Time for an International Conference?

The government of Israel has, obviously, been controlling a large parcel of land it conquered from Jordan for several decades now -- the West Bank -- land that is presumed to be the future location of an independent state of Palestine. At the same time, Israel has been building settlements on that land -- freestanding small- or medium-sized towns as well as what amount to suburbs of Jerusalem, populated by Jews who, unlike their Muslim or Christian Arab neighbors, are citizens of Israel with rights, etc. But in addition to parcels of land being controlled by governments -- in this case, first the United Kingdom, then Jordan, now Israel -- they are owned by individuals. So where did the settlers get the land? The Israeli government has always claimed it's been legitimately obtained through purchase. According to this new study by Peace Now it isn't true.

They obtained files leaked from the 2004 database of the Civil Administration, in charge of non-military aspects of West Bank administration, and concluded that fully 39 percent of settlement land area is privately owned by Palestinians. Or, perhaps, "was owned" since, obviously, it's been taken from them. See further coverage by Steve Erlanger in The New York Times and Yair Sheleg in Haaretz. I, for one, look forward to the explanation of how Erlanger, Sheleg, their editors, the Peace Now Settlement Watch team, and the dudes in the Israeli government who leaked this to them are all anti-semites.

Comments

They will not be called anti-semites - they will be called traitors for leaking and/or providing classified information. We have been through this before. Investigate the leak, not what was leaked.

I look forward to Marty Peretz's wisdom on this...

Posted by theCoach | November 21, 2006 10:29 AM

This isn't land theft, because Jews are entitled. God said so.

Posted by SqueakyRat | November 21, 2006 10:31 AM

Well, I look forward to the KELO crazy angry folks to get up in arms about this as well. Oh, but I guess since they didn't give "Just Compensation", it's probably fine.

Posted by MDtoMN | November 21, 2006 10:52 AM

Not sure why putting racist settler colonies on 'public land' is any better than putting them on land taken from private Palestinian owners. It's the colonisation, not the derivation of land rights, which is the bigoted policy which imposes negative externalities on the US.

Posted by otto | November 21, 2006 10:57 AM

Well, I look forward to the KELO crazy angry folks to get up in arms about this as well

Heh. We should remember that Matthew was in favor of Kelo. And he supports the ability of government to take away people's land.

So presumably, just as Matthew supports the ability of government in the US to take away people's land, Matthew would have no problem with Israelis taking away peoples' land!

Posted by Al | November 21, 2006 11:14 AM

The likely response here is that 800,000 Jews owned homes and land in Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Yemen, Egypt etc. before 1948 and were driven out without compensation. Arabs were settled in their place.

Posted by Brittain33 | November 21, 2006 11:21 AM

We should remember that Matthew was in favor of Kelo. And he supports the ability of government to take away people's land.

When they start letting West Bank Palestinians vote for the Knesset, I'll approve the use of eminent domain powers in the West Bank.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | November 21, 2006 11:48 AM

Fee simple doesn't exist apart from eminent domain. As lawyers know. They're all quarks of that meson known as property rights.

So put a big soccage on it, Al.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 21, 2006 11:49 AM

The likely response here is that 800,000 Jews owned homes and land in Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Yemen, Egypt etc. before 1948 and were driven out without compensation. Arabs were settled in their place.

Ah, yes, the classic moral precept -- two wrongs make a right! The government of Iraq takes Jewish property, so the government of Israel seizes Palestinian property and it, um, all evens out in the end?

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | November 21, 2006 11:49 AM

Matthew Y:

"Brittain33" said "the likely response here...", in other words, it is an inevitable (or, more probably, unspoken) counterargument, whether he agrees with it or not.

One of the reasons I reserve such vitriol for the Israelis is because I nurse a sense of betrayal. I'm pretty typical for a college-educated, newspaper reading American and when I was young and impressionable I was brainwashed by the New York Times (think Abe Rosenthal and William Safire) and the ambient media into a pretty typical view of Israel. That typical, shameful view contained what you might call a "grudging respect" for their principle of an "eye for an eye". This is what you're up against when you make rational and moral arguments about this "tiny sliver of land".

Posted by brendan | November 21, 2006 12:04 PM

I. CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL

Article 1.

In pursuance of the Agreement signed on the 8th day of August 1945 by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there shall be established an International Military Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal'') for the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis.

...

II. JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Article 6.

(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

Posted by ndm | November 21, 2006 12:31 PM

I wonder what would happen if the early Zionists could also be a party to this imaginary conference. Would their sense of their tenuous hold on the land and the modesty and care necessary maintain it amidst a sea of enemies make them a pro-Israeli government presence or not?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 21, 2006 12:34 PM

The likely response here is that 800,000 Jews owned homes and land in Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Yemen, Egypt etc. before 1948 and were driven out without compensation. Arabs were settled in their place.
---
Ah, yes, the classic moral precept -- two wrongs make a right! The government of Iraq takes Jewish property, so the government of Israel seizes Palestinian property and it, um, all evens out in the end?

What irks me about the whole situation is that were Jews to demand their land back from all those Arab states they would be laughed off and dismissed and nothing would ever come of it. But when Palestinians demand their land back it's an international crisis and Israel becomes evil for not giving it back.

I'm trying to keep any judgements out of this - what Israel should do, what should have happened, what is "right" - but the principle is that Israel is held to a different standard than the rest of the world. You can see this theme in many cases.

Yet you'd be hard pressed to argue that any nation has faced this many external and internal threats to their existence and handled it in a more humane way. That's not to say that what Israel is doing is 100% humane, but they're also not forming internment camps and herding Palestinians into those.

Posted by Ben | November 21, 2006 12:51 PM

Ben writes that the:

principle is that Israel is held to a different standard than the rest of the world. You can see this theme in many cases.

The World does hold Israel to a different standard than other nations - a far lower moral standard. All too frequently we hear defences of the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians that we would condemn unreservedly were they made about any other nation. Is there anyone out there who wants to defend the Chinese occupation of Tibet or the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait? Yet there are many people out there who without fear of opprobrium forcefully defend the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories.

Posted by ndm | November 21, 2006 1:08 PM

I commend the alacrity of the Israel critics.

My question is where they were in defending the rights of Jews and Christians as they had their property confiscated, during the Arab declared 'state of war' that lasted for decades. There was, "murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages," and other crimes committed by the Arab regimes.

No doubt reader ndm can point to his outrage at those offenses and the other offenses committed by the last half century of dysfunctional Arab regimes.

Posted by sigmund, carl and alfred | November 21, 2006 1:12 PM

ndm: Is there anyone out there who wants to defend the Chinese occupation of Tibet or the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait? Yet there are many people out there who without fear of opprobrium forcefully defend the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories.

And you would argue that the Israeli occupation and Chinese occupation are completely analogous situations?

