The Settlements: Obama's Demands and Netanyahu's Options

Amidst the whirlwind of activity surrounding President Obama's diplomatic efforts to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, one issue has stood out among others as particularly contentious. The renewed statements by President Obama, Secretary Clinton and the rest of the US administration on ending Israeli settlement activity has caused considerable discord on how to find common ground in this controversial issue. The Obama administration's demand that Israel end all settlement activity, including natural growth, has been deemed unacceptable by Netanyahu's government, which insists that a total freeze will severely aggravate normal life and engender internal political rift. Mr. Obama reaffirmed his position in his address to the Muslim world from Cairo when he stated: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements; this construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop." It is unlikely after such a statement that the US administration will retreat from this position. This will undoubtedly compel Netanyahu to revise his stance on settlements and a two-state solution as he addresses his countrymen on Sunday.

A close review of the Israeli point of view suggests that putting an immediate stop to natural growth on settlements, especially those which have become full fledged cities like Ma'ale Adumim, will be extraordinarily difficult to implement both politically and practically. Not only would the settler's movement rattle the government, but violence might inadvertently erupt, creating a scene that the Netanyahu government would want to avoid at all costs. The question is, what can be done to resolve this problem which has such potential to strain US-Israeli relations and undermine the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?

To understand the serious nature of the problem it first must be put in its proper context: More than any thing else, the existence of the settlements reminds every Palestinian of the Israeli occupation, and the expansion of these settlements not only reinforces that painful feeling and humiliation, but suggests that Israel is intent on maintaining the occupation indefinitely. The fact that Prime Minister Netanyahu has refused thus far to accept the idea of a two-state solution further strengthens the Palestinian argument that Israel has no intention of relinquishing the occupied territories. President Obama must insist on stopping the expansion of the settlements as a prerequisite to instilling some confidence and integrity into the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Mr. Netanyahu has thus far been against the freeze partially because it would imply an early concession on one of his main bargaining chips: the idea of the two-state solution.

To resolve this quandary it seems unlikely that President Obama will settle for less than a 'moratorium' on further expansion. Changing the semantics from a freeze to a temporary moratorium could initially provide some maneuvering room to agree on a workable formula. A temporary moratorium would mean a halt on the expansion of all settlements and settlement related activity during a set negotiating process, likely between three to six months. This might well work if it were done with the understanding that Israel and the Palestinians would enter immediately into negotiations with direct and active American involvement to determine the future borders of the two states. Once the borders have been agreed upon, Israel can expand settlement activity within them and will be prohibited from any development outside these borders. Whether the objective of the negotiations from Netanyahu's perspective would be a Palestinian state or not, he has already conceded as much when he stated that the Palestinians have the right to self-rule living side by side Israel in peace. Netanyahu may be able to sell the moratorium idea to his centre-right coalition partners because the alternative will be a direct confrontation with the United States, which could bring his government down. This may explain his likely change of heart, especially when recent polls show a majority of Israelis support the freeze.

During these negotiations, Israelis and Palestinians can agree within a few months as to which of the settlements will be incorporated into Israel proper under a peace agreement, and what contiguous land of equal size and quality can be swapped with the Palestinians in its place, which should be enforced under American monitoring. The two sides have negotiated in the past (at Camp David and in Taba in 2000-2001) and agreed in principle about the status of these settlements. Although the Palestinian Authority will want all issues on the table to reach a final status agreement -- including the Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem -- it appears that they are willing to discuss borders first once Israel accepts the moratorium. Mahmoud Abbas, along with Jordan's King Abdullah has publicly agreed that borders would be the first order of business. Throughout the duration of these negotiations, the Palestinian camp would be expected to make discernable progress on security and ending incitement, in keeping with the mission of the US security coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority General Keith Dayton.

