler groups who believe, for religious reasons, that all of historic Palestine belongs to Israel.<2> These groups are represented in the Knesset, and Likud are aligned to them. The settlers are only a small minority of the Israeli population, and their opposition to the peace process was in stark contrast to the majority of Israelis who did support the peace process.<3>

The settlers intentionally tried to destroy the peace process, attacking Palestinians in attempts to provoke violence.<4> In 1994, Baruch Goldstein opened fire in a mosque in Hebron, murdering 29 Palestinians. Onlookers disarmed Goldstein and beat him to death.<5> Rather than removing the Hebron settlers, a move supported by the majority of Israeli government ministers, the Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin refused to do so because he believed that the general principles of the Oslo Accords did not specify that Israel had to dismantle any settlements in the West Bank or Gaza during the interim period.<6>

Binyamin Netanyahu, leader of the Israeli opposition, led a campaign of incitement aimed at derailing the peace process, and promised to cancel it when Likud was elected.<7> Netanyahu compared Rabin’s agreement to negotiate with Arafat to that of a Jew trying to talk to Hitler. This vitriolic campaign of incitement in which Rabin was cast as the enemy of Israel, culminated on 4 November 1995 when a Jewish religious extremist assassinated Rabin in an attempt to end any hope of the peace process continuing.<8> The peace process continued, but mistrust was growing on both sides. When Netanyahu was elected in May 1996, he did not cancel the peace process, though he slowed it to a crawl, and only continued to meet a few of Israel’s obligations due to pressure from the US. He was defeated in the next election by Ehud Barak, because most Israelis wanted the peace process to continue and they saw Netanyahu as opposing it.

In 1991 Ariel Sharon, the then Likud candidate in the upcoming Israeli election, announced his plans to visit the Temple Mount, one of the holy sites of great importance to Muslims. Accompanied by over a thousand troops, this was a deliberate attempt to provoke the Palestinians into violence. His plan worked, and the Al-Aqsa Intifada started. Sharon’s final action that made the hope of the peace process continuing impossible was when he was elected Prime Minister and refused to continue negotiations with the Palestinians, even though the negotiations at the Taba talks were looking promising.

Even if the Israeli right had accepted the peace process from the start, it still would not have succeeded due to the opposition of Palestinian groups such as Hamas. Hamas opposed the peace process from the start as they did not view Israel as a legitimate state and opposed any negotiations or compromise with Israel. Hamas supported a Palestinian state encompassing Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

While Palestinian intellectuals such as Edward Said opposed Olso<9>, which they saw as the Israeli occupation being continued in a less direct way, the opposition from Hamas excluded any support of a negotiated two-state solution, and manifested itself in the form of suicide bombings on civilian targets in Israel.

Arafat was not able to control the militant Palestinian groups, and more importantly was in a position where he could not make serious attempts to force Hamas to stop their attacks. Arafat feared civil war breaking out if the Palestinian Authority (PA) attempted to curb the activities of Hamas. The mainly secular Palestinian population was suffering from Israeli attacks, expansion of settlements and the associated expropriation of land, house demolitions, curfews and closures<10>. Those actions by Israel led to the possibility that if civil war broke out, secular Palestinians would support the militants over the PA.

Arafat used the power of his leadership to quash threats to his power and to feather the nests of those who gave him their unquestioning loyalty. He excluded those who opposed him from the peace process, including moderates whose contributions could have been valuable within the framework of the peace process.

The negotiations that led to the Oslo Accords were arranged in semi-secrecy between Palestinian and Israeli negotiators. In August 1993, the US Secretary of State was informed that an agreement had been reached between the Palestinians and Israelis. US State Department officials were surprised that there had been no US role required in the negotiations. After the signing of the Declaration of Principles, the US role in the peace process was one of encouraging the two parties to continue to negotiate, and also encouraging the international community to support the peace process.

The US became directly involved in the negotiations as the expectations of both parties emerged as being very different. The US took Israel’s side in the negotiations, at times relaying Israeli demands to the Palestinians and pretending they were actually US proposals<11>. Instead of being even-handed in its mediation, the US was viewed by the Palestinians as supporting Israel, no matter how unreasonable Israel’s position was.<12> While the US role in the peace process should have been that of a mediator not favouring either party, due to the US/Israeli relationship and the expectations of the US domestic audience which viewed even the slightest criticism of Israel with disapproval, the US steered clear of putting much pressure on Israel during negotiations. Both US and Israeli analysises of the causes of the failure of Oslo are exactly the same, and both place all the blame on the Palestinians. The Palestinian version of events, while much closer to reality than that of the US or Israel, was ignored until non-Palestinians supported the Palestinian view<13>.

The Palestinians were seen by the US as the weakest party in the negotiations, and the US supported Israels demands as the US assumed that the Palestinians would have no choice but to negotiate under terms favourable to Israel, and that it should be the Palestinians who should make the vast bulk of concessions in negotiations<14>.