Posted by Ben | November 21, 2006 1:12 PM

Matt describes the West Bank as land that is "presumed to be the future location of an independent state of Palestine." Presumed by whom? Have the Palestinians ever indicated a desire for an independent state located in the West Bank? The Palestinians, through their chosen leaders, have (rightly or wrongly) been committed to the destruction of Israel since 1964, and they (as evidenced by their votes for Hamas) remain so today. This suggests that the only independent state they want is one whose territory would include the West Bank and the area which is currently referred to as "Israel." I'm not defending Israel's settlement policy, but it seems odd to criticize it on the ground that it constitutes an impediment to the future creation of a state whose creation is not desired by its proposed inhabitants.

Posted by Gator90 | November 21, 2006 1:52 PM

Matt,

Phenomenal article, probably your best on the Middle East.

The difference between Israel and the Arab states that confiscated their Jewish citizen's property, states such as Syria and Baathist Iraq, is that Israel is always making the grand claim that they are the "Westernized" representative of modernity and democracy in the region. Who knew that they were just a bunch of petty tribal minded wackos just like their neighbors? Certainly not from the image Israel would like to cultivate in the US or in Europe. After all, isn't the fiction that Israel is more "like us" amidst a sea of people not "like us" the ultimate pretext for supporting Israel in such a unilateral manner?

Thus, not only is Matt correct in the comments about two wrongs not making a right, but in a way, Israel's offense is also that it cannot commit the "wrong" while at the same time projecting a sanctifying of image of itself abroad for the sole purpose of receiving aid and support.

MF

Posted by mf | November 21, 2006 2:10 PM

Where Matt's logic, but not his words, are leading to is that the only solution to Israel/Palestine is a ONE-STATE solution with 2 nations -- a bi-national state. Everybody who has thought about this in the last few years knows that this is the only way out of this mess since the 2 state peace process solution has been totally undermined by extremists on both sides.

Posted by mf | November 21, 2006 2:12 PM

Brendan, thank you.

I do think the argument I put up there holds for the "Right of Return" and what happened in 1948 and immediately afterward--there was a roughly equal population transfer. But continuing to annex and build on land after 1967 and up until today is not helpful and harder to stomach.

I do agree with what Ben said about property rights, universal democracy, denial of nationalism, universal citizenship etc. achieving salience in Israel in the eyes of the world but somehow irrelevant in Arab countries that deny all those rights to their minorities. Not to mention European countries that also have a nationality-based approach to citizenship.

Posted by Brittain33 | November 21, 2006 2:14 PM

MF, I'm sure there are some displaced Poles, Hungarians, Silesians, Sudeten Germans, and even a few Alsatians who are annoyed that you think this behavior sets Israel apart from Europe.

Heck, my grandfather was born in what is now Lithuania and if he tried to move back there they wouldn't give him citizenship.

Posted by Brittain33 | November 21, 2006 2:17 PM

Britain33,

Obviously, you don't seem to get that a modern European state that claims to be a liberal democracy was not responsible for such forced displacements, whereas Israel is. Big difference.

Posted by mf | November 21, 2006 2:20 PM

Gator90 asks:
Have the Palestinians ever indicated a desire for an independent state located in the West Bank?
To which the answer is yes - as recently as this summer. And who knows where that desire would have taken them had the Israeli assault on Lebanon not iced the idea. A Washington Post article from May this year stated:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called on Hamas on Thursday to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state on territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war. If the radical Islamic movement refuses, he said, he will put the proposal to a referendum within two months.

The core problem in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the theoretical irredentism of Hamas but the practical irredentism of Israel. No respectable American defends the theoretical irredentism of Hamas but many respectable Americans defend actual Israeli irredentism regardless of the misery and suffering it has brought to some Israelis and many Palestinians over the decades.

Posted by ndm | November 21, 2006 2:24 PM

Ben writes, "they're also not forming internment camps and herding Palestinians into those"

Um, Gaza?

Matthew Y. has evidently attracted attention lately and been assigned a few commissars, "Ben" and "sigmund..." and "Gator90". They've trotted out the usual insinuations about the suspicious "alacrity" of critics of Israel, or what's often called "selective outrage".

Moral and objective Americans are disgusted by Israeli behavior because we fund it and incite it. I don't give a fuck if the Arabs we fund are despots when Israel and the U.S. are going around outright invading, bombing and sacking Arab countries. We complain about Israel "setting back Lebanon 20 years" with bombs and politicians we pay for no less than we complain about invading and occupying Iraq a leading to the deaths of over half a million people there.

Please read Matthew Y.'s Prospect article about TNR where he better expresses the withering contempt he feels for the selective "concern" of this recently arrived groupuscule of minders.

I love that "I'm not defending..." bullshit Gator90 tries. Always trying to have it both ways, always with the sanctimony...

Posted by brendan | November 21, 2006 2:27 PM

MF,

The Sudeten Germans are still around. So are the Silesians. Why can't they have their homes back?

Posted by Brittain33 | November 21, 2006 2:53 PM

Forgive me for the gaucherie of posting in rapid succession, but I have to make another point --

This common refrain of Israel apologists -- "Why don't you criticize the Arabs?" -- really smells. One is obligated foremost to change the things one has control over. While our foreign policy is pretty evidently impervious to democracy, our leaders still do, in theory, answer to us for their crimes. The U.S., of which I am a citizen, has a great deal of control over Israel and, alas, vice-versa. I don't like it, but I bear personal responsiblity for Israeli cluster bombs in lemon groves on the Litani or white phosphorus over Fallujah in a way I don't for Al Quaeda or a Shiite death squad (scratch that -- they're outright in favor of Shiite death squads) or the Sudanese regime or for whatever is the latest convenient "concern" of our gentle neoconservatives. This is not suspect, or difficult to understand, and Israeli apologists only pretend not to get it.

Matthew Y. had a great post last week where he called a superficially anodyne op-ed writer named Anne Applebaum "pernicious" for her phony concerns about all the ills of the world save the U.S. and Israel. He called her on her dangerous, hypocritical bullshit the way some of the contributors here need to be called out.

Posted by brendan | November 21, 2006 2:54 PM

Also, would you care to defend what modern, liberal France and Britain did in Algeria and Northern Ireland?

The lesson here is that anyone who thinks any country is above doing bad things is kidding himself. Israel has done bad things to Palestinians, which I don't condone. But the illusion of moral, peaceful Europeans is as honest as De Gaulle's and Adenauer's convenient myths of a France in resistance and a Germany hijacked by criminals.

Posted by Brittain33 | November 21, 2006 2:57 PM

Brendan, I do think Israel deserves to be criticized, and I take the point about the U.S. using its leverage where it can. I think Bush's policies of only criticizing Israel when it isn't aggressive enough is grotesque and destructive.

But if all the criticism were about the quality of Israeli munitions, the advisability of tearing up neighbor countries, or the treatment of Palestinians, there'd be no discussion. Most of the discussions I've seen on Daily Kos have circled back to the right of return (which is hard to delink from land questions like this; they're certainly connected in official Palestinian negotiations), whether the state of Israel is a good idea or should it be "canceled", and whether Israelis are racist to consider nationality in religion in their citizenship policies. Those arguments are put forward by people who can't claim to look at how nearly every other country addresses these issues and still pretend Israel isn't like 90% of the rest of the world. People do hold Israel in the realm of college dorm bullshit discussions in a way that is condescending and irritating, particularly when they moralize.