It should be noted that historically the Israeli public has not tolerated and will not support any Israeli government that alienates the United States. Moreover, no Israeli Prime Minister could hold a government together should the United States decide to exert direct pressure -- which the Obama administration appears to be willing to wield. The Wye River negotiations between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Clinton in 1998 over Hebron clearly indicate that Netanyahu is capable of surpassing expectations. The idea here is to start the negotiations with a significant concession, and then let momentum and American pressure move the process forward.

To provide some practical suggestions, it is necessary to break down the settlers' movement into its three basic constituencies. In doing so, some interim solutions can realistically be made to satisfy the American demands, meet the Palestinian and Arab requirements for resuming negotiations, and to provide Netanyahu with a face saving way out that he can bring to his coalition.

The quality-of-life settlers are those who moved to the West Bank primarily for economic reasons, the majority of whom live in the block of settlements located closer to the green line. According to Peace Now statistics, there are about 196,000 residents in these settlements, several of which are no longer considered settlements and resemble large cities, home to more than 30,000 people each including Ma'ale Adumim, Modi'in and Beitar Illit. The routing of the security fence leaves most of these settlements on the Israeli side of the fence, though some deep inside the West Bank may not be included into Israel proper. The pressure on the government to allow for natural growth in these settlements is enormous and it is here where the Netanyahu government will experience the greatest difficulty in trying to implement the moratorium. This can be done however, because American overt pressure offers a high degree of political cover and limited options.

The second group consists of ideological settlers who use religious arguments to justify their presence in the West Bank. They view the return of the Jews to the land of "greater Israel" as a fulfillment of God's will. They occupy settlements located for the most part deep inside the West Bank and often in the heart of Palestinian populated areas. It is quite evident however that the public support for these settlements is declining. A growing majority of Israelis accept the fact that Israel will need to evacuate most of these nearly 100 settlements that dot the West Bank. The pressure to expand these settlements is minimal and it can be denied without considerable cost in political capital.

The third group is made up of Ultra-orthodox settlers in the West Bank who are a function almost exclusively of cheap and segregated housing close to the Green Line. They are descendants of devoutly religious Jews who oppose change and modernization. They have historically rejected active Zionism and continue to believe that the path to Jewish redemption is through religious rather than secular activity. There are eight ultra orthodox settlements that were built in the eighties and nineties with roughly 80,000 residents, all of whom are located within the settlement blocs that Israel wants to incorporate into Israel proper. These settlements are currently expanding more rapidly than others due primarily to a higher birth rate. Here -- once an agreement on the borders is achieved-the expansion can then be quickly resumed within Israeli lines.

Based on the settlers' ideological leanings and location of the settlements, and considering the political constraints under which Netanyahu's coalition government operates, the Obama administration should focus on four possible areas where it can persuade the Israeli government to take action.

First, the US should push for the dismantling of all illegal outposts-which the government has already begun-but must also insist that no new outposts be allowed to rise under any circumstances.

Second, the United States should focus on removing small clusters of settlements occupied by ideological activist settlers in places such as Nablus and Hebron that are troublesome and heavily tax Israel's security forces. All of these settlements are deep in the West Bank and most Israelis agree that they must eventually be evacuated for any peace deal as soon as there is an agreement.

Third, Israel must create a program of diminishing incentive that will provide settlers who are willing to relocate voluntarily with equal housing an extra incentive if they leave within the first year from the initiation of the program. The incentive will then be reduced every few months thereafter. The idea is to create reverse migrations to Israel proper while psychologically preparing the Israeli public and the Palestinians for the inevitability of ending the occupation.

While many settlers will not accept the compensation and try to hold out for a better deal, the government must be resolute and not give into blackmail. There have been some discussions about the fate of a few thousand Israeli settlers who simply refuse to relocate to Israel proper. Some suggest that they may continue to live in their homes under Palestinian authority, though neither side has reached an understanding on this issue in previous negotiations. This idea remains a viable one as a matter of principle, and can be worked out between both governments. Finally, as difficult as a complete moratorium on expansion of settlements will be, the United States must still exert sufficient pressure on Israel to be sensitive to Palestinian and Arab sensibilities and stop major development projects in and around East Jerusalem.

