The only national unity government that matters is the one that recognizes that Israel is Palestine and Palestine is Israel. Sorry to say, but any others just don't or won't cut the mustard.

Posted by: Alan Goldstein at October 4, 2006 04:17 PM | Permalink to this comment

All this is nice, but, untill the Palestinians stop shooting each other, all the fine statements in the world will not be worth the paper they are written on.

Posted by: David All at October 4, 2006 05:42 PM | Permalink to this comment

There are probably a number of other things that also need to happen before there can be any serious Israeli-Palestinian dialouge, what I said in the previous post is just the one that is most obvious. I apologize if anyone was offend by my statement in the previous post.

Posted by: David All at October 4, 2006 05:45 PM | Permalink to this comment

I don't think I've ever been less optimistic for a comprehensive settlement of the Israel/Palestine question in the foreseeable future. There are now far too many people who are invested in continued hostilities, and will engage in provocations designed to derail any comprehensive settlement.

I would suggest that what the "moderate Arab states" really told Condi is that the things were only going to get worse unless the US adopts a far less accomodating posture toward Israeli actions. At the very least, the US should ban the sale of "cluster bombs" to Israel, considering the rather impressive evidence that Israel used them against civilian targets....

Posted by: p.lukasiak at October 4, 2006 06:15 PM | Permalink to this comment

Let's give the Israelis a deal: Over 3-5 years, the U.S. will subsidize moving and living expenses (for some finite period) for every Israeli citizen who packs up and moves to the States and stays within its borders, permanently. To all the pigheaded Israelis who stay behind, we offer -- squat. They're on their own. Not one "loaned" nickel, not one bullet.

Won't happen, I know. But I'll bet it'd be cheaper than what we've got going now, and in the long run, it'll be better for the Israelis themselves. Because whether it's ten years from now, or fifty, or a century, they're going to lose. Their long-term strategic situation is awful, and getting worse.

Posted by: sglover at October 4, 2006 06:29 PM | Permalink to this comment

There are now far too many people who are invested in continued hostilities, and will engage in provocations designed to derail any comprehensive settlement.

Yes, chief among them being the "moderate Arab states" who would lose the ability to blame each and every one of their own self-inflicted and self-induced problems on the hated "Zionists" and their "Crusader" allies.

There's a saying which I think goes like this: if the Arabs disarmed themselves, there would be peace. If the Israelis disarmed themselves, there would be no more Israelis.

Clinton, to his credit, did as much as could be expected and helped to offer the Palestinians their best chance and they chose war. That piece of shit Arafat visited the White House more than any other World "leader". All the while, the Islamist threat was metastisizing, and Arafat was, as usual, talking out of both sides of his ass.

Poor Greg is distraught that the Bush administration has realized that there is really little they can do until the Palestinians themselves and the so-called "moderate" Arab states decide they want peace more than they do war. And no amount of appeasing terrorists or pressuring the Israelis will change that.

But hey, self-absorbed narcissists that we are, we think that if only WE pressured the Israelis, then WE can achieve "peace", as if the world revolves solely around OUR desires or what WE want to do.

Let's give the Israelis a deal: Over 3-5 years, the U.S. will subsidize moving and living expenses (for some finite period) for every Israeli citizen who packs up and moves to the States and stays within its borders, permanently. To all the pigheaded Israelis who stay behind, we offer -- squat. They're on their own. Not one "loaned" nickel, not one bullet.

How about we offer all those idiot Spaniards living in al-Andalus the same thing as well. Perhaps we can offer my fellow Greek countrymen the same thing since after all, they're living on "occupied" Ottoman Muslim lands.

Posted by: Finn at October 4, 2006 07:38 PM | Permalink to this comment

The agreement isn't that hard to see:

Isreal back to its 67 borders...except some trading of land to accommodate Jerusalem.

No "right of return" for the Palestinians, whose 1948 ancestors forfeited that right when they tried to expel the Jews who were already in Isreal. There are consequences to losing wars.

This deal was on the table in 2000, and Arafat famously decided to reject it.

Pressure is a two way street. The Palestinians have to be forced into this deal, too...Maybe, if the various moderate countries refused to admit palestinian immigrants and sent them all home, or refused to finance the Palestinians until they caved.

As for sglover --well, it's not your home you're talking about, is it?

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at October 4, 2006 07:39 PM | Permalink to this comment

I certainly agree with most of this post. I really wish that Bush would begin to engage Iran and leave any threat of anything to the next administration. However, while US leadership is needed to resolve the Arab-Israeli problem, the real need is for the Arab governments to engage themselves in the process rather than scape goat the issue to divert attention from their own short comings. If Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, etc... actively engaged themselves when the Clinton administration was working toward resolution this might have been resloved. I am sceptical if the key Arab states want this solved or if they would prefer to use it as a wedge issue to focus all attention on this one conflict. Certainly we could agree that while this is a serious issue there are many other serious issues in the region and this is just one of many hurdles that need to be dealt with.

Posted by: R Bettencourt at October 4, 2006 07:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

If Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, etc... actively engaged themselves when the Clinton administration was working toward resolution this might have been resloved.

I pretty much agree with this statement. If Clinton had had more time, I think a deal would have been finalized --- IMHO Arafat's "walkout" was a negotiating tactic designed primarily for his own constituency -- a few meaningless additional "concessions" from Israel (and relentless pressure from Arafat's Arab allies) would have been all that was needed.

(it is also essential to remember that while an "agreement" could have been signed by Arafat and Barak, the "fine print" would still have to be negotiated, and with Knesset elections scheduled for February, and there is considerable question whether Barak could have gotten a comprehensive peace settlement through the Knesset in the charged political atmosphere that existed in Israel at that point in time.)

