My four-year-old daughter, Sophie, and my almost two-year-old Maximus have a negotiated relationship. Sophie, who still hasn't forgotten the days of her individual independence, likes to take whatever Maximus is using at any given moment. This includes toys she doesn't use, and those that were never hers. To defuse the situation, I taught her to give him another toy, one that fits his age and that he knows is his. Alternatively, I suggested she share the toy and teach him how to play together. Watching their tit-for-tat interaction over toys crystallized the sad fact that when it comes to Israel-Palestine, this same childish exchange is costing the lives and livelihood of countless citizens.
Tit-for-tat has never been a productive strategy to deal with conflict resolution. It works only as part of an official negotiation process, where it is practiced to solve problems -- not create them. The continual pre-conditions put forth by both sides are exactly the details that need to be discussed in formal negotiations. Instead of making demands, isn't it better to discuss the options? These conditions are used by those who seek to stall an agreement and to promise constituencies the unattainable. In reality, the peace agreement is 95% done; it is the hard issues that both sides shy away from that we need to talk about.
Israel and the Palestinian Authority are well aware of the necessary compromises and potential solution for each one of the core issues: refugees, Jerusalem, and settlements. Yet both governments use those issues to make pie-in-the-sky promises to the public. A campaign of Palestinians holding the key to their old houses in the current territory of Israel is as unproductive as some Israeli organizations stating their goal is to maintain a unified Jerusalem under Israel. These uncompromising statements are making the expectations of Israelis and Palestinians impossible to achieve, turning any arrangements and concessions in a peace agreement harder for officials to sign and for the public to accept. It also allows for fake negotiations where these issues become breaking points in any talks again and again. So let's get serious here.
Before the signing of the Declaration of Principles (Sept. 13, 1993), the Palestinian Liberation Organization did not recognize Israel's right to exist, nor did Israel accept the right of Palestinians for self-determination. It is only after more than two years of secret and not-so-secret talks between the two sides that these understandings were established. Today, we are still fighting battles for recognition, when it should be clear from our own historical experience, that the only way to achieve any understandings is through agreements; just as we found two decades ago, we will find that lasting solutions are only attained through negotiations with those we still consider our adversaries.
So please, Mr. Abbas and Mr. Erekat, don't stall anymore. And Mr. Netanyahu, stop insisting that our counterparts recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland. Sit down for the sake of your people and make a real effort to build consensus around compromises that are viable solutions. Don't sit for show. Don't do it for the US, the EU, the Arab league or anyone else. Do it for us.
We teach our children how to exchange, negotiate, and most of all, share. Why can't we practice what is so commonplace among our children?
Follow Dana Agmon on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ConspiracyORG
I appreciate the sentiments expressed, and HOW they were expressed, but let's be realistic.
It's going to take a major disaster for there to be peace, like aliens landing and attacking us, to bring the two sides together.
??
I realize this is not ideal at all, but right now it is the window of opportunity that we have, and it is the only thing that will achieve some success and provide a state for the palestinians, while marginalizing and proving Hamas ineffective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTYPwHzboR8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfhoU66s4Y
It is naive to suggest that more talks will solve anything. If you've been paying attention to the history of the region for the last five decades or so, you'll realize that every issue that can be talked about has been discussed ad nauseum.
In suggesting talks you are presuming that both sides actually want peace, which is clearly not the case.
I am sorry you feel like you have to insult my knowledge, I am well aware of history. Unfortunately, history is not always reflective of the present. most of these issues have been discussed with Arafat, under very different conditions given the situation in the west bank vis-a-vis the situation in Gaza. They were also in the midst of continual violent struggle whether it was IDF operations, or suicide bombings. There is a US administration that is not dormant and unresponsive to the situation - even if they made some serious mistakes....
finally, I know it is easy to be disillusioned and say no one wants it and so screw it (excuse my french!), and while I understand these views, as an Israeli, I cannot afford the luxury of apathy. If we let depression get the best of us, the region will be in a much more dire state. It is exactly because despair is so omnipresent these days that we need to put pressure on the two sides to negotiate. otherwise, it will be too late. and no one wants to see a third wave of violence.
Again, if either side truly wanted peace they would have it now. I say this from the perspective a student of history who does not have a dog in the fight.
How can you ask the Palestinians to stop being abused and jailed on a systematic basis?
How can you ask the occupied to stop being occupied?
How can you ask the Palestinians to stop bulldozing their home?
How can you ask Palestinian children to stop being shot at while walking to school?
How can you ask the victim to recognize the victimizer right to abuse and to kill?
The point is, Israel hold all the cards, they need to act like a civilized human being and stop their racist ideologies.
