SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Road Block

THE VITAL CENTER MAY 25, 2011

Road Block

BY WILLIAM GALSTON

In his State Department speech last week, Barack Obama threw down the gauntlet to Benjamin Netanyahu. In the Oval Office a day later, and more fully in an address to Congress yesterday, Netanyahu picked it up and threw it right back. 

The question now is whether this clash can be turned into a new understanding between the United States and Israel that improves the prospects for the two-state solution both parties say they want. To bring this about, Obama will have to make further tweaks to his approach and rethink his declared stance on Palestinian refugees, among other matters. For his part, Netanyahu will have to accept the fact that events have overtaken key aspects of the 2004 agreement between the Bush administration and former Prime Minister Sharon. If peace is possible, it is only along the lines former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas explored during their 2006-2008 negotiations.

 

Obstacles to such a meeting of the minds between Obama and Netanyahu begin at the personal level. Whatever they may say in public, these two leaders genuinely dislike each other. Obama regards Netanyahu as an untrustworthy obstructionist; Netanyahu regards Obama as a blundering naïf.

Second, they disagree about the prospects presented by the status quo. Obama believes that changes on the ground have made it more dangerous to stand pat than to move forward, while Netanyahu believes the reverse. Obama, to his credit, has offered a clear and coherent argument for his position: The demography of the West Bank is shifting to Israel’s disadvantage; technological changes are making it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of genuine peace; as democratic movements surge throughout the Middle East and North Africa, Arab publics must see that peace is possible; and as the “international community” is becoming increasingly impatient, Israel is becoming more and more isolated. Resuming peace talks, the argument continues, is the only way of heading off a confrontation at the United Nations this summer that will leave Israel and the United States standing alone, not only against the developing world, but most of Europe as well.

For his part, Netanyahu believes that the turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East makes peace harder, not easier, to achieve and renders the status quo, for all its imperfections, the safer option for the time being. Until a new regime is established in Egypt and new leadership takes power, the future of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty—a linchpin of Israel’s security—will remain in doubt. The widening gulf between Israel and Turkey’s Islamist government is disconcerting. It may well be that changes in the region catalyzed the rapprochement between Fatah and Hamas, which only made a bad situation worse.

In addition, the two leaders have different views of the forthcoming UN vote on Palestinian statehood. Netanyahu is prepared to tough it out, even if the Europeans break toward the Palestinian side and only the United States is left to stand by Israel. That is the scenario Obama is desperate to avoid. If America is put in the position of being the last obstacle to international recognition of a Palestinian state, Obama’s aspiration to improve relations with the Arab and Muslim world would probably be thwarted for quite some time. Netanyahu doesn’t think that’s a problem; Obama does.

Even if these differences of perspective could be set aside, however, there’s a third problem: Obama and Netanyahu disagree about the conditions on which Israeli-Palestinian negotiations can and should resume, and the terms on which it should be resolved. Netanyahu’s baseline is the letter President Bush gave then-Prime Minister Sharon on April 14, 2004 as part of a sequence of events including Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and the construction of its security fence. Here, verbatim, are the relevant portions of that letter:

  • “The United States is strongly committed to Israel’s well-being and security as a Jewish state.”

  • “As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.”

  •  “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

  •  “[A]n agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.”

  • “[T]he United States supports the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent …”

It is against this baseline, which Israel’s right-wing coalition and its many American supporters cherish, that Netanyahu judged what Obama said at the State Department on May 19. Here are the corresponding sections from Obama’s speech:

  • “[A] lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people …”

  • “[T]he borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps …”

  • “The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves … in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

  • “I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees.”

This schematic comparison clarifies what is and what is not in dispute between Netanyahu and Obama. They clearly agree on a two-state solution, on the need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and (less clearly) on the importance of territorial contiguity for a Palestinian state. And whatever Netanyahu might wish, both Bush’s letter and Obama’s speech leave open the final status of Jerusalem.

The comparison also identifies key points of difference between the Bush and Obama administrations, and between Obama and Netanyahu. First, along with the vast majority of Israelis, the Bush administration believed that the refugee problem could be resolved in only one way: The refugees would have the right to return to the new independent Palestinian state, but not to Israel. By contrast, Obama explicitly left that issue open. Whatever his rationale, any Israeli government is bound to find that stance disconcerting. Obama surely understands that any significant flow of Palestinian refugees to Israel would be a deal-breaker. If he’s in the business of saying out loud what everyone already knows, this would be an appropriate addition to the list.

The other and better-known disagreement revolves around the formulation of the border issue. In the first place, Bush’s letter emphasizes “new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers,” as does Netanyahu, while Obama’s speech is conspicuously silent about them. Second, Bush’s letter speaks of the 1949 armistice lines while Obama speaks of the 1967 lines. Although these are in fact the same lines, the Bush formulation has the effect of emphasizing the provisional and de facto nature of the former rather than de jure character of the latter. The armistice lines cited by Bush reflect a cease-fire based on the military situation at a particular point in time, nothing more. Third, Bush’s letter refers to UN resolutions 242 and 338, which are notoriously (some would say deliberately) ambiguous about the extent of Israeli withdrawal, while Obama specifies the 1967 lines as the point of departure. Having said this, when Bush spoke of mutually agreed “changes,” the context makes it pretty clear that the changes will be in relation to the 1949 armistice lines, i.e. the 1967 lines. 

At the end of the day, then, the most significant difference between Obama and Bush, and between Obama and Netanyahu, concerns the American attitude toward large Jewish settlement blocs east of the 1967 lines. Bush explicitly resolved that question in Israel’s favor, while Obama leaves it open. In his address to Congress, Netanyahu declared that any territorial compromise would have to leave the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who inhabit what he called the “neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and Greater Tel Aviv” inside the borders of Israel. He also stated, opaquely, that “other places of critical strategic and national importance” would also have to be incorporated into the Jewish state. In sum, he concluded, “Israel will be generous on the size of a Palestinian state but will be very firm on where we put the border with it.”

In addition, Obama addressed two other fraught issues at the State Department on which he does not see eye-to-eye with Netanyahu. He declared that “The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state.” This formulation gives something to each side. However it might be timed, a full withdrawal of Israeli military forces would rule out an Israeli security corridor along the Jordan. On the other hand, the requirement that an independent Palestine remain non-militarized leans toward a key demand Netanyahu made in his pivotal speech of June 14, 2009, in which he explicitly promised to work toward a two-state solution. In his speech to Congress, however, Netanyahu took a tough line on both points. He stated that Israel must maintain what he called a “long-term military presence” along the Jordan River, and he insisted that any Palestinian state must be “fully demilitarized,” a standard which (as past negotiations have shown) is more rigorous than “non-militarized.”

Obama also created more problems for himself when he waded into another issue—the diplomatic implications of the Egyptian-brokered reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas. On Thursday, he put it this way: “Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.” This vague formula seemed to reopen issues long regarded as settled—in particular, the steps that Hamas would be required to take before it could qualify as a legitimate participant in negotiations.

The president and his advisors quickly realized that his Thursday language concerning Hamas was unsatisfactory, however, and they toughened it considerably at his speech at AIPAC on Sunday. He said that “No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction … we will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace, including recognizing Israel’s right to exist and rejecting violence and adhering to all existing agreements.” (For good measure, he called on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier it has held captive for five years.) For his part, Netanyahu told Congress that Israel would not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by “the Palestinian version of al-Qaeda,” and he called on President Abbas to “tear up” his pact with Hamas as the prelude to any new talks.

 

As he flew toward America for his confrontation with Obama and pivotal address to Congress, Netanyahu basically had two basic options. The first was to stand fast to his prior positions on borders, refugees, and settlements and attempt to rally American pro-Israel sentiment, weakening if not isolating Obama. That’s the default position for risk-averse politicians in both American parties, and it’s a solid foundation for a Likud prime minister who wants to stand his ground. For now, that’s also the path that he has chosen, and it’s working. On Sunday, right before President Obama spoke to AIPAC, Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking House Democrat, delivered a speech that Netanyahu could have uttered virtually verbatim. On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid treated AIPAC to what was widely regarded as a rare public rebuke of President Obama. On Tuesday, members of Congress of both parties gave Netanyahu a hero’s welcome.

There’s another option for Netanyahu, however. Between December 2006 and September 2008, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and PA president Mahmoud Abbas met dozens of times and substantially narrowed their differences, to the point that American bridging proposals might have sealed the deal. While it was predictable that the incoming Netanyahu government would choose to begin in a different place when it took office early in 2009, much has changed since then. In particular, the prime minister has learned that his right-wing coalition can be a burden as well as a blessing.

We will never know what might have happened if Netanyahu had been able to persuade Tzipi Livni to assume a leading role in a Likud-Kadima government. It’s pretty clear, though, that Netanyahu would have been able to dispense with the services of his odious foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, whose party provides the current government’s majority. If Netanyahu wanted to be an historic statesman and not just a successful party leader, he would seize the opportunity to revisit that fateful choice and be positioned to resume some version of the Olmert-Abbas talks.

To be sure, as long as Hamas maintains its current posture, no Israeli government can possibly enter into negotiations. Strained legalisms about the PLO as lead negotiator will cut no ice politically because they don’t touch the core reality: There’s a difference between a true peace and a long truce. Unless Israel can be confident that the Palestinians want to end the struggle, not just postpone it, they won’t make necessary compromises. Nor should they.

But trust works both ways. It’s far from clear that Netanyahu’s commitment to a two-state solution is more than tactical. It is one thing to declare it as a goal, another to do what is necessary to bring it about. If Netanyahu really means it, he should abandon the rhetoric that appeals to post-1967 religious ultra-nationalism, and he should adopt the product of the Abbas/Olmert talks as his baseline. That would be the Palestinians’ moment of truth. In mid-2009, Olmert wrote that “To this day, I cannot understand why the Palestinian leadership did not accept the far-reaching and unprecedented proposal I offered them.” That’s a fair observation, and an essential question. In the short term, Netanyahu has staked out a position he knows the Palestinians cannot possibly accept. But down the road, he should find out whether the Palestinians will say yes to the best proposal that any Israeli government could possibly make. And if they won’t, Israel and the United States should move on.

William Galston is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing editor for The New Republic.

Follow @tnr on Twitter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 127 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

127 comments

Quite a bit of news on these fronts over the last few days. This is a fair and balanced and clarifyingly helpful exposition. Thanks.

- basman

May 25, 2011 at 1:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The best thing about this piece is that Galston is not writing about finance and economics. Nothing much to object to here, but I didn't learn anything about what has or has not changed in American policy and where the differences are between the US and Israel at this point, or where each is likely to go from here. One point that I think deserves clarification: Galston says that Netanyahu was unable to persuade Livni to form a unity government. This suggests that it was Livni who was recalcitrant. I recall that at the time the problem was that Netanyahu refused publicly to endorse a two-state solution. He has no one but himself to blame for his dependence on the right wingnuts. He has the company he wanted to keep.

- roidubouloi

May 25, 2011 at 9:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...This suggests that it was Livni who was recalcitrant. I recall that at the time the problem was that Netanyahu refused publicly to endorse a two-state solution. He has no one but himself to blame for his dependence on the right wingnuts. He has the company he wanted to keep... I have always taken the view that Livni was recalcitrant and blameworthy. I wonder this-stipulating for the moment as to your characterization of the rationale for Livni's refusal: could she have, ought she have, not done more as part of a coalition government to advance substantively two statism? The argument would be that she would have had the leverage of political power in her ability to bring down the government and thus could force the ever pragmatic Netanhayu, who strives mightily to always to keep power, substantively in that direction? Especially considering that even without her in his coalition he came out for two statism-at least rhetorically.

- basman

May 25, 2011 at 10:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And if they won’t, Israel and the United States should move on." - There's the rub. The pressure is always thrust upon Israel to make even-wider concessions. Each time, the Arab waters are tested, and nothing comes from it. All the talking heads can say what they want. Israel is through with concessions and back-pedaling to meet the demands of the (increasingly openly anti-semitic) EU, and Obama's "progressive" policies fomented by the State Department.

- streaming

May 25, 2011 at 10:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's interesting that there is always one or more issues that just don't fit into the solution box. The area of the box in which solutions may be inserted is too narrow. Anyway, the map of the area hanging on my wall says a Palestinian state that includes Gaza and the West Bank is far from contiguous. To make such a new Palestinian state both contiguous and equal in size to the West Bank and Gaza, (assuming any lasting agreement between the two groups) broad land swaps are required. Assuming land swaps are completed and some people end up relocated to Israel without moving at all, there should be agreements recognizing that the relocated folks are afforded those rights available to other Israeli citizens. Oh and the US will not be alone in the UN on this issue. Confusion may reign when the world community revisits its old grandeur and tries to create borders for this new Palestinian state. Isn't that when the fun starts?

- Doug12

May 25, 2011 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Livni's justification was that she would not join a government that was backpeddling on a two-state solution as she would not align her party politically with a non-solution or a one-state solution. Perhaps she might have achieved more another way, by joining Netanyahu's government, although I doubt it. But what is Netanyahu's excuse? Why does he not bear the responsibility for this?

- roidubouloi

May 25, 2011 at 11:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But down the road, he should find out whether the Palestinians will say yes to the best proposal that any Israeli government could possibly make. And if they won’t, Israel and the United States should move on." Why should Abbas be the only party to weigh in on these proposals? On the one hand, negotiating with lower levels of Palestinian society would allow Netanyahu to play them off against each other, but on the other hand, if Abbas rejects the "best deal that any Israeli government could possibly make," then it would be ordinary Palestinians who would suffer. Israel should negotiate with whatever town/village leader will accept Israel as a Jewish state, provide them security from the Fatah and Hamas goons and build a seed of a Palestinian state from those towns and villages. At that point, Abbas will have a choice between going along with the pragmatists or being voted out of power in favor of someone who will. As for dealing with Abbas because he's the elected leader, until the Palestinians conduct an election in which those who advocate greater pragmatism can campaign as freely as the those on the ruling party's platform or for strict opposition to Israel, their elections are as pseudodemocratic as Putin's.

- sighthnd

May 25, 2011 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As usual, personal ambition trumped national interest. The important thing was to form a government of national unity. The difference between Livni and Netanyahu was rather minuscule (she articulated in voice what was still only whispered in his mind, and has now been fully and loudly articulated) . But without her, he had to form a government much more "rightist"and stiff-necked with Lieberman's party. It meant too much leaning towards the Right and away from the Center, which is what Likkud and Kadima (and even Labour) voters indicated with their choice. I found it hard to believe that she could be so irresponsible. To me it meant that the general wish of the Israeli public for unity, centrism and accommodation was ignored. Frankly, I can't see her gaining any greater weight in the next election. The economy is good and Netanyahu is a leader that Israelis, Left, Right and Center, like to ridicule openly (it's a national pastime) while they won't give him up. Netanyahu is something of an anti-Peres. Peres has always been respected by Israelis but not trusted. Netanyahu is not much respected but he is trusted. Which is why Peres was never given the premiership while Netanyahu has been twice entrusted with it. The following blogpost by snoopy, simply a Jew, illustrates my point: http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2011/05/binyamin-netanyahu-bibi-goes-to.html And this is another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5lsbp7YmHI&feature=player_embedded

- noga1

May 25, 2011 at 1:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wonder if Mr. Galston bothered to read the full discription of the Abbas/Olmert talks by Olmert published in Hebrew in Yediot Aharaonot. The reason that Abbas did not bother to call back Olmert, is that no Palestinian leader could agree to relinquish any part of what they call historical Palestine. It is obvious to anyone, including "fellows at the Brookings Institution" that the ultimate reason reason why Camp David and every set of negotiations that followed, under both left, right and centrist Israeli governments have failed is that the Palestinians will never accept a Jewish state and the giving up of the "right of return" I am bemused by the last statement "But down the road, he should find out whether the Palestinians will say yes to the best proposal that any Israeli government could possibly make" The answer is quite clear, what is not clear is why all the so-called experts continue refuse to accept the answer.

