Olmert: Jerusalem must be partitioned

[dead0man]

Yeah, 'cause before that Arabs in Palestine were peaceful hippies.
Jafa Riots-1921, 47 Jews murdered, lots of rape
Hebron Massacre-1929, 67 Jews murdered.
Tiberias Massacre-1939, 19 Jews murdered (11 children!)
Kfar Etzion Massacre-1948, 157 Jews murdered
Hadassah Medical Convoy Massacre-1948, 79 Jews were murdered

Yes, during this time period there was a lot of murder going both ways, but to insinuate the Jews were the first to use terrorism in the region is quite silly.

[The Mikado]

Yeah, 'cause before that Arabs in Palestine were peaceful hippies.
Jafa Riots-1921, 47 Jews murdered, lots of rape
Hebron Massacre-1929, 67 Jews murdered.
Tiberias Massacre-1939, 19 Jews murdered (11 children!)
Kfar Etzion Massacre-1948, 157 Jews murdered
Hadassah Medical Convoy Massacre-1948, 79 Jews were murdered

Yes, during this time period there was a lot of murder going both ways, but to insinuate the Jews were the first to use terrorism in the region is quite silly.

None of these are terrorism (Not to say that they aren't horrifically violent acts)

[Torie]

Does anyone really think Palestine wants to be an independent state, and  become responsible for its actions?  Just asking. I haven't really seen much evidence of that myself.

[ag]

Does anyone really think Palestine wants to be an independent state, and  become responsible for its actions?  Just asking. I haven't really seen much evidence of that myself.

I was expecting better from a lawyer. No abstract notion wants anything whatsoever - neither Palestine, nor Christendom, nor, for that matter, France.  In the case of actual states, when we say they "want" something,  we, usually, mean their governments. Palestine isn't a state, though. Do you mean Palestinian Authority, or the Fatah, or the de facto Hamas government of Gaza or whatever else of the 1000 different things you might possibly mean?

[ag]

What the Palestinians want - is another matter. Like any other people, it seems, they have a diversity of opinion. From what I know, for the moment, most, it would seem, would still prefer a separate state. Another option, of course, could be a single state - i.e., annexation of the territories into Israel, with the population acquiring Israeli citizenship. It is hard to say what the Palestinians would think of this, though, as this is simply not on offer: it is absolutely unacceptable to pretty much all Jewish Israelis to the right of the Communists (Hadash), including, it seems, most of Meretz - and pretty much everybody else.

In other words, the question is not what "Palestinians want" in the abstract, but what they want of the actual options that are remotely realistic. It would seem that almost nobody on the Palestinian side likes the occupation status quo; it is extremely unlikely that many would be happy about mass deportation or extermination. That leaves a Palestinian state - nothing else is, really, on the agenda.

[ag]

To sum up, the fundamental Israeli problem is not, really, that they (I mean most Jewish Israelis in their individual capacity) want to keep the land (that could be doable). Nor is it that they want to get rid of the Palestinians (the desire to be rid of each other is mutual). It is that they want both - and want it long after WWII.

[Torie]

Does anyone really think Palestine wants to be an independent state, and  become responsible for its actions?  Just asking. I haven't really seen much evidence of that myself.

I was expecting better from a lawyer. No abstract notion wants anything whatsoever - neither Palestine, nor Christendom, nor, for that matter, France.  In the case of actual states, when we say they "want" something,  we, usually, mean their governments. Palestine isn't a state, though. Do you mean Palestinian Authority, or the Fatah, or the de facto Hamas government of Gaza or whatever else of the 1000 different things you might possibly mean?

Well let's start with the West Bank and whatever government they elect.  Or if you want to add Gaza, fine. My little point lie elsewhere I think. You don't really need to define something to the last T when it is outside the range of your point in my experience.

Under the status quo, whatever happens is not really anyone's responsibility on their side. If they had their own state, and allowed rockets to fire into Israel, or terrorists to hang out there, and hit Israel from time to time, then the sh*t would hit the fan in a way it does not now perhaps. States have certain responsibilities, and can be held more accountable.

I guess what I am saying, is that the ones running whatever show there is to run on the West Bank may be perfectly satisfied with it, absent getting something they will never get, like right of return, or borders that will not be given to them, etc. I would not be surprised if this doesn't drag on for another couple of decades.

[ag]

Well let's start with the West Bank and whatever government they elect.  Or if you want to add Gaza, fine. My little point lie elsewhere I think. You don't really need to define something to the last T when it is outside the range of your point in my experience.