The majority of Palestinians and Israelis polled during the 1990s supported the peace process. Even during Netanyahu’s government, support for the peace process never dropped to less than half of either population<15>. Both Israelis and Palestinians appear to have genuinely desired peace, but only as a general concept, and not with any thought as to specifics that people may not have supported but were essential to attaining a final settlement.

The Palestinian population was unprepared by the PA for concessions that were needed in order for the peace process to proceed. While a large majority of Palestinians supported the peace process, they did not have a concrete concept of the details of what would be required for a settlement to be reached, nor that Israeli expectations and what the PA had agreed to was in direct contrast to well established Palestinian national mythology, especially regarding the refugees<16>. Arafat did not attempt to educate Palestinians, especially the refugees on what would be required to have a peaceful resolution to the conflict. A full implementation of the Right of Return and a two-state solution were mutually exclusive, but there were no attempts made to bring the refugees on board and make them feel as though they were part of the peace process and that their concerns were being addressed<17>. Instead the refugees felt that they were being overlooked and their claims being sacrificed in order for the PA to reach a less than fair final settlement with Israel.Both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership focused on telling their own populations what they thought they wanted to hear, not taking into account that those messages critical of the other party were being listened to by the other population, who heard nothing reassuring<18>. This behaviour contributed to the increase in mutual distrust between the parties and the belief that they had no desire for peace.

The fatal flaw of the peace process was that the Oslo Accords was the same element of the peace process that enabled it to be embraced by both the Palestinians and Israelis. Oslo was couched in general terms and in such a way that the expectations of both parties as to what it would bring were markedly different. For the Palestinians, Oslo would bring them an end of the Israeli occupation, dismantling of Israeli settlements, and a viable and independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. For the Israelis Oslo would bring about a Palestinian mini-state with no power and still controlled by Israel, no settlements being removed apart from a few isolated outposts, and legitimisation of the annexation of Jerusalem<19>.

The core issues of the conflict, which happened to be the most contentious issues, were all pushed back to the final settlement to be discussed. The Palestinians were put in the position of making concessions to Israel with no promise of a state, solution of the refugee problem, or the dismantling of settlements on the table. In the final settlement negotiations at Camp David in July 2000, Israel never put an offer in writing, but told the Palestinian negotiators of Barak’s take it or leave it final offer<20>. While the US and Israel refer to the offer as a ‘generous offer’<21>, what Barak was offering fell way short of even the most moderate of Palestinian expectations.

The failure of the peace process was assured even without the acceptance of the Israeli right. The vagueness of the Accord, the contrasting expectations of both Palestinians and Israelis, the opposition of Palestinian militant groups, the breaches of agreements on both sides, the failure of the US as mediator to provide any guidance and to be an impartial mediatior, and the mutual distrust that grew, all contributed to the demise of the peace process.

While the peace process failed, it did set the groundwork for any future negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians. Oslo was a trust building exercise, and at a future time when both Palestinians and Israelis are led by leaders who wish to resolve the conflict, and any US input is carried out in an evenhanded manner, the precedent for negotiations has been set already. The mistakes of the peace process should be considered and examined so that they are not made again, while the Taba talks shows that contentious issues such as the right of return are open for negotiation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<1> Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab world (London: Penguin Books, 2001) 521.
<2> T. G. Fraser, The Arab-Israeli Conflict (New York: Palgrave Macmillan) 141.
<3> Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab world (London: Penguin Books, 2001) 521.
<4> Ibid, 525
<5> Ibid., 524.
<6> Ibid, 525.
<7> Ibid,. 521
<8> Ibid., 546.
<9> Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal, The Palestinian People: A History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003) 337.
<10> Danny Rubenstein, “Five Ways to Kill a Peace Agreement”, Ha’aretz, 3 April 2001.
<11> Jeremy Pressman, “Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba?”, International Security 28:2 (Fall 2003), 41.
<12> William Qandt, Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict since 1967 (Washington, D.C : University of California Press, 1993) 388.
<13> Jeremy Pressman, “Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba?”, International Security 28:2 (Fall 2003), 33.
<14> William Qandt, Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict since 1967 (Washington, D.C : University of California Press, 1993) 326.
<15> Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal, The Palestinian People: A History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003) 336.
<16> Robert Bowker, Palestinian Refugees: Mythology, Identity, and the Search for Peace (Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003) 170.
<17> Ibid,. 155.
<18> Jeremy Pressman, “Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba?”, International Security 28:2 (Fall 2003), 40.
<19> Ilan Pappe, A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 225.
<20> Jeff Halper, “The Key to Peace: Dismantling the Matrix of Control: in The Other Israel: Voices of Refusal and Dissent, eds Roane Carey and Jonathan Shainin (New York: The New Press) 28.
<21> Robert Malley, “Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors”, New York Review of Books, 9 August 2001.