Posted by Brittain33 | November 21, 2006 3:01 PM

Brittain33:

This is a bullshit argument about the Sudeten Germans and Silesians. They have organizations in Germany and are free to agitate for lost causes. They are the source of diplomatic rancor between Germany and its neighbors, and the German government wisely ignores them. Poland or the Czechs are free, likewise, to hysterically overreact to their existence.

The argument about return is dishonest. Negotiations are not a zero sum game. The Palestinians are free to make return a point of negotiation; it's not the same as an all-or-nothing precondition. In doing so, they've even already made a kind of progress: when I was younger and still reading scumbags like Abe Rosenthal and William Safire (as I mentioned up above) I was amazed those crazy Arabs could have listened to all those Syrian radio broadcasts in 1948 and scurried out of their homes and cities like obedient insects to let the Arab armies in... At least we don't hear that kind of vicious, loopy racial calumny anymore in the NYT despite your attempts to resuscitate it.

Posted by brendan | November 21, 2006 3:05 PM

At least we don't hear that kind of vicious, loopy racial calumny anymore in the NYT despite your attempts to resuscitate it.

I know it's tough arguing with a pseudonym, but you shouldn't waste your time ascribing views to me that were held by Anne Appelbaum, A.M. Rosenthal, Marty Peretz, or any other Arabophobe you're mentally arguing with when you respond to me. Unless you can find where I said any of that nonsense.

Posted by Brittain33 | November 21, 2006 3:12 PM

"Ben writes, "they're also not forming internment camps and herding Palestinians into those"

Um, Gaza?"

Isn't the UN doing that?

"The argument about return is dishonest. Negotiations are not a zero sum game. The Palestinians are free to make return a point of negotiation; it's not the same as an all-or-nothing precondition."

How do we know that? Do you view the settlements as a 'point of negotiation' or a wrong to be righted?

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | November 21, 2006 3:14 PM

Brittain33:

The "anyone who thinks any country is above doing bad things" line is a straw man argument.

Likewise, what is written on kos is irrelevant.

The U.S. and Israel -- right now -- are far more powerful and far worse than any Arab or Muslim country on earth right now. Countries that start wars and invade other countries out of a sense of impunity should be the world's and my primary concern. Complaining about Nasser right now just won't cut it.

I have a right to criticize Israel because, politically, we are inseparable and indistinguishable at this point.

Posted by brendan | November 21, 2006 3:16 PM

Isn't the UN doing that?

No.

How do we know that?

By listening to what Palestinians say.

I realize it's hard to pay attention to the Palestinians, given that they're smelly brown Third Worlders, etc., and thus not fully human. But you might be amazed by what you can find out if you cease talking and start listening.

Posted by grh | November 21, 2006 3:22 PM

Look, Israel has DEFINITELY formed internment camps and forcibly herded Palestinians into them. Palestinians can't live anywhere else in Israel but the designated territories.

Now, it is true that if some other nearby nation wanted to take the Palestinians off their hands then Israel would be more than glad to let them go anywhere, so long as it is not within Israeli territory. But I'm sure the same could be said of many nations with internment camps.

When Israel's defenders argue that Israel has been more humane than other countries would be under similar provocation, they are basically saying "hey, Israel hasn't committed genocide against the Palestinians yet". Very true! But a thin reed to hang one's claims to morality on.

Posted by MQ | November 21, 2006 3:27 PM

Sebastian Holsclaw --

"The settlements"? Which ones? The Israelis have been building them since 1967.

It's a subject for negotiations. I'm not a negotiator, or a historian.

In fact, I shouldn't have gotten so angrily involved in this thread. I'm really angry about Israel for what I consider its influence in our government's foreign policy, its complicity in our invasion of Iraq, its goading us to attack Iran, its destruction of Jenin even as the U.S. theoretically needed allies in the world for invading Iraq, its sack of Gaza this summer, its Luftwaffe-style punitive mission against Lebanon. The moral affront of their inexorable settlement of the West Bank pales beside all that.

Posted by brendan | November 21, 2006 3:30 PM

"Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called on Hamas on Thursday to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state on territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war. If the radical Islamic movement refuses, he said, he will put the proposal to a referendum within two months."

Is Mahmoud Abbas in Charge of Hamas?

Posted by DRR | November 21, 2006 3:55 PM

Would Hamas have the support if Palestinian lives weren't so miserable? Frankly, if trends in Israel-Palestine continue at their current pace, we are looking one day at the emergence of groups who will make Hamas and Hezbollah look like choir boys.

Posted by Peter H | November 21, 2006 4:12 PM

NDM: You tell me that in May 2006: "Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called on Hamas on Thursday to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state on territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war. If the radical Islamic movement refuses, he said, he will put the proposal to a referendum within two months."

Since that is all you say, I'm assuming Hamas did not endorse the creation of such a state, and that Mr. Abbas did not put the proposal to a referendum. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Is that your best example of the Palestinians seeking a state on the West Bank (as distingushed from one that would also include what is now commonly referred to as Israel)? If so, I'll leave it at that.

The main obstacle to peace between the Palestinians and Israelis is that the Palestinians don't want it. They want to destroy Israel. I don't mean this as judgmentally toward the Palestinians as it may sound. They believe Israel was established on land that was stolen from them. They are entitled to that belief and it may be historically accurate. They may be fully justified in pursuing Israel's destruction as the only way of reclaiming the land they believe to be theirs. But to imagine that they have been seeking to coexist with Israel, and that those damned settlements are the only thing in the way, ignores objective reality. It is almost patronizing toward the Palestinians, who have been quite open and honest about what they want (their land; no Israel) and don't want (coexistence).

BRENDAN: I looked back at my first post and saw nothing about "suspicious alacrity" or "selective outrage," so I don't know why you attributed those terms to me. Nor do I understand why you would greet my first comment on Matt's site (I have been reading Matt with admiration for a couple of years) with the bizarre accusation that I was "assigned" (by whom, you tantalizingly don't say) to serve as a "commissar." What does that even mean?

Posted by Gator90 | November 21, 2006 4:15 PM

Gator90:

Point taken. I apologize. I was lumping you in with some other commenters.

Posted by brendan | November 21, 2006 4:31 PM

Gator90 writes:

It is almost patronizing toward the Palestinians, who have been quite open and honest about what they want (their land; no Israel) and don't want (coexistence).

Gator90 writes this even after being shown the following disproof of his (or her) claim:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called on Hamas on Thursday to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state on territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war. If the radical Islamic movement refuses, he said, he will put the proposal to a referendum within two months.