In other words, chalk up another grossly miscalculation for Bushco -- his rejection of all things Clinton meant the failure to followup on the enormous amount of progress that had been achieved toward a comprehensive settlement -- and an extraordinary opportunity was missed.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at October 4, 2006 08:14 PM | Permalink to this comment

"The goal must be security and full recognition to the state of Israel within internationally recognized borders, an end to the occupation for the Palestinian people in a viable independent, sovereign state, and the return of lost land to Syria."

The fundamental problem here is that the Moslems do not recognize the right of Israel to exist within internationally recognized borders, nor will they ever do so regardless of how many good feet we put forward, or how many diplomats we send. There is no realistic diplomatic option. "Diplomacy" could only take the form of jawboning Israel into making more concessions for zero gain to its security. Our only realistic options are to make it abundantly clear to Israel's enemies that we will support her to the hilt, militarily and economically, and inflict as much pain on them in the process as possible, until they concede her that right, or to abandon another ally.

Given the history of the Jews, and the fact that the Moslems only occupied the region to begin with by virtue of successful military agression, Israel has every right to exist there within secure boundaries. Peace is in the hands of the Moslems, not Israel. They are the aggressors, and peace will only come when they cease their aggression. They could have peace tomorrow if they conceded Israel the right to exist, and allowed her to live in peace within secure boundaries. They do not concede her that right. They will never do so as long as they see Israel's "allies" forcing her to make more concessions in order to "move the peace process forward," and "get the diplomatic process started." The choice, then, is between doing what is right, supporting an ally as she defends herself from naked aggression, and abandoning Israel to eliminate a "root cause" of Moslem discontent and serve an extremely short-sighted perception of our national interests. The hope of the "diplomatists" is, of course, that the Moslems will be so pleased by this Western collapse that they will all become "moderate," and terrorism will go away. There is no historical evidence that appeasement of aggression can accomplish any such goal. I know the "diplomatists" don't like to hear that ugly word, appeasement. They prefer euphemisms such as "bringing about mutual understanding," "comprehensive settlements," and "peaceful enduring solutions." The correct word, my friends, is appeasement.

Posted by: Helian at October 4, 2006 08:16 PM | Permalink to this comment

As for sglover --well, it's not your home you're talking about, is it?

Nope. Just my wasted taxes.

Posted by: sglover at October 4, 2006 09:09 PM | Permalink to this comment

I pretty much agree with this statement. If Clinton had had more time, I think a deal would have been finalized --- IMHO Arafat's "walkout" was a negotiating tactic designed primarily for his own constituency -- a few meaningless additional "concessions" from Israel (and relentless pressure from Arafat's Arab allies) would have been all that was needed.

Expect that pressure never came and never will come as long as so-called "moderate" Arab states continue to use the "Zionists" and their "Crusader" allies as scapegoats for their own massive massive failures with the help of their enablers in the West. And Arafat would never have settled for being the man who surrendured "Palestine" to the hated "Zionists" and the treasured "right of return". He would be the man to conquer Palestine and return al-Quds to the Dar al Islam, the modern day Saladin. After the Intifida was unleashed, the Saudis, rather cynically, offered their own "peace initiative", so long of course as the "right of return" of the Palestinians to their pre-48 "homes" was preserved. This is lunacy and obviously a non-starter. It is also an indication that the right of Israel to exist among Arabs in general simply doesn't exist. Further, all one has to do is to peruse that swampland that passes for the Arab press which regularly and enthusiastically produce some of the worst anti-semitic, anti-Western garbage on the planet. Of all the parties who would benefit the least from the change in the status quo towards peaceful co-existence between Arabs and Israelis, it is the Arab dictatorships, our "allies". The ones who have the most to gain are Palestinian Arabs followed by Arabs in general. And that is the deliciously tragic paradox.

You can, of course, continue to blame Bush, if it makes you feel better. But it is not up to the American President to establish peace between two parties, especially when one party has absolutely no intention of pursuing peace, but rather hudna if necessary. To make matters worse, like an alcoholic or battered wife, the rejectionist party is being enabled and excused by the West to continue pursuing its self-destructive behaviour by refusing to be held accountable for their actions and decisions. As long as the Palestinians feel like they can get away with their self-destructive behaviour, you will not have peace.

Posted by: Finn at October 4, 2006 09:40 PM | Permalink to this comment

"battered wife", I meant abusive husband, although "battered wife" would be an appropriate analogy for the relationship between Palestinians in general and their pisspoor leaders and their Arab or Muslim "allies" or patrons. That or canon-fodder.

Posted by: Finn at October 4, 2006 09:48 PM | Permalink to this comment

Yes, it's lovely isn't it?

Between the Arab dictatorships (propped up by US dollars and guns) ignoring the Palestinians, or using them as excuses and inflammatory propaganda, and Israel keeping them in giant concentration camps, and murdering families at will, with US guns and money, and the Palestinian radicals conducting terrorist operations against Israeli civilians including women and children, it is all reminiscent of Macedonia many decades past.

Posted by: hsmith at October 4, 2006 10:15 PM | Permalink to this comment

The comments on this blog show pretty conclusively how far we are from any possibility of peace. Until israelis feel they can survive a peace, there can't be one.

Of course israelis feel like there's no way for arabs to forgive them. Arabs/jews. muslims/jews. Neither one has much room for forgiveness. Whatever happened in 1940 or 1948 or 1967, israelis are bombing whatever arabs they want to, this year. Whenever-the-hell they feel like it. That isn't something that's easy to forgive. Americans don't understand that. If al qaeda announced that they saw that 9/11 was wrong, and they apologised and promised they'd never do anything like that ever again, we of course would immediately forgive them and not want to kill any more of them. But it doesn't work that way in the middle east. They're different from us. Israel has got a lot of arabs hating them, and there's no easy way to stop riding that tiger. They have to keep the upper hand, and to keep the upper hand they have to keep arabs suppressed, and they can't negotiate away that suppression without risking extra-dangerous arabs, and they can't have peace without that risk.

