The Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are reported to be going well -- or as well as they can go with the United States maintaining its insistence that no attempts at Palestinian unity are made.
This is Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's demand, conveyed to the lobby, enforced by President and Congress, and then rammed down the throat of even the forces within the Palestinian Authority who want to coordinate with Hamas.
But, forgetting that for a moment, the big worry about the current talks continues to be what will happen after September 26th, when Israel's partial settlement freeze ends. Netanyahu says that he won't continue the freeze while President Mahmoud Abbas says he will end the talks if the freeze lapses.
The whole settlement freeze issue is one of the three most unnecessary obstacles to peace . The other two are the belief, on the part of some Palestinians, that the 1948 refugees and their progeny are returning to Israel (rather than to a Palestinian state) and Netanyahu's insistence that Palestinians recognize Israel "as a Jewish state."
First the settlements.
Of course, the freeze should continue and should extend to all the land being negotiated over (i.e., the land beyond the '67 lines).
Here's an analogy. A renter and her landlord are discussing whether she can put up a wall to create a separate dining area in the kitchen. She says that she will put it up at her own expense and fully remove it when she moves out.
The landlord agrees to discuss it but she insists that she be allowed to put up her wall while they are discussing the issue, and before any agreement is reached.
He argues that no, since the discussions are about the wall, you can't preempt the issue by putting up the wall before we agree whether you can. You can't decide the issue unilaterally while saying that we are talking about it.
It's the same with Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
Above all, they are about Israel's borders -- what will be Israel and what will be Palestine. Every expansion of settlements, let alone the construction of new ones, is a unilateral decision about the future of the land. Every settlement, every additional settler family, is a statement that this space belongs to Israel.
The solution is simple. As President Obama said in his press conference on September 10th, "....ultimately, the way to solve these problems is for the two sides to agree what's going to be Israel, what's going to be the state of Palestine. And if you can get that agreement, then you can start constructing anything that the people of Israel see fit in undisputed areas." As for the areas that are going to be Palestine, Israel cannot build there.
So start with defining borders. In the meantime, freeze the status quo.
The second obstacle is the idea that peace can only be achieved if every displaced Palestinian in the world and their descendants -- perhaps seven million people -- has the right to move to, what is now, Israel.
This is not to say that some formula cannot be worked out to address the Palestinian homelessness that was produced by the establishment of Israel. Simple justice requires it because the creation of Israel created the refugee problem. It should not even be necessary to write that. But Israeli propagandists like to insist that this is a myth and that the Palestinians simply decided to up and leave their ancestral home after a thousand years or so because, I don't know, they were bored.
Fortunately, polls show that most Palestinians insist only on the "right of return," but only a very few actually want to exercise that right. In fact, the Arab League Initiative (formerly called the Saudi initiative, the best peace plan out there) stipulates that the issue of Palestinian return would have to be agreed upon by Israelis and Palestinians. No Palestinian would return to Israel without Israel's consent.
The Palestinian refugee problem -- also known as Palestinian statelessness - would be solved by the establishment of a Palestinian state encompassing the occupied territories, with its capital in East Jerusalem, and in which every Palestinian in the world would have the right to live. Like Israel, it would exist both for the people who live there and the Diaspora. Additionally, the international community would financially compensate the Palestinian people for its losses since 1948. (I can see super-attorney Ken Feinberg assigned to determine what each family should receive).
So what's the problem? Why is "return" such an obstacle?
It probably isn't, except for those who want it to be.
And then there is the new demand, devised by Likud prime ministers, that Palestinians recognize Israel "as a Jewish state."
This demand was designed to torpedo any agreement because those who came up with the idea knew that Palestinians would never accept it. After all, for almost 60 years Israel has insisted only that it be recognized as Israel, with the right (guaranteed in any treaty) to secure borders and therefore a secure population. Anyone who understands anything about Jewish history would understand the Jewish peoples' need for sovereignty, a state for Jews, but would also understand that the "as a Jewish state" demand jeopardizes the whole Zionist enterprise.
