-
Best Defense
Robots: Killing Our Warrior Spirit?
-
The Cable
Whistleblower: I'm Being Bullied By State Dept.
-
Passport
Syria: Is It the Sunnis' or Shiites' Fault?
Posted By Marc Lynch
Friday, October 16, 2009 - 2:59 PM
Share
The UN Human Rights Council has passed by a large majority (25-6) a resolution endorsing the findings of the Goldstone Report on the Gaza war. It plans to send its recommendations to the General Assembly and to ask the Security Council to monitor the recommended independent probes of the report's allegations. While the U.S. and five others voted no, it was extremely striking that several major powers -- including the UK and France -- refrained from voting. Pakistan, our crucial ally in the Afghanistan mission, voted in favor along with Egypt and 23 others. The Israeli government is outraged, and the level of rhetoric is hotter than ever.
That rhetoric has always been out of balance with the actual stakes. The Security Council is highly unlikely to do anything with it, since the United States will surely veto any move to act upon it. But the passage of the resolution is significant nonetheless, primarily because the stakes had been raised by the bizarrely intense Israeli lobbying effort against it and by the disastrous decision by Mahmoud Abbas to initially ask for it to be shelved. Contrary to the apocalyptic talk coming out about the decision, it could actually help moves towards Israeli-Palestinian peace in at least three ways.
First, the vote shows that Israel is paying a price for its short-sighted diplomatic strategy of confrontation with the Obama administration. Israel's Ambassador tried to rally support by saying "Do you support the importance of the promotion of peace between Israel and Palestinians? If you do ... you must reject today's proposal." The general response to the Israeli threat that the passage of the report would doom Israel's participation in peace talks has been disbelief and even mockery. What peace talks?
Netanyahu has spent many long months doing everything in his power to subvert Obama's peace initiatives, defying the demand to freeze settlements and inciting American and Israeli public opinion against the President and against peace. Where Obama rallied near-universal international support for his vision of rapid progress towards a real two state solution and genuine Israeli-Arab peace, Netanyahu dug in his heels and fought every step of the way. The world notices. If Netanyahu decided to walk away from peace talks, how would anyone be able to tell the difference?
Second, the passage of the report may slightly increase the odds of a Hamas-Fatah reconciliation agreement under Egyptian auspices. The Palestinian Authority, badly hurt by the crisis generated by Abu Mazen's decision to ask for its deferral, responded by accepting the Egyptian proposal and challenging Hamas to do the same. Hamas, suspicious of Egyptian mediation, internally divided, and uneasy about throwing the PA a lifeline, has stalled and requested more time to decide. With the Goldstone issue somewhat defused, an agreement may now be slightly more possible (even if the U.S. reportedly remains opposed). Given that the Egyptians are talking about holding two seperate signing ceremonies so that Hamas and Fatah don't have to be in the same room with each other, I doubt that any deal signed soon will amount to actual reconciliation -- but perhaps it could be a starting point.
Third, the U.S. will almost certainly veto any move in the Security Council to act on the report. But given how much importance the Israeli government has given to the Goldstone Report, this veto might actually be used as a form of leverage. Obama's push for peace is at the brink of collapse almost entirely because of Netanyahu's intransigence. But the administration has thus far seemed highly reluctant to actually put any serious pressure on the Israeli government -- which has only emboldened Netanyahu and his enablers to dig in their heels further. The use of the veto to protect Israel from Goldstone should not be free.
I don't think the passage of the resolution is all that significant in and of itself. I've found the level and heat of rhetoric surrounding the report to be bafflingly over the top. But there's still a slim chance to turn these developments into something positive -- if it even marginally leads Israel to rethink the costs of refusing to engage in serious peace talks and of openly confronting the Obama administration at every turn, leads Hamas and Fatah to finally strike a deal which politically reunifies the West Bank and Gaza while paving the way to elections, and increases U.S. leverage over Israel. None especially likely, but at least worth thinking about.
"Where Obama rallied near-universal international support for his vision of rapid progress towards a real two state solution and genuine Israeli-Arab peace"...
Mr. Obama is good at rallying support, and there is hardly a possibility that a random person on a street would prefer war to peace anywhere anytime. However, while "vision", "solution", "progress", and "genuine" are textbook rhetoric, they, and especially the last, are far from the Middle Eastern realities.
I hope Mr. Obama can tone visionary statements down and work with the parties to agree on the details, rather than the general outlines. Netanyahu is acting responsibly, because he doesn't want to subscribe to general statements without any notion of the details; we've been there before with the Oslo accords. A detailed plan on dealing with the Palestinian refugees, please, Mr. Obama. And no, allowing unrestricted return to all refugees and their descendants into Israel is not the "solution".
As it stands, there is a lot of international ill-will directed towards Israel, with a momentum gathering to force Israel's hand in an internationally backed "solution". The international community is at liberty to act as it wills as it grows out of patience with Israel, including trying to impose "solutions", but one shouldn't expect the elected Israeli government to go against its voters on its own initiative. It is easy to scapegoat Netanyahu, but it is the Israeli public who voted him in so that the government is extremely careful regarding anything that smells like "vision", "rapid progress", "real solution", and "genuine peace". Rabin is an icon, but the Oslo rhetoric has been thoroughly discredited with the Israeli public; the "genuine" part is in particular a bitter and painful joke. We'd rather have a freezing-cold status of non-violence as with Egypt (which perhaps also describes the current relations between Abu-Mazen/Fayyad government and Netanyahu's government although without the formal "peace" label on it) than a genuine, warm, smiley, and cuddling anything that will erupt into suicide bombs and rockets any day. If Mr. Obama and the international community have any interest in engaging Israelis rather than forcing them, they should consider "little steps" instead of "rapid progress" as a guiding principle.
Actually, Bibi has specified his peace plan : 1) No part of Jerusalem, 2) No right of return, 3) borders of a Palestinian state between an Israeli controlled Jordan valley, and the variation on the path of the separation wall, 4) No removal of the large settlements, 5) a demilitarised Palestinian state.
Had those specifications been acceptable to the Palestinians, the Arabs as well as the international community, there wouldn't have been a problem now, and probably then, Bibi could have been scapegoated. But his peace plan, is being seen by all, as being even more minute than little steps.
