Home
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mail
So after months of tense negotiations with the Obama White House over the enactment of a settlement freeze, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will agree to a temporary freeze, though one not subject to East Jerusalem, but only after a final, for now, building frenzy.
Of course, settlements are illegal under international law and are a great injustice to the Palestinian people. Its should not even be an issue that Israel cannot build them. Settlements are built on land which is de facto if not also de jure Palestinian land. 40% of existing land is on privately-held Palestinian land. It was simply stolen. Further, settlements make a two-state solution harder to achieve if not impossible because they further encroach on land Palestinians want for their state and slice the occupied West Bank into cantons thus making a viable Palestinian state nearly impossible. For settlers and other Israeli right-wingers that is the point. They oppose a Palestinian state and want nothing more than to render the attainment, or so they think, impossible. Without a two-state solution there are three other options: apartheid (which already exists in some form), ethnic cleansing of Palestinians or a one-state solution which given the demographics would mean a majority Arab state and the end of the Jewish state. Israel would sooner ethnically cleanse Palestinians or publicly defend an apartheid state then give the Palestinians the vote. That is why settlements need to stop now or else the two-state solution becomes a nostalgic dream. Israelis will be the biggest losers. Palestinians are the weaker power now, but have demographics, the world and history on their side. They can wait it out. Israel is becoming more and more isolated in the world, even from its staunch ally the U.S., and constant war with Palestinians and Arabs is turning Israel into a (even more) fascistic, xenophobic Jewish ghetto. Israelis are denied a normal country and in the end, one way or another, will lose the Jewish state without a two-state solution. It is hard to believe that any lover of Israel could be opposed to a two-state solution not out of concern for the well-being of Palestinians, but they should be supportive simply out of the necessity for Israel.
President Obama has declared that the United States “does not recognize the legitimacy” of the settlements in his landmark Cairo address to the Muslim world. Netanyahu could care less.
He has now begrudgingly agreed to a temporary freeze, but must balance his interests between ending the dispute with Washington and maintaining his base of support. The bloc that elected Netanyahu is to the right of him and they love nothing more than settlements (well, second to killing Arabs).
That is why he needed to give his supporters hundreds of new illegal homes, before going along with Washington’s freeze. That way he gives them something to enjoy, while he agrees to “sacrifices”. These settlements will be built for the most part in blocs which are near the 1967 border and which will be annexed by Israel in a final peace, but not all. In a sign that Israelis are still not committed to a peace deal, some of the homes will be built in a small settlement deep in the occupied West Bank in the Jordan Valley. What is the point of that? It is one thing to expand settlements on land that Israel will annex - in this regard a settlement freeze was more about confidence building than final borders - but why build more homes on land that the Palestinians will never allow Israel to annex. Israel cannot annex something deep in the West Bank, because that will divide the West Bank into non-contiguous parts or cantons. It would require an Israeli road from Israel “proper” to the Jordan Valley. This is why Arafat rejected Barak’s so-called “generous” peace offer because it meant a West Bank divided into three parts. Israel is still trying to undermine Palestinian aspirations.
