The New Republic

Nothing good will come out of it. I'm sick of the empathy of the Israelis for the Palestinians. I'd want to see a Palestinian prime minister lamenting the Jewish victims of Palestinian terror. Instead, Pals name streets after suicide bombers.

- sleepyavl

November 27, 2007 at 7:42pm

Like I said in the Dennis Ross thread, I don't understand how anything can be achieved.

Hamas is not part of these negotiations (and they are now a major political force) so Abbas' relative moderation (in comparison to Arafat) is largely a function of the fact that he isn't currently representing this radical constituency.

Secondly, even if all the other issues can be settled with a mixture of land swapping and cash (a huge 'if'), how can the issue of Jerusalem ever be settled?

- mmathog

November 27, 2007 at 7:49pm

Olmert's words are more than poignant; they're a powerful recognition of a central truth which is obvious to any fairminded observer of this war but strangely absent from The Spine's postings.

If even Paul Wolfowitz could remind his pro-Israel audience that "the Palestinians have greatly suffered, too", why can't you, Mr P? This isn't mush from wimps. It's _political realism_ in its purest form.

- teplukhin2you

November 27, 2007 at 7:58pm

Full disclosure: I am completely cynical about the "peace process" re Isr-Pal and believe that peace will occur as it almost always does, when one side is thoroughly defeated by the other.

IOW, not in my lifetime. I fully agree with those who argue that this summit is a waste of time and that Condi's few remaining cycles would be far better spent in shuttle diplomacy btn Tehran and Moscow.

Putin's Russia is a criminalized state that has enormous power to do us harm in the middle east and in WMD proliferation. Long past time we figured out what this bandit's price is re. Iran and paid it in order to secure a full-court press against the ayatollahs. In this light Annapolis is worse than a waste of time; it's an unforgiveable distraction from urgent diplomatic fires.

- teplukhin2you

November 27, 2007 at 8:05pm

"Now, it must be said that there was a Saudi delegation in attendance,

without whose presence the Palestinian mustering of their cousins would

have looked hollow.  And it was the long-serving foreign minister who came,

a son of the king, no less.  His conditions for attending weren't at all

forthcoming: that he not be put in a position where he would be obliged to

shake Olmert's hand or exchange words with him."

Well, this isn't the worst of it. The head of the Saudi delegation was quoted as saying that unless the refugees go back to "their homes" in Palestine there will be no deal.

In other words, the aim of the negotiations should be the abolition of the Jewish State.

- jacksondyer

November 27, 2007 at 11:25pm

I think Olmert's recognition of Palestinian suffering is indeed a marker for mutual respect between the sides. God bless him for talking about it. Unfortunately, this conference was still terribly set up. And Peretz is right about the Golan. It ain't going nowhere for a while.

- rozenson

November 28, 2007 at 1:37am

There's a big difference between recognizing the Pals' suffering and taking responsibility for it. If I got it right, Israel will be forced to "acknowledge its responsibility" for their plight in exchange for removing or partly removing this outlandish demand to return to their old homes.

So it doesn't make much difference that the Palestinians are the ones who didn't accept the partition plan and opted for a comprehensive war instead, at which they lost the war and their homes. Still as always there's someone else, the attacked party in this case, that has to bear responsibility for the resulting misfortune.

This isn't only wrong logically, it's also wrong morally. Everyone, nations included, should be able to identify the connection between their own doings and the disasters that befall them.

Abba Eban as usual put it most brilliantly: "I think that this is the first war in history that on the morrow the victors sued for peace and the vanquished called for unconditional surrender"

Completely ridiculous.

- babigail

November 28, 2007 at 11:02am

Babs, you are asking Abbas to sign his own death warrant.  Maybe he's retarded and has no idea that Palestinians have a large part in their own suffering, but he ain't that dumb.  Unlike his suicide bombers, he likes life too much.  And this is why there won't be peace.  No Palestinian, no matter how reasonable, is in a position to speak the truth and stay alive.

Is there a lot of talk/buzz in Israel about the "peace" talks?  Or is everybody by now just too cynical to take it seriously?  

P.S.  I like the Eban quote.

- MOLLYSIMON

November 28, 2007 at 12:10pm

Rozenson - on Jamie's most recent thread you asked me twice for "evidence", which I did my best to produce. You didn't even have the decency to respond to my efforts, which was very impolite. Are you a troll?

- The Ignorant Populist

November 28, 2007 at 12:56pm

Well, posturing aside, here's what Erekat said:

"the deal must come in a package that resolves at least six points: Israeli settlements in the West Bank; the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel; Jerusalem as the shared capital of a future Palestinian state; borders, security and water supply."

Let's say that that's the framework, and let's say that 5 of those 6 can be resolved (Jackson's right about the Saudi foreign minister's silliness by the way) how does the Jerusalem issue get solved?