Granted Mr./Ms. bbk, what little steps is he willing to take?, so that those steps can be reciprocated. Why should he take first, those steps?, well because he holds all the cards which are unacceptable to anyone.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Well, Bibi was forced into making a statement after Mr. Obama's mega-speech in Cairo, and on such an occasion he is stating his opening platform rather than a nuanced compromise. I think 3 and 4 are not too binding because "variation" and "large" can be defined in all manner of ways; I also believe departures from 1 and 5 are possible if there is a sufficiently long period of non-violence in the area. But - I don't see how a significant deviation from (2) can be sold to the Israeli public any time soon, but I would allow for creative ideas, if and when the sides have the will.
I think there's quite a lot going on, mostly in the West Bank. Training of security forces, economic development, tourism, institution-building - these are all state-creating actions, and they are supported by Israel. As far as I remember, there was no negative statement from Netanyahu following Fayyad's proclamation of a two-year road to statehood (no excited hype, either).
I don't blame Bibi for not wanting to lead, both because Mr. Obama's stake in leadership in this direction and because Israelis are not in a hurry to sign up to solutions to problems they don't see any solutions for right now, like the situation with Hamas in Gaza.
I certainly agree with your good self, that creative ideas may well help break the impass in the Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations; including when dealing with Bibi's peace plan. But how to proceed, when your good self says in the same vein, that the Israelis are not in a hurry to sign up solutions to problems they don't see any solutions for right now, like the situation with Hamas. What better blow to Hamas, than showing that peace talks can pay for both the Palestinians and the Israelis, and what better ammunition in the hands of Hamas, than the failure of the peace talks?.
The worse violence since Oslo, occured at the time of the best Palestinian-Israeli economic cooperation. Economic peace is certainly fruitful but will always remain subject to the political ebb-and flow of progress on the peace front. Neither economic peace, not Mr. Fayyad will have a leg to stand on, while Israel carries on at the same time, the expansion of settlements and changing the status quo in Jerusalem.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Peace talks, or rather non-violence and some sort of working relations, can pay and do pay, as people in the West Bank are not generally very eager for Hamas. But to agree to something dubious with the single objective of hurting Hamas does not sound very appealing.
I think talking about "peace talks" is playing into Hamas' hands, as it sounds as if there is a process of sorts, and so people develop expectations that the process goes somewhere. There are no "peace talks" because there aren't good ideas on the table to talk about. And if there are contacts, it is better to keep quiet about them in order to not create excessive expectations.
I think Fayyad is wise in basically ignoring Israel, Jerusalem, settlements, all that, in his communications. He is working to change for the better things that are in his power to change, and is trying to enlist support for his actions wherever he can, including Israel, quietly. He also stands to gain some leverage over the Israeli government in the process, generating some measure of good will. I don't think Mr. Fayyad's situation is easy, but there isn't anyone else in the Palestinian scene with a better standing right now to have any influence on Israeli policies, unless armies of defenders of Al-Aksa want to start marching on Tel Aviv. Hamas would probably like that, calling for a "day of rage", but there don't seem to be many takers. At this point, after two intifadas and recent wars with Hizballah and Hamas, the risk of eruption of major violence is not a sufficient deterrent for Israelis to sign up to something that in their view vitally undermines their long term interest like the right of return.
Peace negotiations are certainly not a matter of single issue vote; like for instance to displease Hamas, or enforce the right of return. It is a matter of whether there is a genuine feeling on both sides; strong enough, to compromise on what can be compromised. If everything is outside the realm of compromise, then evidently there will be no peace.
Unfortunately however, can Bibi guarantee, that the current status quo of no-war no-peace situation can persist?. If he can, then many I think in the region would prefer this option, to carry on with their lives. But there is no guarantee whatsoever, that the opposite of peace is the current status quo, because there is a chance that it could be war.
If really, the Isreali people feel, that it is in their long term interest not to negotiate peace, then I think the real partner for their current governemnt is actually Hamas and not the PNA. Hamas has actually staked its political future on the failure of the peace process, and somehow, it's attitude is resembling increasingly that of Bibi. So perhaps the current Israeli government would prefer to have a Hamas in power, rather than somone else which would embarass it constantly with peace talk. Fayyad, with 2% support of the Palestinian people, may the Lord smile on him.
khairi janbek.paris/france
This depends what you mean by "negotiating peace". The way I see it, Israelis would rather not negotiate, not have peace, and have Hamas or whatever in Gaza and elsewhere, and fight wars every so often if the price for peace is undermining the long term prospect of a Jewish majority in the state of Israel. I do think Israelis can be much more flexible on the other issues of contention. If this sounds to you like lack of will for peace, so be it.
I agree with you that there are no status-quo guarantees. But if the choices are between a *possible* war (or wars) and a *definite* national suicide in the form of a flood of Arab people from all manner of carefully-preserved-for-exact-this-purpose "refugee" camps into Israel, the current mood in Israel seems to prefer the first. I put refugee in quotes because it is not clear to me that people of second and third generation after 1948 that mostly inhibit those camps are still refugees by any standard but that of the newfound Palestinian national ethos and their hosts who are all too eager to cultivate it.
Meaning of peace negotiations.
Peace negotiations aim at reaching an acceptable solution to all parties on all outstanding issues; including the refugees problem. Now, no one realistically; as far as I knew and know, believes that either Israel should committ suicide or accept a demographic bomb within itself. However, alternatively, I think everyone awaits a mechnanism which defines what will be future status of the refugees in the host countries, and what compensatory measures are to be undertaken for the refugees as well as the host countries. Essentially the refugees problem does not concern only the Palestinians and the Israelis, in as much as the issue of Jerusalem doesn't also; it remains an important; primarily, Jordanian as well as an Arab and Muslim issue.
The more the negotiations are stalled, the more Hamas gets the upper hand in Palestinian affairs, therefore, I don't think Bibi's government can pretend to be indifferent to whom wins the next Palestinian elections, unless Bibi doesn't realise the difference between the man he shook hands with in New York lately, and the ones whom are more than eager to chop both hands which did the shaking.
From this perspective I still believe, as I advocated on former occasions {I know it really makes no difference}, for the peace negotiations to start immediately, so that at least Abu Mazen can have something no matter how little, to hold on to till the next Palestinian elections in June. Well in June, unless Hamas remains obtrusive about signing the unity document with the PNA, and subsequently Mr. Abbas goes for elections next January; affecting thus a separation between Gaza and the west bank, and creating de facto two sates in each area. If that happens, I think seriously, the whole concept of two-state solution should be re-considered in favour of other possibilities, which ought to be considered also very seriously.
Unless of course, a war breaks out beforehand over the Iranian nuclear file, which is likely to render all what I'm saying as academic; not that it is not that already.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Help Palestinian-Israeli Peace?