Notice the fantasies in above comments about what arabs really want compared to what israelis want. "Moslems are the aggressors." "Arafat rejected peace in 2000." Same old same old. As long as israelis fail to discredit such things they won't be ready for any sort of agreement.

I'd suggest an addition to sglover's reasonable suggestion. Let's offer the same deal to palestinians. Permanent residence in the USA, an honest shot at citizenship, and moderately-generous resettling expenses. The fact is, israel/palestine doesn't have enough water for israelis to live decently, much less palestinians too. Any peace would have to give palestinians a decent share of water, and that water does not exist. But if the population got reduced by about 80% -- preferably 80% of both populations -- then there would be enough.

Posted by: J Thomas at October 4, 2006 10:57 PM | Permalink to this comment

Expect that pressure never came and never will come as long as so-called "moderate" Arab states continue to use the "Zionists" and their "Crusader" allies as scapegoats for their own massive massive failures with the help of their enablers in the West.

nice misinterpretation.

the point is that we were very close to a peace agreement, and had Bush pressured both the moderate Arab states supporting Arafat, and Israel, that a comprehensive settlement was achievable. Instead, Bush literally abandoned any pretext of US involvement in the peace process.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at October 4, 2006 11:27 PM | Permalink to this comment

sglover wants voluntary ethnic self-cleansing by Jews.

J Thomas is hoping for voluntary ethinic self-cleansing by everyone.

I guess the UN could make palestine a cautionary theme park and religious shrine. (They should set ones up in Tibet and Mecca, too, just to be fair)

But, frankly, I as a taxpayer and citizen of the world am weary of all the bad karma generated out of the Holy Lands. It gets the Islamofascists all bent out of shape, our fundamentalists all loony, our lobbyists far too rich, and our President far too incompetent. So, let's just eliminate that part of the world. Shoot a few nukes, erase isreal and Palestine from our maps and our history. Heck, hezbollah wont have anything to complain about any more. Iran will see we're serious, and stop that nuke program. Of course, the churches of the workld may resent the loss of some of their holiest shrines, and there will be a lot of innocent dead people, but we sure won't have those expensive terrorism problems no more. Nukes are cheap, man.

What is it about Isreal that makes ordinarily sane folk lose their minds? Is it the idea that since the Arabs are so implacably opposed to it, they must be right? Well, down here in Atlanta GA, there used to be a lot of folk implacably opposed to black people? Can you folks see the parallels?

OK. Excuse the rant. Bush is a fool for not trying to resolve Isreal -- particularly after Arafat's passing. But "tough" means being tough with both sides -- not just Isreal. And the left needs to figure out that what the left decries in the American South -- good old racism -- is much of the problem in the Middle East.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at October 4, 2006 11:29 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Notice the fantasies in above comments about what arabs really want compared to what israelis want. "Moslems are the aggressors." "Arafat rejected peace in 2000." Same old same old. As long as israelis fail to discredit such things they won't be ready for any sort of agreement."

One can only discredit the "same old same old" if it isn't true. In fact, the "same old same old" is true, no matter how convincing you are to yourself in striking heroic poses of superior wisdom. You can wave your hands about our "fantasies," or you can debate. Go ahead! Let's get down to cases! I'd like to hear you enlighten us all about Arafats "positive response" to Barak's concessions. By all means, elucidate your version of the "facts" for us. On the other hand, if you want to keep waving your hands about "discredited" facts, go ahead, but don't expect us to take you seriously. Israelis, as opposed to the Arabs, have never indiscriminately bombed anyone. Unlike the Arabs and Hezbollah, they do not deliberately target civilians. If you want to debate these facts, go ahead and try, but you won't get very far. In the first place, you don't know what you're talking about, and, in the second, you're much more comfortable striking moralistic poses.

The fact is that the Israelis have effectively defended themselves from the aggression of those who would destroy them. Apparently the act of defending themselves makes them an object of reproach as far as you are concerned. The claim that they are morally equivalent to their enemies in deliberately targeting "families" and civilians in general is simply a lie. They require no "forgiveness" from anyone for defending themselves. The fact is that, if their enemies stop attacking them, and give up their determination to wipe them off the face of the map, there could be peace in the region tomorrow. If their enemies do not give up that determination, there is no point in diplomacy.

Posted by: Helian at October 4, 2006 11:33 PM | Permalink to this comment

sglover wants voluntary ethnic self-cleansing by Jews.

Yeah. I want them to move to the Hobbesian nightmare of Long Island, or maybe Southern Califronia. I'm an anti-Semite -- that's coming real, real soon, isn't it? Go fuck yourself. I'm a secular, agnostic American, asshole. I'm tired of getting dragged into millenia-old superstition-fueled grudge matches.

Posted by: sglover at October 5, 2006 12:34 AM | Permalink to this comment

"There must be something in the Mid-East that renders men insane."

--A.J.P. Taylor, commenting on British involvement with Syria

"Everyone in the Mid-East is nuts."

--boyfriend of mine, Christian-Arab background, explaining why he and his family left.