[still_one]

1. but what made it even more tragic

was when clinton left and bush took over in 2000, instead of continuing where Clinton had left off the * administration not only ignored the entire situation, but turned their heads as more settlements were being constructed

Of course they ignored the warnings about al queada, and 9/11 so it should NOT be any surprise

Hopefully, in spite of all of this cooler heads on both sides will prevail. The U.S. under bush has been a disaster both domestically and internationally

[CaptainTypho1967]

3. so someone else noticed that too, huh?

was when clinton left and bush took over in 2000, instead of continuing where Clinton had left off the * administration not only ignored the entire situation, but turned their heads as more settlements were being constructed.

WOW! I thought I was the only person who picked up on that.

[still_one]

4. it was an obsenity what happened

every president, including the first bush tried to engage in the peace process. This was the first president who ignored it, and it might be said actually encouraged the illegal settlements

This was the obvious PNAC influence. Keep in mind I happen to be Jewish, and I am outraged

[CaptainTypho1967]

5. count me in.

I have a lot of Jewish ancestry, and I'm outraged about that, too.

[Coastie for Truth]

15. PNAC influence

Read the PNAC papers - at www.newamericancentury.org - all several hundred of them (I did).

Now, take yourself over to two DU fora:

1.

2.

Go to yesterday's New York Times Magazine and click on -it's about "Peak Oil" - not I/P.

Maas refers to Simmon's Book ("Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy"). Equally good books are Ken Deffeye's books ("Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak", and "Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage").

Maas alludes to James Howard Kunstler's "The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century" (a popular book with non-techie Progressives; as a techie Progressive I find it fatally flawed)

If you're interest in any of these books, PM me - and I'll bring them to the Santa Clara County Democrat Club Picnic in Los Gatos' Vasona Lake Park (Creekside Picnic Area) this Sunday.

Keep in mind I happen to be a chemical engineer in the (alternative, renewable, and green) energy industry, and I am outraged at the obvious and . As a chemical engineer I am thoroughly outraged at how my professional community buried its head in the sand on "Peak Oil", buried its head in the sand on its leadership's support of a temporary military band aid on "Peak Oil" - and served as the "Amen Corner" for the PNAC imperialistic solution to "Peak Oil." (I have resigned from my membership in the American Institute of Chemical Engineers - when they speak out on public policy it is an apologist for Big Oil and PNAC)

BTW- once you have gone through the PNAC papers - at www.newamericancentury.org - all several hundred of them - you should be convinced that the PNAC "obsession" with "Israel" is a personal shtick of William Kristol - the real issue for PNAC is OIL.

In fact, to use an old US Navy/US Coast Guard expression, compared to the oil-Peak Oil motivation, Israel wouldn't make a pimple on a Bosun's Mate's left butt cheek for PNAC or our imperialism in Iraq.

[pnorman]

2. Thanks for your efforts with that.

I skimmed through it briefly, and have saved it as a file for careful reading later. ("Underwater basket-weaving" ... you downunder Aussies are downright WEIRD!!).

pnorman

[Violet_Crumble]

8. I hope you enjoy reading it...

Heh. I'd forgotten about my 'hobbies' listed in my profile till you just mentioned it :)

Violet...

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Thanks...

I scored okay with it, even though it was an all-night last minute rush job. Yr edit's now got me wondering if I should work out how to do that little TM symbol just in case any drooling idjits incapable of original thought decide to copy'n'paste it. Not that I think I need to worry much, as the essay's bound to confuse those sort of folk, who like their "advocacy" in stark black and white and in terms where Israel Does No Wrong Because To Think Otherwise Is Anti-Israel ;)

Violet...

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

10. I posted the essay in the hope that people would read and comment on it...

So without commenting on the things in yr post that had nothing to do with the failure of Oslo and everything to do with posters in this thread, that leaves absolutely nothing. Every other poster in this thread has either read the essay and commented on it, and though I don't expect you to read it if yr not that way inclined, my hope would be that you could and possibly have some comment on it. Since I got the result for it a fair while ago, I'm happy to hear any criticism, though reading it immediately after submitting it, I already spotted several flaws in typos and sentences that could have been constructed better...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

17. Of course I read it, and it is well done.

However, I think there are several problems, the most glaring of which is the lack of emphasis on the single most important post-Oslo problem: VIOLENCE. Terrorism rose astonishingly after Oslo, and that has colored every event since, including the election of Sharon - who didn't cause the violence, but whose political career was resurrected BECAUSE of it.

It's simply impossible to discuss the failure of Oslo without mentioning the increase in terror, and Arafat's direct involvement therein. I think Arafat was by far the major problem. The Saudis tried to influence him and failed; I really think he never intended statehood, but continuing violence, with the hopeful goal the eventual destruction of Israel - not peaceful coexistence alongside her. Unfortunately this philosophy continues and will continue to wreak havoc even as people of good will try to hammer out a peaceful solution to the conflict.