Further, besides the Jordan Valley illegal settlements there is the matter of East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is majority Arab and occupied since 1967. Israel annexed it that year but no nation has recognized it as Israeli sovereignty, not even the U.S. Palestinians aspire to have East Jerusalem as their capital and have repeatedly stated that they will not accept any peace deal whereby this is denied to them. Past Israeli governments were willing to negotiate East Jerusalem on the premise that existing Jewish settlements in the area (currently over 200,000 Israeli Jews live in East Jerusalem in Jewish-only settlements) would remain under Israeli sovereignty. Palestinian have no problem with that. But past Israeli governments have also worked to ensure that when the day comes to sign a final peace, East Jerusalem will remain in Israeli hands. Why are the Jewish settlers there in the first place? To secure Israel’s hold. Israel has been adding to the number of Jews in East Jerusalem while at the same time it has been ethnically cleansing the city of its Arab majority by demolishing homes and apartments complexes. Israel claims that these homes are illegally built by lacking the proper permits, but the same Israeli authorities refuse to give Arabs permits for the purpose of forcing them to move elsewhere. Arabs, indigenous to the city and land, are not going to be dictated to by an occupying authority. This is another form of Palestinian resistance. Palestinians build homes even when they know they will be demolished to send the message to Israel that they will continue to resist in the face of such cruel injustice no matter Israel’s military superiority. The Palestinians build anyway, and Israeli authorities do not stop them. And for years never said a thing. But now, fearing that a final peace deal is near, Israel is engaging in a stepped-up effort to “Judaize” East Jerusalem. Jewish settlements are going up, Arab neighborhoods demolished, and Israel is building (or expanding) a string of illegal settlements that disconnect the city from the West Bank, the Wall has this effect too; thus East Jerusalem is becoming an isolated majority-Arab city though with a growing Jewish minority in the middle of land controlled or to be annexed by Israel. Shrewd. This is Israel’s blatant strategy: to deny the Palestinians their rightful capital. And now, even with a pointless temporary freeze (more on that below), Netanyahu still says that East Jerusalem will not be part of the deal and Israel will continue to demolish Arab homes, steal Arab land and place inter-lopper Jews on the land. East Jerusalem is at the heart of a wished-for Palestinian state. With refusing to a freeze there and entering negotiations by claiming East Jerusalem is all for Israel and this is non-negotiable the whole peace process becomes futile from the beginning.
And what about the temporary freeze? Obama and the Palestinians said that negotiations cannot start until an Israeli freeze to settlements. Netanyahu refuses to agree to a permanent freeze. What he is offering is a building frenzy first and then suspension for a few months in order to restart peace negotiations and as peace negotiations resume, Israel will once again start building settlements to take more and more land. This is a pointless sandwich freeze between two slices of illegal usurpation of Palestinian land (sorry for the bad metaphor). We have seen this story before. The Oslo peace process explicitly stated that neither side can take unilateral action to prejudice the final outcome of negotiations. Primarily, neither side can determine final borders without a universal agreement. Israel ignored this provision and the United States turned a blind eye. Of course, this was a huge part of Oslo but when the Palestinian do not comply with Section 17 of Part 11, the United States Congress convenes to attack them along with the media as not being committed to peace. But Israel can get away with a lot more. During Oslo, when Israel was not supposed to be building settlements, it doubled its settlement population to over 400,000. Israel grabs what it can during negotiations because if they are successful and a final peace is made, then Israel will no longer be able to expand its border. So the peace process is a final theft effort. Arial Sharon told Israelis exactly that during the 1990s: to run to the hills and capture what they can because what they don’t get now will then come under Palestinian sovereignty. While negotiations are ongoing and Israel pretends to care, Israel builds more and more. It uses the cloth of a peace process to ex-appropriate Palestinian land. It then claims these are “facts-on-the-ground” and regardless of the merit of building them in the first place, these “facts” simply cannot change and the international community can’t possibly expect Israel to give them up. It would be too costly and too much of a burden on the Israeli occupation army. Thus Israel achieves de facto rights to Palestinian land. Clever, no? Evil? Certainly. The parties are left in a worse position of negotiation before the beginning.
That is what will most likely happen now. Netanyahu will claim to be a champion of peace, because, after all, he has stood up to his own party to achieve a settlement freeze. But he admits it is temporary. He is using the freeze to get negotiations going again so Israel can then lie about supporting peace. But as with Oslo while negotiations are ongoing, Israel will restart settlement construction and then, like before, will claim “well, it may have been wrong to start them but now these are ‘facts-on-the-ground’” and Israel will take more and more Palestinian land until there is nothing meaningful for a Palestinian state. It is sadly predictable. The settlements will start in no time when the parties sit down and if the Palestinians complain the Israelis will then attack Palestinians for being the obstacle to peace for letting settlements be a distraction. The Israeli will try to change the subject.