Your good self is saying Dr. Lynch, that the decision of the Goldstone report, could actually help the peace talks, when a priori, your good self is saying what peace talks?. As for the a priori statement, that the US will in any case veto the condemnation of Israel for war crimes, what price can be attached then, to the veto of the US, if your good self seems to think it is already a done deal?.
Regarding the Hamas-PNA reconciliation document, Mr. Zahhar seems to separate between the notions of reconciliation, and the notion of unity; in an attempt to allow Hamas to sign the document. In any case, if Hamas doesn't sign the the document, it will be just as guilty as Abu Mazen; especially that he threatened to carry out the elections next January, for affecting a permenant Gaza-west bank separation. In any case, I believe both sides view the document, as the minimum to carry them both ot the next elections in June? [I think].
The prospects of further Palestinian-Israeli talks may well be outside the scope of the Goldstone Report, and dependent by and large, on how will the Iranian nuclear file go for the Israelis, and how will [once again] the Palestinian scene look like after the June elections.
Therefore, until the aftermath of the Palestinian elections, and settling the Iranian file one way or the other, one expects very little; if anything at all in terms of progress on the peace track, nevertheless, I still believe that both the US and Israel, should in the mean time be able to work out an arrangement, by which Abu Mazen can be given something to hold on to in order to improve his elections prospects; if indeed he is still being considered by the US and Israel, as a peace partner.
I think if the Goldstone Report goes to the GA, it is very likely to open the floodgates, of lawsuits against Israeli military and politcians, and this prospect is making Mr. Netanyahu very nervous.
khairi janbek.paris/france
UNHRC Vote exposes the Goldstone report for what it is
A witch hunt designed to deligitimize Israel and its right to self defense.
The fact that the UNHRC resolution removed even the slightest mention of HAMAS actions, let alone actions that rise to the level of war crimes shows again the ongoing bias in this so-called moral body.
That the only states who voted for it are either Muslim or third world shows how the report is really viewed.
Once again we see the international body corrupted by its Arab and Muslim members attempting to use it as another battlefield to destroy the Jewish state.
Indeed, the fact that all of the internal Palestinian turmoil was over the PA's decision to not pursue the Goldstone report, rather than the idea that the actions of HAMAS were criminal, shows where the mindset of the Palestinian leadership remains.
The largest number of US vetoes; over 40, was cast over Middle Eatern issues and in favour of Israel. The Arabs and their supporters took it on the chin, so I suppose once in a while, Israel and its supporters can take it on the chin also.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Absolutely correct! And, sad, in this day and age- with the truth(s) that are available, our country continues this attitude and action(s).
And, supposedly, Obama is an avid internet-fan? HOW is he missing all of this? IF he is not missing it, HOW does he even live with himself?
How many times does your best friend need to slap you in the face and kick your dog before YOU decide he's not the best friend to you?
Israel has defied every order, suggestion, and request; yet, the USA continues to treat them as our 51st state, with none of the responsibilites, yet more welfare// US Governmental funding, and certainly munitions, than ANY of our actual states. Enough IS and HAS BEEN too much when it comes to Israel, who believe they OWN our Congress-- and our president. Of course, they are right about ONE thing-- they DO own our "representatives", in any and every office within this country, that they find influential, and they use AMERICAN funds to pay these people OFF!
What's enigmatic IS that SO many Americans are comletely unaware AND complicit in this farce.
IS Obama Genuine? WILL the signers hold strong?
From what I have noted regarding Obama's supposed tough stance on Israeli violence and settlement building, immediately and completely followed by his lax attitude when Israel and Netenyahu aggressively went thier usual route in both, I wonder IF we have the right man in office of president. I did not vote for him for one reason. He, upon receipt of the Democratic Nomination, headed straight off to AIPAC (the next day) for his funding. Now, since he has also stacked his cabinet with more "dual citizens" (that of Israel and the US), my mind was made up that I was right in my assessment of WHO owns this most recent puppet president.
Can Obama do ANYthing to change my mind and that of so many good Americans seeking peace in the Mid-East? Yes, IF he were to now (better late than never) sign on to Goldstone's report AND align with the 26 others, who are our allies, I would say the man deserves the Nobel Prize he was so prematurely awarded. I would love to see him change his opinion and alliance within the region. I don't see it happening, but I DO wish he would.
As far as the others; will Egypt hold firm on their stance? What would it take for the "usual" allies of the USA (not Israel, who has not been a great ally) to finally take this position? IS it not time, after about one-hundred years of oppression and slaughter of the people of Palestine, for the world to WAKE UP and let Israel know we will no longer accept their lies and their horrid actions?
WHEN and WILL anyone finally see the truth of Israel? I mean, when will anyone, with SOME power, finally give them a taste of their own medicine? is it not time for Israel to be sanctioned, rather than rewarded, as the US has done since the 1940's?
Regardless of biblical prophecy, the right thing to do is not what we have done and allowed for. It IS time for a complete turn-about, given Israels' actions in their Cast-Lead Ops AND since (as there IS no peace in Palestine- only a media blackout).
Thanks for your report. It IS sad that I have to go online (and dig) to get correct and complete information on Israel as our media (ha) will simply gloss over this sort of thing.
ABeck
I don't understand why the Obama administration (including Hillary Clinton) did not foresee the backlash against Abbas once he gave into US (and Israeli) pressure to try to table the Goldstone Report? As far as I can tell, this was diplomatic negligence on our part. Abbas, who is already pathetically weak, ended up appearing even more powerless and became the political scapegoat and Hamas was strengthened- is that what we want?
When Obama "blinked" in his game of diplomatic chicken with Bibi Netanyahu by not holding firm to his administration's stance on settlement construction, it sent the message to Netanyahu and that racist Avigdor Lieberman, that nothing had really changed in Washington despite their initial concerns that the Obama admin. might apply a more balanced approach. That Netanyahu has the brass balls to not only agitate against the POTUS in Israel but also in the United States, makes me think it's time for the US to get tougher with Israel and Goldstone would have been the perfect opportunity.
At this stage of the game, Israel has done NOTHING that the US has requested- in fact, they have gone out of their way to slap the US admin. in the face as often as possible. Given the amount of financial support we toss their way, I would think we would have some leverage.
We've also apparently allowed Israel to dictate our Iran policy and we are even considering re-writing the NIE to make it more palpable to US and Israeli hawks (it has nothing to do with Qom despite claims to the contrary, given we knew about Qom at the time of the last NIE and the one before that and the one before that...). It seems that we are destined to make exactly the same pathetic mistakes we made prior to the Iraq War- gin-up the intelligence, hype the threat to a hawkish, brain-dead MSM, ignore the folks at the IAEA and follow the advice of the likes of John Bolton and the hold-over neocons in the State Dept.
