It is too early to judge. When he was PM, he seemed to be longing for serious reform and progress in the process. As a campaigner for Prez he made some very troubling comments– was he just trying to win the election? or did he mean it?
Ha’aretz called him “an Arafat in a suit.” I think we need to see what kind of reforms he executes and then see what steps towards peace can be made.

uh..it’s better than bush did.

In electoral politics, 61% is whupping ass– especially when you’re up against several candidates.

In Islam, the “little jihad” is war for the defense of territory, and the “large jihad” is internal struggle against evil impulses.
I refuse to make predictions since the guy hasn’t done much of anything yet. I might risk a prediction about Sharon, who we’ve already seen in power for a while: he will ask Abbas to do a bunch of stuff, and if it turns out to be outside Abbas’ control, he’ll label Abbas the new Arafat and continue intensive settlement activity in the West Bank.

“Bunch of stuff” – let me guess… stop the terrorism?
If that’s outside Abbas’ control, why should Sharon or anyone else deal with him?”
Have you noticed how Sharon has been unable to “stop the terrorism”? Have you noticed how much better funded and equipped than the PNA the IDF is? Has it occurred to you that Sharon might actually be fuelling the terrorism that he wants Abbas to stop?

If you want material to be skeptical of Abu Mazen’s election, click: http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/President_Abbas_-_A_New_Age$.asp
Even after reading this, any election, and anyone more moderate than Arafat is a move in the right direction. We need patience, and the willingness to stand tough in the face of terror while we wait.

i’m going to reiterate THE USE OF TINYLINK as is requested above the SUBMIT button on the comment formm.

And of course, if Israel has got the terrorism under control, why are they demanding that Abbas gets it under control before they’ll negotiate with him?
But hey, you’re too busy pretending that the planners of these acts don’t even take Israeli actions into consideration, right?

Madge
In light of your last comment, should I assume you have no problem with perpetual occupatio of Palestinian territories? After all, if it’s solely the IDF’s responsibility to curb terrorism, it can’t be expected to do so without access to it.

Eyal
No – I think ending ending the occupation is the best way to end the attacks. You might like the idea of Palestinians all standing idly by whilst more of their land is taken, more settlements are built and the wall gets higher. But it just aint gonna happen. History tells us that colonialism is doomed to failure.
mobius
Your answer is really disappointing ……

So, how exactly did Israeli citizens put pressure on their government to stop the occupation before the Palestinian began to use violence inside Israel?
And, if you were Abbas how would you go about “clamping down on terror groups”?

Thanks for that. From reading your answer, it could almost be claimed that violent Intifada created an awareness amongst the Israeli public about the conditions of Occupation. But, theres a bit more – can you recall who made the first kills in the current Intifada? In fact, didn’t it start with Sharon going to the Al-Aqsa mosque, and Israeli forces firing on unarmed demonstrators? I can’t lay my hands on Tanya Reinharts book right now, but she does state that:
Israel defines its military action as a necessary defense against terrorism. But in fact, the first Palestinian terrorist attack on Israeli civilians inside Israel occurred on November 2, 2000. That was after a month during which Israel used its full military arsenal against civilians, including live bullets, automatic guns, combat helicopters, tanks, and missiles.
Either she is mistaken, or your thesis is somewhat undermined.

Madge,
It would be a stretch to say “violent Intifada created an awareness amongst the Israeli public about the conditions of Occupation”. Isrelis were already well-aware of the situation, which is what led to Rabin’s election and the Oslo process in the first place. A good part of the “increased repression” was in fact instigated by the PA security services; the IDF went to great lengths to avoid entering the A areas, as well as avoiding direct conflict with the PA (to the point of ordering soldiers t hold their fire if fired upon by PA forces). What the violence of the intifada did do was shatter any confidence the Israeli public had in the Palestinians’ willingness to live in peace with Israel. So long as that confidence is not restored, there will be little public impetus to push Israeli leaders to make concessions.
As to the first fatalities of the intifada, unless you want to argue the timing was wholly coincidental, were an IDF soldier killed on Sep 27 and a Magav policeman killed the following day.
It should also be pointed out that clamping on the militants is a necessity for its own sake, if the Palestinians want any sort of state. What do you think they live on? In a lot of places, they support themselves by extorting protection money and other crimes; they’ve also been involved in violent clan disputes. No functioning state can have multiple armed militias arunning around as they see fit, and Israel can’t afford the creation of such a state in close proximity to its own population centers – even had it not been existing beforehand, violence would almost inevitably spill over into Israel.
In any event – Israel’s primary concern is stopping terrorism. Unless the Palestinians are willing to do it, the IDF will have to – and you know what the consequences of that are.