The Obama administration is likely to intensify the pressure on Netanyahu to make meaningful concessions for advancing peace. Although Netanyahu as a Prime Minister will be a tough negotiator and will demand full compliance in return from the Palestinians for any concession he makes, he may also prove to be the more worthy interlocutor and more trusted by the public. It should be noted that the largest territorial concessions-the Sinai, Hebron and Gaza were all made by Likud leaders Begin, Netanyahu and Sharon respectively.

Special envoy George Mitchell, who is now President Obama's Arab-Israeli point man, concluded his report of the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee with the following words, "Israelis and Palestinians have to live, work, and prosper together. History and geography have destined them to be neighbors. That cannot be changed. Only when their actions are guided by this awareness will they be able to develop the vision and reality of peace and shared prosperity."

No American president has taken such a keen and immediate commitment to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict this early in his term as President Obama. And no agreement between Israel and the Arab states has been achieved without direct American involvement. If time, resolve and visionary leadership matter, there may not be a better time to push for a solution than now.

Comments

[balrog221]

Temporary Moratorium not concrete enough... Israel will take the slightest wiggle room and use A Dershowitz and other spinners to distort and abuse it.

[sokolof]

The problem is within the U.S. I think the administration, congress, senate, AIPAC, other pro Israelis, other balanced groups who want 2 state solution, etc. need to have debate. Just like race Israel and Palestine discussion is avoided why? Could it be they are guilty? So to make this issue healthy let us discuss it in open. Fox, Cnn, MSNBC,etc are controlled by pro Israel groups so they need to air this debate also.

[sokolof]

The real fascists is not Israel it is those congress and senate sitting in their office to push their agenda by tying the hands of American administration to blindly support Israel with weapons and nuclear. They are creating the demise of Israel so that it doesn't coexist with its surrounding Arab nations. The congress and the senate get bought by Zionists and just for being a Jew (not all Jews support the aggression of Israel) they support Apartheid, racism and aggression. Israel would have settled their issue with Palestinians peacefully and respectful manner long time ago. However the extremism of Israel comes from U.S support because they are emboldened by them

[WowJones]

Israel has so permeated the occupied territories and clearly have no intentions of rolling them anywhere but forward.

[langej]

Some good and practical suggestions, as long as we remember that:
Any expansion (including natural growth) will, for the Palestinians, be "extraordinarily difficult to implement both politically and practically. Not only would the [Hamas] movement rattle the [Palestinian] government, but violence might inadvertently erupt"

Here is a simpler road-map.

Step One: remove all outposts between now and Jan 1, 2010 and immediately demolish any new ones that attempt to build.

Step Two: initiate direct talks between the Palestinian government and the larger settlements/cities

Step Three: Place the larger settlements under joint Israeli/Palestinian policing on Jan 1, 2011

Step Four: Remove all Israeli policing on Jan 1, 2012

The settlers who decided to move onto Plaestinian land should be entitled to remain in the new Palestine if they chose to do so.

[vinny]

israeli settlers in the west bank should be given something like 10 years to emigrate back to israel or if they don't they become naturalized palestinian citizens...

joint policing of these settlements may be difficult, but some kind of international security that involves both israeli and palestinian personnel that have undergone re-training so they can work together and promote peaceful resolutions to local conflicts might be possible and useful...

[BubbaC33]

Wheen Israel took the West Bank during the Six Day War in 1967 it was taken from Jordan, not the Palestinian people. According to international law Israel can legally and ethically hold and annex the West bank and the Golan.

