A Just Peace or Apartheid? The Livni-Rice Plan for the Middle East

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

By JEFF HALPER

http://counterpunch.com/halper05032007.html

--SNIP--

For years I have been one of the doomsayers, arguing that the two-state solution is dead and that apartheid has become the only realistic political outcome of the Israel-Palestine conflict­ at least until a full-blown anti-apartheid struggle arises that fundamentally changes the equation. I based my assessment on several seemingly incontrovertible realities. Over the past 40 years, Israel has laid a thick and irreversible Matrix of Control over the Occupied Territories, including some 300 settlements, which effectively eliminates the possibility of a viable Palestinian state. No Israeli politician could conceivably be elected on the basis of withdrawing from the Occupied Territories to a point where a real Palestinian state could actually emerge, and even if s/he was, the prospect of cobbling together a coalition government with the requisite will and clout to carry out such a plan is highly unlikely, if at all. And given the unconditional bi-partisan support Israel enjoys in both houses of Congress and successive Adminstrations, reinforced by the Christian Right, the influential Jewish community and military lobbyists and a lack of will on the part of the international community to pressure Israel into making meaningful concessions, a genuine two-state solution seems virtually out of the question--even though it is the preferred option espoused by the international community in the moribund "Road Map" initiative.

Now if it is true that the two-state solution is gone, the next logical alternative would be the one-state solution, particularly since Israel conceives of the entire country between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River as one country--the Land of Israel--and has de facto made it one country through its settlements and highways. Seeing that Israel has been the only effective government throughout the land these past 40 years, why not go all the way and declare it a democratic state of all its inhabitants? (After all, Israel claims to be the only democracy in the Middle East.) The answer is clear: a democratic state in the Land of Israel is unacceptable (to Israel) because such a state, with a Palestinian majority, could not be "Jewish."

Which leads us back, then, to apartheid, a system in which one population separates itself from another and then proceeds to dominate it permanently and structurally. Since the dominant group seeks control of the entire country but wants to get the unwanted population off its hands, it rules them indirectly, by means of a bantustan, a kind of prison-state. This is precisely what Olmert laid out to a joint session of Congress last May when he presented his "convergence plan" (to 18 standing ovations). And this is precisely what Condoleezza Rice, together with Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, have been working on during Rice's monthly visits to the region.

The plan embodies the worst nightmare of the Palestinians. Phase II of the Road Map presents the "option" of an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders, "as a way station to a permanent status settlement." Livni is publicly pushing for Phase II to replace Phase I, raising Palestinian fears of being frozen indefinitely in limbo between occupation and a "provisional" state with no borders, no sovereignty, no viable economy, surrounded, fragmented and controlled by Israel and its ever-expanding settlements...

[Tom Joad]

1. Thanks to Jeff Halper for speaking the truth.

[oberliner]

2. Jeff Halper: Another tireless advocate of the one-state solution

And a self-proclaimed "pariah" among groups truly seeking an equitable solution to the conflict, such as Americans for Peace Now and the Foundation for Middle East Peace.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. I don't know your source for Halper...

...referring to himself as a "pariah," I looked for but didn't come across it in his blog (it may be there somewhere). I did, however, find some pretty good stuff. He seems like a very level headed, bright, and sincere peace activist to me -- only wish there were more like him. Here's a sample from his blog, enjoy:

TRUE CONVERGENCE: END THE WAR! END THE OCCUPATION! END STATE TERROR! END AMERICAN EMPIRE!

ICAHD, the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, condemns all attacks on civilians, Israeli, Palestinian and Hezbollah. Together with that, we recognize Israel’s ever-repressive Occupation as the source of the conflict and disability in our region. Had Israel taken the many opportunities it had to secure a just peace, the peoples of the region would never have reached this point of despair and futile violence. Israel believes it can achieve “quiet,” domination and normalcy through military power while retaining its cruel Occupation, encouraged and protected by the US. This is the source of the conflict today, the major obstacle in the way of a negotiated peace. Israel’s Occupation and resistance to Pax Americana are the reason why men of violence prevail and the peoples, who are not enemies, suffer.

Like Russian babushka dolls, Israel’s “disproportionate” attacks on both Gaza and Lebanon contain an agenda within an agenda, hidden within the pretext of freeing Israeli soldiers.

In its vicious attacks on Gaza in which 3000 houses were demolished and a months-long campaign of starving the local population into submission continues, Israel seeks to break the will of the Palestinian people and destroy any resistance to the imposition of an apartheid regime, as represented by Olmert’s “convergence plan.” This is the only explanation for Israel’s delegitimizing of the democratically-elected Hamas government which had been moving steadily towards a negotiated two-state settlement with Israel, and for its campaign to physically liquidate Hamas leaders, in contravention of international law.

As its disproportionate attacks on Lebanon demonstrate, Israel uses the Hezbollah threat to divide and conquer the Arab world. In fact, it is Israel’s Occupation that fans the flames of extremism in all the countries of our region. Hezbollah, which contributes nothing to the Palestinian cause and only adds to regional violence, is merely a product of Israeli refusal to negotiate with Syria, after repeated entreaties. By creating “straw enemies” like Hezbollah, Israel creates the violence and instability that allows it to retain its Occupation...

Halper's blog:

http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/blogs/jeff-halper/blogentry.2006-07-27.1049699483

[pelsar]

4. quite the imagination....

Hezbollah, which contributes nothing to the Palestinian cause and only adds to regional violence, is merely a product of Israeli refusal to negotiate with Syria, after repeated entreaties

actually hizballa grew out of lebanon with iranian help...not much to do with syria....but i guess its a way of blaming israel for hizballa attacks on israel.


but this was just shy of blaming israel for world terrorism:
In fact, it is Israel’s Occupation that fans the flames of extremism in all the countries of our region......

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

5. You seem to be suffering from what Ralph Nader would call ...

... an "amnesia of history" regarding Hezbolla's origins, but fear not -- you can always educate yourself. Click and learn, Pelsar.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wLn20TL8sDc

[pelsar]

6. actually i "suffer" from actually living in that period...

when hizballa came about.....and it was a direct result of israel being in lebanon......syria had nothing to do with it.


just do a bit of googling for their history....takes only a few seconds

and the Nader narration?....i wouldnt call it amnesia...its obviously something else since hes just twisting a few facts, making up a couple (israel controls lebanese coastal waters?) etc.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

7. As Nader quite rightly pointed out...

...Hezbollah was born out of the need for some kind of protection for the defenseless Shias of Southern Lebanon who had been mercilessly brutalized by the Israeli army.

[pelsar]

8. the article...

which is what i commented on and which you claimed i was wrong...said they were a result of israel not having peace with syria.....

you and the article were wrong.

Hezbollah,.....is merely a product of Israeli refusal to negotiate with Syria, after repeated entreaties

and if you want to mention Nadars narrative....he claimed (among other things) that israel controls lebanese coastal waters.......really?....since when?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

9. True to form, as always, you cite no credible sources and construct no...

...coherent, reasoned argument -- not very compelling, but certainly no surprise, Pelsar.

[pelsar]

10. whats hard to understand?

the article:
Hezbollah, which contributes nothing to the Palestinian cause and only adds to regional violence, is merely a product of Israeli refusal to negotiate with Syria, after repeated entreaties

i said it was not true.

you said it was, and directed me to a video of nadar who, when mentioning hizballa said they came out of lebanon because of israel...nothing to do with syria.

____

so a simple question: do you believe that hizballa is a product of israels refusal to negotiate with syria as per the article or do you believe nadar?....

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

11. I don't think the statements are necessarily mutually exclusive...

... but I accept Nader's explanation as more accurate as to their beginnings. This doesn't mean Hezbollah's continued presence in Lebanon isn't also partly attributable to Syrian/Israeli tensions resulting from Israel's longstanding refusal to negotiate with ANY of it's neighbors in good faith.

