This weblog and other sources of enlightenment have shown me that Israel currently has no peace partner willing to accept a genunine peace. But if it did, just what part of the Geneva Accord would be unacceptable?

If such an entity did exist, giving 20 percent of the land west of the Jordan River to people who within a generation will make up a majority of the population within that same area hardly strikes me as being outrageous. Clearly, it's a pretty small slice of the loaf.

True, the Palestinians have mainly themselves to blame for that. (More accurately, their Arab brethren in other countries that began the 1948 and 1967 wars are primarily to blame.) But if a genunine willingness to accept Israel developed, this should become irrelevant.

Supporters of Israel legitimately maintain that giving up ANY peace pact with a Palestinian entity unwilling to live in peace, and renounce its claims to the westernmost part of historic Palestine is out of the question.

Reasonable, fair-minded Israelis and supporters of Israel should also indicate that they are willing - in the event that democratic Palestinian representative governing entity comes into being willing to renounce terrorism and the so-called "right of return" and live side-by-side with Israel - to make a fair deal: all of Gaza, 90 plus percent of the West Bank, a corresponding swap in Israel for West Bank land annexed to Israel for security reasons, and a chunk of Jerusalem. Incremental steps to prove sincerity are acceptable, as long as the final goal is understood.

Making this latter point while also reiterating the former one would be both morally correct and good public relations for Israel. It also might encourage Palestinian moderation. If contrary to my suggestion, the recent Palestinian terrorism spree requires Israel to reduce the amount it is willing to offer to a partner genuninly willing to make peace -- for example, insisting on ceding no Jerusalem territory, a permanent Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley, little or no settlement evacuation -- then what is the incentive for Palestinians to turn away from terror, acknowledge Israel's permanent presence, and accept a two state solution that does not include the "right of return"? If Palestinian actions have reduced their possibilities of nationhood so drastically, then one can easily see how it would be more advisable from their own nationalist perspective to continue to hold out for the big enchalada, wait for the demographics to switch, continue to subject Jews worldwide to a demoralizing future of terrorist attacks, worldwide anti-Israel propaganda offensive and antisemitic propaganda, and agitate for one man, one vote "binationalism."

ANY peace agreement will have to be with a partner genuinely prepared for peace. Were such an entity to emerge, it would make no sense morally or strategically to offer them crumbs.

"Markus Rose":

one can easily see how it would be more advisable from their own nationalist perspective to continue to hold out for the big enchalada, wait for the demographics to switch, continue to subject Jews worldwide to a demoralizing future of terrorist attacks, worldwide anti-Israel propaganda offensive and antisemitic propaganda, and agitate for one man, one vote "binationalism."

I will grant you your point about Palestinian intentions over the past few decades, and point out again that if a credible Palestinian peace partner should be found, past Palestinian intentions should matter about as much as, say, Sadat's past intentions to wipe Israel off the map (unequivocaly expressed in October 1973)mattered to the people who welcomed him to the Knesset in Jerusalem in 1977, and who later negotiated with him the return of ALL of the Sinai at Camp David.

Now will you answer the question I posed in the first paragraph of my initial post? Once more, with feeling, what part of the Geneva Accord would be unacceptable to you if a credible Palestinian peace partner could be found? (By the way, if in fact the Accord leaves open the refugee question, the writer for Al-Jeezera that you linked to is oddly ignorant of this fact.)

Having recognized a present and prior lack of Palestinian peacemakers, I'm still trying to figure out if you, or more importantly the people in Israel who share your viewpoint, are yourselves credible peace partners.

I think the greateast politicall tradgedy of Oslo was that it proposed the two state solution as the only possible way to peace. Those opposed to a two state solution were exessivly labeled by western (and some Israeli) media as being opponents of the 'peace procces' = opponents of 'peace'.
There still exists several other options that these days have been forgotten even by Sharon. For me, the biggest reason why an independent Palestine will never bring peace is because it will be an absolutly pathetic excuse for a nation. Even if Israel completely pulled back to the green line, what would be left for this Palestine? A country cut in two pieces whose total land mass will be even smaller than Israels. This is why the PLO get away with asking for so much from Israel, their PR has such an easy job showing how little they are asking for and how the big meanie Israel wont even give up this tiny scrap of land for "peace". Before they got their asses kicked several times, Arab state propaganda was focused on the size and might of the Arab armies, and how Arab unity would drive the puny Jews into the sea. Back then it was called the 'Israeli-Arab conflict', then it became the 'Israel-Palestiian conflict', and now some have started to say 'Israel-Palestine' conflict

Markus -- To answer your last question, I'm an American, I live in the US. It's not up to me to accept or reject any peace proposal. It's up to the Israelis.