- jneuberg

May 25, 2011 at 2:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At least people are openly discussing the issue of Israel as a Jewish state and also, the problem of Hamas. The discussions about 1967 are valuable because they might actually induce people to read about the wars and about the formation of the PLO and it was intended to accomplish. Finally, the issue of a contiguous Palestinian state is questionable at best if it cuts Israel into pieces. The same goes for the question of ethnic cleansing. How much more ethnic cleansing do Jews have to undergo? From Jerusalem - again? Of all places? Because if the borders do not include the regions discussed in the Bush letters that is what will be dictated - in a region where Jews have already practically disappeared from city after city, nation after nation. I really think this issue requires a long view - no not back to 1947 but back however many centuries are required. The issue of "justice" is eternally raised - justice for the Palestinians. What about justice for the real minority, for people who have experienced serial "naqbas?" Also, the fact that Palestinians openly discuss their idea that Jews have no history in the Middle East at all must be addressed. By the same token, it should be asked, why didn't the Jordanians and Egyptians create a "Palestinian" state in 1948? Could the politics of al Husseini have had anything to do with Jordan's decision? For Egypt's part I have no idea unless the national ethos, the Arab national ethos depended upon continuous war upon Israel until she was defeated. So Gaza was useful; the other refugee camps were useful; UNWRA itself was never intended to be a long term solution...so - what WAS the intended solution for the refugees of 1948? Why did the UN continue to support these "camps" after generations, why have they continued to promote the idea of "return?" This is under the aegis of the UN don't forget - Does the Arab Peace Plan really suggest anything different from the sentiments of 1949? Non-recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is still one of THE issues here. And given all the decades of propaganda, war and antisemitic incitement does anybody believe that things have changed much at least among certain large segments of the population in the ME? Among intellectuals, the elites, maybe; but the "street?" I think maybe not - though in practical terms - people have their own lives to lead and obviously their own problems - with leadership, bad government, bad economies, climate change and desertization, religious extremism, etc. But yet -there is identification between the poor of many nations and the "Palestinians" (note - the term referred to the Jews in 1947 - so its use in news articles retroactively is more than a bit inaccurate - it's a lie. This was a time of ARAB nationalism and the use of the word "Arab" to refer to the refugees of 1948 was deliberate. This should also be openly articulated because too many people don't know this history at all.)

- Sophia

May 25, 2011 at 2:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, a fair and balanced exposition. Speaking of ambition and national interest, it is Netanyahu who let his personal ambition trump the national interest by choosing to include the right wing parties along with Lieberman into his coalition. Kadima got more votes than did the Likud and had Netanyahu been more forthcoming in the coalition negotiations by the Olmert offer to Abbas which would have disclosed to the world the true stance of the PA in the negotiations. Netanyahu has made it all that much easier for the world (already inclined to see Israel as the obstacle to peace) to point to it as the guilty party in the failure of the peace process. Jeff Goldberg also has a pretty bleak view of the current political situation of Israel: "Why the Palestinians Have Time on Their Side" http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/why-the-palestinians-have-time-on-their-side/239445/

- arnon

May 25, 2011 at 3:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat: If they could did a tunnel under the English Channel, they can dig a tunnel that would connect Gaza and the WB.

- noga1

May 25, 2011 at 4:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"A+B=C whether Israel is led by Netanyahu the Hawk, Barak the Dove, Livni the Pixie, or the poltergeist of Golda Meir. Two-state solution? By all means. 1967 borders? No can do." As I said repeatedly, no Israeli leader can act differently. And beating on Netanyahu is done because it's the fashionable thing to do when one wishes to polish one's "progressive" credentials. Jonas is a hoot to read.

- noga1

May 25, 2011 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And beating on Netanyahu is done because it's the fashionable thing to do when one wishes to polish one's "progressive" credentials."" I have no progressive credentials since I am not a "progressive" whatever it's supposed to mean. I also think Netanyahu is the wrong the wrong person to head the Israeli government at this time. He would be good as the chief economic minister.

- arnon

May 25, 2011 at 5:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Everyone should read the Goldberg piece linked by arnon, on the assumption that he cannot yet be branded as an anti-Semite or weak in his support for Israel. A nice, cold dose of reality. The Jonas piece is good reading too for its typical intellectual leap, sans explanation, from the necessity of the "geographic and demographic defensibility" of Israel to the unacceptability of the 1967 lines. Of course, no one who tears his hair and rends his garments over this ever takes note of the direct contradiction between tactically better lines and "demographic defensibility," because there are no meaningfully superior lines that do not incorporate lots and lots of Palestinian Arabs. Nor does anyone interrupt their hair-tearing and garment-rending long enough to explain what would constitute "defensible borders" in contrast to the 1967 lines. Because they cannot. There is nothing to say. Miraculously, after we skip by the discussion of what lines would be militarily superior and why, we arrive at lines that just happen to incorporate major settlement blocs. Is this just a happy coincidence, that the lines that would embrace the settlements solve Israel's tactical problems? Do these lines look defensible? Actually, when you look at them, they are the exact opposite of what anyone with a smattering of knowledge would think of as defensible lines. Defensible lines are short and take advantage of terrain. The separation barriers snakes around creating hydra-like tentacles everywhere that are themselves indefensible and do nothing whatever to secure Tel Aviv and the oh so vulnerable "narrow waist" of Israel. The claims about the indefensible lines of 1967 are, in short, a farce. Not that they are the lines a military tactician would pick. Not hardly. Those lines would either run along the east side of the peaks of the Judean Hills or, even better, along the Jordan River. But, uh oh, those lines are not possible without ensuring Israel's demographic demise. The reality that the garment-renders will not address is that there are no lines meaningfully better than the 1967 lines that do not incorporate vast numbers of Palestinian Arabs in Israel. Hence, the lines that Israel wants in the West Bank have everything to do with demography, the incorporation into Israel of the illegal settlements, and nothing whatever to do with defense. Israel wants the world to swallow the bait and switch. Does anyone other than some Likudnik (or worse) believe that this is likely to happen? Does anyone other than some Likudnik (or worse) think that the US will endlessly pay an increasingly stiff diplomatic price, providing openings to those who are, shall we say, not American friends in the geopolitical game, in order not to ensure Israel's security but its colonial ambitions? To believe such a thing is to deny everything that we know about the behavior of states. Read Jeffrey Goldberg.

- roidubouloi

May 25, 2011 at 5:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I haven't yet read Galston's piece, but a few comments in reaction to the above comments: a) Livni had and has just as much ego as Netanyahu in the coalition negotiations, if not more. Netanyahu at least, has more reason for having the ego as he accomplished far more than she did. She also has a chip on her shoulders vis a vis Bibi since he brought her into politics. b) Israeli election law makes it quite clear that whoever can form a coalition gets to be PM, **NOT** the leader of the party with the most seats. So Livni's pouting that she should have formed the government because Kadima got one more seat than Likud reveals either her ignorance or her disingenuousness or both. c) Had Livni nonetheless formed the government, she could have done so only with the support, and hence participation of Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu. He would have exacted the same price of getting a senior ministry, probably Foreign Ministry. So Livni is far less of a "Great White Hope" (pun intended) than many think. d) Bibi & the Likud have received a boost in the polls as a result of his US visit. From memory: A poll (by a hard-line left wing polling group) gave Likud 34 seats to Kadima's 27 (or maybe 24) seats. 39% of Israelis felt that Bibi is best suited to be PM whereas 31% (or maybe 32%) felt Livni to be best suited for the job. e) Some Kadima MKs are publicly calling for Livni to join the gov't now. Others said they can support any Likud diplomatic initiative from outside the gov't. Many grudgingly admitted that he did a good job with the speeches. Even Ahmed Tibbi admitted that. f) It is impossible for a "Palestine" to be contiguous without Israel losing its contiguous-ness. Giving the Pals a land-link to Gaza over which they would have sovereignty by definition splits Israel into two non contiguous parts. g) Abu Mazen (aka Abbas) already disclosed the offer he turned down from Olmert in his (abu Mazen's) interview with Jackson Diehl in the Washington Post about 2 years ago. That became Diehl's moment of epiphany regarding the Pals true intentions and where the stumbling block is in the "peace process". He published this in his column and has referred to it in a number of subsequent columns. All this is public but is assiduously ignored by the "world" because it runs counter to the accepted "progressive" dogma about who is the intransigent party. Just like the "Island of California" story I discussed in a previous post. Hershel Ginsburg Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

May 25, 2011 at 5:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One more thing: h) Livni & her team carried on parallel negotiations with the Pals, while Olmert was conducting his with abu Mazen. It is clear now that she was not aware of the concessions Olmert made, especially on J'lem & the refugees. When she found out, she & her familiars were horrified and said quite plainly that she would never agree to to those. Olmert went even farther than Yossi Belilin did in the Taba talks at the end of 2000, and as abu Mazen told Jackson Diehl, it was still too far apart from the Pals position to be worthy of a counter proposal. i) I guess strictly speaking we could say that abu Mazen is technically elected even though he is now in his 7th year of a 4 year term. Reported here in Israel but assiduously ignored abroad is the fact that the Palestinians own election commission resigned during the election day protesting the corruption and vote fraud carried out by abu Mazen's people to make sure he received a typically arab-world majority or at least something close to it. hg

- ginzy

May 25, 2011 at 6:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi, what is your alternative to including the settlement blocs within Israel? Bibi spelled that out as a separate issue from the aforementioned indefensible "border," aka the 1949 "green line." Do you think it's cool to drag people out of their homes or what? 500,000 people? Or do you think they'd be welcome in an Arab state where it's a capital crime to sell land to Jews? Or what?

- Sophia

May 25, 2011 at 10:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, it is not cool, but perhaps the people who built these settlements while insisting that they represented no change in the status quo, because the could be removed, should have thought about that. Or maybe if Israel wants to keep these people in their homes as a part of Israel it has to be willing to pay with something the Palestinians want and will agree to accept rather than some patches of desert that neither Israel nor the Palestinians care much about. It is not cool at all that Israel had flagrantly violated international law to build these settlements and expects no to leave with them at little cost to itself. I do not find it impossible that Jews can live as a minority in Palestine, near to the border with Israel, if a final settlement is reached and manages to be politically acceptable, if painful, to both sides. Quite clearly if there is to be a Jewish minority in Palestine minority rights would be part of what is negotiated. And if, in the end, it proves impossible, then those settlements would end up annexed by force. The fact of having concluded a final settlement would still be enormously to the advantage of Israel. For Israel, peace is victory. If one takes it to be impossible, then Israel's ultimate defeat is almost a certainty.

- roidubouloi

May 25, 2011 at 11:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And, apart from the settlements, what would constitute the defensible borders that we hear so much about? I have yet to hear or read anyone explain where these purportedly defensible borders are supposed to lie without either incorporating a large additional Arab population or requiring forced relocation of Palestinians whose residency is not in violation of international law. Do they count for nothing? Have the Arabs been right all along that the goal of Zionism, however much denied, has always been to expel them, to create pretexts and conditions that would lead to their departure?

- roidubouloi

May 25, 2011 at 11:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid: "I have yet to hear or read anyone explain where these purportedly defensible borders are supposed to lie without either incorporating a large additional Arab population or requiring forced relocation of Palestinians" How's having Israel maintain control of the Jordan Valley? That would allow Israel to substantially reduce, if not eliminate, the materiel that would flow into the West Bank part of Palestine, which substantially reduce the military threat from Palestine no matter what its western border would be.

- sighthnd

May 26, 2011 at 12:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I whole-heartedly agree with that, sighthnd, although it appears to me that the procrastination of the Likud in negotiating Israel's way out of the West Bank has made this much harder or perhaps even impossible to achieve. I think I have been warning about just that for several years now at least. However, that is not a border. It is a security measure. I don't hear anyone (except K2K) proposing that Israel's border be the Jordan and that Palestine have no borders other than with Israel. Assuming that Israel were able to prevent the flow of arms across the Jordanian border, what then is wrong with the 1967 lines as a tactical and security matter? And if Israel is not able to prevent the flow of arms across the Jordanian border, what lines would be more defensible? In other words, from the point of view of security, the 1967 lines really are not the salient issue. Demilitarization and prevention of arms smuggling are.

- roidubouloi

May 26, 2011 at 1:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bracing: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/36392

- basman

May 26, 2011 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/994311--two-peoples-two-standards "Israel has offered statehood to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, with the Palestinian capital in Arab Jerusalem and a corridor linking the territory of the West Bank with Gaza. But Israel’s offer was rebuffed twice, in 2000 and again in 2008, even though the Israelis had increased their proposed withdrawal from some 95 per cent of the West Bank to 100 per cent (with land swaps). Israel’s initial proposal was met with an onslaught of suicide bombers sent by Hamas and Fatah too, not to mention the rocketry from Gaza even after Israel’s complete withdrawal from the territory in 2005. In their 2006 parliamentary elections the Palestinians gave Hamas a whopping majority. Henceforth, Fatah could not deliver without Hamas. The problem is, however, that Fatah cannot deliver with Hamas, either. Palestinian rejection notwithstanding, Israel is still expected to reach out to the Palestinians and repeat these same offers as if nothing has happened in the interim. As if all the attacks and ongoing upheaval and rising levels of overt hostility toward Israel in the Arab world had never occurred, as if what the Arabs say and do is totally immaterial. The Israelis should, indeed, show moderation and reach out to the Palestinians. There is no question that Israelis, for their own good, should never miss even the slimmest opportunity for peace. But shouldn’t the Palestinians, and Hamas in particular, be expected to reach out to the Israelis, too, to offer recognition, to stop firing rockets into Israeli towns, to cease referring to the Jews as “the sons of pigs and monkeys?” Surely they are also accountable for their deeds and misdeeds. Surely they have a role, too. Or don’t they? Israelis will forever be baffled by this warped logic whereby it is they alone who bear all the responsibility for the fate of their neighbourhood."

- noga1

May 26, 2011 at 4:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jneuberg: "the Palestinians will never accept a Jewish state and the giving up of the 'right of return' " You paint the Palestinians with too broad a brush. While your statement is true for most, if not all, of the Palestinians in the current governing structure (the creation of which and its effects, is one of the subjects of the main article), there are Palestinians (labor leaders, village leaders) who do not fit that mold. The problem is that if any of them try to procure any benefits for their constituents through negotiations independent of the PA, PA goons will knock them off. As an example, Rabbi Shlomo Riskin once had a Palestinian with whom he had extensive contacts call him with the message "please stop contacting me." The following day he was found hanging from a tree, naked, with his genitals cut off. What's needed is to empower pragmatic Palestinians. This means allowing them to be seen as delivering real benefits to their constituents and protecting them against reprisals from the rejectionists.

- sighthnd

May 26, 2011 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Re: 05/26/2011 - 4:06pm EDT Purely local comment: when I saw the reference to "thestar.com" and then read a bit of it, I said to myself, "Like, no way. Ged oudda' heah. This from the Toronto Star? Like, no way." Then I pulled up the link and said to myself, "There you go!"