[pelsar]

12. your attempt to manipulate the words...

the article was clear:

Hezbollah, is merely a product of Israeli refusal to negotiate with Syria, after repeated entreaties

a "product" means it was a result of...... the article was wrong.
__________________________


so what do you call this statement of yours

Israel's longstanding refusal to negotiate with ANY of it's neighbors in good faith.....jordan? Egypt...mean anything to you? I believe they are considered neighbors.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

13. Your attempt, as always, to do nothing but offer...

...nuisance/distraction commentary as opposed to taking issue with the substantive content of the OP is what's clear.

I'd call my statement substantially accurate. As a rule Israel does not negotiate in good faith, they use their military might, courtesy of the U.S., to simply take what they want. This practice is well known and well documented and contrary to international law.

[pelsar]

15. "substantially accurate?

sounds like being partially pregnant......


your statement was wrong
Israel's longstanding refusal to negotiate with ANY of it's neighbors in good faith...which i guess leads you to conclude:
As a rule Israel does not negotiate in good faith or is it the reverse?

the peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt both negate that

___
as was your initial one claiming that i had no knowledge of how hizballa got started, and the article stating that they were a product of syria

_____________

i would say its pretty hard to have a reasonable discussion when one of the persons involved keeps (how does one say this for the forum?) making statements that are not true but calls them "substantially accurate"...perhaps the poster should go for 100% accuracy?...or better yet explain how "substantial" can include information that is simply false?...and why would someone even write false information?

any serious discussion about the conflict requires accuracy....not "substantially accurate" which is another way of saying inaccurate or false or not true.....

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

16. If you find discussion on this thread too challenging ...

...please don't let me keep you. Your nuisance/distraction posts won't be missed by me. However, if you wish to construct a coherent, well reasoned counter-piece to the OP please feel free. I'd love to read it.

[pelsar]

20. sticking to the facts...and being accurate...

do that i have no problem with any discussion about anything related to the conflict...

usuing hyperbole and being "substanially accurate"....and it makes a discussion rather difficult (hizballa was NOT a product of syria and its not substanially accurate to make the claim its simply not true)

so lets start out with:

why one can be "substantially accurate" vs just being accurate?

whats wrong with just being accurate?


you will notice my questions are relatively simple and straightforward......
_____

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

38. Non substance nuisance/distraction posts...

...it's all you've got, it's all we'll ever get from you.

[pelsar]

42. facts vs "pseudo facts"...and the english language

actually i'm more than willing to discuss issues....on two conditions...

1 )that as much as possible one keeps to the facts..no exaggerations, and other word games:
2) a willingness to answer the questions directly that come up in the discussion

i guess a simple example from your own posts is required:

Israel's longstanding refusal to negotiate with ANY of it's neighbors in good faith

lets see:
Israel/Egypt peace treaty
Israel/Jordan peace treaty
syria/Israel cease fire agreement
Lebanon/israel.....Lebanon has declared it will be the "last country to sign a peace treaty with israel. http://www.aramaic-dem.org/English/politik/157.htm
Palestinians: on going war-multiple negotiations, some succeed some dont
_____

so how does the above list fit with your statement?...have you decided to change the definition of ANY without telling anyone?...

lets see a little good faith on your part by explaining the above and perhaps we can get on to some substance (assuming one is able to keep to accuracy and dictionary definitions)
____

but having read one of your other posts where you wrote:
To take issue with such a well known, widely accepted truth only serves to further erode any credibility you may have had.

I now understand......seems your "view" is as much a belief as any fundamentalist/cult member: they too have the same reaction when their belief is questioned, the truth is self evident and cant even be questioned.

or course then again you did write this:
dissect each element of every falsehood, state the truth, and back it up with credible sourcing and verifiable fact.

perhaps you might want to take your own advice?....and explain your previous statements about syria producing hizballa and israels refusal to negotiate?....your sources?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

46. The existence of a treaty or agreement...

...does not serve as evidence that participating parties showed up and negotiated in good faith.

In 1934 Nazi Germany and Poland signed a non attack treaty. Would you accept this as as evidence that Nazi Germany negotiated in good faith? Or would you be more inclined to believe insight into any true good faith on the part of Nazi Germany might best be gained by examining its actions? And further, would you think it safe to say that any nation with a well established record of past and continuing war crimes can be reasonably presumed NOT to negotiate in good faith?

As to the subject of war crimes, I would invite you to take another listen to Nader's comments regarding Israel's bombing of Lebanon (post #5) -- "major war crimes" was the phrase he used. BTW, What kind of nation drops thousands of cluster bombs in areas known to be populated by civilians? Wait, let me guess, one that can always be relied upon to negotiate in good faith, right?

It is Israel's actions, such as it's willingness to continue the longstanding, brutal, and illegal occupation of Palestine, it's willingness to indiscriminately and illegally bomb Lebanese civilians and destroy their infrastructure, and generally, it's continued willingness to engage in and carry out war crimes, that speaks such volumes about any good faith Israel might bring to a negotiation -- NOT the existence of a treaty or agreement it may happen to be a party to.

[pelsar]

48. so perhaps explain what part was not in good faith?

The existence of a treaty or agreement.. does not serve as evidence that participating parties showed up and negotiated in good faith.

since it appears that egypt/israel/jordan all appear to be satisfied with the agreements....perhaps you might enlighten me as to the evidence of "lack of good faith" with reference to the actual treaties and agreeements that relate to those parties?

(i am refering to the agreements with egypt/jordan/israel which i believed you mention were not negotiated in "good faith")

in fact it if wasnt...seems to me egypt would have discovered the israeli trick by now...as well as jordan...and syria for that matter (as they too have an agreement) and would have declared it non viable or something like that.

so the evidence is?
(i take it your expecting israel to attack egypt and jordan and syria any time now?....)

[pelsar]

49. an addition:

egypt used gas on the sudanese, attacked and bombed israeli cities...so too with jordan who massacred palestenians......all war crimes.....i guess according to your logic with their well established record of past war crimes its quite reasonable to assume that they also didnt negotiate in good faith

...your logic just being consistent

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

51. You're consistent alright...

...I'll give you that -- a consistent poster of non substance nuisance/distraction.

[pelsar]

60. consistent in not presenting evidence...

easy on accusations...a bit shy on evidence:

you claimed that israel did not negotiate in good faith with Egypt/Syria/Jordan

i asked for some kind of evidence....its been about 30 years with the eyptians since israel and egypt signed a peace treaty...

Jordan has had multiple negotiatons with israel on water, security arrangements as well as a peace agreement

Syria...cease fire arrangements..

all lasting more than 30 years


so where is your proof that israel did not negotiate in good faith (or is this one of those things that "everybody knows about....)

simple question to an accusation:... back it up with credible sourcing and verifiable fact....your words.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

61. I've already stated my reasoning in...

...asserting that Israel does not, as a rule, negotiate in good faith (post #46):

It is Israel's actions, such as it's willingness to continue the longstanding, brutal, and illegal occupation of Palestine, it's willingness to indiscriminately and illegally bomb Lebanese civilians and destroy their infrastructure, and generally, it's continued willingness to engage in and carry out war crimes, that speaks such volumes about any good faith Israel might bring to a negotiation -- NOT the existence of a treaty or agreement it may happen to be a party to.

I'm sure you'll agree that this would make another good poll question:

"Do you believe, yes or no, that Israel, as a rule, can be relied upon to negotiate in good faith?"

I'll bet we'd get a resounding "YES!!!" from the fine folks at AIPAC, as well as our brave, intrepid, members in the U.S. House and Senate ... But what about the rest of the world, Pelsar? Care to speculate on how this one would poll in the GD forum if such a poll were allowed, or across the Middle East, or internationally, or right here in the I/P forum? What kind of results would you expect? And how would you account for them?

[pelsar]

63. lots of problems in your posts...

your first stated:
Israel's longstanding refusal to negotiate with ANY of it's neighbors in good faith.....and dont seem to be able to show evidence that the Egyptians/Syrians/Jordanians agree with you. All have negotiated with israel and all have quiet borders.

so do you still stand by this statement?.....or is it "substantially correct"...like in hizballa being a product of syria?

then you change your statement:
t's continued willingness to engage in and carry out war crimes that speaks such volumes about any good faith Israel might bring to a negotiation

...I hate to break it to you, but the death and destruction of the yom kippur war to the city of suez and quentra was far worse than beirut, etc...yet syria and egypt and israel all negotiated cease fire and security arrangements that stand today....33years after the fact....that translates to good faith since it worked and is still working. (I guess according to you, probably all those involved in war have never negotiated in "good faith" since wars generally negate human rights...perhaps you have some real examples of the opposite)

as far as your imaginary polls....

