HRC on Jerusalem

It seems that Hillary Clinton has a position paper on Israel and Israel-related issues coming out that says she "believes that Israel’s right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned." This is, obviously, a disaster. No division of Jerusalem is fine as an Israeli negotiating posture, but it's absurd for the President of the United States to make this a baseline commitment. Simply put, it doesn't matter to Americans exactly how the Jerusalem issue is resolved, and our emphasis needs to be on supporting whatever kind of compromise the parties to the conflict can agree upon.

Now, needless to say, I don't think anyone thinks Clinton really believes this. As M.J. Rosenberg points out, her husband's parameters involved sharing Jerusalem as would any realistic plan. She's not a crazy person, and surely she realizes this. But, of course, the odds of actually achieving a settlement go down when leading American figures make these kind of statements that wreck their credibility as honest brokers. Similarly, Palestinian moderates are left hanging out to dry when American leaders give the impression that they have no intention of acting in a reasonable and impartial manner even if Palestinians change their behavior. And last, of course, the sort of addiction to the politics of pandering to You Know Who that this reflects doesn't bode well for Clinton's approach to this issue in practice no matter how sound her instincts may be in principle.

Photo by Flickr user Bernie CB used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

...and that's all assuming that her instincts actually match her husband's, which is far from clear or obvious to me, as on a variety of issues she's come down as rather hawkish to an extent Bill was not (as I recall).

I think it's pretty ridiculous to assume her instincts are any different than what she professes them to be, unless you can provide some sort of evidence to the contrary.

A point I explain in the comments section of the second linked article, a point MJ Rosenberg somewhat conceded.

It's pretty irresponsible to write off the notion that Hillary actually holds the positions she professes to hold without providing some reason for that belief.

Posted by mopper | September 19, 2007 8:56 AM

Waiting for SLC and SoCal...tick...tick...tick

Posted by Guy in Jersey | September 19, 2007 8:58 AM

Re Guy in Jersey

The main problem with Mr. Yglesias' comment is that tacit assumption that the issue of Jerusalem is the factor that is holding up an agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Nothing could be further from the truth. The issue that stands in the way of an agreement is the Palestinian demand that Palestinians living in refugee camps be allowed to resettle in Israel. Compared to this issue, the problem of Jerusalem is eminently solvable. Until such time as the Palestinians cease and desist from this demand, there will be no agreement. Period, end of story.

Posted by SLC | September 19, 2007 9:06 AM

What happened to the old Yglesias? You know, the one who thought the reason HRC voted for the Iraq War was that she supported it? Aren't we developing a body of evidence here that HRC really does think America ought to be doing more to fuck up the whole region?

And if this is all just a campaign ploy to get donations from Those People, what happens after she's president? Doesn't she, like, have to run for re-election?

Posted by BobN | September 19, 2007 9:07 AM

The issue that stands in the way of an agreement is the Palestinian demand that Palestinians living in refugee camps be allowed to resettle in Israel.

Except that that isn't true, it's never been true, no amount of making it will be true. Look, read the journal articles, read the history books, read magazines and newspapers, read interviews. I promise, you will not find much to corroborate what SLC is saying. It just is not a major part of the mainstream pro-Palestinian agenda. He says it is, because if it were true that the Palestinians were making this demand, it would be that much easier to paint them as the obstruction to peace. Which makes it easier to preserve the status quo, which is what SLC wants. But it isn't true.

Posted by Freddie | September 19, 2007 9:17 AM

"And if this is all just a campaign ploy to get donations from Those People, what happens after she's president? Doesn't she, like, have to run for re-election?"

Yup. As Matthew has noted previously, what Hillary Clinton might "really" think is less important than the kind of political persona she assumes.

How she runs is a far better predictor of her future behavior than mind reading.

Posted by Petey | September 19, 2007 9:21 AM

Disaster? Perhaps, but notice that John Edwards ran on the Democratic Party platform which said:

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

The even more pro-Israel Obama has even less light between himself and Hillary on this.

Levy and Rosenberg's intent here seems to be more to provoke than inform.

Posted by tib | September 19, 2007 9:24 AM

The complete right of return is the Palestinian version of an undivided Jerusalem. Palestinians/jews grew up with the idea that there would be no compromise on those issues. Officially leaders still claim there will be no compromise, but everyone knows that if those were the last issues they would compromise and be done with it.

The actual last issue is Israel's role in the West Bank and Gaza after a settlement. The Palestinians, not surprisingly think there should be none. Israel has yet to agree to such a thing, and has built up settlements in a way that will make disentanglement difficult.

