Will Israel miss this opportunity to miss an opportunity?
Please tell me yes! It may well have been true in the past that the Arab nations missed opportunities for peace with Israel, but now the ball is more and more in Israel’s court. How does the oft-parroted line about Israel being the beleaguered peace seeker amidst the Arab warmongers survive since the Arab League in 2002 offered Israel full recognition throughout its 22 member states in exchange for a peace settlement? The offer was renewed yesterday by a re-ratification of the Arab League’s assembly of foreign ministers.
This preceded an offer of a ceasefire by Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal. With Gazans demonstrating for continued armed conflict, this sounds like a stupid thing to turn down.
But I shouldn’t be eager to condemn any side for perceived intransigence because Gerson Baskin and Hanna Siniora, co-directors of the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information have been traveling the country touting their middleman position in not-so-secret negotiations between Israel and Hamas for the return of Gilad Shalit, for a Hamas-Israel one-year ceasefire, and between Israel and the PLO for a final settlement. Read it in JPost.
What lacks on both sides, the two say, is political chutzpah. And it’s almost certainly true, despite whether they’re really said shuttle pigeons.
Either way, the mantra that the Arabs resist peace at every turn should be shucked by the wayside. It’s just as incumbent on Israel to not blow these opportunities — and on Americans to do our part too.
KFJ,
I have to respect how passionate you are about Arab-Israeli peace.
But what type of peace are the 21 Arab countries speaking about?
An Israel based on the Green Line (meaning that there will still be a demographic issue?)
With a right of return for Palestinian refugees(which will leave a legal opening to continue this war?)
With the Golan in Syrian hands, and Syria a US client state?
With the Temple Mount in exclusive Muslim control?
How will relations be between peoples? Is the Egyptian precedent what we can expect?
How will Hamas ever reconcile itself to a peace treaty with Israel?
Maybe it can all be worked out.
But maybe it’s not so bad to miss some oppurtunities.
Perhaps cold war is sometimes preferable to cold peace?
Jonathan– I think those are all valid questions, which will need to be worked out, and may not have perfect answers.
But, I can’t imagine a scenario where cold war is preferable to cold peace. Preferable to “hot” war, sure. But peace?
If I recall correctly, the 2002 Saudi peace plan was saddled with a list of security compromising pre-conditions that Israel was expected to take unilaterally before peace talks could even begin.
I don’t know Rebecca M. It’s a tough call.
I remember when Sharon was still PM, and he was getting all
kinds of grief from the right-wing. He made that speech in which
he said, “Things look different from where I sit than from where you sit,” ie, it’s easy to talk with certainty when you don’t have the weight of the Jewish world and Jewish history on your shoulders.
You couldn’t pay me all of the money in the world to have to make the kinds of decisions that the Israeli PM needs to make. It’s too hard to know what’s right.
The Saudi plan also calls for the Palestinian refugees to be able to move to Israel. Would you expect Israel to accept that? I guess it’s easier to stick with the story of “Israel does not want peace”.
Jonathan, Hamas has signaled its acceptance of a two-state solution and the return of Gilad Shalit, among other negotiation items.
Ian Thal, a list of preconditions as silly as Israel’s preconditions for negotating with terrorists, i.e., a cessation of terrorism? Israel has held negotiations as a carrot on a stick, but more like a carrot on a telephone pole. Ending terrorism is what you enter negotiations to do, afterwards, there’s not much to negotiate, is there?
md, the Saudi plan includes right of return for all Palestinian refugees to the future Palestinian state. The language was insufficiently precise to exclude any refugees at all because on the negotiating table is a symbollic return of a couple thousand first-generation refugees to Israel proper. Do you think that the Arab world doesn’t know what they’re bargaining over? Full right of return is a kill issue for Israel, all the parties know it.
“Do you think that the Arab world doesn’t know what they’re bargaining over? Full right of return is a kill issue for Israel, all the parties know it.”
From your mouth to God’s ears, KJF, because I don’t see how Israel can permit even one Palestinian to enter under a right of return–it will create an indefinite legal challenge to Israel’s right to exist.
An end-of-conflict treaty, no right of return, and a demographic border (meaning that the Little Triangle, along with Arab Jerusalem, would become Palestine–which they already are for most intents and purposes.)
In return, the Palestinians would have their own state, on the entire West Bank, Gaza, Arab Jerusalem, and the Little Triangle. And the Temple Mount would be under Muslim/Palestinian control.
Would the Arab world be able to swallow such a trade?
Would Hamas?
I hope so. Otherwise, we have a big problem.
one more question is “would the Israeli Arabs be able to swallow such a trade”?
last time I checked the “virtual transfer” of the Triangle was a non-starter for the actual residents of that area.
you may say that that demographic is politically powerless (and you’d be largely right), but I was in Israel in 2001 and let me tell you they can pretty much shut down Wadi Ara if they’re pissed enough. and I don’t have to tell you what that may lead to (word to shitbird Alek Ron).
rootlesscosmo–
You bring up a serious problem. Israel better come up with some answer. I wish we had it.
In any case, I’m just trying to lay out the red lines which Israel cannot cross–as I see it. There is no point in relinquishing Gaza and the West Bank, and even Palestinian Jerusalem, if we don’t leave the Palestinian Little Triangle as well.
I think it’s important that people who read this cite take into consideration ideas such as transferring the Little Triangle and no right of return for even one Palestinian.
(To my amazement, people actually consider what I have to write–thank you to those of you who do.)
The little triangle is a sticky issue in particular — at best, the Israeli Arabs there would have to vote to accept it, being full Israeli citizens who likely don’t want to be cut off from the better jobs and standard of living in Israel. And it’s borderline anti-democratic to vote citizenship away from anyone against their will.
You’re probably right, KFJ.
If that’s the case, I can’t see how it will be possible to convince a critical mass of salt-of-the-earth Israelis to vote for a deal involving unprecedented security risks–the IDF out of the Jordan Vally Rift, an armed foreign force in Jerusalem, an armed/independent foreign army in the West Bank, the width of the country at 9 km.
How can Israel take all of these risks, only to face the same existential demographic issues in another generaton-and-a-half?
The Arab world, including Hamas, and the Palestinians in the Triangle–who are no less Palestinian than their brothers in Ramallah– will have to decide for themselves if they can live with that deal.
rebecca m wrote:
But, I can’t imagine a scenario where cold war is preferable to cold peace. Preferable to “hot” war, sure. But peace?
kfj wrote:
How does the oft-parroted line about Israel being the beleaguered peace seeker amidst the Arab warmongers survive since the Arab League in 2002 offered Israel full recognition throughout its 22 member states in exchange for a peace settlement?
From today’s news:
“Syria’s military has begun stockpiling chemical weapons and equipping its soldiers with gas masks near the city of Homs, opposition activists reported on Thursday.”
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/assad-forces-mull-use-of-chemical-weapons-against-syrians-opposition-says-1.411954
Does this help answer such questions?