Can you ask the suicide bomber to not blow up a restaurant?
These are the only concessions the Israelis want. Security.
Is it that unreasonable?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnYz0yW0OCA
The ONLY reason that you think of them as oppressed is because you aren't capable of seeing the full picture. If the Gazans didn't want to be under the control of another, they'd follow suit of the West Bank, an area and people that are thriving.
**How can you ask the occupied to stop being occupied?**
The Palestinians are occupying the Disputed Territories. It is my sincere hope, that via this upcoming negotiations, Israel will offer Gaza and West Bank to the Palestinians in exchange for a promise to denounce all terrorism and the recognition of the Israel.
**How can you ask the Palestinians to stop bulldozing their home?**
Palestinians should not be squatting in properties that aren't theirs.
I snipped the rest of the soapbox drama, precisely for what it is :).
Their fate lies solely with Israel, and its financial and military backer the United States
Currently the Palestinians are split into 2 political factions. Hamas, centered in Gaza, has chosen to fight back. Fatah, centered in the West Bank and Jerusalem choose to be submissive.
Neither tactic is working. Newly annexed land is taken from the submissive Fatah on a regular basis. On the other hand, uncooperative Hamas keeps their land but has many killed and must endure a blockade.
The key to the conflict has always been the United States which blindly supports the Israelis. There's nothing really the Palestinians can do to effect the outcome. I'm not even really sure the Israelis have much say in it at the end of the day. They are our proxy and do what we want them to do with few exceptions. Their gov't would fold quite quickly without USA's subsidies. Obama in keeping with tradition, officially opposes the Palestinians declaring a state and offers an unconditional veto over any and all UN resolutions sanctioning Israel. So there seems to be little possibility of positive movement on the issue
Knesset Member Masud Ganaim (United Arab List-Ta'al) believes "an Islamic caliphate should be established and it should include Israel." In an interview to Nazareth-based paper Kul al-Arab, Ganaim presented his opinion of the situation at the end of his first year in Knesset.
"I believe there is an urgent need to return to the Islamic caliphate. I believe this is the most fitting solution to the state of weakness, deterioration and erosion the Arabs and Muslims are suffering from," Ganaim said when asked if, as a devout Muslim, he believes an Islamic regime should be established in "Palestine or the Arab and Islamic homeland."
He said, "We are not necessarily talking about Israel here, but I believe an Islamic caliphate would be in the interest of the Jews themselves, since their golden era was under this caliphate."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3887468,00.html
Mrs Agmon, do it for us, try understand the real ME and the real Arabs who mean what they say.
Just a little more reading here might be in order. LOL
It was also signed at a different time - there is calm in the west bank, and gaza has been harshly subdued. the conditions on the ground have changed.
It was signed during the years where peace and love seemed plausible and expectations from this agreement were nothing short of attaining a loving, cooperative relationship that will flourish and change the world. This is no longer the case, and talks about an agreement are much more sober, allowing expectations to remain moderate and - barring any false promises - achievable.
and generally speaking - making broad sweeping statements about Arabs or Jews is racist, unproductive and only puts us in the same box with those we really do need to stand against.
Land counts more than any money offer.
We also aknowledge that both Palestine and Israel like to claim the whole 100% of the former Bristish Mandate of Palestine as theirs, but that will not happen since the 2 populations live on the land and cannot tolerate each other -unless one of the 2 parties decides to exterminate or expell the other one, and takes the risk of being severely prosecuted-. Since these 2 populations don't get along, it should have been originally a 50-50 split. Unfortunately, the Palestinans were not so organized to win any war so they would have to renounce 28% of land. Israel has the upper hand, but more than half of the Jews live outside of Israel, in other surroundings, and have a say in the future of Israel. Would the split not be accepted, then that would signal the creation of a bi-national state, whether or not the parties accept it, even if one will be temporarily oppressed. It is time for the parties involved to decide.
The time has come when letting 2 groups fight forever in a sandbox, just costs too much for the rest of us. Time-out, in type of sanctions, might be under way.
It doesn't change the fact that I support you're conclusion, but trying to change history is a bad precedent.
But leaders must be led and so, people of conscience have responded to Palestinian civil societies call to BDS Israel until they change their bad behavior.
Money is the currency with the loudest voice and "Hey Elton" on You Tube, cover's more than a few of Elton John's songs-it tells him WHY he should not play Tel Aviv on June 17, 2010 and this article defines nine categories that make up the necessary, sufficient, and defining characteristics of apartheid regimes:
http://arabisto.com/article/Blogs/Eileen_Fleming/Hey_Elton_Dont_Go_Breaking_Our_Hearts/59982