Shaktimaan said it best:

Instead on relying on an imaginary opinion poll as evidence to support your theory, (though that was pretty awesome. I can't believe you actually presented imaginary facts,) try using verifiable facts.....

btw you do realize that once most of the people believed the world was flat.....that witches existed.....

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

65. Lot's of problems is right...

...namely, WAY too much truth for you to handle.

[Shaktimaan]

70. I disagree with your assesment of Israel's war crimes, but more relevantly,

I fail to understand your logic as to their link to good-faith negotiations. You seem to be saying that any country that acts as Israel has acted is not capable of making good faith negotiations. Thus, Israel has NEVER negotiated in good faith with any of their neighbors. This is a bit like saying that no one who voted for Bush is capable of being a Democrat. Thus no one who voted for Bush has ever voted Democratic.

While we can all agree on the importance of human rights I fail to see how it immediately negates any and every example or possibility of good faith negotiations on the part of the country. Additionally, Israel has not done anything different than every other nation on the planet. So are any countries capable of GF negotiations in your opinion?

Then you say that you are only talking about negotiations, NOT agreements or treaties that Israel "may happen to be a party to." "Good faith negotiating" is usually thought of as nations following thorugh on the commitments they made while negotiating. Israel has never just "happened to be a party" to an agreement or treaty, they have all been painstakingly negotiated by the respective nations. Proving that Israel has not negotiated in good faith means finding examples of treaties where they promised one thing in the negotiating room with the intention of doing otherwise.

Lastly, there is a technical flaw in your logic. You cite as evidence other people's supposed opinion of whether or not Israel is a GF negotiator. So what you are actually showing is NOT that Israel has never demonstrated good faith in their negotiations, but just people's opinions on the subject. Any poll anywhere about anything is just a demonstration of mass opinion, not an example of proof on anything else. As Pelsar said, everyone used to think the world was flat. Is that considered positive evidence that the world was in fact flat? Imaginary polls (while fun!) are especially not very useful as proof of a statement. Proof is demonstated using facts. Now, are you able to cite a single one of those?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

71. I set forth my opinion and explained my reasoning...

...for it. That's all I can do. If you disagree and wish to explain your reasoning feel free.

[Shaktimaan]

80. I thought I just did.

Seriously, you've been talking a lot of trash considering that you don't seem to actually have any evidence to support your assertions, despite describing them as being "well-documented," and "widely accepted truths," that are apparently so widely accepted and so freaking true that to even ask for verification of their truth was enough to completely destroy the little credibility that I have left.

Anyway, this was fun. It's kind of reminiscent of watching Jimmy Carter discuss this very subject on recent news shows. You can actually point out precisely where he is possibly making an error yet he will steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it. (If only he had been nearly as resilient when he was president... sigh.)

[Shaktimaan]

79. actually, um...

according to the text you quoted of Halper's, the two origin stories of Hezbollah would be mutually exclusive. As Halper says...

Hezbollah, which contributes nothing to the Palestinian cause and only adds to regional violence, is merely a product of Israeli refusal to negotiate with Syria, after repeated entreaties. By creating “straw enemies” like Hezbollah, Israel creates the violence and instability that allows it to retain its Occupation...

Notice that Halper did not say that Hezbollah was partly created out of Israel reluctance to negotiate with Syria. Nor did he leave out a qualifying adverb which would have left his exact thoughts ambiguous. He made his beliefs clear when he said that Hezbollah is merely a product of Israel's actions regarding Syria.

Now I know you are fond of references so I'll take you through this slowly and document my findings. Here is what "merely" means.


mere·ly /ˈmɪərli/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation
–adverb
1. only as specified and nothing more; simply: merely a matter of form.
2. Obsolete.
a. without admixture; purely.
b. altogether; entirely.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=merely

merely
A adverb
1 merely, simply, just, only, but and nothing more;

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/merely


So Halper's statement was undeniably meant to mean that Hezbollah is entirely a product of Israel's refusal to negotiate with Syria. So in the context of Halper's writing, these two origin stories are mutually exclusive and Hezbollah's existence has nothing to do with Israel's invasion of Lebanon.

In terms of the generally held understanding of Hezbollah, Halper appears to just be making stuff up off the top of his head.

Do you really find him rational and level-headed? I mean, it looks like he's been screaming (all those exclamation points!!!) patently imaginary stories about conspiracies in the middle east... everybody I have met who shares ideas in this fashion lives on the subway. I'm guessing Halper is an A line sort of fellow. The F train might be a bit mellow for him, I could see him really mixing it up. But the A train is the real deal, some of those guys drink a pint, pint-and-a-half of paint thinner in the morning to get crazy enough to compete with the world-class insane, spitting, blindingly drunk conspiracy nutters and wild-eyed religion hawkers battling for the top honours there. Yup, I definitely see him as an A train kind of guy. If he can manage to go for three hours or so without either urinating on himself, biting anyone or making any kind of logical or verifiable statement then I think he might have a shot at the big-time... The Port Authority Bus Terminal. (I know, I know... baby steps, baby steps.)

[oberliner]

14. From the ICAHD website

Halper stated that his background as an anthropologist taught him to see things “from the ground up” and to “go where the field takes him,” even if it means he has to occasionally admit that he is wrong. As a peace activist, Halper said he believes that while a “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an article of faith among Israelis, Palestinians, and virtually every other party involved or interested in the conflict, activists should admit that such an outcome is no longer possible because of Israel’s policy of apartheid in the territories. He said that this position has made him a pariah among American groups, such as Americans for Peace Now and the Foundation for Middle East Peace, who refuse to host him for public talks.

http://www.icahdusa.org/2007/02/16/cni-public-hearing-with-jeff-halper-and-naim-ateek/

I certainly respect your right to admire this man and support his positions and appreciate the link to his blog.

Personally I support a two-state solution and I am glad to see that there is still some energy behind the Geneva Initiative towards that end.

In fact, Dr. Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo met with Mahmoud Abbas just yesterday.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. but what does one do if they would support (critically and with qualifications, but nonetheless

support) a Geneva Initiative type two-state solution, but simply does not believe that it is going to happen?

For the Geneva Initiative to be carried out Israel would have to remove at least one hundred thousand settlers from the West Bank. Given the realities of Israeli coalition government which rely on small parties to form majorities, I simply cannot imagine in my most optimist moments a scenario in which any Israeli government which is held together by such coalitions approving such a drastic measure as the removal of one hundred thousand settlers. Without such a removal; a viable, contiguous, independent and sovereign state is not possible.

If at a later date a government is elected that would be capable of carrying out such policy; by such a time the on-the-ground realities of permanent structure and infrastructure will be so wedded into the West Bank and so integrated into Israel, a viable independent state may simply not be plausible. In fact it's getting very close that situation already.

Well, in the absence of two states there will in fact be one state. IE: 2-1 = 1. The question will then arise, what sort of one-state will this one-state be?

from:

Which kind of binational state?

By Myron Benvenisti (former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem 1971-78)

"And there's a fourth model, which can be called "undeclared binationalism." It's a unitary state controlled by one dominant national group, which leaves the other national group disenfranchised and subject to laws "for natives only," which for the purposes of respectability and international law are known as laws of "belligerent occupation." The convenience of this model of binationalism is that it can be applied over a long period of time, meanwhile debating the threat of the "one state" and the advantages of the "two states," without doing a thing. That's the situation nowadays. But the process is apparently inevitable. Israel and the Palestinians are sinking together into the mud of the "one state." The question is no longer whether it will be binational, but which model to choose."


link to full article: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=363062&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

.

[Igel]

35. Matryoshka dolls.

Unless the Russians have come up with a recent innovation--nested grannie dolls.