Posted by: tzs at October 5, 2006 01:00 AM | Permalink to this comment

Every day more Israelis move to the west bank with or without government approval. According to Robert Pape of UofC their is a direct relationshipe between settlment and suicide bombing. The more bombings of pizza parlors the less Isreal wants to stop "settling". So a final two state solution gets harder the longer it is put off. We will have wasted eight years under bushco. In the end if peace is ever to be achieved it will be like the Isr/egypt peace with US paying both side. So what if Israelis are on a per/capita basis the most subsidised population in the world and the palestinina survive almost exclusivly on aide ....Maybe the idea mention above about turning the are into a type of religious theme park/world cultural zone has some merit...the world might as well get something for all the aide doled out to both sides!!!

Posted by: centrist at October 5, 2006 01:03 AM | Permalink to this comment

PS a reasonable two state solution or a world religious/culttural zone may only be posseble after both sides sober up and that may just take a limited nuclear exchange.

Posted by: centrist at October 5, 2006 01:17 AM | Permalink to this comment

"Every day more Israelis move to the west bank with or without government approval."

So you belong to the Know Nothing Party, then? You oppose immigration, and, especially, illegal immigration? Should Hispanic "settlements" be removed from the US as well? Should Albanian "settlements" be removed from Kosovo? Should Islamic "settlements" be removed from Europe? Tell me, why should ethnic cleansing be applied to some people and referred to as "removing settlements," yet violently condemned when it is applied to other ethnic groups? Why should immigration, and, especially, illegal immigration, be condoned for some groups, but not for others? I'd really like to know. How is it that ethnic cleansing is generally condemned, except in the case, for example, of the Jews living in Gaza? If it is reasonable and justifiable to ethnically cleanse Jews from Arab zones, why is it not equally reasonable to ethnically cleanse Arabs from Jewish zones? Just asking.

Posted by: Helian at October 5, 2006 01:28 AM | Permalink to this comment

After 9/11, I thought the prudent thing to do was Afghanistan and then the Israeli-Palestine peace process.

Instead, Bush went into Iraq with the Mid East peace process languishing.

You supported him, Greg.

Posted by: Chris at October 5, 2006 02:09 AM | Permalink to this comment

the point is that we were very close to a peace agreement, and had Bush pressured both the moderate Arab states supporting Arafat, and Israel, that a comprehensive settlement was achievable. Instead, Bush literally abandoned any pretext of US involvement in the peace process.

We're actually very close to a peace agreement TODAY. In Israel, there is, consistently, a great majority, over 65-70%, who are willing to make the necessary painful comprises to achieve a lasting peace if, IF they were convinced a sincere partner existed. Such a sincere partner, sadly does.not.exist! THAT IS THE POINT.

But hey, it's always so much more fun to blame the Jews. We've been mastering the art for over 2000+ years. Why stop now??

Posted by: Finn at October 5, 2006 03:48 AM | Permalink to this comment

You can wave your hands about our "fantasies," or you can debate. Go ahead! Let's get down to cases! .... On the other hand, if you want to keep waving your hands about "discredited" facts, go ahead, but don't expect us to take you seriously.

Absolutely not. You guys have a collective obsession about this stuff. You have databases full of these fantasies. There's no way you'd take any alternative view seriously no matter what. And debating details with you only encourages you. It's not worth it. Believe what you want to, you will anyway.

Entirely apart from the moralistic poses, in the medium run israel is in an untenable position. There's a feedback loop of revenge going. Once a positive feedback starts it hardly matters how it started, each escalating step in it is caused by the one before. You're welcome to argue about whether the problem is due to an arab attack in 1948 or a pogrom in 1920 or a riot in 1892 or an eviction in 1830 or whatever. Leave me out of it. It's a goddam feedback loop that's real hard to damp down. Of course you guys argue that it's entirely the arabs' responsibility to damp it down, israel is justified in ramping it up. I don't care about justifications, it's heading for a critical failure and I don't want my country held responsible for it.

The USA is israel's ally. Israel is not the USA's ally. We need to get some distance there. No dual citizenship. You can be israeli or you can be american, you can't be both. And we need to offer every israeli a place in the USA, and the chance for US citizenship. Similarly with palestinians, not just the ones in palestine but palestinians all over the world.

We must dissolve the agreement that says we give israel all the oil they need. We can give them oil but by our choice, not by promise. But that's a side issue, they're only using something like 300,000 barrels a day (if the numbers aren't fudged). The central thing is to help noncombatants to get out of the area. When it pops there should be no one in israel/palestine except those who choose to be there.

There can't be peace unless both sides trust the other to keep agreements. At present neither has that trust. Israel has gone right on assassinating Hamas leaders through each cease-fire, and then blaming Hamas retaliation for each cease-fire breaking. I'm not making a moral point atout that. They didn't believe there could be peace, and killing those guys did give them an edge when the fighting inevitably started again. They were doing the right thing in their view. But it's one more example where arabs don't believe they can depend on treaties with israel. And I don't have to tell you why israelis don't believe arabs would keep treaties, you know.

Peace just isn't in the cards. And it can't stay balanced like it is either.

Israel is going to be facing choices I wouldn't wish on anybody. It's in the USA's worst interest to be an ally to them. The most valuable thing we can do is to evacuate as many noncombatants as possible. The situation is no longer salvageable.

Tragedy. You're welcome to argue about whose fault it is all you want. But with somebody else, I'm not interested.

Posted by: J Thomas at October 5, 2006 04:06 AM | Permalink to this comment

Back during the twin crises over Lebanon and the Falklands in 1982 I had the bright idea that we could kill two birds with one stone by establishing a Palestinian state in the South Atlantic.

With Palestinians in the Falklands neither Argentina nor Britain would want them, so there would be no need for a war. And every Arab state, starting with Lebanon, could not be but delighted in a just and lasting peace that sent Palestinians as far away from them as possible. Sadly Margaret Thatcher had other ideas, so this project never got past the conceptual stage then, yet another Zathrasian brainstorm condemned to oblivion by unimaginative politicians.

