"I'm Not Touching You"

By Edward

Israel just doesn't get it. Again and again, despite constant objections from world leaders who they must by now understand are on their side, they expand their contentious settlements just when there seems to be real hope for peace with the Palestinians. And they're at it again:

On Monday, Israel publicly confirmed plans to expand the already large settlement a few miles east of Jerusalem called Maale Adumim. In a community already housing 30,000 residents - not to mention a Blockbuster Video, Ace Hardware and other shops - Israel plans to build an additional 3,500 new housing units.

The Palestinians have rightly criticized this as a major obstacle to ever resolving one of the most emotional and intractable issues between the two: the final borders of Israel and eventually Palestine, and the dividing up of Jerusalem.

Now nearly every time I've debated the issue of expanding settlements in Israel in the blogosphere, someone has come along and argued what they consider the technically legal or the morally legitimate rationales behind further expansions. But enough is truly enough here:

We all know that any final peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians will have to include an adjustment of borders; returning to the 1967 lines is fine in theory, but there are too many Israeli Jews living outside those boundaries to expect all of them to move. But that is precisely why adding to those numbers right now is so cynical. And claims by the Israelis that they never intend to give certain settlements back anyway just don't cut it.

They don't cut it because they're logically as sound as the rationale behind the obnoxious childhood torment "I'm not touching you." You know this game, one child puts his hand or index finger as close to another child as possible without actually touching them, but clearly close enough to harass them. The antagonist defends this invasion of personal space when challenged with the ludicrous non sequitor "But I'm not touching you."

What is happening socially in this game is truly insidious. The antagonist unilaterally sets a threshold that seems rational when reported to third-parties: "I didn't touch her, Mom." As anyone stupid enough to play this game for too long has learned, however, the person being antagonized eventually strikes back, usually quite forcefully. Of course, the antagonist can then go complain about the injustice of this retaliation, but there's no doubt in the other's mind that the retaliation was justified.

When children play this game, their ultimate motivation seems to be entertainment. With Israel, however, it's clearly an attempt, as the NYT's called it, to "stack the deck before peace talks even begin by expanding the Jewish presence around the traditionally Arab eastern parts of Jerusalem."

Israel cannot simultaneously set a unilateral threshold regarding settlements and expect the Palestinians to trust them. Sharon is seriously undercutting Abbas' credibility with the militants here. Eventually, the militants will strike back, and no amount of claiming "I'm not touching you" will stop that.

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

Given Ariel Sharon's very clear stance, this disappoints, but does not surprise me.

See Avi Shlaim on Ariel Sharon: good summary of Ariel Sharon's basic position on the Israel/Palestine conflict and the two-state solution.

Sharon is seriously undercutting Abbas' credibility with the militants here. Eventually, the militants will strike back, and no amount of claiming "I'm not touching you" will stop that.

Of course. This is Sharon's basic strategy - ceasefires have been broken repeatedly by Israel assassinating a Palestinian alleged to be a terrorist leader*, using methods calculated to do damage to nearby civilians, in the full knowledge that Palestinian militants would then retaliate.

*Many, if not all, of the Palestinians so targetted may well have been terrorist leaders. This does not affect my opinion of the Israeli strategy of planning an assassination as a means of ending a ceasefire - nor indeed my opinion of "extrajudicial killings", especially not when carried out by means that harm bystanders.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Whoo boy. Based solely on the first sentence that shows up in the feed, let me make a prediction and say, "Welcome LGFers!"

[Jesurgislac]

Whoo boy. Based solely on the first sentence that shows up in the feed, let me make a prediction and say, "Welcome LGFers!"

Heh. Would it make any difference if Edward changed it to the (more accurate, in my opinion) sentence "Ariel Sharon just doesn't get it"?

Many Israelis do get why this is a bad idea. (Many don't, of course.)

[Edward]

Whoo boy. Based solely on the first sentence that shows up in the feed, let me make a prediction and say, "Welcome LGFers!"

That would be the target audience.

[Edward]

Heh. Would it make any difference if Edward changed it to the (more accurate, in my opinion) sentence "Ariel Sharon just doesn't get it"?

I had considered that, but as long as they keep electing Sharon, I feel it's fair to call the entire nation on this.

[BSR]

More accurate to say the hard right fanatics in Isreal just don't get it, My impression is that the majority of Isrealis would agree with you that expanding these settlements is a very bad move.

[Edward]

My impression is that the majority of Isrealis would agree with you that expanding these settlements is a very bad move.

Again, then, get rid of Sharon.

[Jesurgislac]

Edward: I had considered that, but as long as they keep electing Sharon, I feel it's fair to call the entire nation on this.

Hmmm... is there any Israeli equivalent of Sorry Everybody?

BSR: My impression is that the majority of Isrealis would agree with you that expanding these settlements is a very bad move.

Agreed. The amount of money that goes into supporting the settlements really isn't liked by most Israelis. But Edward has a point too - for most Israelis, feelings about the settlements, and about the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, are exceedingly complex.

A friend who lived in Israel for five years or so is due to visit next week, and if I think we can have a conversation without blowing each other up, I might try to "interview" him for my livejournal.

[rilkefan]

Hmm, I guess all that is happening on the Israeli-Palestinian issue front is the expansion of a suburb. Weird that this is taking place in a time of no internal stresses in the governing coalition and the total absence of historic changes in Israeli policy. Strange that Sharon can manage this in the face of overwhelming domestic opposition.

[Edward]

rilkefan,

could you turn up the sarcasm highlighter on that for me? Not sure what to focus on.

[rilkefan]

Edward, who's running Jericho today?

[Edward]

you switch brains with Timmy, rilkefan? ;-p

The Palestinians are running Jericho. Are you suggesting that excuses the expansion?