Eyal :
Ah yes Oslo, wasn’t that when the number of units in settlements DOUBLED whilst talks were going on? And wasn’t Oslo a direct response to the first Intifada ?
In relation to the soldier and policeman, methinks you missed this:
mobius:”their primary form of resistance outside the territories is currently killing innocent civillians,”
I’m going to hazard a guess that the 2 deaths you refer to were neither civilians, nor inside Israel.
Its touching that you have such concern for the wellbeing and safety of the Palestinians – but essentially it is a new demans of colonialism to insist that the colonised have the most democratic state in the world before the occupiers can leave.
I don’t think theres any hard evidence to suggest that there would be more Palestinians killed if the IDF stopped protecting them.
And of course, you neatly sidestepped the fact that Palestinian land is still being taken, and settlements are still being built.
Cos that waters down the “security” claims quite a lot – if Palestine is such a dangerous place why on earth do Israelis want to go and live in the middle of it?
“Israel’s primary concern is stopping terrorism”
Palestine’s primary concern is stopping occupation.

“I’m going to hazard a guess that the 2 deaths you refer to were neither civilians, nor inside Israel. ”
No, they weren’t. However (taking them in order)
1) The soldier was killed in an outpost near Netzarim. Had the intifada already started by then, his death would not have been terrorism (leaving such issues as to the legitimacy violence by non-state actors aside for the moment). But the mere fact that someone is a soldier does not mean it’s legitimate for anyone to walk up and kill him. The PA was supposedly at peace with Israel at the time. You cannot maintain that the Palestinians have the right to attack Israeli soldiers while simultaneously demanding the conditions and protections of a state of peace (in fact, by your logic, Israel was perfectly justified in sending a massive police wave the day after Sharon’ss visit to the Mount – if an Israeli soldier was legitimately kileld, they were already in a state of conflict).
2) The policeman’s death was even more serious – he was killed by his Palestinian partner in one of the joint patrols – I’m not sure who killed the soldier, but this was a clear attack by a uniformed member of the PA’s armed forces.
“essentially it is a new demans of colonialism to insist that the colonised have the most democratic state in the world before the occupiers can leave”
By no means do I demand they have “the most democratic state in the world” before Israel leaves. I do, however, demand they act in a fashion – and set up a system allowing them to consistently do so – that prevents violence originating in their territory from ending up in Israel’s whether deliberately or accidently. Beyond that, I don’t give a damn how they run their country; they can convert to Cthulhu-worship, adapt Quenya as an official language, and mandate rulership by a caste of Trekkies for all I care.
“I don’t think theres any hard evidence to suggest that there would be more Palestinians killed if the IDF stopped protecting them. ”
You lost me here completely.

mobius, i think there’s some contradiction between your arguments here and your assent to the lawrence of cyberia post above.
either you think it’s really really important that Abbas himself act to somehow stop all Palestinian violence, while recognizing that this is largely not possible and also that Sharon demands it as a precondition for negotiations, or you recognize that the Road Map calls for parallel steps and that Abbas can secure a ceasefire, as he did before, but without arresting and imprisoning people.

either you think it’s really really important that Abbas himself act to somehow stop all Palestinian violence, while recognizing that this is largely not possible and also that Sharon demands it as a precondition for negotiations, or you recognize that the Road Map calls for parallel steps and that Abbas can secure a ceasefire, as he did before, but without arresting and imprisoning people.
#1. i think that abbas should act to stop palestinian violence while recognizing he can not stop all violence but at least can make an effort to do so.
#2. i think at least making some sort of effort should be enough demonstration of commitment to the process.
#3. hudnas server only one purpose: regrouping and rearming. a ceasefire doesn’t mean shit if you’re still allowing the militant factions to stockpile munitions and run training camps.
#4. if he’s going to make the effort, he needs to lock up militant leaders, arms smugglers, etc.
none of this seems contradictory.