Well, what do you think does the Palestinian administration in the West bank prefer? Status quo (which is not at all stable and is profoundly humiliating to all of them on the daily basis), deportation elsewhere (which is, probably, what most Jewish Israelis want) or an independent state. Not that there is anything else on offer. Is it that hard to figure out?

[Torie]

As I said, status quo I think may be the dirty little secret with respect to the West Bank side.

Israel is too into making money these days I suspect to be in as hard a line mood as you suggest. I suspect they really want a deal, assuming some slight border changes in the narrow neck area in exchange for some of Israel proper farther south, and Israel can keep Jerusalem, with some special arrangement for the Arab zones, no right of return (except perhaps for a token one) and so forth. The Palestinian authorities seem to have no interest in such a deal, and I am speculating as to why (speculations not held solely by me by the way - I have read this line of thinking elsewhere).

[danny]

... it is extremely unlikely that many would be happy about mass deportation or extermination.

I disagree, I think this is quite a popular opinion, and one that wouldn't simply go away even if they did get a state.

[ag]

... it is extremely unlikely that many would be happy about mass deportation or extermination.

I disagree, I think this is quite a popular opinion, and one that wouldn't simply go away even if they did get a state.

Have no doubt, it's popular in Israel. And, yes, I mean it

Now, to be clear, I got what you, actually, meant. And, of course, you also have a point. Except that  that, given the relative strength of the parties, it is not at all likely to go beyond sick fantasies.

[ag]

As I said, status quo I think may be the dirty little secret with respect to the West Bank side.

I am afraid, you are having it the other way around. The current Israeli government is all but open about being absolutely happy w/ the status quo - they see no point of any negotiations, because that would imply leaving something for the Palestinian state. So, naturally, they are not willing to propose anything that wouldn't be a strict deterioration for the Palestinians, as compared w/ the status quo - in every sense, including the humiliation. Palestinians, equally obviously, hate the status quo - but, obviously, prefer it to anything Israel is willing to pretend to propose. Given that Israel is in control on the ground - and, hence, in control of the agenda - no meaningful negotiations are happening.

Remember: the oficial Head of Israeli diplomacy lives on land that would be evacuated under pretty much any realistic two-state solution. That alone is telling enough.

[danny]

... it is extremely unlikely that many would be happy about mass deportation or extermination.

I disagree, I think this is quite a popular opinion, and one that wouldn't simply go away even if they did get a state.

Have no doubt, it's popular in Israel. And, yes, I mean it

Now, to be clear, I got what you, actually, meant. And, of course, you also have a point. Except that  that, given the relative strength of the parties, it is not at all likely to go beyond sick fantasies.

It's true that they can't actually carry this out in full but this is what suicide bombings are meant to do, and the more they are capable of doing this the more they will do this. Which is why I think negotiations, peace treaties and the concessions that come with them are counter-productive and just lead to more fighting.

[ag]

It's true that they can't actually carry this out in full but this is what suicide bombings are meant to do, and the more they are capable of doing this the more they will do this. Which is why I think negotiations, peace treaties and the concessions that come with them are counter-productive and just lead to more fighting.

They can't. But you can. And, unless you seriously engage in negotiations, peace treaties and the rest, you, eventually, will try.

[danny]

It's true that they can't actually carry this out in full but this is what suicide bombings are meant to do, and the more they are capable of doing this the more they will do this. Which is why I think negotiations, peace treaties and the concessions that come with them are counter-productive and just lead to more fighting.

They can't. But you can. And, unless you seriously engage in negotiations, peace treaties and the rest, you, eventually, will try.

I don't think this is necessarily true, the status quo can continue longer than people think. But in any case, better us than them.

[ag]

I don't think this is necessarily true, the status quo can continue longer than people think. But in any case, better us than them.

After a while, the demand for a Palestinian state will be gone - too unrealistic (it's becoming less realistic w/ every day). It will be replaced w/ a demand for equality. And that's a lot more dangerous for you. Because, unless you sastisfy that demand, that will mean not only the final and very drastic break w/ the (broad) West, but also decisive abandonment of the idea of the "Jewish democratic" state (not that you yourself will care at that point).  

At some point, a new Palestinian uprising will start - and you will find yourselves true pariahs in the world, Israeli state delegitimized. At that point, your logic: "better us, then them" will come into play - restraints of modernity, domestic and international respectability long since gone. In fact, you are a perfect exhibit, my best argument why this will indeed happen.

The problem will be: it won't be "us or them" - it will be "us and them".

[ag]

Just so my moral position is clear.

There are two currents in understanding Jewish history, based on two distinct interpretations of the sight of a uniformed policeman cutting the beard of a strangely dressed darkish guy with a funny accent. More specifically, the point of disagreement is, who is the Jew in that picture: the cutter, or the cuttee. For me, it is the latter - and that is at the root of my disagreement w/ modern Zionism. I don't really know what was happening where at the time of King David, but I do know the last 1000 years of the Jewish history too well. And, unlike the Zionists, I choose not to despise it.

The modern Western sensibility, at least one hopes, has incorporated this respect to the European Jewish sacrifice. Israeli mainstream, especially on the right, has betrayed it. Hence the archaic love of the uniformed guy w/ the big gun and the supreme cult of the God of War. And these people claim to be Jewish?

There is no such thing as a Jewish ispravnik - putting on that uniform is the true baptism, true betrayal.

[ag]

As I said, status quo I think may be the dirty little secret with respect to the West Bank side.

BTW, my dearest Torie, we lack a Palestinian here to enlighten us on dreams and sensibilities of that community. But we have an Israeli Jew, who has been kind enough to confirm my point. Notice, though we are on the opposite sides of the moral wall w/ danny, we agree on the descriptive substance: there is little in the status quo that offends at least this citizen of Israel, and there is no real desire to explore alternatives - nor any horror at the possibility of the "radical solution", as long as his side is doing the solving.

Now, I have no doubt that it wouldn't be hard to find similar points of view on the other side - though they are likely to lack in the English department. And that point of view, of course, would be equally horrifying from my standpoint. But is there really an asymmetry here between the sides, except in terms of the actual strength and formal educational attainment?

[Torie]

Well Ag, my idea is some solution where the Jews can have some security in a state where they have a secure demographic majority, and the Palestinians get back most of what they lost in the 1967 war, with some structure for Jerusalem, and minor land swaps. I don't know where that fits in with either Danny's or your's sensibilities, but that is mine. And yes, Israel just annexing the West Bank or most of it, either means mass deportation, or the end of democracy in Israel, or the end of the Jewish state as a Jewish state, but one where Arabs are or soon will be the majority, and that given the history around there is well, just chilling. None of those options are acceptable, and all make my skin crawl.

I don't think the Palestinians accept my idea of a solution, in part for the reasons I outlined, while I suspect Israel would. So no deal, and while that might suit some Israelis, it does not suit me, while I suspect it suits the Palestinian Authority. If they can't get on the road to getting rid of the Jews, the second "best" thing is the status quo. That is why I think the status quo will be with us for a long time. Yes, it's sad.

So much hate, so little time.

[ag]

The obvious observation, though, is, that the current leadership of the Palestinian authority is, broadly, in line w/ your vision - and the current government of Israel, supported by the likes of danny, is wholeheartedly opposed to it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A good thing he's a former PM.

I hate empty quoting. But this must be seconded.

Indeed.

Amen!!!

The reason I agree is look at Jerusalem now- Christians and Muslims can enter and worship. Look at Mecca- only Muslims are permitted toenter. East Jerusalem has sites holy to many faiths and I worry what the result of Palestinian control would be for worshipers

Palestinians are fairly moderate Islamists, unlike the Saudis.

Exactly, the Wahhabis need to be locked in rooms with the worst of the Christian right. That would get two birds with one stone.

[seanobr]

I find the effort to portray Israeli rule as more benevolent than that offered by a hypothetical Palestinian state nothing but evasion, because at issue is not the quality of Palestinian leadership in relation to anyone else, but their right to territory.  The Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem is illegal; it is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, U.N. Resolution 478 is not debatable, and only the most tendentious interpretations of Resolution 242 can legitimate Israel's conduct in the West Bank.  We shouldn't confuse the inability of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to reach a mutually beneficial settlement with what the Palestinian Authority is entitled to under international law; the question of security is another matter entirely.  

As for whether or not an agreement is achievable, my perspective has changed dramatically since the start of the Obama administration, in the sense that I am no longer convinced a peaceful resolution to the situation must be an objective of anyone external to the conflict.  There is no reason for us to expend effort vainly persuading Israel to abandon its current policy -- it's refusal to accept the faint hope of reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas indicates to me its commitment to peace is superficial -- and I increasingly have nothing but indifference for everyone involved.  Ideally, America would be far more dispassionate in our evaluation of Israel's importance to us: make it clear that we will support a U.N. resolution recognizing Palestinian statehood, be far more critical of Israeli behavior when appropriate, and gradually establish a distance between the two of us commensurate with our divergent national interests.  Despite its unique identity, Israel is merely another state, and maybe it's time to start treating it as such.  Israel doesn't have to show any enthusiasm for peace if that is what it desires; we can simply stop acting as its cupbearer.