[rilkefan]

Has Israel released any prisoners lately, Edward? (Wow, this is more effort than it appears to be.) I mean, since Israel just doesn't get it, one would expect them to be not doing that.

[Edward]

Has Israel released any prisoners lately, Edward? (Wow, this is more effort than it appears to be.) I mean, since Israel just doesn't get it, one would expect them to be not doing that.

You should ask Timmy for lessons then...he's the master of disagreement via ambiguity. ;-)

Please make your point, specifically on topic (i.e., settlements), if you don't mind.

From what you've supplied so far, the only conclusion I can come to about how you feel about this is that America and the rest of the world should just ignore the expansion of housing units in Maale Adumim.

[praktike]

I think you need Sharon to pull off the Gaza pullout. I wish the settlements around Jerusalema and the West Bank would stop, but I don't see the situation getting better under a Labor PM.

[SomeCallMeTim]

I think what rilkefan is getting at is that as Israeli policy has changed as to do something right, we should get off their backs about doing anything else right. It's all about baby steps.

[SomeCallMeTim]

To be fair, that should be "everything else right."

[Jesurgislac]

SomeCallMeTim: that as Israeli policy has changed as to do something right, we should get off their backs about doing anything else right.

It's not a question of "not doing things right", though. It's a question of actively doing things wrong. The settlements being there at all is a touchy area: expanding them is provocative. Deliberately so.

[Edward]

I think what rilkefan is getting at is that as Israeli policy has changed as to do something right, we should get off their backs about doing anything else right. It's all about baby steps.

I disagree. Abbas is also doing everything else right. It's not as if Israel is the only side making efforts here.

Ultimately, the most important/difficult part of a lasting peace will be borders. So releasing hostages and other such gestures, while laudable, do not reverse the harm caused by new settlements.

[rilkefan]

Last I heard, Sharon is turning over Gaza and the northern West Bank, freeing prisoners, ignoring Abbas's flirtation with terrorists, agreeing not to kill terrorists, not retaliating after some attacks, and broadening his governing coalition to include people from the left. It's ten steps forward, one step back (and that one step may well be explicable as helping to make the ten steps politically feasible). And you're mentioning the one step as if that's all that's happening.

Imagine for a moment that someone had put up a post here along the lines of, "Abbas just doesn't get it. He's getting carried around on the shoulders of terrorists. Ultimately, the most important/difficult part of a lasting peace will be overcoming Hamas et al." What would your reaction be?

So boo, hiss.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Rilkefan:

I think you need to re-read your Spiderman. With great power comes great responsibility; it might suck, but we expect people more of people who clearly have the whip hand.

[Jesurgislac]

And you're mentioning the one step as if that's all that's happening.

That is one very important step, Rilke. It's one area in which the Israelis have again and again and again broken agreements with the Palestinians. It's a touchy area, for exactly the reasons Edward outlines.

This is an active step against the peace process.

Ultimately, the most important/difficult part of a lasting peace will be overcoming Hamas et al." What would your reaction be?

Do you think that overcoming Hamas is going to be as easy for Abbas as not expanding settlements is for Sharon? Seriously, Rilke, is this your argument?

[Edward]

And you're mentioning the one step as if that's all that's happening.

This one step, more than any other, seems to me designed to provoke. Like the child putting his hand in his sister's face, Israel knows how the Palestinians have traditionally responded to expansions. Is this latest expansion just some test of Abbas's commitment to peace on Sharon's part? That's certainly the most generous reading of it I can imagine.

The Times AND the US State Department both get it right, IMO. There needs to be an end to the settlement activitiy.

[novakant]

erm, Edward, since you Americans keep electing Bush, I guess it's only fair to blame you personally, as an American, for Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo and whathaveyou ...

[Edward]

erm, Edward, since you Americans keep electing Bush, I guess it's only fair to blame you personally, as an American, for Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo and whathaveyou ...

Me personally? No (I voted for Kerry). Us, as a nation, absolutely.

[novakant]

Me? no. Us? yes. Slightly contradictory on the face of it, but I'm sure one could rhetorically wiggle one's way out of this muddle, had you not cut off that possibility by blaming "the entire nation", which by definition designates each and every one of its citizens.

[Edward]

You seem to be arguing semantics in lieu of an argument worth sharing about the topic, novakant.

It's more than common practice to discuss the actions of a democratic nations' leader as representing enough of the population to justify this usage. Again, I do so intentionally, as an expression of my opinion that each and every one of Israel's citizens should protest Sharon's decision. If they've done so in the past, then now's the time to convince their neighbors who haven't to join them. Eventually, if Sharon won't listen, they have to chuck him out.

Picking apart my prose won't stop the militants from killing more people.

[Slartibartfast]

I think you need to re-read your Spiderman. With great power comes great responsibility

With Abbas' great power comes great responsibility, right?

[Edward]

With Abbas' great power comes great responsibility, right?

Yes. Criticism of Abbas is certainly valid. It just doesn't justify expanding the settlements.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti: With Abbas' great power comes great responsibility, right?

Indeed. I am not, however, aware that Abbas is taking active steps against the peace process, as Ariel Sharon is doing by expanding the settlements.

As Sharon has greater power than Abbas, he has greater responsibility.

[rilkefan]

If the post had been framed as "Israel has been making great strides in helping the PA and moving towards a reasonable settlement, but expanding this suburb threatens to scuttle all that progress", and then had presented at least a scintilla of evidence, it would have been interesting. If it had been framed, "People who dislike settlement expansion but feel Sharon's overall policy is right and are willing to accept that he has to throw a bone to the right to implement that overall policy - they're wrong because blah", well, that would have been interesting. This is instead a "hey, look at this news story, isn't it awful full stop" post.