Madge Noon: “And of course, you neatly sidestepped the fact that Palestinian land is still being taken, and settlements are still being built.”
Look, we all must understand that the settlements were a bad idea since the Reb Levinger held his Seder in Hebron in 68. And most of us do. But we have to also understand that the Palestinians have been at square one, and they’ll stay that way until they establish a responsible state mechanism with a monopoly on violence. That is the fundamental component of national self-determination, and one Palestinian leadership has not allowed itself to establish since Oslo.
Madge, the intifada began almost 48 hours after Sharon’s little campaign stunt at the Temple Mount. And when it did, it was Erev Rosh HaShana, the start of the Jewish new year. It was also a Friday night, and when Palestinian Muslims left the mosques after Friday evening prayers they began hurling rocks down on Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall below. Border police responded as border police should be expected to do, and the Palestinian leadership (such as it was) had the war they wanted.
Meanwhile, back in the present, what Abbas, Sharon and the rest of us could really use is some coordinated international pressure from the West on the Arab-Muslim establishment, those despotic regimes organized in the UN General Assembly blocs like the Arab League and Organization of Islamic Conferences, to start warming up to the idea that Israel is and will remain a legitimate state, and that the Jews are as deserving of national self-determination in the Middle East as any Arab peoples are. The Israeli electorate has shown a pattern of electing a leadership open to reconciliation the more secure it is, like Rabins and Baraks. The more insecure it is, the more it elects hardline leadership, like Netanyahus and Sharons. The Arab establishment in general, and Palestinian leaderhsip in particular, must surely notice the pattern. Now, if only the US and EU were talking….
Funny how all this mishigoss comes together. The US with our collective ass hanging out in Iraq, and Ukraine only the most recent coalition partner to join the exit parade. Bush and the Iran-Contra comeback crew just had to get their boot in, and we all had to go and give them their four more years. Who in their right mind would want to work with us on anything, when we’re hell bent on screwing things up all on our own?
On the bright side, I don’t see the impending settlement activity that Madge does. Sharon needs Labor in the coalition too much for that. If Abbas and Europe get on each others’ good side early, particularly the UK and Germany, we might see some slow but steady economic normalization ahead of some real political progress. Who knows? Maybe get that casino in Jericho up and running again. If Palestinians could start making some money again, it could be the best medicine to put a lid on the Hamasniks and Jihadniks. Granted, they already had alot to lose and they pissed it away. The big question is, Can one generation of a people screw up so badly twice?

Madge is clearly motivated by the belief that people in the position of power are motivated by evil and that people in the weak position are motivated by good. That is the only reason why she can be taking her position. Israel does bad things, but when weighed on the scale against Palestinian terror, Palestinian terror is worse. She does not realize that if left alone, Palestinians would be best off by joining militant groups. In a place without a system of justice, like Palestine, thugs prevail. Your choice in such an environment is to join the thugs or oppose them. Rational people live as friends of thugs rather tan die as the enemies of thugs. That is why it is so important that Israel not allow thugs to control Palestine by force. That is why a democratically elected Abbas is so far superior to an election-suspending thug like Arafat. Sharon called Abbas because he knows that Palestine is moving towards a path capable of peace.

“Land grab” article, via Mobius: “Last week the US national security council adviser on the Middle East, Elliott Abrams, told a closed meeting of Jewish leaders that Washington saw settlements to the east of the barrier as ultimately intended for removal. But he said Israel would be allowed to hold on those to the west, which include Zufim.”
Convicted Iran-Contra co-conspirator, Elliott Abrams. Cripes! Anything these fuckers touch turns to shit.
But that said, the article above, the more recent of the two dated Dec 14 (the other was from back in July), reports on circumstances from before Labor joined the coalition. Do we know the status of the Zufim construction now?