Posted by Lon | September 19, 2007 9:25 AM

Would HRC believe that Israel needs not only "defensible" borders, but legally defined borders?

Posted by El Cid | September 19, 2007 9:26 AM

I've gotta say SLC has this one right. The nut of the problem is before what Matt identifies. It's the "right to exist . . . as a Jewish state, with defensible borders" that presumes a pro-Israeli settlement of the "refugee" issue and precludes any agreement. This policy accepts continued intractable disagreement. Not that I can think of better substantive position to take.

Posted by southpaw | September 19, 2007 9:41 AM

Re freddie

Mr. freddie is as misinformed as his pals Don Williams and Richard Steven Hack. As both former President Clinton and Dennis Ross have stated in their books, this was the stumbling block which prevented an agreement at Camp David and Taba. I challenge Mr. freddie to show the readers a statement in Arabic delivered by a Palestinian leader in which he explicitly states that the Palestinian side is relinquishing this claim. Of course, he will not be able to do so as no such statement exists.

Posted by SLC | September 19, 2007 9:43 AM

I think Hillary really believes this, and it is entirely consistent with the things she has said and done over her political career.

SLC, there was no real 'stumbling block'. The offer was made in bad faith. The Americans and Israeli's gave the palestinians a take it or leave it offer that did not include the previously agreed upon frameworks for peace, and told the palestinians they weren't even allowed to make a counter offer.

Then they used the rejection of this 'plan' and the Palestinian 'refusal' to make a counter-offer as proof that the arabs are dirty anti-semites who will never give Israel what it wants, and as such don't deserve a country.

And SLc, you don't get to ethnically cleanse people, force those people into refugee camps, and then refuse event to compensate people and expect them to drop it. Your entire behavior here is why there will never be peace in the middle east. To people like you, Peace means giving Israel everything it wants and pretending it's never done anything wrong. It does not mean a just settlement of the underlying issues.

Posted by soullite | September 19, 2007 9:58 AM

Dennis Ross's book, of course, doesn't include Taba.

That isn't true, what SLC says-- the issue at Camp David and Taba was contiguity, border control and land mass. But lets set that aside. Okay, what if what SLC saying was true? What about going forward? What I am telling you now, is that now, the refugee question is not among the demands of the large majority of the pro-Palestinian community. And seeing as that's the case, why not move forward now? Why not start to negotiate on the really important points-- contiguity, control of borders and airspace, the division of Jerusalem, access to arable land, access to potable water, the removal of checkpoints and barriers, the reunification of communities divided by settlements and the wall.... The answer is, of course, that the refugee question is used to prevent precisely those discussions from occurring. Because, again, the point for people like SLC is to maintain the status quo, not to genuinely engage in a lasting peace process.

This is a common tactic of the pro-Israeli cranks. Ascribe a certain untenable position to the Palestinians, regardless of whether they actually hold it, and then claim that the position in question means we can't have a real negotiation. It's just obstruction, that's all.

Posted by Freddie | September 19, 2007 9:58 AM

The genderless insanely vicious SLC is always wrong because such viciousness is always wrong. I challenge the genderless SLC not to be insanely vicious.

Posted by Jennifer | September 19, 2007 9:59 AM

How much does anyone want to bet that SLC will come up with one of the folliwng:

1.) Palestinians aren't real. Arabs invented them because they hate Jews.

2.) There was no ethnic cleansing. Those Arabs got up and decided to leave their ancestral homes because they just didn't want to live with jews.

3.) YOU ARE A DRTY ANIT_SEMITE!!1!! GO Bakc TOY WARSHPINH HTLRRRR!!!!

Posted by soullite | September 19, 2007 10:05 AM

Senator Clinton will destroy the Democratic party. I can't imagine voting for someone who takes such a mindless, simplistic view of the Israel/Palestinian situation, and who would willingly eliminate any American credibility on the issue as soon as she's elected. She has a regressive health care plan, and she chastises Obama for refusing to threaten Iranian civilians with nuclear genocide. She would be a great Republican. Its time for a third party...

Posted by Father Figure | September 19, 2007 10:11 AM

Now, needless to say, I don't think anyone thinks Clinton really believes this.

This is clearly a slippery slope...what would this imply about her healthcare proposal?

Posted by MattP | September 19, 2007 10:12 AM

true?

