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 Abbas Does Not Want to Negotiate with Israel; He Demands...

THE SPINE JULY 19, 2010

Abbas Does Not Want to Negotiate with Israel; He Demands That Israel Concede

BY MARTIN PERETZ

It is as clear as daylight, and my particular information with all the caveats and special emphases comes from the most respectable pro- Palestinian journalist there is.  His name is Tobias Buck and he writes for the Financial Times where every piece published about the Jewish state--whose capital, in case you didn't know, is Tel Aviv--is jaundiced.  Jaundiced as in exhibiting distaste and hostility.

Buck has a story in today's FT about the state of the talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.  They are, as I've been suggesting for months they would be, going nowhere.  George Mitchell hasn't even been doing much shuttling between Jerusalem and Ramallah where the established government and the proto-government are actually located.  (Perhaps this is a prophecy of where the functional Palestinian seat of government  will be since Jerusalem is--how shall we say?--already quite full of official buildings.  I am sure, however, that any Israeli politician would make room for lots of Palestinian flags, especially, let's say, on the temple mount.  This is not a joke.)

Anyway, Israel has made it clear again and again that it is if not positively eager it is surely ready for direct and open talks.  The P.A. wanted remote negotiations, and George Mitchell obliged it with the hocus pocus of proximity talks.  For nearly a hundred years this has been the preferred formula for Arab-Jewish attempts to solve their disputes.  Surprise: it did not work this time either.

So what Abbas demands is that Israel accede in advance to returning to the 1949 armistice lines.   This is actually what the formal dispute is all about.   The Palestinians are returning to the geographical lines that Ehud Barak offered Yassir Arafat.  Arafat rejected these.  

There is no reason--absolutely no reason--for the Israelis to make that failed formula the basis for a different agreement.

But most important is what Buck calls a security arrangement for the West Bank.

[Abbas] also called on Israel to accept a “security” arrangement discussed between the two sides in the past – a reference to the deployment of international, and not Israeli, forces to guard the borders of a future Palestinian state.

This is crucial.  No Israeli state would hand over to some United Nations arm or to some other assemblage of countries the security of its land and people.  As we can see from Afghanistan but even less treacherous areas the patrolling of peace is not a chore for foreigners.

And protecting Israelis from rockets, missiles, and other more primitive and advanced weapons is not something I would want to devolve on American troops.  Whoever says they want to so deploy U.S.  service men and women are dropping them into a hellish trap.  And, frankly, I wouldn't for a single moment trust the veterans of any United Nations force for this chore.

If American troops are to be sent to Palestine it'd be better that there be no Palestine or a Palestine joined to Jordan in some half-assed arrangement between Amman and Jerusalem.

Buck makes a point about the involvement of the Arab League in this whole conundrum.  The Palestinians say...

they cannot change the status of the talks without the support of the Arab League. Arab governments backed the original launch of proximity talks but are said to be deeply sceptical about direct negotiations. “There is much more opposition against Palestinian engagement in talks now than there was two months ago,” one Palestinian official said on Sunday.

So much for the highly vaunted Arab League and Saudi initiatives, about which Obama has spoken so confidently.

And, of course, about Gaza...nothing.

Maybe there are some world problems that elude solving.  They ebb and flow, they rise and recede, life goes on.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 58 comments

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

58 comments

I think this is negotiation too. It's oblique and carried on via the world's media, but that doesn't mean it's not part of the skirmishing around any negotiating process. This is the BS that falls quickly by the wayside once two parties really want to make a deal.

- ironyroad

July 19, 2010 at 4:04pm

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

You are late, Marty. I pointed this out yesterday.

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 4:08pm

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

Sorry but when Buck writes about "the deployment of international, and not Israeli, forces to guard the borders of a future Palestinian state" I take him to mean the Palestinian side of the border, not the Israel side.

- NR851651

July 19, 2010 at 4:10pm

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

Perhaps Abbas' stalling has to do with the uncertainty over Egypt's ability to maintain internal stability in transition, with Hosni Mubarak's apparent terminal cancer. Mubarak has great influence within the Arab League. Perhaps that is why George Mitchell went to the UAE after his meeting with Mubarak - to feel out the Sunni Arab pulse. The uncertainty over Iraq's future government, with Allawi and al-Sadr both paying visits to Damascus, may be another reason to stall, as if Abbas' own expired status as an elected official is not enough of a reason to avoid direct talks. The media hates such slow-moving stories. Maybe the media will now fixate on the Kurds.

- K2K

July 19, 2010 at 4:32pm

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

"“There is much more opposition against Palestinian engagement in talks now than there was two months ago,” one Palestinian official said on Sunday." I wonder why. I wonder if this is not because they feel that a deal could be indeed made at this point and they are trying to hobble it. Syria no doubt would be most resistant to such a deal. And it was Syria that vitiated the original Saudi peace plan by insisting that RoR be included in it. But I wonder if Palestinians are beginning to contemplate compromise, otherwise why would the Arab league object? The other day on Charlie Rose he talked to Michael Slackman who said some interesting things, especially towards the end of the conversation: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11130 http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/14573

- noga1

July 19, 2010 at 4:41pm

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

jackson says the Palestinians won't negotiate. Noga says there may be some movement among the Palestinians toward compromise. Can both be true? I don't think so.

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 4:55pm

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

Just last April, Netanyahu was demanding that the Palestinians concede the right of return as a precondition to negotiations. The PA and Likud take turns trying to avoid negotiations and trying not to be blamed for negotiations. When one side knows the other is willing, it has to do something to throw up obstacles. When the other side is the one throwing up obstacles, then it can be "eager or at least willing" for talks.

