– it keeps the conflict alive

– it keeps hope alive for their dream

– helps to keep average people engaged in the “struggle and therefore willing to “sacrifice” while the leadership scores lots of benefits such as preferred housing, extra income, etc.

– it keeps the demographic bomb alive

– it enables the propaganda machine to thrive, putting Israel on the defensive on most diplomatic fronts

– it makes it more difficult for Israel to grow economically and truly thrive, because it is busy and distracted with the conflict.

Consider that in 1996, the Palestinians could have had Peres in office but launched three terrorist attacks (suicide bombings) in the weeks leading up to the elections thereby undermining the Oslo peace plan architect and bringing Netanyahu, an avowed opponent of Oslo to power.

I might have misunderstood – but you did you say the point of war since 2000 was to DELAY “end[ing] the presence of soldiers in their midst”?

Israel is so out of time when it comes to getting out of the West Bank, that I fail to see how they don’t see it. The entire point of running a war since 2000, as the Palestinians have done, is to achieve the earning of sympathy from others including Israelis and also to force Israel to continue delaying any sort of compromise or end to the presence of Israeli soldiers in their midst. Israel is walking with eyes open into a trap the outlines of which have been clear for a number of years. Just wait until the PA comes out with their next census and they lie about their numbers again.

Regardless, registering or not has nothing to do with the fact that to this day, 3.5 years later, people are still living in drywall structures (paying rent, mind you), are mostly unemployed, and have had to push mountains in order to get an inkling of what was promised to them under the law. (contact me personally if you want more on that, from firsthand knowledge, I’d rather not expand on that in this forum).

I think it will be handled better this time anywsy…if the settlers play ball. Last time, to remind you, many settlers didn’t register or didn’t register until it was very late.

I should also add that there is no way peace is happening without Palestinian access to east Jerusalem. I don’t mean that they get it all, I just mean that they have to have access for both physical and spiritual/symbolic reasons.

Here are a couple of pieces of mine that may help clarify this issue for you:

jewlicious.com...

jewlicious.com...

jewlicious.com...

jewlicious.com...

It would be wise to stop feeding the conspiracy because this has all become mainstream.

Why are you so upset that I talk about “Israel Lobby”? the term is widely used here in Israel – not just by leftists. In fact, when I studied international relations in TAU it was considered one of Israel’s sources of strength, in a positive way.

Also, as Sharon found out and as Bibi knows, when you’re in power, you have to think and act differently than when you’re criticizing from the Opposition. The same issues that struck Sharon as problematic, namely, demographics and Israel’s waning international position, will hit Bibi even harder and much faster. He’ll have to deal with them quickly. Also, he’s not the only player here. Yesterday, the Arab League basically threatened to kill the Arab Initiative of 2002 if Israel doesn’t make a move to accept it. While that’s a very flawed offer, it has never been negotiated and it remains the only deal on the table where a consensus vote of the Arab world states they would be willing to accept Israel. That’s no small matter, and I say this as someone who is deeply troubled by this plan because it seeks to turn UNGA 194 (“Right of Return”) as the basis for the agreement.

Obama said last week that the Middle Eastern “status quo was unsustainable”. Yet, isn’t that what Bibi-as-PM wants– to freeze the status quo with the Palestinians for as long as possible?

Having said that, your previous comment was about Israel and Israeli settlements, not about the Palestinians. I answered with detail about Israel and less so about the Palestinians. That does not mean I view them as a monolith, although I admit to being skeptical that when it comes to Israel they somehow have diverging views. I’m sure Saeb Erakat would be an interesting fellow to meet and we probably could share some fine time together, but when it came time to vilify Israel by misrepresenting the casualty figures in Jenin, he was one of the primary spokespersons for the Palestinians to do so. And he’s a so-called moderate. We could also compare the PLO and Hamas charters, if you like and learn that while one is a nationalistic movement and the other a religious movement, they both reject any (historic, religious or future) Jewish connection to the Land of Israel.

So if you’d like an essay about the Palestinians with more detail, just ask. But please don’t lecture me about double standards.

I also didn’t indicate the settlements weren’t a problem as perceived from the Palestinian side, which they are, because that wasn’t the topic of your comment. I will say, however, that while I understand how the Settlement Movement deeply disturbs the Palestinians on many levels, and causes them to view Israel and its intentions with suspicion, it should also be clear to you and to anybody who wants the entire settlement enterprise dismantled that the settlers make a couple of strong points. The first is that Judea and Samaria are the cradle of Jewish civilization in many respects, especially if you include east Jerusalem as do the Palestinians. Second, there are now what we call settlements in areas where Jews had lived in the past but were evicted. It is fair to say that if the Palestinians cannot “return” into today’s Israel to build communities, then Jews shouldn’t go into Palestinian areas to do the same. Except that 20% of Israel is Arab and the Palestinians would like 0% of Judea and Samaria to be Jewish just as Gaza has no Jews in it (unless you count good old Amira Hass).