So who should we believe about what Palestinians really want? The President of the Palestinian Authority or the willfully mendacious Gator90. This mendacity is merely the by-product of having to defend the indefensible. We see that in the tactics favored by those that defend the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people – the lie and the deny. Here, we caught Gator90 in the deny.

So, please, Gator90 don't patronize us with your lies.

Posted by ndm | November 21, 2006 5:00 PM

Gator90
The main obstacle to peace between the Palestinians and Israelis is that the Palestinians don't want it

This is silly. An end to the conflict based on the status quo is clearly something most Palestinian leaders, and presumably population, do not want. And end to the conflict based on the 1967 borders -- more popular. And end to the confluct based on the 1948 borders -- yet more popular. A binational state? Popularity unknown.

The conflcit isn't about one murderous warlike people and one peacable, reasonable people (that's the marty Peretz view), It's about different views on ethnicity, nationality, an self-determination.

"Peace" is not the way to resolve this (or any other) conflict, its a description of what happens after the conflict is resolved.

Posted by Ikram | November 21, 2006 5:08 PM

I meant to write: Here we caught Gator90 in the lie.

Posted by ndm | November 21, 2006 5:08 PM

Perhaps you didn't see the context of the question. I'll rephrase.

How is it that Israel is running internment camps in Gaza when it doesn't run things in Gaza at all?

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | November 21, 2006 5:19 PM

Well, one of the effects of the Peace Now study should reasonably be that Israel's occupation and settlement of the West Bank is unjust. Although some folks think this understanding should be obvious, for many others it just isn't obvious. I for one have had many conversations with people I respect very much, who strongly believe that settlements/occupation are necessary, which tends to be tied to, in their minds, the "rightness" or appropriateness of the zionist project. At some point, I think we as humans have to come to the understanding that its OK be be in favor of zionism, but amends to the palestinians have to be made at the same time. What I'm saying is that you can separate the two goods -- zionism and concern for palestinian human rights -- intellectually, but it's not just/fair to be in favor of zionism and settlements/occupation at the same time.

Posted by DC | November 21, 2006 5:48 PM

NDM: Willfully mendacious? Yikes. You're mean. At the risk of subjecting myself to further gratuitous personal nastiness, I'll try one more time to respond to the substance of your argument that Mr. Abbas demonstrated the Palestinian people's desire to co-exist with Israel by asking Hamas to endorse a Palestinian state on the West Bank, and advising Hamas that he would put this idea to a referendum in 2 months if it failed to comply with his request. Please answer 2 questions. One: did Hamas comply with Mr. Abbas' request? Two: has Mr. Abbas put the matter to a referendum?

Ikram: I don't subscribe to the Marty Peretz view at all. I don't think of the tragic Israeli-Palestinian situation in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys." I would define "peace" between the Israelis and Palestinians as nonviolent co-existence between 2 nation-states that respect one another's sovereignty within agreed-upon borders. I see no evidence that the Palestinians have any collective desire for that at this time. You seem to be saying that the problem is simply one of reaching a consensus on where the borders should be. To my knowledge, no one purporting to represent the Palestinians (or any significant fraction of them) has ever proposed borders that would be acceptable to the Palestinians with an inviolably sovereign Israel on the other side. Until something like that happens, I will continue to believe that the Palestinians do not want peace as I have defined it.

Posted by Gator90 | November 21, 2006 6:12 PM

"How is it that Israel is running internment camps in Gaza when it doesn't run things in Gaza at all?"

Bizarre, Sebastian. Israel controls all entry to and exit from the Gaza territory. Just because the inmates are running the asylum doesn't mean they're not locked up. Usually you are capable of making more thoughtful points, or at least ones that are not totally off the wall.

Posted by MQ | November 21, 2006 6:18 PM

Gator90 refuses to accept that the President of the Palestinian Authority has accepted a two-state solution. Gator90 then diverts attention from this refusal by posing two questions:
One: did Hamas comply with Mr. Abbas' request? Two: has Mr. Abbas put the matter to a referendum?

I addressed these questions the first time I quoted the Abbas comments when I wrote:
And who knows where that desire would have taken them had the Israeli assault on Lebanon not iced the idea.

I should, of course, have written the Gaza Strip instead of Lebanon but Israel has attacked so many of its neighbors recently it is hard to keep up. Since shortly after President Abbas issued his call for a referendum in the early summer the Israelis have killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians in attacks on Gaza that continue to this day. No one would recommend holding a referendum under these conditions. In fact, it is not at all obvious to me that Israel wants this referendum to take place because then it might be forced to treat the Palestinians as people instead of lemmings.

The fact remains that President Abbas has called for a two-state solution and Gator90 continues to deny it.

Posted by ndm | November 21, 2006 6:56 PM

Look, Israel has DEFINITELY formed internment camps and forcibly herded Palestinians into them. Palestinians can't live anywhere else in Israel but the designated territories.

The distinction I'm making is the rounding up of people, displacing them from their homes. The Palestinians fled their homes. Obviously the formation of Israel was a messy situation, but when the Partition Plan was announced and the surrounding Arab countries attacked Israel, the Palestinians (as we know them) ran away. The Arab countries told them "wait until we kill this new state, then you can go back." Of course, it didn't turn out like the Arab countries planned.

Now, the point here is that from that point on the Palestinians were "displaced." Did Israel round them up? No. Did they force them to live where they live? No. Did they forcibly take them out of their homes and stick them in new camps that they built? No.

The argument is that because of the restrictions on entry and exit, that is keeping them prison. But I ask what you would rationally do in this situation. This is a society that has snuck suicide bombers into your nation and shot rockets daily. Just open the borders and let everyone pass? There are definitely some regrettable things, but to argue that the situation in Gaza is akin to internment camps is ridiculous. They were not herded there. They were not picked out of their homes based on their race and then organized into camps.

When Israel's defenders argue that Israel has been more humane than other countries would be under similar provocation, they are basically saying "hey, Israel hasn't committed genocide against the Palestinians yet". Very true! But a thin reed to hang one's claims to morality on.

That's taking grays and turning them into black and white. It's not genocide or not. Israel has, from it's very inception, had it's existence threatened. From the Israeli side, what are you supposed to do? Every single angle seems to have been tried, but nothing works. Oslo was a great step - but the Palestinian leadership was corrupt and embezzled the money. Earlier brutal, riot breaking tactics were tried (much to my chagrin), but of course that didn't work. Ehud Barak offered 98% of the occupied land back, plus an international capital in Jerusalem and the Palestinian leadership refused it. So the latest government said: "We have no partner in peace, let's try and build a fence and just get out." That happened in Gaza. Now proponents of the Palestinians say that the situation in Gaza is Israel "imprisoning" the Palestinians - meanwhile, the Palestinians use the extra space to fire rockets from a closer distance.

If you're Israel, WHAT DO YOU DO? How do you handle this situation *without* putting a fence up and having checkpoints? It's far, far, far from genocide, and it's quite a stretch to compare a security fence to internment camps.

brendan said: Matthew Y. has evidently attracted attention lately and been assigned a few commissars, "Ben" and "sigmund..." and "Gator90".