I agree that the gap between expectations and reality played, and continues to play a major role, as people on each side have ideas seemingly incompatible with each other. However, that is what negotiation is for. Arafat simply didn't seem interested in hammering out the details, even though the opportunity was certainly there and other Arab leaders apparently desired that he do so. Bill Clinton was one of the strongest and most popular American leaders in spite of his political troubles, he was committed, Barak and other Israeli leaders were aware of the stakes even though not all were enthusiastic as you point out; and most ordinary people wanted peace. But the terrorism spoke loudest of all, and more tragedy followed.

As far as the settlers are concerned, they have been violent, heedless of Arab concerns; they may be politically in the wrong; but they have also suffered great losses and their historic claims are very real. Their religious point of view is absolutely as valid as any other religious point of view, including Christian or Muslim. These facts need to be mentioned in any overview of the situation, because they have and will continue to bear on events. Nothing in the Middle East is simple and nothing can be explained by purely rational, Western terms so an understanding and empathy with the spiritual and the ancient must be a part of any political analysis of this region.

In that light, I find the term that's been cropping up recently, and in your paper, "historic Palestine", to be disturbing and rather politically slanted, as the very term invalidates the ancient and continuous history of the region. This calls into question the objectivity of the paper, and suggests, perhaps unintentionally, an agenda.

Israel - people and political entity - predate the Roman colony or the British colony or the modern Arab political entity of "Palestine", by millenia - and that needs to be respected as do the ancient terms for the region - Judea, Samaria, Syria, etc. No full understanding of the existence of Israel in the "Palestine Mandate" can be complete without recognition and respect for, this salient fact, any more than one can deny Arab and Turkish history and culture, or ignore the Muslim and Christian religious significance of Jerusalem. Modern Israel simply would not exist were it not for her historic roots in this very location - along with a continuous and ancient Jewish presence in this land, in spite of the diaspora at the hands of the Romans. The richness as well as the source of conflict here, resides in the overlapping of 3 great religions and eons of continuous, conflicting, overlapping and sometimes warring cultures.

Under current leadership, as long as the quiet holds, negotiation is possible, with compromise the likely and desireable outcome. But I think the failure of Oslo and the tragic loss of life and happiness that followed in its wake, must at least partially be blamed on a factor not mentioned in your paper, and that is the absolute refusal, even to date, of many in the Arab world to accept the essential legitimacy of the Jewish history and the dignity of Jewish existence in the region, with attempts even to reframe Abraham as a Muslim and denial of the location of the ancient Temple under the mosque.

We can help to bridge that gap, but only if we first agree among ourselves to accept those ancient foundations.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Thanks for the feedback, CB...

Just a few comments. Sorry about the length of this post, btw...

However, I think there are several problems, the most glaring of which is the lack of emphasis on the single most important post-Oslo problem: VIOLENCE. Terrorism rose astonishingly after Oslo

Of course terrorism rose astonishingly after Oslo, but the essay question was limited to Oslo, which meant that the outbreak of the second intifada was as far as we were supposed to go...

It's simply impossible to discuss the failure of Oslo without mentioning the increase in terror, and Arafat's direct involvement therein.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that Hamas were carrying out attacks. I didn't mention Arafat's direct involvement in those attacks because I was required to footnote nearly everything I said, and I found nothing to support that from any source that would stand up to scrutiny. Note that if I'd started referencing online sources like whatreallyhappened.com or Arutz Sheva, I would have earned myself a failing grade. I could have looked for something from Ephraim Karsh, but then I would have had to mention that it's a claim that most reputable sources don't support, and when it comes to a 2000 word essay on a topic like the failure of Oslo, 2000 words really doesn't give you much room to move or go into any great detail...


When it came to Arafat, in hindsight I should have said he was *unwilling* as well as *unable* to rein in the extremist groups, but I think that when I pointed out why it was in his best interests not to take action against them (eg fear of civil war, loss of power, etc), I pretty much covered it anyway...

On the religious extremist settlers:Their religious point of view is absolutely as valid as any other religious point of view, including Christian or Muslim.

Going to strongly disagree here, CB. Their religious point of view that tells them it's okay to kick people out of their homes, take their land, destroy their crops and attack and sometimes murder them ISN'T an absolutely valid point of view. It's no more valid than attempts of Muslim extremists to justify their murdering innocent civilians as a religious viewpoint. And it's no more valid than Christians who scream that abortion is murder and who turn around in the other breath and advocate the murder of doctors who perform abortions. Wasn't anti-Semitism originally a religious point of view of Christians that told them it was okay to treat Jews like crap? That's just another example of why not all religious points of view are valid, especially when they hurt other people...


In that light, I find the term that's been cropping up recently, and in your paper, "historic Palestine", to be disturbing and rather politically slanted, as the very term invalidates the ancient and continuous history of the region.