If you would like to discuss what happened at Camp David with the Palestinians, we can discuss that as well in detail. Just ask and you’ll be answered. But please don’t call it a double standard when I was merely answering your questions about Israeli settlements and Israeli governments’ attitudes about peace and these settlements.

By the way, I haven’t looked to see where Netanyahu said anything favorable about a two-state solution and doubt he said such a thing, but you should remember that it was Begin who made peace with Egypt and Netanyahu who put the Hebron Accords into effect.

As for the fear that the Settlement Movement will succeed and thereby undermine a two state solution, I share it with you. It is the worst thing that would and could happen to Israel. The settlers I know are some pretty sharp fellows who understand Israel’s politics extremely well and were prepared decades ago to tackle many of the issues that have arisen over the years. They had strategies in place and were and are very savvy. In fact, my excitement about the Security Barrier involved the fact that Sharon, of all people, was going to push this new de facto border down the Settlers’ throats. His subsequent coma is not only a personal tragedy for him, but may be a tragedy for all of Israel.

I will also tell you that my support of Israel will end on the day that I perceive that it has become an apartheid or undemocratic state. The entire point of Israel, as the Jewish state, is that it must remain a democracy and a secular one at that. I understand that in civic matters, the government has permitted Orthodox Jews to control, but as far as running the country, there is no room for a theocracy in Israel.

So we agree that this is a danger and that the settlers – not all of them – but the hardcore settlers and their movement are pushing Israel to a cliff’s edge. They need to be stopped and an Israeli government needs to have the courage to stop them now before it becomes too late to separate from the Palestinians.

However, where we disagree, Noam, is that you blame the Right and then you blame the so-called “Israeli Lobby.”

You can’t just blame the Right for the settlements. You have to also blame the Left who were in power for a lot of years. You also can’t blame the “Israel Lobby” because it doesn’t exist, unless you are referring to AIPAC. I’m not sure that AIPAC has ever taken a position about the settlements. But there is no such animal as the “Israel Lobby” and while I realize that Jewish leftists get a rush every time they accuse the “Israel Lobby” of undermining their weakly accepted propositions which haven’t gained much traction in American political life, they should really take a step back and consider carefully whether they want to stand together with those who proclaim there is such a thing as an “Israel Lobby.” To be frank with you, the accusation is sickening and false, but it is to be expected from some people. When it comes from people who should know better, I find that even more disturbing. So perhaps you should consider carefully whether you want to use that kind of language.

Our second disagreement about whether the settlers will succeed and why, is that you have removed the Palestinians from the equation. I would argue that they are the biggest obstacle to peace, not the settlers. They smell blood right now precisely because they believe time is on their side. They want to delay, delay, delay until, they believe, they have the demographic advantage. At that point they will unleash the “apartheid” attack on Israel. It is they who are seeking a one state solution or a three Palestinian Arab, non-Jewish states solution – you pick which. And in this respect, there isn’t much real difference between Hamas and Fatah, except that right now it’s prudent for Fatah to play nice so the Americans can train them and give them weapons they will one day undoubtedly use on Israelis.

Now take your view of the Palestinians. There is no internal political dynamic. They are one monolith. “We offered peace, they answered with terror”. Maybe – like many observers in Camp David and Taba wrote later on – Arafat couldn’t say “yes” to Barak’s “take it or leave it” offer? Maybe he was pushed to a corner? Maybe Hamas can be reasoned with, just like you say the Likud – I am still waiting for that quote of Netanyahu in favore of a two states solution someone mentioned here – can be reasoned with?

So far for the “who is to blame in the situation” question. Now I have to tell you my problem with your unlimited support of Israel’s rightist policies. Did you consider the possibility that the settlements project and the rejection of the two state solution by Likud will actually work? It might, you know. And than what? We will be left with an Apartheid state, with the only reasonable working plan being the one state solution. some say we are there now. And that, as you know, will be the end of Israel.

That’s why I think it is the Right – with the help of the Jewish Lobby – that’s pushing Israel to the cliff’s edge.

Next, of course I ask myself and have asked myself many times why Israel continues with the support for settlements. I reject your premise entirely about Israel’s talk of peace being just talks. If you need evidence, consider the peace with Jordan and especially Egypt where Israel gave up a lot to have peace and has not looked back since despite the upsetting rhetoric that comes from the public sphere in Egypt.

Barak and Ben Ami were genuine in their presentation at Camp David. They increased their offers so that the concluding items on the table by the end of Camp David were way more advanced than at the beginning. They included division of Jerusalem AND almost all of both Territories. Ben Ami and Barak were shell-shocked that what they believed to have been an extraordinary offer was received with a war, with public attacks on them and by Palestinian unwillingness to cut a deal.

If that’s not evidence enough, consider that Barak then took on the Clinton parameters into Taba.

According to Olmert, he too presented some offers to the Palestinians and was rebuffed every time. To remind you again, he was elected on a platform of leaving the West Bank and he was desperate for some legacy or some achievement that could erase Lebanon II.

As for why Israel has never relinquished its claim to the WB and continues to build homes for settlers, I will suggest my theory although I admit it could be wrong.

First the houses and communities.

