Israel to World: "Suck It."

This is the true story... of five nations... picked to jointly administer a volatile area that is holy to Jews, Christians and Muslims...work together and have their lives taped... to find out what happens... when nations stop being polite... and start getting real...The Jerusalem No-Sovereignty Zone.

maybe they should sign control over to a body that could be truly independent on account of its lack of baises, like fiji, or greenland, or the NBA, or a marching band of retired australian janitors. add whatever business needs taking care of to the agenda for their annual general meeting & let them figure it out, what the australian janitors says goes.

the Dome of the Rock will be closed this evening on account of the 4th annual retired australian janitor Marching Ninety-Nine!

olmert's offer looks all right, but you can still see why it was rejected, at least politically, by abbas. the settlements remain, and some kind of buy-off in lieu of the right of return.

Ok, but propose a workable full right of return and a workable way of dismantling the largest settlements, which have become somewhat city-like (which I assume are what he refers to by that 6.4%, as opposed to the random outpost settlements which could be easily dismantled). I mean, maybe you could research how many Palestinians would actually want to "return" to Israel proper as opposed to the new Palestinian state, and then propose a number based on that or a reasonable proportion of that, assuming it's not close to the million that are eligible. And maybe you could propose not completely dismantling all settlements but ceding some of them to the Palestinian state with Jews able to stay their if they want or leave if they want (there are arab villages in Israel, there could be Jewish villages in Palestine too). But did Abbas come back with a counteroffer at all? I'm not saying he didn't but I'd like to know.

Israel has been one big pass the baby quagmire as long as it has existed. The British, the Russians, the US ...

xp I mean I understand that you put in the qualifier "at least politically" goole, but what solution is ever going to be "politically" feasible by that standard?

"Third was the issue of Palestinian refugees." This issue has often been a seeming deal-breaker. The Palestinians insist that all Palestinians who left Israel - at or near the time of its founding - and all their spouses and descendants, should be able to return to live in Israel proper. This could be more than a million people. Olmert, like other Israeli prime ministers, could never agree to this: "I think Abu Mazen understood there was no chance Israel would become the homeland of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian state was to be the homeland of the Palestinian people. So the question was how the claimed attachment of the Palestinian refugees to their original places could be recognised without bringing them in. I told him I would never agree to a right of return. Instead, we would agree on a humanitarian basis to accept a certain number every year for five years, on the basis that this would be the end of conflict and the end of claims. I said to him 1000 per year. I think the Americans were entirely with me.

this part seemed especially bogus to me. Olmert, in a wave of generosity that he probably regretted the next day, agrees to accept 5000 Palestinians (1000 per year for five years) back into their original homes, no more. The unbiased Americans were entirely with him, he thinks.

there are almost 10,000 people/sq. mile Gaza and over 1,000 people/sq. mile in the West Bank. Israel's at 809/sq. mile. as i understand, there are over 300,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank alone, right? but they're only going to accept 5000 Palestinians back? am i missing something?

well total right to return will always be both politically and pragmatically out of the question so it'd be mostly symbolism

I don't think the 5,000/300,000 is really a relevant comparison. It's not an exchange where Palestine takes in 300,000 israelis and Israel takes in 5000 Palestinians -- the settlements would be part of Israel. If anything I'd focus on the land that Israel would be getting, and whether Palestinians were being adequately compensated in lieu of return. There really wouldn't be any feasible way to "return Palestinians to their original homes" -- you're talking about people who lived there 65 years ago and their descendents.

And again, I also ask if Abbas made a counteroffer.

maybe they should sign control over to a body that could be truly independent on account of its lack of baises

worked for cyprus, right?

whether Palestinians were being adequately compensated in lieu of return

this also seems pretty sticky. what if the israelis built a luxury hotel where your grandfather's horse stable was? do you deserve to be compensated for the value of the hotel or the value of the horse stable? "right of return" seems to me to be only a few steps removed from reparations for slavery or compensating the native americans for manhattan.