The idea that a veto over the Goldstone Report will give the United States leverage over its Israeli ally seems rather shortsighted in my view. When was the last time the Israeli's caved-in to American pressure, especially when the issue concerned the Israel-Palestinian peace process? In fact, ever since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gained power in last year's election, the Israeli public has become more confrontational towards any notion of direct negotiations with the Palestinians. The fact that the P.M's popularity is extremely high among the Israeli electorate adds to the problem further. With a vast majority of the Israeli people supportive of Netanyahu's defiance, the prospects for peace appear ever-more distant.
I understand the claim that the United States may have used its veto power for a possible favor down the line. The "you-owe-me" strategy has been successful in the past. Yet, with that being said, the Israelis simply have no incentive to cater to U.S. demands at this particular moment. Netanyahu's coalition is still reeling from his successful meeting with President Obama over settlement activity. Mahmoud Abbas's authority is declining in the West Bank, and the Palestinians are as divided politically as ever (Hamas and Fatah are drifting further apart). With the momentum still on Israel's side, there is no reason to believe that a thank-you note will arrive at Washington's doorstep anytime soon.
Perhaps if the President was firm in his settlement demands, Abbas' popularity was at a respectable level, and Netanyahu was losing leverage domestically, the situation would be much different. The possibility that a U.S.-veto would be met with Israeli gratitude could then be possible.
This, however, fails to explain our current reality. The Israelis have shown no signs in the past that they are willing to meet U.S. demands. Appeasement with Jerusalem has failed, and will continue to fail if the Israelis are not pressured to change. Therefore we should not be surprised if this diplomatic-game falls short in the future. It is amazing to see the world's last superpower powerless in the face of an increasingly-radicalized state.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
I don't think somehow, that the US veto had the issue of leverage over Israel in the background, rather, a desperate attempt to keep the hope alive, of Israel returning to the table of negotiations at one point sooner than later, especially after Mr. Netanyahu threatened to burry the peace process if the Goldstone affair carries on. This was the same reason why Mr. Abbas withdrew the motion of discussions the first time round. But as Marc Lynch put it eloquently; What peace talks?.
It seemed that many believed ; including oneself, that Mr. Obama had a magic wond. Mind you, I still believe he still does, except that the wond has lost its power of charm, and has become just a mere stick. So the President better start figuring out how to use this stick, before it rots in his hands.
khairi janbek.paris/france
While I respect your point, I see no prospect for peace in the future between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Obviously, it is quite hard to establish a diplomatic process between two long-time adversaries when one party (Israel) continues to engage in illegal settlement activity. And of course, it is equally hard to foment a peace process when that same issue (settlements) is the major contingent for reconciliation.
Netanyahu has made no attempts to show good-will to the Palestinians, despite his positive rhetoric. And why would he? When a national politician enjoys an approval rating close to 80 percent, changing his foreign-policy is simply not in the cards. As the old saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." No American appeasement in the world can change his behavior at this moment. In fact, President Obama- the so called "greatest politician of our time"- is no closer to Israeli tolerance than his predecessor.
Of course, the Palestinians are part of the problem as well. It is extremely difficult to negotiate with a party if that same party is divided along ideological lines (Hamas and Fatah). Perhaps more devastating in the long-run, Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation is bound to unravel if Hamas continues to unleash a campaign of spoiler violence to sabotage diplomacy.
However, without that being said, Israel is not showing any willingness to get direct talks on the right track. You only need to go back to the U.N. General Assembly, when Netanyahu (after he publicly shook Abbas' hand) pressured Obama to cave on illegal settlement construction. Where is this magic wand that the President has? I certainly do not see it.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
My previous reference was regarding the reasoning behind President Obama's actions and those of Abu Mazen, and do not refelect my own sentiments in any way.
Probably laying the facts on the ground, will help unravel this most intractable problem in the world, and may differentiate between the possible and the otherwise. I am not aware of any Israeli government which is likely to dismantle Maali Adummim, Ariel, Beitar Illit, or Modi'in settlements. There isn't an Israeli government which even can dare talk about dividing Jerusalem, let alone accept the return of Palestinian refugees. While on the flip side of the coin, Hamas and the PNA are two negations, and two negations will never form a nation, neither lead it jointly, nor with one of them being in the loyal opposition.
Moreover, if Hamas does not come back to its senses and sign the Cairo document, it will add Egypt to the list of its antagonists. With the encirclement expected to get worse, what is Hamas likely to do then?, unleash itself against Egypt, Israel once again, ot both?. Or sit tight while starving itself as well as the Gazans?. Then Abu Mazen, if he goes for elections in January, it will be in areas under the PNA's control, so what will he achieve by these elections, institutions for a state 'a la' Salam Fayyad which accepts all the Israeli pre-conditions?. Even if it doesn't accept them, it will be sitting in the confined area which already it finds itself in, while Bibi would be changing the facts on the ground anyway, to make it impossible for this Palestinian entity to demand anything further. If that would be good enough for the Palestinians, who am I to complain?.
However, if Hamas signs the agreement and elections are set for next June as declared by the Cairo document, then unless the peace talks start with the PNA, it will hardly make any diffrence who wins the Palestinian elections, because by next summer, all the current Israeli government initiatives in Jerusalem and the occupied territories will be impossible to reverse.
Essentially, I think all parties; US, Arab, Palestinian, and Israeli, have really constrained themselves in the straightjacket of two-state solution, refusing to think a little outside the box. The more time passes, the more a two-state solution seems a distant objective, but to rescue the peace, different ideas to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli problem must be explored post haste.
As for President Obama, I think he came with a magic wand, but alas, it seems it had turned into a stick very quickly, and his Middle East policy currently is in a very precarious postion having, alianated the Israeli public and disappointed the Arabs. Mind you, he still has the stick, so who's head will be bashed with it?. I would say the one whom costs him less.
In a way, the political tension between Hamas and Fatah provides Egypt with a tremendous opportunity. For a nation that already considers itself a primary defender of Muslim rights, Cairo would undoubtedly jump at the chance to host a peace delegation that so many Arabs view as their greatest concern. This would come at a very critical time for Mubarak's regime; Iran's hegemonic aspirations are not only threatening Egyptian interests, but are also diminishing Egypt's stature as a major powerhouse in the Middle East.
