Hamas done a lap of honour and even the Palestinians looked on in disbelief! In a rare show of force, Hamas fighters marched through the devastated city with their arms held high to celebrate their claimed victory in the most recent conflict with Israel. Stunned after 11 days of Israeli air strikes, the residents looked on in silence. Hamas marks ‘victory’ with parade: ‘Israel understands no other language than force’
I found the process of jotting down my thoughts to be quite an interesting experience. I sat down and thought 'right, you've held these beliefs for years. Now jot them down, one at a time, and try to alternate between concessions on the Israeli side and then those on the Palestinian side. Remarkably, I ended up with 8 each. Not on purpose, that's just how the dice fell. While I appreciate that qualitatively, the two lists cannot be compared, the quantitative parity suggests that there is actually a balance to be struck on this whole issue, and that balance might not be as unrealistic as many believe. Thanks for your response. My two cents... 1) I'm really not sure. The overwhelming majority of peace talks since Oslo have begun with several (at least unspoken) preconditions. I think it is important to recognise that there are certain red lines without which neither side will sit around a table. This is far trickier for Israel which is a democracy as the public can and will bring governments down (one such example were the huge protests and vote of no confidence Ehud Barak faced in 2000 that forced him to leave Camp David early to smooth things over; ultimately talks over handing the Golan back to Syria were abandoned. In 2000, the Golan was a red line for too many Israelis) before they have a chance to bring their plans to full fruition. That said, I would imagine at least a portion of my points would definitely be preconditions for negotiations. e.g. for Israel it would be Hamas rewriting their charter and disarming during a transition period. For the Palestinians it would be something recognising the right of return, plus guaratees of a capital in East Jlem. 2) I'm actually inclined to believe the opposite. I think your point is a reason why so many summits and talks have collapsed. There is often an attitude (which tbh is prevalent across middle eastern culture in general) of 'let's just sign it, we'll deal with those things later'. The issue is, 'those things' are usually the things people feel most passionately about. It is immensely difficult for even the most gifted politician to explain to the Palestinian people that it is worth accepting zero sovereignty over East Jlem because 'for now' we have increased authority in Zone A and B areas. Yasser Arafat was one of the few people in history who had the charisma, force of will and gravitas to push such an idea over the line. Similarly Ariel Sharon pushing the Gaza disengagement over the line - and that decision wrecked his political career, his health and all of his political allies. Over the decades, the big issues have been repeatedly brushed under the carpet so that they have only grown in complication and complexity. Why was there such a forceful response to 6 families being evicted from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah? Because that incident is viewed in the context of a lack of a capital for decades? Why is there a broad rise in right-wing extremists in Israel? Because the repeated promises of 'land for peace' - stretching back over decades - have failed to yield peace and in many cases have actually brought more conflict (cf. disengagement from Gaza, which radicalised a generation of young Israelis who 15 years later are now entering politics and positions of power). As hard as it is, better to tackle the tough issues head on. The smaller points will iron themselves out automatically. 3) Yup, the settlement bloc issue is a complicated one. It is important to point out that pretty much every US administration, the Arab League plus every Palestinian delegation since Oslo in 1994 has recognised and conceded that any permanent peace deal is contingent on a 'land swap' arrangement. IIRC, the blocs of Maaleh Adumin (pop. 40,000), Beitar (pop. 60,000), Ariel (20,000) and the Modiin bloc (80,000) have been on the 'annexation list' for 25+ years. The biggest blocs (Modiin and Beitar) are on the cusp of the Armistice Line. Others are not. I'm not 100% what workarounds were proposed at Wye River, Camp David, Sharm el Sheikh etc. but whatever they proposed seemed to work. The problem is - and this brings be back to point 2 - because the issue of settlements has been left to fester for so many years, previously small towns have grown exponentially in the interim and their permanent status has therefore become much more complicated. The hard reality is that Israel and the Palestinians will have to agree to a 'population cap', anything below which will either be dismantled or given the choice to live as Jews in a Palestinian state as Pinkie said. But where do you draw that line? 5000 people? 10,000? 20,000? 4) Dismantled or given the choice to live as Jews in Palestine. Here my point to Pinkie is less of an issue as we are talking about people living in walking distance of the most culturally Jewish city on Earth. 5) Very interesting proposal. Not one that will go down well with Palestinian expats but an interesting one nonetheless. As it happens, Israel has committed on multiple occasions to address the right of return question via financial compensation. Perhaps a combination of that plus a right to settle in newly-formed Palestine will lead to a breakthrough. 6) Agreed. If I had my way, Israel would be doing this already. Increased investment = increased opportunity = increased affluence = more to lose by firing thousands of rockets = peace. 7) Totally necessary when it was built, but the aspiration should definitely be to one day dismantle it and replace it with something more like a regular border.
