Palestine voted into UNESCO, USA cuts funding

[The Minsky Moment]

The problem is that the Israelis are being asked to exchange property for peace

Not really; most of the property is already gone.  The Palestinians have their proto-state and it is inconceivable at this point that Israel would seek to reverse that.  The present argument is about sematics and symbolism; whether to confer the de jure recognition of the emerging de facto reality.  My 2c is that Israel would be better off ripping off that bandaid faster rather than slower; at a certain point if the Palestinians don't have their separate state, troublemakers start to wonder whether a one-state solution is preferable after all.  Better having to deal with heated rhetoric from a shiny new UN General Assembly seat than the heated exhaust from rocket fire.

[Viking]

Naturally if the Palestinians think the Israelis are not negotiating in good faith and the settlements are being built on the assumption that there will be no peace for a generation and facts on the ground are needed then the peace process is in serious trouble.

That's where we are.  And I think the Palestinians are right.

I'm actually gonna go and agree with you there. Netanyahu is not making serious offers because (like in 48, 67 and 73), to paraphrase Abbe Eban, he is relying on the Palestinians not missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I think Netanyahu is perfectly ready for a Camp David or Taba style negotiation where Obama  witnesses as Bibi offers reasonable final status proposals that Abbas cannot accept or make counter offers to. Reasonable people know that "returning" millions of ex-patriot palestinians to Israel proper will result in nothing less than civil war in Israel as the well armed and well organized jews will expel the badly led, armed and organized palestinians with a massive loss of life on both sides (one more than the other obviously).

The fundamental problem is not that Israel wants land, builds on it and then offers to exchange it for land near gaza or in the judean desert. The fundamental problem is in the Palestinian body politic. Legitimacy in Palestinian society does not stem from popular support but rather from honour or glory (i.e. the ability to resist). Only by showing strength vis a vis the Israelis is any palestinian leader going to gain legitimacy. Arafat and the FATAH gained leadership in the PLO buy leading the fight against Israel after the 6 day war in the Jordan Valley. This is why Arafat funded and supported the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade after HAMAS challenged him for the leadership of the cause by blowing up Israeli civilians. This is why Hizbullah runs Lebanon today and why they keep making bombastic statements about starting the war in Tel Aviv, this is also why Ahmedinejad acts like he does.

Netanyahu has legitimacy, he won the election. He could make a bad peace agreement if he wanted which future Israeli leaders, even if they vehemently opposed it, would be bound by. Abbas is not in the same situation. When Ben Gurion was faced with the same problem Abbas faces today (lets use Irgun as an analog for HAMAS for the purposes of this comparison) he simple recognized that he was the legitimate head of the government and Irgun was an illegal armed body sabotaging the monopoly of violence by the state and obstructing it's ability to do diplomacy. Abbas cannot do the same to HAMAS (not only because it is so heavily armed and motivated) because doing so would be treason to the Palestinian cause.

To put it bluntly a Palestinian leader gains legitimacy when he attacks Israel. To gain the political capital to make a lasting peace between the two sides (i.e. one where the Refugees are not settled in Israel) he would have to make such violence on Israel that Israel would never agree to make peace. HAMAS' primary activity is earning legitimacy (through violence against Israelis and charitable work), Abbas' primary activity is spending legitimacy trying to run a nascent state.

It makes sense for both Netanyahu and Abbas to hold their present respective positions. I don't think there will be a resolution this generation. I think the Israelis know this. I think Abbas knows this as well. Palestinian society is incapable of making peace on any terms but victory. I think that is the true obstacle to peace.

[Malthus]

The problem is that the Israelis are being asked to exchange property for peace

Not really; most of the property is already gone.  The Palestinians have their proto-state and it is inconceivable at this point that Israel would seek to reverse that.  The present argument is about sematics and symbolism; whether to confer the de jure recognition of the emerging de facto reality.  My 2c is that Israel would be better off ripping off that bandaid faster rather than slower; at a certain point if the Palestinians don't have their separate state, troublemakers start to wonder whether a one-state solution is preferable after all.  Better having to deal with heated rhetoric from a shiny new UN General Assembly seat than the heated exhaust from rocket fire.