I believe this support may once have been driven by a desire to annex or to keep Judea and Samaria. That may have become less palatable, especially after 1987 intifada, so after that it becomes driven by political expediency so as to avoid the wrath of those minority parties (often in the coalition) which can make or break a government.

Next, the houses and communities serve as leverage in any negotiations. This is critical. It is a good reason to keep them going and even to invest in infrastructure there. It’s like poker where you sometimes have to bet a lot to make the other believe you have something real in your hands.

Finally, there is the legal aspect which is that I do believe most Israelis and their governments view this land as disputed and not as automatically Palestinian.

As to why I don’t believe this is some cynical ploy where all governments just kept some secret plan to ensure Israel keeps Gaza and the West Bank, I’ll just point to the makeup of the past 40 years of governments and remind you that some of them were extremely hostile to each other. This means that they weren’t going to play along when they came into office.

Next, with respect to removing settlers, the vast majority of them are not settlers. They live in the suburbs surrounding Jerusalem or close to the Green Line. They are considered settlers by the UN and others, but most don’t view themselves that way and are not viewed that way by Israeli law since these areas have been annexed.

Israel has, since Camp David, made it clear that their goal is to keep these border neighborhood intact and ensured the security barrier took this into account by making it reach further into the WB than was offered at Camp David and Taba. This leaves room for negotiations.

Of the remaining 50,000 or so settlers who do live in areas beyond what most Israelis would consider the future demarcation of Israel, there have been surveys that show most will come back into Israel if asked and some would even come back now if they could get compensation. There will be a core group of about 5-15,000 in my opinion, who will make trouble and some might well resort to violence but Israel’s intelligence services are presumably on top of who is who and in the end most will protest mightily but leave quietly.

The entire idea behind the opposition to the Gaza disengagement was to scare Israel into fearing what would happen if they were to try the same thing in Judea and Samaria. It’ll be more difficult than Gaza, for sure, but also manageable if Israel can find the money to offer these people compensation for their lost homes.

I know the data you mentioned and I don’t doubt it, but action speaks louder than polls. You probably know that the support in the Palestinians society for the two states solution is sometimes even higher, yet you hold them to different standard, i.e., you judge them by their actions, not their words.

I read you oppose the settlements. Did you ever stop and ask yourself why is it that every Israeli government went on building them, even during the peace process? Do you know that if I chose to move – today – to a settlement I get tax benefits and subsidized housing? Do you understand the meaning of this, and why Palestinians see the settlements the way we see terrorism? Remember how hard it was to move 7000 people from Gaza, so think about the quarter of a million in the WB!

I do believe you are motivated by real love and support for Israel, but I think you are not considering the full meaning of Israel’s actions. Why do you think Israel has never simply declared it doesn’t have a claim in the WB and will leave the area once all security issues are settled? Could you consider the possibility that all of Israel’s talk of peace were just that – talks?

Here she very recently wrote:

…With no exception, a constant majority of around two-thirds [Jewish Israelis] in each monthly survey since 2001 support the negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. Admittedly, usually only one-third of the interviewees believe that these negotiations will bear fruit in the foreseeable future. Yet the data suggests that the option of halting or terminating the negotiations has never enjoyed wide public support,

Now what about the two-state-solution? Is this really totally passé in terms of Israeli public support? Exactly a year ago, in March 2008, a clear-cut question on this topic (“Do you support or oppose the ‘two states for two peoples’ solution?”) indicated a supportive majority of 67%. Not much has changed since then, as indicated by the above question on the negotiations (which are based on the two-state solution). The viability of the two-state solution in terms of public support is sustained even more strongly by the present extensive public support for a Likud-Kadima-Labor coalition, indicated by almost all public opinion polls since the February 10, 2009 elections. With the last two of these three parties openly committed to this solution, the argument that the public is no longer in favor of it does not hold water. Furthermore, a comparison of the two-state solution with other options sustains the above argument even more. Thus, according to the March 2008 Peace Index survey, as in all previous surveys, 75.5% of the respondents expressed highly negative attitudes toward the idea of a binational solution. As for the third feasible option, maintaining the status quo rather than making efforts to bring about peace, the public was split almost down the middle between those who called for such an effort and those who opted for the option of making do with the present situation.

…

To sum up, obviously, the Israeli Jewish public is not highly hopeful regarding the possibility of achieving a peaceful solution with the Palestinians in the near future nor is it trustful of the other side’s intentions and ability to deliver an agreement. Still this does not mean that once an acceptable solution is put on the table, the Israeli Jewish public will not lend it its support. Furthermore, the strong support for a Likud-Kadima-Labor coalition strongly indicates that the public does not want a radical right-wing government that will function as a front rejecting peace, but that it wants to keep the door open to the option of peace.

She was responding to a recent Angus Reid poll that showed 51% of Israelis opposing a two state solution and 32% wanting one with another 9% undecided and another 8% preferring neither choice.

The majority of Israelis do not want to shut the door on two states, side by side. What they want is for Hamas to act differently and the public is frustrated, but the idea of peace remains strong and very few expect they will achieve this without giving up territory to the Palestinians.