Is Israel Too Strong for America?

[Sheilbh]

And the fact that so much of the West either doesn't seem to care whether they are completely bullshit or not, or is even actively involved in creating the bullshit, makes it rather hard to take their faux outrage over Israel very seriously.

But surely that's because media ethics are less important than the fact that regardless of some faked images there is genuine suffering by the people in the region. 

What do you mean by staged though?

I am dealing with Gaza because Gaza is the key to the entire situation.  The situation is not diferent from Gaza the situation IS Gaza.  It is absolutely insane and ludicrous in the extreme to suggest that somehow the Palestinians can be given authority in Gaza and have that fail miserably and then turn around and somehow labor under the delusion that Israel would then be willing to do the same again in an area that is far more important to their security and interests like the West Bank.

Gaza's a side-issue.  The key issues of settlements, borders of territory, the status of Jerusalem, refugees and water are all in the West Bank.  The Palestinian Authority is already in charge there - though there's still an Israeli presence, of course.  At this point the PA have no possibility of re-asserting control over Gaza (how would they?), though everything I've read suggests that if the Gazans got to vote now then Fatah would win by a landslide.  In the short-term I think that the Hamas statelet is as much a feature of the region as the Hezbollah controlled Southern Lebanon.  In both cases I think we ultimately have to build up the legitimate forces that we can deal with so that they can take on Hezbollah and Hamas, though I've no idea how any PA that's strong in the West Bank would be able to deal with Gaza short of invasion which would be impossible because they'll never have the military to do it.

You claim there is genuine progress going on in the West Bank...well it is alot easier to have progress when the Israelis are right there.  Would that continue if the Israelis were to leave or would we see a repeat of Gaza?   

There is progress by Palestinian security forces and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. 

Would there be a repeat of Gaza?  I don't think it's likely.  At that time the Palestinians were in chaos over the death of Arafat and the election, Gaza has always been Hamas's stronghold and Fatah lost, Abu Mazen had little to no power in Gaza, Ariel Sharon was incapicitated shortly afterwards and Ehud Olmert was a huge disappointment.  I think the West Bank is a different situation.  The Palestinian Security Forces seem to be emerging with some weight, they've had an amount (though not nearly enough) of economic and development aid and Fatah seem to be in control.  I still think that the biggest problems in Gaza were the death of Arafat and the end of Sharon's career - I think had Sharon been in charge the situation would be very different.  We know about the Gaza disengagement but the Israelis also dismantled settlements in a part of the Northern West Bank.  So far nothing like Gaza has happened there.

But I'm not saying the Israelis should withdraw.  I'm saying they should stop expanding and that illegal settlements should be dismantled, which is rather different.  I think the settlements will have to be negotiated about  because while some in West Bank should be demolished there needs to be some sort of territory swap to acknowledge that some of them are permanent fixtures and '67 borders are no longer feasible.

I also think the motivation is different.  Sharon wanted to withdraw because it was basically a running, bloody sore - which is what it remains.  I think Israel should now stop expanding for two reasons.  Firstly because they have repeatedly said they would - though they say there's always been an understanding that 'organic' growth would be allowed.  Secondly I think because their negotiating partner has begun to deliver on their repeated promises (to develop their security forces and use them to help guarantee Israeli security) which, I think, puts the onus on Israel to begin to fulfill their repeated promises and stop an expansion of settlements prior to a wider negotiation.

I don't think anyone would suggest that unilateral dismantlement of the settlements in the West Bank would be a good idea.  One of the things peace has to deliver is a Palestinian state.  Now if that's to happen then when they start behaving like a partner - as they have over the last year or two - then you have to treat them like a partner.  Unilateral withdrawal is a tacit acknowledgement that the Palestinians can't be dealt with as I think was the case for much of Arafat's reign.

Other than that I agree with grumbler.

Point missed.  In order to freeze settlements we need to demonstrate it is in Israel's interests to do so.  There is a powerful, active, and outspoken group of people in Israel working for settlements.  Opposing them requires reasons because it takes significant energy and political capital to hold them back.

My understanding is that most Israelis want a settlement freeze but that the settlers are a powerful minority and I think Israel's electoral system seems to benefit well-organised minorities.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think, in fact, that the US should insist that Israel abide unilaterally by the borders establish by the Taba "Agreement."

That would guarantee that the Israelis would never put a serious peace proposal on the table ever again. 

The US apparently can't even stick to a simple settlement freeze demand, in any event.

