Palestine voted into UNESCO, USA cuts funding

[Warspite]

I don't see what a married couple analogy has to do with a bunch of hard right wing messianic nutjobs actively annexing territory.

Were Israel carefully seizing strategically vital land for specific territorial defence objectives, that would be one thing. But settlements are not really about this.

[Viking]

I don't see what a married couple analogy has to do with a bunch of hard right wing messianic nutjobs actively annexing territory.

Were Israel carefully seizing strategically vital land for specific territorial defence objectives, that would be one thing. But settlements are not really about this.

Given that the vast majority of the settlers are in the foothills above Tel Aviv and Haifa and in the hills surrounding Jerusalem I have to disagree with your oversimplification of the nature of the different kinds of settlers.

[Berkut]

Were Israel carefully seizing strategically vital land for specific territorial defence objectives, that would be one thing. But settlements are not really about this.

Yeah, that is a good point, because certainly historically them holding the Golan Heights was seen in that manner, and nobody bitched about that, amirite?

[Razgovory]

To be blunt. They can do that as long as the PA doesn't speak for men of violence in Gaza.

Okay.  My view is that the Israelis should be bolstering the moderates in this.  But even then I don't get the link.  Hamaz in Gaza are a huge problem, so the Israelis expand settlements in the West Bank and undermine the PA that's helping provide them with security?  That doesn't make sense to me.

Why can't the Palestinians bolster the moderates themselves?  Why is it on the onus for Israel to always be the adult in the room?  What you say is history I see as simple pattern recognition.  It's not like the Palestinians failing to hold up their sides of the bargain is some ancient offense.  This has repeatedly happened for two decades now.  You say they have done some of the things in their agreements, but not the one that is most important to the Israelis, which is to stop attacking Israel.  From the Israeli perspective, they've gotten more peace and security from the damned wall they built then from agreements with the Palestinians.  The Palestinians still attack, but the rocket attacks cause less death and destruction then the suicide bombings. 

From my view point the Israelis have been very gentle with the Palestinians.  The US has kicked the shit out of groups of people for far less then this.

[Malthus]

Were Israel carefully seizing strategically vital land for specific territorial defence objectives, that would be one thing. But settlements are not really about this.

Yeah, that is a good point, because certainly historically them holding the Golan Heights was seen in that manner, and nobody bitched about that, amirite?

The Golan Heights has few Palestinians living on them; it is mostly inhabited by Druze and Alawites.

[Viking]

Were Israel carefully seizing strategically vital land for specific territorial defence objectives, that would be one thing. But settlements are not really about this.

Yeah, that is a good point, because certainly historically them holding the Golan Heights was seen in that manner, and nobody bitched about that, amirite?

The Golan Heights has few Palestinians living on them; it is mostly inhabited by Druze and Alawites.

Most of them are now refugees in Syria. But, since they are not Palestinians, their Refugee status is not inherited.

[Malthus]

I don't think the beaten wife analogy is that helpful or accurate.

My view is led by two thoughts.  Peace is always in Israel's interests.  Governments change and have different priorities at different points.  The combination of those points, in my view, made it entirely right to recognise that Sadat was a very different creature than Nasser and that peace could be made.  Similarly it's what allowed Rabin to make peace with King Hussein.  Securing those borders with long-term peace deals is better than having one very friendly superpower but little else.

I think almost all previous Israeli PMs would recognise that it's in their interests to work towards peace with the PA and that Abbas and Fayyad are different from Arafat.

The difference is that Sadat and Hussein could actually deliver the goods (Sadat at the cost of his life). There is no evidence that the PA can, and plenty that it can't.

[Sheilbh]

The difference is that Sadat and Hussein could actually deliver the goods (Sadat at the cost of his life). There is no evidence that the PA can, and plenty that it can't.

The PA has in the West Bank.  We need new elections and for the PA to be strengthened for them to try and do that in Gaza.

You say they have done some of the things in their agreements, but not the one that is most important to the Israelis, which is to stop attacking Israel.  From the Israeli perspective, they've gotten more peace and security from the damned wall they built then from agreements with the Palestinians.  The Palestinians still attack, but the rocket attacks cause less death and destruction then the suicide bombings. 

The PA were kicked out of Gaza.  They have stopped attacks from the West Bank and increasingly take the lead on security there.  The Israeli security forces trust them.  This is all new.  None of this was really the case before Arafat died. 

Gaza's a problem that is really difficult to resolve.  But it's separate from the PA and is Abbas's problem.  Without Hamas he can't have a comprehensive security agreement, with them the Israelis won't talk.

Apparently if the UN bid fails and there's no negotiations Abbas has said he'll resign an asked Fatah to vote to dissolve the PA.  From what I understand his argument was basically 'what's the point?'

[Warspite]

I don't see what a married couple analogy has to do with a bunch of hard right wing messianic nutjobs actively annexing territory.

Were Israel carefully seizing strategically vital land for specific territorial defence objectives, that would be one thing. But settlements are not really about this.

Given that the vast majority of the settlers are in the foothills above Tel Aviv and Haifa and in the hills surrounding Jerusalem I have to disagree with your oversimplification of the nature of the different kinds of settlers.

You are suggesting the settler movement is about defending Tel Aviv and Haifa?