- basman

May 26, 2011 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wrote a rather lengthy response to you malahat, agreeing that that was the main point and then discoursing about Jonas's assumptions, unexplained, about borders. It vanished into cyber-space, I see. I cannot think it up again. Oh well.

- roidubouloi

May 26, 2011 at 5:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Israel has offered statehood to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, with the Palestinian capital in Arab Jerusalem and a corridor linking the territory of the West Bank with Gaza. But Israel’s offer was rebuffed twice,..." Yes, it has, and it was. I also have no illusion about withdrawal bringing peace. However, Israel does need to convince those who are neutral in this conflict that it itself is serious about peace by at least taking down the settlements which as Netanyahu said will end up on the other side of final border as he envisions it. (Sharon's mistake was not to remove the settlements, it was to remove the army from Gaza. I still don't know why he did it. Was it calculated to show the world what would happen in an unaccompanied Palestinian territory? ) Let him do that and nothing else. Don't remove the soldiers and don't relax security measures. Just take down those settlements compensate and give the settlers free housing within the green line, and let's see how the international community of neutral countries respond to this gesture. As it now stands, Netanyahu is just playing a game of chicken, let's see who blinks first. This isn't the response of a mature statesman, it's the response of a hack politician.

- arnon

May 26, 2011 at 10:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is an interesting but one sided discussion in the NY Times about "peace." http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/05/25/opinion/100000000836055/bloggingheads-a-time-for-peace.html?scp=1&sq=eli%20lake&st=cse I am on the side, here, of Eli Lake since the one arguing against him that there is a chance for peace is long on filibuster and short on facts.

- arnon

May 27, 2011 at 12:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Surely the relations between a nation-state and its neighbor(s) are more crucial matters than borders per se? The French Maginot Line revealed a great deal about the defensibility of borders at a time -- 1940 -- when the Germans had a lot of armor and good strategic planning. Anyone who says that the India-Pakistan struggle over Kasmir is merely a matter of lines on a map is a fool. Is the current border of Gaza and Israel "defensible" if a rocket goes across it into Israel with the same regularity as a plane taking off from a regional airport? If a principal weapon in any future conflict is a ground-to-ground missile with a range of say 150 miles, does it say much about the "defensibility" if the border is here or 30 miles away? It seems to me that the question of defensible borders is, in 2011 as opposed to 1967, a political one and involves not the precise territorial measurements but (a) the comprehensiveness of any speculative peace deal with the Palestinians, (b) the quality of Israeli political intelligence and seeing down the road (which appears to have declined from a former level of imagination and competence), and (c) the larger international relationships in the region and with the U.S. Netanyahu's apparent obsession with defensible borders appears to me at least to be a smokescreen -- an attempt to make a political problem look like a military one (and an old-school military one, to boot).

- ironyroad

May 27, 2011 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If a principal weapon in any future conflict is a ground-to-ground missile with a range of say 150 miles, does it say much about the "defensibility" if the border is here or 30 miles away?" You are assuming that a war begins and ends with ground-to-ground missiles. You are betting that there will be no army with foot soldiers, tanks, artillery, advancing upon large residential centers. What makes you think such invasions will not take place, in case of war? What about putting physical distance between suicide terrorists and their targeted centers? NATO has been lobbing hundreds of tomahawks at Gadhaffi without making a dent in his resistance. You are very easily dismissing the concerns of an Israeli leader, with a first-rate military experience, who sees his greatest challenge in keeping Israelis safe, now and in future. Strangely enough, ironyroad, we Israelis did not get used to having our sons and daughters getting killed. Your expectation that we will bet on Arab promises to safeguard our lives is nothing less than reckless. "Netanyahu's apparent obsession "?? Obsession? Have you paused to reflect a second before writing this term? Ben Gurion decided to end the war with the Arabs with the Armistice agreement because, so the historians say, he had the "political intelligence" of "seeing down the road" and decided that the potential for making peace with the Arabs outweighed Israel's territorial and demographic interests. Benny Morris is one of those historians who think that B"G made a fatal mistake, irreversible now.

- noga1

May 27, 2011 at 4:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm having a problem disentangling the various threads of your argument. I am making an assumption that all reasonable precautions against terrorist action will continue to be taken. The distance between the U.S. and Afghanistan didn't prevent 9/11 taking place, so let's at least stipulate that terrorism can be only very loosely tied to a particular location. Ultimately, the most effective weapon against terrorism in a situation like the M/E, however, is good intelligence, and good security cooperation between neighboring countries. I suspect that the Israelis have built that up with Jordan and, more recently, Egypt, and perhaps to some extent with the PA (whose security infrastructure the American taxpayer bankrolls, incidentally). I also did not say that such invasions -- traditional military operations -- will never take place. Who can know? However, I will assert that the threat of such an invasion is not the primary threat that Israel faces today: those threats involve (as many people have pointed out) demographics, technology/rocketry, and loss of legitimacy. Neither Hizbollah's nor Hamas's rocket attacks over the last few years have been followed by tanks and infantry because no nation-state wants to risk a war anymore. That could change, I agree, but at the moment it's non-state actors who are the threat. In fact, I'd argue that Arab countries have largely given up on the military option and are willing to wait until the mix of demographic growth and global hostility does the job for them. It appears to me that the current Israeli leadership is caught in a bind, between rational steps to deal with actual threats and the rightwing pressure for heel-digging on settlements that a different coalition agreement might have sidelined, and is ignoring the real threats for one that is, at the moment, far away. Of course, the Iranian threat is in the background as a future development, but that one relativizes borders to a freakish minimum, to put it mildly. Talking about first-rate military experience -- wasn't Barak IAF chief of staff, and isn't the common wisdom now that it was precisely his military experience that opened the way for tactical errors in the Lebanon war that managed to combine bad press for Israel with a failure to neutralize HB? Perhaps I should just agree with you that political intelligence and seeing down the road are dangerous characteristics to be avoided at all costs?

- ironyroad

May 27, 2011 at 8:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The distance between the U.S. and Afghanistan didn't prevent 9/11 taking place, so let's at least stipulate that terrorism can be only very loosely tied to a particular location." How many 9/11s has the us suffered? How many terrorist attacks has Israel suffered? What a strange argument to make. As if there is any comparison at all to be made between a one time terrorist attack and the kind of constant terrorism Israelis have been subject to for 80-90 years now. You are one of those irresponsible optimists that think about best-case scenarios as a logical reason to pursue highly-dubious policies. You seem to misunderstand my point about B"G. Easier to snigger rather than to make an effort. "It appears to me that the current Israeli leadership is caught in a bind, between rational steps to deal with actual threats and the rightwing pressure for heel-digging on settlements that a different coalition agreement " Having perused the Israeli papers on line I'm sorry to disabuse you of such notions. It appears that the Right wingers are pretty angry with Netanyahu for his folding to Obama's prescriptions. Many accuse him of betraying Israel. As a parting shot let me speculate that if tomorrow Obama were to make a speech in which the "one state solution" were to make an appearance I'm sure you would jump on that bandwagon in no time, finding fault with the "Right wing" leadership (as if Israelis would allow themselves to be led by leaders they do not trust) for rejecting such a reasonable solution.

- noga1

May 27, 2011 at 9:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The NY Times has an article today that rips to shreds the claim that the 1967 lines are indefensible citing the opinions of extremely knowledgeable Israeli military leaders: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/isrealis-differ-on-defensible-borders/?scp=1&sq=Israel%20defensible%20borders&st=cse As for BG's "mistake," one wonders what Benny Morris thinks should have happened. Israeli dominion over all of the land west of the Jordan, including what would have been a majority Arab population? Driving the Arabs out altogether, as Zionism constantly claimed it was not seeking to do? Other than the division of Jerusalem, it is difficult to imagine how the war could have ended better for Israel in terms of the lines and the population. Virtually a demographic miracle.

- roidubouloi

May 27, 2011 at 10:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“It appears to me that the current Israeli leadership is caught in a bind, between rational steps to deal with actual threats and the rightwing pressure for heel-digging on settlements that a different coalition agreement might have sidelined, and is ignoring the real threats for one that is, at the moment, far away.” This is key. As I said above, if Netanyahu is serious about setting up permanent borders for Israel and allowing the Palestinians to run their own internal affairs he should make public his projected defensible border and move those settlements that as he said would end on the other side of the border. He can do this unilaterally without withdrawing troops from the rest of West Bank but making it clear that he will do so as soon as the PA decides to rejoin the negotiating process. As it is he is just using the current Palestinian maneuvers as an excuse not to do anything. This has increased his popularity for now, but how long will he stay popular if his gambit will backfire down the road. “Of course, the Iranian threat is in the background as a future development,….” The Iranian threat while real can also be a help to Israel if as it looks likely it will create a political and military conflict between the Saudis and their Sunni allies and Iran.

- arnon

May 27, 2011 at 10:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Netanyahu is not the slightest bit serious about establishing permanent borders for Israel because any border is, by his lights, indefensible. Netanyahu wants something new in the world, permanent dominion over all the land west of the Jordan, without granting political rights to the Arab inhabitants and without Israel being regarded as an apartheid state. He wants an impossibility. If he cannot have it he is more than content to maintain the status quo as the next best thing. He is a fool. He is destroying the State of Israel.

- roidubouloi

May 27, 2011 at 10:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If a settlement were reached with the Palestinians, the Sunni would be able to turn their full attention to Iran which would no longer be able to court them with opposition to Israel. Netanyahu blithely ignores an existential threats for a few apartments in the West Bank. How absurd. It would be comedy if it weren't tragedy.

- roidubouloi

May 27, 2011 at 10:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" . . . if tomorrow Obama were to make a speech in which the 'one state solution' were to make an appearance I'm sure you would jump on that bandwagon in no time" That is a startling assertion, Noga, and if you actually mean it, it says very little for either your intelligence or for your knowledge of me.

- ironyroad

May 28, 2011 at 12:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is nothing wrong with my intelligence, ironyroad. As you should know by now. "Netanyahu is not the slightest bit serious about establishing permanent borders for Israel" I think you are dead wrong, roi. Netanyahu has in the past proved that he can actually give up land for peace (Wye Accords), but he will only do that if reassured of Israel's security doing so. Which is why he insisted that Sharon (his rival for the party leadership at the time) be there with him when he made such territorial concessions. Those were more optimistic times, however. Since then we had countless suicide bombings and over a thousand Israelis dead as a result. No amount of nice words from Obama can make Israelis forget these totally gratuitous waste of life. Neither, by the way, are the recent "Nakba" day events along the Northern borders helping to reassure Israelis that Palestinians are talking about the WB and Gaza when they speak about an end to the occupation.

- noga1

May 28, 2011 at 6:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Wye Accords, even if fully implemented, hardly amounted to giving up land for peace. Quite to the contrary, they are a near perfect expression of Netanyahu's aspiration for the West Bank -- Israeli military control, continued freedom of Israel to colonize a spiderweb of settlements and roads to which Israel enjoys unrestricted access surrounding bubbles of ethnically pure Arab areas that the Palestinians police themselves relieving Israel of that burden. It was a formula for minimize the burden on Israel of colonization, not much more.

- roidubouloi

May 28, 2011 at 9:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If I remember rightly, the accords were much desired by Clinton, who pressured N to come to the talks. Which is why N took Sharon with him. At that time N wanted a full and comprehensive settlement to be negotiated with Palestinians and was against this kind of creeping salamification of the process. You can re write history for your president's glory's sake but you are no Obrien: you can't change the past in light of what you think is the present. With this last answer of yours, roi, I know for a fact that you are pretty ignorant about the I/P conflict. Let me guess; you probably had to look up Wye Accords, right?

- noga1

May 28, 2011 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What Netanyahu wanted or wants is unknown to me, except as evidenced by what he does. What he has done in his career as far as I can see is do everything possible to cement permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank and frustrate negotiations that might lead elsewhere, even if the outcome were a peace settlement. Do you think that I think that because Clinton advocated something that it is therefore automatically worthy? I don't give a good god damn what Clinton thought or thinks -- about anything. As with Netanyahu, I care about what he did or failed to do and whether it was in my estimation a good thing or at least a good effort. I consider Clinton's a failed presidency, all the more tragic because of what might have been achieved by someone as able as he at that period in time. It certainly does not commend the Wye Accords to me that Clinton pushed them or that Netanyahu was reluctant. How many times have I carried on here about the necessity of Israel (and every other person or association on the planet) accepting its own agency and the responsibility of advancing its own interests ethically rather than complaining endlessly about the unfairness of it all and the perfidy of enemies? One of the most degraded aspects of Israeli government is that it apparently accepts no responsibility for the ultimate outcome, but simply does more of whatever it is that it is doing until some outside agency, the US, the Palestinians, Hezbollah, pushes it onto a different path. Israel, as the governing power in the West Bank for more than 40 years, should have been exerting its utmost efforts all that time to cultivate a vibrant economy, successful civil society, and increasingly independent local government there with the object of having any visible sign of occupation disappear in advance of the legal formality. Instead, it spent the 40 years constructing these insane settlements, burdening the local populace with what is required to sustain and secure them, and complaining ceaselessly about awful the Arabs are. Why not just fit the noose to your own neck? In the late 90s, I attended a breakfast for about 30 people sponsored by ADL. The speaker was Ariel Sharon who was then trotting around the world with his "map" of a final peace plan. Much like Wye, it had three classes of territory, A, B, and C, with overpasses, tunnels, and all sorts of ad hoc arrangements intended to preserve the settlements in place and turn the West Bank into a bantustan. I remember vividly thinking that Sharon was by that time completely nuts as the one thing the plan could not possibly be was a plan for peace. The Wye Accords have all the same signs of an obsessively detailed, ad hoc, relentlessly brokered effort to create some forward movement in a stalemated situation. That Israel must be dragged kicking and screaming by one US president after another into planning for the inevitable independence of Palestine is both pathetic and reason for despair. I have been saying for some years here at TNR that the clock is running out on the occupation, and now the end is in sight. The Gaza border with Egypt is being opened. If not in September then soon a State of Palestine will come into being, even if under military occupation. With time, Israel, if it does not negotiate its exit from the West Bank, will be forced out by the UN. And Israel, under the thrall of its nationalists, just keeps complaining. As if complaining were going to change anything. It is perverse in the extreme that the ghetto mentality of passivity and complaint has followed the Jews into Zion, where, the hope was, we would be liberated in spirit as well as fact. ___________________ Of course I do not have to look up the Wye Accords. I remember every detail of the map, the security arrangements, the time table as if I had written the whole thing myself. Don't you? As for what we both understand about the I/P conflict, things that I told you some years ago were going to happen are now coming to pass. They were not in my opinion difficult to foresee of one merely chose to look. What have you ever written here that is a meaningful contribution to our collective understanding? The litany of complaints?

- roidubouloi

May 28, 2011 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A rare (these days) and welcome optimistic view of the A/I conflict: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/05/27/lawrence-solomon-time-is-on-israels-side/

- arnon

May 28, 2011 at 12:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here at the end of Lawrence Solomon's piece is the stated reason for his optimism: "There in the past decade, and now in the United States under the Obama administration, the belief has grown that an end to turmoil throughout the Middle East, and thus the secure energy supply that Western economies need, depend on a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That belief will likely soon wane for a number of reasons. Chief among them, as I will argue next week, will be an emerging new world energy order, Israel’s pre-eminent role in that new order, and the effect on global security of that new order." ________________________ I think that Solomon presents a caricature of US policy and interests in the service of his narrative. But, leaving that aside, I cannot wait to read about how Western dependence on oil in Moslem countries will diminish in the near future. Even more exciting is the prospect that Israel is going to play a "pre-eminent role" in the energy economy that follows. Must be some breakthrough in the use of pomelo for cold fusion to be announced any day now.

- roidubouloi

May 28, 2011 at 1:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi, re.: energy. Israel recently made a discovery of natural gas off its northern coast--the biggest worldwide find in recent history.

- MOLLYSIMON

May 28, 2011 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I think that Solomon presents a caricature of US policy and interests in the service of his narrative." I'll wait till I read his follow up piece before I pass judgment on his outlook.

- arnon

May 28, 2011 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly, That gas field will give Israel a measure of energy independence and may eventually produce some export income, but it is hardly going to give Israel a pre-eminent role in the current energy economy, let alone some future economy where we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

- roidubouloi

May 28, 2011 at 4:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What Netanyahu wanted or wants is unknown to me, except as evidenced by what he does. What he has done in his career as far as I can see is do everything possible to cement permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank and frustrate negotiations that might lead elsewhere, even if the outcome were a peace settlement." Of course if you ignore the Wye Accords and Netahyahu's recent speeches in which he agrees to a two state solution, you can make the above statement. But what is the value of your estimations? Exactly the value of a thesis which has to ignore contradictory data in order to support its own assumptions. I'm so glad about this exchange because it does provide a very clear proof of your own near cluelessness about the evolution of the conflict, especially after Oslo. It's the same kind of revealing mistake that you made when you argued that Israel won the 1967 war with American jetfighters. It shows how blind you are to those segments of records that don't fit your political positions. MollySimon: It's not just the natural gas that spells some hope for Israel's future economy. You must have missed this: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/oil-shale-reserves-can-turn-israel-into-major-world-producer/story-e6frg9ef-1226025327281 Israel also has well founded ambition to become the Silicon Valley of water thechnologies: http://www.economist.com/node/18682280

- noga1

May 28, 2011 at 4:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Netanyahu's recent utterances regarding two-states are every bit as worthless as all the rest of his utterances. The Wye Accords are the perfect exemplar of what Netanyahu means by a two-state solution: bantustans. I won't argue with you about cluelessness, noga, as you have yet in several years here to have expressed a single meaningful insight about any political matter. Stick to Jane Austen.

- roidubouloi

May 28, 2011 at 5:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roy, what about abbas's role in all of this. Apparently they were close to a deal but with press leaks he backed out. There's an interesting ny mag article written from the pov of "George Mitchell" that holds abbas equally responsible. One does wonder whether he'd agree to even a fair deal at this point. Anyway, back to questionsaboutthe border. I see it not so much about holding on to settlements deep in the west bank but providing a buffer zone. So for me, it's how many miles becomes the real question. How many miles to keep the Pal from getting too close to pop. Centers? either with shelling or suicide bombing/murders? thanks for links Noga. Interesting--especially about water.

- MOLLYSIMON

May 28, 2011 at 5:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I meant how many miles past the green line.

- MOLLYSIMON

May 28, 2011 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In light of its successes in 1967, I assume Israel will again be looking to France to supply its military aircraft. The "argument," noga, was about whether the US had been a major arms supplier to Israel prior to 1967. It was, tanks and missiles. After 1967, it became the supplier of aircraft as well, aircraft put to use in 1973. Why you attribute any importance at all to my mis-recollection that American aircraft were in use by Israel in 1967 is quite beyond me. This indeed demonstrates the triviality of your thinking about all of these matters.

- roidubouloi

May 28, 2011 at 5:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly, The claim is constantly made that they were close to a deal. I regard this as about as meaningful as other stories about the big one that got away. What history shows is that Israel has three times been unable to persuade the Palestinians to concede the settlement blocs as not part of the Palestinian state. In light of that, I cannot imagine why anyone believes this is likely to happen. Israel offers the Palestinians nothing in exchange for the land it wants other than the statehood that the Palestinians are going to get anyway. If one wants to strike a bargain, it is necessary to offer something that the other party wants. All Israel offers is that the Palestinians concede both the land that Israel covets AND the Palestinian refugees claims to a right of return AND security control over parts of the West Bank, notably the Jordan. That is not a deal waiting to happen. Israel has been telling itself that it can hold Palestinian statehood hostage indefinitely for the concessions Israel wants. I believe that was a huge miscalculation, and I have said so repeatedly, going back years now. You should read the NYT piece I linked up above a couple of posts back. It makes clear that the settlements have no significant military value.

- roidubouloi

May 28, 2011 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You should read the NYT piece I linked up above a couple of posts back. It makes clear that the settlements have no significant military value." This is roi's way of trying to obfuscate the matter, by conflating the issue of the settlements with the issue of defensible borders. The settlements is one issue, much more complex than roi is willing to grant because there are at least three types of settlements and when we speak of the settlements it ought to be clear which type we are referring to: Jerusalem, Along the Green Line, and embedded within the Palestinian population. Defensible borders is another issue. It would still be a major issue if there were not one Jew settled beyond the 1949 Armistice line. When 242 was redacted, there were no settlements nor were there any thoughts of them. Yet 242 clearly speaks of secure borders. "Lord Caradon of the United Kingdom was one of the main sponsors of the resolution. When asked about this debate years later his answer was unequivocally clear "We didn’t say there should be withdrawal to 1967 line; we did not put "the" in, we did not say all the territories deliberately. We knew that the boundaries of 1967 were not drawn as the permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier. We did not say that the 1967 boundaries must be forever". In addition, the withdrawal from territories principal is tied directly to the right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. " http://www.jerusalemonmymind.com/interpratation%20of%20Res%20242.html It ought to be remembered as well, that in 1967, the Palestinian Charter 1964 version was still in force in which it was made clear that it applied NOT to the WB or Gaza but to the territory of 1947-1967 Israel ONLY.

- noga1

May 28, 2011 at 6:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The NYT piece makes perfectly clear, based on the opinions of knowledgeable Israeli military experts, that the 1967 lines are as defensible as anything else. "Defensible borders" is in fact the Likud means of trying to obfuscate its refusal to bargain by conflating the settlements with security. It is a scam. Israel can be defended as well behind the 1967 lines as anywhere else unless the lines are moved so far east that they encompass a large additional Arab population, the demographic outcome that Israel most wants to avoid.

- roidubouloi

May 28, 2011 at 6:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It was Molly who suggested the settlements as a security buffer. My suggestion to read the NYT piece was in direct response. No one has yet to propose any purportedly "defensible borders" apart from the desire to incorporate the settlement blocs. The NYT article makes apparent that no one makes any such proposal as to where to relocate the lines because there is none to make. The concept of "defensible borders" in a factual and military, as opposed to rhetorical, context is completely meaningless. The NYT explains why.

- roidubouloi

May 28, 2011 at 7:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi, I was talking about NY Mag article. But what do the experts say about matters of Palestinians infiltrating borders/shelling. That's my main concern. The further from the population centers, the better. That's really all I care about. I mean, one can't expect completely impermeable borders. That's an impossibility. Sorry if I'm tiring you out. But that's what my argument comes down to. And yes, I completely agree: The bantustanization of the West Bank is completely unacceptable. Though morals aside, I do wonder whether these Israeli enclaves deep into the West Bank have, in some way, helped Israel security. Which doesn't mean they're acceptable. But having an IDF presence there has to have been be of some help. Of course, all that might be nullified by the hostility (and indirectly, terrorism) they incur, the world's anger, etc. Wish there were numbers to look at.

- MOLLYSIMON

May 28, 2011 at 7:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, Roi, I'm talking only about settlements along the green line. And I'm wondering, how many miles in gives Israel enough safety. As for Jerusalem, let it be controlled by Israel. And let as many settlements there flourish as can. I've argued earlier that Arabs "settle" all over Israel, and nobody says boo. Because God forbid footage of IDF taking down illegal housing should make the six o'clock news.

- MOLLYSIMON

May 28, 2011 at 7:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Something here needs to be cleared up: The only justification for Israel's occupation and military government of the Palestinians is self-defense and security, taking full account of the history of repeated war. For that reason, Israel is entitled to continue its occupation until alternative means are agreed upon to assure its security. If there were modifications to the 1949 armistice lines that would render them more defensible, Israel would be justified in insisting upon those. None has ever been proposed that I know of. The only proposals to modify the lines have to do with the settlements, and the proposals do nothing to make the lines more "defensible." Quite the reverse. There is a strong case to be made that Israel can also insist on the Palestinians' abandonment of there claims in Israel, their right of return, as those are the constant causus belli. As well, Israel can insist on the demilitarization of Palestine and practical measure to prevent the import of illegal weaponry. That is all that Israel is entitled to. Resolution 242, by repeating the illegitimacy of "acquisition of territory by force," expresses that Israel may not hold the Palestinians hostage with occupation until the Palestinians concede territory that is not Israel's. It is part of the Arab partition of Palestine. This, however, is precisely what Israel had been trying to to ever since it embarked in earnest on its program of illegal settlement in the West Bank. Under resolution 242, modification of the lines for purposes of security, if indeed there were any plausible such modifications, would be legitimate. Acquisition of territory for or by settlement is not. It is really that simple as the UN and the rest of the world has repeatedly expressed to Israel. The Likud has not been listening and is desperate to avoid having to pay the price for its monumental hubris, stupidity, and greed. Jerusalem is a somewhat different matter. As it was annexed and incorporated in metropolitan Israel, I do not believe that Jewish settlement there violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. It may well violate UNSC resolutions, but that is a somewhat separate matter. As well, Jerusalem was not part of the Arab partition. None-the-less, if Israel does not want to see the city unified and internationalized, as originally contemplated, then it will have to compromise with the Palestinians. If Israel wants to bargain for land that it is not entitled to and cannot legitimately obtain as the price for ending its occupation, it has to offer something that the Palestinians want and cannot gain otherwise. That could include other land that is valuable to them, but all Israel has offered is patches of desert that no one seems to want. It might also include compromise on the right of return by allowing some Palestinian returnees. This has not been offered either, beyond a very token few. If Israel will not bargain for the land it wants -- the settlement blocs -- then it must expect to give the settlements up once the Palestinians are prepared to meet legitimate Israeli demands as to security. The Likud refuses to come to the table to reach a bargain about peace and security because it wants land for peace, not peace for peace as Netanyahu once framed it. It does everything possible to obscure the fact that it seeks to avoid peace in order to hold the settlements.

- roidubouloi

May 28, 2011 at 7:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And I'm wondering, how many miles in gives Israel enough safety." Read the NYT piece, Molly. The answer to this question is "none." Modification of the 1967 lines is quite irrelevant to Israel's defense.

- roidubouloi

May 28, 2011 at 7:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The argument goes that Israel can afford to retreat to 1967 borders because history shows that in the past, when Israel lived with the 1967 borders it was well able to defend itself against the attacking armies. THerefore, having fought a war not of its choice and having managed to push back the attackers and occupy the territory from which they came, it now makes perfect sense that Israel should go back to that primary position of vulnerability because, what do you, she has already proved that she can defend itself within such borders. I'm trying to think of an analogy that would illustrate the absurdity of this argument but I really cannot. Israel, with its history, is expected to give up its position of better safety, greater strategic control over the territory of its enemies, and return, voluntarily, to its precarious earlier position. And all for a pledge of "peace" from the Arabs. And the Arabs? Why, they can attack Israel and be re-assured that if they lose any territory it will be returned to them, intact, as if nothing ever happened. Why should they not attack again, if they stand to lose nothing from such aggression?

- noga1

May 28, 2011 at 8:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That is not the argument at all. That is only the "our best starting point" of the discussion according to the author: Martin Levi van Creveld (born 5 March 1946) is an Israeli military historian and theorist. Van Creveld was born in the Netherlands in the city of Rotterdam, and has lived in Israel since shortly after his birth. He holds degrees from the London School of Economics and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he has been on the faculty since 1971. He is the author of seventeen books on military history and strategy, of which Command in War (1985), Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton (1977, 2nd edition 2004), The Transformation of War (1991), The Sword and the Olive (1998) and The Rise and Decline of the State (1999) are among the best known. Van Creveld has lectured or taught at many strategic institutes in the Western world, including the U.S. Naval War College. Here is is article: http://forward.com/articles/133961/ ____________________________ Here is the core of the argument: "One of the main threats that Israel faces today is from ballistic missiles. Yet everybody knows that holding on to the West Bank won’t help Israel defend itself against missiles coming from Syria or Iran. Even the most extreme hawk would concede this point. As far as the threat of a land invasion, it is of course true that the distance between the former Green Line and the Mediterranean is very small — at its narrowest point, what is sometimes affectionately known as “Old” Israel is just nine miles wide. As was noted before, it is also true that the West Bank comprises the high ground and overlooks Israel’s coastal plain. On the other hand, since the West Bank itself is surrounded by Israel on three sides, anybody who tries to enter it from the east is sticking his head into a noose. To make things worse for a prospective invader, the ascent from the Jordan Valley into the heights of Judea and Samaria is topographically one of the most difficult on earth. Just four roads lead from east to west, all of which are easily blocked by air strikes or by means of precision-guided missiles. To put the icing on the cake, Israeli forces stationed in Jerusalem could quickly cut off the only road connecting the southern portion of the West Bank with its northern section in the event of an armed conflict. The defense of the West Bank by Arab forces would be a truly suicidal enterprise. The late King Hussein understood these facts well. Until 1967 he was careful to keep most of his forces east of the Jordan River. When he momentarily forgot these realities in 1967, it took Israel just three days of fighting to remind him of them. Therefore, just as Israel does not need the West Bank to defend itself against ballistic missiles, it does not need that territory to defend itself against conventional warfare. If it could retain a security presence in the Jordan Valley, keep the eventual Palestinian state demilitarized and maintain control of the relevant airspace, that would all be well and good. However, none of these conditions existed before 1967; in view of geography and the balance of forces, none is really essential today either." His conclusion: "Keeping all these facts in mind — and provided that Israel maintains its military strength and builds a wall to stop suicide bombers — it is crystal-clear that Israel can easily afford to give up the West Bank. Strategically speaking, the risk of doing so is negligible. What is not negligible is the demographic, social, cultural and political challenge that ruling over 2.5 million — nobody knows exactly how many — occupied Palestinians in the West Bank poses. Should Israeli rule over them continue, then the country will definitely turn into what it is already fast becoming: namely, an apartheid state that can only maintain its control by means of repressive secret police actions." ___________________________ A rebuttal would be very interesting. Surely though it requires something more than noga's incredulity, at the very least a suggestion of where "defensible borders" would lie without taking in huge numbers of Palestinians.

- roidubouloi

May 28, 2011 at 9:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would find Van Creveld more credible if he just stuck to the military aspect. But since he chose to mix in the "demographic danger" I began to think his military thinking might be tainted with some non-military concerns and thus undermining his own reasoning. ironyroad mentioned earlier Ehud Barak's miscalculation in Lebanon. Barak allowed non-military considerations to over ride the better cooler policy of withdrawing from Lebanon at a more gradual pace, while making sure Hizzbala doesn't turn it into its victory. But he felt compelled to keep his campaign promise to the Four mothers' organization (to take the army our of Lebanon within the first 6 months of his term) and Israel has been paying for that mistake ever since. If Van Creveld wanted to make a compelling military argument he should not have gone into the business of frightening Israelis with demographics in order to get them to act against their own interests. To me that suggests a political argument, not a military one.

- noga1

May 28, 2011 at 11:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Friedman, is a joker, ok. I know he has his admirers here, but seriously one has to admit that the cheer leader for the "Arab Spring (or is it Springtime for Muslim brothers, hey there may be a musical in there somewhere). Anyhow Friedman has second or third thoughts about this Springtime scenario. In a column titled "Pay Attention" By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Which is probably addressed to himself he lays it out his qualms: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/opinion/29friedmanOpEd.html?_r=1&hp He now wants us to make peace with the generals again. This of that a whole industry of words has grown up around this "Spingtime" for the brothers, the Egyptian economy in ruins, many killed and all for what? For another General to take Mubarak's place if we are lucky.

- arnon

May 28, 2011 at 11:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

as von Clausewitz said, "War is the continuation of policy by other means." No serious military thinker would fail to consider the political context in which war occurs or the political ends to be achieved, or not. van Creveld's credibility is not the issue. He his qualified to make the judgments he does. The question then is whether there is any serious rebuttal. He explains why possession of the West Bank is superfluous to Israel's defense and points out that keeping it presents great dangers. How could he not? If there were no cost, it would present no danger. Is there any rebuttal? So far, none from any quarter.

- roidubouloi

May 28, 2011 at 11:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Strategic depth remains a security concern for Israelis. They won't give it up. Try selling your theories about defensibility and safety to Israelis, not to TNR readers, or Obama lovers, roi. Neither you nor Van Cleveld are doing such a good job.

- noga1

May 29, 2011 at 5:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is a strictly military analysis of defensible borders, including the need for strategic depth (p. 22): http://www.defensibleborders.org/db_amidrorb.pdf

- noga1

May 29, 2011 at 7:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But you don't share the author's conclusions about strategic depth, noga? Can't find them? Exactly as I have already pointed out, the author concludes that to have "strategic depth" to defend against a "conventional attack," meaning armor and self-propelled artillery, Israel would have to defend from a line to the east of the peaks of the Judean Hills. Now look at a map. This is 2/3 of the West Bank. So, is Israel to incorporate 2/3 of the West Bank and its population, almost surely more than 2/3 of the West Bank population? Completely omitted from this learned article is any discussion of the consequences of a demilitarized West Bank and how a conventional attack through the West Bank could be staged. Where, for example, does this army come from? It is not stationed in the West Bank. It cannot in the nature of things be infiltrated in the West Bank (try infiltrating tanks). It has to be east of the Jordan. How does it get across the Jordan? Not many bridges there, easily destroyed from the air. Pontoon bridges? How are those to be defended against air attack? And where is this armored attack massing undetected by Israel? Iraq? Jordan? Nothing happens while an Arab armored column masses for an attack across the Jordan? Israel, particularly if in military control of the Jordan, does not have to deploy there in force by passing over the Judean Hills. It can move into the Jordan River valley much faster from both the area south east of Afula, coming down from the north, or up from the area around the Arava Junction, from the south. Is Israel just sitting doing nothing to deploy along the Jordan while this Arab army masses? We are to believe that somehow this army masses somewhere east of the Jordan, crosses the Jordan, fights its way into the Judean Hills, and then through them through what are, according to van Creveld, four passes before spilling out and enveloping Tel Aviv. Whose army is it anyway? Jordan's? Iraq's? Iran's? Syria's? All of the above? Does this seem even remotely possible? More important, does it seem like a sound reason for incorporating into Israel 2/3 or more of the Arab population of the West Bank? At that point, why not incorporate the whole thing and just put the border at the Jordan, the one-state solution? And if "defensible borders" means locating the border exactly where I too said it needed to be for strictly tactical military purpose, east of the peaks of the Judean Hills, then how is it that Israel keeps proposing borders that don't even remotely resemble this tactical line? How is it that the proposals by Israel incorporate settlement blocs and then snake around amoeba-like to avoid concentrations of Arab population to form a line that is the exact anti-thesis of a "defensible" border? Because Israel itself has no interest in a border that lies to the east of the peaks of the Judean Hills in order to provide the nominally "strategic depth" recited by the author of the article linked by Noga. the very idea in context is absurd. There is no defensible border that does not incorporate most of the population of the West Bank and, if war were looming and armor were massing east of the Jordan, Israel would not be defending itself along its political boundary. It would be defending the Jordan River to which it would have ready access in a demilitarized West Bank. Israel needs to keep conventional forces and missiles out of the West Bank. It does not need a border that it can defend. It needs a West Bank that it can defend. That does not require moving the 1967 lines an inch. For these reasons, apart from the rhetoric of "defensible borders" used to disguise incorporation of the settlement blocs, Israel itself has expressed absolutely no interest whatsoever -- none, zero -- in a border that meets, by itself, without consideration of the overall military context, any definition of defensibility. "Defensible borders" is, as I said, a scam. The sole purpose of this rhetoric is to make it appear, if only one manages not to think about it for more than a minute, that incorporation of the settlement blocs is justified by a security purpose. Not even remotely.

- roidubouloi

May 29, 2011 at 9:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

""Defensible borders" is, as I said, a scam" Indeed. A scam in which the overwhelming majority of Israelis are part of. Protocols of Zion, redux, according to roi.

- noga1

May 29, 2011 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, and before I forget, I wish to say, roi, what a pleasure it is to talk to you. You always bring such an interesting point of view to the discussion. I always learn something new from you.

- noga1

May 29, 2011 at 11:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, you think that because a population buys into self-serving propaganda and political lies that that implies a vast conspiracy? Or that it ceases to be self-serving propaganda and political lies if the population buys it? By that standard, the vilest accusations of anti-Semitic propagandists in the Arab world are just fine as long as "an overwhelming majority of Arabs" are part of it. The absurdity of the "defensible borders" claim is self-evident, particularly when one considers that Israel does not itself propose anything that remotely resemble a military view of what would constitute defensible borders. Just the reverse. It proposes amoeba-like borders that are from a military standpoint a defensive nightmare. The only use to which the claimed need for defensible borders is put is to justify incorporation of settlements with not even a plausible relationship to actual defensibility. It is silly trying to divert attention from the obvious with oblique references to anti-Semitism or the hyperbolic claim that taking note of the absurdity and patent political purpose of the defensive borders claim is tantamount to an accusation of a vast, hidden conspiracy in Israel. Not a vast hidden conspiracy. As I said above, merely garden-variety, self-serving propaganda and political lies. The sort of thing the right-wing serves up all day, every day, both here and in Israel. If it weren't possible, even likely, that a population can easily be persuaded to believe such nonsense, no one would bother trying. Yet we see that populations are persuaded of nonsense all the time. Doesn't mean it isn't objectively nonsense.

- roidubouloi

May 29, 2011 at 11:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you for those kind words, noga. I feel quite the same way about you.

- roidubouloi

May 29, 2011 at 11:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have thought of a better way to formulate the issue of defensible borders. Israel is entitle to secure borders that it can defend without huge risk. However, given the topographic, demographic, technological, and military conditions, that is not achieved by moving the political boundary further east. Quite to the contrary. It is achieved by: (1) the demilitarization of the West Bank, (2) Israeli military control of the Jordan, (3) Israeli control of the airspace, and (4) workable means of preventing the smuggling of illegal arms. These then are the things that Israel is entitled to demand as a condition to ending the occupation by which it presently maintains its security. The location of the political boundary is irrelevant.

- roidubouloi

May 29, 2011 at 11:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You actually know so little about Israel that you believe it is "a population buys into self-serving propaganda"? With a raucous Leftist media, that is propagandizing for the Palestinians, where exactly is that self-serving propaganda you speak of? It is a fact that most Israelis have an intimate, first hand knowledge of Palestinian violence, the results of Oslo, the insecurity of the pre-67 borders, of what it is to actually be in battle and war. That is why they are not so easily swayed by what they read and see in the media. They simply know better. Come to think of it, Israelis are probably a people most resistant to propaganda.

- noga1

May 29, 2011 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Media's shocking discovery: The Israeli Public http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBDnU50AAt0 Fast forward to 2;25

- noga1

May 29, 2011 at 11:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Considering the self-serving fairy tales they have been telling themselves about their colonial adventures is Palestine for several decades now, the notion that Israelis are particularly immune to propaganda is quite laughable. You have a prime minister who announces what he "expects to hear" from the president of the United States; Israel is in a religious dreamworld of its own manufacture. Whatever propaganda feeds the dreamworld narrative is readily scooped up and repeated endlessly even thought it will not stand the barest critical scrutiny. See, e.g., "defensible borders."

- roidubouloi

May 29, 2011 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah yes, the Isreali public. As long as the public demands something, then it is just fine, true, and, need it be said, strategically sound. I believe this is also the claim of Hamas, that the world must accept whatever is the popular will of the inhabitants of Gaza. Ergo, if the Israeli public demands defensible borders and declares that crazy, amoeba-like borders that happen just to embrace the settlement blocs are defensible, well then, they are. Or perhaps what is really meant by defensible borders is, "These are the borders we would like to have and therefore to defend." And of course, Israelis in particular are the first to tell you that propaganda has no impact whatsoever on the popular will. (Well, maybe in other countries, in Arab countries, in Moslem countries, or in Europe, or in the US, or in Russia, or China, or Africa. But certainly not in Israel. Oh no, not there. Whatever the Israeli public believes comes from god, direct.)

- roidubouloi

May 29, 2011 at 1:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The point I was making and that you are trying to subvert is that the Israeli public thinks for itself even though the media is sharply Leftist and pro-Palestinian. It proves that Israelis are actually resistant to fairy tales. I assume by "fairy tales" you mean the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps it is time to scrap that foundational document and replace it with the Palestinian Charter. What do you think?

- noga1

May 29, 2011 at 2:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, I understand. That the entire world believes the settlements illegal and that no one can state a case for their defensive purpose is because all in the world save Israelis are sheep, driven by propaganda, especially those few hundred million backward, uneducated, illiterate, unsophisticated Europeans who have fallen prey to anti-Israel propaganda. That Israelis make claims that mange to justify what is either illegal, preposterous, or both and have to be dragged around by the nose to make the best for themselves of what is inevitably going to occur despite their justifications is the best evidence we have that they are independent thinkers, one and all. But when you insult the Declaration of Independence, by god you go too far!

- roidubouloi

May 29, 2011 at 2:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah yes "The entire world believes" argument. Historically proven to be a sound, decent standard by which to form any country', or anybody's, moral positions.

- noga1

May 29, 2011 at 3:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you for making precisely my point: The fact that the Israeli public has come to believe something is of not much consequence. It certainly does not establish the truth or virtue of any proposition, particularly when there are several orders of magnitude of people in the world who believe otherwise. Nor is it of powerful effect in the world when several orders of magnitude of people in the world believe otherwise. Returning now to reality rather than whatever Israelis have managed to persuade themselves through their great capacity for independent thought and keen observation of their situation: When something is as patently absurd on its face as the notion that defensible borders just happen to embrace the settlement blocs, resort to Israeli public opinion as a guide is as or more absurd. QED

- roidubouloi

May 29, 2011 at 4:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't see how I made you point, roi. In fact I'm not even sure you have a point, except this refrain: "the notion that defensible borders just happen to embrace the settlement blocs". You are proving again how ignorant you are of Israel's history and priorities. I don't see where you get the gall to speak as a supporter of Israel while ignoring the realities that Israelis have had, and will have, to live. Your opinions appeal to Obama's camp. Here is what Barry Rubin writes: "The real headline is: “Netanyahu says pre-1967 borders are indefensible for Israel, but experts wonder if that’s so.” “According to a survey of Jewish Israelis published Wednesday by the Geocartographia Institute, 61% oppose the formula of 1967 borders with land swaps as a basis for an agreement with the Palestinians, while only 27% favor it.” But the Post actually found two “experts” who say it doesn’t matter. One of them seems to be misquoted because what he’s actually saying appears to be the typical Israeli theme that it doesn’t matter so much what we’ll do they’ll attack us anyway. The other is an old personal friend so I won’t say anything more. Let's just say he's a good person and a superb scholar, but no expert on contemporary strategy and known to be very far to the left. The fact that for every one expert who says the 1967 borders are just fine and dandy one could find a hundred who say: What, are you crazy? It’s the same tactic the media uses with American Jews. To add insult to injury, the Washington Post features an op-ed by Fareed Zakaria, who knows nothing about Israel (or the Middle East) entitled, "Where Netanyahu fails himself and Israel." But Zakaria has some fascinating turns of phrase. He says: Bibi is "a man who will be bypassed by history...remembered only as a person before the person who made peace, a comma in history." Actually, if Bibi did listen to the advice of people like Zakaria, Israel would be remembered only as a formerly existing country destroyed by foolish decisions and the betrayal of friends. He adds, "While Bibi might sound like Churchill, he acts like a local ward boss, far more interested in holding onto his post than using it to secure Israel's future." Yeah, right, what does Netanyahu know? Giving up even more territory to a Fatah-Hamas regime in exchange for promises on paper (given the fate of previous ones) is really going to secure Israel's future. Not. By the way, since Zakaria and Tom Friedman are both key advisors to Obama on his policy and the State Department speech, and Friedman called for mass Palestinian protests (along Tahrir Square lines) in Jerusalem, does that mean this is what Obama really thinks? If so, my readers who keep telling me that he wants to destroy Israel might actually be right. Quickly, this reversal of reality becomes the conventional wisdom of the chattering class. Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC even misstates the poll results in claiming that most Israelis support Obama, not Netanyahu, so what's all the "hysteria" about?" http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/ny-timeswashington-post-totally-reverse-israeli-reality-a-must-read/question-1832869/

- noga1

May 29, 2011 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your opinions appeal to Obama's camp. And you feel very comfortable among the nodding heads around here, who agree with every word that comes out of your keyboard, as long as it is about Israeli scammers, land thieves and Jewish colonizers. Let's see you have the guts to talk to some Palestinian supporters, and take a rational position, (not necessarily a pro-Israel one, even though as far they are concerned, any rational position is a pro-Israeli position) and see how far you'll get. Tell them what your solution is, and see what responses you'll get.

- noga1

May 29, 2011 at 5:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is a history of the fairy Tales about defensible borders: http://www.zionismontheweb.org/zionism_commentary/Israel_secure_and_recognised_borders.htm "Allon dismissed claims that in a new era of border-defying technologies, territorial depth had no meaning. “With all the heavy damage that warheads and bombs can inflict,” he wrote, “they alone cannot be decisive in war, as long as the other side is resolved to fight back.” Recent precedents in military history reinforced the lesson: The German air “blitz” did not knock England out of World War II, nor did the heavy Allied air bombardments bring Germany to its knees. This happened only when the last bunker in Berlin fell. Even the massive American air bombardments did not defeat North Vietnam, which, in the final analysis, proved to be the victor in the war. At least as far as conventional wars are concerned, the following basic truth remains: Without an attack by ground forces that physically overrun the country involved, no war can be decisive.15 Allon also called for new Jewish settlements to be built in the territories that would be annexed to Israel in any peace agreement, plus the addition of permanent military bases according to security needs.16 In handwritten explanations of his original defensible borders plan he first presented to the government on July 13, 1967, Allon noted that “Israel’s refraining from establishing settlements… in the territories beyond Israel’s borders can only be interpreted in the rest of the world as if we are reconciling ourselves to giving up these territories…. And this would be the worst option for Israel.”" [--] "IV Though it was never formally adopted by the Israeli government, the Allon Plan and the defensible borders doctrine it represented became the guiding vision through successive Israeli governments between 1967 and 1993. In February 1969, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol was asked if Israel would return to the pre-1967 lines. “The armistice agreements are dead and buried,” he answered. “We don’t want any part of the settled area of the West Bank--Nablus, Jenin, and so on. What we say is that the Jordan River must become a security border for Israel with all that that implies. Our army shall be stationed only on the strip along that border.”20 Defensible borders would also become the strategic baseline for Prime Ministers Golda Meir and her successor Yitzhak Rabin. Meir emphasized the idea while presenting her government in March 1974, immediately following the Yom Kippur War. A peace agreement with its neighbors, she said, “should assure Israel of defensible borders.”21 Rabin, too, would continue the defensible borders tradition begun by Allon, who was Rabin’s commanding officer and mentor. Rabin, who upon becoming prime minister in June 1974 named Allon his foreign minister, would reassert the importance of defensible borders at every opportunity. In February 1975, Rabin was asked on Israeli radio about the idea of a U.S.-Israel defense treaty. Rabin dismissed the idea out of hand: “In our understanding we have always seen the necessity, the need, for the State of Israel to defend itself under its own power. Hence our demand for defensible borders.” Rabin then added: “I would on no account want a situation to be created, which those proposing the defense treaty intend: A substitute for defensible borders.”22" [--] "In sharp contrast to Peres’ enthusiasm for a new, “borderless” Middle East, Rabin never abandoned his commitment to defensible borders as envisioned by Yigal Allon--although he endorsed and actively promoted the Oslo agreement as an interim step.34 In October 1995, in his last Knesset address, seeking approval for the Oslo II interim agreement, Rabin set out his vision of defensible borders: “The borders of the State of Israel during the permanent solution,” Rabin affirmed, “will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the June 4, 1967 lines.”3" [--] "Barak’s final abandonment of the defensible borders doctrine, and the advancement of security arrangements in its stead, whittled down and even delegitimized Israel’s longstanding demands to retain the Jordan Valley and other vital areas in Judea and Samaria in any future negotiation. Moreover, even Israel’s desire to maintain the status quo in the West Bank would be severely compromised by Barak’s far-reaching concessions. Under such conditions, the international community, particularly the Europeans, would feel more empowered to impose a solution on Israel on the basis of the problematic 1949 armistice lines. Israel therefore would be in a much compromised position if it decided to pursue a unilateral option or demand defensible borders in future diplomacy over the West Bank." [--] Israel faces a string of precedents that involve a full Israeli withdrawal to a recognized international boundary: The 1979 peace treaty with Egypt, the withdrawal from Lebanon in the summer of 2000, and Sharon’s own 2005 disengagement plan from the Gaza Strip. Adopting a defensible borders position will entail rejecting such precedents where the West Bank is concerned. It is a position that will be supported by a significant majority of Israelis, but will require strength of heart on the part of Israel’s leaders in the face of major international and Palestinian opposition. "Israel needs defensible borders, particularly in the West Bank, to guarantee a political settlement that will not be undermined by the combination of Israeli vulnerabilities and the hostile intent that is still expressed by several of Israel’s neighbors, including the Palestinians.50 If Israel is to arrive at a solution to the conflict that will end its military presence in Palestinian population centers, provide for the country’s long-term security, and maintain its deterrent capability against aggression from both the future Palestinians state and its Arab neighbors, it will have to take a firm stand with regard to its frontiers. If it does so, Israel will contribute more to the long-term stability of the region than any set of agreements based on security arrangements. Indeed, defensible borders are a vital guarantor of a peace that will be lasting and durable. "

- noga1

May 29, 2011 at 5:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Golden quote: "In February 1975, Rabin was asked on Israeli radio about the idea of a U.S.-Israel defense treaty. Rabin dismissed the idea out of hand: “In our understanding we have always seen the necessity, the need, for the State of Israel to defend itself under its own power. Hence our demand for defensible borders.” Rabin then added: “I would on no account want a situation to be created, which those proposing the defense treaty intend: A substitute for defensible borders.”22" You have to admire Rabin's prescient foresight and insight in how such ideas could and would develop. One can almost hear him groaning in his grave.

- noga1

May 29, 2011 at 6:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a terrific load of nonsense, noga, mostly because you do not appear to understand a word of what you quote. Here, for example: "Prime Minister Levi Eshkol was asked if Israel would return to the pre-1967 lines. “The armistice agreements are dead and buried,” he answered. “We don’t want any part of the settled area of the West Bank--Nablus, Jenin, and so on. What we say is that the Jordan River must become a security border for Israel with all that that implies. Our army shall be stationed only on the strip along that border.” If the West Bank is demilitarized and Israel has military control over the Jordan River, then that is exactly the situation that Eshkol envisioned. He at least understood what is of military significance and what is not. But, far from moving to implement the tactical vision of Eshkol, Israel is now so besotted with the settlements that its bona fide security needs now take second place to the desire to incorporate them. We still hear the words "defensible borders," but under Netanyahu and the Likud the words now mean the opposite of borders that can be defended. Instead, while ritually reciting the words, the Likudniks insist on borders that are indefensible according to any military theory. Netanyahu is a liar and a con man. And even if every Israeli buys his lies, it doesn't mean they are not lies. What Netanyahu is pursuing is the incorporation of the settlement blocs, having nothing to do with defensible borders and even in derogation of defensible borders. No matter how many times and in how many flavors you repeat the two magic words, it does not change the reality. Israel is in exactly the same fraudulent position as the right wingnuts in the US who insist that the danger of deficits demands that we cut taxes for the wealthy. Even if one grants the problem, the proposed solution self-evidently makes matters worse. Thus it becomes obvious that the claimants have no bona fide desire to solve the problem -- in Israel's case, its defense -- they want the so-called solution for other reasons and absurdly raise the legitimate claim as justification. And we, the rest of the world, are all expected to stand around like idiots and simply not notice that the cause and effect are completely backwards. Defensible borders have absolutely nothing to do with incorporating the settlement blocs. The expert whose article you yourself linked explains that a defense line needs to be east of the peaks of the Judean Hills. If Israel is not going to incorporate most of the population of the West Bank into Israel, then the line of defense cannot be the same as the political boundary. And, if they are not to be the same, the Jordan River is a vastly preferable line than anything further west because it brings effective Israeli control right to the border with Jordan. Face it, noga. Everything you yourself cite points at the same conclusion. If defense is the objective, the settlements are not the place to draw the line. And if the line is not to include hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, then that line cannot be the political boundary. Facts are facts. Topography is topography. Demography is destiny. Get used to it. Live in the real world, not the Israeli religious dreamland.

- roidubouloi

May 29, 2011 at 11:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=222666 "Livni criticizes Obama's sequence for peace talks"

- arnon

May 30, 2011 at 12:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, I did indicate in one of my comments here that Livni would react exactly as Netanyahu did, only with cheindalach. There is no Israeli leader who can accept Obama's schematics. All those in the media (Christopher Odonnell, Eliot Spitzer, Fareed Zakaria, Tom Friedman, etc) who pretend to their readers that there is no difference in substance between Obama's formulation and that of previous Administrations are just lying. In the case of Friedman and Zakaria, the lying is consciously done. roi, I think you are unteachable on this subject. Laughably so.

- noga1

May 30, 2011 at 7:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A view from the Israel Right: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israeli-opposition-should-recognize-netanyahu-s-u-s-victory-1.364112 "To my total chagrin, Netanyahu did sketch a clear, though at this stage general, outline of concessions. The gist as I interpret it: The head of the Likud is giving up the heart of the land of our forefathers. And a Palestinian state will arise there. And there will be settlements that will not be inside Israeli territory. And along the Jordan there will be security arrangements and not Israeli sovereignty. Netanyahu's opponents, who prayed that U.S. President Barack Obama would bring him to his knees, are full of frustration at his having succeeded in winning the heart of Congress and moderating the pressure from the White House. Is it any wonder the Palestinians waited for the disappointed reactions in Israel in order to recite them in their entirety"

- noga1

May 30, 2011 at 7:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I keep calling him Christopher but I actually mean Lawrence Odonnell, the very boring and sanctimonious jeremiah from MSNBC. All he needs is to point his index finger at you and stab it in the air for emphasis to compete with OBL's body language.

- noga1

May 30, 2011 at 7:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You think you have something to teach, noga? What ever could that be? That the Isreali negotiating position has been and remains: You give up the right of return and the territory close to the Green Line that we most covet and security control of the Jordan. In exchange you get some patches of desert that you don't want and we don't want and the state to which you are entitled in any case. And then you cannot understand why the Palestinians have refused this deal three times and keep insisting that they are going to any day now, or would if, like Israel, they were sincere about peace rather than actually wanting the land in contention. But it is Israel that wants the land in contention, their land (just ask the UN who gave it to them), more than it wants peace. Or are you trying to teach me that Israelis support this position or that the US Congress does? And so? What you are unable to learn is that what the Israeli public wants, and even what the US Congress approves of, is not in the end going to carry much weight in the world. If the Palestinians play their cards right, they will get a state, Israel will be forced out of the entire West Bank, including off of the Jordan, and the Palestinians will not even have to abandon their claims west of the Green Line, claims they may continue then to pursue in international fora to Israel's detriment. All this because Netanyahu, and Israelis, would rather stand pat, hanging on to the settlement blocs, than try to negotiate their way out of the West Bank and gain some benefit from a waning position before it is too late. Does this refusal have anything to do with "defensible borders?" No, it does not, because Israel is not trying to achieve defensible borders. It is trying to achieve what, by any military doctrine, are indefensible borders that incorporate the settlement blocs. There is nothing else to know, and, surely, despite everything you cite and quote, you have called our attention to nothing. Indeed, everything that you cite and quote is exactly to the effect I describe here. You just don't notice.

- roidubouloi

May 30, 2011 at 8:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"insisting that they are going to accept any day now"

- roidubouloi

May 30, 2011 at 8:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There most certainly is a difference in Obama's formulation and what has gone before. The meaning of Obama's formulation is that, if Israel want to keep land east of the Green Line, it is going to have to "swap," to offer, something that the Palestinians want and will agree to accept in exchange. That is quite different from holding their statehood hostage until they agree to accept the patches of desert that are all Israel wants to offer. Because if there are no mutually agreed upon swaps, then the presumption is withdrawal to the Green Line. This formula will take hold in the world, is taking hold in the world, and will become the basis for Palestinian statehood and increasing pressure on Israel. The US will not forever carry Israel's water to preserve the settlements of which the US has always disapproved even when it was fudging on the question of their legality. This is true no matter high much applause there is in the Congress. As the position of the rest of the world coalesces, the diplomatic price to the US will get too steep to pay for something which is of no interest or concern to the US and of no security value to Israel. As much as Israel tries to wrap the settlements in security claims, with cries and rending of garments about defensible borders, it won't in the end stick because it is objective nonsense and everyone, even the purveyors of the nonsense, knows it. When confronted with the obvious, they, like you, simply try to change the subject to something else: Israeli public opinion, what other Israeli leaders thing, the fact that the Arabs remain implacably hostile, whatever.

- roidubouloi

May 30, 2011 at 8:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You think you have something to teach, noga?" I think so, yes. But you are unteachable. And an expert at baiting, which you mistake for the excellent persuasion of the semi-professional politician.

- noga1

May 30, 2011 at 11:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A few quotes for cheering up the day: "In his recent pronouncements, President Obama is similarly pressuring Israelis to come to terms with Fatah-Hamas who would make refugees or corpses of them. The preemptive cringe is turning into policy, and it’s deadly." http://www.nationalreview.com/david-pryce-jones/268386/preemptive-cringe "Let me put it this way: The Middle East and U.S. policy toward it is heading toward an iceberg. Netanyahu and Israelis generally see the iceberg. Obama, as in his State Department speech, says the weather’s fine and full speed ahead! The iceberg will be arriving during the next few months." http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/ny-timeswashington-post-totally-reverse-israeli-reality-a-must-read/question-1832869/ More, later

- noga1

May 30, 2011 at 12:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jewish colonialism: http://www.rebelyid.com/2011/05/inconvenient-truths-in-the-middle-east/ "The most inconvenient truth of the entire region is a simple look at a map. Israel is such a tiny piece of land in the midst of an Arab sea. Do we really think that making Israel give up any land at all is the single most critical component for peace in the region?" The question I have in mind is this: If Obama wants to roll back history, why stop at 1967? Why not go back to 1947? Or 1922? Or 1919?

- noga1

May 30, 2011 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yup, Israel is headed for an iceberg, as it has been for quite some time. I told you so. I have been telling you what the UN would ultimately do for a long time now only to be accused of hatred of Israel for observing what should have been obvious to any thinking person who can contemplate calmly actions and likely consequences. While kvetching ceaselessly, all Netanyahu and much of Israel can do is just keep paddling in the direction of this iceberg. It is, of course, their view that it is the responsibility of the US to protect Israel from the consequences of its own fecklessness. We shall see. Somehow I think that the US will fare better in the face of the iceberg than will Israel. We have great size, enormous wealth, great power. Israel has only us. Fortunately for Israel, even the Saudis accept the 1967 lines as a fait accompli. Hence, it is not necessary "to roll back history" any further back. Unfortunately for Israel, it has been governed for a very long time by right-wing idiots who have ignored the plain meaning of dozens of UN resolutions, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the settled legal views of almost the entire world, the policy view of the United States regarding settlements, the 1948 partition plan, and pretty much everything else for the sake of their religious mania to reclaim biblical Judea and Samaria. God will provide. The bill for this insanity is coming due and what the Israeli right wants more desperately than anything else, certainly including peace, is to avoid paying it, to avoid be forced to go to the Israeli public and admit that its settlement policy has been a colossal mistake and must be abandoned completely, that all the fantasies about Greater Israel, Lesser Greater Israel, Not so Greater Israel but with Land Swaps were all just that, fantasies. All of these paeans to tiny, democratic Israel, the kvetching, the dueling narratives about whether Netanyahu's trip was a success of a failure, as linked by noga, are completely worthless and of no consequence whatsoever, a tiny distraction from what is important. The iceberg is coming, the momentum is becoming unstoppable, and Israel will be the loser for the inability of the Likud to pry its dead hand from the settlements. Israel cannot get it through its head that it is barely more than dust in the international system and that if it insists on laying itself athwart the movement of much larger forces it will be ground to dust. The grandiosity is both breathtaking and tragic. Zakaria is absolutely right. Netanyahu is but a comma in history. He will have no legacy but failure because he is the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time, a clod who cannot see past his own nose. And then of course there are those self-proclaimed independent thinkers who support this clod, some of them right here at TNR.

- roidubouloi

May 30, 2011 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Zakaria is absolutely right. Netanyahu is but a comma in history." I don't see Netanyahu tossing and turning worrying about what punctuation sign he will be assigned in Zakariah's history book. He has already garnered his respectable place in Israel's annuls when he was finance minister. But Zakariah understands such matters. As an informal Obama advisor, he must know how important that punctuation sign is for Obama: "Members of the Royal Society in the United Kingdom stated yesterday that President Barack Obama was obsessed with his perception of "street cred" and that he intentionally avoids things to keep it high. This comes after Mr. Obama snubbed the group, an organization of world-leading scientists, when they planned on awarding him the King Charles II medal. The medal is given out only in "extraordinary circumstances" to leaders who "made an outstanding contribution to furthering scientific research in their country." Sources also stated that the group was "deeply offended." According to a source in the British government: “The Royal Society was really keen to do something with Obama and they expected him to be very honoured by the medal. Instead they received a very short response from his people saying that it would be better for him to visit a state school. The inference they took from that was that he was more interested in cultivating his street cred than in building links with British scientists.”"