Yisrael you make too many assumptions about me – I assume nothing of the sort. I do however question the neat way in which you make the Palestinians responsible for everything, and the state of Israel responsible for (seemingly) nothing.
My understanding of the situation is that Israel has the whole deck, and its going to be hard for Abbas to deal a hand without Israel giving him some of the cards.
Nothing you have said explains why settlements are being expanded in the West Bank, at a speeded up rate.
Abbas clearly laid out the basis of a peace settlement – East Jerusalem as the capital, 1967 borders, no annexation of settlements – although I understand that there is some flexibility on the right of return.
As Lawrence of Cyberia’s article points out, even the Palestinian moderates are not prepared to negotiate on these issues.
In light of this, it is difficult to see how Abbas can reign in the moderates whilst settlement expansion continues.
By electing Abbas, Palestinians have mde it clear that they want a negotiated political settlement, but that it has to take into account the redlines.
The argument is that ceding 78% of historic Palestine is a big compromise. Do you honestly believe that there can be a just settlement on less than 22% of the land, and without contiguity?

Oops I’m getting my moderates and militants mixed up …..
3rd last para should “rein in the militants whilst ….”

Madge Noon: “The argument is that ceding 78% of historic Palestine is a big compromise. Do you honestly believe that there can be a just settlement on less than 22% of the land, and without contiguity?”
There must be. Because the Israelis have their redlines too. The trouble for the Palestinians is that Israel has already had its country for a substantial part of modern history, while the value of percentages regarding “historic Palestine” is not much more than rhetorical. Of the territories currently under dispute, Egypt held Gaza for 19 years, and maintained claims on it for another 11. Jordan held the West Bank for 18 years and maintained its claim for another 22. So much for a viable notion of any “historic Palestine.” For what it’s worth, and unlike Jordan, Israel has never annexed any of the West Bank (or Gaza) with the exception of the east side of Jerusalem.

MadgeNoon: “Was it an oversight?”
No. The only Palestinian authority to recognize Israel has been the PLO. And they haven’t lived up to it so far. But I remain hopeful.

Settlements are being built to reduce the Palestinian negotiating position. The longer the PA waits to negotiate, the worse its position. Terror, condoning terror, and stalling negotiation has consequences. It may not be right but it is a simple fact, and not one I will be quick to condemn.
Destroying homes is wrong, but building them is not. That is my position.

I think when people talk about “historic Palestine” they mean the borders after Britain severed transjordan.
As for building settlements — you think it’s right to take land, prevent any Palestinians from building on it, provide economic incentives to move in, guard the settlements with IDF, build special infrastructure so the Palestinians don’t have to use the same roads as the settlers, all without ever annexing the territory, just so the Palestinian negotiating position becomes worse, all while knowing that the lack of annexation makes it likely that the settlers might eventually have to be evicted? That doesn’t seem right to me.

The question I’m trying to explore here is how Abbas is supposed to rein in militants with a destroyed infrastructure, and without anything to offer in negoatiations.
If peace is the objective, then Israel is going to have to let go of some of the cards, halting settlement expansion, in line with the Roadmap might just be enough to effect a ceasefire. Once there is a ceasefire, then there need to be talks, and the Palestinian redlines need to be addressed.
By electing Abbas, Palestinians have elected aman who isn’t particularly popular, on the basis that he seeks dialogue with Israel and to resolve the issues so that there can be peace.
Is there a real stomach for peace on the Israeli peace, or is it just a case of “We’ve got the power”?