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 4:58pm

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

"not to be blamed for avoiding negotiations"

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 4:58pm

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

"jackson says the Palestinians won't negotiate." More distortions from roidurien. I didn't say they "won't negotiate." I said that Abbas has created a new set of demands that will make it all the harder for Israel to agree to. Go back to the borders of 67? I don't think so. Not even Abba Eban would have agreed to that.

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 5:06pm

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

Martin Peretz: "Abbas Does Not Want to Negotiate with Israel; He Demands That Israel Concede" 07/19/2010 - 4:08pm EDT | jdyer "You are late, Marty. I pointed this out yesterday."

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 5:22pm

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

Speaking of the ennui in Gaza, "there is no fun under Islam" (Ayatollah Khomeini).

- amidut

July 19, 2010 at 5:23pm

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

So what do you think I meant by "I pointed this out yesterday?" Someday you will learn to read, and you will not have to make up the meaning of sentences.

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 5:33pm

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

"there is no fun under Islam" (Ayatollah Khomeini)." Yes, but didn't he marry a 17 year old girl when he was 70 or something thereabout? Wasn't it "fun" to bed a girl that young at his age? If he had been true to the spirit of his preachings he would have married an 85 year old woman.

- noga1

July 19, 2010 at 5:50pm

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

Totally fun, I'd imagine. For one party anyway.

- ironyroad

July 19, 2010 at 7:13pm

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

K was also supposed to have married a 10-year-old when he was a 28 year old seminarian. After all, Mohammed I married Aisha when she was 9 and he was 56.

- amidut

July 19, 2010 at 7:21pm

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

an international force along the eastern border of a Palestinian state is an interesting pre-condition, considering the status of UNIFIL forces along the Blue Line of Lebanon. The Shi'a are into serious fireworks: "...The M600 is a truck-mounted solid fuel booster pushing a 500 kilogram (1,100 pound) warhead nearly 300 kilometers. There is a consensus in Israel that Syria has provided thousands of such missiles to Hezbollah. The unanswered question - and the one of most concern - is the number of game-changing launchers Hezbollah has already got hidden away or that it will acquire from Syria. ... What the M600 brings to Hezbollah is the opportunity to go force-on-force with the Israelis instead of only scattering unguided missiles at population centers. However, with upwards of 40,000 Katyusha rockets stockpiled, Hezbollah still retains the terror option. ...With a range to hit any target in Israel, the [Iran's] Shahab-3B boosts an efficient and maneuverable Triconic type of MIRVED warhead capable of holding 500 kilograms of nuclear, chemical or biologic weapons. ..." copied from "Amid War Talk, Arms Buildup Continues" By David Moon at ATimes.com today. United Nations SC Resolution 1701 from August 11, 2006 can be accessed in pdf at http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions06.htm Is the new question whether Hezbollah is now officially part of the Government of Lebanon?

- K2K

July 19, 2010 at 7:28pm

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

There's a very funny episode in that BBC series from a few years ago, Blackadder. In the first season -- the 15th century one -- Blackadder conspires to marry the daughter of some aristocratic family without doing much investigation into the background (he should have been suspicious because nobody else is really interested). To his horror, it turns out to be a purely political arrangement and the girl is about 10 years old -- and now it's too late to back out of the deal. In the final scene he's reading her a bedtime story and tucking her in. There's a great moment at the end of the credits where you just see the castle at night, there's a moment's silence, and then you hear her voice: "Can I have a drink of water?"

- ironyroad

July 19, 2010 at 7:31pm

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

"After all, Mohammed I married Aisha when she was 9 and he was 56." I think he married her when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9. I was told he spend time with her as she played with her dolls. I always thought the whole story was highly suspect. It doesn't make sense. I asked the person who told me about it, who is an Islam scholar under what circumstances was the match made. She told me that Aisha's father was a good friend of the prophet but was a very strict and hard man. Aisha was a lively and unusually intelligent child. I was wondering whether the whole marriage plot was just a pretense. Maybe marrying her was the only way he could adopt her. She never had any children (was she barren? Or was there no sex?). When he married another wife she was very jealous which is again unusual for a wife in a polygamous culture. To me it sounded more like a daughter's resistance to her father's bringing another mother into the family. When she was nineteen there were rumours about an affair she had with a young man. She was exonerated but still... it makes you wonder. Was it really a marriage? Was it ever really consummated?

- noga1

July 19, 2010 at 7:56pm

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

In the meantime in Israel: "OneVoice Israel lends support to Knesset members in launching two-state solution lobby" July 19th 2010 http://hurryupharry.org/2010/07/19/onevoice-israel-lends-support-to-knesset-members-in-launching-two-state-solution-lobby/ "Tel Aviv, July 19, 2010—OneVoice Israel (OVI) lends support to Knesset Member Yoel Hasson (Kadima) in launching the first Knesset Lobby for the Two-State Solution on Sunday to promote an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that addresses all final-status issues. This is the first time a Knesset lobby, akin to a congressional caucus in the United States, is being formulated to advance a direct political solution with the Palestinians. The lobby is united in calling for an Israeli peace initiative based on two states for two peoples that ensures the state’s long-term regional security and prosperity. “We are now realizing that giving up the Jewish people’s prerogative on the whole of Israel is hard, but it’s the only real choice we have,” said Hasson. “The dangers facing Israel require us to take a bold and creative initiative in the spirit of compromise and a two-state solution to ensure a Jewish and democratic identity for Israel.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared his “vision of peace” supporting “two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect” in a foreign policy speech delivered at Bar-Ilan University in June 2009. The lobby will work hard to turn the vision into a reality and a foster a commitment for sincere negotiations with the Palestinians....."