I don't think the 5,000/300,000 is really a relevant comparison. It's not an exchange where Palestine takes in 300,000 israelis and Israel takes in 5000 Palestinians -- the settlements would be part of Israel.

of course it's not apples to apples, but i still think it illustrates how Abbas could have reasoned that Olmert's offer, albeit the best ever offer from Israel, wasn't reasonable. 300,000 settlers in the West Bank alone. in comparison, 1000 Palestinians per year, for five years, "accepted" back into Israel. as a means of comparison, 16,000 people immigrated to Israel in 2009. obviously not all Palestinians could move to Israel, nor would they want to. still, i don't know about you, but if i was apologizing to someone for screwing them over in the past, i wouldn't blatantly screw them again in my new offer. in typical ilxor fashion i will now use tipping as a terrible metaphor: "jeez, i'm really sorry for not tipping the last 20 times you served me...here, take 35 cents."

what if your meal cost 1.75 though

if you screw someone over with a 0% tip 20 times in a row, the payback tip better exceed 20% imo

well yeah, but presumably that's where the financial part of the reparations would come in (although no specifics are given above)

in typical ilxor fashion i will now use tipping as a terrible metaphor: "jeez, i'm really sorry for not tipping the last 20 times you served me...here, take 35 cents."

it's more 'tipping the full amount would be logistically impossible but I am accepting a certain amount of responsibility for what happened'

Perhaps correctly, the Israelis see the right of return as a Trojan horse and I don't see it ever as a viable political possibility. Similarly, I imagine conceding it is probably not a viable political move on the part of Palestinian politicians. My question, however, is how many in the Palestinian diaspora would want to return, especially if any compensation or permanent status were contingent on them staying for, say, at least five years or whatever? I can't imagine any of the Palestinans I know in SF returning. They wish it were easier to visit their relatives, but they've all made their lives here now.

i'm sure all the palestinian refuges living in jordan, lebanese, and syrian refuge camps would love to return

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/give-the-palestinians-a-state.premium-1.481023

Mordy, do you have any idea how many there are in those camps?

And what do we make of the UK's possible shift alongside France to accepting Palestinian staehood in the UN?

Mordy, do you have any idea how many there are in those camps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_refugee_camps

Is this a good place to talk about this genius?
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/israeli-militarys-twitter-warrior-posed-obama-style-in-blackface/

speaking of palestinian refuge camps...

wait is this true??

Israel is one of the few countries in the world where a large segment of the population believes Obama is a secret Muslim.

yeah he's kenyan iirc, it's a family thing

Abbas' big day at the UN today.

As the Lebanese news site Al Akhbar reported, Lieutenant Dratwa did find some support from fellow Israelis online. Miriam Young, a 20-year-old video blogger who recently moved to Israel from Los Angeles, wrote that, as an American, she was not insulted by the image.

this is great. "for some perspective, we talked to an idiot on the internet..."

actually it's even better, since (1) they asked a white American whether she was offended by an image that is racist toward black people, and (2) if you read a little further, it sounds like she's the guy's friend or at least acquaintance

haha yep

Good day for Palestinians.

Not for actual Palestinians. But a good day for "Palestinians."

Probably a little bad for everyone, especially if US goes through on threats to cut financial support to Abbas.

Well, we'll see about that. This could actually be a very good thing for the Palestinians, not just "Palestinians", in the not too distant future.

The General Assembly was the midwife to baby Israel herself, after all.

It took a lot more than a UN resolution to bring Israel into being. It's hard to see how this solves any of the current Palestinian impediments to statehood.

Of course it took a lot more Mordy, but it was nonetheless a crucial piece of the process.

(missing a comma there of course).

Besides allowing Fatah to take cases to the ICC, I just don't see what it gains them that they didn't have on Wednesday, and there is reason to be skeptical of what their access to the ICC means.

I do think it's interesting that Likkud is talking annexation of the West Bank. I've thought for a while now that withdrawing from Gaza was just laying the groundwork for one state solution that included the West Bank. (I'm obviously not the only person who has thought this was possible.) Dropping Gaza basically solved the demographic crisis. I don't know what this bodes for the future of Israel, but it is interesting that hardliners on both sides want a one state solution - and maybe they'll get one.

Well statehood is an abstract thing to begin with, and what every aspiring state craves is recognition as such - quite apart from any tangible, short-term benefits. Recognition is in and of itself the "gain". What further benefits (and repercussions) accrue, we shall see (certainly your skepticism re these is warranted).