I've written here before that for me all the history and the myriad individual issues tied in with the Palestinian-Israeli quarrel fall into a big box bearing the label "Other People's Problems." I see no American interest in expanding Jewish settlements on the West Bank, and will never believe trying to be an "honest broker" between Israel and Arabs committed to Israel's destruction is something Washington could ever do practically, politically or morally. Between those two poles there ought to be considerable room for American diplomacy to maneuver, at least as far as I am concerned, to keep the peace process going at least enough to prevent the absence of peace from being blamed on us. I see no resolution in sight, and am sure we will not bring it about by desiring it more than the people who live in the region.

But what I think we should do and what the Bush administration feels able to do are two different things. It is perfectly conceivable that an American President could justify a change of course, toward the settlements first of all and later toward facilitating negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, without abandoning his support of the Jewish state. This American President doesn't feel he can do that, indeed has probably never considered doing that. He has given the government in Tel Aviv a practical veto over what the policy of his administration in the region can be.

I don't like that, but that's where we are. The question seems to me to be what can be done between now and January of '09 to keep the region from blowing up again, given that the administration appears not even to want what maneuvering room it has. It should be possible -- even after all that has happened, none of the parties in the region has a strong reason to prefer war -- but it won't be easy.

Posted by: Zathras at October 5, 2006 04:59 AM | Permalink to this comment

@J Thomas

"Absolutely not. You guys have a collective obsession about this stuff. You have databases full of these fantasies. There's no way you'd take any alternative view seriously no matter what. And debating details with you only encourages you. It's not worth it. Believe what you want to, you will anyway."

Whatever. Now that you've demonstrated your inability to debate the facts on their merits, I'll leave you to regale those who are as convinced of your genius as you are. "We guys" will just have to struggle on and deal with our collective obsessions without you.

Posted by: Helian at October 5, 2006 09:57 AM | Permalink to this comment

But hey, it's always so much more fun to blame the Jews. We've been mastering the art for over 2000+ years. Why stop now??

why is it that discussions of the Israel/Palestine issue always bring out the crazy ones?

I didn't blame "the Jews". I blamed Bush for abandoning the peace process at a point where a comprehensive settlement was possible.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at October 5, 2006 12:58 PM | Permalink to this comment

Now that you've demonstrated your inability to debate the facts on their merits,

Have not. I"ve demonstrated that I'm *unwilling* to. It's not worth it. Go through and give links and you guys change the subject. Or you point to something earlier and claim that nothing I said is relevant because it all happened because of that. Spin it down to some minor point and talk like that's the only thing that matters. Then when I provide links on the minor point that show you're wrong there, what do I get? You shut up for maybe 2 days and then you start it up just like nothing happened.

I"m not even that interested. You guys are compulsive about it. I am not compulsive. And you're always busy trying to prove that israel is blameless. Take the other side of that and win, and what do I get? You'd call me antisemitic for trying to blame everything on israel.

It's stupid. You're stupid to do it, and I'd be stupid to encourage you in it. Look, after WWI the allies blamed it all on germany. They did punitive sanctions. And the result was WWII. After WWII we didn't care about that shit. We did the Marshall Plan and we rebuild france and germany both. We didn't argue about whose fault WWII was. It worked a lot better that way.

After the israel situation melts down we might be strong enough to do something like that. We could rebuild israel and palestine and turn it into a very nice place for about a million people to live. WIth luck there will be that many survivors to live there. At that point I"m not going to talk about whose fault it was.

I'm not talking about whose fault any of it is now. If we were seriously thinking about preparing to negotiate I'd invoke the Law of the Sea. The side that's most maneuverable yields right-of-way to the side that's least maneuverable. That reduces the chance of a destructive collision. But neither side can maneuver well enough to matter. Israelis are so convinced that arabs all want to kill them and can't negotiate away from that, that they will refuse to try. Arabs have very little to work with. The christians among them have a plan available -- love your enemy, turn the other cheek and all that -- but there aren't enough of them to create a consensus. Israelis will continue to make preventive attacks, arabs will continue to retaliate, no peace, eventually it will go very bad. Nobody's fault. Just sheer collective stupidity on all sides. Individuals who have the chance to get out and don't, are being individually stupid. Individuals who argue that the important thing is to figure out whose fault it is, and it's all the arabs' fault, are even stupider. Though the ones in the USA won't personally experience the consequences.

HTH.

Posted by: J Thomas at October 5, 2006 01:45 PM | Permalink to this comment

sglover:

What you want is resettlement of a people who have a right to be where they are by international law. (I'm not talking about folks on the West Bank here) Those who refuse your kind efforts can just die.

It doesn't make you anti-semitic. It makes you one of the good people who cave in to racists. There were a lot of honorable folks who thought blacks should be sent back to Africa, too, for the sake of social peace. I expect they figured when somebody got lynched down here, they were sad about that, but they figured it was their own darn fault.

I agree with Luka. Something about the Mid East brings out the loonies. I also agree with Z-- not much is going to change in the next couple of years.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at October 5, 2006 02:06 PM | Permalink to this comment

Helian,
I believe a state should have the right to control their borders. If Jews want to "immigrate" to the west bank and undermine any palestinian state that is fine, but then it must follow that palestinian should be able to move out of the camps in gaza and the west bank where they have been kept for 50 years into the pre 67 state of Israel and be given a vote like the immigrants in those other places you mention. Maybe the millions of other palestinian who fled all over the world would want to "immigrate" back to israeli land and demaind a vote. That is called "the right of return" and Isreal is dead set against it. If the immigration policy you advocate were followed in Israel would cease to be a jewish state it would be a majority palestinian state.