1) Tbf Barak was a strange one, little if any interest in the peace talks with Palestinians, he was focused initially on negotiating solely with Syria because he felt that by getting a break through there (i.e. the surrounding arab nations) he could isolate and diminish the cause of the Palestinians, but when that came to nothing he was almost forced to resume the Palestinian peace talks. Also, the reason Oslo worked (far more than the U.S. talks which were going on at the time and where they had no knowledge of the talks in Oslo) was because the Norwegian led meetings/dialogue came with no preconditions. The fact they were secret through back channels and through certain appointed representatives on both sides who were willing to engage with each other was the important part. Peres and Beilin who pushed to speak to PLO for example. It showed, unquestionably that success and progress in any peaceful resolution was (and still is) in the hands of the protagonists rather than in the hands of the intermediaries. 2) I think we're at cross-purposes here. I wasn't proposing they negotiate in stages. I agree with your comments that leaving the most important points to last has always been a mistake, and it's evident that was one of the downfalls of the Oslo Accords themselves. What I was pointing to, was full negotiations where all points are agreed, but are delivered in stages when certain milestones are achieved. For example, both sides could agree on all issues but an example of one of the first steps would be that Hamas would cease all military activity and Israel would stop the building of settlements. This, and all subsequent moves would already be agreed, but it would be the first milestone before actioning the next. Each milestone would serve to demonstrate good will and a commitment to the overall outcome as well as build confidence in the public on both sides to push their own leaders forward. With each milestone that level of commitment would be reinforced. And because the milestones are already agreed in advance, this should greatly reduce any disagreement or potential for failure in the peace process later, and also hold to account any party which re-neg on their commitment. 3) The workarounds in the last meaningful talks with Barak were the large settlement blocks that are next to the 1967 border being annexed to Israel. 10% of the West Bank to be annexed outright and 10% to be under Israeli military occupation for twenty years. The Jordan Valley would eventually become Palestinian. That was Barak's proposal.
No lizards, talk of Rothschilds or Bill Gates cOnSpiRAcy ****e so naturally any coherent discussion is boring to him. He's the only one who knows what's "really" going on don't cha know.
Was listening to leader of Hamas the other day, said he will never recognise an Israeli state in response to the two state option. He went on to say, there can never be peace until there is justice. Which I intepreted as meaning there will be no peace, until Israel is removed. So diplomats can chat all they like, it is only ever going to be a temporary peace until Hamas has replenised their rocket supply.
Oh you reckon that's me. I dont do socks bruv, how many times can't even log out of my own account cos I'll never get back in
Did you catch the name of the Hamas leader? Intrigued to know as there has been an internal power struggle between the hardliners and the reformists (the people who pushed for the Charter amendments in 2017). As is often the case in middle east politics which very much still has hallmarks of a more tribal, hierarchical structure, what was said is sometimes immaterial compared to who said it. Israel even plays close attention to who was standing next to them at the time it was said.
Lol. Yeah he's a ringleader for the hardliners. He's the guy who openly said that the 2017 amendments were just a ruse to lull Israel into a false sense of security and that the overall aim remained to wipe Israel off the map by force. Lovely bloke.
Let's be honest here. There are hard line nutters on both sides who want to see each other wiped off the map. The further Netanyahu drifts to the right, courting the extreme right and orthodox parties in Israel in trying to form his new coalition, along with seeking praise from Europe's hard right nationalist parties with their paranoid anti Islamist agenda, the more oxygen it gives to Hamas militant fighters and the deeper entrenched the whole situation becomes.
well according to your own posts you don't even know what Zionism is so read and you may learn something .
Agreed. As I mentioned to Treble the other day the aftermath of the Gaza disengagement radicalised a generation of young right-leaning Israelis who 15 years down the line are certainly of voting age and almost certainly entering positions of influence and power. Netanyahu has allowed this group to flourish unchecked simply because it serves him politically. But honestly some of the things elected politicians say about the Palestinians is sickening and most Jews I know are sickened by it too. This is one of the main reasons I strongly believe electoral reform is crucial in Israel. The proportional rep system is ironically too democratic for its own good. Until the threshold is raised significantly or elements of the less democratic but centrist FPTP system are adopted, the Kenesset will be riddled by far-right parties and politicians whose contribution to peace is entirely negative.
There's a situation developing in Israel atm which could be quite positive. It's a long shot but might just happen. Lapid of Yash Atid (very much a centrist party) has been given time to form a government. He has a week left. If he can't do it then it will go the knesset to try and form one and that will very likely lead to a 5th election in about 2 and half years. BUT and it's a long shot Lapid is currently building a pact with Blue and White who are also centrist liberal, the Labor party, Yisrael Beytenu, and Meretz another left leaning Green party. He will still need another 16 seats to secure a majority which may come from a mix of an Arab party, Raam and the right - namely Yamina, New Hope. If that happens we could really see a change in tack. Of course a lot of this is based on domestic politics. Sometimes it's easy to only see this through the prism of the Palestinian conflict, but the focus is mainly on major domestic issues such as corruption, public services such as Education and the economy, all of which a lot of folk want to see real change on. However, indirectly the parties mentioned - namely Yash Atid, Blue and White, Labor and Meretz would be a really positive shift towards in attitude in Israel's government and the PM towards a possibility of negotiations restarting and a move towards a two-state solution. It's still less likely than likely Lapid can get the majority but the alternative is an unprecedented 5th election in 2 and half years so hopefully that might just concentrate the minds! The funny thing is Netanyahu has fcked off and betrayed so many around him in Israeli politics that the consensus on all sides, the one thing they virtually all have in common, is they want that fcker out.