I can't speak for the other two, but I know why I'm commenting, and you're pretty paranoid brendan.

I've been reading Matt's blog for a couple months now ever since it was recommended by a friend. It's great and for the most part I agree with what he writes. I've learned a lot reading him. But there have been a couple of posts lately about Israel and I find them lacking in a portrayal of both sides of the issue. That's the reason I started commenting.

Posted by Ben | November 21, 2006 7:15 PM

I should, of course, have written the Gaza Strip instead of Lebanon but Israel has attacked so many of its neighbors recently it is hard to keep up. Since shortly after President Abbas issued his call for a referendum in the early summer the Israelis have killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians in attacks on Gaza that continue to this day. No one would recommend holding a referendum under these conditions.

Let's not skip the *actual* sequence of events.
1) Abbas calls for two state solution to be accepted by Hamas.
2) Hamas refuses to accept it because it's part of their creed that they will not recognize Israel.
3) Abbas realizes he will get nowhere in talks, decides to call for a referendum - show the world the Palestinians are ready to negotiate and that their policy towards Israel is not represented by Hamas.
4) Hamas objects publically, there are skirmishes between Fatah and Hamas.
5) It's now only days before the date of when the referendum is called for.
6) All the sudden, after some time of relative quiet, an Israeli outpost is assaulted, soldiers are kidnapped and killed.
7) Israel responds.
8) The referendum goes down the tubes.

Why is it important to look at that sequence? Well, ndm would have you believe that Israel saw that there was a unified Palestinian front who wanted to negotiate with them and decided to attack to destroy it. Ignoring how little sense that makes, that DIDN'T HAPPEN. Israel was provoked and the Palestinians were divided. There were many in the world, including myself, who were very very excited for the referendum. I was disappointed that Israel responded the way they did, but it wasn't unprovoked aggression. And I think it's not so far fetched to believe that the terrorist group that carried out the attack on the Israeli outpost knew what they were doing and knew it would disrupt the referendum.

In fact, it is not at all obvious to me that Israel wants this referendum to take place because then it might be forced to treat the Palestinians as people instead of lemmings.

Honestly, this is just plain ignorant, and I think willfully so. You seem intelligent enough that I couldn't believe you could honestly think that. If you brought Oslo back to the table and guaranteed that it would not fall into the hands of corruption, the Israeli public and government would overwhelmingly accept it. That's not the mark of a society that is looking to view the Palestinians as "lemmings."

I've rewritten the above paragraph 5 or 6 times, because I am honestly so shocked that you would write and think that. I don't have words for a proper response. That's just - wow. Ignorant is the only word that comes to mind.

Posted by Ben | November 21, 2006 7:35 PM

"How do you handle this situation *without* putting a fence up and having checkpoints?"

Which situation? The situation after the 1967 war could potentially have been handled by returning the West Bank to Jordan, or by giving it to the Palestinians as an independent state. (This was decades before before the rise of Hamas and suicide bombing, remember). There are security risks in doing that, but certainly Israel's choice to handle the situation by putting Jewish settlements on the territories was a pretty provocative one. Like a lot of Israel's defenders, you are rather selective in describing the chain of mutual provocations that has led us to this situation.

I also agree with you that it would have been a very nice and convenient thing if Israel's Arab neighbors had resettled the Palestinian refugees as full citizens of those neighboring states. It's hard to think of a historical example where a state has voluntarily performed this service for a large refugee population, but I agree that it would have been nice if Jordan, Syria, etc. had done so. But they didn't, did they? That's reality.

"it's quite a stretch to compare a security fence to internment camps."

Unfortunately, it's not. You're trying to draw a distinction by saying that Israel's motivations were understandable in the moment. I'm emphasizing that as a practical reality there is not that much difference between an internment camp and the Palestinians' situation. We can both be right at the same time. Israel's excuses, even if some are good ones, matter less and less as they hold millions of people essentially prisoner, without rights, for years and years. Again, that's the reality we are dealing with.

One key point in your exposition was saying that a two state solution had been tried because "Barak had offered 98% of the West Bank". This is a key point made among liberal defenders of Israel. There is controversy over the details of the Taba offer, and in addition there is a good argument that by that point it was too late to ask Arafat to simply barter away completely the right of return for a promise from a negotiating partner the Palestinan people did not trust. Israel continued to build settlements in Palestinian territory throughout the Oslo period, and frittered away potential goodwill in doing so. I do not believe Israel ever fully gave the two state solution a chance.

The current situation is certainly not all Israel's fault, given that one accepts the initial seizure of territory in 48. Perhaps not even half Israel's fault, who knows? But it is definitely a situation of substantial shared blame. The current excuse seems to be that "well we tried everything, now we have no choice but to be the jailer and oppressor of the Palestinian people for the foreseeable future". Sorry, that does not fly and will not absolve Israel of its moral responsibilities.

Posted by MQ | November 21, 2006 7:44 PM

"If you brought Oslo back to the table and guaranteed that it would not fall into the hands of corruption, the Israeli public and government would overwhelmingly accept it."

I believe you (though I would substitute "a majority" for the "overwhelmingly" part). I also believe that if you brought a two state solution to the table based on return of all post-67 territory, and somehow magically guaranteed that Israel would really remove all settlers, truly respect Palestinian territorial autonomy, etc. the majority of the Palestinian public and government would accept it.

Of course, a minority of Palestinian terrorists would try to sabotage the agreement by killing Israelis. Likewise, a minority of Israeli terrorists and radicals would try to sabotage any land for peace agreement by provoking Palestinians. In the end, those minorities have managed to sabotage the peace process. You have to ask yourself why that is so. I don't think it could have happened without the support of key forces within Israel, which is by far the more powerful party in this interaction and the one that sets the agenda.

Posted by MQ | November 21, 2006 7:56 PM

NDM: Thank you for responding to my last comment without calling me a liar. I assume the factual correctness of the statement you attribute to Mr. Abbas (requesting Hamas to endorse a 2-state solution with Israel). I also assume that the answers to my 2 questions (although you have yet to straighforwardly answer them) are "no," Hamas did not comply with Mr. Abbas' request, and "no," Mr. Abbas did not put the matter to a referendum. Mr. Abbas' suggestion, however well-intentioned it may have been, obviously went nowhere. The mere fact that he made it does not prove much about what the Palestinian people want or believe. (Pres. Bush, for example, makes many statements that don't reflect the beliefs of most Americans.) The fact that it is up to Hamas, and not up to Mr. Abbas, pretty much says everything, does it not?

Posted by Gator90 | November 21, 2006 8:15 PM

Which situation? The situation after the 1967 war could potentially have been handled by returning the West Bank to Jordan, or by giving it to the Palestinians as an independent state. (This was decades before before the rise of Hamas and suicide bombing, remember). There are security risks in doing that, but certainly Israel's choice to handle the situation by putting Jewish settlements on the territories was a pretty provocative one. Like a lot of Israel's defenders, you are rather selective in describing the chain of mutual provocations that has led us to this situation.