I guess I believe that the UN* can consecrate an already existing State, but that without the things that sustain a State (monopoly on power, civic institutions, stable borders), the most the UN can do is create a photo op. I guess I think it's nice for anyone who feels a sense of pride because of this decision (I don't doubt that some people feel especially good about this - which gives it credit as a symbolic victory). But the Palestinians are still dealing with a separatist fundamentalist political organization running Gaza (Abbas still can't safely travel to Gaza), a demonstrated inability on behalf of its leaders to either function well enough to make a deal with Israel, or have the population legitimacy to make a deal with Israel, and indebtedness to political/regional/religious institutions that find Palestinian statehood in Gaza/West Bank intolerable. Not to mention in Israel a government that - to put it kindly - is not particularly interested in a vibrant Palestinian state. The UN vote might help with the population legitimacy issue (especially if it slides public sentiment back from Hamas over to Fatah it could - in a very optimistic POV - have a ripple effect in Gaza too), but I don't see how it helps with this other stuff at all.

*Or more reasonably, the collective international community which sometimes conveys legitimacy through the UN.

The UN has demonstrated that they don't have a problem with symbolic gestures, but outside a vague sense of world approval the world hasn't been willing to commit to many tangible improvements to the Palestinians. Part of this is definitely because the US supports Israel so completely (even Morsi realizes funding from the US is more important than fully opening Rafah). You could argue that Israel restrains itself because of world opinion and so e.g. Germany abstaining from vote because of settlements is an inducement for Israel to stop building them, but I think that's an assertion supporters and critics of Israel would question.

I can't disagree with much of the above, Mordy, but I'm not sure what alternative path you have in mind. I just think you have to start somewhere, and from the point of view of Abbas certainly, this was one place where you might get something that might get you someplace better, maybe. In dire, seemingly intractable situations, "maybe" is better than nothing.

Gotta sign off now!

I think that Abbas went to the UN because it had the appearance of progress w/out actually committing himself to the risky, dangerous stuff that might actually result in progress. Like Arafat, he isn't interested in ending up like Sadat, otherwise a deal would've already been made. Certainly it's a much stronger position to take whatever deal is on the table (the one under Olmert was particularly accommodating, who knows what Bibi will offer) and then negotiate after you actually have some of the things necessary to run a state. I don't think Abbas is serious. He might be expecting more from the ICC than he will probably get, and maybe he thinks it will dissuade some of the settlements. That might actually be the play here - Likkud wants to make one state fait accompli re: facts on the ground and Abbas probably thinks the best he can do is slow things down. If Israel is even 10% more cautious about building settlements because of this Abbas might take that a win. I don't think it's a viable longterm strategy though. The things that will work, I don't think Abbas is willing to do.

If Israel is even 10% more cautious about building settlements because of this Abbas

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/30/15573067-us-slams-israels-decision-to-expand-settlements

You really have your finger on Bibi's pulse.

Juan Cole:

Many European countries have elevated the Palestine mission in their capitals to the status of full embassy. Palestine’s new status as UN observer state could well become a basis for it being given further embassies in Europe. Being an embassy rather than a mission strengthens the legal status of Palestine, including in national courts and EU tribunals.

Israel’s economy is deeply dependent on its relationship to Europe, the largest single source of imports into Israel and the second-largest market for exports (after the United States). European investment in Israel is also significant, as are various agreements giving Israel access to European technological advances and promoting scientific and technological exchange.

The European Union imports 15 times more goods from Israeli setter enterprises in the Occupied West Bank than from the Palestinians themselves. Europe is therefore a major, hidden support for Israeli crimes against the Palestinians.

http://www.juancole.com/2012/11/palestinian-legal-strategy-against-israel-the-real-prize-is-europe.html

You really have your finger on Bibi's pulse.

I hope you mean that sincerely since I also wrote:

I do think it's interesting that Likkud is talking annexation of the West Bank. I've thought for a while now that withdrawing from Gaza was just laying the groundwork for one state solution that included the West Bank. (I'm obviously not the only person who has thought this was possible.) Dropping Gaza basically solved the demographic crisis. I don't know what this bodes for the future of Israel, but it is interesting that hardliners on both sides want a one state solution - and maybe they'll get one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/30/footballers-u21-european-championship-israel

The NYT:

A senior Israeli official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said on Friday that the decision was made late Thursday night to move forward on “preliminary zoning and planning preparations” for housing units in E1, which would connect the large settlement of Maale Adumim to Jerusalem and therefore make it impossible to connect the Palestinian cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem to Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Israel also authorized the construction of 3,000 housing units in other parts of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the official said... Hagit Ofran, who runs the Settlement Watch project of Peace Now, called E1 a “deal breaker for the two-state solution” and denounced the decision as “disastrous.”

Ofran is being hyperbolic (it only makes a two-state solution with a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem impossible), but he's right that this changes the terms of negotiation. Bibi is taking East Jerusalem off the table.