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 8:12pm

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

While in Gaza the rational Hamas leadership in charge has decided that: "Smoke on the Water" "Islamists have banned Palestinian women from smoking the Levant’s famous water pipe reports the Daily Mirror. Hamas leaders said it was “inappropriate” for females to sit cross-legged and puff on the traditional pipes. This follows a recent Islamist decree disallowing females from riding motorbikes No doubt there will be an immediate and angry outcry amongst Western feminists at this latest attack on their sisters’ rights...." http://hurryupharry.org/2010/07/19/smoke-on-the-water/

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 8:14pm

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

I think Hamas will get a pass for banning "Palestinian women from smoking the Levant’s famous water pipe" due to overwhelming support for legal discrimination against smokers. even North Carolina and the French caved! need to decompress after reading Benjamin Kierstein at NewLedger on "The Paper Greenwald" "rhetorical onanism" and "lies of omission" as the tools of a subset of progressives when it comes to Israel.

- K2K

July 19, 2010 at 9:04pm

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

17 years of negotiations have accomplished one thing: allowing Israel to triple its settlements. Why should Abbas participate in another set of sham negotiations just Israel has cover to build more settlements? At a minimum there needs to be clarity of where negotations are going: two fully sovereign states based on the 1967 borders. If Israel is not interested or committed to that, and intends something much less than that, then the PA should not waste its time with meaningless talk that goes nowhere. The right wing version of peace is quite clear, and this is what Netanyahu and Barak will offer if pushed, it is in fact what Barak offered at Camp David. Israel annexes vast swathes of the West Bank, does not evacuate a single major settlement, retains control over the Jordan Valley, provides no compensation for the refugees, and insists that "Palestine" cede control over borders, customs, airwaves, water, and its own security to Israel. East Jerusalem is annexed by Israel. This is what Netanyahu considers a "two-state" solution. Abbas, and the rest of world, see it for what it really is. Bantustans. Thanks, but no thanks.

- nayyer_ali

July 19, 2010 at 9:28pm

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

The longer the Arabs delay coming to terms with Israel, the more likely that new settlement facts will be created on the ground. The Arabs would rather whine about settlements than make a peace that recognizes the Jewish state even within its pre-June 1967 armistice lines.

- amidut

July 19, 2010 at 9:51pm

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

naysayer _ali aka Muckenzie is baaaaack! "This is what Netanyahu considers a "two-state" solution. Abbas, and the rest of world, see it for what it really is. Bantustans. Thanks, but no thanks." By the rest of the world muckenzie means the Muslim leftist alliance. His idea of a two State solution is an Arab Islamic State in the West Bank called Palestine and another Arab Islamic dominated State called Israel.

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 9:52pm

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

Jackson, has it ever once occurred to you that you constantly engage in exactly the bullying behavior that you whine about? When Israel offers peace on the basis of Palestinian sovereignty east of the pre-June 1967 armistice lines, the Palestinians will accept. As noga points out, the right of return was only inserted in the Saudi peace plan at Syrian request so that Israel wouldn't promptly make peace with the Palestinians and leave the Syrians out.

- roidubouloi

July 19, 2010 at 10:26pm

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

The Palestinian leadership is Blackadder. A sharp eye for opportunity, and great conspiratorial energy, but a habit of missing the central issue.

- ironyroad

July 19, 2010 at 10:50pm

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

Roidurien: “Jackson, has it ever once occurred to you that you constantly engage in exactly the bullying behavior that you whine about?” It’s impossible to bully a Muckenzie no matter what disguise he assumes. “When Israel offers peace on the basis of Palestinian sovereignty east of the pre-June 1967 armistice lines, the Palestinians will accept. As noga points out, the right of return was only inserted in the Saudi peace plan at Syrian request so that Israel wouldn't promptly make peace with the Palestinians and leave the Syrians out.” This is a supposition and not a fact. In prior posts you said that you understood Israel’s need to make adjustments to the pre 67 borders. Exchange some territory, etc. Don't go off on a ten page rant. Just give me the short version of why you changed your mind?

- jdyer

July 19, 2010 at 10:52pm

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

For what it's worth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca48ocpFBiE

- NR114746

July 19, 2010 at 11:02pm

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

Bashir Assad just brokered a meeting between Iraq's Allawi and Moqtada Al Sadr. Some tea leaf readers think that means Maliki is definitely out as Iraq's next PM because Al Sadr refuses to support Maliki. (The Kurds are reluctant to coalesce with Allawi because his party campaigned on a more central government/less autonomy for the Kurds platform). On Sunday, Assad signed 17 or 18 agreements with Lebanon's PM Hariri. Assad has joined Turkey in their fight against the Kurds; and Assad and Turkey's Davotoglu just issued a joint statement calling for Israel to lift "the siege of Gaza". With Egypt's Mubarak so ill, I would guess Abbas does not really know what to do until he figures out Assad, which may very well depend on the outcome in Iraq. Wild card Hezbollah? Unless Saladin the Kurd (born in Tikrit, buried in Damascus) reappears and reconquers his Ayyubid empire. Yes, the Arabs rewrote history and still pretend Saladin was an Arab, but the Kurds know better.