Madge Noon: “Is there a real stomach for peace on the Israeli side, or is it just a case of ‘We’ve got the power’?”
What I see is that there is a real stomach for peace on the part of the Israeli electorate overall. But they are also understandably freaked out by the al Aqsa intifada. Historically, the settlement movement enjoys its greatest support among the electorate when it is linked to security issues. What has been happening over the last dozen years or so is that such linkage has grown some gaping holes.
Meanwhile, I believe the Palestinian electorate is also hungry for peace, prosperity and political dignity. But they have been fed such a steady stream of Zionist bogeyman propaganda so many believe that the existence of Israel itself has come to represent an existential threat. This perspective is hardly a home-grown Palestinian phenomenon, but has been beaten between the ears of everyone across the Arab-Muslim world, to the point where this cannot realistically be appreciated as a simplistic 2-sided land dispute between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews.
For yet another perspective, Yossi Beilin:
http://tinylink.com/?3CnVU0Tkoc

Sharon still serves at the pleasure of an elected parliament. He even had to bring Labor into the government to avoid new elections.
I’m not so certain about a “clash of civilizations” (I haven’t read the Petravato article yet; I’m only going on the cultural residuals of Huntington’s use of the phrase). But what seems more prevalent is a series of ideological clashes within civilizations and resulting in tangential conflicts. Consider the similarities between ruling relationships in the West and despotic Arab regimes. In the US, anyway, ruling conservative Republicans have made the bogeyman out of some “liberal academic/media elite,” while the Arab regimes have done the same with the “Zionist entity” and “America’s powerful Jewish lobby.” Both use this fear-mongering to shore up the foundation of their rule. The Western model is just a bit less crude and technologically refined. But the results are pretty much the same, sustaining cultural proxy wars that breed inconsistency and frustration, and sustain conflict. Because without conflict, most of us may actually come to realize that we’re all in this together; and that resources might need to be conserved and shared instead of horded and exploited.

The “Clash Of Civilizations” Thesis

Madge Noon: “Your reply seems to fit into what Petravato would describe as The ‘Clash Of Civilizations’ Thesis”
As much as I agree with Petrovato’s concluding statement — “If wars are to be resisted and conflicts resolved, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we need to avoid accepting the dangerously simplistic ideas that are put forth by strictly partisan authors” — I found the piece overly dependent upon some very simplistic ideas itself.
For example, “Israelis, on the other hand, always blame the Palestinians, saying things like, ‘Palestinians are incapable of living in peace with us’ or, as one taxi driver put it, ‘They have suffered because their irrational behavior forces us to be strict with them’…. they never question the fact that they are occupying these people and denying them basic human rights.” Once again, “the Jews answered in one voice.” How does one taxi driver become all Israelis? As I mentioned earlier, the pattern is there for anyone to see. When the Israeli electorate is confident in its security situation, it chooses leadership open to reconciliation and negotiation like Rabins and Baraks; and when it is less so, it chooses a more hardline leadership like Netanyahus and Sharons.
Central to Petrovato’s thesis is an insistence of Zionism’s “colonialism.” But as Petravato himself defines it, “Beyond the arrogance of the idea, colonialism developed sophisticated systems of slavery and servitude that sought to extract valuable natural resources from these areas for the sole benefit of their the colonizers own nations.” What “colonizers’ own nation” is Israel supposed to be benefiting in this case?
As a matter of historical fact, it is unclear exactly what nation Israel is supposed to be occupying. For all the discussions of “historic Palestine,” there really has never been a Palestinian expression of political independence in history. If Israel had been occupying another’s sovereign territory at all, it is Jordan’s, Egypt’s and Syria’s. If we now accept the idea of Israel as imperial occupier, then it must follow that the west bank was once “Jordanian occupied Palestine,” and Gaza “Egyptian occupied Palestine.” But the historical record is completely lacking any such rhetoric at all.
It’s time for responsible third parties to abandon the common approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict as a 2-party land dispute dispute between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews, and to put some real pressure on the Arab-Muslim establishment to formally, unquivocally and unanimously recognize Jewish national rights in Israel. The effect on the Israeli electorate is predictable to the point of certainty, and an emergent Palestine could benefit tremendously through the aid of Arab states on a new and equal status with a secure Israel. The change has come to the consciousness of a plurality of the Israeli electorate. It’s time the Arab-Muslim establishment acts for the legitimization of Jewish national self-determination with the same unity it has shown in its drum beat of delegitimization and South-Africanization of Israel.