Yep. Its the settlememnts. Its right then, after '67, that Israel lost in the court of public opinion. They aren't justifiable from the liberal Zionist perspective. And they predate the formation - by a long way - of the current excuses for the continuation of the status quo, like Hamas. Indeed, the settlements continued to be built all through the Oslo process.

This was, also, when it was illegal even to talk about Palestine as a nation in Israel, the Palestinian flag was illegal, the idea that a Palestinian people existed was denied as an historical fiction (of course, all "peoples" are in some sense an "historical fiction") - by people as important as Israel's PM Golda Meir. There are still hold outs who continue to suggest this - I've seen op-eds making this point.

So in other words, its quite dishonest to suggest that Hamas's existence is the problem when the broader frame was clearly established well before. Does it honestly surprise Israel supporters that living in horrible conditions of military occupations, having no control over their boarders, little control over thier movement, high unemployment, having their lands and resources appropriated, that a radical movement like Hamas developed? Indeed, I'm surprised there hasn't been more extemism than their has been.

Posted by Ben P | November 21, 2006 8:20 PM

The current situation is certainly not all Israel's fault, given that one accepts the initial seizure of territory in 48. Perhaps not even half Israel's fault, who knows? But it is definitely a situation of substantial shared blame.

See, I was trying to avoid playing the blame game. I am neither arguing to absolve Israel of blame nor to blame only the Palestinians or the Arab states, but rather to understand both sides of the issue.

The current excuse seems to be that "well we tried everything, now we have no choice but to be the jailer and oppressor of the Palestinian people for the foreseeable future". Sorry, that does not fly and will not absolve Israel of its moral responsibilities.

You missed the end of my argument. My "current excuse" was indeed "we tried everything" - but I didn't come to the conclusion that "we have no choice but to be the jailer and oppressor of the Palestinian people for the foreseeable future."

You also don't offer any solutions of your own. In response to my question you essentially said: "the history is complicated" (which I agree with) but that's not a proposed solution.

I'm admitting open mindedness in my argument here (which to a lot of people would seem like weakness). I'm trying to say that I really don't know what Israel should do, but that it doesn't seem absurd to me to put up a security fence. So to give you my actual quote, I would say: "Well we tried approaches from many different angles, so it's back to the drawing board. In the meantime, let's at least try and defend ourselves by trying to get rid of the daily rain of rockets and make sure that suicide bombers can't just walk into our country."

Now, you wrote a lot that I want to argue in that post, so it's on to your other points...

The situation after the 1967 war could potentially have been handled by returning the West Bank to Jordan, or by giving it to the Palestinians as an independent state.

In hindsight, it perhaps would have been better to give the West Bank back to Jordan or make a new state. But Israel kept it for defensive reasons. They had faced wars against Arab nations bent on their destruction before, and the military commanders knew the weakest strategic point was where they were 9 miles across. If an enemy could take that line, and split Israel, they'd have no chance to defend themselves. They kept the West Bank should the Arab nations attack them again.

They weren't exactly proven wrong, were they? 1973 brought ANOTHER war for Israel's destruction, and they barely survived. There was a debate in Israel afterwards about whether to keep the West Bank or not. There were considerable factions saying give it back to get peace, but others pointed to 1973 and said we still need it for defense.

Again, in hindsight it's regrettable that Israel didn't give it back for peace, but rehashing this past is just playing the blame game - we need to look at what to do now.

You're trying to draw a distinction by saying that Israel's motivations were understandable in the moment. I'm emphasizing that as a practical reality there is not that much difference between an internment camp and the Palestinians' situation.

That's actually not the distinction I'm drawing. I'm NOT saying that they're not internment camps because Israel's actions were "understandable." I'm saying there's a difference between Israel actively rounding Palestinians up, uprooting them from their homes, and placing them in their own chosen spots and the Palestinians running away in the face of a war. Events conspiring to make the Palestinians leave is far different from a government herding people and making them leave.

Last point I'll address because this post is already long...

Israel continued to build settlements in Palestinian territory throughout the Oslo period, and frittered away potential goodwill in doing so. I do not believe Israel ever fully gave the two state solution a chance.

While, again, I agree that there were problems on both sides (not blaming anyone) I think that there's a lot of evidence to say that had Israel given the two state solution a complete chance it still would have broken down.

A question for you: this current government was elected on the idea of a unilateral disengagement. Did you agree with that policy or no? If not, what would have been an improvement?

Posted by Ben | November 21, 2006 8:21 PM

Of course, a minority of Palestinian terrorists would try to sabotage the agreement by killing Israelis. Likewise, a minority of Israeli terrorists and radicals would try to sabotage any land for peace agreement by provoking Palestinians.

I wouldn't equate the methods of the two sides. While the Palestinian radicals use terrorist tactics, the radical Israelis have refrained from that so far. Their worst act was the assasination of Yitzhak Rabin, and that was against another Israeli. That being said, the Israeli "radical" side has indeed had it's fair share of power, so they've had the tools for provocation. But I would stay away from equating how the two sides go about disrupting the peace process.

To simplify the conflict a bit (and I know I'll get plenty of arguments about this but I want to throw it out there anyway) think of when you were a child. If you had a sibling, you had plenty of conflicts. I know I did. If my sister was teasing me mercilessly I would often use violence to respond. My parents would scold me for it. I would complain I was provoked. Their answer would be "that doesn't warrant violence." However, if my sister were to hit me first, and I responded with violence, the scolding would go to both of us. I perceived this as unfair then, but now I realize that to get along in this world you sometimes have to ignore provocation. Certainly you can't respond to everything, and if you do, you can't use violence. My point is not to say this is an analogous situation, but only to make clear that there is an important distinction to make between provocation and violence. They are not equal.

In the end, those minorities have managed to sabotage the peace process. You have to ask yourself why that is so. I don't think it could have happened without the support of key forces within Israel, which is by far the more powerful party in this interaction and the one that sets the agenda.

I agreed with you for the most part until this comment. This is what I was talking about regarding holding Israel to a different standard. The minorities HAVE managed to disrupt the peace process. I would also say there have been numerous policy mistakes from the Israeli side. But when you ask yourself "why this is so" your response includes NOTHING about the violence used by the Palestinians. Certainly this is just as large, if not larger of a reason for breakdowns in peace negotiations.

Posted by Ben | November 21, 2006 8:43 PM

"I'm saying there's a difference between Israel actively rounding Palestinians up, uprooting them from their homes, and placing them in their own chosen spots and the Palestinians running away in the face of a war. Events conspiring to make the Palestinians leave is far different from a government herding people and making them leave."

Well, if you've read Benny Morris then you know that the Israeli government actually did do a fair amount of this kind of thing in 48. It's actually very difficult to engage in this discussion without bringing in history, because both sides do so much justification their current actions with reference to history. Like you, though, I'd like to get beyond that.