[jcwtts1]

I agree. But it is a terrible idea. It is a disaster waiting to happen. For example, after WWII the US could have kept Japan. All of it. They attacked us, we beat them. We could have taken their country and held it. We put permanent bases on the land, we made sure they couldn't build another military to attack us, and we left them alone. Better long term strategy. Israel, for a lot of reasons couldn't do that. But times change and Israel is one smart Palestinian with a cell phone camera away from losing popular support in the US. Their last true ally. Almost fifteen years ago now, Tom Clancy wrote a book about a group of Palestinians linking arms and singing we shall overcome while the a young Israeli solider opened fire. The book was the Sum of All Fears, and it detailed the American reaction to something like that. Right now, America is running about 60-40 for Israel, that is the lowest point it has ever been. At least in since 1980. If you don't make peace now, you will lose the popular support of the United States. These are all political realities.

J

[balrog221]

Are you one who says there are no Palestinians? No Palestine? etc.

[Sentientbeing09]

According to international law and Geneva conventions, Israels civilian occupation and settlement of occupied land is illigitimate and illegal. You are misinformed.

[Paul Hackett]

Unfortunately, I really don't think settlers - many of whom are like the woman in the video below - are likely to accept Palestinian policing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0o_07BBk0

[Ivar Siqveland]

For years, the world has had to endure this awful situation.
This is a great article.
These people act like children, no, worse.
Elect people that can solve this problem --
Israel must get out of these area's - take down the road blocks etc.
It is time.... this is the fair and right thing to do.
I was there is the early 90's, nothing has changed.

People that live in the Middle East must be so tired of this BS.
SOLVE IT.

[vinny]

The very FIRST thing the Obama administration needs to do is support new elections under the Palestinian Authority. Abbas' term ended last Jan 9th, and like an autocrat, the guy extended his presidency.

Why is Obama meeting with Abbas and not Hamas leaders? Why has Obama not said anything about the elections that were supposed to happen this spring, but were suspended? A few weeks ago, Abbas' henchmen gunned down his political foes - his countrymen; yet Obama had no qualms entertaining the unelected official at the White House?

For all of his rhetoric and promises, Obama has so far been following the Bush-Rice Doctrine of not supporting democracy in Palestine and dealing with the elected leaders of the Palestinian Authority. Like Bush, Obama is letting geo-politics get in the way of brokering a new peace-process.

If an honest dialogue is to take place, the very FIRST thing that needs to happen is new elections in Palestine.

[jeanrenoir]

I'm an agnostic, but if I believed in God, I would assume he "sent" Obama to save Likud Israel, AIPAC, and the neocons from themselves. The Bush administration was the most disastrous period for Israel in America since it was created in '48. The neocon proxy war for Israel in Iraq did more to blacken Israel's reputation in America (just read the comments on HuffPost; and these are mostly liberals!) than anything in Israeli history. The American public is sick and tired of AIPAC's buying the American Congress and the White House, which ended, of course, with the election of Obama, whose charisma and ability to raise money on the Net completely neutered AIPAC's normal power over the White House from the get-go. Thank "God" for all the wonderful Jews of goodwill in America and Israel, like this blogger, who are turning the tide within the Jewish community and helping Obama work out, at last, peace with justice in "the Holy Land," after decades of worsening appartheid. I have it on good authority that Netanyahu was shocked when he met with Jewish Congressmen recently and found himself being grilled relentlessly on Israel, the settlements, Gaza, etc. A bright new day has dawned after what looked like the terminal darkness of the neocon years.

[Rog49Thomas]

It's interesting to note how for some folks the issue of settlements is "stopping expansion".

Could the quid pro quo for stopping expansion be retention of the existing ones?

[jferguson]

These are likely unsophisticated questions, but....

Is the attraction of the land the settlers are on that they aren't paying anyone for it?

Or is it that undeveloped land within the 1967 borders is so tight that the sort of projects the settlers envision would either be impossible, or prohibitively expensive?

Is it possible that this is mostly about money?

[Rog49Thomas]

Settlements are a prelude to annexation.

The settlers want "piece" and a Greater Israel.

[jcwtts1]

But they also have this land because of the two arab israeli wars right?