[Shaktimaan]

36. Pure cpmedy genuis.

I LOVE these two pieces of copy right next to each other. Beautiful.

He seems like a very level headed, bright, and sincere peace activist to me

TRUE CONVERGENCE: END THE WAR! END THE OCCUPATION! END STATE TERROR! END AMERICAN EMPIRE!


LOL! Yeah, totally level headed. Oh, I have a question for you, Jefferson.

Together with that, we recognize Israel’s ever-repressive Occupation as the source of the conflict and disability in our region. Had Israel taken the many opportunities it had to secure a just peace, the peoples of the region would never have reached this point of despair and futile violence.

If the occupation is the cause of the conflict then how is it that the conflict predates the occupation? And at the start of the conflict why then did the Arabs choose to specifically target the indigenous Jewish population of Palestine who had lived there for two or three thousand years and were not sympathetic to Zionism?

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shaktimaan]

41. OK, then how do you explain

the fact that the conflict predates the occupation by nearly 40 years?

It's a pretty simple question. Instead on relying on an imaginary opinion poll as evidence to support your theory, (though that was pretty awesome. I can't believe you actually presented imaginary facts,) try using verifyable facts for this round. I realize that the imaginary opinion poll technique is veeeery credible in some areas, but since it didn't seem to actually answer the question, I was hoping you could try using logic or something similar that exists outside of your own mind, you know, in a tangible way.

(Hint: That means dreams don't count either. Sorry.)

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

45. Yet another non substance nuisance/distraction post...

...what a shocking surprise.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

17. Too bad no one responded to this article.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

18. Maybe we'll see a few yet before it fades away... It's OK either way.

[Shaktimaan]

21. I like this guy.

He's funny. Applying the kind of blanket statements on policy as he does is a good way to spot true believers. You know the ones. They assure you they know the truth (and can tell it to you!) without seeing a need to be real firm on the facts.

Over the past 40 years, Israel has laid a thick and irreversible Matrix of Control over the Occupied Territories, including some 300 settlements, which effectively eliminates the possibility of a viable Palestinian state.

Take this typical statement. First off, B'tselem numbers the settlements (including E.Jerusalem) at 135. Maybe he counted every hilltop settlement that was ever built, including the long since dismantled ones? I dunno how he got 300, do you? Next there's that "thick and irreversible Matrix of Control" thing. What's that and what makes it irreversible? And just how thick is it? Thicker than my finger? Thicker than a sponge cake? Thicker than the Soviet Matrix of control that previously lay over half of Europe, which purged any unapproved ideology or beloved religion from hundreds of millions of people, turned children into informants against their parents and stood immutibly for 50 long years creating a global landscape of fear and menace? Because that one ended up being reversible. I wonder how the Israelis... oh, I know! I'll bet they used special glue for theirs to make it permanent. That's so like them.

And, uh, why is the Palestinian state now "impossible?" Why "non-viable?" What does "non-viable" mean here anyway? How exactly is it that the area they live in could be administrated by their enemies successfully for 40 years yet it becomes non-viable as soon as they leave? How non-viable are we talking about here? As bad as... I dunno, Bangladesh? Because Bangladesh is viable as a state. Really. They have fruit stands and everything, I went there once. Something has to be really messed up to no longer be viable. And if you throw the amount of aid that the Palestinians get at it, it gets viable like magic. But they would have to cut off Suha Arafat first. Giving her all their aid wasn't a great choice for viability.

[pelsar]

22. i think your missing something...

In case you missed part of the discussion...the article as i understood it, is considered "substantially correct"....(it means you can make up whatever you want and as long as it goes along with what you believe than it gets the stamp of approval...kind of like "the end justifies the means".

your attempts at actually dissecting the "emotion laden sentences (non viable, irreversible) is really a "non starter" as you will discover that your "substantially incorrect"

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

23. I'm sure he likes you too...

...Yeah he's really taking liberties with that "irreversible matrix of control" rhetoric. What he should have said was something more fair and balanced, like:

Over the past 40 years Israel has been a wonderful, kind, and helpful neighbor to those pesky, ungrateful Palestinians and would be happy to withdraw from the one or two small settlements they've built on Palestinian land, if only those pesky Palestinian kids would just stop throwing rocks at Israeli armored vehicles all the time.

[Tom Joad]

24. When they were throwing rocks at armored vehicles they were a real

threat to the very existence of Israel. They were also making it seem like the Israelis weren't welcomed. It was bad for PR.

Now, throwing rocks at unarmed school children, like Jewish Settler kids do in Hebron.... oh kids will be kids after all, nothing to be concerned about there... ha ha ha.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shaktimaan]

33. Do you really, really think so?

Sarcasm aside, this article is absurd. There are a multitude of very real obstacles at the heart of the Palestinian desire for statehood and Halper's gross misrepresentation of them isn't going to benefit anyone with a stake in any real solution.

Most of this stuff Halper wrote is just conjecture. He makes assumptions about motives and plans that can't really be proven or disproven, yet he phrases it as though it is accepted factual knowledge. Aside from making tons of these kind of baseless claims he doesn't seem to have a problem telling complete falsehoods either. Most people trying to distort the reality of the conflict do so by offering selective history that leads uninformed readers to a forgone conclusion. While this practice is dishonest, there are always people like Halper who are willing to take the extra step and make stuff up out of thin air.

I never understood how it helps one's cause to print stuff that isn't true. Jefferson's response to me implies that I would consider anything other than a glowing pro-Israel report to be a biased piece of junk. But it isn't that this report (or many others like it) is critical of Israel which has me dismissing it as a waste of hot gas. I am criticizing it for being dishonest. (OK, and being ridiculously written. But the writing just made me laugh, the rest is serious stuff.)

Why is it that the expectation of truth is painted as a belief that any criticism of Israel is intolerable? When did it become so fashionable for hyperbole and fabrications to be considered legitimate criticism? And if your cause is truly as just as you say it is, then why are such techniques even necessary?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

37. An effective counter-piece to Halper's editorial...

...would be to methodically dissect each element of every falsehood, state the truth, and back it up with credible sourcing and verifiable fact. It's more work, but since you seem to have such strong opinions, and judging from how often you post in the I/P forum you apparently have the time, why not do it?

MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" should provide some inspiration:

http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html

When you read this masterful bit of writing, the clear parallels between the treatment blacks received in the U.S. in the 50s and 60s and the treatment Palestinians have been subjected to and continue to receive from Israel in their own homeland are inescapable (of course, that won't keep you from trying to deny them).

[Tom Joad]

52. MLK also had to do battle with "liberals"... they always were telling

him to be "patient" and to be "reasonable".

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

53. You're right. He refers to "moderate whites"...

... (some of which I would imagine had liberal leanings) in his famous letter as a source of more frustration than the overtly racist.

[oberliner]

54. He also had to stand up to people like Jeff Halper

In the face of those who sought to delegitamize the Jewish State in 1968 the way Halper is doing now, MLK was steadfast in his support for Israel's security.

Would that Mr. Halper could come out with as unequivocal a statement as this one by Dr. King:

"Israel's right to exist as a state in security is incontestable."

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. would Dr. King have opposed a vision in which all people between the Jordan

and the sea live in peace and security as equals with an equal say in their future regardless of ethnicity or religion? That is all Professor Halper is advocating. And Professor Halper is after all a deeply religious Israeli-Jewish man and a Professor of Antropology at Ben Gurion University and he has worked tirelessly to improve relations and understanding between Jewish and Arab citizens and subjects of Israel

Perhaps the Geneva Initiative is the best plausible solution under current circumstances. But perhaps it may not happen.

Perhaps Professor Halper just has a dream of something that could be in the future.

Perhaps the supporters of the Geneva Initiative (and I do include myself) need to be prepared if (as I suspect but am by no means certain will be the case) the Geneva Initiative simply does not happen because even the Geneva Initiative is not politically plausible within the real body politic of Israel.

And perhaps by the time it does become politically possible, the on-the-ground realities no longer apply:

Which kind of binational state?