- K2K

July 20, 2010 at 12:08am

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

NR, nice doomy middle-easterny soundtrack.

- ironyroad

July 20, 2010 at 12:45am

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

excerpts of Asharq Al-Awsat's Khaled Mahmoud interview Saif al-Islam Gaddafi 18/07/2010: "...[Gaddafi] ... I see this as a lesson for the Arabs, it was also revealing about the true position of the Palestinian officials…for they let us down. There are conflicts between them taking place at the expense of ordinary Palestinians; everybody wants to see a show or spectacle or confrontation, rather than help…they all want to kill the vineyard guard at the expense of getting the grapes. [Asharq Al-Awsat] You seen to be disappointed by this? [Gaddafi] That's right, unfortunately all of our Palestinian brothers failed to approach this problem correctly. We would love to help them, but we were surprised to see that each party was trying to politically exploit the situation in the context of the inter-Palestinian conflict. We are not a party of this conflict. In truth, I am very displeased about this issue. [Asharq Al-Awsat] What does this mean for ordinary Palestinians? [Gaddafi] Initially, when I first thought about the [Libyan aid] ship operation, many Libyan officials warned me [against this], telling me that I would be entering the treacherous ground of the inter-Palestinian conflict, and that everybody would try to control the [aid ship] operation to achieve their own political goals because nobody wants to help the Palestinian people in a serious manner, and part of the Palestinians suffering and problems is because they are victims of this conflict. Unfortunately, this is what we saw with regards to the Amalthea [aid] ship. [Asharq Al-Awsat] You held out in the face of attempts to dissuade you from undertaking this initiative? [Gaddafi] Yes, and I said to the Libyan officials that this is support for the ordinary Palestinians who have no shelter and who are sleeping outdoors, and who do not have homes. As for the Palestinian politicians, may God guide them to the righteous path; they are fighting with each other and trying to exploit this initiative to serve their own political goals with regards to the inter-Palestinian conflict. We avoid this and do not have anything to do with it. [Asharq Al-Awsat] The Gaddafi Foundation has succeeded where many others have failed. What is the reason behind this? [Gaddafi] In my opinion, our success could be attributed to two factors. Firstly, we were honest in our intention to help the Palestinians, and we did not have any kind of political agenda, and even the Israelis knew that our mission was purely humanitarian and not political. Our slogan was "we want to get the grapes, not kill the vineyard guard". We were not a warship or army to enter into a confrontation with the Israeli army. The Arabs always want to kill the vineyard guard, and this is the difference. ... [Asharq Al-Awsat] Were any concessions offered as part of Israel agreeing to this deal? [Gaddafi] No, Israel's terms were clear from the beginning, and we were clear and honest. They did not want a repeat of the Turkish Mavi Marmara [aid] ship incident, which was part of the Freedom Flotilla; they were reluctant to attack the [Amalthea] ship. They discussed this, and said that the crew of the ship was hostile and ready to enter into confrontation, and they announced this. They knew that if no agreement was reached, the ship would continue its journey towards the Gaza Strip, and that would possibly result in a confrontation which would result in material and human losses. As I said, our goal was not just to cause a scene. [Asharq Al-Awsat] Some people say that the Gaza blockade could have ended long ago if there was a Palestinian – Israeli understanding. What do you think of this? [Gaddafi] We believe that without work such as that which we are undertaking, the Gaza blockade would continue forever because all Palestinian factions are content with the status quo and the blockade will not be lifted when all Palestinian parties are seeking to exploit the suffering of their people to serve their own political agendas. The Israeli blockade of Gaza has practically ended today; building materials and funds will enter, and work will begin. There is no longer a ban, and the reconstruction process that the Arabs promised to initiate has now become real. ..." http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=21658 [K2K thinks the entire interview is worth reading, but these excerpts are relevant to this post topic. Asharq Al-Awsat is based in Cairo. I find it interesting that Gaddafi and the interviewer make a distinction between Arabs; and Egyptians, Libyans, and other North Africans. Arabic is the language commonality for the Arab League; seems they note the ethnic distinctions. History lives on.]

- K2K

July 20, 2010 at 9:15am

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

"This is a supposition and not a fact." Of course, there is no such thing as a "future fact." "In prior posts you said that you understood Israel’s need to make adjustments to the pre 67 borders. Exchange some territory, etc." You are confusing me with someone else. I said that border adjustments for purposes of security were within the contemplation of Resolution 242 as understood by its drafters, but that, as a practical matter, any sort of strategic depth in the West Bank is geographically impossible without essentially incorporating the whole thing. By the time you get to the top of the central mountain range, you are nearly at the Jordan River Valley. I have also said that control of the Jordan to prevent arms smuggling was a high priority and a legitimate concern, but there can be a variety of creative ways to achieve this, assuming that tunneling under the Jordan is not practical, that is. I have also said that I would have preferred to see Israel in a position to incorporate greater Jerusalem and the area proximate thereto. However, in my opinion, Israel's overreach in settling throughout the West Bank has made this politically impossible by keeping the de facto border in a perpetually unsettled state. Had Israel been more modest and just nipped off a bit near the Green Line, it might have successfully established a new de facto border that might then have become a de jure border. Too late. Thank you Likud for the gift that keeps on giving.