Posted by southpaw | September 19, 2007 10:16 AM

Re soullite

Mr. soullite is, of course, totally full of crap. If the Palestinians negotiators agreed to relinquish the resettlement demand, I guarantee that the rest of the world, including Israel, would rush forward with proposals for a compensation package for the refugees. By the way, does Mr. soullite also suggest that the Jews who were kicked out of Arab countries and whose properties were confiscated also be compensated? I suspect we will see the back of our own ears before Mr. soullite suggests any such thing.

Re freddie

1. Mr. Ross has stated in numerous interviews and articles since 2000 that Arafat refused to relinquish the resettlement demand.

2. Mr. freddie has yet to meet my challenge to produce a statement in Arabic delivered by a Palestinian leader that the resettlement in Israel demand has been relinquished by the Palestinians in return for a compensation package. We're waiting Mr. freddie.

3. I fail to see how we can move forward without the Palestinians relinquishing their resettlement in Israel demand. This is one issue for which there is no compromise.

4. To the Israel bashers like Mr. freddie, a pro Israel crank is anybody who believes that the State of Israel is a legitimate enterprise and deserves to exist in peace within internationally recognized borders.

Re jennifer

In the case of Ms. jennifer, I must reluctantly agree with Mr. Don Williams that it would be nice if she provided a substantive comment, rather then name calling.

Posted by SLC | September 19, 2007 10:22 AM

"... pandering to You Know Who ..."

Hillary Clinton is pandering to Lord Voldemort?

Posted by J | September 19, 2007 10:23 AM

The requisite parts of the Geneva Conventions give refugees the right to return, just as they make permanent settlements illegal. They also prohibit assaults upon civilians. So SLC is mistaken, the problem is simply intransigence--some on both sides--but with the bulk on that being on the side of the Israelis, at least if what one is concerned with is legalities.

Of course we could go back to the pre-67 borders when the Dome of the Rock was in Isreal and the Wailing Wall was in Jordan. Lots of fun, keeping people away from their sacred places.

Posted by jerry | September 19, 2007 10:49 AM

Personally, I'll try to care about the Palestinians again when they stop using suicide bombers and dropping rockets onto civilians from Gaza. Until then, they aren't deserving of any consideration whatsoever.

Posted by James Robertson | September 19, 2007 10:54 AM

Have you seen the paper: you say it seems: are you helping out with a trial balloon. The topic of Israel-Palestine is so toxic that it may be best to wait until the paper is out before responding. Are you on a deadline or some such thing?

Posted by Alan | September 19, 2007 10:57 AM

Re J's comment "Hillary Clinton is pandering to Lord Voldemort?"
----------
Close

http://www.justhillary.com/herwords/hillarysaban.php

Posted by Don Williams | September 19, 2007 11:08 AM

What often defines the unreasonable on these issues is not a statement taken in isolation, but the inequity in how principles are applied.

SLC notes that the demand for resettlement is one for which there can be no compromise. He (or she) concludes that therefore it must be given up by the Palestinians before talks can begin.

It is true that Israel cannot allow resettlement and remain a jewish state. And even the defenders of the Palestinian note that they are expecting the resolution to be reparations rather than resettlement.

But the same is clearly true of control of borders. As long as Israel controls Palestinian borders with the sea and with other countries, then talk of peace is a sham. Similarly while some settlements might legitimately be said to be in dispute, some settlements, like the one in Hebron, are as clearly incompatible with peace as the resettlement issue. So does SLC believe that Clinton should say that acceptance of the removal of the Hebron settlement should be a precondition for peace talks?

Note that a real difference here is that the Palestinians holding on to the right of resettlement in name only does no direct harm to anyone. The Israelis holding on to the settlement in Hebron does great harm, in day to day effects greater tahn the suicide bombers and rockets from Gaza that has James Robertson thinking Palestinians are beneath concern.

So the question, and this goes for both sides, although in the US it is more dramatic for the pro-Israel side, is are you really appealing to principles, or are you pretending to have principles only so far as it is a club against the other side?

Posted by Lon | September 19, 2007 11:13 AM

It's common knowledge that the Palestinians would be willing to settle for a symbolic (financial recompense) solution to the refugee problem if other issues were solved. The demand to produce a statement to this effect in Arabic is silly, since nobody here speaks Arabic.

Posted by mq | September 19, 2007 11:19 AM

Just a quick question:

Why does it matter if Israel is a "Jewish" state? And what does that mean? Are non-Jewish Israeli citizens by definition second class? If yes, how is that defensible? If no, then why even add all this language about being a "Jewish" state?