[Slartibartfast]

It just doesn't justify expanding the settlements.

Which would be a great counterpoint, if posed to something I actually said.

My, rilkefan and I are both a wee bit grumpy today. The Gods hurling lightning bolts around my house at 1:30 am are my excuse; what's his?

[Edward]

This is instead a "hey, look at this news story, isn't it awful full stop" post.

Rilkefan,

I understand your desire for balance here. I'm not implying Sharon isn't working for peace. I simply do not understand why, in the face of all that's come before this window of opportunity, he can't hold off on this sort of thing. It really doesn't matter what other wonderful things he does, if this single gesture undoes it all.

You ask for evidence that this will derail the peace process. This came in response to the announcment that Sharon was going to unilaterally annex the "suburb":

On Sunday, the Palestinian prime minister, Ahmed Qureia, warned a meeting of Israeli and Palestinian peace activists that unilateral moves by Mr Sharon undermined Mr Abbas. "The hope of our people is fading away because of the Israeli policies," he said.

"The only agreement that can be guaranteed and protected by both peoples is an agreement that comes through negotiations. I'm afraid that with unilateralism, there will be no possibilities for peace on both sides."

What you're failing to offer here is a justification for the expansion that recognizes the risk.

[novakant]

Edward, even The Guardian and the BBC, who can hardly be faulted for being insufficiently critical of Sharon's policies, are painting a differentiated picture of Israeli society and its very diverse political landscape. Yet, you will blame even left-wing and moderate Isrealis for not sufficiently convincing their neighbour to "chuck out" Sharon (whatever that is supposed to mean in a democracy), and if they fail to do so they're guilty too.
The US government is right now actively involved in the illegal detention and torture of thousands of people around the world and a majority of your fellow citizens at least condone those policies. Good luck convincing them otherwise, else you're guilty too.

[Edward]

Yet, you will blame even left-wing and moderate Isrealis for not sufficiently convincing their neighbour to "chuck out" Sharon

Water it down all you want. There are potential real world consequences so much more important than whether I'm hurting feelings by lumping those who oppose expansion in under the umbrella of "Isreal" or not.

I actually fear what this move might bring. That's my concern here. Not whether another 3,500 apartments get built, but rather whether the militants see it as a breach of faith and it causes them to stop listening to Abbas, and the violence will start up again. And it's not totally selfless either. This seemingly endless conflict is used quite successfully for recruiting purposes by the bastards who flew planes into buildings just a few blocks from my house. I really don't give a rat's ass if I offend the Israelis or the Palestinians by not wrapping my criticism in praise first. This whole freakin' mess needs to end!

3500 additional new units are not worth one more life (Isreali, Palestinian, or American), I'm sorry. Make the relatively minor sacrifices needed to seal the peace and make them now!

[dmbeaster]

Israel's dominant position for 60 years has been to prefer acquiring and holding land over peace. Fortunately for them, their Arab opponents also did not want peace, enabling Israel to conduct an expansionist strategy and ethnic cleansing in the name of security.

Sharon's pull-out from Gaza and a few trivial West Bank settlements has always been accompanied by plans to expand into other areas in the West Bank. This new development in the West Bank is business as usual.

[rilkefan]

"Israel's dominant position for 60 years has been to prefer acquiring and holding land over peace. Fortunately for them, their Arab opponents also did not want peace, enabling Israel to conduct an expansionist strategy and ethnic cleansing in the name of security."

The anti-Israel crowds' position for 60 years has been to hope for Israel to be humiliated or destroyed. Fortunately for them, Israel has survived despite two wars against it and a long-term terror campaign, enabling them to ignore Israel's side of the argument and to avoid the bad karma from that humiliation or destruction.

See? Argument/evidence-free comments ok, argument/evidence-free posts not ok.

"the Palestinian prime minister, Ahmed Qureia, warned a meeting of Israeli and Palestinian peace activists that unilateral moves by Mr Sharon undermined Mr Abbas."

Weak beer to the point of being water, not that water's a bad thing - it would have improved the post. What's Qureia's tone here, exactly? "This is bad, but we'll accept it because we're happy on all other fronts" perhaps? It's as predictable that the PA PM will say _something_ non-positive as that Juan Cole will. At least Cole will have some insight from his experience and perspective. I don't expect him to be balanced - I expect him to argue the merits.

[novakant]

Deliberately "lumping together" all of Israel's citizens as supporting expansionism is on the same level as blaming "Islam" and "the Muslims" for 9/11 and Osama, unless they publicly and repeatedly denounce such excesses. In the same vein why not blame each and every Palestinian for every bus and cafe that has been blown up, there weren't too many on the streets protesting such actions either.
I regularly get tired of the endless "peace process" going maybe someday somewhere, too. But your stance is unrealistic, arrogant and counterproductive.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Does the entire city of Jerusalem count as a 'settlement'?

How far 'east of Jerusalem' is the settlement in question? Are we talking about a suburb? The answer appears to be about 4 kilometers from the formal border of Jerusalem proper. More than 25,000 Israelis already live there (there being the 'settlement' in question), many since 1983.

Abandoning Maale Adumim was not part of the negotiation with Arafat in 2000.

I would be willing to do suggest that different 'settlements' have different levels of legitimacy. I'm certainly not willing to call Israelis living in Jerusalem itself 'settlers' even though the PLO is. I'm not willing to condemn housing in the greater metropolitan area to the same degree as settlements on top of the border with Jordan.

[felixrayman]

Deliberately "lumping together" all of Israel's citizens as supporting expansionism is on the same level as blaming "Islam" and "the Muslims" for 9/11 and Osama, unless they publicly and repeatedly denounce such excesses.