By Myron Benvenisti (former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem 1971-78)

"And there's a fourth model, which can be called "undeclared binationalism." It's a unitary state controlled by one dominant national group, which leaves the other national group disenfranchised and subject to laws "for natives only," which for the purposes of respectability and international law are known as laws of "belligerent occupation." The convenience of this model of binationalism is that it can be applied over a long period of time, meanwhile debating the threat of the "one state" and the advantages of the "two states," without doing a thing. That's the situation nowadays. But the process is apparently inevitable. Israel and the Palestinians are sinking together into the mud of the "one state." The question is no longer whether it will be binational, but which model to choose."

link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=363062&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

.

[oberliner]

56. Dismantling Israel as a Jewish state is not politically plausible within the body politic either

I do not know what Dr. King would oppose or support today, however, I will say that statements he made during his life seem to suggest that he supported the continued existance of Israel as a Jewish state rather than replacing it with the sort of entity described by Professor Halper.

You are right to suggest that the Geneva Initiative may not be workable.

My argument is that we in the progressive community ought to put our energies behind that and other similar proposals that will lead to two states living side by side at peace with one another.

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. perhaps any settlement is not plausible for the time being

But there is a simple reality that two peoples view the land between the Jordan and the Sea as their homeland.

Whether one state, two states or X number of states, I simply cannot view a vision of equality as a devious agenda.

I suspect--but am by no means certain--that the prediction of the former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem whom I have cited, will come true that there will be only one real state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. If that turns out to be the case (and I certainly cannot predict the future with any degree of certainty) I do not think the concept of a state based on equality including equality of political power is such a terrible vision of the future.

.

[Tom Joad]

57. Your saying Halper doesn't care about the people of Israel?

[oberliner]

59. I'm sure he cares about the people of Israel

He just does not believe that a Jewish state needs to exist.

As I've said many times, I stand with Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, Michael Lerner and countless other progressives in their call to work towards a two-state solution with an independant Palestinian state and a secure Israel living as peaceful neighbors.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

62. "He (MLK) also had to stand up to people like Jeff Halper..."

...That's rich -- like saying Mahatma Gandhi had to stand up to people like Mother Teresa.

Utterly ridiculous.

As to the right to exist, would you not agree that how a nation chooses to use/exercise the right to exist matters? Should that not be an important determining factor in whether or not the international community chooses to support or withdraw this right? Did Nazi Germany have the right to exist? I think most reasonable people would say they forfeited that right when they started committing horrific war crimes and/or taking over all of Europe by force.

As to the subject of war crimes, I would invite you to take another listen to Nader's comments regarding Israel's bombing of Lebanon (post #5) -- "major war crimes" was the phrase he used. BTW, What kind of nation drops thousands of cluster bombs in areas known to be populated by civilians?

Suppose Israelis had a long well established record of living amongst their neighbors in the Middle East much like the Amish live amongst all of us here in the States (peacefully, but, by their own choice keeping pretty much to themselves). Do you think anyone would be questioning their right to exist? What do you suppose would happen if the Amish started arming themselves and encroaching onto their neighbor's land, seizing/occupying it by force and meting out brutal punishment to landowners who dared try to resist or challenge them? Do you suppose their right to exist might then be called into question?

I don't believe people would question Israel's right to exist as it currently does if there were evidence it is sincere about coexisting with its neighbors in a just, equal, and lasting peace (BTW, I believe many ordinary Israeli citizens are quite sincere about this). Unfortunately, the evidence is quite to the contrary -- Israel's well established record of unjustifiable, brutal, militarism in dealing with its neighbors makes it abundantly clear that those who control the country are not sincere in this regard.

[oberliner]

64. The analogy is completely valid and directly related to this conflict

Today, as in 1968, there are leaders in the progressive community who are engaged in the struggle to see Israel living at peace with her neighbors.

Today, as in 1968, there are some more extreme elements who go so far as to say that Israel itself is a racist entity and should not exist as a Jewish state.

Today, as in 1968, progressive leaders have had to stand firm against those who would suggest that Israel has no right to exist, and promote instead their vision for peace in the Middle East that includes a secure Israel.

Today, those leaders include former President Jimmy Carter, Representative Dennis Kucinich, Tikkun founder Rabbi Michael Lerner.

In 1968, those leaders included Martin Luther King Jr.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

66. Did Jimmy Carter not cite the current...

...state of affairs as one of apartheid? Does apartheid not amount to racism?

[oberliner]

67. Jimmy Carter Issues Letter to Jewish Community (Dec 2006)

Carter writes:

"I emphasized, as I had throughout the tour, that the book was about conditions and events in the Palestinian territories and not in Israel, where a democracy exists with all the freedoms we enjoy in our country and Israeli Jews and Arabs are legally guaranteed the same rights as citizens."

He also later writes:

"I made clear in the book's text and in my response to the rabbis that the system of apartheid in Palestine is not based on racism..."

http://www.cartercenter.org/news/pr/carter_letter_121506.html

President Carter is very critical of Israel's behavior in the Occupied Territories, but he does not call Israel a racist state and certainly does not support dismantling Israel as a Jewish state.

He supports the two-state solution and has regularly promoted the Geneva Accords as a path to get there.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

68. So you're not contesting the conditions amount to...

...apartheid, but would contest that it is based on race or ethnicity? What would you have us believe it is based on? Tell us what the brutal and often murderous treatment Palestinians have been subjected to in their own homeland at the hands of the Israeli military over the past four decades is based on? How are they segregating their fellow human beings and deciding who shall be subjected to such treatment and who shall enjoy the life of privilege? Do they do it by weight? Height? Shoe size? How far one can throw a softball? How does one qualify for the life of privilege?

Wait, let me guess, could it possibly be military necessity?. Isn't that the standard line for justifying their war crimes? Israel has the right to defend itself, right? Surely, that's what it must be based on. They don't want to brutalize and murder Palestinians or steal their land, they have to, right? If those dang, pesky, rock chucking, Palestinian kids would just cut it out, this system of apartheid wouldn't be necessary at all. They've brought it all down on themselves, right?

[Shaktimaan]

73. I have a question for you.

Regarding Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, do you feel that Israel has overall been more brutal or less brutal compared to most other nations when they have found themselves in similar conflicts?

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shaktimaan]

76. I see.

So your opinion is that Israel's actions are the equivalent of Nazi Germany's. Specifically, you reckon that Israeli occupied Palestine is the equivalent of the Warsaw Ghetto, right?

I am also curious as to your thoughts on the beginning of the conflict. You seem to believe that the Israeli occupation is the root cause. But since the conflict predates both the occupation of the territories and even the existence of the state of Israel, I do not understand how that squares up for you. According to your understanding, what event(s) first initiated this conflict, back at the start of it? Who first attacked who and why?

[Douglas Carpenter]

69. I still have trouble imagining Dr. King opposing a system based on equality

If it turns out that a genuinely independent, sovereign and viable Palestinian state does not happen and perhaps even cannot happen because of facts-on-the ground. And again I say I am not certain that is the case. But I think that is very possible.

I cannot imagine how another approach that recognizes the full political, national and civil equality of all parties is some sinister agenda.

.

[oberliner]

72. I have more trouble imagining Dr. King opposing the continued existence of the Jewish state

The "sinister agenda" is the suggestion that there is no need for a Jewish state to exist in the world.

Even Halper himself admits that this is would be difficult for the vast majority of Israelis to swallow.

He writes:

For the Israelis, too, the prospect of a single state is obviously wrenching. Indeed, since a Jewish-Israeli state already exists, its transformation into a single state including a Palestinian majority is far more threatening to them. It means the end of Zionism, the end of a Jewish state qua Jewish state. But the Israeli public has only itself to blame.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=4203

[Douglas Carpenter]

81. I don't believe that Dr. King ever used that term...

"a Jewish state". I don't personally get all hung up over technical terminology. I'm not certain what people mean by a "Jewish state". Clearly different people have different ideas of just what that phrase means. Some people interpret that phrase to mean a Jewish-supremest state in which the rights of the native indigenous Palestinian people are less than the rights of Jewish citizens.