It seems to me this is at least in part the tensions between the desire to be a democractic state and a theocracy.

Posted by szr | September 19, 2007 11:39 AM

“Refugees, Jerusalem, borders, Jewish settlements and water are issues reserved to the final-status talks between the two sides and nothing should pre-empt or pre-judge the outcome of the final status talks before they begin.” -Saeb Erekat

“His words are (that) he won't give us anything on Jerusalem, on the (West Bank) settlements, on our refugees. What kind of peace can we make with those words?” -Saeb Erekat

“We promise that we will not rest until the right of return of our people is achieved and the tragedy of our diaspora ends .... We will stick to Palestinian steadfastness in support of the dream [Mr. Arafat] lived for.”" -Mahmoud Abbas

Sorry the link before didn't work. Here's the url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Right_of_Return

Posted by southpaw | September 19, 2007 11:50 AM

I thought the real stumbling block was just that there's nobody on the Palestinian side capable of actually delivering peace if terms agreeable to both sides were arrived at. Nobody doubts that the Israeli government could keep bombs from crossing the border in the direction of the Palestinians, but who on the Palestinian side could guarantee the opposite?

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 19, 2007 11:51 AM

Brett, who in the united states can actually guarantee that none of our citizens would ever blow up a bomb in Canada, or Mexico? Nobody, because it can't be guaranteed. But you know that, because it's the entire point of demanding said guarantee. You want to ensure that peace if impossible by making every criminal part of the Evil Palestinianh Race, all of whom are responsible for the actions of every other Arab.

Thanks again for illustrating how moronic and racist Pro-Israeli arguments often are.

Posted by soullite | September 19, 2007 11:55 AM

James, it's extremely racist to blame an entire people for the actions of some. you're basic argument is that all Palestinians are the same, and they're all evil. You're a bigot. Deal with it.

Posted by soullite | September 19, 2007 11:57 AM

SLC, what position do you hold within the Israeli government that you can make such a guarantee? You must work for them, otherwise you couldn’t possibly make the statement you just made.

What I said was history. What you said was your own personal belief as to what was going on in the mind of someone you don't even know. To put it bluntly, you're full of shit and you know it.

Posted by soullite | September 19, 2007 11:59 AM

Simply put, it doesn't matter to Americans exactly how the Jerusalem issue is resolved, and our emphasis needs to be on supporting whatever kind of compromise the parties to the conflict can agree upon.

I'm no big time Zionist, but it does matter very greatly to this American how the Jerusalem issue is resolved. From 1948-1967 or so, Jews couldn't visit Jewish holy sites. Now we Jews can. At least the Old City of Jerusalem must remain under Israeli control.

Posted by DAS | September 19, 2007 12:12 PM

“We promise that we will not rest until the right of return of our people is achieved and the tragedy of our diaspora ends .... We will stick to Palestinian steadfastness in support of the dream [Mr. Arafat] lived for.” -Mahmoud Abbas

Where is the precise original reference for this precise quote? The entire quote? Where is the precise dated reference?

Posted by Jennifer | September 19, 2007 12:16 PM

Re mq

"It's common knowledge that the Palestinians would be willing to settle for a symbolic (financial recompense) solution to the refugee problem if other issues were solved. The demand to produce a statement to this effect in Arabic is silly, since nobody here speaks Arabic."

1. This may be common knowledge to Mr. mq but it's not common knowledge to anybody else.

2. The purpose of requiring a statement in Arabic is because the Arabs have a bad habit of saying one thing to foreign reporters in English and another thing to their own people in Arabic. I don't know whether anybody who comments on this blog speaks Arabic but that is completely irrelevant. There is numerous translators available to render the statement in English or any other relevant language.

Re soullite

1. The readers should notice that they have not yet seen the back of their own ear as Mr. soullite has declined to address himself to the issue of compensation of Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

2. Mr. soullite is upset that Mr. Bellmore and Mr. Robertson haves pointed out transgressions perpetrated by Palestinians and that all Palestinians are tarred with the same brush. What we would like to see is some indication that, in the event of a settlement, whatever authority is governing the new state of Palestine will make it their business to prevent these transgressions. That seems to me to be a reasonable demand.

3. Mr. soullite seems to feel that the State of Israel would not contribute to a compensation package for the Palestinians in refugee camps as a part of a resettlement effort in the new Palestinian State. On what basis does he take this position? Never having visited the State of Israel, I am hardly in the government there but I would be very surprised if that government didn't fall all over themselves to make such a contribution if it would lead to a settlement with no refugee resettlement in Israel. The presence of people in refugee camps provides no advantage for the State of Israel and it is in its interest to shut them down.