- noga1

May 30, 2011 at 3:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=222765 "There was recently a violent demonstration at the Israeli Embassy in Cairo. The protesters set fire to an Israeli flag and demanded that the Israeli ambassador be expelled. They attempted to storm the embassy; 185 people were arrested, 18 police were injured. The demonstration was organized on Facebook by the April 6 Youth Movement – the same “moderate” and “democratic” group so highly praised in the West for “leading” the Egyptian revolution. Asmaa Mahfouz is a leader of the movement. In fact, she claims that she personally began the revolution with a video calling for demonstrations. Now, Mahfouz is trying to launch a new revolution against the military rulers. One of the reasons she’s protesting the transitional military regime is that the army protected the Israeli Embassy from being seized by the demonstrators. President Barack Obama believes these people are the hope for the future, and backs them 100 percent." [--] "Former deputy head of Egypt’s Court of Appeals Judge Mahmoud al-Khodheiri gave an interview on Al Jazeera and said: “We should stop exporting natural gas to Israel. I consider the export of gas to Israel an act of treason, and we should stop it. I salute the people who bombed the gas pipe, because this is my blood that is being transferred to my enemy.” A man who’s been a high-ranking judge salutes terrorists who blow up a pipeline. Yet judges are supposed to uphold the rule of law. If a judge can cheer those who blow things up, that opens the door to supporting other acts of lawless violence. Wherever Khodheiri draws the line, others will find justification for mayhem. Attack Christians? Kill Jews? Assassinate secularists or government officials? Once lawlessness is rationalized as absolute right, there are no limits. A former high-ranking judge calls for ignoring a legal contract. Of course, he could call for renegotiating the contract through legal channels, but that isn’t what he did. So the acceptable response to an agreement where you aren’t currently gaining an advantage is violent, unilateral abrogation. What does this tell us about other agreements/contracts that Israel might make with Arab neighbors or the Palestinians? Israel is an enemy. Despite a peace treaty signed 33 years ago, most Egyptians regard this as a temporary truce."

- noga1

May 30, 2011 at 4:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And you continue your colonization of the Arabs. Some peace.

- roidubouloi

May 30, 2011 at 4:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And you continue your colonization of the Arabs. " http://www.rebelyid.com/wp-content/uploads/mideast.jpg

- noga1

May 30, 2011 at 5:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, where exactly does Obama push Israel into dealing with Hamas? Quoting him directly, he has said: "Hamas, in its own description of its agenda, has not renounced violence and has not recognized the state of Israel,” the president said. “Until they do, it is very difficult to expect Israelis to have a serious conversation.” “We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel’s right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements,” Obama said. "In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel – how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse." "I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. And we will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace, including recognizing Israel’s right to exist and rejecting violence and adhering to all existing agreements. And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years." "For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist."

- MOLLYSIMON

May 30, 2011 at 7:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi, I'm still not getting you. Perhaps you don't care to get into particulars, here. But I keep wondering how you answer the fact that Gaza was blockaded, there is a wall surrounding Gaza, the Egyptian border was closed, and yet the shelling continued. So, you say, this can be stopped by Israeli IDF at the border. So let's say Israel gets rid of the bantustan of settlements (very much like that characterization), do you still see IDF anywhere else in the West Bank post this never-to-happen agreement? Or do you say that IDF at Jordan is enough? Your specifics aren't clear to me, but the specifics are what Israel needs to hear, I think, to feel assured of their security. And I have to say, that the "security" defense for colonizing is not entirely false. That does not mean settlements should be kept deep within the West Bank, but denying that reality seems naive, at least to me. You have settlements, you have an IDF presence, and you think that has nothing to do with the fact that the West Bank has done little to no suicide bombing/murdering in the past six or seven years? This does not mean I think they're moral, but I really do think you discount too easily Israeli fears for their security. And it's what makes it difficult for me to swallow your entire argument. For me, in an argument, I think it's OK to acknowledge that the other side has points, and beyond just a, "To be sure . . . " argument. Finally, if you think that Israel made a mistake by taking its IDF out of Gaza, then do you support the idea that some occupation forces, not just in the Jordan, may be necessary in this peace? If not them, then you need NATO. Who would trust the Arabs, at this point? Especially if they've now embraced Hamas. Also,

- MOLLYSIMON

May 30, 2011 at 7:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also, Roi, whatever Obama says, a peace agreement may not be so quick to happen. We're also dealing here with the US congress, who gave Benny a standing ovation. Too many Jewish voters in California, New York, and Florida for congress to go along any time soon. So long-term, you could be right. World isolation could make it impossible for Israel to continue on as it is. But my theory differs from yours: I think Israel is grabbing as much as it can before it's forced to stop. Netanyahu isn't a complete moron. He knows there's going to be a day of reckoning. He's just taking what he can while he can.

- MOLLYSIMON

May 30, 2011 at 7:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I infer from noga's last post that, if ethnic cleansing and/or apartheid were not in reality the Zionist plan from the start, they have since become so, at least if one considers Netanyahu and the rest of the Likud to be Zionists. I don't consider them Zionists because Zionism as I understand it had an ethical foundation that is missing from the Israeli rightwing. But I suppose they would consider themselves to be Zionists.

- roidubouloi

May 30, 2011 at 7:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly, Netanyahu is certainly grabbing what he can before he is forced to stop, but his gamble is that he will only be forced to stop, not to yield more than he would have been willing to give up. I think it is a bad gamble. The movement of worldwide political forces can be ponderously slow. There is tremendous inertia. But there is movement. And the flipside of the inertia is momentum. Once the isolation of Israel and the US on these issues is fairly complete and the world summons the will to sanction Israel in order to force it to yield (something that really does not require US cooperation unless Israel can sustain itself with US trade alone), I don't think it will stop conveniently at the lines that Israel would like. Jerusalem is at risk. The creation of a Palestinian right of return is a risk. Defensibility of Israel's borders, for real not in the pretend version that Netanyahu plays, is at risk. To my mind, it is a very, very bad gamble. If the settlements were incorporated into Israel, no tactical problem is solved, because then the IDF is still absent outside the settlements and they are hard to defend. The settlements offer no protection from the theoretical invasion of a conventional force from the east. Nor do they offer any protection from missile attacks. From a military standpoint, they are strictly a liability. I have expressed here many times my astonishment that Sharon took the IDF out of Gaza at the same time as the settlements. I find it unfathomable although there was one story that Condoleeza Rice insisted and Sharon gave in. At the very least, I don't know why Israel did not maintain control of the Philadelphia Corridor. The result has been the smuggling of large numbers of rockets or materials for their manufacture. Some military roads near to the Jordan connecting the Galilee to the Dead Sea region together with some prepared defensive positions and guards are I think more than sufficient together with satellite scrutiny to make a conventional invasion from the east impossible. I think that control of the Jordan and a limited number of crossing points can make it extremely difficult to import war materiel, and if Israel left the settlement blocs in Palestine and made Palestinian Jerusalem an enclave, there would be permanent hostages for Palestinian good behavior. The consequences of another war after peace would be the annexation of the settlements by force and the exclusion of the Palestinians from Jerusalem. The critical point is the manning to the crossing points. As to this, I think there should be Israeli participation, but if the effort is not also internationalized, I think it would be a point of endless provocation. One should also bear in mind that the Gaza border with Egypt is a long way from Cairo and that the Jordanian regime has every incentive to prevent smuggling, incentives not quite there in the case of Egypt. A war in the West Bank could easily spill over into Jordan, with Amman not far away, and any such war always has the the potential to de-stabilize the Jordanian regime. Remember, Jordan had to put down Black September. For all those reasons, I think there is a greater likelihood of successfully interdicted arms smuggling along the Jordan. Indeed, if the control of crossings were internationalized, I don't think it is impossible that inspections could be conducted in Jordanian territory rather than on nominally Palestinian territory.

- roidubouloi

May 30, 2011 at 8:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga also makes clear with her last post that she, like the Likud, prefers the settlements to peace, the abandonment of Palestinian claims west of the Green Line, and the establishment for Israel of internationally recognized borders, the cleaning out of the nest of missiles in Lebanaon, and the firm alignment of the Arabs alongside the west to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. Thus, we see that defense and security really are fairly low priorities for Israel. Greed for land is first, second, and third, and the pretense has worn completely bare. The world is largely deaf to Israel's security claims as it has cried wolf far to often to be taken seriously.

- roidubouloi

May 30, 2011 at 8:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I infer from noga's last post that, if ethnic cleansing and/or apartheid were not in reality the Zionist plan from the start, they have since become so," Noga's last post: [quoting roi] "And you continue your colonization of the Arabs. " http://www.rebelyid.com/wp-content/uploads/mideast.jpg ______ AS for "I don't consider them Zionists because Zionism as I understand it had an ethical foundation that is missing from the Israeli rightwing." I'm always puzzled by this kind of reference to Zionism. Zionism was the national movement to establish a Jewish state in the land of Israel. When Israel was established, "Zionism" per se no longer existed. When Israelis speak of Zionism, they mean patriotism, no more no less. And that patriotism can have many aspects. The way Obama's patriotism is different from Palin's patriotism. But they both share in the core tenets of their country. Right wing Israeli patriotism is hawkish, unapologetic, insistent. Left wing Israeli patriotism is dovish, and self-effacing. But they both share the basic value of Israel, which ought to be defensible and democratic. (not speaking of those wild fringes who will cancel the Jewish state in favour of a "bi-national one). roi, the expert baiter, now deigns to decide for Israelis who is or is not patriotic. Next he will be telling us who is a Jew and who is not a Jew.

- noga1

May 30, 2011 at 8:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is, again, the history of the Israel's defensible borders doctrine, the one that roi tries to attribute to Netanyahu's two-years premiership: http://www.zionismontheweb.org/zionism_commentary/Israel_secure_and_reco... Key quote: "In February 1975, Rabin was asked on Israeli radio about the idea of a U.S.-Israel defense treaty. Rabin dismissed the idea out of hand: “In our understanding we have always seen the necessity, the need, for the State of Israel to defend itself under its own power. Hence our demand for defensible borders.” Rabin then added: “I would on no account want a situation to be created, which those proposing the defense treaty intend: A substitute for defensible borders.”22" Obama's guarrantees are not even a defense treaty and yet he expects Israel to substitute them for defensible borders. Anyone who is genuinely interested in the issue ought to read this paper and maybe continue to research the topic further. One thing will emerge with clarity: roi's slander of Israel's position as a Right wing-scam, developed in the last two years, is based on nothing more substantial than his own demon-ridden mind.

- noga1

May 30, 2011 at 8:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Additional perspectives, here: http://www.defensibleborders.org/ "The idea of defensible borders has been at the heart of the Israeli national consensus for years. In fact, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin laid this out in his last Knesset address in October 1995 – just one month before he was assassinated. Rabin insisted that: "The border of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War." He emphasized: "We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines." Specifically, he noted "the security border of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term." He concluded that Israel must retain "a united Jerusalem" and the settlement blocs of the West Bank. Rabin reflected the views of most Israeli leaders that defensible borders are the key to a durable peace in a volatile Middle East."

- noga1

May 30, 2011 at 8:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More history: "Israel: The Case for Defensible Borders / Ygal Allon, 1976 Summary: "It is impossible to plumb the depths of the Arab-Israeli conflict, not to speak of formulating proposals for its solution, if no true understanding exists of the full significance of its cardinal characteristic-the extreme asymmetry of its two sides. This asymmetry is manifest not merely in one or two, but in all, of its aspects. It is obvious in such objective data as the comparison between Arab and Israeli territories (of the Arab League states 8,500,000 square miles; of Israel, including presently administered areas, about 28,500); or of the relative population statistics (of the Arab League states 134,000,000; of Israel 3,500,000 citizens); not to mention their contrasting actual and potential wealth." Yigal Allon has been Israel's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs since 1974, and a member of the Cabinet since 1961. He was Commander of the Palmach, the striking force of the Haganah before the establishment of the State, and during the War of Independence he commanded successively Israel army operations in Eastern Galilee and on the central and southern fronts.

- noga1

May 30, 2011 at 8:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.jcpa.org/text/security/executive_summary.pdf "Defensible Borders to Secure Israel’s Future Maj.-Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan It is commonly misunderstood just how vulnerable Israel actually i ƒƒ s. Some 70 percent of its population and 80 percent of its industrial capacity are concentrated in the narrow coastal strip between the Mediterranean Sea and the West Bank. The adjacent West Bank hills topographically dominate the relatively flat and exposed coastal plain, providing a distinct advantage to an attacker for observation, fire, and defense from an Israeli ground response. ƒƒ If the West Bank were to fall into hostile hands, the resulting situation would pose a constant threat to Israel’s national infrastructure, including Ben-Gurion International Airport, the Trans-Israel Highway toll road, Israel’s National Water Carrier, and its high-voltage electric power lines. ƒƒ By its presence along the eastern perimeter of the West Bank in the Jordan Valley and the Judean Desert, Israel has been able to prevent weapons smuggling and the infiltration of hostile forces. Indeed, one of the most important preconditions of a successful counterinsurgency or counter-terrorism strategy is isolating the area of conflict in order to cut off any reinforcement of hostile forces with manpower and material. ƒƒ The entire Jordan Rift Valley constitutes a natural physical barrier against attack that averages between 3,000 to 4,600 feet. There are only five east-west passes through which an attacking army can move, each of which can be defended with relative ease. For this reason, the Jordan Valley has been viewed as the front line for Israel’s defense in an extremely uncertain Middle East. ƒƒ The advent of ballistic missiles and rockets has increased the importance of terrain and strategic depth for Israel, since its small standing army may have to fight for longer periods of time without reinforcements from the reserve forces, whose timely arrival may be delayed or prevented by rocket fire. Israel’s standing army may also have to operate for a considerable period of time without major assistance from the air force, which may be busy destroying the air defense systems of enemy states and suppressing ballistic missile launches aimed at Israeli cities."

- noga1

May 30, 2011 at 9:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, the problem with quoting Rabin is that he's been dead for 15 years. In that 15 years, the settlements have grown exponentially. Because he's no longer alive, we have no way of knowing what he would say today.