However, as you mentioned in one of your post 75% of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship "support a constitution that maintained Israel's status as a Jewish and democratic state while guaranteeing equal rights for minorities, according to a poll whose results were published on Sunday." link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/853564.html

Yet in another Poll of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship 76 percent described Zionism as racist. link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=839029

And in another Poll of Palestinians within Israel, "Only 3.4% of the 500 Arab citizens of Israel polled by phone felt that the Israeli government treats them as equal citizens. Some 49% said the government treats them as second-class citizens and 24% as hostile citizens who don't deserve equal rights." link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395572629&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

As long as full equality of political, national, cultural, religious and civil rights between the Jewish and native Palestinian population develops, I don't see a lot of point in worrying too much about the terminology.


Having said all of this, if a two-state solution based more or less on the Geneva Initiative is actually possible, I would support it. I just have serious doubt that it will happen before the two-state solution ceases to be a viable option.
.

[oberliner]

83. I don't believe he did either

A two-state solution based more or less on the Geneva Initiative is as possible as people make it.

I would argue that uniting behind that goal could generate a truly progressive movement aimed toward finally resolving this conflict.

I think that those who promote a one-state solution are, as Rabbi Lerner suggested, inadvertently helping to prolong the conflict.

[Douglas Carpenter]

84. actually even Chomsky said pretty much the same thing at Rabbi Lerner

in that regard.

My problem and a lot of peoples problem is that they just do not believe it is going to happen.

As you will recall between the time of Oslo being signed in 1993 and the Camp David talks occurred in 2000 the number of settlers increased by approximately 90% with largest acceleration of expansion actually occurring under Barak in 1999 and 2000. That completely de-legitimatized the idea that Israel was serious about ending the occupation and allowing a genuinely, contiguous, viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian state.

And the expansion continues even now; unabated.

At the very, very least Israel can freeze all expansion. This certainly will not harm their security.

As long as they are expanding its hard to believe that they will ever accept a REAL state.

.

[Shaktimaan]

78. Are you talking about comparing the experiences of American black people and

Palestinians who are living in the territories or those who have Israeli citizenship and actually live in Israel?

I believe it is dangerous to try and compare specific aspects of any given historical event with another one for the purpose of transposing the ethical underpinnings of one onto the second one. Anyone can pull out elements of the civil rights movement in America, (such as images of protesters being dispersed with fire hoses) and match it up with similar imagery from a modern day issue, (like protesters in the East Jerusalem being dispersed using the same method,) as a cheap way of donating the civil rights activists' courage to the Palestinians and saddling the policemen's thuggishness onto the Israelis. But once you take those elements out of the context that they existed in for purposes of comparison, it is not possible to understand what you are actually comparing.

Both the civil rights movement and the Israel/Palestine conflict are immense, complex events that exist very much in their own place and time. While some aspects of each may resemble each other, the same could be said of nearly any event compared to any other in the past 100 years. Trying to equate the two by casting the Palestinians in the role of oppressed black American and Israel as "The Man" doesn't seek to really educate someone about the realities of the I/P conflict as much as it tries to staple the simple, obvious ethics of civil rights on the front of the shapeshifting hydra that is Middle Eastern politics and history. Assigning one side white hats and the other side black ones makes for convenient story-telling. But it does not mean that one side is good and the other side evil any more than recasting Yasser Arafat as Martin Luther King means that Arafat was a committed, courageous pacifist dedicated to equality and peace for all.

Context is everything.

[breakaleg]

25. There are about 100 illegal outposts to add to that list. Perhaps he included those

in his count.

The land needs to be contiguous to be viable. There can be no roads running through it - period, they need access to surrounding states, their own borders, resources like water. Any plan that maintains any of the current apartheid roads or gives any part of the Jordan Valley to Israel won't work.

[pelsar]

26. why?

explain the economics that a state has to be contiguous (so a gaza/westbank state wont work?...there will be three states according to your theory?) i think the palestinians disagree with you on that point

access to surrounding states?.....assuming there is peace why cant they go through israel?....or do you see them blowing up the border control points like in gaza?

water?...they have their own acquifer beneath the westbank and gaza-basic geology, check it out.

[breakaleg]

30. darn! is the ignore feature not working?

[pelsar]

31. hate to be challenged?

....not buying a simplistic narrative is not really my style....there are other websites where everyone "thinks and believes the same.....there posters can have their "substantially correct" versions of events...pretend geological facts dont really exist....and they wont even be challenged.

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. actually the Geneva Initiative does establish a land corridor between Gaza and the West Bank

I suppose a less than perfect analogy would be if one "owns" a few rooms of a house but someone else whom one has a very uncertain relationship with controls the hallways as well as the exits and entries to the house. They do not control their dwelling. Now, imagine if you will that the "owner" of these rooms was attempting to develop a viable business that required constant movement back and forth between the various rooms and unimpeded entry and exit from the building. It would be kind of hard to inspire long term investment in such an enterprise.

A noncontiguous "state" without control over the states own borders would mean a lack of independence and sovereignty.

Assurance of and long term confidence in freedom of movement of goods, services and people are a requirement to develop a viable economy and along with it a functioning and independent democracy and civil society.

If Israelis do not fully trust the Palestinians to act in an enlightened manner, they should not be too surprised to discover that the feeling is mutual.

There are four absolute bare minimum requirements that even the most moderate, compromising and peace loving Palestinian would require as an absolute minimum. NO Palestinian--not one, will accept anything less than this. These are not fundamentally different than what any other state would require.

1. A contiguous state with control over resources

2. Control over borders

3. Genuine Palestinian sovereignty over the Arab and Muslim sections of East Jerusalem and the Old City

4. A compromise solution to the refugee issue

I do not think these are unreasonable demands in 22% of the homeland.

Anything less will not end the conflict, will not bring a settlement and will not bring peace. It will not convince young potential militants that they have achieved independence and have a better future beckoning. It will not convince the region or the world. It will not convince potential investors. It will not convince moneyed and educated Palestinians in the diaspora to return home to invest in and help build a better Palestinian future.

I believe the Geneva Accord meets the bare minimum -- link: http://www.geneva-accord.org/HomePage.aspx?FolderID=11&lang=en

However if this waits too long, then the two-state option will no longer be plausible because so much of the West Bank and East Jerusalem will be permanently integrated into Israel in permanent structure and infrastructure. And then the prediction of former Jerusalem Deputy Mayor Myron Benvenisti will become the facts-on-the-ground reality.

from:

Which kind of binational state?

By Myron Benvenisti (former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem 1971-78)

"And there's a fourth model, which can be called "undeclared binationalism." It's a unitary state controlled by one dominant national group, which leaves the other national group disenfranchised and subject to laws "for natives only," which for the purposes of respectability and international law are known as laws of "belligerent occupation." The convenience of this model of binationalism is that it can be applied over a long period of time, meanwhile debating the threat of the "one state" and the advantages of the "two states," without doing a thing. That's the situation nowadays. But the process is apparently inevitable. Israel and the Palestinians are sinking together into the mud of the "one state." The question is no longer whether it will be binational, but which model to choose."

link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=363062&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

.

[pelsar]

47. the point is simple...

for those who equate that a non- contiguous state means non viable....that means they are negating the westbank/gaza palestenian plan.

they're may very well be a "land bridge" i.e. roads that connect the westbank and gaza....but it is only a road that will be via israel.

so if as you say a contiguous land mass is a requirement.....guess we're looking at 3 states

[Douglas Carpenter]

50. a land corridor between the West Bank and Gaza in exchange for

certain major settlement blocks around the Jerusalem area--as recommended by the Geneva Initiative is the only practical compromise in order to minimize the lack of absolute continuity. It's the only less than perfect but still workable compromise I can imagine to maximize continuity and maximize viablility in a less than ideal situation.

[Shaktimaan]

77. What is a "land corridor?"

If it is to be something more substantial than a road, then what is it?

I never did understand why continuity is such a major issue. It seems to me that as long as one is able to easily get from one side to the other then there shouldn't be any real issues. Bearing in mind the history of this conflict, I would think that a large swath of land cutting straight through Israel's middle would prove to be a difficult border to secure.