Assuming that Hamas and Fatah officials agree to engage in future talks (which is a highly baseless assumption), the Egyptian Government would be wise to do everything in their power to make sure the negotiations are as unbiased and civilized as possible. An effective mediator is required to hear all sides of the dispute, without jumping to conclusions and without passing premature judgment. Thus far, Egypt has done a tremendous job (although the end result has been less than forthright). For the sake of the Palestinians, let’s hope that Egypt continues on its present course.
Unfortunately, reality on the ground dictates otherwise. There is a very real possibility that Mubarak's cronies are indirectly cheering for Palestinian disunity. With a unified Palestinian Government a distant fantasy, Egypt would more likely than not be called on to intervene; bringing some rationality to the entire equation. With its presence, Cairo may once again enhance its image in the eyes of the Palestinian people and in the eyes of Arabs in general.
For Mubarak, a Hamas-Fatah negotiation would "kill two birds with one stone." First and foremost, his legitimacy as an international leader would rebound to respectable levels; and secondly, western demands for a more open and transparent political system would vanish into thin air. Sounds like a pretty good "thank you note" to me.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
I think for Egypt now, the question of presidential succession is sapping away its energy, to play the prominant role it has always aspired to play in the politics of the region.
However, just as the question of what next for Hamas, if it doesn't sign the Egyptian document, the same can be asked, what next for Egypt if Hamas doesn't sign the Cairo dcument?. Egypt has already tense relations with its own Muslim Brothrhood sympethatic to Hamas. It has a dormant Islamist extremism problem, and is often involved in security operations in the Sinai with its own bedoiun population, over weapons smuggling in and out of Gaza. In addition, Egypt is also already, part of the embargo on Gaza as well as it encirclement, albeit due to international border arrangements and obligations.
Increased tension with Hamas, is very likely to bring all those factors to the surface, at a critical stage in which the question of presidential succession is highest on the aganda of the country. Therefoe, indeed what is next for Egypt?.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Just out of interest, the last time Bibi was prime minister in 1996/99 the Hamas suicide bombings dropped dramatatically. Why did this happen?
I think both, the question and answer will resemble a comparison between apples and pears. On the political level, the current composition of the Bibi government hardly resembles that of the first Bibi government, and the peace negotiations were still going on, no matter to what extent Hamas tried to derail them by acts of terror. While, on the security level, there was a far better cooperation between the PNA and Israeli security, since the PNA was at the time in control of Gaza, and not out of Gaza.
khairi janbek.paris/france
"Obama's push for peace is at the brink of collapse almost entirely because of Netanyahu's intransigence."
Really? It has nothing to do with the fact that Hamas (an unrepentant terrorist group) governs Gaza while Fatah (a repentant terror group) governs the West Bank? Neither side controls the other and there is no unity - how can Israel make peace with "two guns", especially considering that Hamas is on record as calling for Israel's total destruction?
The writer has revealed an anti-Israel bias with this silly statment. Obama might be perceived negatively by Israelis because A) he hung around with an anti-Semitic reverend for 20 years B) he made a big deal of visiting the Arab world (Egypt) but has yet to visit Israel C) He stupidly called for the freezing of every single settlement, even though it is obvious that certain settlements (some of which have tens of thousands of people) will never be returned - even the Palestinians have accepted this. D) He denied the content of the letter Bush wrote to Sharon promising that major settlement blocs would stay in Israeli hands.
The writer of this blog also ignores Iran as the biggest factor blocking Middle East peace. How can Netanyahu concentrate on peace with the Palestinians when a mad dictator is threatening to obtain nukes and wipe out his country? This same mad dictator funds and arms Hamas, the group that supposedly Netanyahu is blocking from making a comprehensive peace. This article is not a good example of objective and informative analysis...
What bias? Stop the AIPAC rhetoric
Israeli and AIPAC rhetoric labels every attack on Israel as propaganda. They have redefined anti-semtism as the criticism of Israel. Anti-semitism implies the belief in bigoted stereotypes about a racial, ethnic or religious groups.
Highly specific criticism of the policies of a state that does not represent the views or beliefs of all Jews can hardly be anti-semitism. The majority of criticism of Israel is not bigotry, it is based on the facts not on stereotypes.
Israel has refused President Obama's request to adhere to the "road map" and stop construction in Jerusalem and in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Israel refuses to join the IAEA, sign a nuclear non-proliferation treaty and allow inspections of their nuclear facilities.
Israel has violated international law and engages in apartheid policies for decades. These are the acts and facts of a rogue country. There is no bias. There is no "anti-semitism". These are facts.
Anything short of effusive praise and deaf, dumb, and blind support for Israel is seen as evidence of bias.
Hamas's cause is to liberate the palestinian territory by force of arms - to establish a state for the palestinians.
This is considered a laudable enterprise when done by people we agree with - for instance, American Patriots who liberated the USA from British rule, by force of arms or Irish citizens who formed the IRB / IRA and thereby ended British colonial rule.
The armed insurgent is always a "terrorist" and a "fanatic" according to the occupier. But is seen as a hero and a liberator by the oppressed. Hamas is not going to go away. Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinian people.
You are also ignoring the fact that Israel helped Hamas rise in the 1980s to defeat the PLO and then when the PLO ceased being effective advocates for its people, it embraced it and sidelined Hamas.
Zionism is the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from 'Jewish' land. You can't accuse Hamas while ignoring all the right wingers in Israel who call for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinains. Your a hypocrite and not very good one at that.
Iran blocking Middle East peace? Obama knows that the ‘Iranian threat’ is being used by Israel in the same way it has used other ‘threats’ in the past either to justify what it wants to do or what it does not want to do. We fought your war in Iraq and that is enough.
The country blocking Middle East peace is Israel. Everyone seems to know it except Israel. No one is destroying Israel except Israel.
Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for a democratic one-state solution for the Middle East conflict, which means that that Israel as a "colonial entity" or a "racist state" will be "wiped off the map" and replaced by a state where Jews and Arabs live side by side peacefully and equally.
But Israeli officials and their media pundits, and people like you, keep misquoting the Iranian president, who has recently suggested that he even accepted the two-state solution, if it brings justice to all Palestinians.
Because it may give a terrorist organization a nuclear weapon? These are ignorant and essentialist views that do not stand up to the facts. It's not Iran that preemptively invades, threatens, taunts, and warmongers their neighbors. That's Israel.
Israel will not even deny or admit to its truly "clandestine" nuclear program. If you want to talk about nuclear ambiguity, look to Israel.
After wiping Palestine off the map, Israel currently occupies the Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem; the Lebanese Shabaa Farms and the Syrian Golan Heights.