Zionista: “What “colonizers’ own nation” is Israel supposed to be benefiting in this case?
Madge Noon: “Hmm, isn’t the answer somewhere in the question?”
The impression given in the article was that since it is not an Arab state, the entirety of Israel be considered colonial. “Israel, after all, is defined as a jewish [sic] state — and not a society which celebrates or encourages ethnic pluralism.” Meanwhile, the Arab League is made up of what kind of states now?
I want to see Jewish national integrity accepted as much as Arab national integrity is by the John Petrovatos of the world. Is that supposed to make me some sort of Jewish imperialist?
I’m a little disappointed that you had no response to my central critique of Petrovato’s thesis, namely that he ignores the role of the established Arab states in the overall conflict.
That said, the idea of undoing history for the sake of percentages of a partition plan that was attacked diplomatically as well as militarily by the Arab League member nations is a little weird. By now the Israelis have had over half a century of independence and all the national infrastructure that follows. The Palestinians have been put on hold all this time, and not entirely because of Israel. For the nearly 20 years that Jordan held the West Bank and Egypt held Gaza, there was no effort whatsoever to nurture any Palestinian national infrastructure. Instead, the Arab establishment exploited Palestinian national aspirations for the sake of its policy of unanimous rejection of Israel. In the meantime, the window of opportunity that was UNGA 181 had narrowed to certain points of no return. That cannot fairly be the exclusive responsibility of only one party to the conflict. So where is the demand for some wider regional role in reaching a solution to the conflict?

I step out for a couple of days, and who takes up the fight against Madge Noon? Mobius and Zionista. Go figure. That’s what keeps things interesting.
Way above, Madge wrote:
“Has it occurred to you that Sharon might actually be fuelling the terrorism that he wants Abbas to stop?”
Quite an accusation. When I asked for evidence to back up this statement, all I got was
“My guess you wouldn’t recognise it if it slapped you in the face with a wet kipper ……..”
…and a link to a site documenting dead Palestinian children. So where’s the evidence?
“Kipper”. “Recognise”. “Whilst”. Not American, are you, Noon? One more reason for me to be proud to be an American.
Still waiting for evidence re Sharon.

Madge Noon: “Its probably going to be a lot easier if you give me the answers…..”
Ain’t that a universal truth!
In 2003 the Arab League approved a peace initiative submitted by Saudi Prince Abdullah. Essentially, it said to Israel, “do what we want, and then maybe we’ll talk.” The good news in all of this is that the Arab establishment displays an ability to present a unified front. Similarly, much progress could be made if the Arab League were to unanimously recognize the legitimacy of Jewish national rights in Israel, and then offer diplomatic exchange with Israel to iron out any details on a bilateral level between Israel and individual Arab League member nations. The effect would predictably be a tremendous boost in confidence among the Israeli electorate in terms of its security concerns.
Again, the pattern is there for anyone to see whereby the more confident the Israeli electorate is in its security situation, the greater chance it elects a leadership open to reconciliation and negotiation. But the way the Arab League approaches this circumstance, one would think Arab establishment leadership is not really interested in more tangible expressions of good faith to match the rhetoric of its own peace intiative. This is where the West could be a tremendous help. Some diplomatic and economic pressure on Arab League member nations could make lots of good things possible.
Are you from the UK? Maybe you could write a letter to Jack Straw urging such diplomatic pressure through the foreign affairs offices of individual Arab League member nations. Get some friends to do it too.

J: “I step out for a couple of days, and who takes up the fight against Madge Noon? Mobius and Zionista. Go figure.”
With all due respect, eat yourself, J. Zionism is a modern movement. I’m surprised a medieval throwback like yourself shares an enthusiasm for the reconstitution of Jewish national self-determination with a godless secular humanist like myself. And before the second coming of Eliyahu. Go figure!

mm, both of you knock it off please.