[biwee]

Facts are important to some people. Facts mean nothing to some people.
Here are three facts:

1) The Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed, makes ALL of the Israeli
"settlements" outside the 67 Armistice line ILLEGAL.

2) The World Court has ruled 14-1 that Israel has NO right to any land outside the 67 Armistice line.

3) The Israeli "settlements" are ILLEGAL under multiple UN Security Council (NOT General Assembly) resolutions.

These are facts. Now, the liars and spinners who do not like these FACTS can ignore them, but not forever.

[Rog49Thomas]

Laws that are not enforced are not laws.

They become suggestions that can be easily ignored.

[Sentientbeing09]

Youre right. Israel is ignoring the will of international justice.

We should send in a multinational coalition-­of-the-wil­ling into occupied Israel and force them to comply with international law.

[jcwtts1]

The world court doesn't have the juice to tell anyone anything. The UN is overwhelmingly anti semetic and frankly toothless. The only juice in the game is the US. Israel, if they were smart, would act now, without overt pressure, before we have to drop the hammer on them. The settlements are done. The push for peace will be way more aggressive if we have to push it. They should see this coming and act in their own best interest. Make a peace settlement and stick to it.

J

[jjs110]

Why should they? The Palestinians have completely ignored all previous peace agreements they've signed. Why would any new one be any different? As long as the Palestinians are not serious about making peace and giving Israelis security guarantees that they are also willing and able to enforce, all the rest will remain a futile waste of time and resources. Bottom line: stop blaming Israel and tell the Palestinians to grow up and shoulder their share of responsibilities to make peace. They will not get all of the West Bank, and neither will Israel. Israel has compromised enough, culminating with the Gaza disengagement. It's time for the Palestinians that they mean what they say, i.e. want peace.

[jjs110]

Facts? Your statements only prove one indisputable fact: you don't know what you're talking about:
"1) The Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed, makes ALL of the Israeli
"settlements" outside the 67 Armistice line ILLEGAL."
Wrong. Because a) the 67 armistice is just that, an armistice, i.e. a cease-fire, and the final lines have yet to be determined in negotiations, which the Palestinians have always rejected, claiming that they were entitled to get everything back when in fact it was Israel what was attacked (so the Palestinians are in fact entitled to nothing at all), and b) because the Geneva Convention in question bars forcible population transferts, not people moving voluntarily.

"2) The World Court has ruled 14-1 that Israel has NO right to any land outside the 67 Armistice line."
Wrong again. The World Court had no jurisdiction over this issue and received an illegal mandate with a pre-determined judgment injunction for the General Assembly, a completely irregular and illegal procedure, but that didn't bother anyone, did it? Additionally, its judgments are strictly advisory, i.e. non-enforceable. Conclusion: the World Court only succeeded in making a complete fool of itself and destroying its own credibility.

[jjs110]

"3) The Israeli "settlements" are ILLEGAL under multiple UN Security Council (NOT General Assembly) resolutions."
And wrong again (at least you are consistent). Neither UN GA nor UN SC resolutions have any authority regarding the settlements. You should know that the SC resolutions are no more enforceable than GA resolutions are, unless they are passed under Chapter VII of the Charter, which has never been the case in regard to the settlements. Besides, the GC do not apply to the territories since it did not belong to Jordan, or anyone else for that matter, when Israel ended up with them as a result of the defensive war it had to wage in 1967 in response to naked Arab aggression on three fronts at the same time.

[Ozarks]

Stopping the annual US $3 billion subsidy to Israel because "this construction violates previous agreements" will get Netanyahu government's attention.

[BubbaC33]

Do you also advocate ending the almost $3 billion the US sends to Egypt? Do you realize the US spends more in Iraq than it sends to Israel? The cost of building and maintaining bases in Saudi Arabia is as much as the US sends to Israel. The US government will lose over 1o times the amount of aid to Israel this year with tax cheats.

[JZ735]

The issue is Israel here, not what happens in any of the other countries mentioned, although I think we give way too much money to both Iraq and Saudi Arabia, a country that actively tries to undermine us and Israel.