If Muslim states were democracies that re-elected leaders who, without fail, supported bin Laden, your analogy would be a fair one. It is, instead, a false one.

[rilkefan]

"If Muslim states were democracies that re-elected leaders who, without fail, supported bin Laden, your analogy would be a fair one. It is, instead, a false one."

Note that several recent Israeli govts have tried to return the territories (plus of course the original attempt in '67). And note that you here sign up for any US policy supported by the last few administrations. Why are you against welfare?

[Edward]

everyone, save perhaps Sebastian's last comment, is successfully avoiding any rational explanation for the expansion (and the US State Department sees it as the sort of settlement activity is opposes, so let's not split hairs too finely) that justifies the risk.

This seems such a minor sacrifice to make at this juncture, I can't help but believe it signifies an aversion to actually 1) being fair or 2) making peace.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"This seems such a minor sacrifice to make at this juncture, I can't help but believe it signifies an aversion to actually 1) being fair or 2) making peace."

But that begs the question. Is it fair to label Israelis in and around Jerusalem settlers? And make no mistake, the PLO believes that Israelis in Jerusalem are settlers too. Does it contribute to peace to suggest that Israelis cannot live in Jerusalem and its immediate suburbs? You assume it does. I don't think it is at all obvious. If the Palestinians had agreed to borders in 2000 we could point to the borders and say this yes, that no. (And if the 2000 proposal had been accepted this suburb would be part of Israel.)

[Jesurgislac]

Rilkefan: "This is bad, but we'll accept it because we're happy on all other fronts" perhaps?

I don't see how you derive the last 11 words of your interpretation of Ahmed Qureia's warning that "unilateral moves by Mr Sharon undermined Mr Abbas."

You may hope that the Palestinians are happy on all other fronts and will accept Sharon's aggressive anti-peace expansionism calmly... but somehow I doubt it. Freezing the settlement expansion is something the Israelis have agreed to, again and again, and always broken the agreement. That Sharon proposes to break the agreement again is no trivial bad news.

[Edward]

But that begs the question. Is it fair to label Israelis in and around Jerusalem settlers? And make no mistake, the PLO believes that Israelis in Jerusalem are settlers too. Does it contribute to peace to suggest that Israelis cannot live in Jerusalem and its immediate suburbs? You assume it does. I don't think it is at all obvious.

Two things wrong with that, Sebastian. First and foremost is the insinuation that because the PLO thinks their settlers, it's wrong for anyone else to. That's illogical and a bit offensive.

Second though, the State Department, who wants peace AND Israeli security, clearly opposes "settlement activity." You can split the hairs as finely as you like as an intellectual exercise about whether this should qualify as such, but if it strikes enough Palestinians as a unilateral "f*ck you", their response won't be quite so subtle.

My point is even if this does not qualify as "settlement activity" or expansion or whatever (and the Times is clearly convinced it does, I might add), why not hold off until the borders are agreed to? Why this constant agitation?

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: If the Palestinians had agreed to borders in 2000 we could point to the borders and say this yes, that no.

You mean, if Prime Minister Barak hadn't broken off the Taba negotiations? It's a pity that Barak ended Taba in January 2001, before an agreement could be reached, but it's hardly the fault of the Palestinians that the Israeli Prime Minister refused to continue the Taba talks until an agreement could be reached.

But that's water under the bridge. The point is now Sharon has to show that he is at least as serious about the peace process as Abbas is. A freeze on settlements is the right thing to do. Expansion is profoundly the wrong thing.

[smlook]

Jes,

On what planet do you live?

[Chuchundra]

Israel's dominant position for 60 years has been to prefer acquiring and holding land over peace. Fortunately for them, their Arab opponents also did not want peace, enabling Israel to conduct an expansionist strategy and ethnic cleansing in the name of security.

Israel gave Egypt back the Sinai in return for peace, in the process physically ejecting Israeli settlers and destroying their homes so they could not return.

[Edward]

smlook

perhaps you could be more specific, you know, so that this doesn't seem a deliberate, posting-rules-breaking attempt to disrupt the conversation for its own sake sort of thing.

[felixrayman]

Note that several recent Israeli govts have tried to return the territories

No recent Israeli government has tried to relinquish control of the territories' borders, nor of their airspace, nor of their water supplies, nor of the main roads within the territories, etc. I can go on here. Your definition of "return" is a very loose one.

And note that you here sign up for any US policy supported by the last few administrations

Depends on whether you are using the plural you. Trying to limit responsibility to one person, when that person is the choice of a plurality of those with a preference, makes no sense. Certainly not in the case of a re-elected leader.

[Donald Johnson]

Israel is spelled with the "a" before the "e". I normally don't care about spelling that much, but for some inscrutable reason this error bugs me.

Novakent, it's true many Israelis don't like Sharon and some actively oppose him, but obviously he has enough support to be prime minister. I don't have a problem with people wanting to blame Americans for Bush's policies. Enough of us voted for Bush or didn't do enough to oppose Bush so that most of us (including me) can't complain if we're all held responsible to some degree.

I don't fully understand kneejerk defenses of Israel--it seems clear that Israel has a pretty bad record on human rights, going back to its founding. This ought to be as noncontroversial as saying that the Palestinian terrorism has been a morally despicable and pragmatically stupid way to fight Israel's morally despicable policies. At least in the case of some friends of mine, I have the impression they think that criticism of Israel treads dangerously close to anti-semitism. They certainly don't shy away from criticism of the Palestinians. Criticism of Israel, however is always offered in gingerly terms and usually accompanied by some claim (not always accurate) that some Arab action was worse.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Two things wrong with that, Sebastian. First and foremost is the insinuation that because the PLO thinks their settlers, it's wrong for anyone else to. That's illogical and a bit offensive."

