Perhaps I should have only quoted your first sentence. That was the part I was referring to.
Israel isn't going to lose a lot of power neither ...
Perhaps I should have only quoted your first sentence. That was the part I was referring to.
And the settlers would peacefuly pack up and go home if that was part of the deal?
I'm not sure about everyone, but I am almost a 100% sure that quite a few leaders actually believe their rhetoric, meaning they actually want Israel wiped off the map. So I don't think they'll just lay down their weapons so easily.
Not only that, it would also mean they lose their power which is what (probably) most of them are after. So I don't see Hamas and others just laying down their arms. Maybe that's pessimistic of me, but I think you are just too optimistic about it.
Probably not, but a one-state solution wouldn't require them to leave, would it now ?
Which would be the main selling-point of the one-state solution on the Israeli side. It would require a shift in thinking of both sides; I've been proceeding from the assumption that a two-state solution is the only way to go that my brain is hurting from considering the implications of a one-state one. It set a whole different set of candy and bitter medicine on the table; without broad discussion, there's no way to know if there's enough candy to get everyone to swallow the medicine.
But I am starting to think that the two-state solution may have run into a wall. If so, someone has to start thinking of alternative solutions.
True -- but the way they see it, a one-state solution would have Israel wiped off the map. What is Israel, from their POV? It's a Jewish state encroaching on Arab land, at war with Arab states, and keeping an Arab population under permanent occupation. A nondenominational state that incorporated the occupied areas and treated the Arabs in them equally before the law, and that recognized the right of return e.g. in the indirect form I described above would no longer *be* Israel. If nearly half the citizens of Israel are Arabs and they're treated equally before the law, it's going to be awfully hard for them to argue that it's an aggressive, racist, colonialist state out to screw over Muslims.
Sure, it'd be a hard sell, just like it'd be a hard sell for Israelis to have to give up on the dream of an Israel that's characteristically Jewish. But perhaps, given the right incentives, it could be done.
Not "just" lay down their arms, but I think they just might be persuadable.
Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. And the main reasons for the invasion, I think, are twofold. Number one; to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity, which in layman’s language basically means Israel’s capacity to terrorize the region into submission. After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they felt it important to transmit the message that Israel is still a fighting force, still capable of terrorizing those who dare defy its word.
And the second main reason for the attack is because Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border. That is to say, Hamas was signaling they had joined the international consensus, they had joined most of the international community, overwhelmingly the international community, in seeking a diplomatic settlement. And at that point, Israel was faced with what Israelis call a Palestinian peace offensive. And in order to defeat the peace offensive, they sought to dismantle Hamas. "
....
"Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni stated in early December 2008 that although Israel wanted to create a temporary period of calm with Hamas, an extended truce "harms the Israeli strategic goal, empowers Hamas, and gives the impression that Israel recognizes the movement."[41] Translation: a protracted ceasefire that enhanced Hamas's credibility would have undermined Israel's strategic goal of retaining control of the West Bank. As far back as March 2007 Israel had decided on attacking Hamas, and only negotiated the June truce because "the Israeli army needed time to prepare.
Bolds are mine. See, PJ, I really don't make this stuff up. Geist is just one voice, but I think it's safe to say that every voice here represents a larger voice in the global community. Somehow, it always becomes our problem to fix and then everyone complains when we try to fix it.I still think a two state solution could work, but the real battle for peace in Israel and Palestine has to be fought in America. The international community pretty much unanimously supports a resolution based on the 1967 borders. If the United States were to join this consensus and demand that Israel withdraw the settlements, Israel would have no choice but to comply. Of course, the settlers would have to be compensated in some way and of course there would still be massive resistance. In the end though, Israel can't live in a vacuum. If faced with the genuine threat of sanctions, they would have to cut their losses and deal with it. If Washington took the lead, the rest of the world would certainly follow.
Bolds are mine. See, PJ, I really don't make this stuff up. Geist is just one voice, but I think it's safe to say that every voice here represents a larger voice in the global community. Somehow, it always becomes our problem to fix and then everyone complains when we try to fix it.
No, you don't in that case. There are leaders and there are followers. Note, the "leader" does not have to be a single entity, but it must be a single, unified philosophy. If you don't like the solution, then by definition you cannot be part of the leader group. At that point, you either choose to follow and accept whatever you get, or you put on your big boy pants and become the leader of a new and different approach/philosophy. The old leader and his philosophy get abandoned.The thing is dte, I very much would like the USA to take an active role in trying to solve global problems. That's not so much the issue. The issue is that I often strongly disagree with the approach. If, in trying to solve those 'problems', we feel that you're creating more problems, not just for the US, but for everyone else, then the rest of us certainly have a right to complain.
And so what I told him[George Mitchell, recently appointed Special Envoy to the MidEast] is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues -- and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen. He's going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.
Quote from magerette's article:Are you seriously saying that Israel/Palestine was somehow mysteriously shoved in your lap by the international community? Come on, dte -- surely you can do better than that. If what you're saying is true, then where's the clamor demanding that the US take the lead on solving the Sri Lankan Tamil/Sinhalese war, for example?
On Israel/Palestine, I'd very much like to see what would happen if Washington just got out of the way -- although I'd certainly appreciate it if they did attempt to take the lead in finding a lasting peace.
That's the interviewer's words.Tell us a little bit about how do you see your personal role, because, you know, if the President of the United States is not involved, nothing happens -- as the history of peacemaking shows.