One of the key reasons that the Israeli government and the Israel lobby have lost so much influence all around the world in recent years, and especially among well-educated sectors of Europe and the United States, is because they tend to rely heavily on "arguments" like the one you just made -- personal attacks and smears, and especially wild accusations of antisemitism.
Political movements which are standing on solid ground, and which have facts, reason and morality on their side, do not stoop to these methods. It's a sign of desperation and general intellectual bankruptcy.
Wow-wow-wow - calm down, guys!
Claiming "facts, reason, and morality" to your side is a strong argument indeed.
By the way - "Hamas's cause is to liberate the palestinian territory by force of arms - to establish a state for the palestinians" is not quite exactly right, not if you think it would be "a state where Jews and Arabs live side by side peacefully and equally". Here's what Hamas think this land is for (from Hamas charter http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm):
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim 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 Muslim generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Muslim generations till Judgement Day?
This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Muslims have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Muslims consecrated these lands to Muslim generations till the Day of Judgement."
Granted, there probably are some crackpots on the Jewish nationalist religious side who say something similar with "Jewish" instead of "Muslim". But they aren't running the show in Israel, while Hamas is in Gaza. If you were an Israeli, you'd be worried.
We are all perfectly calm here...
Hamas is the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people and the only reason Israel and their supporters refuse to deal with Hamas is because they will not sell out the Palestinian people.
The "enemies" of Israel - Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, more and more American, and anyone who opposes israel's failed, apartheid, oppressive policies, are mostly people who oppose and are fighting for freedom from occupation.
Hamas is not occupying anyone's land, Israel is.
Hamas and Hezbollah are both groups born as a consequence of Israel's own policies, they are resistance groups to occupation. Israel's illegal occupation.
Hezbollah, of course, is a Lebanese nationalist organisation, which would not exist today had Israel not occupied Southern Lebanon for 18 years.
The most detailed polling of Palestinians, by the University of Maryland, found that 72 percent want a two-state solution on the 1967 borders, while fewer than 20 percent want to reclaim the whole of historic Palestine.
So, partly in response to this pressure, Hamas offered Israel a long ceasefire and a de facto acceptance of two states, if only Israel would return to its legal borders. Israel refused.
Rather than seize this opportunity and test their sincerity, the Israeli government reacted by punishing the entire civilian population. They announced they were blockading the Gaza Strip in order to "pressure" its people to reverse the democratic process.
They surrounded the Strip and refused to let anyone or anything out. They let in a small trickle of food, fuel and medicine - but not enough for survival.
It was in this context - under collective punishment designed to topple a democracy - that some forces within Gaza did something immoral: they fired Qassam rockets indiscriminately at Israeli cities. These rockets have killed 16 ordinary Israeli citizens. This is abhorrent: targeting civilians is always murder.
But it is hypocritical for the Israeli government to claim now to speak out for the safety of civilians when they have been terrorising civilians as a matter of state policy.
Israel responds with hypocrisy.
They say that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate under rocket-fire, but they demand the Palestinians do so under siege in Gaza and violent military occupation in the West Bank.
The Israeli government wants peace, but only one imposed on its own terms, based on the acceptance of defeat by the Palestinians.
It means they can keep the slabs of the West Bank on 'their' side of the wall. It means they keep the largest settlements, and control of the water supply.
And it means a divided Palestine, with responsibility for Gaza hived off to Egypt, and the broken-up West Bank standing alone.
Negotiations threaten this vision: they would require Israel to give up more than it wants to.
But an imposed peace will be no peace at all: it will not stop the rockets or the rage.
For real safety, Israel will have to talk to the people it is blockading and bombing today - and compromise with them.
Crackpots? You must be referring to Bibi and his moldavian thug of an FM. Running the show? The proof is Bibi prostituting himself to the fanatic settlers to form a coalition to 'win' the election with his Moldavian thug of an FM, Lieberman. Livni got more votes than he did.
The people of Israel didn't vote him into office, Shimon Peres assigned him the PM position, just like the supreme court decided in Bush's favor.
Bibi was a mess the first time around and he will be mess the second time around.
And like Bush, Bibi is on his way to bankrupting Israel of the last threads of any respect it has in the international community.
(1) Hamas did not changed its charter so there isn't really recognition of Israel in any borders. Given that, the best Israel can do is keep tabs on people who want to destroy it. That they were elected democratically doesn't make them any friendlier, it just makes it sound as if the electorate at large has no problem with Hamas charter...
(2) Iran is fighting for freedom from occupation? That's new. I thought they have their own agendas to pursue.
(3) Syrians and lots others were Israel's enemies from day 0, before there was occupation. They don't need new excuses.
(4) There are some precedents of getting land back from Israel through negotiation. See Egypt.
(5) Livni had a chance to build a coalition when Olmert left office. She also negotiated with the parties after the election to see who would sign up into her coalition, but the majority advised Peres to pick Bibi. Simply speaking, she was outmaneuvered by Bibi during the early coalition negotiations. All this is the normal proceedings of cabinet formation in Israel, it's not like Bibi stole the election or something. So yes, he was voted in.
(6) Bibi doesn't need to prostitute himself in front of the settlers. He is pretty right wing himself. He left Sharon's government over the disengagement from Gaza. Ever since the disengagement though there is no need to bend over politically to accommodate the fanatic settlers, because these were shown to be small in number and lacking support of the wide public.
(7) Liberman would have been a member of Livni's government, too, had she been able to put one together. She announced early on that there are agreements in place between the parties and there are no major obstacles for Liberman joining her. Liberman preferred Bibi but he would have lived with Livni, too.
(8) "But an imposed peace will be no peace at all". True for both sides.
(9) I am afraid you are right about loosing the respect of the international community. The question is what is the price of keeping the respect of the international community.
I don't think it takes a genius to say...
if indeed the "two-state solution" to the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the intended goal of the international community, then this objective cannot be achieved until such a time that, the Palesitnian people have a "ONE" leadership that renounces terrorism and acts of violence, and accepts Israel's right to exist within safe and secure borders, and, there is an Israeli government willing to undertake as well as facilitate all what is needed to create a contntinguous Palestinian state.
One's main cocnern is that, such a time may well be long in coming, if at all indeed, hence my fear that the alternative to the lack of developments on the peace front, is not likely to remain the current status quo, of no-war, no-peace, especially with Hamas gaining in strength, and the Israeli government's continued settlements construction and the Israelification of Jerusalem.