So to go to the present and future: things look quite dark at the moment. But I don't think Israel has negotiated in anything like good faith since at least 99-00, perhaps before, so doing that might be a good place to start. Be genuinely willing to fully withdraw from *all* post-67 territories (perhaps one could negotiate trades of pre-67 territory to maintain contiguity or something). Support Abbas by improving quality of life in the territories so his constituents can see something positive immediately. Stop demonizing Hamas. Understand that neither Abbas nor Hamas control all Palestinian violence. Stop using every terrorist action by any Palestinians as an excuse to cancel all talks and crack down violently. Admit your own share of fault in the situation and reach out to the other side. Settle in for a probably generation-long and painful process of learning to live together on a truly mutually respectful basis.

As for "unilateral disengagement": this has often been a code word for setting up what is essentially a bantustan for the Palestinians, where Israel sets the boundaries of the Palestinian territory and makes all important decisions without any need for negotiation. In other words, ostensible withdrawal followed by unilateral and autocratic Israeli military intervention whenever any need for it is felt. In that sense, I disagree with it. The total size of the area is simply too small to manage living together without some kind of responsible Palestinian state authority that can be negotiated with. The possibility for that kind of authority has been systematically undermined by recent Israeli action, now rebuilding needs to take place.

If you don't have the stomach for this process, then I'd almost prefer it if Israel admitted that the agenda is expulsion and started the process of driving the Palestinians out of the territories completely. Expulsion or living together on a mutually respectful basis are the only real long-run options here. (I always thought that Sharon wanted to make life in the territories so unpleasant that the Palestinians would leave voluntarily.) You're not going to be able to beat and oppress the Palestinians into living with you peacefully, so if you don't believe they can ever be a people you can live with then you should admit it and kick them out.

Posted by MQ | November 21, 2006 8:45 PM

"I wouldn't equate the methods of the two sides. While the Palestinian radicals use terrorist tactics, the radical Israelis have refrained from that so far. Their worst act was the assasination of Yitzhak Rabin, and that was against another Israeli. That being said, the Israeli "radical" side has indeed had it's fair share of power, so they've had the tools for provocation. But I would stay away from equating how the two sides go about disrupting the peace process."

How much do you really understand about the Israeli settler movement? Israeli settlers are constantly provoking their Palestinian neighbors, and then they get the army to back them up doing it. Try googling "Israeli settler violence" sometime to expand your perspective. I realize that this only gets covered over here when Israeli radicals actually kill other Israelis, but believe it or not the Israeli right *has* killed other human beings besides Yitzhak Rabin.

Even beyond that, Israel has its army for punitive strikes, it doesn't need to resort to suicide bombing to make a point. It's an undeniable fact that Israel has killed more Palestinian civilians over the past decade than Palestinian terrorists have killed Israeli civilians. Sharon used the military to undermine the legitimacy of Palestinian government in somewhat the same way that Palestinian radicals used terrorism to undermine the legitimacy of Israeli governments that wanted peace.

Posted by MQ | November 21, 2006 8:54 PM

Also, saying that the worst single act of the Israeli right was the assasination of Yitzhak Rabin shows a rather mind-boggling level of ethnocentrism, given that Baruch Goldstein butchered 29 Palestinians and wounded over 100 more while they were peacefully worshipping at a mosque. Goldstein's grave became an honored shrine for the settler movement.

Posted by MQ | November 21, 2006 8:59 PM

Ben, see Oren's book on the Six-Day War for Israel's attempt to turn the West Bank over to the Palestinians, a policy that was unfortunately impractical at the time and sadly not maintained.

Posted by rilkefan | November 21, 2006 9:15 PM

So to go to the present and future: things look quite dark at the moment. But I don't think Israel has negotiated in anything like good faith since at least 99-00, perhaps before, so doing that might be a good place to start.

I mean, if I'm Israel, I'd love to negotiate with good faith. But with whom? Hamas won't come to the table because they refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. And Hamas is in power now. So who do you negotiate with? And every other time Israel has negotiated they've been burned. I think if the Palestinians formed a unity government it would be the perfect opportunity to come back to the table. But so far, that unity government looks a long way away.

Be genuinely willing to fully withdraw from *all* post-67 territories (perhaps one could negotiate trades of pre-67 territory to maintain contiguity or something).

You can't say *all* because that includes half of Jerusalem. Israel will never negotiate that away, but a shared capital is obviously not out of the question.

Support Abbas by improving quality of life in the territories so his constituents can see something positive immediately.

I fully support this and think it's important as well.

Stop demonizing Hamas.

Why when they refuse to speak to you and refuse to recognize your right to exist? This cuts right to the core of Israel and is something that they cannot tolerate. Israel's entire history has been a struggle for survival, so if you're looking to push their buttons the one you hit is: "we don't think you have a right to exist." Hamas has never been shy about hitting this button. Combine that with a military wing that carries out terrorist attacks and you can see why they'd be "demonized".

Understand that neither Abbas nor Hamas control all Palestinian violence.

See, then this undermines your idea of negotiation. The problem is that Israel has always wanted to believe that whoever they're negotiating with has control. Because, from the Israeli perspective, either you have control so if we give you what you want you can be peaceful, or you don't have control in which case why are we negotiating? What can you give us? What we want is peace, and you can't provide that because you don't have control. So believing this is a necessary precursor to "good faith" negotiations.

Stop using every terrorist action by any Palestinians as an excuse to cancel all talks and crack down violently.

It seems to us over here like it's just Israel attacking as retribution. But they're actually carrying out operations that they believe will help make it harder for further attacks to happen. Now, I think it's been proven that it doesn't work, it's fixing a symptom and not a cause, and it's important to work towards the solution. But operations where soldiers go in to collapse weapons smuggling tunnels are seen as an aggressive act. There are other acts too, which again I don't agree with, but things like bombing weapons stores is portrayed in the media as an act of Israeli aggression.

Also, I think the breakoff of talks, when it's happened, is for the most part tied to my point above. When Israel is negotiating for peace they say to themselves: "We're having a temporary ceasefire until we can get a solid deal on the table. You reign in your side, we'll reign in ours." Then an attack happens, and they're shocked. They think: "Why are we negotiating if you can't control your side?" And I'd like you to answer that question. What would agreeing to a deal with a party that doesn't have control over the terrorists do? There would always be a section of society that believes they must "drive the Jews into the sea." And if the people in power can't control them, then you can't negotiate for peace. It's that simple.

Admit your own share of fault in the situation and reach out to the other side.

Agreed, this makes sense.

Settle in for a probably generation-long and painful process of learning to live together on a truly mutually respectful basis.

A good list. I'm glad somebody finally provided something concrete. What I'm gathering from a lot of people's comments though is that there's a perception that Israelis are a bunch of racist, arrogant, stuck up people who refuse to admit their own mistakes and like the status quo of "oppression" so have no desire for peace.