I say: Let Bibi have his settlements. The world will see that no matter the Israeli propaganda, Israel is and has always been the obstacle toward peace. The world will see Israel’s lying nature and its unceasing appetite for Palestinian land. Norway’s government just divested from an Israeli company. The European Union is labeling all Israeli goods produced in the West Bank - including AHAVA theft cream - as a product of occupation. If Israel fails to make peace, the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanctions) movement will only strength. And pariah states don’t last very long. Not even a superpower will be able to come to the rescue.
RSS 
But judging by it's performance on the health care issue I don't hold out much hope for real improvements in our relationship with Arabs and Muslims or with Israel's stronghold on American politics.
The refusal of the Arab world to accept the existence of Israel is the core issue, pre-dating the so-called settlements and even pre-dating the establishment of the state.
Any attempt to make them the central issue is just smoke and mirrors. Unless and until the Arab and Muslim states (not just the Palestinians) accept the existence of Israel and its right to exist, there will be no peace. The ball is in their court–recognition or perpetual war?
The ”Saudi Peace Initiative” is nothing less than an ultimatum that would normally be imposed by a party that won a war, not by the loser, trying to get more in that ultimatum than could be achieved by negotiations.
Given the Arab track record for upholding agreements, it would be pretty stupid of Israel to believe that the Arab countries would recognize Israel after they get everything they want.
Just as you claim that ”Israel is untrustworthy”, I claim the same about the Arab countries– but I have more justification, going by past performance. Sorry, Marco, no cigar.
Further, the Arabs states are sincere in their peace offer. The Arabs states are also pragmatic in recognizing the need for land swaps to accommodate Israeli settlements blocs and they also know that the refugees will not be allowed to return to 1948 Palestine or Israel. Their initial offering is meant to be principles on Palestinian grounds, but Arab leaders recognize full well that such a demand would never work and that compromise must exist. Further, since that 2002 peace offer some Arab states - Qatar, for instance - already took normalization steps with Israel. Morocco and Tunisia have secret relations. And so does Saudi Arabia. Qatar closed the Israeli mission because of Israel’s attack, nay massacre, against the Palestinians of Gaza. Instead of building on normalization, Israel choose the path of war that only alienated it further from the region.
The Arabs have reached out their hand still. But if Israelis want to cling to the belief that the Arabs can’t be trusted, that everyone is anti-semitic, that the world is against them, that it is 1939, that they must always use violence then they do so only at their peril.
Instead of seeking to become a normal country integrated in its region, too many Israelis adopt a paranoid and xenophobic frame. Such an attitude is self-destructive for Israel’s character. The rise of Lieberman and of mainstream militarism and fascism is a result of such a worldview no matter how thinly held. Such a worldview erodes Israeli character. Instead of the self-confident Zionist Jew, Israelis are morphed into fearful individuals whom then justify horrific crimes against Palestinians out of that fear. Instead of Israel being a proud Jewish state that was supposed to be a refugee for Jews escaping prosecution, Israel becomes instead a militarized Jewish ghetto no different from the ghettos Jews sought to escape. Th hope for a normal country is destroyed, Israeli democracy erodes and Israel becomes only an angry and paranoid world.
Israelis can either accept Arab peace offers and live with the world, or they can embrace distrust and fear and live alone.
MV: “The Palestinians have yet to amend their charter, that is true. But they have for all purposes recognized Israel’s right to exist within 1967 [borders] in signed treaties and public declarations.”
As long as Palestinians don’t amend the PLO Charter and the Hamas Covenant to exclude the concepts of “Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit” (PLO Charter, 1968 version) and “Article Eleven: The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?” (Hamas Covenant, 1988), negotiations of any kind will be fruitless.
Both these articles need to be stricken from their respective documents before any progress towards peace can be made. As long as they remain in the PLO Charter and the Hamas Covenant, your statement is so much fertilizer.
The Palestinians have agreed to do many things in signed treaties, but have yet to fulfill a single one of them. Anti-Israel education continues as before, hate-mongering continues as before, as well as ignoring many other terms and conditions—including disarming “rebel” organizations and preventing terrorism.