As a non-Israeli and non-Palestinian myself, perhaps I can afford saying that one is not concerned with whom gains or loses international respectability, rather much concerned, that war might be the answer to the question; at what price??. I don't have to be a non-Israeli or non-Palesitnian to know what that means. Therefore, my only penny's worth of wisdom under the circumstances is to say that, there is an urgent and desperate need, for all parties; international as well as regional, to start exploring new and feasable ideas about how to end the Palestinian-Israeli impass.
khairi janbek.paris/france
In answer to your (2).
The "enemies" of Israel - Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, more and more Americans, and anyone who opposes israel's failed, apartheid, oppressive policies, are mostly people who oppose and are fighting for freedom from occupation.
(2) Iran is fighting for freedom from occupation? That's new. I thought they have their own agendas to pursue.
They would fall into the catagory "are mostly people who oppose" the occupation.
No, Bibi was not voted in Peres decided
President Shimon Peres officially named him to form the next Israeli government.
Voters appeared to give Livni's Kadima party, which favors negotiations with the Palestinians, a slight and unexpected edge over Netanyahu's Likud party, which has been critical of peace talks.
Both candidates claimed victory. It will fall to President Shimon Peres to decide who gets first crack at forming a government -- a tricky task in Israel's fractious political culture. Traditionally, the president chooses the party that receives the most seats in the 120-member parliament, but he is not obligated to do so. Peres will now consult with all the parties to determine who has the best chance of creating a stable government.
Netanyahu and Livni had to hustle to assemble coalitions.
Lieberman was the surprise of the campaign, rising rapidly in the polls on the strength of his slogan, "Without loyalty, no citizenship." Aimed at Israel's Arab citizens, who make up about 20 percent of Israel's population and who are suspected by some in the Jewish community of being unpatriotic. Lieberman has proposed that every citizen be required to pledge loyalty to the Jewish state.
Many believed the candidate was deliberately stoking racist attitudes for electoral gain.
Lieberman vowed that his party would "drive the agenda in the next government."
Bibi had to bring in Lieberman to form his "coalition".
Shas had 11 Knesset seats; Lieberman's party has 15. If either bolted, Netanyahu will need to call new elections.
Sounds like prostitution to me.....
How the UN vote on the Goldstone Report could help Israeli-Pales
Frankly put where were you, Obama and the UN when missiles were falling onto civilian Israel from Gaza and where was the good Judge Goldstone?
The apathy of all involved in doing nothing to stop Palestinian terror missiles daily raining down on undisputed land in Israel and towns therein is what caused the Israeli need to send troops in to deal with the problem as they saw once again that the bleeding hearts and hand wringers would rather stand by in silence when Jews are at risk and worst of all they then use a so-called Jew as their messenger boy to Israel to deliver their condemnatory report.
The UN and the involved nations have proven again and again that their only interest is in slapping Israel down when they are forced to defend their citizens from the heinous, bloodthirsty acts of terrorists.
The international community has further disfranchised any legitimate voice they may have in so called peace talks by showing their perception of peace involving Israel is that the Jewish state divest itself of land, security and arrested terrorists in exchange for a promise of peace ... no commitment to recognize the Jewish state or to work to normalized relations on the part of Palestine or other Arab states simply an amorphous "peace" that allows them to continue without any substantial change.
I for one am not surprised that Israel feels unable to trust the UN, Obama or foreign states. There is no precedent to trust that they will behave in anyway other than their predictable manner.
In short this farcical vote has done more to solidify Israeli belief that they stand alone against all threats to their very existence and shown that "Obama" and "hope" are two diametrically opposed terms.
even when excluding Sec. Council Resolutions 242 & 338, which Israel never complied with, there are 30 other UN resolutions regarding the Palestinians alone; between 1955-1992, which Israel never complied with, and got away with not complying with those resolutions. Now there is the cry foul play because Israel doesn't seem to get away with it?. In any case, the Obama adminsitration has vetoed the Goldstone report.
khairi janbek.paris/france
The oft-cited Resolution 242, in its first paragraph, refers to the right of all nations in the area--note, ALL nations--to live with secure and recognized borders.But Hamas has never recognized the right of Israel to exist.We might see some progress to peace if Resolution 242 were fully observed by the three parties (the Israelis and the two separate Palestinian groups).
Diogenes
In case your good self Mr./Ms. diogenes may have missed it, the preamble of the resolution says also " Inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war...", and the first priciple of this resolution ,which your good self has quoted the second priciple of, says " Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".
khairi janbek.paris/france
As a US citizen I am ashamed that my govt will likely veto this. Pathetic.
I think is the PNA, because the mention of Hamas at the UNHRC, could have legitimised the arrest of Hamas members in the west bank.
khairi janbek.paris/france
" think both, the question and answer will resemble a comparison between apples and pears. On the political level, the current composition of the Bibi government hardly resembles that of the first Bibi government, and the peace negotiations were still going on, no matter to what extent Hamas tried to derail them by acts of terror. While, on the security level, there was a far better cooperation between the PNA and Israeli security, since the PNA was at the time in control of Gaza, and not out of Gaza."
Interesting non-answer! For instance,if the PNA was in control of Gaza and if there was far better co-operation between the PNA and Israeli security at the time, how come Hamas was able to conduct suicide bombings with such ferocity that Peres lost the '96 election? Are you saying that the Bibi government of the time was so able to enhance the security operation with the PNA that it could bring Hamas attacks almost to an end? Also, during the '96/99 period Bibi was able to restore economic growth in the territories almost to pre-Oslo levels. Given that this time, unlike that period, he even has a solid Likud/right majority and a stable coalition with Labour, why couldn't he do it again?
One is not in favour of comparing epochs and eras usually, but if your good self insists, I may be able to provide some benefit of my experience from that period. Hamas as a protest movement at the time, had the aim of undermining the authority of the PNA rather than affect change in Israel by terrorist actions. In 1996, the PNA was only two years old, even, in 1999 it was only five years old, but within this period and as it was gaining in strength materially as well as through Palestinian public support, it had managed to arrest as well as kill on various occasions, Hamas activists planning and conducting terorist acts against Israel.
Between 1996-1999, Hamas financial as well as popular support dropped drastically in favour of the PNA; a support essential for the ability of Hamas to conduct its operations. In addition, there was a strong intelligence and security cooperation between the PNA and Israel.