I'm not sure why "historic Palestine" can be seen as a disturbing and politically slanted term, especially not in a pol/sci paper discussing Oslo. It was my shorthand for 'the area of land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean that formed the British Mandate'. With stringent word limits, two words are much better than fifteen. Considering that area has changed hands more than a lemon of a second-hand car has changed owners, what should I have called it?

Also, the terms Judea and Samaria hold very strong political slants when often used by Americans, while Israelis tend to use the terms in a more benign geographical way...

But I think the failure of Oslo and the tragic loss of life and happiness that followed in its wake, must at least partially be blamed on a factor not mentioned in your paper, and that is the absolute refusal, even to date, of many in the Arab world to accept the essential legitimacy of the Jewish history and the dignity of Jewish existence in the region, with attempts even to reframe Abraham as a Muslim and denial of the location of the ancient Temple under the mosque.

But that was beyond the scope of the essay question. And no offense, but if I'd written something saying that many Arabs are basically anti-Semites who attempt to reframe Abraham as a Muslim, I probably would have had my essay failed on the spot and my future at the uni would have been put in danger - I saw this happen to a guy who made similar sweeping statements about Aboriginals in an essay and referred to them as 'Abos'. CB, I'd say that most, if not all, Muslims are very aware of the date Islam came into being, and are very aware that Abraham is considered a prophet in Islam...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

22. I have a few more thoughts but briefly, on the religious

question, please realize that I don't think ANY religious pov is particularly correct or valid when applied to real world politics, because they ALL rely upon some concept of the almighty, and frequently misuse that sense of godgiven power to harm others.

In that sense I don't see that the settlers should be condemned more than anybody else: almost all religions rely upon faith and a sense of moral certitude, whereas I've found that "moral certitude" frequently leads straight to hell. On the other hand, religious values are sacred to the people who hold them, and therefore must be respected as we respect the color of skin or ethnic heritage.

This puts progressives in a difficult position of being forced to tolerate and even respect values that we ourselves would find anathema. For example, how are we to respond to the spectacle of a legally elected theocracy, which de facto oppresses half the population (women) as we are seeing take form in Iraq? On the one hand, we're bound to work for individual freedom, but on the other we are bound to respect democratic government. We are bound to respect human rights yet bound to respect ethnographic sensibilities. It's hard! But it's the only possible position we can take, otherwise WE are guilty of religious bigotry.

Does this make sense? (I apologize if this post is rambling a bit off your original topic!)

As an example it's become a habit on DU to trash fundies and Catholics, and I find that disturbing. Ultimately we are all human and we must somehow be able to see past each other's foibles, respect each other's uniqueness, while finding common ground in the humanity we all share.

Ultimately, I don't think the goal of the settler movement is to harm others. That may be a consequence of their ideals, but not the intention. Many who criticize them confuse the one with the other and that leads to even more misunderstanding. At bottom, the settlers believe they have a right to live in their historic homeland. That simple desire doesn't strike me as irrational or evil, but should be something that could be worked out peacefully, with mutual respect and without the force of arms. It shouldn't be imposed but neither should it be forbidden.

What saddens me as much as the abuses of the settler movement, is the apparent fact that Jews are not welcome in any capacity (except maybe as traditional dhimmi) among the Arabs, and that Palestinians seem to feel that the only way they can create a state is by completely eradicating any Jewish population within their desired borders. That's every bit as serious a problem as any presented by the settler movement itself.* One of the ironies of the I/P situation is the strange mirroring of suffering between the two groups - in so many ways, they indeed are one. Perhaps this conflict will finally end when the Arab can look at the Jew, and the Jew can look into the eyes of the Arab, and each will see himself reflected.

On a personal note, I have supported the withdrawal all along the line but I confess that the sight of Jews being dragged (again) from their homes really hurt me, regardless of the political correctness of the affair. No people should suffer thus, neither Arab nor Israeli, nor Inuit nor German nor Turkmen nor Sudanese nor Tibetan. And in this case the historic overtones made the spectacle excruciating. And I mean that word in the true sense, as in bearing the weight of millenia of tragic experience.

***

*(But perhaps I'm misunderstanding their intentions? Will Jewish people be welcome in the State of Palestine? Given the cultural differences between these groups, if a Hamas-type government were to be elected, how on earth would that work?)

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Religion and stuff...