Posted by: centrist at October 5, 2006 03:39 PM | Permalink to this comment

"I believe a state should have the right to control their borders."

I completely agree with you.

"If the immigration policy you advocate were followed in Israel would cease to be a jewish state it would be a majority palestinian state."

I don't advocate such an immigration policy. The point of my post was not to advocate or condemn a particular immigration policy, but to point out the disparity in the way immigration is referred to depending on whether it's Jewish immigration into the West Bank or the immigration of virtually any other ethnic group into any other area. The ethnic cleansing of Jews from areas they have historically occupied is still ethnic cleansing, regardless of whether the world at large considers it expedient or not. Terminology is adjusted to suit ideology.

Posted by: Helian at October 5, 2006 04:00 PM | Permalink to this comment

These moral arguments about israel/palestine are completely a waste of time. Their only purpose is to harden resolve and prevent any damping of the violent positive-feedback loop.

But just this once -- if mexican illegal immigrants ijn the USA were armed and shot at american civilians who got too close to the property they expropriated, and shot at US police who attempted to serve them warrants, and called on the mexican army to protect them from any US citizen who had a complaint about them, and the mexican army and airforce did respond with violence -- it would be a situation that's different from just about any immigration policy in the world. With a major exception that we've been talking about.

hee hee. That was fun, though useless. Nobody will change their position, nobody will propose any useful action, no result whatsoever except I got to tell my little joke. People who are hypnotised into believing israel is right about everything and arabs are wrong about everything won't even see the humor. [shrug] Oh well, it was fun for a couple of minutes.

Posted by: J Thomas at October 5, 2006 05:31 PM | Permalink to this comment

why is it that discussions of the Israel/Palestine issue always bring out the crazy ones?

I didn't blame "the Jews". I blamed Bush for abandoning the peace process at a point where a comprehensive settlement was possible.

I was out of line here, you're right. Sorry. But usually, when one talks about the US re: Israel/Palestine, it's along the lines of not putting enough "pressure" on Israel to do this that or whatever, as if that's somehow the magic formula. I don't think the Israelis are either blameless or perfect, nor do I think they haven't, at times, helped the Palestinians dig this hole. That said, they have demonstrated that if the circumstances were right, they'd be willing to make the necessary comprimises. The Palestininans and their Arab "allies" have not, not really.

Posted by: Finn at October 5, 2006 05:53 PM | Permalink to this comment

> Apparently the act of defending themselves makes them an object of reproach as far as you are concerned. The claim that they are morally equivalent to their enemies in deliberately targeting "families" and civilians in general is simply a lie.

You are playing complicated semantic games I gather. You want to say that when the Israelis bomb, starve, rape women and children, that that falls under "defending themselves" rubric, but when Palestinians do it, that falls under "terrorist" rubric.

It would be simpler if you tried to apply similar moral standards for everyone, and it might remove the necessity to concoct such elaborate and nearly unintelligible semantic games.

I understand that most propagandists depend heavily on using different standards, but I suggest that most propaganda isn't all that useful.

Posted by: alquaybat at October 5, 2006 11:07 PM | Permalink to this comment

I'd almost forgotten why I don't both to read the comments here anymore. What a load of fantasy!

"Two-State Solutions!"

"Peace Negotiations!"

"What The Israelis Must Do!"

Listen up, idiots, I'm only going to say it once (though, God knows, if you wanted to you could hear it every hour on the hour if you had any Arabic in you whatsoever): The Jews are a Western imposition on holy Islamic land, part of the on-going humiliation of the great Islamic people at the hands of the murderous West and no quarter shall be given until this stain on our honor and our manhood is wiped from the map. Every dead Jew shall be cheered and every effort must be directed at killing the Jews and their agents.

There is no negotiating with that. There is no reasoning with that. Our continuned fantastic rejection of what is the mainstream Muslim view of the conflict has caused nothing but pain, war and bloodshed for decades.

These comments here...they amount to fantasy so delusional as to actually border on mental illness. If only Bush weren't president! The milk and honey would flow and peace would be made!

Forget that Clinton was President for 8 years and had as his programme that advanced here. Forget Oslo. Forget Rabin and the White House hand-shake and the Madrid Summit and the Camp David negotiations. For these types, peace is just one bungled move away. If only Clinton had stressed point 12A on the agenda with Arafat and not dangerously alienated him by harping on point 14B. If only Kerry had won. If only the SecState wasn't Rice but Holbrooke (How is that peace in Bosnia, by the way?). If only Settlement X hadn't been built! We were *this* close to a permanent solution!

There is always some excuse, some reason for not staring the beast in the eye, for not recognizing blindingly obvious reality: there is no peace because the Arabs like their chances.

You are worse than idiots. You are cowards. And all your cowardice is buying is more war. You, you intelligent peace-niks, are making it worse with your warbling, your crying, your bloody *posing*.

Posted by: Newsisyphus at October 5, 2006 11:25 PM | Permalink to this comment

I don't think the Israelis are either blameless or perfect, nor do I think they haven't, at times, helped the Palestinians dig this hole. That said, they have demonstrated that if the circumstances were right, they'd be willing to make the necessary comprimises. The Palestininans and their Arab "allies" have not, not really.

The problem with this statement is the conflation of all kinds of different actors with different intentions - and the effect that that conflation has on ruling out peaceful solutions. After all, if there is no peaceful solution, ultimately, doesn't that imply that one side or the other is due for extermination? One would think that *everyone* could agree that that is a bad outcome, and therefore admit that it's not helpful to see that as in-fu*king-evitable?

