'Barak is wrong, Olmert is right'

[bemildred]

Read the whole thing ...

---

"Rocking the boat at this point in time is total madness," she asserts decisively with regard to the possibility of Barak leading Labor out of the government. "This is irresponsible, it is suicide for the country. I agree with Fuad Ben-Eliezer's apocalyptic prophesies. A year from now, or two years from now at most, a violent struggle will begin over one state for two peoples, which could involve Israel's Arab citizens - and we are liable to lose them as well.

"There isn't going to be any government and there isn't going to be any Knesset that is more attentive to the need for an agreement than the current government and Knesset. In any future constellation, the situation will be worse. Despite all the reservations, it is better to keep the status quo. I am less interested in whether or not the Labor Party will survive. In any case, I am not certain that it is capable of flying an ideological banner.

"And supposing we win the elections, what will happen between the moment we declare elections and the moment a new government gets to work? We will waste all the time that remains to us on the election campaign. This is abysmal insanity. We have to allow Olmert and Livni to take us to the end of 2008 with an outline for peace, and go into elections with that. On this matter, I see myself returning to my younger days and standing at intersections to persuade people, even if passersby curse me and spit on me. This will be an existential fight. If we lose it, we will know that we have lost the state's future. But should we win at the last moment, there is a chance that we will save ourselves from something we ourselves created. If we do not fight for two states for two peoples and separate from the isolated settlements, we don't exist. Hence my sweeping support for this government."

The chairman of your party is saying that the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), is weak, that it is impossible to trust that if we pull out of the West Bank, the Palestinians will not bombard us.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/971930.html

[rpannier]

1. interesting

thanks for sharing

[bemildred]

2. Not the usual black and white drivel, is it?

I largely share her view of the situation, if not her allegiances, and I give her a lot of credit for brains and candor. In a government largely filled with corrupt and self-serving time-servers it is good to see there are still people with some principles.

[rpannier]

3. very true

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. Principles? ROTFLOL!!!

Did you see this Gideon Levy piece about her?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x207007

I don't think "principled" is a word I would use to describe this politician.

[bemildred]

8. I knew that would annoy you.

Yes, I read that other piece. I'm sorry we don't agree. It is true that using of the term "principle" in the same sentence as a politician's name is always a risky thing to do, and it is true that I don't particularly agree with her principles, but I don't think I am going to dispute this with you now.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

11. Guess she annoyed Gideon Levy, too! nt

[LeftishBrit]

4. Interesting article...

She makes quite a lot of sense.

[azurnoir]

5. She is a couragous women

a very interesting read

[ProgressiveMuslim]

7. Any Israeli politicians who stake their careers on negotiations with Abu Mazen alone

are fools. "Making things better" in the WB to highlight the "difference" between the WB and Gaza will be a failed strategy. Do these folks really believe a divided Palestine is the path to peace?
Are these people idiots?

Peace will never be achieved by lifting a few roadblocks.

When will these dunderheads wake up??

[oberliner]

9. How will peace by achieved?

What steps would you take if you were PM of Israel?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

10. First, I would immediately freeze all settlement activity.

I would completely reverse course on the manipulation of Palestinian elections, lift the siege of Gaza, and apologize for fomenting the coup that resulted in so much strife in Palestine.

I would say that Israel is ready to negotiate a just settlement, willing to immeidately discuss core issues, and is awaiting the presentation of a representative team from Palestine.

And as the Palestinian side works to get its own stuff together, I would engage in no disruptive activity.

That's what I'd do.

Abu Mazen is a quisling hack on his way OUT. Why waste the time?

[oberliner]

12. You really don't think Abbas has a future?

The steps that you have described would severely damage whatever relationship exists between the PA and Israel. It would essentially signal the end of any legitimacy for Abbas and his supporters. Do you really think it is wise for Israel to dismiss him in that way? You have said you view him as being on his way out, but you must agree that Fatah still has a pretty sizable and relatively powerful group of followers.

Do you think that the Hamas leadership ought to be the "team from Palestine" that any Israeli PM should negotiate with? Do you view that as a realistic possibility?

[azurnoir]

13. A couple of points

the very first thing Olmert could do without talking to any Palestinian team is to stop the building of additional housing units in the OPT, that move alone would show that Israel is doing more than a "photo op" peace process. The second and as important is for a "reunification" of Gaza and the West Bank and the Palestinian government, now I have not read anything recently however Israel has been very much against this happening and very publicly so, has that changed?