If you were talking about mainstream religion and its adherents, I'd be with you all the way, but you seem to be talking about extremists, who are another matter entirely, and sadly a part of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. While I respect that most members of these religions hold views that I don't agree with (eg that a higher being guides their moral stances), there is no way in the world I should be expected to respect those values. How can anyone be honest and respect values that are guided by something they know doesn't exist? So, for the majority in each religion who aren't extremists, I have a live and let live approach. I respect their right to be into religion as long as they respect my right to not be religious. But when it comes to religious extremists, no matter what their religion, I don't respect them and I don't respect their attempts to abuse and subjugate others based on their twisted views. If it can be explained to me why I should be expected to have respected the religious views of the Taliban, anti-choice fundies who attack doctors and women, or extremist settlers who have in the past attacked and murdered innocent Palestinians, destroyed their olive crops, kicked them out of their homes, and more recently abused the memory of the Holocaust with their 'dramatics' and attacked Israeli police and troops, then I'd be very interested to know why I should respect extremists....

Of course the intention of the extremist settlers is to harm others. They want a Greater Israel either free of Arabs or there in a capacity of menial servants (credit to something I read yesterday from Amos Oz that I must remember to track down and post in a minute). The extremist settlers who've carried out those actions I described above most definately intend to cause harm. Saying that they don't is like trying to say that the early settlers here weren't trying to harm the indigenous population when they chased them down and either shot them or put them to work for next to nothing, their intent was to protect their sheep and cattle from being taken...

There's no 'apparent fact' that the Palestinian people hate Jews and therefore want to make the Gaza Strip free of Jews. Considering Amira Hass has been living there, and I can think of other Jews who have lived amongst the Palestinians, it appears to me that this particular argument might be borne out of a confusion about Israel dismantling its illegal settlements in Gaza. Because it's the Arab-free settlements and bypass roads and the associated injustices of an occupying power allowing and encouraging its population to move into occupied territory that the Palestinians won't want to see again in Gaza. So using words like 'completely eradicating' when speaking of the intentions of one population is imo as inflammatory as using it in reverse about the other population...

If you have something from the PA on citizenship in a future Palestinian state, I'd be interested in seeing it...

And if Hamas were to control Gaza, why would anyone, let alone Jews, want to live there?

Violet....

[Colorado Blue]

24. Wow. That's, respectfully, some pretty broad-brushed

analysis.

I'd like to suggest, having consulted with some people who know more about the settlers than I do, that your portrayal of them as twisted, destructive bigots is more than a little innaccurate. I say this with the understanding that, as I've previously asserted, I don't agree with their POV. But I think such broad-brushed statements are provocative and contribute to the misunderstandings that mar any attempts to have constructive discussions on these topics.

Most of the settlers are not extremists, point number one. These types of statements are just as prejudicial and bigoted as those which paint all Palestinians as terrorists. There were very few attacks on Israeli and troops police during the disengagement. And, no one's saying you should respect extremists - merely people, as humans, just we are expected to understand why terrorists blow themselves up. And, I'd like to add this thought: political and/or ideological extremism is every bit as dangerous as religious extremism, and stereotyping is a symptom of both.

For example, you assert: "Of course the intention of the extremist settlers is to harm others."

This is an unqualified assumption. There seems to be little doubt that you are calling all settlers extremists who have as their main intention to harm others. That's an amazing statement, considering that I doubt you've ever spoken to any of these people, or heard their point of view, or listened to their own stories.

In any case, I would suggest that in cases where settlers have committed bad acts, they are doing so because they are misguided people and NOT because of any form of Judaism. I think it's important to recognize that there are bad people in any community but to say they are bad because of their RELIGION is to flirt with bigotry.

You also state, "There's no 'apparent fact' that the Palestinian people hate Jews and therefore want to make the Gaza Strip free of Jews. Considering Amira Hass has been living there, and I can think of other Jews who have lived amongst the Palestinians, it appears to me that this particular argument might be borne out of a confusion about Israel dismantling its illegal settlements in Gaza."

I'm really a little confused about this comment, considering that Arabs have subjugated Jews for centuries under the bigoted "dhimmi" system, won't even allow them in Saudi Arabia and have essentially "ethnically cleansed" the entire Middle East of their ancient Jewish populations. Perhaps I'm wrong and the Palestinians, since they have allowed Amira Hass to live in their midst, are actually very tolerant people who would welcome a Jewish community?

In view of the Gaza/West Bank withdrawal, not to mention many decades of terror and the unfortunate rejection of Jewish history, religion, philosophy and of course the non-recognition of Israel, you're darn right I'm not too clear on this point. Nor, as I am not close to Palestinian leadership, do I have any information as to their future intentions regarding Jewish citizenship in a Palestinian state, but I would certainly welcome hearing if you possess any such information! Indeed, an assertion by Abbas, welcoming for example the townspeople of Ariel into the Palestinian fold, would be a breathtaking development that would go far to heal the wound that afflicts I/P.

I'll keep my ears open.

Finally, the fact that Hamas has gathered a great deal of political strength AT THE BALLOT BOX suggests to me that quite a few Palestinian citizens would actually welcome the opportunity to live under such a regime.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. No it's not, We're talking about extremist settlers...