Palestinians have come in all shapes, sizes, and political beliefs. Post 9/11, we see anyone who bombs anything as Osama Bin Laden. But no reasonable person can deny that, for example, President Abbas - who thirty years ago was helping Arafat lead raids on kibbutzes - has fought for peace since Arafat's death with consistency and integrity.
We see people like Rabin, who broke the bones of unarmed protestors during the first infitada, sign the Oslo accords, and Sabra/Shatila Sharon withdraw from Gaza. There's nothing exceptional about Palestinians, or even Islamist Palestinians, that makes them biologically unable to moderate. We're just not paying attention to either Palestinian moderates, or gestures of moderation from hardliners. We're waiting for Hamas to sing hatikva and turning down offers simply to stop aggresive actions. We don't consider truces to be good enough, yet we have no alternate plan.

Determindly peaceful policies by the strongest party in any conflict usually brings peace. The Oslo accords brought war when both sides abandoned peaceful policies, but Oslo brought the closest thing to peace in the Middle East since 1948. Hamas fought to spoil it and won.
American viewers need to get over learning "permanent lessons" about "caliphate or death" views held in reality by a minority of dangerous fanatics. Everyone else is pissed off at Israel for arguably legitimate reasons.

Does that mean turning a blind eye to terrorism or accepting the dissolution of Israel? Of course not - not even on the table. But Yitzchak Rabin fought terrorism as if there was no peace and fought to make peace as if there was no terrorism. Israel and the US have not demonstrated any serious interest in peace since 2000, at least no more or no less than Fatah. All sides involved talk about it to the Americans, but no one is willing to unwind the warlike policies themselves.

Israeli policy has been as tragic and self-defeating as Palestine's - only at lower cost.

Posted by: glasnost at October 6, 2006 04:09 AM | Permalink to this comment

Personally I am sick and tired of the whole situation. If, after 50 years of living side by side the Israelis and Arabs cannot get along then I say forget it. Being an American I cannot endorse Isreal. It is just too wrong to have an apartheid state impose itself upon a region where it is not wanted.

I like the idea of inviting the Jewish people here to America. As long as they are willing to live among other ethnic groups as equals then they will add far more to our sciences, our arts, our industry then they will cost us in any subsidy we might provide to get them settled in.

Forget the middle east. Forget Zionism. To hell with it. America is the promised land. Here you can be a Jew and live in peace with Muslims. Hell you can even marry a Muslim here and no one would care. And in some states a gay jew could even take the vows with a gay muslim. How could anyone prefer the stupid prejudices endemic to the middle east over a place with that kind of freedom?

If you want to live in peace and practice your relegion, then America is the place.

Posted by: ken at October 7, 2006 06:26 AM | Permalink to this comment

"It is just too wrong to have an apartheid state impose itself upon a region where it is not wanted."

This is such an easy lie, isn't it, such a great fig leaf for covering the rationalization of genocide. The history of the Jews has been one long, sorry story of massacres and brutal oppression, culminating in the holocaust. The result of ending "apartheid" will be another massacre, and the annihilation of the Jews in Palestine, but the scarecrows who shout down "apartheid" from their faux moral high ground won't care. They will just claim, as usual, that the utterly predictable results of their "progressive" ending of "apartheid" are "not their fault." After pontificating a little about "root causes," they will just wipe the blood off their hands and move on to the next victim. The ancestors of many of the Israeli Jews came from Arab countries, where they were often brutally oppressed. Do they now have a "right of return" to these countries? Somehow it never occurs to these comfortable apologists for genocide to notice that Christians, Jews, and other minorities do not generally live in a perfect state of equality in Muslim countries. Granted, the sin of "apartheid" would have been out of the question in places like Gaza. Any Jew who stayed behind there would simply have been massacred. The dead can't be victims of apartheid. Now the "progressives" glibly inform us that, to avoid the sin of "apartheid," the Jews must collaborate in their own annihilation, or simply close up shop and return to the role of minority to await the next holocaust. The United States, otherwise described by the "progressives" as the great reservoir and collecting ground of every form of evil oppression against minorities of every stripe, is magically transformed into a "sanctuary" for the Jews, where they will certainly live in a joyful state of perfect equality.

These easy collaborators in genocide need to stop lying to themselves. The details of the situation in the Middle East are complex, but the fundamentals couldn't be more simple. The Israelis want nothing more than to be left in peace, and have demonstrated they are willing to make real sacrifices for peace. Peace will come to the region as soon as Israel's enemies drop their demands for her annihilation and recognize her right to exist. We must demand that they grant her that right as a precondition for any negotiations, and clearly state that we will continue to defend her against aggression until that right is granted. Nothing can be easier than digging up all kinds of Israelis "sins" to justify pressuring them to take another step toward annihilation in the guise of "diplomacy." We are told that, to remove the "Mother of all Root Causes" of mayhem in the Middle East, we must collaborate in this cynical "diplomacy," comfortably tarted up by the professionally virtuous as "the search for a just and lasting peace," or the pursuit of another chimera on the "roadmap to peace." The pragmatically wise, touting a blind vision of our "national self interest," and sadly shaking their heads because our leaders are not focused on the "Mother of all Root Causes," glibly inform us that anti-Americanism and terrorism will suddenly and magically disappear if we collaborate in a "diplomacy" which, in the end, can only result in surrender and the betrayal of another ally. Euphemisms are piled on top of euphemisms.

There is a very clear precondition for peace in the Middle East. That precondition is recognition of Israel's right to exist. If that precondition is met, peace will come. If it is not met, no amount of diplomatic masturbation will ever secure it. Let's stop fooling ourselves about the choices we face.

