The Israeli Palestinian conflict

[Occhidiangela]

The Palestinians certainly have to accept enormous responsibility for their occasional adoption of the ridiculous Arab world slogan, "Death to Israel". Israel isn't going to die, and wishing for it is only going to make things worse. However, the Israelis tend to be content with "Palestinian reservation" or "Tiny, impoverished refugee camps" as fulfulling their obligations to coexist peacefully. I don't find it in the least surprising that the Palestinians view this treatment as a complete non-solution, and, while I reject violence, I too would certainly be very angry about such treatment

.

I mentioned Iran for a reason. They bankroll Hamas, and others.

You make a good point, though, and there is reason to belive that some Palestinians do accept responsibility like that and are as sick of the bombs and rocks as any Israeli. They are, I estimate, the rare peacemakers. Their voice is, and has been for some time now, drowned out by those who look for any excuse, any imperfection in Israeli policy -- of which there is usually a supply available -- as their justification to the destruction of Israel as the Only Solution.

They see no third way. Tribal view, me or you.

There is, for them, either victory or defeat, detente and peaceful coexistence are not on the table. As a rule, Hamas won't talk without a bomb going off. That, IMO, is why the situation has devolved back to the 1970-1975 condition of : "No one listens to us until something blows up" with a difference. When the Russians backed the PLO then, it was with secular nationalist ideals backing them. When Iran backs them now, it is on a religious socialogical basis. That is a different appeal, since the religious basis is less likely to accept compromise as a valid course of action, where a secular approach will.

Then, the bombers were trying to get anyone's attention at all, and were backed as a "national liberation movement" which is secular and Enlightenment driven, now you are dealing with a pre Enlightenment model.

They also speak to a slightly different audience. Now, they are speaking as much to whatever Palestinian authority is dealing with Israel and The West as they are to Israel and "the rest of you folks out there in TV land." But the message has changed, and their message is clear.

"No compromise, and until it's done our way, the bombs will continue."

This puts Palestinian moderates and progressives, the non tribal sorts who will be willing to work out a sustainable deal, into an impossible position. Their credibility with the Israeli's is nill, because Hamas and its spiritual brother organizations, funded by Iran and some Arabs, like Osama, as the PLO used to be funded by the USSR, will veto with a bomb whatever terms or conditions are not suitable to their constituency. That is not negotiation, that is "My way or the highway."

Imagine your own government. The PM and his party, let's say Labor, are pursuing some new educational policies. The Conservative party disagrees, but does not even debate it in the Commons. One of their operatives blows up the PM's summer home.

That is the kind of transaction that is happening far too often.

No matter what Israeli PM is at the table, you can't make a deal with people who won't even discuss compromise, who won't even discuss "a third way." The excuse often used by the Palestinian side is that "your chance for compromise came and went in "1982,9183,1989,1994"

Pick a year. There is more than a grain of truth in that charge, in that the Israeli leadership have missed many an opportunity to move forward, but they would not pay the price since they knew that any compromise would cause their government to fall. Their own political future was, IMO, put ahead of the future of Israel. (I imagine many an Israeli will take issue with my opinion on that.)

"We don't think you'll even compromise, you'll just (for example) keep importing Russian "Wetback Jews" into the West Bank." (Insert other suitable cause du jour.

If an Israeli tries the Rodney King sound byte: "Can't we all get along" they are told "Sure, right after you leave."

When Arafat blew the deal Clinton offered, because he was trying to cut a perfect deal that satisfied every single sub element in the far flung Palestiniam constituency (or because he did not really want to cut a deal, hard to say what was going on behind the scenes) he opened the door for two obstacles to further progress;

1. He proved that he could not negotiate in good faith, which means accepting some quid pro quo, some tit for tat

2. He gave the veto to anyone with a bomb who disagreed with him.

In short, he did what any number of Israeli PM's from 1967 to present did: he did not actually negotiate, becaue he felt he had enough hole cards that he did not really have to.

Is it any surprise that President Bush set as a precondition for any American support to a negotiated settlement be that Arafat "leave the stage?"

On one level, it is practical, the man can't bargain in good faith, he has not the power base, but on another, it must be personally insulting to an enormous number of Palestinians: this guy was their cause's leader, the guy who got the money from guilty Arabs for decades, the guy who then funded the Palestinian dole. He is, to the older generation at least, a combination of George Washington and FDR.

Who does any Palestinian leader speak for? The older generation.

The young one's have no perspective on pre-1980', before the PLO got hounded out of Lebanon, their one time privileged sanctuary. They know Gaza, Hebron, and the barbed wire, the Shin Bet, the middle of the night invasions of privacy.

Hamas speaks to them, loud and thunderous.

If you want to recruit suicide bombers, recruit teenagers: they already have enough hormonal rage potential provided by mother nature to be easily tapped. The habits of the Israeli security forces provide enough fuel for a fire.

Risk reward.

If Israel gives up the West Bank, will that end anything? If it does not, they are right back to 1967, except they still hold the Golan Heights from which Syria won't shell their cities.

Would that move stop "the war?" I have no idea, but if someone told me that Texas had to give the Nueces Strip to Mexico, I'd get out my guns and simply say:

"Over my dead body."

I don't see a solution until Iran chooses to cut off the money for Hamas, and until any and all Arabs cut off their aid to the other bombers. Otherwise, the explosive veto will stand, and with that veto, there is no movement possible.