Also, who is representing Hamas here? Abbas is negotiating on behalf of what I think is generously 60% of the populace, at least Olmert is the Prime Minister of ALL of Israel.

- mmathog

November 28, 2007 at 1:34pm

Just to be crystal clear, I don't think the Palestinian refugees can 'return to Israel,' that's just ridiculous, a 100% non-starter. I do think that a deal with compensation deal with the P.A. can be struck.

Again though, how does Jerusalem get solved? How is Hamas brought on board?

- mmathog

November 28, 2007 at 1:36pm

I have the news now and i have to rest a little. this life is too demanding. I'll answer, promise, in about an hour.

- babigail

November 28, 2007 at 2:02pm

Molly, I think it's high time to stop digging into the ulterior motives of the leaders in this area.

If the calculation behind their leaders' declarations is that they may be murdered or ousted if they don't declaim what their populace demands, then this is no leadership we can deal with.

Just a reminder: so far it has been our leader, not their, who was murdered for having had the courage to lead. So, I'm sorry, but this is not an excuse.

Besides, we've learned with time that they're pretty credible. They say what they mean and mean what they say. I don't see why we should delve into their latent motivations and mental state to say so or so.

They're big children now. Let them talk to the point.

If the point is that they will not give up on their demand for the right of return, then there's no future to this carnival. In any case, Israel can't be held responsible for the consequences of having won a war she never started and never wanted.

On the other hand, I'm not sure to what extent Israel is willing (or able, given her political structure) to give up land. So maybe Israel should also behave like a big girl now.

Jerusalem is a technicality as far as I can see it. Already the partition plan offered by the UN internationalized the old city or the holy whachamacallit. Let it be internationalized. Let it be divided. There is somewhere, still hidden, a magic formula that will be agreed upon by all sides.

We're really left with the two main issues: the refugees and the territories taken in 67, in other words: the borders.

These two crucial problems will probably take more lives of leaders on both sides, and of people in further interior clashes, maybe even one or two civil wars.

In short, we're still far away from the target, if the target is peace.

Quelling Hamas is one of the milestones on the way. They will have to do it, and who knows if they will. No one is or ever will i hope represent hamas.

As many question marks as there had been 3 days ago.

There's hardly any talk in Israel about this conference. Everybody liked Olmert's speech though. But that's all I've heard.

- babigail

November 28, 2007 at 4:46pm

Teplukhin is right about Russia. We are deluded if we think we actually won the Cold War. The Republicans can't admit this of course, because winning the Cold War is the cornerstone of their irrational Reagan worship. Russia is still a superpower with sufficient clout to rein in Iran. Russia does not want US missiles in Eastern Europe. We do not want a nuclear Iran. Balance of terror is still operative. It is time to drag Russia into the fray.

Shuttle diplomacy with Russia might salvage some of Bush's legacy as President. Hosting a peace conference like this with Hamas in control of Gaza not even in attendance and Saudi Arabia essentially saying at the outset that there will be peace only if Israel agrees to its destruction is a sham.

- r-ennis

November 28, 2007 at 4:56pm

BTW, I came up with a BRILLIANT idea, and now I have to get it through to Olmert: Israel will accept in an exceptional gesture a number (say, 50k or even 100k) Palestinian refugees, but ONLY from amongst the ones who were born inside Israeli borders as they were until 1967.

These people are at least 60 now. I wouldn't mind if they came here.

The rest of them will stay put and maybe be at last liberated from the suffocating arms of UNRWA. There's enough money in the Arab petrol countries to turn their refugee camps into AT LEAST a few cities in teh shape of palm trees or camels or what have you.

I think it's pretty cunning and solves all the problems regarding the right of return.

- babigail

November 28, 2007 at 5:00pm

r-ennis, you mistake me. Russia's an increasingly Africanized kleptocracy. This shambolic state's power is not positive but negative: not the power to overrun or overwhelm with their military but to blow us all up by neglecting to keep their various bandits from slipping WMD to the next AQ Khan.

With regard to Iran, Russia's power is again negative, the potential for mischief that accrues to a swing state trading partner (and neighbor) that sees no need to support the west or play by anyone's rules.

More like Chavez than Stalin.

- teplukhin2you

November 28, 2007 at 5:22pm

With all due respect to your brilliance babigail, the idea of letting in a token number of refugees has been floated before. I imagine it could be a symbolic part of an overall deal.

I'm not sure I see the Jerusalem/refugee/border/water problems the same way you do though.

-The refugee problem can be solved with cash. Refugees can't 'return,' but they can be generously compensated.

-The water and border questions can be solved with more cash, some horse-trading, etc... Hard, but imaginable.