No nation in the world is recognized by any other nation as anything in particular. After all, it is not up to outsiders to determine the identity of another country. Demanding that non-Jews determine Israel's identity is not only insulting, it is the antithesis of Zionism which is all about Jewish self-determination.
Palestinians, in particular, cannot recognize Israel "as a Jewish state" because that formulation essentially declares that non-Jewish Israelis (a million Palestinians who are Israelis) are second class citizens. Imagine how American Jews or other non-Christians would feel if the United States was recognized by the world "as a Christian state" although it is possible to make the case that we are that. (The overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian. Christmas is a national holiday and official government documents state "In The Year Of Our Lord.")
The "as a Jewish state" concept is also a terrible idea for Jews. Even without Israel's recognition "as a Jewish state," the power of the Orthodox Jewish establishment over Israeli life is out of control.
The Orthodox rabbinate decides who is Jewish and who isn't, based on bizarre racial criteria. Those deemed not Jewish are burdened with obstacles at every milestone in life: birth, marriage, divorce, death.
A Jew cannot marry a non-Jew, or anyone deemed a "non-Jew" by the rabbinate in Israel but has to travel abroad (Cyprus is the favored destination). In Jerusalem, the public bus authorities run sexually segregated buses and the Orthodox are demanding that the new light-rail system run cars only for women.
Sabbath observance is enforced by law as is the ban on selling pork. And each year pressure increases on restaurants and hotels not to host Christmas or New Years parties or lose their licenses to do business. Israel, with no separation of state and synagogue, is as Jewish already as the Vatican is Roman Catholic. Palestinian recognition of Israel "as a Jewish state" is the very last thing Jewish or non-Jewish Israelis (or Jews abroad) need.
So, here's my idea. Keep the settlements frozen solid. Limit the Palestinian right of return to something realistic. And recognize Israel simply as Israel, the homeland for Jews, but where all Israelis enjoy equal rights and no rabbis can make any Israeli, Jew or Arab, sit (quite literally) in the back of the bus.
And, above all, establish a viable Palestinian state in the 22% of historic Palestine that was not controlled by Israel until June 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital.
The alternative, looming just beyond the horizon, is the so-called one state -- or binational -- solution in which Israelis and Palestinians share all the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. How can it be more obvious? The alternative to two states is one state, which virtually all Palestinians would accept and virtually all Israelis reject. That is why the two-state solution is not a gift to Palestinians but to Israelis. The goal is preserving the State of Israel, alongside a sovereign Palestine, not preserving the right of settlers to keep building in another people's land and thereby jeopardizing Israel itself.
***
On November 4th we commemorate the 15th anniversary of the murder of Yitzhak Rabin for pursuing peace with the Palestinians. Minutes before his shooting, he stood on a stage in Tel Aviv and joined hundreds of thousands of Israelis who had gathered to support him in his struggle against the anti-peace right In the very last moments of his life he sang the Song of Peace. With Yom Kippur just concluded, this is a good time to recall Rabin's dream, the dream of peace. It wasn't easy for Rabin to see Yasir Arafat as a partner (or vice versa) and it is is even harder to achieve peace now. But the alternative is to allow the assassins to win while everyone else loses. The following is that last song Rabin sang at the 1995 rally, performed in 2004 by Adam Lambert at a Rabin memorial sponsored by his synagogue in California. It is the anthem of the Israeli PEACE NOW movement.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters
Alon Ben-Meir: A Solution to the Palestinian Refugees Issue
Lynda Obst: A Trip to the Soul of Darkness With an Israeli Saint
I wonder what would have happened if the U S Constitution were applied to the Middle East...integration, bussing, voting rights, separation of established religion and the state...let's kick that around here.
What do the Palestinians do with the billions they receive from the US. What do the Israelis do with the billions given them by the US.
If we really wanted to lessen the tension in the middle east we could use a new marketing plan. I would bet some people have close to a workable idea to cut our oil consumption and replace it with a better fuel.
But a new marketing plan is needed. This save the planet, raise the mph of vehicles (when most Americans still prefer the SUV over the electric car ) needs to be changed.