Posted by SLC | September 19, 2007 12:29 PM

Do Isrealis really believe that what they do when they build walls/fences/ whatever that they are making Israel safe? Do Palestinians believe that firing rockets aimed at Israel is calculated to make Israel negotiate.

These two entities have produced some of the worst politicians of all time. The corruption (moral and material) in both societies is at the root of the inability of these two parties to come together and work out a plan for living as neighbours.

Giving flowery and passionate speeches is about all that these leaders can do.

US and EC and others should stop sending monies to both countries: no aid, no assistance until they are really ready to negotiate. But the US wont do it, neither will the Arabs. I suspect the Arabs are happy to keep the Palestinian pot boiling.

Posted by Alan | September 19, 2007 1:15 PM

Note that JTA and some random website praised by Drudge are the only sources for this story - and maybe the former got it from the latter - and the latter looks enough like Birnbaum's guess at what HRC's position is that I'm skeptical this is a true story. I didn't find coverage on Haaretz, for example, or anywhere officially connected to HRC.

Incidentally, maybe some people here would be interested in reality? -

Vice Premier Haim Ramon revealed this week that a peace proposal he has drafted would cede to the Palestinians control of Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem, while Israel would retain the western parts of the city and Jewish sites in the Old City such as the Western Wall and Jewish Quarter.

Ramon hinted that Israel also would relinquish at least some control of the Temple Mount, which houses two major Muslim shrines.

Posted by rilkefan | September 19, 2007 1:56 PM

Guy in Jersey

Waiting for SLC and SoCal...tick...tick...tick

Your wait is over.

I'm in favor of a shared Jerusalem as the capital for both countries, and I don't think I've ever written anything to the contrary.

Official P.A. gov't buildings are in Ramallah - no more than 10 minutes away from downtown Jerusalem - but other than that, East Jerusalem (including much of the Old City) is already the de facto capital of the Palestinians and will be so after whatever peace agreement is made.

Posted by SoCalJustice | September 19, 2007 2:19 PM

The question of whether the peace can be kept is not a silly or racist ones, although it could be proposed by racists, the question itself is not a racist one.

But the idea that this is the stumbling block is somewhat suspicious. During Oslo Arafat actually did a pretty good job of keeping security. If one looks at the figures from the Israeli government as to death due to terrorism, it took about a year for Arafat to get his security forces in order. And from that point deaths drop steadily to zero by 2000. The one exception was a series of bombings by Hamas designed to get Netanyahu elected. Clearly this was not in Arafat's interest, and Netanyahu rewarded Hamas by implementing their desired policies.

The problem is that Arafat did not get all that much in return for keeping the peace. Barak did make a good offer on Jerusalem. But the talks broke down over settlements and the right of return. Not surprisingly neither side was willing to play its last card before the other one. And also not surprisingly neither thought their publics would go along, particularly if they played their last card and the other didn't.

It may now be true that the Palestinians could not keep their agreements if they made them. But if so that is a recent development, and talks fell apart before it became true.

Posted by Lon | September 19, 2007 2:26 PM

I'm really beginning to dislike Hillary.

Posted by Robert | September 19, 2007 3:11 PM

Southpaw

“We promise that we will not rest until the right of return of our people is achieved and the tragedy of our diaspora ends .... We will stick to Palestinian steadfastness in support of the dream [Mr. Arafat] lived for.” -Mahmoud Abbas

Where is the precise original reference for this precise quote? The entire quote? Where is the precise dated reference?

Still waiting, still waiting, still waiting. I think this is a lie.

Posted by Jennifer | September 19, 2007 4:29 PM

“We promise that we will not rest until the right of return of our people is achieved and the tragedy of our diaspora ends .... We will stick to Palestinian steadfastness in support of the dream [Mr. Arafat] lived for.” -Mahmoud Abbas

Where is the precise original reference for this precise quote? The entire quote? Where is the precise dated reference?

Waiting to find out whether this is garbage!

Posted by Jennifer | September 19, 2007 4:34 PM

"Still waiting, still waiting, still waiting. I think this is a lie."

Christ, learn to use google.

Posted by rilkefan | September 19, 2007 4:57 PM

Ooh, Israel pandering, my favorite part of the quadrennial circus.