No, I'll be clearer.

I'm totally unwilling to call those living in Jerusalem 'settlers'. Doing so is deciding in advance a question that is completely open: who is going to end up with Jerusalem? Or even who ought to end up with Jerusalem.

As such I'm not particularly convinced that building in the outskirts of Jerusalem--in the area which for any normal city would be called a suburb of Jerusalem--is 'settlement' in the specialized moral judgment sense of the word. My point is that calling those living in and around Jerusalem 'settlers' is like calling people who attack US soldiers 'terrorists'. Doing so is applying a specific type of moral judgment by misusing the term. Those living in Jerusalem are not settlers by any fair use of the term. Those living along the border with Jordan definitely are. Those living in the immediate suburbs of Jerusalem (less than 3 miles from the formal city border and well within the greater metropolitan area) are not clearly settlers in the sense of the word you use.

Jesurgislac, "It's a pity that Barak ended Taba in January 2001, before an agreement could be reached, but it's hardly the fault of the Palestinians that the Israeli Prime Minister refused to continue the Taba talks until an agreement could be reached."

Arafat walked out of the Camp David talks in 2000 and stirred up the bloody intifada to try to get a better deal. He was uninterested in stopping the violence which he started and as a result Barak realized that negotiating with him at Taba was worthless. It is precisely the fault of the Palestinians that the Israeli Prime Minister refused to continue the Taba talks until an agreement could be reached.

[felixrayman]

As such I'm not particularly convinced that building in the outskirts of Jerusalem--in the area which for any normal city would be called a suburb of Jerusalem--is 'settlement' in the specialized moral judgment sense of the word

The construction of most suburbs - and I am amazed this has to be pointed out to you - does not entail expelling the current residents and confiscating their land based on their ethnicity. Perhaps you may use your specialized moral judgement to discern the difference in the two cases.

[Edward]

I'm totally unwilling to call those living in Jerusalem 'settlers'. Doing so is deciding in advance a question that is completely open: who is going to end up with Jerusalem? Or even who ought to end up with Jerusalem.

kind of off topic though. It's the expansion that's in question. Somewhere, they're gonna have to draw a line. The more Israel expands the less likely it is that line will be drawn near those new structures. Again, the times nailed this. Israel is trying to "stack the deck before peace talks even begin by expanding the Jewish presence around the traditionally Arab eastern parts of Jerusalem."

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"The construction of most suburbs - and I am amazed this has to be pointed out to you - does not entail expelling the current residents and confiscating their land based on their ethnicity."

The land in question today was taken by the government decades ago. So either it is not a new expansion (the complaint above) or you must be complaining about something else.

Edward, would you agree that Tel Aviv is traditionally Arab?

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: It is precisely the fault of the Palestinians that the Israeli Prime Minister refused to continue the Taba talks until an agreement could be reached.

When two parties are negotiating, and one party walks out and refuses to continue, then it's plainly the party that walks out that ended the negotiations.

Whose fault it was that no agreement was reached is more complex.

Barak may have realized that he was surely going to lose the election (or be assassinated) if he made a fair agreement with the Palestinians. Sharon has always taken the position (see my link in my first comment on the thread) that nothing ought to be given up to the Palestinians - not peace, but conquest.

The point is not, however, to lay blame for the failure of talks at Camp David or at Taba on any one of the participants (and certainly not to cast a blanket blame on "the Palestinians" or "the Israelis").

The point is not even to decide, right now, whether Jerusalem is to be Palestinian or Israeli or can be shared (or given to the Dalai Lama to be administered as an independent mini-state, or whatever solution): the point is to avoid trying to provoke either side in the middle of the peace process. Jerusalem is what was called in Camp David a "red line area" - neither side will abandon their claim to it.

That's why it's significant that there is settlement expansion there. That's why Sharon should have frozen all settlement activity, including that in Jerusalem, or suburbs of. Whoever ends up in control of Jerusalem (and, I swear, the Dalai Lama looks more appealling by the minute) neither side should be trying to start a fight by aggressively asserting their claim right now.

That's why what Sharon did is wrong.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Israel's dominant position for 60 years has been to prefer acquiring and holding land over peace.

Sixty years? Since 1945? The Palestinians have been trying to make peace since then? Somehow this escaped my notice.

[rilkefan]

"I don't see how you derive the last 11 words of your interpretation of Ahmed Qureia's warning that 'unilateral moves by Mr Sharon undermined Mr Abbas.'

You may hope that the Palestinians are happy on all other fronts and will accept Sharon's [purple prose snipped] expansionism calmly... but somehow I doubt it."

Jes, the point is that I don't know, and apparently you don't know, and at least based on the evidence in this thread I'd guess Edward doesn't know. That's why people read Juan Cole or praktike or whoever.

And just a question - don't _you_ hope the Palestinians are happy on all other fronts?

Edward, I presented two arguments originally - "suburb" and 'political cover to carry out the policy'.

[novakant]

1.) I'm not blaming Kerry voters for Bush's policies and in turn expect that Israelis opposed to Likud policies are not being blamed either. I was in the opposition party in my country for a very long time and strongly disliked most of the government's policies, anybody blaming me for those policies with recourse to my nationality I simply cannot take seriously.

2.) Sharon can't do what he wants: he heads a very fragile coalition government and has to face strong opposition within his own party. The political situation is very complex, you can read up on it here or over at Haaretz. Maybe this settlement expansion is a bone thrown to those otherwise opposed to the Gaza pullout, to passing the budget or to the further dismantling of settlements. Maybe Sharon wants to test out how far he can go, maybe it's a pawn for further negotiations - nobody here knows. This is not to excuse expansion but to put things in perspective.