In civil court, this is called breach of contract. The Palestinian Authority has a “perfect record”—ZERO compliance. How can you claim that the PA is a partner for peace? If you had signed a contract with a party that violated so many clauses, you’d sue the pants off him.
MV: “The recognition of Israel as a Jewish state may be ideal, but it is ironic that Israel would cling to a maximalist demand after years of criticizing the Palestinians for doing exactly that. In any case, this is a new excuse brought up by Israel’s far-right leadership to prevent the signing of a two-state settlement. Israel never made this demand in the past, neither Egypt nor Jordan had to recognize Israel as such; and Israel does not need others to give purpose to its character. It is a sign of insecurity on behalf of Israelis that they would demand Palestinians recognize Israel as such. Having said that, Palestinians should recognize Israel as such and even if they never officially do so, for all intent and purposes, a two-state agreement would imply de facto recognition as such.”
‘This demand’ was not necessary with Egypt or Jordan, which are political state entities having no claim on the internal workings of the state of Israel. The Palestinians, who are not yet a political state entity with defined territory and borders, do have a need to recognize Israel, especially in light of the content of the two basic Palestinian founding documents.
In addition to the articles noted above, the Hamas Covenant plainly states, “Article 13: Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. ‘Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know.’
“Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?” The PLO Charter reiterates this concept in Article 9: “Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it. They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.”
These four articles are the core obstacles to any peace agreement, not “the settlements”, not “the Zionists” and not “the Jews”.
MV: “Further, the Arabs states are sincere in their peace offer. The Arabs states are also pragmatic in recognizing the need for land swaps to accommodate Israeli settlements blocs and they also know that the refugees will not be allowed to return to 1948 Palestine or Israel. Their initial offering is meant to be principles on Palestinian grounds, but Arab leaders recognize full well that such a demand would never work and that compromise must exist. Further, since that 2002 peace offer some Arab states - Qatar, for instance - already took normalization steps with Israel. Morocco and Tunisia have secret relations. And so does Saudi Arabia. Qatar closed the Israeli mission because of Israel’s attack, nay massacre, against the Palestinians of Gaza. Instead of building on normalization, Israel chose the path of war that only alienated it further from the region.”
Mr. Villa, have you actually taken the time to read and understand the ‘Saudi Peace Initiative’? From your words here, I have to doubt it. Let’s take a look at it. You can find the full text in English at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1844214.stm)
In short, this ‘plan’ requires Israel to withdraw to the 1949 cease-fire lines, accept the Palestinian demand for a ‘right of return’ and allow the unconditional establishment of a Palestinian state in the territories vacated (excluding the Golan Heights) before any gesture is made on the part of the Arab states, in return for the promise of a peace agreement and “normalized relations”. It was presented ‘in toto’, that is, as a complete and full plan, not open to negotiation. That hardly shows sincerity.
Arab behavior to date indicates that a peace agreement and normalized relations would never occur, since there always seems to be “just one more condition” the other party has to fulfill before the Arab parties fulfill any condition.
Even without this issue, the ‘Peace Initiative’ ignores three very important points:
1. The Jewish refugees from Arab lands. If the Palestinian refugees deserve redress for the 600,000 Arabs who left (and even Mahmoud Abbas admits that his family left voluntarily), then so do the Jewish refugees from Arab lands- almost a million Jews were expelled from Arab countries and their properties, homes, bank accounts and personal possessions were stolen by those Arab governments. Most Jewish refugees were “allowed to leave” with a single suitcase and $50 (except for those murdered by rioting mobs and those hung for “collaborating with the Zionist entity”, of course).
2. The Arab League countries are not the only belligerent in the conflict. The OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) has 57 member nations—all of them (save Egypt & Jordan) declared belligerents of Israel. The Arab League has only 22. Can the Arab League even claim to ensure that those 35 countries of the OIC that are not Arab will respect any treaty made between Israel and the Arab League? Before you respond, remember that Iran is among those countries belonging to the OIC and not to the Arab League, and remember Mr. Ahmadinejad’s past comments about Israel.