Although there are people like this, there are people like this in any society. The large majority of the population is willing to make peace and sacrifice a lot. They truly desire just to be left alone - to be able to live without fear of an imminent war, to be able to have their government concentrate on numerous domestic issues that plague Israeli society (like health care, helping immigrants, poverty, etc.) instead of have to spend all their time dealing with foreign relations.

To achieve this end they'd be willing to give back the West Bank and Gaza. That was what this current government ran on, and they won with a large plurality.

But it won't happen until the Palestinian constitution rescinds the clause that calls for Israel's destruction, and all the neighboring countries recognize that Israel is a sovereign nation with whom they can live in peace and within secure borders - that and an undivided Jerusalem is recognized as its capital.

Posted by Ben | November 22, 2006 1:21 AM

It is sad that lies and excuses for Israel's crimes have developed into facts in the US.

But it is even stranger that US jews and other Israel supporters project those statements back onto the Israeli government.

MAtthew wrote The Israeli government has always claimed it's been legitimately obtained through purchase.

It is beyond silly to claim that Israel always has said this.

The Israeli government has had to defend it's policies more than once in front of the Israeli High Court, and claimed there that it took those private lands for security reasons.

It's even in black and white in the linked Haaretz piece:

The Yesha Council of Settlements said in response to the Peace Now report that Israel had halted authorization for
construction on privately owned land in the West Bank after the 1979 court ruling.

So up until 1979 Israel admitted to building on private land. More recently, the Sasson report, that is, the Israeli government, also reported recent building on private land.

So how did this fiction that the settlements weren't build on private Palestinian land came to be? And more idioticly, how did Matthew and others get the notion that this was the position of the Israeli government?

Posted by Luc | November 22, 2006 2:00 AM

"How is it that Israel is running internment camps in Gaza when it doesn't run things in Gaza at all?"

Bizarre, Sebastian. Israel controls all entry to and exit from the Gaza territory. Just because the inmates are running the asylum doesn't mean they're not locked up

Context, please. Brendan said that Gaza was an example of Israel setting up internment camps and herding Palestinians into them. I mentioned that the UN set up the camps. That has been wrongly contradicted and since ignored. The difference between UN refugee camps and the NAZI-like internment camps brendan refers to in the context of that conversation toward the top of the thread ought to be rather obvious.

I will note in response to you that Gaza is not entirely surrounded by Israel. Israel does NOT control all movement in and out of Gaza. Egypt controls a border as well....

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | November 22, 2006 1:23 PM

Sebastian:

Who used the word "Nazi"? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

And why would I even bother when I can just say "Avigdor Lieberman" or "Dan Halutz"?

I don't get it. Israel can bomb its neighbors "back 20 years" and steal the Palestinians' land with only the occasional terrorist retaliation to worry about. It got the invasion of Iraq from us and it'll get the bombing of Iran, too. Why this desperate, wheedling desire to claim the moral high ground, too?

Posted by brendan | November 22, 2006 1:54 PM

I don't know if anyone is reading this thread anymore, but I did want to comment on MQ's recommendation that Israel accept the inability of either Abbas or Hamas to control Palestinian violence. Assuming MQ is correct, doesn't that lack of control render the very idea of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement an absurdity until such time as control is established? It ought to be undisputed that any meaningful peace agreement with Israel would have to include, at the very least, a cessation of violence against Israel. Without that, it's not a peace agreement or even a truce; I guess you'd call it a unilateral ceasefire... kind of a joke, no?

Imagine you're the Palestinians, and the Israelis say, OK guys, here's our proposal. You give us Concessions X and Y, and in exchange we will end the Israeli policy of settling the West Bank with Jews. Please be advised that we cannot actually make the Jews in the West Bank leave, nor can we prevent Jews from moving there in the future. So please don't blame us if, notwithstanding today's agreement, the West Bank is crawling with Jews 5 or 10 years from now. And please don't let the foregoing disclaimer dissuade you from giving us Concessions X and Y. Sound good?

Posted by Gator90 | November 22, 2006 2:05 PM

Gator90:

The Israelis are not demonstrating good faith when they demand a Palestinian entity that ceases violence against Israel. Look at the pattern of their recent behavior:

1. Jenin, 2002. Wrecking West Bank infrastructure to punish the Palestinian authority for not stopping attacks. Largely as a result, Hamas later comes to power, and when it does, Israel tries to destabilize that government with sanctions and assassinations.
2. Lebanon 2006. Ostensibly to get the Lebanese state to rein in Hezbollah the Israelis respond to Hezbollah's attacks on its uniformed soldiers by destroying much of the Lebanese state, or "setting it back 20 years."
3. Gaza 2006. Israelis destroy the infrastructure of Gaza when
Hamas retaliates for the beach bombing by capturing a uniformed Israeli soldier.

Israel always presses its advantage and it sees its advantage in an adversary sunk in violence and chaos.

If Israel were interested in a stable, peaceful Palestinian state of course it would be willing suffer attacks without engaging in punitive expeditions. There is a lower bar for Palestinian behavior precisely because they don't have a state, or what is fashionably referred to in these Hobbesian times as a "monopoly on violence". Yet even given that, the Israelis manage to set the bar for themselves far, far lower: compare, once again, the 2 recent captures of uniformed Israeli soldiers with the Israeli response.

Really, Gator90, we could go back decades and rehash a lot of stuff, but the past five years of Israeli, and accompanying American, behavior really leaves you defending the indefensible.

Posted by brendan | November 22, 2006 2:32 PM

Brendan, I'm not rehashing anything. You think the Israelis are Evil and the Palestinians are Good. That's fine, but please don't imagine that I think the reverse, or that I have any interest in that sort of argument. I'm not a stand-in for Martin Peretz or George Will or whoever you wish you were arguing with.

I do think Israel may reasonably insist that any agreement with the Palestinians include something about Palestinians not murdering Israelis. (Talk about a low bar...) In the real world, it is inconceivable that any government anywhere on earth would seek "peace" with an enemy (whether a state or a quasi-state or a non-state entity) while conceding the enemy's right to murder its citizens at the enemy's pleasure. Your suggestion that Israel should do exactly that comports with your sense of justice, but obviously you are speaking purely theoretically, because you know it can't and won't happen. If your view reflects that of most Palestinians, it simply confirms my theory that Palestinians ... rightly or wrongly ... prefer war to peace at the present time.

Happy Thanksgiving folks.

Posted by Gator90 | November 22, 2006 3:38 PM

Gator90 writes:

I do think Israel may reasonably insist that any agreement with the Palestinians include something about Palestinians not murdering Israelis.

Given the relative numbers of dead civilians it is clearly far more important that any agreement includes something about Israelis not murdering Palestinians. The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza provides an example where the Israelis have killed hundreds of innocent Palestinians – some on the beach, some in their beds, and some on the streets. The number of Israelis who have been killed is a small fraction of the number of Palestinians killed. In fact, the number of Israelis killed by rocket attacks in the last five years is about half the number the Israelis killed in one night last week.

The Israelis hold individual Palestinians accountable for the carnage by performing extra-ju