3.) Anybody here darkly hinting that the militant's response won't be quite so subtle or that they will not accept Sharon's aggressive anti-peace expansionism calmly should keep in mind that disarming and reigning in those people is the Palestinian's part of the peace deal. The threatened violence is not an some inevitable natural force and should not be used as a pawn in the peace discussions either.

[praktike]

Um, I think the ones in the suburbs are clearly settlers, as it was conquered territory.

[Jesurgislac]

Rilkefan: And just a question - don't _you_ hope the Palestinians are happy on all other fronts?

Yes. But I also hoped that Kerry would win the November 2004 election. And I hoped that pointing out the CT scan evidence that Terri Schiavo has no cerebral cortex would be enough to end the argument. And I hope that a giant meteor will not hit the Earth in 2024.

One can hope for all sorts of good outcomes.

Don't you hope that Sharon will think better of his aggressive expansionism?

[Jonathan Edelstein]

If I may add my two cents of light (or heat), the Ma'ale Adumim plan has all the hallmarks of a campaign promise - in other words, a proposal made to be retracted.

In eight days, Sharon is facing a budget vote that will decide the fate of his government, and the balance in the Knesset is still too close to call. If the budget doesn't pass, Sharon will face a Likud leadership race on April 14. Much of the rank and file of the party is against the withdrawal from Gaza, so the timing of hte Ma'ale Adumim expansion (which has been proposed and shelved many times in the past) suggests an appeal to the voters. In the event that Sharon has to face Netanyahu and/or Uzi Landau next month for the leadership of the Likud, he'll be able to point to the Ma'ale Adumim proposal as "proof" that the Gaza evacuation is tactical and he doesn't intend to give up control of the area around Jerusalem.

If he survives the budget vote or wins the leadership race, it won't be long before the expansion is found to cost too much or is withdrawn as a gesture to Abbas or the United States. It's happened before.

[Jesurgislac]

Novakant: 2.) Sharon can't do what he wants: he heads a very fragile coalition government and has to face strong opposition within his own party.

True.

3.) Anybody here darkly hinting that the militant's response won't be quite so subtle or that they will not accept Sharon's aggressive anti-peace expansionism calmly should keep in mind that disarming and reigning in those people is the Palestinian's part of the peace deal.

Which the Palestinians must keep to, but Sharon isn't required to?

Why do you feel that Sharon can't be expected to rein in his own party, but Abbas must rein in people who are not in his own party?

Pretty major double standard there, isn't it?

[rilkefan]

"If I may add my two cents of light"

Thank god, actual information interjected into our blabbering.

[dmbeaster]

Chuchundra:

Israel's dominant position for 60 years has been to prefer acquiring and holding land over peace. ...

Israel gave Egypt back the Sinai in return for peace, in the process physically ejecting Israeli settlers and destroying their homes so they could not return.

I think we agree -- my point is not that they never surrender land, but that it is their dominant position.

After all, at the same time they gave up the Sinai, the Israelis started a program running for 25+ years now to eject Palestinian from their homes in the West Bank and settle it with Israeli settlers. Sharon is a key architect of the plan. The Reagan Administration in the 80s told them not to do it since it would obstruct peace -- they gave us the finger and chose expanionism over peace.

The Sinai events you reference look a lot like currents events -- trading Gaza settlements for more expansion in the West Bank, even at the expense of a possible peace.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Why do you feel that Sharon can't be expected to rein in his own party, but Abbas must rein in people who are not in his own party?

Pretty major double standard there, isn't it?"

The distinction between the PLOs political wing and the terrorist wing remains largely illusory.

Building in the suburbs on land which has not been occupied by Palestinians for decades is different from blowing up kids in a coffee shop.

So unless double standard means treating things of different moral character differently, no.

[novakant]

No, it's not a double standard:

Both face great obstacles in achieving the goals of the peace process. Abbas' problems are obvious and might appear graver on the face of it, but Sharon can't simply order dissenting Likud members and his coalition partners how to vote - it's a pity, it's called democracy.

[rilkefan]

"I think we agree -- my point is not that they never surrender land, but that it is their dominant position."

Actually, this is the only data point available. The Egyptians were willing and able to deliver peace. The other Arab countries (and later the PLO etc) were not.

So at least as Chuchundra has framed the question, you have no leg to stand on.

[felixrayman]

The land in question today was taken by the government decades ago

This is not true. Confiscation of Arab land and the expelling of Palestinians from their homes continues to this day.

[Jesurgislac]

Novakant: Both face great obstacles in achieving the goals of the peace process.

Indeed. And I take your point that Sharon has problems too. The double standard I noted comes from your presumption that Sharon must be excused any difficulties he has, but Abbas must not.

[felixrayman]

Sharon can't simply order dissenting Likud members and his coalition partners how to vote - it's a pity, it's called democracy

Tell me, how did Sharon get his nickname, "The Bulldozer"? It was forced on him by Likud against his wishes? Perhaps not? You're right though, it is a democracy. And the nation chose "The Bulldozer". And they are responsible for that choice.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"The land in question today was taken by the government decades ago

This is not true. Confiscation of Arab land and the expelling of Palestinians from their homes continues to this day."

The land in question is Maale Adumim. It was taken by the government decades ago.

[Anarch]

The distinction between the PLOs political wing and the terrorist wing remains largely illusory.

Do we have conclusive evidence of this fact? I know it's considered almost axiomatic in certain circles but I've never been able to make heads or tails of the PLO's inner workings, let alone to the point where I would feel confident in making such a statement.

[novakant]

your presumption that Sharon must be excused any difficulties he has, but Abbas must not.