Your good self will not get an argument from me, against economic cooperation between the PNA and Israel. Personally I am for such a cooperation without any doubt. However, such important cooperation will always remain subject to the political developments between the two parties. Since we are talking about the first Netanyahu government, the "Hassmonian Tunnel" incident in Jerusalem almost brought the whole peace talks into a halt, let alone now, the continued settlements policies, and the Israelification of Jerusalem.
khairi janbek.paris/france
I’ve read attentively the above discussion, and I was glad to discover there a number of reasonable an conciliatory suggestions on both Jewish and Arab side but I am afraid that all this of no avail because the real problem is elsewhere.
I discussed privately the Palestinian problem with many of Jewish people and of course I’ve read a lot an I arrive at a paradoxical and sad conclusion that subconsciously Jewish people in Diaspora as well as in Israel, DON’T WISH ANY PEACE AGREEMENT IN PALESTINE AT ALL. The present situation in some mysterious way satisfies them entirely. Of course it is a purely psychological satisfaction and I wouldn’t speculate on this subject because it is a waste and unclear one. Better I’ll explain why have I such an extravagant suspicion.
When I suggest to a Jew that some concessions to Palestinians may be productive, my proposition is mostly met by evident suspicion:
- Don’t you see yourself that Israel is in deadly danger and any concession can but worsen the situation?
- Well, who is intended actually to destroy Israel (let’s put Iran aside for a moment)?
- Why, Hamas, Syria, Fatah and Hezbollah.
- And these are the enemies whom Israel army must be afraid of? You are certainly kidding! Well, the last Lebanon war was in some respects a disastrous one for Israel self-confidence but the Gaza war immediately restored the balance. A war in a densely populated area is something any army dreads most of all for numerous casualties are inevitable. As much as I remember, Israelis loosed some 12-13 people. I suppose 5 were soldiers, another 5 were also soldiers but perished from a friendly tank fire and other 3 were civilians, victims of Kasam rockets. Such a war with such casualties is simply impossible. But it happened! I see no other explanation but that Zahal is still capable to learn remarkably well from its own errors. Everybody knows after that war that if any Hamas fighter is still alive then it is only on humanitarian, not military grounds.
A deadly menace to Israel’s very existence really existed up to Oslo agreements, then it vanished. But (almost) no Jew would accept it. Why, damn it, why? The dear neighbors can harass Israel, for sure; they are never capable to destroy it.
And if I persist, I may get something of this kind:
- Anyway, the world is united against Israel. You are not with them, by chance?
There exists another proof of absurdity of the Jewish stand. Now as a result of the Arabic World terrorism numerous are Christians who sympathise more with Israel then with Arabs. So if I disclose to them that Jews are convinced that a deadly menace of extermination hangs over Israel and that they themselves are participants in this complot through, for example, the European Union, they are much astounded and much amused.
There exists even third proof, if you wish: it seems that all Arabic World is convinced that EU is with Jews and Israel and against Arabs.
It is amusing to note some resemblance between the Jewish and modern Russians frights. The Russians now are delighted by a fantasy that the West in general and America especially are looking for any mean to knock Russia down. Here the explanation is rather evident: the shock of the loss of superpower status happened (proved) to be so unbearable for the nation that it recedes into the reveries of the ancient great standoff. A similar prestige element must be present in the Jewish frights also but the Jewish psychotic case is certainly much more complicated.
Even more than Israeli lobby in USA, mentioned by somebody above, weights another factor in USA policy: there are 6.5 millions of Jews in the country. And they’ll vote out of office any president whom they declare an enemy of Israel, even for some peccadillo. It is a deadlock, it is a deadlock.
During Passover, the Jewish people tell their children of the exodus from Egypt. One of the lines in the text of the Haggadah reminds the audience that the pharaoh wasn't a singular exceptional evil, but "in every generation [they] rise to destroy us," (literally, to *finish* us - this sounds colloquial in English, but is pretty lofty in Hebrew) where Hebrew grammar allows for an unspecified wrongdoer, i.e. there are in every generation some people set on destroying us.
There's been some supporting evidence throughout generations for this somewhat paranoid view of things. It is true that through most of the centuries the Haggadah was read the Jews did not have a strong army to defend them, and mostly relied on God's deliverance. But (a) two defenders are better than one; (b) old fears die hard; (c) there are those who are set on destroying us in this generation as well - see Hamas charter mentioned above.
So, while not everyone is an enemy, there are some pretty dreadful ones out there. That they so far did not have much success wasn't for lack of trying - the small number of casualties in the civilian population in Israel was in large part due to the prudence of having built shelters just for such neighborly harassment. Still, shelters aren't a lot of fun, and sitting in them doesn't make one inclined to think that the neighborhood is secure.
shelters nor a siege mentality can be fun Mr./Ms. bbk, therefore, there must be a middle ground between the two, in the wisdom of the scriptures.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Though one, in no way, questions the integrity of your good self's statement Mr./Ms. Kron, however I wish to indicate that there are various recent opinion polls; as recent as only a few days ago conducted by Tel Aviv University, which indicate that the majority of the Israeli public are in favour of a two-state solution to the Palestinian peoblem. As it is often said, still, the devil is in the details. But I don't agree that Israelis don't want peace.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Bir bak?ma, Hamas ve El Fetih aras?ndaki siyasi Gerginlik müthi? bir f?rsat? M?s?r sa?lar. Zaten kendisini Müslüman haklar? savunucusu Birincil gördü?ü bir ulus için, Kahire ?üphesiz ?ans? çok Araplar onlar?n en büyük mesele olarak bu görü?ü bir bar?? heyeti bar?nd?rmas? de atlamak olur. Bu Mübarek Rejimi için çok kritik bir zamanda gelecek; ?ran'?n hegemonik hedefleri sadece M?s?r ç?karlar?n? tehdit de?il, ayn? zamanda Orta Do?u'da önemli bir güç merkezi olarak M?s?r çocuk azalmaktad?r.
Until when are we going to accept Jewish or crypto Jews as mediators in every problem the Jews have with the rest of the human race. The first step in the direction of the solution is to use credible mediators. The UN demonstrated its incompetence in conflicts where the nuclear powers have a big stake, due both, to its shameful birth at the 1945 Yalta conference and the veto, a trump card utterly removing any sense of fairness. The Soviet Union demonstrated its inability to assert Palestinian rights and also his mud-feet as a world power much like USA, which is showing to the world a lamentable example of incompetence, lack of leadership, shameful bias and complicity with war crimes such as the recent Gaza holocaust in which an open city with no shelters and absolutely defenseless was bombed from the safety of the air using USA-UK weapons and phosphorous. It is time for true mediators to enter the frail in order to end the Jewish onslaught of the Palestinians with USA – UK’s complicity.
Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(46)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE