roachboy

actually, sticky, i dont think that is the case.
and i think it is at best a tendentious reading of what i said above.
i think that israel is a simple fact of the matter. it is a nation-state like any other and is not going anywhere. israel has any number of options available to it for ameleriorating the situation endured by the palestinians and in so doing to ameliorate the situation for itself. it could, for example, dismantle the settlements in the west bank. it could stop the routine harrassment of palestinians at check points. it could stop the barbarism in gaza. it could stop trying to undermine the palestinian government and could assume that the exercise of power just might moderate hamas--except of course that the israeli right needs hamas to be as it is because that way it functions as a legitimation for more oppression in gaza, etc. (do you have any idea what has been going on in the gaza strip?)

it could abandon this idiotic discourse of terrorism and along with it begin a process whereby even the israeli right--which i see as the primary motor of all these problems--would find itself having to consider the palestinians as human beings.
it could dismantle the racist underpinnings of the discourse of "terrorism"---it could reconsider the meanings that have come to be of a piece with the notion of israel as a jewish state.
it could participate in the fabrication of an actually viable palestinian state, not the patchwork fantasy that cannot and will not survive that is presently on the table--you know, that series of dots separated by settlements that israel wants to be understood as de facto extensions of itself.

as for the more complex issues like the right of return, i dont know.
that one seems to me to function on a different register.
but everyone knows this. so it seems that it functions for all sides as a way to spike negociations. someone has to be benefitting from the present appalling state of affairs.

that said, there are any number of ways that israel could change its policies and direction.

the nihilist "conditions have to be as they are or israel will cease to exist" line seems not worth the time it takes to type, and much much less as an guide for thinking about the situation.
and this line of thinking seems the particular purview of americans. you dont see this kind of nonsense in israel, except perhaps for amongst extreme right wing parties, those dominated by extreme right wing settlers who are themselves a significant motor of the trouble israel has.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Sticky

I am not saying it that way. I am not saying that things need to continue the way that they are for Israel to continue to exist. Anything can change and Israel can continue to exist.

What I am saying is that the majority of the arab world won't be satisfied unless Israel no longer exists.


You are right, thinking is not homogeneous in Isreal. Not even within parties.
It is the right (maybe more the far right and certainly the extreme right) who use this as a basis for any dealings. They take this as a given and use it to frame any discussions or nogotiations they are party to (within the Israeli gov't or directly with the Pallestinians and surrounding Arab countries).
This is why they look for security first before any concessions.

The Isreali left or moderate is always willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

Can I assume this is what you are suggesting?
If that is the case, what happens if Israel does all that you say?
Does terrorism stop?

I don't think it does.
This is why I mentioned that the PLO was started in 1964.

Now, I am not saying that Isreal should not do the things you say becuase of this, I am just saying that we should not believe blindly that this solves the problem.

I agree. I don't think we can really get anywhere without that as an understanding.
I don't believe, however, that the majority of the arab world accepts this.

I also believe (and I am sure you do) that the Palestinan peolple are a fact as well. And as you eluded, I believe that most Israelis understand this.

I think that there will never be any solution that is considered satisfactory, nor even one that considered acceptable unless these facts are generally accepted by the involved parties - not just the Israelis, not just the Pallesinians, but the neighborring arab nations, the U.S., Russia, France, the U.K. and the rest of the world.

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

roachboy

sticky: agreed for the most part.
strange--i didnt think we were heading here, but it is better this way.

actually, i would think that the acceptance of israel as a nation-state like any other could modulate american policy toward it as well. which would be a very good thing indeed, as the americans are in a positiont to do what they have been doing, which is allowing israel to act as though the rules that govern the actions of other nation-states do not apply to them when it comes to treatment of the palestinians in particular--or to force a change.

i think it well passed time to force a change.
but i dont see it happening with the right in power here.
regardless of how you understand the backstory of the right's policies toward israel--which loops back, to some extent, to the op.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Sticky

I don't agree with you on most of your views but that is allowed and possible.
I don't agree with you on your views of the backstory.
I don't agree with you on the solution - acutually I don't agree with you on what the results of the steps of the solution will be.

What I do think we agree on is one major point.

We are here now. This is where we are. What are we going to do about it.


If you agree, that may be the last thing we agreeon

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

Sun Tzu

That would be apparent if the occupied area were indeed unoccupied.

If Israel would disband ALL settlements in the West Bank I think it would gain the support it doesnt have from non Arab nations.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Sticky

Which is why I brought up the esatblishment of the PLO, by the Arab League, with their goal of destroying Israel through armed struggle in 1964.
In 1964 the "occupied area were indeed unoccupied"

What give you the impression that this would be true?

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

Sun Tzu

It would be hope more than anything. There are extremists on both sides, with each wanting the demise of the other. But there are also those that want peace, so it is possible.

Since statehood that part of the compromise has never been realized. SO how can it really be gauged. The settlements have been expanding since the beginning. There is no way to know for sure if either side would hold the peace, but if the land that was supposed to go to the Palestinians was indeed given to them in its entirety and the Palestinians still attacked, I believe Israel would have support it doesnt have now.