- roidubouloi

July 20, 2010 at 11:31am

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

The claim in NR's youtube video is that most Palestinian Arabs are recent immigrants (19th century) and that there is not an historic Arab people of Palestine. I think this is largely correct (there wasn't an historic Jordan either) given that many if not most of the borders in the Middle East are modern creations meant to serve the interests of the French and the British. However, even if every claim in the video is correct, it is, for the most part, irrelevant. There are people who live in the West Bank and Gaza. They are mostly Arabs, whether they have long roots in the neighborhood or not. They ultimately have to live in some state or other, assuming as I do that ethnic cleansing is out of the question. Jordan does not want them in Jordan for demographic reasons. Israel does not want them in Israel for demographic reasons. Egypt does not want Gaza for political and security reasons. The only possibility left is an Arab State of Palestine or an Arab State of Palestine and an Arab State of Gaza. Ergo, whether or not there has ever been a Palestinian people before, there is now. The questions to be settled are the borders of Palestine and Israel, the right of return, security, water, and control of places that each side claims as holy. The issues are the same whether or not there is such a thing historically as an Arab Palestinian people.

- roidubouloi

July 20, 2010 at 11:48am

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

I agree with roi's latest comment in its entirety. I think that most Israelis would agree with the kinds of de-facto realities we have to deal with and that pretending that history can be reversed, like the Palestinians do, is simply a self-destructive path. But it doesn't mean that we should allow myths to replace recoded history just because we cannot explode the lies in the myths.

- noga1

July 20, 2010 at 12:04pm

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

roidubouloi “I said that border adjustments for purposes of security were within the contemplation of Resolution 242 as understood by its drafters, but that, as a practical matter, any sort of strategic depth in the West Bank is geographically impossible without essentially incorporating the whole thing.” I’ll leave it to the Israeli military officials do figure out the security situation and how best to handle it within the context of reasonable border adjustments. Still, it doesn’t seem that Abbas would want to agree to any border adjustments for whatever reasons, nor from his statement would he agree to any Israeli claim to Jerusalem. This is why I think that his precondition on direct negotiations is a step backwards and not forward. But, we shall see.

- jdyer

July 20, 2010 at 12:23pm

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

NR114746 "For what it's worth:" The video about the origin of the "Palestinian Arab refugees" is of course true from an historical perspective. However, it's not relevant to today’s conflict because the Arab living there, see themselves as a distinct community of Arabs and recognized as such by the Arab and Muslim world. Still, while not relevant in a geo political sense, from a socio-historical perspective it is very important and we shouldn’t just ignore it. I agree, here, with some previous comments.

- jdyer

July 20, 2010 at 1:26pm

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

Even if the Arabs living there were not a distinct community, they still have to be in some state or other because that is how the world is organized. If there were some border modification along the Green Line that had a bona fide security justification other than the settlements, I think that would be achievable -- a "straightening of the lines" is common when settling borders. It is a very little known fact that there were small land swaps in the Arava all along the border there with Jordan to leave in Israel the fields of various kibbutzim that were to the east of a straight line. I happen to know that because my sister's kibbutz is there and has fields that run up to the border. They were actually hoping that they would be forced to surrender those fields, because they are difficult to irrigate, and would obtain instead some better land to the south. However, when the treaty was negotiated between Jordan and Israel, the solution instead was to create little zig-zags in the border that left them with the fields they would have liked to be rid of. It has worked out in the end because the export market for majoul dates has proven to be lucrative and so, with a change in cultivation, the water demands are less and less stringent in terms of salinity than they were.

- roidubouloi

July 20, 2010 at 3:01pm

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

"If there were some border modification along the Green Line that had a bona fide security justification other than the settlements, I think that would be achievable -- a "straightening of the lines" is common when settling borders." I don't believe the PA is as rational as you think it is, we'll see.

- jdyer

July 20, 2010 at 4:17pm

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

We shall indeed see, but my guess is that Israel will advance bogus security justifications for modifying the border so as to include the settlement bloc. This will make resolution difficult, not only because the problem is inherently difficult, but because the lack of candor will make any discussion of resolution fraught with deception. If my guess is correct, what will that say about the rationality of Netanyahu and his government?

- roidubouloi

July 20, 2010 at 5:21pm

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

Roidu “We shall indeed see, but my guess is that Israel will advance bogus security justifications for modifying the border so as to include the settlement bloc.” While it’s true that Netanyahu is less than eager to give up the settlements, I don’t intent to get into an argument about what might or might not happen. All we know so far is the demand made by Abbas. “If my guess is correct, what will that say about the rationality of Netanyahu and his government?” It’s a guess and no sense speculating on guesses.

- jdyer

July 20, 2010 at 5:56pm

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

We also know that, as recently as April, Netanyahu was demanding that the Arabs "recognize Israel as a Jewish state" as a precondition to talks, at least as reported by Haaretz. This was generally understood to be a demand that the Arabs surrender their claim to a right of return as a precondition.

- roidubouloi

July 20, 2010 at 6:02pm

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

roidubouloi "We also know that, as recently as April, Netanyahu was demanding that the Arabs "recognize Israel as a Jewish state" as a precondition to talks, at least as reported by Haaretz. This was generally understood to be a demand that the Arabs surrender their claim to a right of return as a precondition." Perhaps, but if he ever did he isn't insisting on that now.