I don't see how 'internationalizing' Jerusalem solves this, it's too vague. Who has sovereignty over the holy sites?

This issue most certainly cannot be solved with cash or horse-trading. Can't split that baby.

And finally, what about Hamas?

- mmathog

November 28, 2007 at 5:35pm

OY! My brilliance was in restricting the returning refugees to an age in which they're no longer likely to reproduce! of course the idea has surfaced before, but my small (and brilliant) contribution was to make it so it will not have any effect on the demography of Israel.

Internationalized can mean held by the UN, or by common forces to Israel and Palestine. Or both.

Hamas has to be removed. I guess only war against them will do it. Jordan managed to get rid of tens of thousands Fatah terrorists back in the 80s. We can also do it, again Israel and the Pals together.

- babigail

November 29, 2007 at 2:18am

"Hamas has to be removed. I guess only war against them will do it. Jordan managed to get rid of tens of thousands Fatah terrorists back in the 80s. We can also do it, again Israel and the Pals together."

No way. At this point, it would be like trying to 'get rid of the IRA.' Hamas is too big, too interwoven into Palestinian civic and political life. They'll have to be convinced to lay down their guns and join the peace process, getting rid of them is a pipe dream.

- mmathog

November 29, 2007 at 2:30am

Internationalizing Jerusalem means establishing UN schools from which Hamas terrorists can fire Qassam rockets in Jewish Jerusalem with impunity.

- sleepyavl

November 29, 2007 at 6:32am

IRA? Hamas can't be compared to the IRA.

Funny we should be talking about this.

Right now the headline in Maariv's website is: Hamas demands the UN to revoke its resolution from 1947 (60 years ago today) regarding the partition of Palestine. "the entire land of Palestine belongs to us, and the Jews have no place in it" they said.

79% of Israeli Arabs maintain that Abu Mazen has no authority to give up on anything. not Jerusalem, not the right of return, not acknowledging Israel as a Jewish state.

There's nobody at home over there, and we can go on dreaming.

- babigail

November 29, 2007 at 6:35am

One more point. There may be an opening for some arrangement the day our leader will announce in full voice that Israel will withdraw from all territories in the west bank, minus the big settlements for which Israel will swap land, and (on the same day) their leader will declare out loud that the right of return is dead.

But one should also bear in mind that once we leave the west bank, Israel's center, including Tel Aviv and BG airport enter their rocket range. Therefore Hamas should be annihilated, erased as a militant group, and all its weapons taken.

Still then there's a constant risk of instability in the Palestinian state or whatever it will be, and should a militant group ever rise there again - BG airport will be threatened again.

This issue should be answered somehow in a fixed manner. By IDF I guess.

The more you think of it the more unreal and hallucinatory it seems.

- babigail

November 29, 2007 at 6:52am

Teplukhin, I admit to not comprehending your last post. However, Putin is an actor on the world stage controlling a huge nuclear arsenal with the power to blackmail Western Europe over gas supply andals the power to get Iran to give up on nuclear weapon development by voting with us in the UN and agreeing to other sanctions. To me Russia sounds like the pretty much same super power we were used to dealing with before the liberation of Eastern Europe, which appears now to have been a millstone around Russia's neck. Maybe the USSR was never more than the kleptocracy you described. So what? All that mattered was that they had the nukes and, therefore the power, so we needed to deal with them. Such is the case today.

- r-ennis

November 29, 2007 at 9:04am

"To me Russia sounds like the pretty much same super power we were used to dealing with before the liberation of Eastern Europe, which appears now to have been a millstone around Russia's neck"

Not at all! The Soviet *Empire* is gone. A huge difference. Poland is now a member of NATO and firmly ensconced in the West, as are the Baltic states, Czech and Solvakia, and even the brother-slav Bulgarians.

The USSR was an empire that controlled everything-- political structures, economies, cultures, even the movement of people and ideas-- from the Elbe to the Black Sea. The Red Army, mess that it was, had massive forward deployments along the northern tier of this empire, and the Soviet military generally had an enormous arsenal of forward-deployed nuclear missiles across East Germany and powerful submarines based on the Baltic and naval bases close to the Dardanelles. The Soviet Empire also had client states and militant proxies across the non-European world.

We won the Cold War. We're losing the Energy War.

- teplukhin2you

November 29, 2007 at 11:21am

Tep:  I don't follow Russia-US relations, in other words I'm fairly ignorant, but what I have gleaned is that Putin is ruthless.  He's happy to cozy up to Ahmadinejad, doesn't seem particularly worried about his not-so-warm relationship to the U.S, so why negotiate with us when it doesn't serve Putin's purposes?  I'm not contradicting, just curious.  

- MOLLYSIMON

November 29, 2007 at 12:01pm

Have to get tough with Russia, Sarkozy (whose country is less dependent on Russian energy than other European countries are) can help.