..not all settlers. I've been very clear in making a distinction here in this forum between extremist settlers and secular settlers. In the post you replied to I specified them by their actions: '...or extremist settlers who have in the past attacked and murdered innocent Palestinians, destroyed their olive crops, kicked them out of their homes, and more recently abused the memory of the Holocaust with their 'dramatics' and attacked Israeli police and troops,..'

In another very recent thread I made sure the distinction was clear as well: 'I know the more secular settlers were screwed over by Israeli govts, but the secular settlers have long gone, and they're not the people Wiesel is talking about when he speaks of angry settlers being dragged onto buses etc.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x99294#99297

I'm not understanding what is broad-brushed about knowing the distinction between secular and extremist settlers, CB. When I speak of extremists, I mean the extremists...

But I think such broad-brushed statements are provocative and contribute to the misunderstandings that mar any attempts to have constructive discussions on these topics.

Now that we've gotten what wasn't a broad-brush statement out of the way, I thought yr statement was a good lead-in to the second half of yr post...

You also state, "There's no 'apparent fact' that the Palestinian people hate Jews and therefore want to make the Gaza Strip free of Jews. Considering Amira Hass has been living there, and I can think of other Jews who have lived amongst the Palestinians, it appears to me that this particular argument might be borne out of a confusion about Israel dismantling its illegal settlements in Gaza."

I'm really a little confused about this comment, considering that Arabs have subjugated Jews for centuries under the bigoted "dhimmi" system, won't even allow them in Saudi Arabia and have essentially "ethnically cleansed" the entire Middle East of their ancient Jewish populations. Perhaps I'm wrong and the Palestinians, since they have allowed Amira Hass to live in their midst, are actually very tolerant people who would welcome a Jewish community?

I thought I'd bold that last sentence and refer you back to yr own words on making broad-brush statements. I don't think anything else needs to be said...

Okay, you said you don't have any information on any future citizenship laws from the PA. I never claimed I had, as I find it a bit bizarre that they'd be at that stage when the prospect of statehood doesn't seem close at all. But what I won't do is make sweeping generalisations in order to paint the Palestinian people as bigots, which is why I suspect that in any negotiated settlement of the conflict, there'll probably be some sort of swap within the populations and that Israelis who wish to live as Palestinian citizens under Palestinian law will 'swap' with Palestinians who have family in Israel and wish to become Israeli citizens living under Israeli law...

Violet...

[eyl]

26. In defense of people I know

I feel compelled to point out that "religous settler"!="extremist settler" - in either direction (the terrorist who killed four Palestinians during the evacuation was secular, for example).

I've been very clear in making a distinction here in this forum between extremist settlers and secular settlers

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Aren't the vast bulk of the extremists religious?

Me, I'm happy just to call them extremist settlers. The accusation that was made earlier was that I paint all settlers as being extremists, when the fact is that I don't do that at all...

btw, this is the comment from Colorado Blue that started the discussion off about religious setters: 'As far as the settlers are concerned, they have been violent, heedless of Arab concerns; they may be politically in the wrong; but they have also suffered great losses and their historic claims are very real. Their religious point of view is absolutely as valid as any other religious point of view, including Christian or Muslim.'

Violet...

[eyl]

28. I just thought the point should be made

for the record, so to speak.

Most of the extremists are religous, but not all; and not all the religous settlers are extremists.

[eyl]

11. Nice essay

However, several comments:

1)About Camp David, I would note that there are multiple accounts from the US side, not just an "official" one, which lay much of the blame for the failure of the talks on the Palestinians.

2) I think it's rather inaccurate to say that "For the Israelis Oslo would bring about a Palestinian mini-state with no power and still controlled by Israel, no settlements being removed apart from a few isolated outposts, and legitimization of the annexation of Jerusalem". Most of the Israelis who supported the Oslo process supported a two-state solution, and recognized it would require the removal of the settlements (or most of them, at least) as well as some sort of compromise on Jerusalem.

3)While I can't say Netanyahu was an enthusiastic supporter of Oslo, he did take it forward; his "crawl", as you describe it, was among other things caused by his insistence (for which he was exorciated by the Israeli left and the international community) for "reciprocity - i.e., that Israel would not fulfill its obligations if the Palestinians would refuse to carry out theirs.

4) You seem to limit your criticism of Arafat and the PA to sins of omission. In reality, it went beyond that. For most Israelis, the heart of the Oslo Accords were the security arrangements; and I'm hard-pressed to think of a single one of those clauses the PA didn't violate. Several examples:

A) The PA was gearing up for a conflict with Israel throughout the 90s. The PA security forces were expanded to at least twice the agreed-upon maximum size; they were also stockpiling weapons well beyond the agreed limitations (both in type and number). All this was open knowledge, by the way, but the politicians ignored it so as to not rock the boat.