- jdyer

July 20, 2010 at 6:20pm

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

I guess that we have to take the word of Haaretz on this: http://www.haaretz.com/news/netanyahu-demands-palestinians-recognize-jewish-state-1.274207 * Published 19:32 16.04.09 * Latest update 22:55 16.04.09 Netanyahu demands Palestinians recognize 'Jewish state' PM to U.S. envoy George Mitchell: No talks on Palestinian statehood without this recognition. By Amos Harel, Avi Issacharoff, News Agencies and Akiva Eldar Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu George Mitchell Israel news Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told visiting U.S. envoy George Mitchell on Thursday that his government would condition talks over Palestinian statehood on the Palestinians first recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. "Israel expects the Palestinians to first recognize Israel as a Jewish state before talking about two states for two peoples," a senior official in Netanyahu's office quoted the new prime minister as telling Mitchell, U.S. President Barack Obama's special envoy to the Middle East. ____________________ If Netanyahu can change his position between April and July, then perhaps Abbas can change his position too.

- roidubouloi

July 20, 2010 at 6:28pm

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

"If Netanyahu can change his position between April and July, then perhaps Abbas can change his position too." If, if, if, a pox on your "ifs" to quote "The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman."

- jdyer

July 20, 2010 at 6:46pm

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

roidubouloi: Of course, there is no such thing as a "future fact." What fatuous nonsense!

- JPKatz

July 20, 2010 at 8:14pm

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

"At Fatah's sixth general congress, convened in Bethlehem in August last year, the delegates reaffirmed their longstanding commitment to "armed struggle" as "a strategy, not a tactic . . . . This struggle will not stop until the Zionist entity is eliminated and Palestine is liberated." More recently, even as Abbas has publicly mouthed the Obama formula for "two states living side by side in peace and security," he pointedly insists on preconditions impossible for Israel to accept. The Peel Commission had the principle right. While a two-state solution "offers neither party all it wants, it offers each what it wants most, namely, freedom and security." It is a great historical irony that this "half-a-loaf" solution should have been repeatedly advanced as a response by others—Europeans, Americans, Israelis—to the actions of its most implacable opponents, who have then repeatedly proceeded to repudiate it in word and deed. On the Palestinian side, not a single leader has ever evinced any true liking for the idea or acted in a way signifying an unqualified embrace of it. The same is true, with the partial exceptions of Egypt and Jordan, for the larger Arab world. Nearly two decades and thousands of deaths after the launch of the "peace process," one might hope that Western policy makers would at last begin to take the measure of what the Palestinian leadership tells its own people and wider Arab audiences. For the lesson of history remains: so long as things on the Arab side are permitted, or encouraged, to remain as they are, there will be no two-state solution, and therefore no solution at all." http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/module/2010/7/20/main-feature/1/whos-against-a-two-state-solution

- noga1

July 20, 2010 at 9:37pm

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

Do you know any future facts, Katz? Things that have not occurred are contingent of necessity. Those that are obliged to follow natural laws, such as the sun rising, less so than those that are a matter of human society and disposition. Did you not know that?

- roidubouloi

July 20, 2010 at 11:10pm

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

"For the lesson of history remains: so long as things on the Arab side are permitted, or encouraged, to remain as they are, there will be no two-state solution, and therefore no solution at all." This may be the case, but, if it is, Israel had better figure out a way out of the West Bank or it will be pushed out. Israelis seem to think that so long as the Arabs will not agree to peace on Israeli terms, or even on any terms, that continuing to settle the West Bank -- transferring its population to occupied territory -- is acceptable behavior. But it isn't. Perhaps the gamble that the wider world will never do anything meaningful about it will pay off. Personally, I doubt that. And if the world at large finally does act, the stopping place may not be at all to Israel's liking. Regardless of whether the Arabs ever make peace, the settlement policy courts disaster. It is inherently unstable, hence it will not endure. If Israel does not choose how to unwind it, then it will not control how it is unwound. That is very simple.

- roidubouloi

July 20, 2010 at 11:21pm

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

"Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, has signed an appeal for funds to outfit a ship--to be named The Audacity of Hope after Barack Obama's second book--that will challenge the Israeli blockade of Gaza in September or October, according to a report by Robert Mackey at The Lede, a blog of the New York Times. His wife Mona is also a signatory." http://www.campus-watch.org/blog/2010/07/rashid-khalidi-appeals-for-funds-for-ship-to-run "The Audacity of Hope"??

- noga1

July 21, 2010 at 12:11am

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

The Palestinians have already read this with their morning coffee: "...The "clear and present danger" spelled out from the failure of the Indian-Pakistan talks and the conference episodes, is that the jihadis are gathering momentum and set to spill over into Kashmir. From there, or so the region's political pundits have it, al-Qaeda had planned to move on into India to secure "strategic depth" with heightened terror tactics. Then it can trek onto Central Asia to forward the jihadi movement for the liberation of Palestine. Ahmed Rashid, author of "Taliban", in the introduction of his new offering "Descent into Chaos", described the support system of al-Qaeda's human resources succinctly when he wrote, "to a handful of Muslims, al-Qaeda posed a civilizational solution - albeit an extreme one - to the justice denied to Muslims in Palestine [and] Kashmir". The failure of India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir dispute will provide the international jihadi movement with all the space it needs." "Jihadis set to spill over into Kashmir" Zahid U Kramet, July 21, 2010 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LG21Df05.html Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online [a succinct analysis of the disasterous Kashmir summit on July 15] "...which likely left the talks' American sponsors baffled over what it will take for the two countries to work in tandem to address the terrorist threat emanating from the northwestern mountain ranges of South Asia, which has been playing havoc with North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Afghanistan. ..."