[biwee]

It is a common ploy of those defending the indefensible to move the subject to something else. We are not talking about Egypt, but Israel. Stay on topic.

[Sentientbeing09]

Egypt gets less than two billion dollars a year in aid. Not 'almost 3 billion'

Egypt dont invade a new neighbor every 18 months killing thousands of civilians. Egypt dont terrorize a whole indigenous population, stealing their land and resources. Egypt dont fire chemical weapons and cluster bombs at civilians....

[breathe...]

...Egypt doesnt have an undocumented nuclear weapons program. Egypt isnt notorious for spying on the US. Egypt doesnt ignore international law and Geneva conventions. Egypt doesnt use violence to fullfill border ambitions. Egypt's domestic policies arent opposed by 150 countries of the UN.

Did I miss anything out?

Egypt gets paid for managing a moderate, bearable and workable foreign policy towards Israel in opposition of its own population's expectations, against Palestinian welfare and against other regional players and common sense.

Yes, cutting Israel off from the US and ending support would also necessitate cutting off the (almost) 2 billion dollars in aid to Egypt.

Yay.
3+2=5 Billion dollars back in the US economy!

[jcwtts1]

Here is what happened. Obama spoke frankly to Netenyahu (sp) and fake tough guy that he is, he went public with his rejection of Obama's proposal. Mistake. He tried to big foot Obama because he is a new young president and he thought he would be intimidated. Instead of folding, Obama made several public declarations, sent Hilary to talk to Net, who told him, first, don't do that to my guy, second stop the fing settlements now. Obama then showed Net the impact Airforce One makes landing in the region and not coming to Israel. We are the muscle that keeps people from trying to obliterate them every day. If they don't have us at their back they will fight more than they currently do and it will eventually become a nuke war or the end of Israel. A simple issue of, if you use our muscle, you need to take our advice. The argument I make, and the US makes, is stop firing rockets into Israel. Ok, there are no rockets coming in. So lets sit down and talk about it.

J

[balrog221]

very interesting.... thanks. so you are saying "message sent" will Netanyahu get it? Or is he so busy working the phones to congress and cutting off Palestinian telecom? In other words sending his own message?

[Regeman]

When are we, and the Israeli's going to realize that they are doomed?

The only solution is the South African model.

They can't even defend from home made Hamas rockets out of Gaza. Or Hezbollah short range rockets out of South Lebanon. They either give up Jerusalem and allow the "Right of Return" or take up house in the Mediterranean. I'd start making some friends too.

Nukes? Who you gonna nuke when a miniaturized nuclear weapon goes off in Tel Aviv? Every body? You certainly aren't gonna figure out who planted it. Gonna take out North Korea? Pakistan? Iran too?

Your neighbors? Remember your country is like what? thirteen miles wide? You gonna live in fallout shelters forever?

Lets get real folks. Time to address the "New Jewish Question"

[Rog49Thomas]

Anyone drops a nuke in the area and they all die.

We're talking about a very small area.

When Chernobyl occurred, folks thousands of miles away got sick.

[AniJustMe]

How many times is the land set aside for the Jewish people to closely settle (as stipulated in the San Remo documents of the League of Nations in 1920 and ratified by the UN when it came into being) going to be divided.

Britain had the original document amended so that it could impose its own agenda on it. Although the wording said that its implementation could be delayed or postponed it never said it could be abrogated - which Britain did when it chopped of 80% and made a protectorate Trans-Jordan which eventually became the Kingdom of Jordan. This was done to give a piece of real estate to part of the Hashemite clan who had been deposed from their centuries long place as guardians of Mecca and Medina by the Saud Clan.

One of the first things Jordan did with British help was to make it impossible for Jews to even own property in the new kingdom.

Britain and France have a lot to answer for - they divided up Ottoman Empire to suit their oil needs - in such a way they thought they could control all the region. Even now they continue with these policies believing they can still control the Arabs.

