75,000 Israelis could be called up for ground war in Gaza.

[applegrove]

Jerusalem hit for the first time in 40 years. CTV TV Newscast at 11:00 PM.

Here is a link to a concurrent CTV news story:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/jerusalem-tel-aviv-under-rocket-fire-1.1040835

[hrmjustin]

1. How likely is a ground war?

[applegrove]

2. No idea. Let's all hope and/or pray it doesn't happen.

[hrmjustin]

3. agreed!

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. News for last few days is suggesting an Gaza invasion.

Lots of Israel reservists have been called up and many are being stationed at the border.

[sellitman]

4. Why can't the Israelis just learn to accept a few inerrant missiles?

Dam them.

[applegrove]

5. I hope there is no war cause I'm on the side of civilians. That means

I don't want any civilian to die. Israeli or Palestinian.

[holdencaufield]

7. Civilians are dying ...

... Israeli and Palestinian ... that won't change. It was happening before the talk of ground invasion and will continue even if there is no ground invasion.

The key to peace and an end to civilian casualties doesn't lie in the cessation of the current escalation ... it lies in a lasting peace ... which will require BOTH sides to compromise.

[Scootaloo]

8. It will require more than that.

Compromise is needed... but we can't keep pretending that Israel and Palestine carry equal weight at the negotiating table. It's like pretending that the free boxing lesson you won in a radio contest means you can hold up to Tyson for nine rounds.

Put simply, in order for there to be an equitable arrangement, Palestine is going to need a handicap. Otherwise Israel is just going to demand concessions and call it a compromise that they're even talking. Nothing particular to Israel, it's just the way things like that go when there's such a power disparity at the negotiating table.

Ultimately this means that the United States will have to step out of the way. We are absolutely not a fair arbiter of this conflict, any more than Iran would be. China or India, perhaps, a nation with a fair level of international clout but without its feet sunk nearly as deeply into the mire as ours are.

[holdencaufield]

10. The arbiters are the problem ...

... the US is telling Israel to stay the course ... and the Arab World is telling the Palestinians to keep up the pressure, the Jews will leave any day now.

The arbiters need to step away and let the game be decided by the players.

As to fighting Mike Tyson -- well, any sane person would know that if Mike start hitting back you need to stay down or call it a draw. I can't have a lot of sympathy for a fighter who keeps trying to lay blows when they know the fight can't be won. They are either insane or deluded.

[Scootaloo]

11. I'm talking about "fighting" at the negotiating table, not in the field

You want a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine, yes? Well, I'm telling you how it works and how it doesn't.

Direct negotiations will not win a peace in this case. You can't just leave them to their own devices, because one side is substantially weaker than the other, in pretty much any area you care to examine. The result is that the more powerful party will simply overpower and dominate, and what's supposed to be "negotiations based on compromise" will instead become "demands for concessions."

(This is why both the US and Israel keep demanding this approach; any outcome will be heavily biased in favor of the more powerful party, Israel; either the Israelis get everything for nothing, or the Palestinians walk away and are labeled 'enemies of peace' - win-win from the American-Israeli perspective)

It needs to be brokered, and the broker needs to give backing for the weaker of the two sides. In this case, yes, that means that whoever's overseeing the negotiation is going to have to swing for the Palestinians on occasion. Not to spite or hurt Israel, but to protect the Palestinians' interests

That arbiter will by necessity need to be someone who carries international clout but isn't themselves embroiled in the conflict - the US, the UK, most Arab nations, Russia, and France are out. I suggested India or China off the top of my head, but Brazil or Japan could probably do it as well - as could Germany, but I'd rather not think about the response to the Germans brokering a peace with support for the Palestinians, to be honest.

You only get peace if both parties walk away from the table feeling that they got an overall good deal. You can't get that result with direct negotiations, nor with the US / Arab states working as brokers.

[holdencaufield]

12. In order for arbitration to work ...

... between such implacable enemies ... it has to be binding.

Do you seriously think either side is going to submit to binding arbitration in this case with an outside entity?

No, I believe the only people who should be at the table are those who have skin in the game. I suggest, at a minimum, both sides put up what they are willing to concede.

On the Palestinian side, they should be willing to forfeit ...
... complete control of East Jerusalem in favour of shared holy spaces (as currently exists)
... any right of return within Israel
... any continued "armed struggle" either by the Palestinian government or proxy groups (in both the West Bank and Gaza)

On the Israel side, they should be willing to ...
... give up claims to settlements not on the border with Israel (and only those required for a secure border in exchange for equal land swaps
... allow civilian use of Israel airspace for transport
... support a free-trade agreement with the Palestinian-state
... allow un-checked, visa-free travel between Gaza and the West Bank through an agreed corridor
... set a timeline for visa-free travel between the Palestinian State and Israel if Israel's security concerns are met.

With that as a starting point ... I think a peace has a fighting chance.

[Scootaloo]

13. There's only one way for direct negotiations to work, though

That would be for Palestine to achieve a stronger negotiating position. One such method would be for them to get recognition as a nation by the United Nations. That the nations vociferously opposing such a bid are the very same nations demanding direct negotiations speaks volumes.

Even then, the Palestinians would still need access to resources that are rather scarce in the territories; international legal experts, for one, those would be nice to have. They would likely have to be "on loan" from a third party.