3. Can the Arab League guarantee that “non-government resistance organizations” (i.e. terrorists) will be bound by any such agreement? This would include Hizballah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda and many other organizations who have Israel at the top of their “hit list”.
No, Mr. Villa, in light of these points, it is hard to accept that the ‘Saudi Peace Initiative’ is a genuine peace initiative. They are simply trying to “cover their [collective] ass” and avoid claims from the Jewish refugees from Arab states into the bargain.
The collective Arab doublethink, unable to admit that the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict started well before 1967 (and had nothing to do with the “Palestinians” at the time) has been a disaster for them—and they expect Israel to pay the price for their mistakes.
MV: “The Arabs have reached out their hand still. But if Israelis want to cling to the belief that the Arabs can’t be trusted, that everyone is anti-Semitic, that the world is against them, that it is 1939, that they must always use violence then they do so only at their peril.”
Sometimes it seems as though it still IS 1939, Mr. Villa—when a government-owned press in an Arab country regularly prints anti-Semitic cartoons, articles that might have been translated directly from “Der Stürmer”, presents the forgery “The Protocols of Zion” as truth and broadcasts anti-Israel news almost daily (and I’m referring to Egypt, a country Israel has supposedly been at peace with for 30 years). Last year, the Egyptian Minister of Culture, Farouk Husny, stated before Egypt’s parliament that he would “burn Israeli books myself, if I find any in Egyptian libraries.” Doesn’t that sound like 1939 to you? Yet this man is now the front-runner for the position of heading UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization), succeeding Japan’s Koïchiro Matsuura. Does a man who would burn books of any kind deserve to be the head of an international educational organization? Burning books, you will remember, was a Nazi characteristic. Perhaps Egypt has regressed to 1939?
MV: “Instead of seeking to become a normal country integrated in its region, too many Israelis adopt a paranoid and xenophobic frame. Such an attitude is self-destructive for Israel’s character. The rise of Lieberman and of mainstream militarism and fascism is a result of such a worldview no matter how thinly held. Such a worldview erodes Israeli character. Instead of the self-confident Zionist Jew, Israelis are morphed into fearful individuals whom then justify horrific crimes against Palestinians out of that fear. Instead of Israel being a proud Jewish state that was supposed to be a refugee for Jews escaping prosecution, Israel becomes instead a militarized Jewish ghetto no different from the ghettos Jews sought to escape. The hope for a normal country is destroyed, Israeli democracy erodes and Israel becomes only an angry and paranoid world.”
Nice rhetoric, but far from the mark. The countries that have exhibited paranoia, xenophobia, fascism, militarism, repression and massacres of dissidents are not hard to find in the Middle East—and they are all Arab countries. With all its faults (and it has more than its share), Israel is still around, winning Nobel prizes, providing more scientific papers, more advances in medicine, electronics, education, environment and agriculture than the entire Arab world—and I can still call the Foreign Minister and Prime Minister “pieces of shit” without being thrown in jail. What Arab country can make the same claims?
MV: “Israelis can either accept Arab peace offers and live with the world, or they can embrace distrust and fear and live alone.”
On the contrary, I think it’s incumbent on the Arab/Muslim world to show its bona fides and interest in a genuine peace with Israel rather than handing out ultimatums. Remember, the Arab League has been the one with the bombastic claims that they would “drive the Jews into the sea” and “eradicate the Zionist entity” for over 60 years. Even after a resounding defeat, it was the Arab League that declared “NO peace with Israel, NO recognition of Israel, NO negotiations with Israel” from Khartoum in 1967. The Arab world still has a lot to prove—especially in the area of accepting responsibility for its own actions and the consequences of those actions.
There is no international law on record that requires any nation to commit suicide in order to appease its own self-declared enemies. Israel will not be the country to set the precedent for national suicide, no matter how much you might wish for it.
The U.S. wants to use its allies. Not actually BE allies. The U.S. is a commercial enterprise, a for profit business that isn't above a little extortion here and there when it meets its own needs. The only difference between our government and the drug cartels is our guys were elected to office. They use the same tactics and the same philosophy, only with a smile.