- K2K

July 21, 2010 at 12:54am

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

roidubouloi: “Do you know any future facts, Katz? roidubouloi has of course changed the subject as is his wont. His original claim was: “Of course, there is no such thing as a future fact." The claim that we do not know any future facts is not equivalent to the claim that there are not future facts. In general, one might know that an existential generalization is true without knowing that any particular instance of that generalization is true. E.g., I might know that someone is going to win a certain lottery without knowing who has won it. But in case, I do know some future facts: I know that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. That’s a future fact. I know that there will be further casualties in Afghanistan. That’s a future fact. I know that. Indeed, since I know that there will be a future, I know a future fact. roidubouloi: “Things that have not occurred are contingent of necessity. Those that are obliged to follow natural laws, such as the sun rising, less so than those that are a matter of human society and disposition. Did you not know that?” This is just metaphysical gibberish. We are talking about facts, not things or events, and facts don’t occur. Facts are simply truths, which is why it makes sense to speak of knowing them. Some facts are necessary and some are not. There are lots of knowable contingent truths about the future.

- JPKatz

July 22, 2010 at 10:16am

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

The point, oh Katz, is that when jackson accuses me of stating a supposition rather than a "fact," he is simply stating the obvious. There does not exist a "fact" of how and when and whether there will be a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. Hence, when making suppositions in this regard, it is unnecessary in ordinary speech to say, "this is a supposition, not a fact," and declaring that some claim about how the matter will be settled is "not a fact" is completely superfluous. Your metaphysics are also flawed. There are only levels of likelihood, with some things, such as that the sun will rise tomorrow, being vastly more likely than others. It occurs with some regularity in human affairs that things that were taken for a very long time to be "knowable contingent truths about the future" turn out to be wrong. See, for example, WMDs in Iraq; the earth is the center of the universe, etc., etc. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the things you write are gibberish, but they are very silly and pompous. As you can see from the handy definition below, you think you know the meaning of "fact" and you expound learnedly as if you do, but you don't: The word fact derives from the Latin Factum, and was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete.[3] The common usage of, "something that has really occurred or is the case", dates from the middle of the sixteenth century.[4] "The common usage of, "something that has really occurred or is the case", dates from the middle of the sixteenth century.[4] Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth or reality, as distinguishable from conclusions or opinions. This use is found in such phrases Matter of fact,[5] and "... not history, nor fact, but imagination." Fact also indicates a matter under discussion deemed to be true or correct, such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue; (e.g., "... the fact of the matter is ...").[6][7] Alternatively, fact may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact",[8] (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English.[9] --------------- It is precisely in the sense of the "common usage" that one can say, perfectly correctly, that there are no "future facts" as to matters that remain contingent. Goodbye and god bless.

- roidubouloi

July 22, 2010 at 11:09am

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

JPKatz: "...roidubouloi has of course changed the subject..." THAT is a past, present, and future fact.

- K2K

July 22, 2010 at 11:51am

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

Other than your droning repetition of this claim, K2K, because you cannot think of anything to see and you assume, correctly, that it is to mild to require retribution, can you support this in any way whatsoever? In saying there are no "future facts," I was responding directly to jackson's accusation that my assertions about contingent future political outcomes are not facts, which, of course, they are not. They aren't even claims under natural law that can be taken as nearly certain to occur. My point, with an admirable economy of words, is that it is in the very nature of assertions about contingent future political outcomes that they cannot be facts. Hence, it is unnecessary and makes no meaningful point to note that they are not. In what way have I changed the subject? Do you understand what the subject is?

- roidubouloi

July 22, 2010 at 12:23pm

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

Democracy at work in Israel: http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2010/07/plumbing-of-israeli-democracy-tibi.html