Just for the sake of novelty, has any major party candidate that had even a prayer of winning ever failed to guarantee the right of Israel to do whatever-it-damn-well-pleases?

Posted by faux facsimile | September 19, 2007 7:15 PM

Jennifer,

I got the quote here:
http://www.japantoday.com/news/jp/e/tools/print.asp?content=news&id=319818

There are a bunch of other links where it can be found, and I tried to post them . . . but my comment, with the long list of links, got caught up in the site's spam filter (or something). If you want to see it, bother Matt about getting it released.

I'll just note that it was an AP story headlined "Abbas: I won't give up demand for right of return of refugees" . . . so if it's a lie, it's at least well disseminated. Here are some sources you won't trust:

Haaretz: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=505684&contrassID=13

TNR (not a piece by marty peretz):
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050516&s=karsh051605

The quote appears to be from a Sunday in May 2005, a televised address on palestinian television. I'd be happy to provide more evidence, but I have no idea what would convince you.

Posted by southpaw | September 19, 2007 7:55 PM

Oh jeez, sorry.

I actually got the quotation here:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=38&x_article=818

The japantoday.com link was supposed to just be another corroborating one. Apologies.

Posted by southpaw | September 19, 2007 8:16 PM

For argument's sake, let's say that the right of return holds up any chance of Israel choosing to give up control of the Palestinian territories and allowing Palestine to be independent. However, as the Palestinian Territories have the world's highest birth rate, it won't be more (probably less) than a generation until the majority of the people ruled by Israel are non-Jewish Arabs. As such, Israel will either have to become a full-fledged apartheid state or to cease to be a Zionist state. This, however, is the feared result of allowing right of return. This means that the Israeli political elite is thus creating a self-fulfilling prophesy leading towards either the end of true Israeli democracy or the end of Zionism as long as they fail to find a successful way to cut the difference on the right of return issue.

Posted by Reality Man | September 19, 2007 8:32 PM

Once again, it's well understood by everybody interested in justice what the end point will be: a Palestinian state in 95% of the West Bank and Gaza plus land swaps to cover the last few %, a division of Jerusalem with a symbolic split of authority over the Temple Mount, no right of return (except for a small symbolic #) compensated by $billions from the West, security guarantees for Israel and international forces on the borders, a safe connection between Gaza and the WB, and a negotiated deal on water rights, plus a blessing from the Arab states. The only question is how long it will take to get there.

Posted by rilkefan | September 20, 2007 12:45 AM

South South South, what you South are doing is repeating a supposed quote fragmented and with no reference to any full quote. South south is simply spouting inflammatory garbage to make it seem as though Palestinians can never be negotiated with.

Where is the precise reference to the full quote, Liar?

“We promise that we will not rest until the right of return of our people is achieved and the tragedy of our diaspora ends .... We will stick to Palestinian steadfastness in support of the dream [Mr. Arafat] lived for.” -Mahmoud Abbas

Where is the precise original reference for this precise quote? The entire quote? Where is the precise dated reference?

Posted by Jennifer | September 20, 2007 9:40 AM

South South is simply grabbing up inflammatory Internet garbage to supposed show how impossible fair and reasoned Middle East negotiation is. Garbage.

South South is simply looking to inflame.

There can be a secure Israel and a secure Palestinian state with reasoned negotiation, but South Soluth would rather there be inflaming garbage to prevent reason.

Posted by Jennifer | September 20, 2007 9:45 AM

Jennifer,

I wonder if you think my habit of quoting news reports is more or less inflammatory than the personal invective which pervades your comments.

It is neither inaccurate nor inflammatory to grapple with the refugee issue. I understand you believe there exists no such issue. Nevertheless, consider that the Palestinian people have maintained refugee camps with great labor since the founding of Israel, nearly 60 years ago. Consider the Palestinian lives that have begun and ended in those camps, each nurtured in the belief that they had land and homes to return to in Israel itself. Many Palestinians still wearing the keys to long-destroyed houses on chains around their necks. If there is to be peace on your reasonable terms, those refugees must abandon that long-held belief, cast away their heritage, and build new homes on such land as Israel is willing to cede to them. How can the refugees not be an issue?

If what I say is false, it is not by intention, but rather on the basis of my good faith belief in what I consider to be many independent and reliable sources. But here's the catch: If you show me convincing contrary evidence, I'll abandon my view. Could you say the same thing?

Sincerely, your pal, the liar,
South South

Posted by southpaw | September 22, 2007 5:06 PM