As we've seen before, Israeli governments have taken bold steps to make or offer peace proposals, even in the face of some domestic opposition. I have no doubt they would do so again if and when they find a counter-party that is worth bargaining with.

"There still exists several other options that these days have been forgotten even by Sharon..."

Dead Ed, what options are you talking about?

Shark, you constantly voice your opinions about Israeli policy and Israeli government action, and about Palestinian or Arab initiatives. As such, your refusal to answer my hypothetical question is disingenous. Nevertheless, should an Israeli government including the present one make an offer to Palestinians in the future or agree to one, I'll be watching for your scrupulous neutrality on the matter.

I would like to know what "bold steps to make or offer peace proposals" were made by Israeli governments between 1967 and 2000. I only know of the so-called Allon Plan, which called for Israeli annexation of over half of Gaza, almost all of the Jordan Valley, and much of the rest of the West Bank. I don't find anything particularly bold about it, except in its rigorous adherence to the principle that might makes right and to the victor goes the spoils.

This was the most that was offered before the intifada? And you wonder why Palestinians think that terrorism works?

Hey Markus this should answer all your questions in my opinion now that you know the overall Palestinian strategy.
MEMRI -
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD60803
Money Quote from 1 of 3 "moderates" hosted in DC 0

Al-Qader dismissed "the falsely alleged Holocaust." In a discussion regarding the possibility of introducing the teaching of the Holocaust into the Palestinian curriculum,Al-Qader told the Islamic Jihad Weekly Al-Istiqlal that teaching the Holocaust in Palestinian schools "is a great danger to the developing Palestinian mentality…

"We cannot annul the Palestinian historic dream, even if we remove it from the official Palestinian rhetoric… This land was promised to us by Allah, and not by Balfour as it was promised to the Jews. If such a decision [about teaching the Holocaust] is made, it will undoubtedly ruin the Palestinian dream and aspirations. It will entirely obliterate the past, present, and future of the Palestinians. We, in the Legislative Council, will oppose any experiment that might harm the mind, the identity, or the historic roots of the Palestinians." [14]

ISRAELI POLL ON THE 'GENEVA ACCORDS'
IMRA MAARIV (Liberal Israeli paper)Israel Poll on "Geneva Accords"
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=18566

27% Support Geneva Understanding
57% Oppose opposition (Labor/Meretz) contact with PA

The following are the results of a poll of a representative sample of 559 adult Israelis (including Israeli Arabs) carried out by New Wave for Maariv the week of 17 October for Maariv. Statistical error +/- 4.5 percentage
points.

Do you support the Geneva Understanding, that is to say the agreement on the final arrangement reached this week between Israeli politicians and senior personalities in the Palestinian Authority?
[IMRA: The very same newspaper reported today that it turns out that very important parts of the "agreement" including scores of appendices, have not yet been written. The information available now is only the information that those marketing the "agreement" have selectively provided.]
Yes 27% No 53% Don't know 20%

Ignoring what the Geneva Accords say would you support an agreement that would theoretically put an end to the conflict and all claims on both sides and stated -

Palestinians would have an independent state, recognize Israel as a Jewish state and forego the right of return -

Israel would almost completely withdraw from the areas conquered in 1967 while the Etzion Bloc and the Jewish communities around Jerusalem would remain in Israeli hands while Ariel would be transferred to the Palestinians.

In addition, Jerusalem would be divided so that the Jewish places would be under Israeli control and the Arab place under Palestinian control. The Temple Mount would be transferred to Palestinian control and the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter in the Old City would remain under Jewish control.