The flash presentation I posted earlier in this thread clearly shows what is happening. I dont understand after truly looking at that how anyone can doubt what direction this is headed. It was created by an Israeli group.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Sticky

By the way, even though we are off the topic of the original thread, I like the way this discussion is going.
No name calling, we seem to be following a single train of thought without jumping around like crazy.
It seems like there is actually discussion going on.


This is the main problem for the Israeli Right.
The Centre and Left (I am talking about the population I amnnot talking about the governemnt) have time and time again shown that they are willing to take a chance in hope. They are willing to take the chance.

The Israel Right, however, wants to do it the other way - show me the guarantee of security and I will be willing to give.

The extreme right, of course, has no intrest of giving anything.

Hope is a hard thing to believe in with the history in the area.
It is easy for us on the outside to say that they should take a chance and hope for the best.


Yes, there are extremists on both sides.
Let's ignore the actual acts of the extremists on both side - even though I don't think we should.
Let's also ignore the extremists all together.

I think a more important discussion centres around the percentages of the general population that want peace, will recognize the other's right to existance, and will rather see negotiation than fighting.
This will give us an indication of how much faith to put in hope.



Since when? 1948 or 1967?
As we all know, Isreal was not in control of any of Golan Heights, Gaza, the West Bank, or the Old City of Jerusalem.
Settlements were not expanding since the begining.

What happend between 1948 and 1967?
Did the Arab world accept Israel's right to exist?
Did the Arab world accept the Palestinian people's right to exists?

The answer to both questions is No. The Palestinian people are the Arab world's pawn in the war against Israel.

What part of the compromise has never been realized?
Why was the PLO founded in 1964? To liberate Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem from the Israelis? No.
To Liberate Gaza from Egypt and the West Bank and East Jerusalme from Jordan? No

The PLO was founded to detroy Israel and liberate the Israeli held lands.

This is the history that is familiar to the Israelis, so if you ask someone on the right to take a chance and hope, is it wrong for them to be skeptical and want some assurances?

I agree that this should be the case but I don't believe it. Israel and the Jews are the scapegoat for the world and its problems.
I know, that is a pretty pessimistic outlook but the History of the world has shown me that.

Whether or not this was produced by an Israeli group does not really matter. As you know any society that allows for expression of ideas there are those on any side of an argument. There are Israelis on the extreme right, right, centre, left extrem left, up and down.

To illustrate my point about there being Israelis in every part of the spectrum:
There are Iraelis believe in the state of Israel who reject the goverments actions and there are Israelis who are against the state of Israel (I am not talking about arabs, but jews) and support the government actions.

With regards to the presentation. All the data is more than likely completely correct it is how it is presented that causes problems.
There is no shortage of propoganda in the Middle East, or the world for that matter. Call it propoganda, persuasion, or framing it does not matter.

The problem I have with this presentation is how it discusses the numbers.
Rigth away it talks about how in 1993 the Palestinians accepted 22% for a state and agreed to recognize Israel on the other 78%.
And then it states that conceding 78% was a huge Palestinian compromise.

While the numbers are all true framing is used to try to persuade acceptance of their arguments.
After reading this presentation an uninformed person will say:
- Wow Israel is getting 3 times as much as the Palestinians
- Ya, how could they call the offer generous it is only giving 22%
- The Palestinains gave up 78%, they made a huge consession. Isreal did not make any big concessions

What this framing does is distort our sense of the issue by playing with numbers that are correct.
- The 78% and 22% numbers are referring to the whole land mass contained betwen Egypt, the Meditaranean Sea, Lebanon, Syria, The Jordan River and Jordan. So yes, if you add up the territory in the offer 22% of that would go to the Palestinians and 78% would remain as part of Israel.
But that is not what the negotiations were about and that is not what the Issue is, in fact that is not even the complaint of any unsatifieds (is that a real word) other than the extreme arabs calling for the destruction of Israel.
What the land negotiations were about was the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Old City of Jerusalem.
Talking about 78% and 22% gives a false idea of the fairness of the deal and a false idea of the sacrifice the Palestinians made.
- It then pushes this distortion when it talkes about Barak's offer expecting the Palestinians to relinquish 10% of that 22%.

If you look at the territory in question Isreal proposed something over 90% (about 97%)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit#Summary.
- 100% of Gaza
- 94% of the West Bank keeping the 6% where some of the largest Israeli settlements were
- 3% of land adjacent to the West Bank to compensate for the 6%
- East Jerusalem
- There were discussions over giving the Palestinains most of the Old City as well including the Temple Mount.

Whether it was a good offer or not. Whether there wee territoial contignuity problems or not is not what I am trying to point out.
What I am trying to point out is that using the 78% and 22% figures is a distraction to try to gain acceptance of their agenda.
For this reason I have a problem with this presentation.
There are plenty of sites and articles out there that reject the offer on the details of the offer itself.

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

Ourcrazymodern?

CIRCUMCISION: I'm ravelling.

Willravel

I'm Willravelling