- MOLLYSIMON

May 30, 2011 at 9:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't attribute the defensible borders doctrine to Netanyahu. The special contribution of Netanyahu, the con man, is to turn into into a fraud and its own antithesis by abandoning any authentic notion of defensibility for incorporation of the settlement blocs. He claims this has something to do with defensible borders, but it is a simply a land grab as, by any military doctrine, the amoeba-like borders that Netanyahu wants in order to include settlements and exclude Arabs are indefensible. Netanyahu is a shameless liar. About defensible borders as about anything and everything else. _______________________ Now, as to the noga-isms of the day, first we read that at the founding of the State of Israel, Zionism ceased to exist. I suppose this then explains why the Zionist doctrine toward the Arabs has been extinguished in favor of ethnic cleansing and apartheid domination. The answer, according to noga, is that there is no Zionism in the modern world. Hence, we cannot lay these perversions at its feet. Alternatively, noga with her map is telling us that ethnic cleansing and apartheid are acceptable because the Arabs have so much land and the Jews so little. Hence, we can infer, expelling them from a piece of it or subjecting them to apartheid government there should not trouble us. It is nice to see noga out of the closet at last. One could always catch glimpses of apology for ethnic cleansing, colonization, and apartheid at the edges, but with a lot of obfuscation. Now she is frank in urging us to tolerate these things on the grounds that there is such a small portion of Moslem land and population so to be subjugated. As to defensible borders, it is remarkable that noga can link and quote all of these articles seemingly without ever reading them or, if she is reading them, without understanding a word in them. For example, she quotes Maj. Gen. Dayan saying this: "By its presence along the eastern perimeter of the West Bank in the Jordan Valley and the Judean Desert, Israel has been able to prevent weapons smuggling and the infiltration of hostile forces. Indeed, one of the most important preconditions of a successful counterinsurgency or counter-terrorism strategy is isolating the area of conflict in order to cut off any reinforcement of hostile forces with manpower and material. The entire Jordan Rift Valley constitutes a natural physical barrier against attack that averages between 3,000 to 4,600 feet. There are only five east-west passes through which an attacking army can move, each of which can be defended with relative ease. For this reason, the Jordan Valley has been viewed as the front line for Israel’s defense in an extremely uncertain Middle East." Rabin said the same thing as far as defensible borders, quoted by noga above: "the security border of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term." Note, Rabin did not say the political border of Israel will be located there, but that its "security border" will be located there. The establishment of Israeli military control over the Jordan has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a political border that departs from the Green Line in order to incorporate the settlement blocs. Those are not in the Jordan Rift Valley. Indeed, they are on the opposite, western slope of the Judean Hills. This is how Netanyahu, like noga, plays his bait and switch. Defensible borders are invoked. All of the military experts agree that, if this doctrine means anything, it means that the Jordan must be under Israeli control (leaving aside whether this is achievable politically at this late date). Then, all of a sudden, they are talking about incorporating the settlement blocs that have absolutely nothing to do with control of the Jordan. Because the defensible borders doctrine has been turned into a patent fraud by the Likud, Israel's security claims have lost all credibility. Here again we see that real security is sacrificed by the Likud in favor of the greed for land. The Likud desires neither peace nor security. It wants the Arabs' land. As it cannot have the land and peace too, it chooses not to make peace.

- roidubouloi

May 30, 2011 at 9:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The settlements around Jerusalem and along the Green Line grew a lot. I see no reason why they shouldn't. Do you? The "thickening" of the Green Line has always been a security priority. And it seems, from a nationalist and historical point of view, that Jews have a right to reside in and around Jerusalem if they so desire. BTW, only recently I learned that lands in Samaria, Judea and Gaza was purchased by, among others, Iraqi Jews before 1947. That's apart from the land and property they lost when they were expelled, or escaped, from Iraq. That's apart from centuries-long Jewish ownership of land in Hebron, which ended with the massacres. I actually knew a woman who was a child who grew up in Hebron and was forced to flee with her family to Jerusalem. And then was forced again to leave her home with the evacuation of all Jews from the Jordanian part of the city in 1947. Her name was Turjeman, which is a traditional Sephardic name meaning: translator. I knew her daughter who was politically very hawkish. She is one of those Likkud scammers roi speaks about, btw. Her mother, too, was a scammer when she was still alive.

- noga1

May 30, 2011 at 9:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Right here we see on display what a perfect diplomatic and security disaster the settlements are: The Likud gambit has been to try and wrap the illegal settlements in Israel's security claims so to legitimize them. The effect, as one would expect, has not been to legitimize the illegal settlements, but to delegitimize Israel's security claims and drain them of credibility. Israel wants the status of its demographic changes in Jerusalem to be regarded by the world as distinct from its settlements. But as Israel has settled where it has annexed and settled, quite indiscriminately, where it has not, there is no reason now for the world to regard Jerusalem as different. Thus, the settlements have delegitimized Israel's claims in Jerusalem. Right above, noga explains that the historic presence of Jews in the West Bank, including those who actually were forced out of their homes during the war of independence, justifies their settlement there now. She seems not to notice that these same arguments justify the return of Palestinians who were not just living west of the Green Line historically but actually fled or were forced out during the war. Thus, the claims made in favor of the legitimacy of the settlements serve to legitimize the Palestinian right of return. Even the Palestinians don't claim that they have the right to return to Israel and have areas in which they may then be a majority secede from Israel. They have accepted the Green Line as the border even though it gives them less than the 1948 UN partition plan. Israel on the other hand doesn't merely claim a right of return east of the Green Line, but the right then to claim the land on which the returnees reside. How can anyone other than an Israeli or a right-wing nut supporter of Israel possibly believe that this agenda is going to succeed?

- roidubouloi

May 30, 2011 at 10:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The settlements around Jerusalem and along the Green Line grew a lot. I see no reason why they shouldn't. Do you?" The Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is signatory, UNSC resolution 242, endless other UNSC resolutions, the Oslo accords, the Road Map, the virtually unanimous opinion of the world as to their illegality (including the Israeli judge on the International Court of Justice), the repeatedly expressed views of Israel's patron, the United States. And if that isn't enough, how about common sense?

- roidubouloi

May 30, 2011 at 10:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2011/05/dare-to-leave-palestinians-alone.html "Dare to Leave the Palestinians Alone"

- arnon

May 31, 2011 at 12:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"My position, to be clear, is that Israel needs to end as much of the occupation as possible, by moving out of the West Bank till the security fence," That's the plan, I believe. But as this doesn't spell the end to the occupation as Palestinians see it, it won't lead to any relief from the Palestinian, and the "International Community"s, hostilities. Israel's final borders with Palestine will run somewhere between the Security Barrier and the Green Line.

- noga1

May 31, 2011 at 7:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Israel's final border with Palestine will be the Green Line with some form of condominium in Jerusalem. Count on it. Here is a very thoughtful piece by someone who spends a lot of time thinking about such issues explaining why Israel is safer in the 1949 lines, even without any consideration of security control of the Jordan that would, combined with an independent Palestine, give Israel as secure a strategic posture as can be achieved without the true end of hostility. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110530-israels-borders-and-national-security?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110531&utm_content=readmore&elq=3988e809bc694b0484c8786afa4f1fa2 ____________________________ Here is a program for obtaining a peace settlement or, failing that, leaving Israel in the most secure and sustainable posture. All negotiating positions should be taken in the expectation that the negotiations may fail and Israel will want to disclose its final position and be able to gain diplomatically from the disclosure and from the substance. 1. Declare that Israel has reconsidered its position on construction in the settlements and will suspend all construction during the pendency of good faith negotiations for a final settlement of all outstanding issues. Do NOT condition this on the Palestinians doing anything, including agreeing not to go to the UN. Do NOT condition this on any compensation from the US. Rather, declare that, despite the hardship caused for Israel, it is considered that the wisest course is to give American diplomacy the greatest possible opportunity to bear fruit. This creates enormous goodwill in the US, very important for the course of events, and forces the Palestinians to the table. 2. Israel’s key negotiating position should be: a. the offer of the Green Line as the political boundary with a condominium in Jerusalem (maintained as both an open city and an enclave within Israel). There will have to be negotiated limits on residence permits throughout the city. This solves the problem of keeping Jerusalem united and open while allowing Israel to maintain security. It also holds Jerusalem hostage to future good behavior on the part of the Palestinians. They go to war again, they lose Jerusalem immediately; b. a sovereign Israeli enclave in Hebron to mirror that in Jerusalem; c. in the alternative, for an agreed upon population of Jewish settlers to remain in Palestine in settlements of Israel’s choosing with an equal number of Palestinians allowed to return west of the Green Line OR the complete withdrawal of the settlements in exchange for the complete abandonment of Palestinian claims west of the Green Line with no compensation from Israel. (This puts the burden on the Palestinians to walk away from both the border they claim and achievement of a significant right of return, much more than symbolic.); d. Israeli military control over the Jordan and the airspace to the west of the Jordan. Israel can point to the Philadelphia corridor and the smuggling of rockets as the reason why it will never make the same mistake again, further withdrawal to be the subject of future negotiations after a period of sustained peace. 3. If the negotiations fail, Israel should withdraw unilaterally to the security barrier in the west and to a defensive position along the Jordan in the east and commence densely to populate the area between the Green Line and the security barrier. It should vacate the area in between the barrier and the Jordan in stages, but not scattershot. Whole contiguous areas should be vacated at one time so that contiguous Palestine in the West Bank can be created as quickly as possible. The Israeli security presence should be maintained, as minimally as possible, until the withdrawal is complete. 4. At all times Israel should remain and noisily declare itself to be open to cooperation and do what it can to nurture the economy of the West Bank and minimize security burdens on the residents. 5. If Palestine does go to the UN and is recognized there as a state, Israel should immediately recognize it too, while rejecting unilateral Palestinian border claims and noting that the major issues left unresolved at Oslo must still be negotiated between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine. Germany was still a state although occupied after WWII, as was Japan. Statehood does not automatically end the occupation although, politically, it puts it on the clock. 6. Israel should refuse to discuss anything at all regarding Gaza until Hamas, like the PA, recognizes Israel and publicly abandons its violence and its goal of destroying Israel. Nothing. Just don’t negotiate about it. Treat Gaza and the West Bank as separate countries. This program has the necessary elements for a successful negotiation. It has both carrots and sticks. If the Palestinians spurn Israeli offers that will allow them to achieve the borders they want, a significant right of return, and sovereignty within Jerusalem, then they face the alternative of de facto, and ultimately de jure, Israeli annexation west of the security barrier, no part of Jerusalem, and indefinite Israeli control of the Jordan anyway. For Israel, this is a far more sustainable posture because it is out of the business of governing Palestinians, maintains what is critical for security, and withholds things that can still be given later in exchange for peace: Jerusalem, a land bridge to Gaza, some concession (albeit smaller) on the right of return, and return of the political border to the Green Line. Of course, to achieve peace and the final concession of the right of return, Israel must be willing to give up the settlements. Their chief value is indeed as a bargaining chip to obtain other things that Israel wants. As it is unlikely that they can be maintained in the absence of peace and in the face of world pressure that will only grow, better to get as much as possible for them while Israel can.

- roidubouloi

May 31, 2011 at 9:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is a program for obtaining a peace settlement or, failing that, leaving Israel in the most secure and sustainable posture. All negotiating positions should be taken in the expectation that the negotiations may fail and Israel will want to disclose its final position and be able to gain diplomatically from the disclosure and from the substance. 1. Declare that Israel has reconsidered its position on construction in the settlements and will suspend all construction during the pendency of good faith negotiations for a final settlement of all outstanding issues. Do NOT condition this on the Palestinians doing anything, including agreeing not to go to the UN. Do NOT condition this on any compensation from the US. Rather, declare that, despite the hardship caused for Israel, it is considered that the wisest course is to give American diplomacy the greatest possible opportunity to bear fruit. This creates enormous goodwill in the US, very important for the course of events, and forces the Palestinians to the table. 2. Israel’s key negotiating position should be: a. the offer of the Green Line as the political boundary with a condominium in Jerusalem (maintained as both an open city and an enclave within Israel). There will have to be negotiated limits on residence permits throughout the city. This solves the problem of keeping Jerusalem united and open while allowing Israel to maintain security. It also holds Jerusalem hostage to future good behavior on the part of the Palestinians. They go to war again, they lose Jerusalem immediately; b. a sovereign Israeli enclave in Hebron to mirror that in Jerusalem; c. in the alternative, for an agreed upon population of Jewish settlers to remain in Palestine in settlements of Israel’s choosing with an equal number of Palestinians allowed to return west of the Green Line OR the complete withdrawal of the settlements in exchange for the complete abandonment of Palestinian claims west of the Green Line with no compensation from Israel. (This puts the burden on the Palestinians to walk away from both the border they claim and achievement of a significant right of return, much more than symbolic.); d. Israeli military control over the Jordan and the airspace to the west of the Jordan. Israel can point to the Philadelphia corridor and the smuggling of rockets as the reason why it will never make the same mistake again, further withdrawal to be the subject of future negotiations after a period of sustained peace. 3. If the negotiations fail, Israel should withdraw unilaterally to the security barrier in the west and to a defensive position along the Jordan in the east and commence densely to populate the area between the Green Line and the security barrier. It should vacate the area in between the barrier and the Jordan in stages, but not scattershot. Whole contiguous areas should be vacated at one time so that contiguous Palestine in the West Bank can be created as quickly as possible. The Israeli security presence should be maintained, as minimally as possible, until the withdrawal is complete. 4. At all times Israel should remain and noisily declare itself to be open to cooperation and do what it can to nurture the economy of the West Bank and minimize security burdens on the residents. 5. If Palestine does go to the UN and is recognized there as a state, Israel should immediately recognize it too, while rejecting unilateral Palestinian border claims and noting that the major issues left unresolved at Oslo must still be negotiated between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine. Germany was still a state although occupied after WWII, as was Japan. Statehood does not automatically end the occupation although, politically, it puts it on the clock. 6. Israel should refuse to discuss anything at all regarding Gaza until Hamas, like the PA, recognizes Israel and publicly abandons its violence and its goal of destroying Israel. Nothing. Just don’t negotiate about it. Treat Gaza and the West Bank as separate countries. This program has the necessary elements for a successful negotiation. It has both carrots and sticks. If the Palestinians spurn Israeli offers that will allow them to achieve the borders they want, a significant right of return, and sovereignty within Jerusalem, then they face the alternative of de facto, and ultimately de jure, Israeli annexation west of the security barrier, no part of Jerusalem, and indefinite Israeli control of the Jordan anyway. For Israel, this is a far more sustainable posture because it is out of the business of governing Palestinians, maintains what is critical for security, and withholds things that can still be given later in exchange for peace: Jerusalem, a land bridge to Gaza, some concession (albeit smaller) on the right of return, and return of the political border to the Green Line. Of course, to achieve peace and the final concession of the right of return, Israel must be willing to give up the settlements. Their chief value is indeed as a bargaining chip to obtain other things that Israel wants. As it is unlikely that they can be maintained in the absence of peace and in the face of world pressure that will only grow, better to get as much as possible for them while Israel can.

- roidubouloi

May 31, 2011 at 9:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Although it truncated the post, the link in my 9:54 am post appears to work. This is a very good piece. Everyone should read it.

- roidubouloi

May 31, 2011 at 9:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...On the eve of the Libyan revolution of 2011, a blogger asked whether a liberated Libya would recognize the right of return of the Libyan Jews. The rebel responded, “You should ask whether the original inhabitants will allow us to remain.” He then explained that Libya’s original inhabitants were the Berbers and Jews. ..." [from another Oh Canada! moment]http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4409&Itemid=53

- K2K

May 31, 2011 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why would Jews wish to go back to live in an Arab country?

- noga1

May 31, 2011 at 2:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It seems that quite a few of them chose to move to Arab Palestine, although apparently they didn't consider it a country. I suppose that explains the dismay at the belated discovery that it is, and will likely soon be a state too.

- roidubouloi

May 31, 2011 at 5:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

June 1 2011 WSJ FOUAD AJAMI: "The U.N. Can't Deliver a Palestinian State " you can access full text through google.com Very thoughtful. I had no idea that the ancient Jewish quarter of Beirut is now a Hezbollah stronghold. The intolerance of political islam knows no boundaries.

- K2K

June 1, 2011 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64JIgs5C6k&feature=player_embedded

- noga1

June 1, 2011 at 6:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close