- noga1

July 22, 2010 at 2:43pm

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

roid: you frequently change the subject in various threads. THAT is a past, present, and future fact. I cited JPKatz: "...roidubouloi has of course changed the subject..." as a general observation, not specific to whatever you are arguing about at any specific moment in time. I do not waste time reading your long arguments, especally when you are luring fresh meat into your huff and puff word traps. "The Story of the Three Little Pigs" [Ode to Roi du Rue du Bolois] "Once upon a time when pigs spoke rhyme And monkeys chewed tobacco, And hens took snuff to make them tough, And ducks went quack, quack, quack, O! THERE was an old sow with three little pigs, and as she had not enough to keep them, she sent them out to seek their fortune. The first that went off met a man with a bundle of straw, and said to him: 'Please, man, give me that straw to build a house.' Which the man did, and the little pig built a house with it. Presently came along a wolf, and knocked at the door, and said: 'Little pig, little pig, let me come in.' To which the pig answered: 'No, no, by the hair of my chiny chin chin.' The wolf then answered to that: 'Then I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house in.' So he huffed, and he puffed, and he blew his house in, and ate up the little pig. The second little pig met a man with a bundle of furze and said: 'Please, man, give me that furze to build a house.' Which the man did, and the pig built his house. Then along came the wolf, and said: 'Little pig, little pig, let me come in.' 'No, no, by the hair of my chiny chin chin.' "Then I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house in.' So he huffed, and he puffed, and he puffed, and he huffed, and at last he blew the house down, and he ate up the little pig. The third little pig met a man with a load of bricks, and said: 'Please, man, give me those bricks to build a house with.' So the man gave him the bricks, and he built his house with them. So the wolf came, as he did to the other little pigs, and said: 'Little pig, little pig, let me come in.' 'No, no, by the hair of my chiny chin chin.' 'Then I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house in.' Well, he huffed, and he puffed, and he huffed and he puffed, and he puffed and huffed; but he could not get the house down. When he found that he could not, with all his huffing and puffing, blow the house down, he said: 'Little pig, I know where there is a nice field of turnips.' 'Where?' said the little pig. 'Oh, in Mr Smith's Home-field, and if you will be ready tomorrow morning I will call for you, and we will go together, and get some for dinner.' 'Very well,' said the little pig, 'I will be ready. What time do you mean to go?' 'Oh, at six o'clock.' Well, the little pig got up at five, and got the turnips before the wolf came (which he did about six), who said: 'Little pig, are you ready?' The little pig said: 'Ready! I have been and come back again, and got a nice potful for dinner.' The wolf felt very angry at this, but thought that he would be up to the little pig somehow or other, so he said: 'Little pig, I know where there is a nice apple tree.' 'Where?' said the pig. 'Down at Merry-garden,' replied the wolf, 'and if you will not deceive me I will come for you at five o'clock tomorrow. and get some apples.' Well, the little pig bustled up the next morning at four o'clock, and went off for the apples, hoping to get back before the wolf came; but he had further to go, and had to climb the tree, so that just as he was coming down from it, he saw the wolf coming, which, as you may suppose, frightened him very much. When the wolf came up he said: 'Little pig, what! are you here before me? Are they nice apples?' 'Yes, very,' said the little pig. 'I will throw you down one.' And he threw it so far, that, while the wolf was gone to pick it up, the little pig jumped down and ran home. The next day the wolf came again, and said to the little pig: 'Little pig, there is a fair at Shanklin this afternoon, will you go?' 'Oh yes,' said the pig, 'I will go; what time shall you be ready?' 'At three,' said the wolf. So the little pig went off before the time as usual, and got to the fair, and bought a butter-churn, which he was going home with, when he saw the wolf coming. Then he could not tell what to do. So he got into the churn to hide, and by so doing turned it round, and it rolled down the hill with the pig in it, which frightened the wolf so much, that he ran home without going to the fair. He went to the little pig's house, and told him how frightened he had been by a great round thing which came down the hill past him. Then the little pig said: 'Hah, I frightened you, then. I had been to the fair and bought a butter-churn, and when I saw you, I got into it, and rolled down the hill.' Then the wolf was very angry indeed, and declared he would eat up the little pig, and that he would get down the chimney after him. When the little pig saw what he was about, he hung on the pot full of water, and made up a blazing fire, and, just as the wolf was coming down, took off the cover, and in fell the wolf; so the little pig put on the cover again in an instant, boiled him up, and ate him for supper, and lived happy ever afterwards." source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/eft/eft15.htm

- K2K

July 22, 2010 at 8:22pm

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

roidubouloi: The point, oh Katz, is that when jackson accuses me of stating a supposition rather than a "fact," he is simply stating the obvious. There does not exist a "fact" of how and when and whether there will be a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. How do you know this? roidubouloi: Hence, when making suppositions in this regard, it is unnecessary in ordinary speech to say, "this is a supposition, not a fact," and declaring that some claim about how the matter will be settled is "not a fact" is completely superfluous. Not to put too fine a point on this, oh roidubouloi, you are confusing a propositional attitude (supposition) with the object of that attitude. A fact is what one knows when one knows something. In ordinary discourse, one often qualifies some assertion by remarking that it is an opinion as opposed to knowledge, though it still may be a fact. A supposition is something else again. One introduces a supposition as a step in reasoning, without necessarily endorsing or believing that supposition. E.g., if one wants to prove that the square root of 2 is irrational, one might begin by supposing that it is rational. Thanks for quoting the material in the Wikepedia entry--albeit without citation. (In common usage, this is often called 'plagiarism'.) But in any case, your point concerning common usuage doesn't help you. It is true that 'fact' is sometimes used in the sense of thing that has happened (as in 'The election of Obama is a fact') as opposed to truth. But that cannot be the sense that you have in mind when you talk of levels of likelihood, for all facts, in this sense, are necessary; i.e., whatever has already happened is now necessary (necessary per accidens, as the Medievals would say).

- JPKatz

July 23, 2010 at 6:42pm

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

And whatever has not happened is not necessary, although some things are more likely to occur than others. Not to put too fine a point on it, Oh Katz, but there are quite a few meanings to "supposition." It is not confined to a hypothesis in formal reasoning. It also means a claim of true belief about the world that is not supported by evidence or at least not be compelling evidence. In ordinary speech, we utter qualifications about the extent of evidence, as by distinguishing a claim of fact from an expression of opinion, when the distinction is important. Where it is self-evident that something can only be one or the other, we don't bother. We do not say, "It is a fact, not merely my opinion, that the American War of Independence was won by the Americans." Nor do we say, "In my opinion, the Democrats are going to lose control of the House in November." Even without the introductory clause, the latter example is understood as an expression of opinion because it is not possible for this claim about the future to be other than an expression of opinion. How much credit the reader or listener gives the opinion may be a function of the evidence the speaker musters in favor of the opinion, but there is no social obligation to make the qualification explicit. Your conversations at home must be a laugh-riot given your unusually rigid rules about ordinary speech (that is if you actually observe these rules unknown to the rest of us). I do wonder that you labor so hard to appear erudite arguing for really silly propositions. If you are going to try to impress with your knowledge of logic, grammar, or anything else, why don't you at least do so with some proposition that is almost irrefutable? At least then you won't undermine yourself by over-claiming or making obvious mistakes.

- roidubouloi

July 25, 2010 at 11:56am

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close