How about something along the lines we are tired of OPEC, Hugo Chaves, Iran, SAudi Arabia having so much power over the daily lives of American citizens.
Like it or not you must include the oil companies. They own all the places we buy gas. You may not like oil companies for various reason but they do have the resources to come up with something better. The ideas of shutting down the Exxons of the world will not work. But Exxon might work with us on an alternative fuel so they can maintain their profit.
These ideas of ethanol and whatever using corn are ludicris. Corn is more valuable as food stuff.
If Europeans wanted American land, should Americans be transported to Canada? Should the Canadians be forced to take them in?
The source of the conflict in Israel/Palestine is not OIL. It's colonial expansionism.
My state has flown under six different flags in its day. Do we expect the 6 different countries that have laid claim to Texas have a summit and divide it accordingly.
The middle east wants Isreael destroyed. Why shold they give land back taken by war.
Do we expect this of other countries?
Should we give all the land back to Italy that was once conquered by Rome?
A little of each? - great article below
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/09/201091965528479820.html
Partial Freeze, right?
They havent agreed to stop settlements, just slow down the rate at which they build illegal settlements, in some areas, for a while.
Has it all just been a catastrophic Israeli success story except for the part where there were too few bright enough to think it thru to it's logical conclusion of unsustainable Apartheid - or was it just there weren't enough that had the guts to 'sucessfully' stop this debacle? Perhaps just a desperate scheme of pushing Palestine down the line until the wheels feel off the Israeli applecart?
A little of each? - great article below
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/09/201091965528479820.html
THis is an interesting subject worthy of consideration. Here are some facts.
When Nazis invaded, they invaded existing sovereign states.
When Israeli invaded W,. Bank in retaliation to Jordanian aggression. it was an invasion of the land occupied by invaders--Jordan. Rather complicated picture.
The picture is further comp0licated that Palestinain Arabs publicly rejected ownership of Wl. Bank-- First, by rejecting U.N. Partition, Second, by agreeing to Jordanian sovereignty over this land.
In fact the very name "W. Bank ( of Jordan river) was invented by Jordanians proclaiming their ownership.
Last time Judea and Samaria, W. Bank or whatever you want to call it was under frim political control was as part of Ottoman Empire.
Therefore Occupied Territories term makes no sense.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hsitoruical documens
Perspective: This is what Arabs did Not agree to in 1947. Map of Partition.
http://mideastweb.org/un_palestine_partition_map_1947.htm
PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER
Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.
http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/PNA2.html
"Ahmad al-Shuqairy announced that PLO wasn't interested in W. Bank and only interested the land Palestinaisn will take land from Israel."
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/plohistoryofrevolution/2009/07/200974133438561995.html
Hmm... so you think the PLO Charter I cited above is fiction?
Perhpas you're right.
I do crack up when I see the word "disputed" rather than "occupied" to refer to West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem & Golan Heights.
Only last month the Israeli foreign ministry asked that bloggers use "disputed" as part of the effort to legitimize the occupation.
And VOILA!
I bet if the Foreign Ministry asked these folks to use the term "celery" rather than "weapons," it would be reflected on the web in a half hour!
http://www.jidaily.com/Gff/e
While you scan through the comments, I would point you to the comment by "Catriona". This comment, which is more sincere than most, sheds light on the true motives for anti-Israel hatred. It also is a good (if unintended!) argument for a Jewish state. See paragraph below.
QUOTE
Why are there Jews in my country - Scotland - some of them Haredi Jews at that, rude, nasty, completely unassimilated, with no knowledge of the history or culture of the country where they live? What right do they have to be here?
UNQUOTE
Why not. It's rather easy.
Israel border is defined to the South, West and North.
the only undefined border is in the East.
That border will be delineated when Disputed territories status is resolved.
Sorry for being rational.
President Bush spent Wednesday trying to draw a link between a possible war in Iraq and the war against terrorism. He repeated accusations that Iraq is linked to the al Qaeda terrorist network.
Bush said the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein should be considered part of the war on terror "because of the nature of Saddam Hussein."
"He is a danger not only to countries in the region but, as I explained last night, because of his al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he is a danger to Americans," Bush said, referring to Tuesday's State of the Union address. "And we're going to deal with him. We're going to deal with him before it's too late."
http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-29/politics/sprj.irq.bush.iraq_1_qaeda-mohammed-aldouri-declassified-intelligence?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
Reading about the resentment by the seculars that the Orthodox, who are not producing, absorb a lot of state money, and pretty much run things. Also, a lot of Israelis argue against giving so much money to the settlers. Meanwhile, Israel is talking about shutting off internet access on the Sabbath, because the Orthodox are offended. And, women would like to be able to divorce autonomously, and also serve on the Rabbinical Council.
Except for the Russians. foreigners making aliyah find a TON of obstacles to proving their Judaism, and another ton to converting, if found, "not Jewish enough.":
Meanwhile, no one is QUITE sure how to define. "Jewish enough," as, per Haaretz, some people have been asked to prove their parentage for three or four generations.
What has Israel done to compensate, so far? Any of the sam things?
Back to the real world...
Will Netanyahu be reported a fool for goosing the Palestinians to direct talks while anticpating playing this kind of losing hand?
The Israelis should be raked over the coals for the bad faith they have shown during these talks, and for their obvious bad faith over the last 43 years, by playing the same loser hand, regime after regime
It's clearly time to take Middle East out of the hands of the Israelis and their lawyers, the Americans
"I made you run" said Hare to the Hound.
I grew up in the time of the propaganda offensive in Jewish circles against the idea that "zionism equals racism". No honest person can now deny that Israelis' of European ancestry have an essentially white supremacist attitude toward Palestinians.
The other longstanding trope -- that "Israelis have no Palestinian partner" with whom to negotiate peace -- is also propaganda. It is the Palestinians who have no partner. If 2010's day of repentance meant anything, this will finally change.
One lesson for religious liberals would be to stop aiding and abetting the sins of our Jewish co-religionists in Israel/Palestine who for decades have oppressed the Palestinians by militarily appropriating land and properties they and their Arab ancestors lived on for millennia (on a theory that it somehow was never "theirs" and always "ours", notwithstanding 1900 years of adverse possession).
To stop this persistent sin of oppression and enabling thereof the current generation of American Jews must vocally criticize the hopeless sinning of Israeli Jews towards the Palestinians. The land there, its resources and water must now be shared equitably with the Palestinians, reparations made to them and guarantees of personal security given to all.
Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California
So who is the dishonest in this negotiation?
These folks are NOT taken over abandoned land They are squatting on currently occupied and owned land.
Factually I think you are generalizing and are more wrong than right. Most settlements are not build on Arab private land, but on state land, and this state lands are not Palestinians.
Dr. Mamoun Fandy:
The Palestinians Are Their Own Worst Enemy
London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat,
"Where should someone who wants to mediate in solving the Palestinian problem go? Should the Europeans and the Americans go to the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, or to Hamas in Gaza?
"Today, there is in fact no Palestinian partner [for peace] - and the idiotic warring Palestinian factions can take 'credit' for that. There are of course those who make a living from the [intra-Palestinian] struggle, with their writing or their television programs, but they are not confronting the Palestinian [leadership] with this truth. But it's better to discuss the Palestinian problem like adults, not like adolescents..."
Among Palestinians, real debate has been suppressed.
It is even worse in the West.
Most of Palestinian academicians and their Western appeasers pitch the most astonishingly subjective propaganda, specifically designed to sway Western opinion. Plenty of guilt and chest thumping. Little rational debate. Intention towards reconciliation is rarely evident.
Those who are more objective, keep their opinions to themselves fearful of jeopardizing their own careers and indeed lives.
And certainly, those who run universities in Gaza or West Bank are incapable of producing real debate. Most still refer to Israel as Zionist entity and cast doubt on any…ANY aspect of Israeli and Jews people that may be even remotely seem as positive.
In such environment a rational debate towards re-conciliation is rather difficult.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1NLdRVkJiA
Lobbing youtubes is a poor substitute for an exchange of opinions.