I belong to a generation of Israelis who grew up believing in peace. At the end of the Six-Day War of 1967, I was 23, and I had no doubt that 40 years later, the Israeli-Arab war would be over. Today, my son, who is 28, no longer believes in peace. Most Israelis don't. They know that Israel may not survive without peace, but from war to war, they have lost their optimism. So have I.
How do you create an environment where people work to solve their problems when so many can only think of ugly "solutions" to crush their enemies. Despite the fact that "Shock & Awe" has proven to be completely counterproductive in achieving the goals of the more powerful side, it seems that it is the only trick left in the bag. No wonder it is hard to be optimistic about the future.
Posted by Mary at January 11, 2009 01:16 PMNo doubt we have all heard and many of us have repeated that old phrased uttered by I forgot which Israeli leader (I think it was the odious Netanyahu, but don't remember) that the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The reality is really qyite different. The "opportunities" offered to the Palestinians have overwhelmingly been either opportunities that bought time for Israel to establish more facts on the ground, or they have been "opportunities" that no one in the Palestinians' position would find acceptable (good example is that "generous offer" that Clinton brokered).
In fact, it is Israel that has never missed an opportunity to give the middle finger to an opportunity. As perhaps the largest example, how many people reading this know that seven years ago the Arab League - that's the body that compasses every Arab state, including a few that most people don't even know are Arab states - formally offered to Israel everything it claims it wants. They offered peace with full recognition and normal diplomatic and economic relations - you know, embassies, ambassadors, trade relations, stuff like that. What Israel had to do was to withdraw to the pre-1967 boundaries, and allow Palestinians control over their territories, borders, airspace and waterways.
Israel's response? The middle finger. They would not even consider it as a starting point for negotiations. And for seven years the Arab League has kept that very generous offer on the table, and periodically re-offered it, and for seven years Israel has held up its middle finger.
Knowing this, one really is compelled to wonder whether Israel's first priority really is peace, recognition, and normal relations. And along with that, one also has to wonder whether there is anything at all the Palestinians and the Arabs could do that would induce Israel to make and keep a peace agreement.
Posted by Shirin at January 11, 2009 04:11 PMShirin skips over the deal-breaking detail as why Israel turns down the Arab league proposal - it would have to cede total sovereignty over Jerusalem, for shared sovereignty. If the coalition powers of the Knesset ever seriously considered this plan, the government would collapse as the parties engaged in a political feeding frenzy. "We know this can't keep going this way, but the uncertainty surrounding our own positions of power if we agree to change make it absolutely too scary." It's major league CYA, not unlike why Congress would never legalize marijuana or engage in other acts of necessary but radical change.
It was such a serious reality bending idea I couldn't seriously consider the West Wing when it did their storyline on I-P and the invitation of UN peacekeepers into Jerusalem.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 11, 2009 05:00 PMOK, Idio, fair enough. The Arab League's truly generous offer was not quite generous enough.
Now explain to me why Israel refused to even use the Arab League offer as a starting point for negotiations and instead has stuck its middle finger in the air and kept it there.
Posted by Shirin at January 11, 2009 05:48 PMPS There are a number of options for handling Jerusalem, many of which have been proposed by the Arabs in the interest of compromise. The Arabs have, in fact, shown considerable flexibility in the matter, even when it involves the area of the Western Wall/Haram Al Sharif. Israel, on the other hand, has not only been completely intransigent, it has upped the stakes with time, increasing the area over which it absolutely must have sovereignty to include more and more of the land outside Jerusalem.
Jerusalem is a unique city in its importance to all three Abrahamic religions. The Christians and Muslims are willing to find some means of dealing with the city that will preserve it and make it accessible for all. I think most Jews are also OK with that idea. The political State of Israel, not so much.
And yet it is the Arabs who are invariably portrayed as unreasonable and intransigent.
Of course, legally Jerusalem remains a corpus separatum by declaration of the United Nations. And the world recognizes Tel Aviv as Israel's capital, though I guess the Christians Zionists do have an "embassy" there.
Posted by Shirin at January 11, 2009 06:14 PMI think those Arab peace proposals have always insisted on allowing Palestinian Arabs to "return" to their ancestral homes vacated in the 1948 war. The entire point of this is of course sweeping demographic change that would turn Jews into a minority in Israel. In other words, the Arab proposals have included a call for collective national suiide by the Jewish population of Israel. This proposal is, to say the least, not likely to be accepted by Israel.
An analogy might be a revised peace treay between Germany and Poland that would allow ethnic Germans to return to the areas (now western Poland) from which their ancestors were driven at the end of World War II.
None of this is intended as justification for the ongoing assauly upon Gaza.
Per censorship, didn't the US press impose self-censorship during, say, World War II? Is there something unique about what's happening in Israel?
Posted by joel dan walls at January 12, 2009 09:35 AMJoel, you wrote:
"I think those Arab peace proposals have always insisted on allowing Palestinian Arabs to "return" to their ancestral homes vacated in the 1948 war."
That's what happens when you talk about a document without reading it first. :o}
Oh - and we are talking about one particular Arab peace proposal - the one offered by the Arab League - that is, all 22 Arab countries. The one that offers Israel everything it claims it has always wanted - peace, recognition, and normal relations with the Arab world.
These are the terms for peace as proposed by the Arab League, copied and pasted from the proposal itself:
1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.
2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:
I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.
II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.
III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:
I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.
II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.
What is there here that Israel should have any serious objections to, assuming, of course, that its first priority really IS peace, recognition, normal relations, and the security that comes with all that?
Oh - and Idio, my bad for taking your word for it, and not reviewing the document before replying to you. I could not remember anything about Jerusalem in that proposal, but I trusted that you had actually read it, and that I might have forgotten over time.
Well, my memory was perfectly accurate. There isn't a single reference to Jerusalem in the entire document.
That's what happens when you pretend to know what is in the document before reading it.
So, NOW what is your objection to the agreement?
Posted by Shirin at January 12, 2009 01:30 PMOoops! My bad, Idio. I should proof read and think before posting. That is what I get for trying to do this at work - multitasking does not always lead to the best result in any of tasks one is undertaking.
Yes, there IS something about Jerusalem - east Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state. I also realize that I misread what you wrote yesterday. I understood that you were saying Israel would have to totally give up sovereignty over Jerusalem, and on rereading that is clearly NOT what you said. So, my bad again.
So, we are back to my original question. If peace, recognition, and normal relations is really what Israel wants most in the world, why did they stick up their middle fingers instead of rejoicing at the good faith effort of the entire Arab League to end the conflict in a just manner and at least using the proposal as a basis for negotiation?
Another question is this: This proposal has been on the table, in spite of everything, for seven yaers. Is that not enough time for Israel to come up with some ideas for a creating solution to the Jerusalem issue and try to work with the Arab League on it?
And finally: It does appear, does it not, that there ARE things that are higher priorities to Israel than peace, recognition, and normal relations with the Arab world.
Posted by Shirin at January 12, 2009 01:44 PM