The article is but one narrow perspective on the disastrous but inevitable outcome of US and Israeli foreign policy. While the author mentions three soldiers captured by Palestinians it fails to acknowledge the thousands of Palestinians held without charge in Israel, in both official and secret locations. Is Danny Lamm prepared to make any criticism of places like Facility 1391, aka Israel’s Gitmo?

Israel has Palestine exactly where it wants it - in total disarray. Funds withheld, regular incursions, a steady diet of military interventions, restricted movement, refusal to recognise its democratic government, tacit approval from the US of human rights violations - is there any wonder they’re fighting among themselves? This can only be a bad thing for Israel and they know it. The disingenuousness of the current Israeli government, such as it is, only serves to reconfirm the widely held belief they do themselves no favours. Following the provocation towards Muslim worshippers in Jerusalem last week the Israeli foreign minister set out to cast the aggressor as victim. But it isn’t enough to act as Alice and behave as the witch, and no doe-eyed zealot will convince the world otherwise.

Danny Lamm needs to know that while Israel holds all the cards - the money, the sophisticated weaponry from the US, an impotent UN, the land, the water, a functioning economy (albeit dependent upon US hegemony) - it will never be able to claim the moral high ground. Legitimacy doesn’t come from indiscriminate use of bulldozers. Articles such as this simply tend more to focus interest on the Palestinian situation. The world already knows why suicide bombers do what they do but they’ve been wondering for years why Israel seems bent on pariahdom. How about it, Danny Lamm?

(continued from above)

And yes, when it comes to an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, the focus is very much on Palestinians and Israelis, not on the Arab League.

Keith: “The PLO as a representative for the Palestinian people has been a member of the Arab League since 1974. See the problem.”

A full member since 1976, and yes, I see the problem: You're dissatisfied with the agreements I mentioned because they have significant support on both sides. If Israelis agree, the plans must be tricks or unjust. Palestinians who agree must be toadies.

Keith: “…the problem is two fold. The Israelis want… The Palestinians want…..”

As in any negotiation, what each side wants and what it is willing to accept are two different things.

Israel may “want” the occupied territories and their settlements, but in the proposals I mentioned, Israel would give up all of Gaza (which was subsequently done unilaterally) and the vast majority of the West Bank. Most of the settlements would end up dismantled, and the situation in any that remain would be “normalized” by their inclusion in Palestine or annexation to Israel. In the end, there would be no more “illegal settlements”. And some of these proposals also stipulate that Israel will give up additional areas not in the occupied territories but within the current sovereign borders of Israel.

The Palestinians may “want” 100% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem – in fact, they “want” 100% of Israel, too -- but in the proposals I mentioned, they agreed to a compromise – 90% of the West Bank, 95%, whatever, Israeli control of the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, etc. Likewise regarding the refugees – they may “want” millions of descendents of refugees to “return” to Israel, but in these proposals, they showed a willingness to put aside this dream for the sake of peace.

Keith: “The only things that really stops peace from occurring is those illegal settlements, the Palestinian Capital and the return of the refugees. So why not support a just peace proposal that makes compromises, by both sides on those conditions?”

I did.

Vivy: “Where do the settlers come from?”

From a 1995 poll (http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/cprspolls/95/setpoll1.html#who):

“…most settlers are well-educated and have an above-average income. Most immigrated to Israel before 1988 [Steve: This statement seems to mean “among those who immigrated, most did so before 1988. As this report goes on to say, most are native Israelis, not immigrants at all.] About 45% of them define themselves as Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox, while 20% see themselves as "traditional" and 34% as secular. About 51% of the settlers work inside Israel and 49% work in the West Bank. Only 20% of them own houses inside Israel. Most settlers (70%) were born in Israel and the rest came from Asian-African countries (10%); the former Soviet Union (6%); Europe and North America (10%). About 40% are Sephardi, 39% are Ashkinazi, and 21% have Israeli-born parents.”

…

Bennie and Keith,

The overwhelming majority of the “Israeli cheer squad” rejects Boaz_David’s idea of transfer.

But he’s right that Palestinians should not live in refugee camps. Few residents of those camps are refugees in the normal sense of the word, and no population should be kept in camps for ~60 years. It isn’t right. It isn’t humane. In all other refugee cases, permanent solutions were found after far less time.

The reason Palestinian refugees are kept in camps rather than being absorbed by their host countries is political – to serve as weapons against Israel.

All this applies to the camps outside of the Palestinian Authority. There is an even stronger case to destroy the 26 camps within PA territory, which house ~650,000 people. These camps certainly should be dismantled, not to remove the residents but to settle them in permanent housing. Even though they are vastly improved over what they once were under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation, they are miserable places, and humanitarian disasters. And they never should have existed in the first place. As Bennie said, “the Palestinians are living on their own land.” That is, they are living in Palestine. How a Palestinian can be a refugee in Palestine is one of the mysteries of the modern age.