[Rog49Thomas]

The Balfour Declaration said that a Jewish homeland in Palestine should not prejudice the rights of the
Arab inhabitants.

Seems to me they have.

[FrTothus]

Two problems: There's the propaganda war played out daily in the press. Eg, the use of the term "settlements" for the Israeli occupation, (while war crimes of illegal occupation, collective punishment, civilian targeting, forced starvation, denial of medicine, etc, etc remain unspoken) is a prime example of this. Who could be against settlements? Americans love the pioneer. Such terms turn sow's ears into silk purses. The second problem is that the "news" makes certain that the American people are never told the truth about what their government is doing. With regard to Israel, the US has, for decades now, blocked all Arab offers and overtures toward peace, cynically calling this the "Peace Process". Our corporate media never cites the annual lopsided UN votes calling on all nations to observe international law, which the US (along with Israel and maybe two or three small Pacific Island countries) annually rejects. Nor do they tell us that the entire Arab world has been ready for years to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist inside the 1967 borders, as long as the Palestinians are given the state UN 242 promised them a bloody generation ago. The US is long on rhetoric, but continues fund Israel and supply them with millions of dollars and all the military equipment they want, which everyone concerned knows is used to kill and threaten Palestinians. But both the US elites and war profiteers and their Israeli counterparts benefit economically and politically from Israel being under this imaginary siege.

[drjj]

It's fascinating to me that those like this genius FrTothus seem extremely concerned about the "collective punishment" and the "civilian targeting" allegedly done by the Israelis (who of course do nothing of the sort, being a very Westernized and civilized society)---

It's almost pathetically obvious that these descriptions much more accurately describe what the Islamists have been trying to do to the Jews since they declared Independence! why do people like you who hide behind a pseudo desire for peace never seem concerned about all the terrorism, homical bombers, etc. etc. inflicted regularly on the Israelis?

Gee,I wonder Mr. Gibson...

[nk007]

drjj:

I think the impediment to peace is that each side blames the other and honest self examination is thrown out of the window. First, it is true that islamic militants indiscriminately target israelis and innocent civilians, including children, are killed. That is the reason why Obama appealed to the palestinians to renounce violence and seek peaceful means. But it is also true that Israel is guilty of doing most the things that FrTothus enumerated. And Israelis with a conscience and a sense of humanity have been decrying these actions by their government. Surely when houses of Palestinians are bull dozed, leaving women and children without a home, simply because Israel alleged that there were militants in those houses, that is truly collective punishment. One thing that is really nauseating is your invocation of "civilized westerners v. uncivilized" non westerner. This of course is nonsense: The so called "Westernized and civilized" societies are just as capable of doing evil as the "uncivilized." Surely Israel's recent attack on Gaza, like the United States invasion of Iraq, demonstrated the depth of inhumanity that the so called "civilized" can inflict on the "uncivilized." I think the first step towards peace is a realization that Israelis and Palestinians are human beings that must be treated with respect. Constanr dehumanization and humiliation only breeds bitter resentment and endless cycles of violence.

[JZ735]

No one sane denies what has happened to Israelis. But to make Palestinian citizens suffer for the behavior of extremists is unconscionable.

[Ozarks]

Obama said : "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements; this construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace" . Don't sound like Obama is being "long on rhetoric", he is calling Natanyahu out and "This will undoubtedly compel Netanyahu to revise his stance on settlements and a two-state solution as he addresses his countrymen on Sunday."

[JZ735]

I am glad Obama did this...for too long Israel has gotten carte blanche support from America. Yes, the ties Israel and America have are strong, and they can remain so, as George Mitchell told Shimon Peres today. But Israel cannot occupy Gaza, make it impossible for Palestinians to visit family or work, and then try to take water from Southern Lebanon. A Palestinian state is an inevitability Israelis need to face.

[S1m0n]

They're not settlers, they're human shields.