Israel would release all security detainees including those who were involved in attacks against Israelis. Assuming such an agreement was presented in a national referendum, would you support it?

[IMRA: Ma'ariv leaves out such features of the "Geneva Understanding" as Israel ultimately having no security presence in the Jordan Valley or the right to of the IAF to fly over the West Bank as part of Israel's security. Ma'ariv also leaves out that the PA state would apparently be allowed to enter into security pacts with other countries under the terms of the "Geneva Understanding". In addition, the "Geneva Understanding" provides for the possibility that Israel face huge unbearable monetary compensation
claims of magnitudes that will only be set after Israel withdraws and a sovereign Palestinian state is formed - thus providing the Palestinians with the grounds to renew the conflict when Israel declines to pay.]
Yes 34% No 58% Don't know 8%

In a permanent agreement between Israel and the Palestinians would you support the following?
Release of all security prisoners?
Yes 22% No 74% Don't know 4%

Israeli withdrawal from almost all the territories conquered in 1967 where the Etzion Bloc and the Jewish communities around Jerusalem remain in Israel while the city of Ariel is transferred to the Palestinians
Yes 40% No 52% Don't know 8%

Jewish places in Jerusalem will be under Jewish control and Arab places under Palestinian control [IMRA: No mention of Temple Mount]
Yes 49% No 45% Don't know 6%

There are those who maintain that politicians who are not members of the government are prohibited from carrying on contacts with the Palestinian
Authority. Others claim that it is the right of the opposition to have contacts with the Palestinian Authority in order to try and present an alternative. What do you think?
[IMRA: The "Geneva Undertanding and its
marketing around the world is far more than mere "contacts"]
Permitted 36% Prohibited 57% Don't know 7%
Are you pleased with the performance of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in general?
Satisfied40% Dissatisfied54% Don't know 6%

There are two view of Yossi Beilin:
[IMRA an obvious third possibility is left out, "a reckless politician who acts according to his ideology"]
A bold politician who acts according to his principles?
Yes 36% No 49% Don't know 15%
A radical leftist who colludes with the Palestinians against Israel
Yes 40% No 42% Don't know 18%

Do you support the prisoner exchange deal that is planned under which Sheik Obeid and Dirani will be released along with several hundred Palestinian prisoners in return for Elchanan Tannenbaum and the bodies of the three kidnapped soldiers?
Yes 41% No 44% Don't know 15%

There are those who claim that Israel should only carry out the prisoner deal if information on the fate of POW Ron Arad is received. Do you agree?
Yes 57% No 32% Don't know 11%

Mike -- Thanks for the info.

Your quote from Islamic Jihad (along with the other evidence of Arab depravity gathered on the memri website that you bring to my attention) is a good example of why (I think) Israel ought to extricate itself from the continued occupation of Palestinian Arabs. Why would you want to insist that such people live in your neighborhood against their will?

Reading the poll results, it looks like about 50-55% of Israelis are presently unwilling to accept the existence of the viable Palestinian state that is necessary for such an extrication. As enfranchised citizens in a democracy for Jews, they have the right to vote how they wish.

But the US has the right also to condition continued military support on the rejection of such foolishness. And I think they should, although I would support US sucurity guarantees, military aid, and the refugee resettlement aid that would doubtlessly be a part of any peace deal.

Markus:

Let's play a different game. Instead of asking what "generous offers" Israel did or didn't make during arbitrary time frames, you say what exactly the Palestinains have done over time to convince the Israeli electorate -- for better or worse, the only one that matters -- that they were and are prepared to live side-by-side, in peace.

And when you get done with that exercise, explain just why you think Palestinian terrorism has in fact served their cause (however defined). I take it from your rhetorical question ("And you wonder why Palestinians think that terrorism works?") that you indeed subscribe to that view; if not, my apologies for misconstruing.

wm. tyroler -- no, let's not change the subject. I asked Shark , or anybody for that matter, to elaborate on the claim that Israeli governments over the years have taken bold steps to make peace with palestinian arabs.

Until I get an answer, I'll assume that in fact it was at Camp David in 2000 that Barak made what Thomas Friedmann called "the first fair offer [Israel] had ever put forth."