For chrissakes, where did I say that?

[felixrayman]

The land in question is Maale Adumim

You were speaking more generally, about the suburbs of Jerusalem. The confiscation of property based on ethnicity and the expelling of certain ethnic groups from their homes continues in the area today.

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Actually, this is the only data point available.

Actually, it isn't. Israel has also (1) given Taba back to Egypt after losing an international arbitration over whether it was part of the Sinai, and (2) given disputed land back to Jordan as part of the 1994 peace agreement.

[novakant]

And the nation chose "The Bulldozer". And they are responsible for that choice.

Yeah, right, and in your wacky world ObWi's Katherine is responsible for Maher Arar having been tortured in Syria.

[felixrayman]

Yeah, right, and in your wacky world ObWi's Katherine is responsible for Maher Arar having been tortured in Syria.

First of all, cease the silly insults. Second, note that I clearly spoke of a nation taken as a whole. It is simply not sensible to state that responsibility for the policies of a democratic nation ends with that nation's elected leader. When a nation is a democracy, that nation is responsible for the work of its public servants.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Do we have conclusive evidence of this fact?"

It depends upon what you mean by conclusive evidence. There is quite a bit of evidence that the terrorist factions get a huge amount of their money from the PLO itself.

"You were speaking more generally, about the suburbs of Jerusalem. The confiscation of property based on ethnicity and the expelling of certain ethnic groups from their homes continues in the area today."

Actually I was speaking about the topic of the post-- Maale Adumim--which was taken by the government decades ago. I was talking about whether or not living in Maale Adumim meant you were a 'settler'. I was suggesting that they answer was no, and certainly that the answer isn't as clear as in many other areas. The allegation was that the settlements were expanding. I allege that A) Maale Adumim is not clearly a settlement as the term is used in the conflict and B) whatever it is, it isn't new.

[felixrayman]

Actually I was speaking about the topic of the post

Actually, no you weren't. You were talking about Jerusalem and its immediate suburbs. I know this because you wrote, "Does it contribute to peace to suggest that Israelis cannot live in Jerusalem and its immediate suburbs"?

Do you see that this does not limit the discussion to the topic of Maale Adumim, but instead talks about Jerusalem and its immediate suburbs?

[novakant]

When a nation is a democracy, that nation is responsible for the work of its public servants.

Responsibility is, in any sense of the word, tied to individual human beings. Nation is an abstraction subsuming all citizens living in a nation state, its laws and institutions. An abstraction cannot be responsible for anything, only individuals can. Are you trying to tell me that Katherine is responsible for extraordinary rendition or that a left-wing Israeli peace-activist is responsible for Sharon's policies?

[dmbeaster]

Yomtov:

Yes, 60 years -- well, since 1948; I rounded the number.

A very short summary of this, without links (sorry -- no time to dig them up now).

When the UN 1947 plan was drafted, they did demographics of the region at the time. Even within the smaller UN proposed boundaries, jews were only a large minority. The census maps are on-line.

During the 1948 war, the Israelis ethnically cleansed many areas in order to insure a majority jewish population and eliminate troubling Arab settlements, and also to expand the UN boundaries. The Israeli version was to pretend that they had nothing to do with Arabs fleeing and invited them to stay, but even Israeli historians no longer accept that propoganda line. My own personal view is that there was a mixture of fighting and ethnic cleansing, and a lot of Arabs fleeing in fear that Israelis were all to glad to indulge. But the Israelis did invent nonsense that they allegedly did not want Arabs to leave -- apparently to deceive others regarding their ethnic cleansing behavior.

Saying that this is true does not mean I think the Arabs were the good guys -- I just think we should be real about what happened.

Post-1967, visions of "Greater Israel" resulted in programs to annex the West Bank and other conquered territories. Same modus operandi -- find ways to drive Palestinians from their land and appropriate it. The Reagan Administration in the 80s told the Israelis to stop settlements in the West Bank -- they gave the US the finger instead.

Zionism always involved a huge contradiction -- to create a jewish state in a land not populated by jews required that you must remove a large number of the non-jewish occupants. The 1948 founders of Israel were acutely and explicitly aware of this. Recent Israeli desires to expand into the West Bank are rooted in their historical identity -- I don't know if Israel can change, even though peace requires it. I know that there are Israelis who disagree strongly with expanionism, but they appear to be in the minority. There is also a minority that would today happily adopt a policy of ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from "Greater Israel." I would submit that they are a majority of the settler movement.

[rilkefan]

felix, the only person with slightly better than vague access to SH's intentions are him. Why not just say "you could have been clearer about what you wre referring to" and go on to argue the facts?

Jonathan Edelstein, I guess Taba's a nice spot, but aren't those two cases you cite rather different in quality than the Sinai? Also there was the question of a border dispute with Lebanon which I think Israel allowed to be arbitrated - sort of in that (what I'm considering marginal) class of data.

[rilkefan]

dmbeaster, while it may amuse you to go over the past (in a way I find simplified and one-sided to the point of being in itself propaganda - but that's neither here nor there), what about subject of the present post?

[Jesurgislac]

Novakant: your post at March 23, 2005 05:45 PM, point 2, where you excuse Sharon for this aggressive move against the peace process by saying "Sharon can't do what he wants: he heads a very fragile coalition government and has to face strong opposition within his own party" but then point 3, where you assert
that "disarming and reigning in those people is the Palestinian's part of the peace deal. The threatened violence is not an some inevitable natural force and should not be used as a pawn in the peace discussions either."