Putin's popular because he's kinda (corruptly) made the trains run on time and he's perceived as a sort of Russian Gaullist, someone who 'stands up to the west' as the west tries to NATO-ize everything around her and build a missile shield.

Europe in general needs Russian energy (hence, in my opinion, Great Britain's surprisingly tepid response to the Polonium murder) so maybe a U.S.-French axis can be a strong beginning.

It's hard to prod Putin, he's holding a strong hand, high energy prices and vast popularity, but Tep's right, it's where our energies should be directed.

- mmathog

November 29, 2007 at 1:13pm

You can't 'mop up' Hamas (short of outright 100k troop on the ground invasion and years of physical occupation) and neither side will agree to a Solomonesque internationalization of Jerusalem.

There is a chance, with major territorial concessions and compensation, to perhaps take enough starch out of the Hamas movement so that their violent and rejectionist strain becomes a tiny minority.

But that would take trust, and it's (understandably) hard to see the Israelis doing that.

- mmathog

November 29, 2007 at 1:18pm

Russia is not (yet?) an enemy the Soviet empire once was, not even close.  And it's not just because the USSR had many vassal countries and satellites, missiles closer to W.Europe and such..  The main difference was the underlying aggressive communist ideology that the USSR promoted wherever it could.  Today's Russia, ideologically speaking, is hollow within.  They (esp. Putin himself) are trying hard to formulate a new (old, actually) national idea - the greatness of the Russian state to be revived, but it's not easy in the modern world.

Thus Putin and Co fall back on the tried and true Russian notions of external Western enemies who, by hiding behind human rights and democracy, are actually working, as they always have, to enslave Russia.  This idea also happens to neatly explain to Russians why they need Putin at the helm forever (and not a Western-style democracy).

But there are many problems with that, both internally and externally.  The purely negative idea of external enemies, without its "positive" component, communism, can only get you so far.  Then, Putin & Co don't really know what kind of state do they want to build - they want to be great Russian nationalists but also have London apartments, French villas and Swiss accounts.  What they do know is that they want to stay in power forever.

Then there are real threats to deal with - sudden drop in oil prices, Chinese expansion in the Russian Far East, the rise of Muslims within Russia, the threat of nuclear Iran (who knows whom mullahs decide to target?), population decline, rotting infrastructure, etc, etc.

All that makes for a very unstable and unpredictable Russia.

- sabaka

November 29, 2007 at 1:24pm

Sabaka as usual nails it.

"Putin & Co don't really know what kind of state do they want to build - they want to be great Russian nationalists but also have London apartments, French villas and Swiss accounts."

The model they have in mind, consciously or otherwise, is the latin one that was all the rage in Moscow circles during the twilight of the Gorbachev era: political order backed up by a strong security state and enabling a) free flows of capital and a high degree of laissez-faire generally, and b) massive plundering of economic assets by those in control of the state. Pinochet was spoken of favorably by lots of Russians whom you'd otherwise consider moderate, sane, forward-looking.

Re the national idea, or _Russkiy Proyekt_, the likely solution will be the one that the Tsars relied on time and again: foreign adventurism as a way of simultaneously

a) increasing the legitimacy of an incompetent and brutal state in Russian eyes, and

b) inoculating Mother Russia from infection by foreign liberal ideas and influences

A prominent and controversial Russian novelist likens Putin's Russia to the bandit- and official police-ridden, adventurist Russia of Alexander III in the late 19c. Add the Pinochet gloss, massive looting and swiss accounts, and you've got a pretty fair summary of the nature of this new regime. We're going to have to up our diplomatic game if we want to handle this bandit state with any effectiveness.

And get ourselves off of imported oil as fast as we possibly can, by whatever means necessary. Including ANWR, tar sands oil etc etc

- teplukhin2you

November 29, 2007 at 1:42pm

A belated reply to your excellent points, Teplukhin.

Yes, the model Putin & Co have in mind is authoritarin capitalism, with strong traditional nationalist underpinning.  The problem still is with the source of legitimacy of their rule.  There were two kinds of legitimcy in Russian history  - from God (tsars) and Marx-Lenin (communists).  Neither is viable in today's Russia, hence ideological hollowness, hence nervousness of the rulers.

Add to this the single source (oil, gas)  of their recent (relative) economic recovery, the fact that they are much more open to, and economically dependent on, the West/world economy than the USSR ever was. Also add the inexperience of Putin & Co in state affairs, their reliance on the only tool they know - force, and, like I said, all this makes for a rather uncertain and unpredictable Russia.  But not a friendly one as they seek internal legitimacy by appealing to traditional Russian xenophobia.

What I'm mostly afraid of is Putin's misjudgment and overreach.

- sabaka

December 1, 2007 at 1:22pm