I do not disagree with what PM has said and she is right about Abu Mazan or Abbas he is "compromised" to put it politely, the PA is not the Palestinian people and in the end it their reaction that will be the basis for peace.

[Vegasaurus]

16. And as I asked Progressive Muslim

what are the Palestinian responsibiltiies? I see what you expect of Israel. What do you expect of the Palestinians, in their role of advancement of peace?

Being in the losing position means that the Palestinians certainly have to come to the table with some concessions.

Demanding right of return, (or all of "greater Palestine" like Hamas), is just demands. It is not compromise, and won't get them a state any time in the near (or distant, unless their rhetoric changes)future.

[breakaleg]

17. What does it matter of they are "losing" when they have right on their side? nt

[Vegasaurus]

18. But "right", like "just" are not absolutes or universals

even if you think they are.

That is why there may not be "JUSTICE" the way you think there should be, in resolution of this conflict.

There must be compromise, not just a one-sided idea of "RIGHT", which will never solve anything.

[azurnoir]

19. Considering the framing of the "question"

"being in the losing postition" what kind of answer do want? As I said above before any true negotiations can begin there must be a unified Palestinian, something that seems repellent or frightening to some "proIsrael" people. However controlling terrorism would be the next step and doing that without interference from IDF and Israeli security forces. As for "right of return" you seem to assume that every Palestinian would want to live in Israel, where as I believe most would be happy if Israeli's living in the OPT would live in Israel, pre1967 Israel that is.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

14. I think Abbas should be tried for treason. nt

[sabbat hunter]

20. what has he done that is treasonous?

[Vegasaurus]

15. And what do you consider that the Palestinians bring to the table besides demands?

I don't think they will get very far if they have no compromises of their own.

[sabbat hunter]

21. how can you negotiate

with a group (hamas) that refuses to recognize your right to exist and calls for your destruction?

[Vegasaurus]

22. This is what I think is almost comical

It isn't just that they are the sworn enemy, who make their daily life focused on killing Israelis, but that they don't acknowledge the existence of the country.

And yet they are supposed to be negotiated with? Who negotiates with an entity that thinks you don't exist, and worse, wants to kill you?

At least Abbas seems to want to negotiate, although he is also a big Holocaust denier.

[bemildred]

23. Who lost? The people of Israel

The debate over who won, Peace Now or Gush Emunim, is taking place as if it were a soccer game, and most people agree that at this stage it's a tie - 1:1. Peace Now won and managed to impose an agenda that represents "near consensus" - support for splitting the territory into two nation states. Gush Emunim won the campaign on establishing settlements, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to establish a viable Palestinian state.

The focus of the dispute is the significance of this tie on the future, with the assumption being that the "settlements" and "two nation states" are indeed the fateful issues that will shape Israel's future, and that the ideological confrontation between these diametrically opposed worldviews remains relevant in spite of the fact that more than a generation has passed since it was shaped, in the late '70s. Both camps are interested in sharpening the issues in dispute in order to stress the importance of their activities, but it is also possible to distinguish, behind the rhetoric, a common denominator, which transforms this ideological flurry into an internal debate, a restricted one, a Jewish-Zionist one.

Both sides agree on the sanctity of the mythos of "settlement" and elevate the home, the outpost, the planted tree, to a supreme value. Except that one of the camps aspires to extend the sanctity of the Zionist settlement to the settlements and outposts in the entire Land of Israel, while the other camp wishes to apply this moral and political significance only to the communities it has set up, or which conform to its geopolitical worldview. Recognizing that there is no disagreement on the symbolism of the Zionist "settlement," only on its contradictory usage - the symbolism of construction versus the symbolism of destruction - Peace Now created a new ideology: the "legality" of the settlement. Thus it rallied to its withering ranks the Supreme Court justices. The need of both camps to pledge allegiance to Zionism makes them unable to comprehend how this ethos has become an anachronism, since the entire "settlement enterprise" has become a commercial real estate project, which conscripts Zionist rhetoric for profit - the greed of the Gush Katif evacuees is proof of this. Because both movements have enjoyed publicity in connection to the settlements, they have no interest in recognizing the fact that the significance of building in the territories for the purpose of establishing political facts on the ground has dissipated, and that now the number of settlements and their residents are an irrelevant issue, because Israel's mechanisms of control have become so sophisticated that in most parts of the West Bank there is no difference between sovereign Israel and occupied territory.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974891.html