Not really, the Israelis are being asked - and rightly - to exchange the property that currently lies under various settlements established by them. That land is not "gone" as it is still in play.

The issue is not whether to re-occupy the WB, it is whether the WB and Israel are going to have an agreed on, conflict-free border or not. Everyone is aware that the PA will not accept status quo, for a "real" peace Israel will have to remove some, if not all, settlements. To do so would have political costs in Israel that can only be borne if the Israelis are getting something from it, like a meaningful peace deal. To remove the settlements and still be faced with a list of new demands and continued conflict is what the Israelis fear, with some justification. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Not really, the Israelis are being asked - and rightly - to exchange the property that currently lies under various settlements established by them.

They have been asked that but final resolution of that issue is not a necessarily pre-requisite for Palestinian statehood.

Previously, the PA withheld from seeking recognition in part precisely b/c it might be deemed an implicit endorsement of the territorial status quo.  Query whether from the Israeli perspective the PA willingness to go ahead and push this in any event is actually a positive development.

[Malthus]

The problem is that the Israelis are being asked to exchange property for peace, where a past unilateral exchange of property with Palestinians (the withdrawal from Gaza) has not, in fact, resulted in any increase in peace - but rather the opposite.

But I think this is putting the horse before the cart.  All that the US has tried to get the Israelis to do is to meet their past promises and stop building new settlements or expanding existing ones.  The Israeli government's not willing to do that and has in fact expanded settlement building over the past few years.

This is a confidence building measure that leads to negotiations that leads to an exchange of property for peace.  This is the Israeli equivalent to the Palestinians reforming the PA or building up their security capability.  It's the bare minimum indication that they want peace - or in the case of Israel that they're really willing to exchange land for peace.

The problem is, why should they bother if they have lost any confidence that any "process" will create an actual peace? Current Israeli thinking, seems to me, is pure unilateralism - just take what they want, build a wall around it, and let the Palestinians stew - striking back if they lob rockets over the border. The reason: the public has lost any confidence that any agreement will bring about a cessation of hostilities, or that Palestinian demands can ever be met. 

[Sheilbh]

Not really, the Israelis are being asked - and rightly - to exchange the property that currently lies under various settlements established by them. That land is not "gone" as it is still in play.

But as the Israelis would have to remove some settlements so will the Palestinians have to accept a new border that makes some of the larger settlement blocks Israeli territory.

To remove the settlements and still be faced with a list of new demands and continued conflict is what the Israelis fear, with some justification.

Which is why it should be part of a final peace deal.  Not least because, as I say, some settlements will stay.  All that's being asked of the Israelis is stop expanding them.

[Berkut]

The problem is that the Israelis are being asked to exchange property for peace, where a past unilateral exchange of property with Palestinians (the withdrawal from Gaza) has not, in fact, resulted in any increase in peace - but rather the opposite.

But I think this is putting the horse before the cart.  All that the US has tried to get the Israelis to do is to meet their past promises and stop building new settlements or expanding existing ones.  The Israeli government's not willing to do that and has in fact expanded settlement building over the past few years.

This is a confidence building measure that leads to negotiations that leads to an exchange of property for peace.  This is the Israeli equivalent to the Palestinians reforming the PA or building up their security capability.  It's the bare minimum indication that they want peace - or in the case of Israel that they're really willing to exchange land for peace.

The problem is, why should they bother if they have lost any confidence that any "process" will create an actual peace? Current Israeli thinking, seems to me, is pure unilateralism - just take what they want, build a wall around it, and let the Palestinians stew - striking back if they lob rockets over the border. The reason: the public has lost any confidence that any agreement will bring about a cessation of hostilities, or that Palestinian demands can ever be met. 

Indeed, that is my take on the situation.

Shelf looks at it and says "Hey, the Israelis don't want to deal". I look at it and say "Hey, the Israelis have given up on dealing."

It isn't, IMO, a matter of Israel not being willing to come to the table, it is that they've gone to the table over and over and it never goes anywhere. It is easy to say NOW that Israel is the problem, but that kind of ignores how they got to the point where they've given up on ever resolving this at the table.

[Maximus]

Aren't we required by law to cut off funding? And wasn't that law passed 20+ years ago?