B) Often, in accounts of the halcyon days of Oslo, the Tunnel Riots are omitted. During those riots, in a series of incidents, Palestinian security forces attacked IDF troops, killing 17 in total. Now, I can't prove for a fact that Arafat ordered those attacks. However, the riots were (among other sources) incited by misinformation in the Palestinian media, including the PA's official news organs. Given what happened to journalists who published things that Arafat disliked, it's implausible this would be published without his consent. Note also that the misinformation in question (mainly, that the Tunnel was being dug to undermine Al-Aqsa Mosque) would have been obviously false to anyone who spent two minutes in fact-checking.

C) Palestinian security forces members were often complicit directly in attacks on Israelis; no action was ever taken against them (even not to the extent of removing them from their posts).

D) Palestinian security forces also assisted terrorists from other organizations. For example, there were instances were Israel gave intelligence on the locations of terrorists to the PA, which then turned around and warned them. Another example I can personally attest to - there was a Hamas terrorist (or IJ, I don't remember the precise details) who was wanted by Israel. The PA, in response to Israeli demands for him, kept saying they didn't know where he was. Eventually, he was captured while he was en route from Ramallah (where he was living) to Nablus - in the company of a Palestinian police escort, which he apparently received in the assumption that the IDF wouldn't stop them.

E) Beyond that, terrorists would often be jailed for show, then released shortly afterwards. There's an account I've seen in several newspaper articles (though I haven't been able to confirm it) of Alistair Crooke (who was, at the time, a special envoy for the EU, IIRC) visiting a Palestinian jail, and being shown, as a token of their fight against terrorism, several Hamas prisoners (in their cells); afterwards, as he was sitting in his car, he saw those same men freely leaving the prison.

5) You neglect to mention that the second intifada was in full swing by the time Sharon was elected. A large portion of the Israeli public was feeling betrayed by the Palestinians use of violence. On this subject, it should also be noted that several Palestinian officials have claimed that the violence was pre-planned*, with Sharon's visit to the Mount being a pretext; supporting this is the fact that the violence actually preceded Sharon's visit - two members of the Israeli security forces were killed in the two days before that.

*It's my belief that Arafat was after a reproduction of the events of 1996 (and on a smaller scale, his flirting with terrorism throughout the 90s). Some violence, some Israelis and Palestinians killed, and then a return to the negotiation table, with most of the international pressure on Israel. However, he played with fire once too often, and it spun out of his control.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Thanks, eyl...

Especially for yr comments, some of which I agree with, and some of which I don't...

Out of curiousity, you gave five examples of where the PA failed to keep its side of agreements, but do you think there's areas where Israel also failed to keep its side of agreements? I think I mentioned in the essay that it was the failure on the part of both sides to keep to agreements that eventually soured both Israeli and Palestinian populations to the peace process...

Violet...

[eyl]

13. IMO

The primary failure on the Israeli side was the continuing expansion of the settlements - in particular the more isolated ones, where it should have been clear that they would not end up in Israeli territory. While, IIRC, it was not a violation of the letter of Oslo, it was certainly a violation of its spirit, and a stupid thing in general. While there were other places Israel did not live up to the agreements, that was generally in response to Palestinian violations.

One more thing I forgot to mention earlier. I think the primary cause of failure of the Oslo process was not that it had problems, but rather preserving the process became, in a way, an end to itself - one so important that the politicians or activists involved were often unwilling to admit those problems even existed, much less criticizing* or challenging the offending party.

*Well, at least when it came to criticizing the Palestinians - no-one seemed to have a problem criticising Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Yeah, I agree that was pretty much the primary cause of the failure...

And that politicians and activists who should have been involved were in some cases frozen out of the process - this seems to have happened a fair bit when it came to the Palestinians due to Arafat and his love of cronyism...

Violet...

[rfkrfk]

14. Oslo Accords, the Arafat full employment act

There are times when you should not accept a deal.
This was one of those times.

[tucoramirez2005]

16. Oslo failed because Arafat

only represented one faction of the Palestinian people, and couldn't control some others.

There really is no central authority to represent the Palestinians.

After the assassination of Rabin and the Gaza withdrawal, you could probably make the case that the same situation exists for the other side as well.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. I don't agree that there wasn't a central authority...

For better or worse, both Palestinians and Israelis were represented by legitimate representatives of their respective populations. When it comes to competing factions and not being able to control them, that doesn't make the representatives less legitimate, it makes them appear ineffectual and weak, imo...

Violet...

[eyl]

21. Not really

when he found the political will to do so*, Arafat managed to rein in Hamas rather effectively.

And I don't see how the disengagement shows a lack of control on the part of Israel's government.

*After a series of suicide bombings in 1996, Israel threatened to invade the PA-controlled territories unless Arafat acted against Hamas - it's astounding how quickly he did so.

[bemildred]

29. As you will have noticed by now, nits can be picked.

But on the whole a sterling effort, Violet (with references).
:applause:

[bluesoul]

30. Absolutely

Violet rules, yeah! :pals:

:yourock: