Unsettling Questions

I must say that I share your pessimism. There are a lot of 'ifs' in the equation.

IF the US is willing to take the risk of pushing Israel.
IF Israel is actually interested in a legitimate 2-state solution that allows the Palestinians to live (in essentially the pre-67 borders, barring some form of land-swap)
IF the Palestinians can get some form of unity government that can actually advocate for the population.

etc...etc...

I personally don't see this happening either. I think that the only card the Palestinians have to play is the demographic card. Simply work to integrate into Israel, and eventually - IF Israel is a democracy (which most of us know isn't true...) - the roosters will come home to roost.

That of course is IF Israel doesn't have a policy of forced relocation (aka ethnic cleansing).

If the whole Middle East turmoil rests on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, then I'd say the Palestinians have a very strong card to play: ending the conflict.

However, if you reject a two state solution and maintain the whole land is Palestinian, obviously there's no point in negotiating at all. One can only pity the Palestinians for having such "supporters" as yourself, who - from a safe distance - calmly advise them to "wait for a military solution" (as you did in 1948, 1967, 1973, 1982, 2001..) in search of an utopia that will never come.

That is kind of a harsh statement to Khalid, don't you think? I mean it is not like the Palestinians do not want the conflict to end. But what would you have them do, accept the *ridiculous* 'peace' deals that have been offered to them where they have have to cede essentially any West Bank land that is arable or has aquifers under it, no control over its borders, its coastline (Gaza), no control over its immigration, or its airspace like the previous 'peace deal in 1999?

I don't think that either of us reflexively reject a 2-state solution (of course I can't speak for Khalid, but that is how I read his comment), but we are both obviously pessimistic that it will occur given the historical precedent set by the US and a hardcore nationalistic Israeli government.

The main issue is whether a 2 state solution is acceptable or not. If, as Khalid Mufti writes, it's a pipe dream and by definition unjust, he basically sentences both Israelis and Palestinians to continue killing each other for another 100 years. That's unfortunately the type of advice you hear from many "pro-Palestinian" (and "pro Israeli") in the safe, comfortable west.

There HAS been progress, however fleetingly, in the last 40 years. However, I wouldn't say the situation necessitates a military solution/conclusion; more like militarily empowered, or otherwise forcefully empowered solution, in some form. After all, had it not been for the shock of the Yom Kippur War, Camp David would never have had a chance.

It is only when the demographic time-bomb, or some substantial military offset emerges, that Israel will "give" anything. Doesn't mean Israel needs to get whipped off the map, only their intransigence and bad faith toward negotiations. Best thing the US could do is simply deal even-handedly with the 2 sides, including our putting a check on our current willingness to (ultimately) do what Israel needs done with Iran. That alone would go far to creating conditions for reconciliation, but its hardly been the history thus far.

I see your point, Aradi.

I do not want to speak for Khalid, but I believe that, while a 2-state solution is not automatically unacceptable, it just seems (as KIMAC points out) that Israel doesn't feel the need to actually negotiate in good faith. They have no real motivation to give anything up. In fact, it appears that the status quo works so well for Israel that, even when things seem to be improving, something happens - like Sharon going to Temple Mount to ensure that there is a violent reaction, to undermine any progress that has been made. The status quo gives Israel a reason to continue their operations of constricting the noose around the necks of the Palestinians in the West Bank and usurping more land.

So I believe we all agree that unless both sides want peace there is no chance of actually reaching any agreement. Given this, I can only conclude that a 2-state solution will not work because both sides need to make concessions for a 2 state solution. The Palestinians will likely have to give up the right of return (but with some form of compensation). What will Israel give up? Land that was confiscated in violation of international law? Not much of a concession, in my opinion.

Until Israel wants to negotiate in good faith there will be no agreement. So what I am waiting for is the event that causes Israel to want to negotiate in good faith. I agree with you that a military solution is not the answer for either party - particularly the Palestinians, that have suffered so much. The only card that Palestine has to play is the demographics card. Hence my point.

Or a complete fool judging by any of the security archives newly released documents. Just one example is that GWBush only asked the Taiban for OBL 3 times during his term up until 9/11. Bill Clinton meanwhile had placed continual pressure on hem, asking some 37 times in the period after the Embassy bombings. IOW Bush ignored Bin Laden and we all know how that strategy played out!

You are 100% correct of course. Which raises the question of whether the portion of the international effort that spends its time cajoling Israeli leaders to do something of significance for a change might not be a better allocation of limited resources by focusing everything on issues like the dual citizenship Zionist-Americans who obstruct, deceive, and enable Likud from Washington. Maybe if Netanyahu was ignored as a leader (something that in itself would be guaranteed to get his attention and raise his blood pressure) and instead have all national-international peace efforts be directed toward exposing and bringing down AIPAC, AEI and others who (like the PNAC who were able to basically pre-write foreign policy for the incoming GWBush Admin)were sitting on the Israeli governments advisory boards (Perle of course) writing it's future Middle East policies in a way that only someone with insider information of both countries high-level security intel could be sure were feasible!

Maybe if we make that kind of behavior the focus of international efforts instead of repeatedly walking back into their pre-arranged media spotlight, then perhaps some progress can be made on the situation over there. Because the worlds Jewry must be made to understand that the path the Zionists have chosen to follow is the one that is most guaranteed to destroy the sympathy and understanding that the horrible events of WW2 made possible. Indeed, if there is any way possible of resurrecting the kind of bitter anti-Semitism that made an event like the Holocaust possible, continuing on their present course is surely it. Zionists in America MUST be made to understand this! Please!

Do you know what would cause the US to unleash unrelenting holy terror on Israel? If they ever attempted to build settlements on US soil. There would be no negotiations until those settlements were gone, and until that time, there would be hell to pay, with unrelenting military attacks and massive casuualties until all of our conditions were met

Your assertion, that it is questionable as to whether the settlements and the occupation that they necessitate are not indeed the CORE of the conflict is utterly baseless. Every middle eastern expert (the CIA, the Iraq study group, the 9/11 commission, past presidents, ect) agree that the settlements are indeed the core of the conflict and that they have a direct and negative effect on both Israeli and US security as they are a primary tool for terrorist recruitment, funding and support.

And this, folks, is a veritable cornucopia of the different techniques now being taught to thousands of N. American high-school and college-aged kids who sign onto Israel's Hasbara campaign.

With the same sort of arrogance the world has seen too many times coming from idealogues acting out of absolute certainty in their moral authority, Israel is funding "aliyah" trips for lucky youths whom they then supply with "how-to" guides that teach them how to divert, diffuse, delay, or dismiss conversations where a speaker is telling people the truth of what really happened over there. College kids are directed to study manuals with innocuous, even charming little titles like "The Hasbara Handbook" (now available online) that instruct these potential futire leaders to try tactics like joining in debates that argue the relative merits of each sides positions.

How could anyone have a problem with that, you say? Well. If you don't see any ethical shortcomings in having your kid join the debate surreptitiously on the Arab side (as instructed!) then do a lousy job of it --- which is to say basically that you are asked to pose as someone else then "throw the fight" for the other side --- then maybe you too have a future with some other branch of Israeli "foreign affairs".

But back to the hasbara the above commenter so carefully and lovingly crafted for us, if you go through it, line by line, you'll find all the straw-man, cherry-picked, and false equivalence arguments that politicians depend on for manipulating their constituencies in ways that favor designs requiring public acquiescence, whether it's knowing acquiescence or not. And like the fighter who takes a fall, an ideologue who, upon realizing that telling the truth helps his opponent yet fails to realize that he must then be on the wrong side....is someone whose ethical acuity is such that no good can ever come of their works.

Hasbara was a technique developed prior to the internet's appearance, of course. Then it was absolutely within reason to suppose that factual information on events in the Middle East could be countered by Zionist voices making themselves much more visible and numerous than the extremely limited and difficult to acquire proofs found in old media archives. Indeed it was more than reasonable as an be seen by the way much of th world now sees the Palestinian victims as the terrorist aggressor, a 180 degree spin away from the truth of the matter.

But that was managed only because of the relative trickle of intel released to the media that stands in opposition to the flood of anti-Arab propaganda (hasbara). The internet now makes these archives, as well as supporting documents (in the form of pictures) from Gaza, impossible to counter. The tide has turned. The tendency of all politicians for failing to react to real-world changes like the web, is the cause of their launching actions like Cast Lead thinking they could control the message as tightly as before. But now all they have is hasbara. We have the truth, the internet, and most of all...we have RIGHT on our side.

It is now sooner rather than later that Israel must begin acting like the nation it insists Arabs recognize. Because to continue will spell the ruin of - not just Israel - but of Judaism and Jews themselves.

One of the basic principals in international law that resulted from the carnage of World War II, is the impermissibility to acquire territory from armed conflict. With respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict, this principle was enshrined in Security Council Resolution 242, which emphasized “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” Nevertheless, after the Six Day War in 1967, the Government of Israel (GOI) separated 64 sq. km from the West Bank, linked it to the 6 sq. km of what was East Jerusalem under the Jordanians, and declared it was all now part of an undivided Jerusalem in the state of Israel. This new expanded boundary is not recognized by any state, other than Israel. Under international law, the area of Jerusalem that Israel is claiming is part of their country is no different than the rest of the West Bank. In the international legal community, the territory that Israel controls as a result of the Six Day War is known as the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and is in the condition of a “belligerent occupation” controlled by the GOI as a “belligerent occupant.” This status as a “belligerent occupation” is interestingly recognized by the GOI itself, which argued before the Israeli Supreme Court in the spring of 2005, “The status of these settlement (in Gaza and the Northern WB) derives from the status of the territory, which is held in “belligerent occupation”…When the petitioners settled in the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria, they did so in full knowledge that they were settling in territory held by Israel in belligerent occupation…”
Within the OPT, International Humanitarian Law applies. The Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons states in Common Article 2: “the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.” The two conditions set forth in the article, “armed conflict” between “two or more of the High Contracting Parties” was fulfilled in that there was a war between two signatories, Israel and Jordan.
The applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the OPT is universally recognized by the international community. The United Nations Security Council in Resolution 271, (September 15, 1969,) called upon “Israel scrupulously to observe the provision of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation.” This was followed a decade later with SCR 446, (March 22, 1979) and SCR 452 (July 20, 1979) which reaffirmed “once more that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.” The Security Council with SCR 681, (December 20, 1990) again recognized the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention by urging “the Government of Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention…to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 and to abide scrupulously by the provision of the Convention”. In addition, SC799, (December 18, 1992) and SCR 904, (March 18, 1994) reaffirmed again its position concerning the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied territories.
The United Nations General Assembly with resolution 56/60, (December 10, 2001) and resolution 58/97 (December 9, 2003), reaffirmed “that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967.”
However, it has not just the United Nations that has affirmed the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the OPT. On December 1, 2001, The International Committee of the Red Cross “affirmed the de jure applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied since 1967 by the State of Israel, including East Jerusalem.”
In addition to the universal acceptance by the international community that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the West Bank, including Jerusalem, it is also universally recognized by the international legal community that the Israeli settlements are in violation of Article 49(6) of the convention. That section reads: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
The universality of the opinion that the settlements are in violation of Article 49(6) is measured in part by Security Council Resolution 446 (March 22, 1979), which stated the settlements had “no legal validity.” The United States also recognizes the violation, which was set forth by the Department of State Legal Advisor, Herbert J. Hansell, on April 21, 1978, when he concluded that “On the basis of the available information, the civilian settlements in the territories occupied by Israel do not appear to be consistent with these limits on Israel’s authority as belligerent occupant in that they do not seem intended to be of limited duration or established to provide orderly government of the territories and, though some may serve incidental security purposes, they do not appear to be required to meet military needs during the occupation.… The language and history of the provision [Article 49(6)] lead to the conclusion that transfers of a belligerent occupant’s civilian population into occupied territory are broadly proscribed as beyond the scope of interim military administration.” The opinion went on to say, “The Israeli civilian settlements thus appear to constitute a transfer of ‘parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies’…While Israel may undertake, in the occupied territories, actions necessary to meet its military needs and to provide for orderly government during the occupation, for the reasons indicated above the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law.” This opinion has never been revised or revoked.
Even the Israeli Government, when it initially looked at the legality of the settlements shortly after the end of the Six Day War and before the settlers became a powerful constituency in Israeli politics, concluded in a legal opinion on September 18, 1967 of Theodor Meron, Legal Counsel of the Foreign Ministry, “that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”
Finally, all 15 justices of the International Court of Justice, including Judge Thomas Buergenthal, who was the sole dissenter in the 2004 “Wall” Decision, declared the settlements are illegal under international law. In his declaration, Judge Buergenthal stated:
“Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention also does not admit for exceptions on grounds of military or security exigencies. It provides that ‘the Occupying Powcr shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies’. I agree that this provision applies to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and that their existence violates Article 49, paragraph 6.”
When settlements are built on private land, they are in violation of other provisions of international law. Article 46 of the 1907 Hague Regulations clearly states, “Private property cannot be confiscated.” Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Art. 53 states: “Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.” Despite these basic international obligations which are adhered to by the civilized world, large areas of private Palestinian land have been confiscated by the GOI for settlements. One third of all settlement land is on confiscated private Palestinian property, including all the homes in the large settlement of Ofra.

Thank you Marty24, for this quick summary of what has become a long series series of actions taken by what can only be described as a "rogue nation". These actions leave one with a sense that underlying the public face of Israel's tentative democracy lies an extreme right-wing entity that has the full support of Israel's military and other conservative elements. This they seem to do with or without the blessings of the Knesset's less aggressive and more reasonable faction.

When Einstein, Hannah Arendt and the other 26 Jewish intellectuals wrote their warning letter to the NYTimes (1948), they described the emergence in Israel of a the Tnuat Haherut, "a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties". We must suppose that such a group could not openly declare itself as being the inheritors of the same tradition as Adolf Hitler, but we must also remember that fascism was quite popular with the right-wing before the events of WW2 made such an association political poison. The anti-semitism that became a hallmark of the Third Reich was a feature that belonged to Nazism alone, and was not /at all/ a necessary element that needed to be observed by non-Nazi fascists. As such, it is not at all unreasonable to believe that, prior to revelations of the Holocaust, some of the Jewish population, just as with the wider population as a whole, became attracted to certain elements of fascism. Indeed, the ultra-nationalism feature must have been very appealing to many of the Zionist persuasion.

Einstein continued: "It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's (Menachem Begin) political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents."

Given these words, it seems quite apparent that Begin must have been one such individual, one of many no doubt who found themselves now having to reject fascism outwardly but whose underlying personality and motivations were still consistent with the authoritarian values he had managed to escape during the war. The saying about a "leopard changing it's spots" seems particularly appropriate here.

"Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state." Of course Menachem Begin went on to become Israeli PM. And it's then that I'd be very interested in knowing exactly what he did and said during his term in office and beyond.

As for the US's policy re: extreme right-wingers, well, as abhorrent as it may seem to us, we know that the US intelligence community struck up a series of relationships with former German Nazis due their bona fides as being virulently anti-communist. The US apparently felt that this was among the most important traits a Cold War spy could have in their efforts to gain intel on the US's most powerful post-war enemy, the Soviet Union. There is no reason to doubt they would have been very pleased to have a leader in the Middle East who brought the same anti-communist zeal into the fight against the Soviets as Hitler enjoyed during his bloody career.

"It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future."

Indeed.

http://www.archive.org/details/AlbertEinsteinLetterToTheNewYorkTimes.December41948