That's what people keep saying but I haven't seen any citation to any actual law yet.  And while there are references to a 1990 law, it seems odd to me that a law that predates the existence of the Palestinian National Authority would apply to this situation.

Yea ok. I was hoping you'd know what law it was, because I couldn't find any specifics either.

[Berkut]

To remove the settlements and still be faced with a list of new demands and continued conflict is what the Israelis fear, with some justification.

Which is why it should be part of a final peace deal.  Not least because, as I say, some settlements will stay.  All that's being asked of the Israelis is stop expanding them.

THe only sane reason for them to stop expanding them would be because they think doing so could result in a peace deal though.

If they don't think that is possible, why should they bother?

[Malthus]

They have been asked that but final resolution of that issue is not a necessarily pre-requisite for Palestinian statehood.

Previously, the PA withheld from seeking recognition in part precisely b/c it might be deemed an implicit endorsement of the territorial status quo.  Query whether from the Israeli perspective the PA willingness to go ahead and push this in any event is actually a positive development.

I interpret it as PA desperation to stay relevant in the face of unrelenting Israeli hostile unilateralism - which in turn was stirred up by previous unrelenting PA rejection of Israeli peace ovetures.

Think of it in games theory terms. In this game, from the Israeli perspective, being reasonable (Oslo Accords) has failed, and tit-for-tat (Israelis handing over Gaza) has also failed. What seems to "work" best is pure unilateralism - to the extent that the current development is "positive", it was caused by that.

[Berkut]

It's like two people fighting, or a married couple where one is abusive.

At some point, the wife says "If you hit me again, we are done forever. No more". Hubby wacks her, then bitches that she is being unreasonable because she won't go see a therapist.

[Sheilbh]

The problem is, why should they bother if they have lost any confidence that any "process" will create an actual peace? Current Israeli thinking, seems to me, is pure unilateralism - just take what they want, build a wall around it, and let the Palestinians stew - striking back if they lob rockets over the border. The reason: the public has lost any confidence that any agreement will bring about a cessation of hostilities, or that Palestinian demands can ever be met.

Because their negotiating partner has been delivering on building up the Palestinian state and delivering security.  As I say the Israelis have gone into overdrive lobbying Congress not to cut off funding for the PA's security forces over this precisely because they are providing a benefit to Israel, not least it mitigates the cost of policing the West Bank for the Israelis.

But the problem is that the Israelis aren't even just building a wall and unilaterally letting the West Bank be, the settlers movement - with backing from some within this government are expanding and then demanding that the Israeli state follow them and provide security. 

[Sheilbh]

Shelf looks at it and says "Hey, the Israelis don't want to deal". I look at it and say "Hey, the Israelis have given up on dealing."

It isn't, IMO, a matter of Israel not being willing to come to the table, it is that they've gone to the table over and over and it never goes anywhere. It is easy to say NOW that Israel is the problem, but that kind of ignores how they got to the point where they've given up on ever resolving this at the table.

I think looking for historical blame hasn't helped anyone in the Middle East before and it's better to look at the present.  Right now I think the Israel's are the ones not missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

But my other point is that I think a two-state solution is essential for Israel to survive as a Jewish state and as a democracy.  As I've said before I think if she continues to expand settlements in the West Bank and increase their area of de facto governance then they'll either have to choose to be an apartheid state with a Palestinian bantustan, or they'll end up as one state with a Muslim majority.  This is in Israel's interests.

[Valmy]

But the problem is that the Israelis aren't even just building a wall and unilaterally letting the West Bank be, the settlers movement - with backing from some within this government are expanding and then demanding that the Israeli state follow them and provide security. 

Huh when you put it that way it almost sounds like the Israelis are forcing the issue this way.  A method to the madness perhaps?

[Sheilbh]

THe only sane reason for them to stop expanding them would be because they think doing so could result in a peace deal though.

If they don't think that is possible, why should they bother?

Well as I say I think continual expansion into the West Bank will make Israel into a state that is either not democratic or not Jewish.  I think it's a genuine threat to Israel.

My view's roughly the same as Jeffrey Goldberg here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-24/why-palestinians-have-time-on-their-side.html#0_undefined,0_

As an aside the Atlantic's 'Is Peace Possible?' series is, I think, quite interesting:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/introducing-a-4-part-special-report-on-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/247263/