Posted by: Helian at October 7, 2006 11:16 AM | Permalink to this comment

The result of ending "apartheid" will be another massacre, and the annihilation of the Jews in Palestine

It didn't work out quite that badly in south africa, but the whites in south africa were willing to share power. I'm afraid you're right about israel, it's going to be genocide one way or another. Maybe the israelis will do the genocide but from my point of view that isn't a big improvement. Better than the alternative but still utterly unacceptable.

Now the "progressives" glibly inform us that, to avoid the sin of "apartheid," the Jews must collaborate in their own annihilation, or simply close up shop and return to the role of minority to await the next holocaust.

You do what you want in your own country. But I don't want you to have dual citizenship; choose whicih country you want to vote in. And I don't want my country stuck with your problems and blamed for your policies. I want any of your citizens who want out to have a way out, a chance for peace. They can get that here in the USA. You think you get less annihilation liiving in a little place where 4 bombs would do it? You want to make sure nobody who doesn't like you gets bombs? Ha ha, good one. Ultimately, the only defense against a nuke is to be somewhere else when it goes off. If you want survivors, spread out.

Speaking for myself, I'd welcome the USA providing israel a place to exist and giving them moving expenses. We could give them, say, Alabama. A green and fertile land, much larger than the current israel. A major port. The Tenn-Tom canal provides access to the Mississippi river. Lots of coal and iron ore, some oil, plenty of water, did I mention fertile soil? Forests in the north. It gets a bit hotter than israel and colder, but you can't have everything. We'd pay the US citizens who live there to move out and you could have the place. (It isn't completely undisputed, we have choctaw and cherokee and creek native tribes who think they ought to have it. Treat them better than we have and they shouldn't be much problem.) We could pay archeologists to take Jerusalem apart stone by stone, and we'd make a copy of each stone and ship half the original stones and half the copies to Alabama to make an exact copy there, and put back the other half right where it was. You can't get fairer than that. And it would save the USA money. It would cost us less than the 1973 war cost us, less than we've spent since then to keep israel in the middle east where it doesn't do anybody any good.

There is a very clear precondition for peace in the Middle East. That precondition is recognition of Israel's right to exist. If that precondition is met, peace will come.

You think? The whole world recognised poland's right to exist before WWII. But somehow that didn't exactly keep poland existing when the russians' and the germans' arms race turned into positioning. You're making a rhetorical stand. Really, peace will come when israel and palestine and all the neighboring states are comfortable enough with each other to negotiate water rights and reach a clear agreement they can all live with.

Peace isn't on the horizon and there's no sign it's beyond the horizon. Regardless who's more wrong, regardless who's done more atrocities or worse atrocities, regardless who really has more moral right to the land, there isni't going to be any peace. Israel will be doing costly wars as long as israel and arab neighbors both exist. And the USA will keep paying for it unless we find a way to quit.

Posted by: J Thomas at October 7, 2006 12:56 PM | Permalink to this comment

Helion, I suppose your point is that if people would just stop fighting then there would be peace. Yep.

My point is that I don't believe the battles will ever stop. I base that on over 50 years of history, so I think, given the evidence, that I am right.

So what to do? Genocide is not the answer. So I would say let's let the people who want to come here to America come here to America. A large influx of Jews would be a shot in the arm to our industries, our arts, our sciences. America would benefit along with the newcomers.

As long as the newcomers are willing to live side by side in peace with other ethnic groups then they would find this country a place where they too would be left in peace.

I don't think Americans can offer anything better. We don't want to become embroiled in an lasting emnity with the Arab/Muslim world. We don't need that.

Posted by: ken at October 7, 2006 10:48 PM | Permalink to this comment

> If only Bush weren't president! The milk and honey would flow and peace would be made!

I'm with this fanatic. The point is that anyone who criticizes our Glorious Leader Comrade Bush obviously is a counterrevolutionary running dog, advocating honey and milk unrealistic terroristic propaganda, and should be tortured until confessing, and then send to Reeducation Interment Camps.

I know where we can get a lot of cheap propaganda to back up this approach, and I know where we can find some out-of-work gulag and reeducation camp workers to help get ours into full swing.

Posted by: howard des at October 7, 2006 11:12 PM | Permalink to this comment

This is such an easy lie, isn't it, such a great fig leaf for covering the rationalization of genocide.

The American and Soviet armies absolved their societies of the genocide debt in 1945. Period.

If Israel had taken an active interest in ending the genocides in Cambodia or Rwanda, you might have a legitimate argument. But you don't. All I see is a lot of the same old verbiage.

Posted by: sglover at October 8, 2006 12:12 AM | Permalink to this comment

"The American and Soviet armies absolved their societies of the genocide debt in 1945. Period."

Great line. Made my day. ;-)

Posted by: Helian at October 8, 2006 12:34 AM | Permalink to this comment

"The American and Soviet armies absolved their societies of the genocide debt in 1945. Period."

Great line. Made my day. ;-)

On reflection, I shouldn't have included the Red Army in that. But I emphatically stand by my assertion of the American army's moral role.

Posted by: sglover at October 8, 2006 02:27 AM | Permalink to this comment

What did the US Army do that was so bad in WWII? Fire bomb civilians in Dresden, and nuclear roast civilians in Japan, but, that was the US Air Force, not the US Army. Also, I don't think it was the US Army that marched all the Japanese Americans off to internment camps because they weren't white.

And look what the Soviet army did do -- slaughter Germans, and torture them (granted, the Soviets and Germans were torturing each other's prisoners, as neither kept Geneva conventions against each other), and kill a helluva lot of people on ethnic grounds.

I don't think it is fair to compare the US' relatively tiny use of ethnic terrorism (and a small amount of ethnic internment), to the quite sizable amount by the Soviet Army.

Posted by: lishkik at October 9, 2006 06:41 AM | Permalink to this comment