In short, you assert a double standard: Sharon's not to be blamed for anything that goes wrong because he can't rein in his own party: Abbas is to be blamed if he can't rein in the violent elements on the Palestinian side. How is this not a double standard?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Sharon's not to be blamed for anything that goes wrong because he can't rein in his own party: Abbas is to be blamed if he can't rein in the violent elements on the Palestinian side. How is this not a double standard?"

A) the 'anything' in question is building on land that was appropriated decades ago in areas that are not the same kind of settlements that we normally hear you talking about

B) as opposed to killing people on buses

Most moral standards are quite capable of distinguishing between the two thank you.

[felixrayman]

the 'anything' in question is building on land that was appropriated decades ago

In other words, "What are you complaining about? We stole that land fair and square"!

Note that Israel (rightly) does not accept such an argument when it comes to decades-ago confiscation of Jewish property by others.

[novakant]

I don't excuse Sharon, I'm trying to make sense of the situation. Maybe it was a wanton assault on the peace process and Sharon is just evil, evil, evil, but I doubt it. A bone in the bargaining with those opposing the pullout and budget much is more likely. Other than bargaining Sharon could maybe declare martial law or else let his government collapse and we would all face Netanyahu as an alternative, both options highly undesirable.
I don't blame Abbas, he is most likely rather powerless when faced with the militants, maybe though he uses them as an implicit threat. I simply state what the agreed obligations of the Palestinian side are.

[smlook]

Felix,

Impressive.

You somehow equate defenseless Jews attacked and killed by Nazi Germany throughout Europe and the openly hostile Arab army's lined up at Israel's border and having a proven history of attacking Israel.

[Jesurgislac]

Maybe it was a wanton assault on the peace process and Sharon is just evil, evil, evil, but I doubt it.

Well, it is a wanton assault on the peace process. Whether or not Sharon is evil is a matter for individual judgement.

I simply state what the agreed obligations of the Palestinian side are.

Indeed. And the agreed obligation of the Israelis, since 1993, has been to freeze the settlements. Why your double standard? Why do you treat the Israelis failing to meet their agreed obligations as if it were a "some inevitable natural force" that can rightfully be used as a pawn in the peace discussions - while insisting that the Palestinians must not fail to meet their agreed obligations?

[Anarch]

Why do you treat the Israelis failing to meet their agreed obligations as if it were a "some inevitable natural force"...

A better question: Do you consider the present Israeli acts to be a failure to meet their agreed obligations and, if not, why not?

[Don Quijote]

Yeah, right, and in your wacky world ObWi's Katherine is responsible for Maher Arar having been tortured in Syria.

She is, and so am I and so is every American Citizen. That is the burden of living in a Democracy!!! The citizens of said democracy are responsible for the actions of their elected goverment.

[Jay C.]

rilkefan:
While I agree that dmbeaster's 7:08pm post may be a bit oversimplified (and more than a bit slanted), the issues it raises are scarcely "ancient history" or irrelevant to today's I/P problems. The events of 1948 are, as anyone who delves even moderately deeply into the Palestinian viewpoint (and not just to demonize them) will realize, THE central event of the modern history of their people; as central to the Palestinians' worldview and historical memory as the Nazi Holocaust is to the Israelis (and of the same era). The "nakba" (catastrophe) of 1948 and its aftermath still affects the Palestinians' leadership's calculations as a sort of primal non-negotiable demand; usually simplified as "the Right of Return", and still looms as probably THE single most intractable block to any sort of real "peace" in the Holy Land: most else is just trim. Remember, this is a VERY ancient land; 57 years is just a blip of history.

[dmbeaster]

rilkefan:

I agree my post was 7:08 simplified. Its not slanted, except in the peculiar worldview of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which you must simultaneously recant all atrocities by all sides to be "objective."

My post simply focused on the Israeli lust for land, which is a disruptor of peace both in the past and now.

And by the way, that is the subject of this post.

[rilkefan]

Jay C, I certainly agree history is important - so leaving out half of it is a mistake. But I think the focus on one side or the other's long list of grievances is not productive when circumstances have changed so much, esp. in view of the Clinton deal and Arafat's death and Sharon's belated realization of the demographic situation.

And note that above borders were claimed as The Issue. Fact is, there will be only a symbolic RoR. I perhaps have more hope than you do that to the younger Palestinians and PA leaders the events of 48 are of less import than the economic and political growth that peace will bring.

[Jay C.]

rilkefan:
I am certainly no Middle East expert (not that those who ARE always have much of a handle on situations there, either), but one thing I have observed over many years is that relying on "hope" that Israelis, or Palestinians, or anyone else in the region, for that matter will "do the right thing" to end (or even temporarily quell) their ongoing conflicts, is a sure road to disappointment.The force of self-interest is a much stronger mover: when both sides find it in their interest to come to an arrangement, they will: the problem has been that, up until just recently (as you point out), their interests have not coincided.
But I wouldn't discount the potency of the mythos of grievances: they have fueled enough of the conflict up til now; hope that they will fade away enough to allow some sort of true "peace" (or, at the least, an enduring truce) seems to be an optimistic dream. And I hope to live long enough to be proved wrong.

[rilkefan]

"the Israeli lust for land"

Uhh, ok... Was going to say something about the complex reasons for the expansion but this is more deserving of a Burma Shave reply which I can't come up with at the moment.

[Chuchundra]

In the immediate aftermath of the six day war, Israel offered to return the land it had gained during the war for peace with the Arabs. I'm sure this was just more "lust for land" by the Israelis.

I should also note that between 1948 and 1967 when Jordan controlled the West Bank, no moves were made to give the region autonomy as an independent Arab state.

[felixrayman]

I should also note that between 1948 and 1967 when Jordan controlled the West Bank, no moves were made to give the region autonomy as an independent Arab state

The classic tu qouque fallacy. Look! Over there!