Palestine voted into UNESCO, USA cuts funding

[Berkut]

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. 

I think that is missing the point.

It isn't about blame, it is about whether one party believes the other party will over actually deal in good faith. I don't think Israel has any such belief. This has nothing to do with "blame".

[fhdz]

I think that is missing the point.

It isn't about blame, it is about whether one party believes the other party will over actually deal in good faith. I don't think Israel has any such belief. This has nothing to do with "blame".

Yes - one might certainly want to forgive, but one probably oughtn't forget.

[Sheilbh]

I think that is missing the point.

It isn't about blame, it is about whether one party believes the other party will over actually deal in good faith. I don't think Israel has any such belief. This has nothing to do with "blame".

But I think this is just another way of justifying inaction on the basis of history.  How long is it okay for the PA to build their state infrastructure, deliver on security as agreed with the Israelis and for the Israelis to continue to expand settlements?  How long can the failure of previous Palestinian governments to act in good faith justify the current Israeli government's unwillingness to do so?

[Viking]

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_

A one state solution is akin to suicide for Israel. The Israelis realize this. I don't think any amount of moral, international, trade or economic pressure can force them to accept the One State Solution. The only people I see discussing the 1SS are people urging Israel to submit or Palestinians to reject any offer. I think if Israel is forced into a situation where it has to choose between the 1SS or monstrous criminality on a large scale they will choose the monstrous criminality.

[Viking]

I think that is missing the point.

It isn't about blame, it is about whether one party believes the other party will over actually deal in good faith. I don't think Israel has any such belief. This has nothing to do with "blame".

But I think this is just another way of justifying inaction on the basis of history.  How long is it okay for the PA to build their state infrastructure, deliver on security as agreed with the Israelis and for the Israelis to continue to expand settlements?  How long can the failure of previous Palestinian governments to act in good faith justify the current Israeli government's unwillingness to do so?

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

[Berkut]

I think that is missing the point.

It isn't about blame, it is about whether one party believes the other party will over actually deal in good faith. I don't think Israel has any such belief. This has nothing to do with "blame".

But I think this is just another way of justifying inaction on the basis of history.  How long is it okay for the PA to build their state infrastructure, deliver on security as agreed with the Israelis and for the Israelis to continue to expand settlements?  How long can the failure of previous Palestinian governments to act in good faith justify the current Israeli government's unwillingness to do so?

What is the difference between justification and explanation?

What if Israel doesn't give a shit about justifying anything anymore?

There are consequences to action. You can only kick a dog so many times before it is not going to stick around to be kicked anymore. It doesn't matter what is "ok", it only matters what Israel feels they need to do in order to make themselves secure. What is "ok" was relevant back when there was some reason to believe a deal could possibly be made.

You are playing the mariage counselor who is trying to convince the wife that she really should trust hubby this time when he promises not to beat her...much (after all, the Palestinians as a people have hardly agreed that Israel should exist).

Or worse, you are guy actually blaming the wife for not being willing to deal, when the only reason the hubby is even at the table is because he knows the wife won't actually discuss it anymore, because he wants to look like the good guy to the judge.

The Arabs decided that violence was their only means of interaction with Israel for decades. Now that Israel has finally decided to believe them, you are saying they should ignore all that history and buy into a negotiated settlement after they spent 50 years trying just that very thing without any success at all. In fact, one can make a very convincing argument that engaging in negotiation with their neighbors while their neighbors worked very hard to murder them has made the situation overall much worse.

I am not saying I agree with their position, but I most certainly understand it.

[frunk]

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.

Except the couple is shackled into the same 100 square foot area, so there's no practical way in which they'll ever be "done" without the death of one or the other.

[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.

Except the couple is shackled into the same 100 square foot area, so there's no practical way in which they'll ever be "done" without the death of one or the other.

Yes, it certainly is a problem, isn't it?

It is too bad the Palestinians insisted on the "Exterminate the jews" options for so long.

[frunk]

I agree, but I'm not sure that Israel really wants to go down the road of the only choice being kill or be killed.

[Sheilbh]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

I agree that it doesn't make sense as long as Israel still thinks that there can possibly be a Palestinian state authority that is worth dealing with in anything more that a superficial and temporary fashion.

[jimmy olsen]

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_

I think if Israel is forced into a situation where it has to choose between the 1SS or monstrous criminality on a large scale they will choose the monstrous criminality.

Me too. I fear more than ever that the final outcome of this situation will be the genocide of one side or the other, perhaps both if nuclear weapons are used.

[MadImmortalMan]

Where's Solomon when you need him? Somebody needs to cut the baby in half.

[Sheilbh]

Except the couple is shackled into the same 100 square foot area, so there's no practical way in which they'll ever be "done" without the death of one or the other.

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.

A one state solution is akin to suicide for Israel. The Israelis realize this. I don't think any amount of moral, international, trade or economic pressure can force them to accept the One State Solution. The only people I see discussing the 1SS are people urging Israel to submit or Palestinians to reject any offer. I think if Israel is forced into a situation where it has to choose between the 1SS or monstrous criminality on a large scale they will choose the monstrous criminality.

I think Lieberman and the settlers movement could support annexing the West Bank.

[Viking]

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.

The PA can't deliver peace, that is the problem. I think you referred to Israeli lobbying to get US funding to PA security forces renewed, that looks like bolstering the moderates. What Israel is doing is sticking to the Oslo agreements slavishly and insisting on all it's rights under it.

Abbas's demand is for Israel to make a further concession over the Oslo agreements for him to do what the PLO agreed to do under the Oslo agreement. I don't see how Israel agreeing to this will do anything for peace?

Abbas can leapfrog the entire settlement issue by declaring that he will simply bulldoze them when he takes over them in the final status agreement. Abbas' behavior only makes sense to me if he is seeking to fix the situation rather than reach a final status agreement.