[Viking]

Sheilbh, do you think the Israelis are purposefully avoiding peace for the sake of a few hilltop settlements?


I'lll agree that Gaza is the problem. But, unless you are suggesting Daniel Pipes' Three State Solution, shouldn't you be advocating the removal of HAMAS from Gaza in some way?

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh, do you think the Israelis are purposefully avoiding peace for the sake of a few hilltop settlements?

Yes, but not just that.  I think the Israeli government (or enough groups within it) doesn't want to deal with Abbas if it means giving up settlements in any way.  I mean look at the conflict this government was willing to get into with the US administration over settlements.

The populations blocks we're talking about in the West Bank aren't a 'few hilltop settlements'.  There are over 200 and they contain around 300 000 people, including the Foreign Minister (as Moshe Dayan's widow put it, a 'mad doberman').  I think a number of them have been used to change the ultimate, negotiated border.

I'lll agree that Gaza is the problem. But, unless you are suggesting Daniel Pipes' Three State Solution, shouldn't you be advocating the removal of HAMAS from Gaza in some way?

Gaza's like Pakistan.  I think it's a problem and that's about as far as I can get.

[Viking]

You are suggesting the settler movement is about defending Tel Aviv and Haifa?

No, I'm suggesting that settler /= settler movement. The vast majority are living on the official settlements, the ones Netanyahu call suburbs of Jerusalem. The legal, authorized, planned and supported (with state subsidies) are the ones in the west bank where Israel is most narrow and around Jerusalem and the corridor to Jerusalem.

[Razgovory]

The difference is that Sadat and Hussein could actually deliver the goods (Sadat at the cost of his life). There is no evidence that the PA can, and plenty that it can't.

The PA has in the West Bank.  We need new elections and for the PA to be strengthened for them to try and do that in Gaza.

You say they have done some of the things in their agreements, but not the one that is most important to the Israelis, which is to stop attacking Israel.  From the Israeli perspective, they've gotten more peace and security from the damned wall they built then from agreements with the Palestinians.  The Palestinians still attack, but the rocket attacks cause less death and destruction then the suicide bombings. 

The PA were kicked out of Gaza.  They have stopped attacks from the West Bank and increasingly take the lead on security there.  The Israeli security forces trust them.  This is all new.  None of this was really the case before Arafat died. 

Gaza's a problem that is really difficult to resolve.  But it's separate from the PA and is Abbas's problem.  Without Hamas he can't have a comprehensive security agreement, with them the Israelis won't talk.

Apparently if the UN bid fails and there's no negotiations Abbas has said he'll resign an asked Fatah to vote to dissolve the PA.  From what I understand his argument was basically 'what's the point?'

The PA claims to speak for all of Palestine, so it's not a separate issue.  If they can't control half their claimed territory, really what is the point in negotiating with them?

[Viking]

Sheilbh, do you think the Israelis are purposefully avoiding peace for the sake of a few hilltop settlements?

Yes, but not just that.  I think the Israeli government (or enough groups within it) doesn't want to deal with Abbas if it means giving up settlements in any way.  I mean look at the conflict this government was willing to get into with the US administration over settlements.

I'm concerned that you don't differentiate in any way between hilltop settlements not approved by the Israeli government and the large cities which have been established in the corridor to jerusalem and in the hills above the israeli coastal plain as well as the settlements within municipal jerusalem.

You are in danger of becoming more catholic than the pope, since Olmert's plan kept almost all of the border blocs as well as the jerusalem neighborhoods in his proposal, which Abbas later said was satisfactory (after Netanyahu came to power mind you). The parties agree on lines drawn on maps and in the dirt, in the west bank and in jerusalem. The sticking point is still the refugees.

The populations blocks we're talking about in the West Bank aren't a 'few hilltop settlements'.  There are over 200 and they contain around 300 000 people, including the Foreign Minister (as Moshe Dayan's widow put it, a 'mad doberman').  I think a number of them have been used to change the ultimate, negotiated border.

500,000 to the best of my knowledge. Of which 200k are in Jerusalem, 300k are in the border blocs and a few thousand are in the frontier and hilltop settlements. I agree that settlement building is the Israelis primary method of redrawing the border, in effect marking the territories doggy style.

I don't think the Green line is a plausible secure border for Israel and Palestine.

I'lll agree that Gaza is the problem. But, unless you are suggesting Daniel Pipes' Three State Solution, shouldn't you be advocating the removal of HAMAS from Gaza in some way?

Gaza's like Pakistan.  I think it's a problem and that's about as far as I can get.

It's the fly in the ointment. It seems that nobody has replied or responded to my post on how the mere existence of HAMAS in Gaza affects the ability of the PA or PLO or anybody else to negotiate. It's a demonstration that Abbas cannot deliver anything. Even if there is a three state solution which includes peace with the west bank all that is needed is a HAMAS coup or election victory against FATAH to end it all, starting a new war.

[The Minsky Moment]

Why can't the Palestinians bolster the moderates themselves?  Why is it on the onus for Israel to always be the adult in the room?

Israel has a state, the Palestinians don't.
I really think the smart move is open the door wide open to the PA and welcome them to statehood.  Then they finally will have to be responsible for themselves and abide by the rules of the state system.