I don't want to seem rude on this Holden, but I'm not debating this with you, I'm informing you. There will not be a lasting peace with direct negotiations, due to the power disparity. That disparity gives Israel - the more powerful party - a considerable advantage, even to the point where they can treat showing up as if it were a concession that needs to be met with something extra from the Palestinians (those are the "preconditions to talks" that Israel demands for itself and refuses to acquiesce to from Palestine).

The only way to handle that power disparity is to balance the power somehow; either a third party makes up some of the difference, or something is done to give Palestine a stronger position on its own.

...

Of course, there's two other possibilities, which I believe to be unlikely.

The most unlikely is if the Palestinians just give up, throw in the towel, and let come what may. This would be a hell of a problem for the Israelis, as they suddenly find themselves having to figure out what to do with two new swaths of Israeli territory populated primarily by non-Israeli Arabs... too many to deport, for sure. As I say, this is super-unlikely, and speculation on the outcome is a waste of time.

The other possibility relies on a radical shift in how Israel approaches negotiations, which would in turn rely on a radical shift in Israeli politics. The Israeli negotiators could grant cessions "for free," thereby reducing the power disparity themselves. "Okay, we're prepared to give you A, B, and C, before we start talking about D, E, and F," basically. I actually think this would be ideal, out of all the options, but I also think it's sadly unlikely.

[holdencaufield]

14. "There will not be a lasting peace with direct negotiations"

Then settle in for a long, protracted conflict, with Palestinians suffering significantly more than Israelis and losing a little more of their bargaining position every year.

Only, don't kvetch about it ... your proclamation over the futility of negotiation is precisely what has landed your Palestinian friends in the proverbial soup.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

15. They are either insane or deluded.

So if Israel keeps on hitting back then Palestinians should just lay down? That's not human nature. You should know that.

The Israelites did not lay down for all the time that they were hit by the Babylonians, Egytians, Romans, Europeans, Tzars, or Hitler. The bent like reeds in the wind, but did not break. They survived as a people in spite of it. They were neither insane or deluded. One could say that they survived as a people because of it.

Calling the Palestinians that, or their cause to be recognized as a nation, belittles the drive of human nature to survive unfettered no matter how bad it gets.

Napoleon learned that in Russia as did the Germans. the French and Americans learned that in Vietnam.

This bullshit war will not end until Israel understands that it has to live within its borders and not other peoples, and the Palestinians will have to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, lay down their arms and cease all hostilities.

[shira]

16. You don't know much about the conflict, do you?

There were no settlements or occupation prior to 1967. Ask yourself the reason for that war.

The answer to that is the same as the answer to what's going on now. Mainly, the refusal to accept Israel and live peacefully alongside it.

The Palestinians could have had their own state multiple times already. Ask yourself why they refuse each and every time. Why they refused 2 deals since the year 2000, in which the settlements and occupation would have ended, and where they'd have half of Jerusalem and a state making up 100% of pre-67 Gaza/WB land.

Be intellectually honest with yourself.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

17. I know enough about the conflict to understand Israeli colonialism.

Your quotes

There were no settlements or occupation prior to 1967.

But now there are. Surprise surprise.

The Palestinians could have had their own state multiple times already.

Sure. With lots of Israeli conditions (i.e security zones) that would make the Palestinian state nothing more than a ghetto.

Since we are in the arena of "knowing" did you know this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_I_Accord

In a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: "They asked me before the election if I'd honor ... I said I would, but I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue." Netanyahu then explained how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from "specified military locations", and insisted he be allowed to specify which areas constituted a "military location"—such as the whole of the Jordan Valley. "Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords", Netanyahu affirmed.

I would ask you to be intellectual or honest as well, but I don't believe that you understand the definition of either word in theory or practice.

[shira]

19. You don't know shit. Least of which, the definition of colonialism.

Israel has its indigenous Jews as well. Half its population is mid eastern, thrown-out of neighboring countries.

As to Israel's peace offers being crap, the last one from 2008 was lauded by the folks at the Geneva Initiative. You know what that is? Look it up and you'll find Jimmy Carter and Noam Chomsky endorse it. They thought Olmert's 2008 offer was close enough to theirs, and its why they think highly of him.

So once again...

FAIL.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

20. You're really a pro at making up excuses for Israeli colonialism.

Did this stick in your craw or did you just ignore it?

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

In a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: "They asked me before the election if I'd honor ... I said I would, but I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue." Netanyahu then explained how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from "specified military locations", and insisted he be allowed to specify which areas constituted a "military location"—such as the whole of the Jordan Valley. "Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords", Netanyahu affirmed.

I would ask you to be intellectual or honest as well, but I don't believe that you understand the definition of either word in theory or practice.

[shira]

21. You keep referring to some red herring by Netanyahu...

...which you think proves apartheid and colonialism?

I mean, seriously?



Meanwhile, you've been disproven WRT your crap charges of apartheid and colonialism. You have nothing left in the tank other than ad hominems.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

24. Since you want to ignore Bibi let's move on to the French.

“Jerusalem will become the capital of two states. This is the position of the international community.” He blasted Israel for “colonization, demolitions and expulsions” in the Palestinian territories.
Frédéric Desagneaux
French Consulate in Jerusalem

If the French are on to you then you know you are in trouble.

Have a nice day.

[polly7]

18. Great post. +1000. nt.

[shira]

22. Great to propagandists reversing cause and effect. n/t

[polly7]

23. I'd laugh at that if the situation weren't so

horrific.

[applegrove]

9. Here, here.