In your vision you also said that you saw it as a requirement that Palestine have full autonomy and control over Palestinian areas of EJ, and the old city. Do you see this as including Al Aqsa? Obviously, Al Aqsa is going to be a huge issue. How do you see it being resolved?

[Douglas Carpenter]

82. I think the Geneva Initiative comes as close to any reasonable idea as one can deal within

a two-state solution on both the land corridor issue and the Old City issue with Jerusalem. The Geneva Accord is less than ideal in terms of aspirations for Palestinians and I suspect many Israelis as well. But it is probably the best two-state proposal available in spite of its short comings; if it can actually come to fruition.

link to actual text of the Geneva Accord:

http://www.geneva-accord.org/Accord.aspx?FolderID=33&lang=en

"6. Corridor

i. The states of Palestine and Israel shall establish a corridor linking the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This corridor shall:

a. Be under Israeli sovereignty.

b. Be permanently open.

c. Be under Palestinian administration in accordance with Annex X of this Agreement. Palestinian law shall apply to persons using and procedures appertaining to the corridor.

d. Not disrupt Israeli transportation and other infrastructural networks, or endanger the environment, public safety or public health. Where necessary, engineering solutions will be sought to avoid such disruptions.

e. Allow for the establishment of the necessary infrastructural facilities linking the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Infrastructural facilities shall be understood to include, inter alia, pipelines, electrical and communications cables, and associated equipment as detailed in Annex X.

f. Not be used in contravention of this Agreement.

ii. Defensive barriers shall be established along the corridor and Palestinians shall not enter Israel from this corridor, nor shall Israelis enter Palestine from the corridor.

iii. The Parties shall seek the assistance of the international community in securing the financing for the corridor.

iv. The IVG shall guarantee the implementation of this Article in accordance with Annex X.

v. Any disputes arising between the Parties from the operation of the corridor shall be resolved in accordance with Article 16.

vi. The arrangements set forth in this clause may only be terminated or revised by agreement of both Parties"

_________________

Article 6 – Jerusalem

1. Religious and Cultural Significance:

i. The Parties recognize the universal historic, religious, spiritual, and cultural significance of Jerusalem and its holiness enshrined in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In recognition of this status, the Parties reaffirm their commitment to safeguard the character, holiness, and freedom of worship in the city and to respect the existing division of administrative functions and traditional practices between different denominations.

ii. The Parties shall establish an inter-faith body consisting of representatives of the three monotheistic faiths, to act as a consultative body to the Parties on matters related to the city’s religious significance and to promote inter-religious understanding and dialogue. The composition, procedures, and modalities for this body are set forth in Annex X.

2. Capital of Two States

The Parties shall have their mutually recognized capitals in the areas of Jerusalem under their respective sovereignty.

3. Sovereignty

Sovereignty in Jerusalem shall be in accordance with attached Map 2. This shall not prejudice nor be prejudiced by the arrangements set forth below.


4. Border Regime:

The border regime shall be designed according to the provisions of Article 11, and taking into account the specific needs of Jerusalem (e.g., movement of tourists and intensity of border crossing use including provisions for Jerusalemites) and the provisions of this Article.
5. al-Haram al-Sharif/ Temple Mount (Compound)

i. International Group

a. An International Group, composed of the IVG and other parties to be agreed upon by the Parties, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), shall hereby be established to monitor, verify, and assist in the implementation of this clause.

b. For this purpose, the International Group shall establish a Multinational Presence on the Compound, the composition, structure, mandate and functions of which are set forth in Annex X.

c. The Multinational Presence shall have specialized detachments dealing with security and conservation. The Multinational Presence shall make periodic conservation and security reports to the International Group. These reports shall be made public.

d. The Multinational Presence shall strive to immediately resolve any problems arising and may refer any unresolved disputes to the International Group that will function in accordance with Article 16.

e. The Parties may at any time request clarifications or submit complaints to the International Group which shall be promptly investigated and acted upon.

f. The International Group shall draw up rules and regulations to maintain security on and conservation of the Compound. These shall include lists of the weapons and equipment permitted on the site.

ii. Regulations Regarding the Compound

a. In view of the sanctity of the Compound, and in light of the unique religious and cultural significance of the site to the Jewish people, there shall be no digging, excavation, or construction on the Compound, unless approved by the two Parties. Procedures for regular maintenance and emergency repairs on the Compound shall be established by the IG after consultation with the Parties.

b. The state of Palestine shall be responsible for maintaining the security of the Compound and for ensuring that it will not be used for any hostile acts against Israelis or Israeli areas. The only arms permitted on the Compound shall be those carried by the Palestinian security personnel and the security detachment of the Multinational Presence.

c. In light of the universal significance of the Compound, and subject to security considerations and to the need not to disrupt religious worship or decorum on the site as determined by the Waqf, visitors shall be allowed access to the site. This shall be without any discrimination and generally be in accordance with past practice.



5. al-Haram al-Sharif/ Temple Mount (Compound)

i. International Group

a. An International Group, composed of the IVG and other parties to be agreed upon by the Parties, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), shall hereby be established to monitor, verify, and assist in the implementation of this clause.

b. For this purpose, the International Group shall establish a Multinational Presence on the Compound, the composition, structure, mandate and functions of which are set forth in Annex X.

c. The Multinational Presence shall have specialized detachments dealing with security and conservation. The Multinational Presence shall make periodic conservation and security reports to the International Group. These reports shall be made public.

d. The Multinational Presence shall strive to immediately resolve any problems arising and may refer any unresolved disputes to the International Group that will function in accordance with Article 16.

e. The Parties may at any time request clarifications or submit complaints to the International Group which shall be promptly investigated and acted upon.

f. The International Group shall draw up rules and regulations to maintain security on and conservation of the Compound. These shall include lists of the weapons and equipment permitted on the site.

ii. Regulations Regarding the Compound

a. In view of the sanctity of the Compound, and in light of the unique religious and cultural significance of the site to the Jewish people, there shall be no digging, excavation, or construction on the Compound, unless approved by the two Parties. Procedures for regular maintenance and emergency repairs on the Compound shall be established by the IG after consultation with the Parties.

b. The state of Palestine shall be responsible for maintaining the security of the Compound and for ensuring that it will not be used for any hostile acts against Israelis or Israeli areas. The only arms permitted on the Compound shall be those carried by the Palestinian security personnel and the security detachment of the Multinational Presence.

c. In light of the universal significance of the Compound, and subject to security considerations and to the need not to disrupt religious worship or decorum on the site as determined by the Waqf, visitors shall be allowed access to the site. This shall be without any discrimination and generally be in accordance with past practice.



iii. Transfer of Authority

a. At the end of the withdrawal period stipulated in Article 5/7, the state of Palestine shall assert sovereignty over the Compound.

b. The International Group and its subsidiary organs shall continue to exist and fulfill all the functions stipulated in this Article unless otherwise agreed by the two Parties.

6. The Wailing Wall

The Wailing Wall shall be under Israeli sovereignty.

7. The Old City:

i. Significance of the Old City

a. The Parties view the Old City as one whole enjoying a unique character. The Parties agree that the preservation of this unique character together with safeguarding and promoting the welfare of the inhabitants should guide the administration of the Old City.

b. The Parties shall act in accordance with the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage List regulations, in which the Old City is a registered site.

ii. IVG Role in the Old City

a. Cultural Heritage

1. The IVG shall monitor and verify the preservation of cultural heritage in the Old City in accordance with the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage List rules. For this purpose, the IVG shall have free and unimpeded access to sites, documents, and information related to the performance of this function.

2. The IVG shall work in close coordination with the Old City Committee of the Jerusalem Coordination and Development Committee (JCDC), including in devising a restoration and preservation plan for the Old City.

b. Policing

1. The IVG shall establish an Old City Policing Unit (PU) to liaise with, coordinate between, and assist the Palestinian and Israeli police forces in the Old City, to defuse localized tensions and help resolve disputes, and to perform policing duties in locations specified in and according to operational procedures detailed in Annex X.