[Valmy]

Gaza's a side-issue.  The key issues of settlements, borders of territory, the status of Jerusalem, refugees and water are all in the West Bank.

Precisely.  Therefore we are far likelier to be able to build a Palestinian State there where Israel will have less at stake.  That is my point.  Screwing up in Gaza and then turning around and demanding Israel then make serious concessions on far more serious issues is simply lunacy at best.  We have nothing substantial to offer them except the possibility of another Gaza where it would be disastrous for them.

Would there be a repeat of Gaza?  I don't think it's likely.

Not exactly like Gaza but something comparable?  Oh I do.  I think it is almost a certainty.  You seem to have far more confidence in the Palestinaians than I do.

[Valmy]

My understanding is that most Israelis want a settlement freeze but that the settlers are a powerful minority and I think Israel's electoral system seems to benefit well-organised minorities.

Your understanding is precisely what I just said.

[Valmy]

That would guarantee that the Israelis would never put a serious peace proposal on the table ever again. 

The US apparently can't even stick to a simple settlement freeze demand, in any event.

We have no plan and have no idea how to proceed except we have a vague desire to have the Arabs like us without pissing off the Israelis.  Ergo our policy is to fight hard for a settlement freeze without the will to really get it done.

[The Minsky Moment]

The plain political fact is that you have a hardline government in place in Israel, a radical terror organization controlling Gaza and a pseudo-government in the West Bank headed by a lame duck with a few weeks left on his dubiously extended term of office and whose approval rating is just barely treading in the double digits.  There is no way anything of use is going to get down in terms of reaching a settlement as long as this holds.  It is all nice that Obama wants to do something and is willing to put some pressure on both sides, but it is just a waste of time and effort other than to be able to say that at least he tried.

[grumbler]

That would guarantee that the Israelis would never put a serious peace proposal on the table ever again. 

Again?  that would imply there had been a previous one.

The US apparently can't even stick to a simple settlement freeze demand, in any event.

True, but true because a simplistic settlement freeze isn't very realistic.  Does that mean non-completion of partil structures?  No starts?  No starts other than ones already approved?

I think US demands for a "settlement freeze" have been rhetorical, made to sound good while knowing they wouldn't be accepted by Israel and therefor without cost.

[The Minsky Moment]

That would guarantee that the Israelis would never put a serious peace proposal on the table ever again. 

Again?  that would imply there had been a previous one.

Isn't that exactly wht the Taba proposal was?

If you now say that the the Israelis will be strictly held to the boundaries of the most aggressive negotiation positions they ever take, they will simply cease taking negotiation positions.

Does that mean non-completion of partil structures?  No starts?  No starts other than ones already approved?

However you want it.  No reason a policy can't be specified appropriately.

[Admiral Yi]

No, we were talking about concessions improving the situation. And clearly the situation is better now for the Israeli, compared to 1969. And I also think the situation is better for the Palestinians, compared to 1969.
You stated that the situation 10 years ago was worse than the situation 40 years ago.

Yes I did.  The wave of suicide bombings *followed* the concessions of Oslo.  The rocket attacks and kidnappings *followed* the concession of Gaza.

[Valmy]

Yes I did.  The wave of suicide bombings *followed* the concessions of Oslo.  The rocket attacks and kidnappings *followed* the concession of Gaza.

Yep.  Strange but true. 

[Razgovory]

Yes I did.  The wave of suicide bombings *followed* the concessions of Oslo.  The rocket attacks and kidnappings *followed* the concession of Gaza.

Yep.  Strange but true.

Not that strange.  Give'm an inch and they'll take a mile.

[Viking]

No, we were talking about concessions improving the situation. And clearly the situation is better now for the Israeli, compared to 1969. And I also think the situation is better for the Palestinians, compared to 1969.
You stated that the situation 10 years ago was worse than the situation 40 years ago.

Yes I did.  The wave of suicide bombings *followed* the concessions of Oslo.  The rocket attacks and kidnappings *followed* the concession of Gaza.

Not to mention the PLO making a deal after they were kicked out of the Gulf States.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes I did.  The wave of suicide bombings *followed* the concessions of Oslo.  The rocket attacks and kidnappings *followed* the concession of Gaza.

Yep.  Strange but true.

Not strange at all - whenever it looks like a peaceful solution could be conceivable, the people with a vested interest in disorder and mayhem step in.  Hamas is probably the biggest fan of the current Israeli government out there - they have no interest in rocking the boat too much now.