More specifically, I don't believe any individual is capable of representing either the Israeli or Palestinian cause in the way required at present.  It would also demand a permissive atmosphere in America, which can only come about from a significant adjustment in how we view the region.  When one political party unites to encourage a foreign leader to upbraid their elected President for his perceived and illusory antagonism toward another country, and has no problem with the abject dehumanization of the Palestinian people, I see no reason to be optimistic that will occur any time soon.  We may have reached the point where, aside from defining a personal legacy, there is no incentive for any President to intrude upon the Israeli and Palestinian quest for peace.  The conflict will be ignored, but not as part of a strategic reassessment; rather, the conventional logic about Israel's relevance is so pervasive that the only way to reconcile American policy is to neglect it entirely.

[politicus]

I find the effort to portray Israeli rule as more benevolent than that offered by a hypothetical Palestinian state nothing but evasion, because at issue is not the quality of Palestinian leadership in relation to anyone else, but their right to territory.  The Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem is illegal; it is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, U.N. Resolution 478 is not debatable, and only the most tendentious interpretations of Resolution 242 can legitimate Israel's conduct in the West Bank. We shouldn't confuse the inability of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to reach a mutually beneficial settlement with what the Palestinian Authority is entitled to under international law; the question of security is another matter entirely.  

But Israel did conquer it i 1967, and the question is if the UN decision not to recognize this is helping a resolution to the conflict. It gives the Palestinians a false hope that they will regain the city some day and prevents a recognition of the facts on the ground. The UN resolutions doesn't necessarily play a positive role in solving this conflict because they involve the concept of a legal right in something that is basically a military and political conflict.

[danny]

I don't think this is necessarily true, the status quo can continue longer than people think. But in any case, better us than them.

After a while, the demand for a Palestinian state will be gone - too unrealistic (it's becoming less realistic w/ every day). It will be replaced w/ a demand for equality. And that's a lot more dangerous for you. Because, unless you sastisfy that demand, that will mean not only the final and very drastic break w/ the (broad) West, but also decisive abandonment of the idea of the "Jewish democratic" state (not that you yourself will care at that point).  

At some point, a new Palestinian uprising will start - and you will find yourselves true pariahs in the world, Israeli state delegitimized. At that point, your logic: "better us, then them" will come into play - restraints of modernity, domestic and international respectability long since gone. In fact, you are a perfect exhibit, my best argument why this will indeed happen.

The problem will be: it won't be "us or them" - it will be "us and them".

Yes, the left in Israel is always predicting terrible things to happen if we don't quickly give up everything to the Palestinians, and they have been doing this for awhile. And yet, this doesn't seem to happen. They also say that great things will be if do make deals and leave land, and yet when we do this, violence ensues (Oslo accords,South Lebanon, Gaza disengagement).

I am more interested in reaching peace than peace deals. If the latter doesn't lead to the former, then they are making things worse rather than better.

[danny]

Just so my moral position is clear.

There are two currents in understanding Jewish history, based on two distinct interpretations of the sight of a uniformed policeman cutting the beard of a strangely dressed darkish guy with a funny accent. More specifically, the point of disagreement is, who is the Jew in that picture: the cutter, or the cuttee. For me, it is the latter - and that is at the root of my disagreement w/ modern Zionism. I don't really know what was happening where at the time of King David, but I do know the last 1000 years of the Jewish history too well. And, unlike the Zionists, I choose not to despise it.

The modern Western sensibility, at least one hopes, has incorporated this respect to the European Jewish sacrifice. Israeli mainstream, especially on the right, has betrayed it. Hence the archaic love of the uniformed guy w/ the big gun and the supreme cult of the God of War. And these people claim to be Jewish?

There is no such thing as a Jewish ispravnik - putting on that uniform is the true baptism, true betrayal.

I see no great morality in being beaten and killed. What I do believe in is "haba lehorgecha hashkem lehorgo"(if someone comes to kill you, go and kill him first).

Maybe you have some nostalgic ideas about how great it is to be beaten and killed, but I do not, and I don't think the Jews at the time were especially happy with their condition at the time.