2. The PU shall periodically report to the IVG.

c. Either Party may submit complaints in relation to this clause to the IVG, which shall promptly act upon them in accordance with Article 16.

iii. Free Movement within the Old City

Movement within the Old City shall be free and unimpeded subject to the provisions of this article and rules and regulations pertaining to the various holy sites.

iv. Entry into and Exit from the Old City

a. Entry and exit points into and from the Old City will be staffed by the authorities of the state under whose sovereignty the point falls, with the presence of PU members, unless otherwise specified.

b. With a view to facilitating movement into the Old City, each Party shall take such measures at the entry points in its territory as to ensure the preservation of security in the Old City. The PU shall monitor the operation of the entry points.

c. Citizens of either Party may not exit the Old City into the territory of the other Party unless they are in possession of the relevant documentation that entitles them to. Tourists may only exit the Old City into the territory of the Party which they posses valid authorization to enter.

v. Suspension, Termination, and Expansion

a. Either Party may suspend the arrangements set forth in Article 6.7.iii in cases of emergency for one week. The extension of such suspension for longer than a week shall be pursuant to consultation with the other Party and the IVG at the Trilateral Committee established in Article 3/3.

b. This clause shall not apply to the arrangements set forth in Article 6/7/vi.

c. Three years after the transfer of authority over the Old City, the Parties shall review these arrangements. These arrangements may only be terminated by agreement of the Parties.

d. The Parties shall examine the possibility of expanding these arrangements beyond the Old City and may agree to such an expansion.

vi. Special Arrangements

a. Along the way outlined in Map X (from the Jaffa Gate to the Zion Gate) there will be permanent and guaranteed arrangements for Israelis regarding access, freedom of movement, and security, as set forth in Annex X.

1. The IVG shall be responsible for the implementation of these arrangements.

b. Without prejudice to Palestinian sovereignty, Israeli administration of the Citadel will be as outlined in Annex X.

vii. Color-Coding of the Old City

A visible color-coding scheme shall be used in the Old City to denote the sovereign areas of the respective Parties.

viii. Policing

a. An agreed number of Israeli police shall constitute the Israeli Old City police detachment and shall exercise responsibility for maintaining order and day-to-day policing functions in the area under Israeli sovereignty.

b. An agreed number of Palestinian police shall constitute the Palestinian Old City police detachment and shall exercise responsibility for maintaining order and day-to-day policing functions in the area under Palestinian sovereignty.

c. All members of the respective Israeli and Palestinian Old City police detachments shall undergo special training, including joint training exercises, to be administered by the PU.

d. A special Joint Situation Room, under the direction of the PU and incorporating members of the Israeli and Palestinian Old City police detachments, shall facilitate liaison on all relevant matters of policing and security in the Old City.

ix. Arms

No person shall be allowed to carry or possess arms in the Old City, with the exception of the Police Forces provided for in this agreement. In addition, each Party may grant special written permission to carry or possess arms in areas under its sovereignty.

x. Intelligence and Security

a. The Parties shall establish intensive intelligence cooperation regarding the Old City, including the immediate sharing of threat information.

b. A trilateral committee composed of the two Parties and representatives of the United States shall be established to facilitate this cooperation.

8. Mount of Olives Cemetery:

i. The area outlined in Map X (the Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives) shall be under Israeli administration; Israeli law shall apply to persons using and procedures appertaining to this area in accordance with Annex X.

a. There shall be a designated road to provide free, unlimited, and unimpeded access to the Cemetery.

b. The IVG shall monitor the implementation of this clause.

c. This arrangement may only be terminated by the agreement of both Parties.

9. Special Cemetery Arrangements

Arrangements shall be established in the two cemeteries designated in Map X (Mount Zion Cemetery and the German Colony Cemetery), to facilitate and ensure the continuation of the current burial and visitation practices, including the facilitation of access.

10. The Western Wall Tunnel

i. The Western Wall Tunnel designated in Map X shall be under Israeli administration, including:

a. Unrestricted Israeli access and right to worship and conduct religious practices.

b. Responsibility for the preservation and maintenance of the site in accordance with this Agreement and without damaging structures above, under IVG supervision.

c. Israeli policing.

d. IVG monitoring

e. The Northern Exit of the Tunnel shall only be used for exit and may only be closed in case of emergency as stipulated in Article 6/7.

ii. This arrangement may only be terminated by the agreement of both Parties.



link to actual text of the Geneva Accord:

http://www.geneva-accord.org/Accord.aspx?FolderID=33&lang=en

link to Geneva accord Maps:

http://www.geneva-accord.org/Map.aspx?FolderID=34&lang=en

.

[Shaktimaan]

28. so he is referring to three teenagers in a tent as a settlement?

[breakaleg]

29. What is an outpost?

Dror Etkes
“Outpost” is a term for describing how the settlers “pull the wool over our eyes” by establishing settlements despite the fact that, in 1996, the government of Israel pledged not to build any more of them.

In reality, outposts are new settlements. Today, there are more than 100 outposts throughout the West Bank. Around 50 were established after March 2001 (According to the Road Map, Israel is committed to dismantling all of the outposts established after February 2001). Just like the official settlements at the time, these outposts were established with the goal of attaining two different objectives, which, basically, are both sides of the same coin: on the one hand, to create a continuity of Israeli presence by taking over as much land as possible and on the other, creating a barrier between the various Palestinian population centers. That is to say: forestalling the possibility of creating a Palestinian region that can be self-sufficient.
Over the years, Peace Now has repeatedly warned that the settlers, with the massive assistance of government officials who are clearly operating against the law, are engaged in expanding and establishing a web of settlements in the occupied territories. This activity, which involves establishing new settlements “out of thin air” under the guise of constructing new neighborhoods in existing settlements, educational institutions, acclimatization farms and dummy antennas, reached its peak during two separate periods: the first was between 1997-1999, while the second occurred during 2001-2002.
Despite the fact that this phenomenon significantly changed the map of the West Bank, it only received much deserved public attention over the past few years. Media attention was able to bring public pressure to such a peak that Prime Minister Sharon was forced to appoint Attorney Talia Sasson to examine the scope of the phenomenon and the involvement of various government officials in this phenomenon. In March 2005, Talia Sasson submitted her conclusions in a report containing over 300 pages


http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=195&docid=1507

[Shaktimaan]

32. Here's the thing with outposts.

I am sure that there are some that are officially (pseudo at least) that are being used to expand existing settlements or are serious, co-ordinated efforts between sizable numbers of settlers working towards specific goals of annexing land. I am sure that examples like that exist.

But to my knowledge, (and I admittedly don't know much about these movements) most outposts are the result of youth movements like the Hilltop Settler Movement which is basically comprised of religious, right-wing teenage extremists who view themselves as a kind of modern, non-secular equivalent of the early kibbutz/moshav movements. They form these outposts without any real assistance or many supplies and are deemed illegal by Israel's government. Their idea is to hang out past the edge of settlement control in the hopes that their numbers will grow, other outposts will be formed in the area, eventually "inkspotting" them together, creating a de-facto legitimacy which will end up forcing Israel to bring them into the official fold of settlements.

I know that these end up getting dismantled by the IDF a lot of times, but it is hard to keep these small groups of kids from setting up tents somewhere else and start harassing the local Palestinians. I don't think Israel really ever arrests them or does anything too proactive to prevent their actions, but they don't help them or encourage them either.

These kids are pretty whacked out but it isn't like they are breaking ground on REAL, new settlements. So while they are undeniably an issue that isn't being dealt with properly, I think it is a stretch to count their outposts as settlements.

I am assuming, of course, that we are talking about the same thing here.

[pelsar]

34. there are no real official numbers...

the settler movement as policy does not keep track so that their info wont get back to the govt. The govt doesnt go around counting them up...i believe the most accurate would come from Peace Now's Settlement Watch Team who attempt to keep track (they rent a light plane to fly over and literally count them).

[breakaleg]

39. If you look at the site I linked you, you will find details of construction at

some of these outposts for things such as roads and infrastructure. That seems like tacit approval to me.