Barak made the offer as part of the fulfillment of Israel's obligations under the Oslo accords. Oslo came about mainly due to three forces: the first intifada, the U.S. recognition of the PLO as the so-called legitimate representative of the palestinian people (based on Arafat and PLO statements indicating acceptance of Israel and the renouncement of terrorism), and George HW Bush administration pressure.

Intifada one was therefore one factor that helped make a palestinian state a real possiblity for the first time since 1967. And it was only after over a year of the atrocities of intifada two that a US president, thought to be the most pro-Israel president since Truman, uttered the words "palestinian" and "state" in the same sentence. Saying terrorism "works" is not a moral statement, and it also does not mean that beyond a point, or beyond a period of time, it ceases to work.

Markus, you asked what other options there are?

#1)An autonomous Palestine as part of some union with Israel. The Pali's wont like this one and niether will the Israelis but still personally i think its less dangerous than the two state thing

2) An automomous Palestine in union with Jordan and/or Egypt. This one I like because it means that Egypt and Jordan will have to keep the PLO in line for fear of getting their own asses kicked.

3)Similar to #2 but annexed to Jordan/Egypt. Would Hamas be firng Qasam missiles from Gaza today if Begin had refused to sign with Sadat unless he took Gaza with the Sinai package deal

4)Binational state. Bad idea. Garanteed civil war. But a 2 state solution will also gaurantee a war.

5) Transfer. Bad Idea, but I think we should allways keep it as plan B to threaten the Arabs into accepting a deal that ultimantely the Israelis wil have to unilaterally impose.

Q:When did people forget that their already has been an Arab state created in Palestine?
A: When it became a good tactic for destroying Israel.

Dead ED- I'm busy and don't have much time to write but thanks for your explication of some alternatives. I always wondered who was responsible for Hussein not being allowed to join Sadat and Begin at Camp David. If he had been, perhaps the very reasonable idea of giving Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan in exchange for peace could have entered the realm of possibility.

The other possibilities don't seem realistic. I understand that transfer advocates will not be swayed by moral arguments, so they need to understand that such a move would be most likely to lead to imposition of worldwide economic sanctions against Israel, and I wouldn't be surprised if the USA imposed them as well.

When you write that a particular option will "guarantee war", you should instead say it will "guarantee continued war." War is what Israelis and Arabs have, and have had, for decades.

The problem with your joke, and with the whole idea that Jordan is Palestine, is that the 1947 partition plan also invisioned that "second Palestinian state." And it did so not to be mean and unfair to the Jews, but rather to allow a Jewish majority state to come into being without necessitating the transfer of Arabs from their homes. That is to say, when the partition plan was being drawn up in 1947, twenty five years after the alleged Palestinian state of Transjordan came into being, there were still an overwhelming number of Arabs living in non-Transjordan "Palestine."

No, Markus, you don't want to "change the subject" precisely because you can't refute the notion of Palestinian rejectionism over time. Besides, it's much more emotionally satisfying to bash Israel than to hold the Palestinians to any standard of accountability.

To some extent it's a silly debate, because without Zionism there would be no "Palestinians" anyway. But no matter. The presently important point is that you seem to think that the onus was and is entirely on Israel -- to make a "generous offer" that the Palestinians would fairly be obliged to accept. Whatever anyone wants to say about Camp David / Taba the one undeniable fact is that the Palestinians made no counter-offer. (Unless you consider the current war to be the counter-offer.) I suppose your view is that they simply had no such obligation; the onus is wholly on Israel. It is just that attitude that makes the problem insoluble. he sooner the fence goes up, the better for all concerned.

wm. tyroler: It was reprehensible for Arafat not to make a counteroffer, and instead to wink at the second Intifada. And I haven't denied Palestinian rejectionism, I have simply pointed out that Israeli or Zionist rejectionism exists as well and suggested that it has been a major obstacle to peace as well. Your letter and your attitude is a perfect example of such rejectionism.

I don't give a damn about the security fence. Israel is at war, and it can and should do whatever it feels that it needs to do to protect itself from terrorists, while entering into serious negotiations to end its political and military rule over the arab peoples of the west bank and gaza.

wm.tyroler
you might be being a tad hard on Markus. It seems to me that he is indeed on Israels side. He just hasnt lost his optimism that the Palestinians might one day give up their murderous ways. I once had this optimism. Its gone now, not becasue of this Intifada, but because I am know a lot more well informed on the history of the situation than I was in my "everybody hold hands and sing love songs" youth. The truth is the onus IS on Israel because no other party is civilized enough to actually want to end it. Admitting this is not being anti-Israel at all, in fact the opposite.

Markus,
that wasnt a joke, just a statement. DOnt tell me you though it was funny :)

Dead ED -- regarding the history of the situation, as you put it, are you familiar with Benny Morris' books on the establishment of the state of Israel and the origins of the refugee problem? I'd be interested in hearing what your thought are on his work (also, anyone else's comments, including links to articles refuting his claims.)

No, I'm not being too hard on Markus. Much of Morris' work has been refuted, by Karsh and others. Take the trouble, Markus, to investigate it yourself. You might want to start with Morris himself, who says:

Unfortunately, the Palestinian national movement, from its inception, has denied the Zionist movement any legitimacy and stuck fast to the vision of a "Greater Palestine", meaning a Muslim-Arab-populated and Arab-controlled state in all of Palestine, perhaps with some Jews being allowed to stay on as a religious minority. In 1988-93, in a brief flicker on the graph, Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organisation seemed to have acquiesced in the idea of a compromise. But since 2000 the dominant vision of a "Greater Palestine" has surged back to the fore (and one wonders whether the pacific asseverations of 1988-1993 were not merely diplomatic camouflage)....

It is the Palestinian leadership's rejection of the Barak-Clinton peace proposals of July-December 2000, the launching of the intifada, and the demand ever since that Israel accept the "right of return" that has persuaded me that the Palestinians, at least in this generation, do not intend peace: they do not want, merely, an end to the occupation - that is what was offered back in July-December 2000, and they rejected the deal. They want all of Palestine and as few Jews in it as possible. The right of return is the wedge with which to prise open the Jewish state. Demography - the far higher Arab birth rate - will, over time, do the rest, if Iranian or Iraqi nuclear weapons don't do the trick first....

wm. tyroler: i think i agree with most of what morris says in the article. he doesn't say anything about his earlier scholarship. thanks for the link.

no thanks to you for your incivility, your condescension, your mischaracterizations of my views, and your refusal to address the question that I raised. I don't own a horse in this race. I am interested in reaching a full understanding of causes and possible solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and as part of doing that I strive to weigh the merits and competing claims of each side impartially.
I am interested in dialoge with people with a similar interest who may know something that I don't. I'm not in so-called "dialoge" with people like you who evidently believe that you already have all the answers.

Markus
I'll answer the question for you. Personally I would have little problem with the Geneva accord. I'm not Israeli so this doesnt really matter but I think the reccord shows that Israelis would be willing to accept as much. But it all rest on a big IF. IF it brings peace. By that I dont mean the type of 'peace' they now have with Egypt and Jordan.

Dead Ed -- Thank you. "Yes, but not now" is a reasonable position, I think. Sharon's speech last summer talking about territorial contiguity and using the word "occupation" - for which he was excoriated by many members of his party - was a step in this direction. Agreeing to a settlement freeze would be another, much more meaningful step.

I truly hope the suicide bombings stop after the wall goes up. So that innocent people don't die, and so that I can be proven wrong in my fear and suspicion that given a break in hostilities, Sharon and his supporters will show themselves to be more interested in gloating about victory than in negotiating for peace.

Markus:

My incivility and condescension? How would you characterize your own comments, near the outset of this thread:

Shark, you constantly voice your opinions about Israeli policy and Israeli government action, and about Palestinian or Arab initiatives. As such, your refusal to answer my hypothetical question is disingenous. Nevertheless, should an Israeli government including the present one make an offer to Palestinians in the future or agree to one, I'll be watching for your scrupulous neutrality on the matter.

But I think we can agree that no one has the answers, not you, me, Shark, or even the EU.