31 Comments »

Very sensible letter, if only it could bring change!

Yishai G. has written a poignant plea to someone whose ghost he met, to encourage that individual to use his intelligence, set aside his emotions, to examine his life in the round. This is a missive for peace. It is an explanation and an expiation. It is an assurance and an incentive. But will it reach its target? Highly unlikely; it was written in the spirit of engaging, of stimulating thought and the inner humanity in all of us. Some may respond, but perhaps not those who should.

This is such a special document, rife with regret and decision, complete with history and a peoples’ agony that it deserves to be widely read. If there is any way of instilling a modicum of personal responsibility in people, this might conceivably represent that vehicle. But only if it attains a wide, a much wider audience.

How to achieve that?

Rita, good point. It’s no good preaching to the choir.
Hope that things are going well for you in your little part of the globe

Ivo, welcome to Gnblog!

Rita, the only way to do it is to forward it around and place it on blogs such as this one. Voices such as his and such as our Ramzi’s need to be heard more widely. How to achieve that though …

[...] Yaeli posts a translated letter from a Yishai, an Israeli reserve soldier who served in the recent operation. Below are several excerpts from the long piece: I know that the devastation, the bullet holes in your walls and the destruction of those homes near you place my descriptions in a ridiculous light. Still, I need you to understand me, us, and hope that you will channel your anger and criticism to the right places. [...]

I am not an Israeli, nor am I a Palestinian, and therefor, I can only comment to this letter as an outsider to the conflict.

First of all, its tone is, in a word, condescending. This was written by a young man – I hear – towards a family father, yet it has the tone of an elder rebuking an unruly child. No one with a sense of dignity and pride likes to be approached in this way – especially not from someone who has indeed violated one’s privacy by force – and this tone alone spoils any sympathy the letter might otherwise evoke in its alleged adressee.

Second, this letter ignores certain realities.
To stage a “civil uprising” against Hamas would be nigh-suicidal – unless one is well armed. Will this Israeli soldier offer more than a “shoulder”? Will he support Gaza citizens in a fight against Hamas, even if the risk of death is a hundred times greater than in Operation Cast Lead? Or would he agree to supply them with arms?
Israel permits goods and electricity into Gaza – but only the barest of necessities. Certainly nothing that could be used to build the Singapore-like industrial future the soldier fantasizes about. Nor does Israel permit the denizens of Gaza trade with foreign countries, nor any other meaningful control of their own borders.

A third point is the ignorance towards the wishes and needs of ordinary people. Bringing up Singapore again: This Asian city-state has full sovereignty over a compact, contiguous territory, internationally respected borders it controls itself, complete control over its own internal affairs – including among other things its airspace and territorial waters – and a small, but quite powerful, military force with which to defend itself.
All these things are necessary for a nation to truly be able to chart its own destiny and prosper in security. They are also necessary for the citizens to live in freedom and dignity. Israelis should know, having achieved these things for themselves and being rightfully proud of it.
Would our young soldier, if it were up to him, grant any of these to a hypothetical Palestinean state? Ever? Or, as an alternative, welcome Palestineans as part of the Israeli state and give them full civil rights? These are questions that need to answered.

So, a soldier moves into a civilian home, a person who has been displaced and may be under attack for no reason at the UN school in which they and their family are hiding, and this soldier has the audacity to tell them to “Take responsibility for yourself, your family, your people, and start to take control of your destiny.”

I was reading this letter for some chance of hope that the soldier would see how ludicrous the situation was, and possibly some similarity with his own life. Why doesn’t he take some responsibility for the situation as well? He wants this family to somehow topple Hamas over some clumsy rockets that may or may not hit anyone but doesn’t want to turn his views on to one of the most impressive, technologically advanced militaries on thep lanet who have the ability to target anything and yet still kill thousands of civilians and hit nonmilitary targets to staggering degree.

There was no engagement and no sympathy. What little empathy might have been there was overshadowed with condescention and blanket incrimination. Let’s remember, this wasa guy with a gun invading a home of people who were themselves displaced refugees of a war.

Yeah, that is an important aspect as well: Here we have someone who is part of an extremely powerful army, personally well armed and well protected, with his loved ones safe and sound back in Israel, taking part in a meticulously planned operation against Hamas. But unable to do anything meaningful against them.

And this aforementioned guy now expects an unarmed, unprotected civilian, who would risk the lives of his family by every act of disobedience, to be able to topple Hamas somehow?

That goes beyond simple naivite, it’s delusional.

so Drew and Koshiro, is it very normal to be in a country expecting projectiles or rockets to fall on your heads or on the school in your neighborhood and consider it a normal way to live? Then you are expected to do nothing about it? I agree this is normal in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan but not in the rest of the world. I think what you are saying is garbage.
Those civilians elected Hamas and consequently they voted for that way of life. They voted for war and war they got. One dead person is too much but when you vote for war do not expect roses.

What you utter is simply an attempted justification to kill people – of course, as “collateral damage” – and does not at all address any of the problems in this letter. We are concerned with the course of action this “unknown soldier” suggests in order to achieve peace and how this peace is supposed to look like. Let me repeat and ask you directly:

Singapore, mentioned as an example for Gaza, has full sovereignty over a compact, contiguous territory, internationally respected borders it controls itself, complete control over its own internal affairs – including among other things its airspace and territorial waters – and a small, but quite powerful, military force with which to defend itself.
All these things are necessary for a nation to truly be able to chart its own destiny and prosper in security. They are also necessary for the citizens to live in freedom and dignity. Israelis should know, having achieved these things for themselves and being rightfully proud of it.
Would you, if it were up to you, grant any of these to a hypothetical Palestinean state? Ever? Or, as an alternative, welcome Palestineans as part of the Israeli state and give them full civil rights?
Please refrain from answers like “we can’t do that unless Hamas….” Just assume their attitudes will change or, if you like, assume they will be swept away by a “civil uprising”. Would you agree to do it then?

Kishiro, I don’t think you really have a clue about how your comments, taken as a whole sound. It’s like you have this whole list of complaints against Israel, and you will throw them out there and hope some will stick.

First you write that to stage a civil uprising against Hamas would be “suicidal.” But then you wonder why Israel doesn’t just leave Hamas alone and allow Gaza to have full sovereignty. Given that the goal of Hamas is the destruction of Israel, all Israel, I would think that you have answered your own question. Perhaps, as it sounds like from the comments at the end of your last post, you think that if Israel lets Gaza have open borders, Hamas will somehow spontaneously change its ideology. (You should really read all of Abu Toameh’s comments.) How would this happen, since you indicate in your first post that Hamas cannot be removed from power. (Of course even Monty Python knows all political power comes from the consent of the governed.) Suicidal, you said.

Maybe you meant your last comments to be hypothetical, but of course we don’t live in a hypothetical world. If Israel gave Gaza full sovereignty, would you be willing to go there and fight and die if Hamas continued attacking Israel? Would you be willing to have your father, mother, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, friends etc… go there and fight and die on Israel’s behalf?

It’s easy to engage in hypotheticals when you and your loved ones won’t be doing any of the fighting or dying, real or hypothetical. (And by the way I’m not Israeli.) Despite the very real risks faced by Israel, it has offered the Palestinians a path to statehood. So far, the Palestinians have rejected those offers as not being good enough.

Let me tell you how I see your comments. Israel should let Gaza have open borders and full sovereignty even though Hamas, the government of Gaza, has vowed to destroy Israel. If Hamas continues to fire rockets at Israel, or send suicide bombers, or attack in any other way, your response will be that Israel should simply accept the attacks, since they don’t kill that many people. If Israel does respond, you will of course criticize Israel for its disproportionate use of force. For you, anything Israel does will always be wrong.

And you expect to be taken seriously? If you think Israel has no right to exist, just admit it so we’ll know exactly who and what you are.

No, I didn’t ask Israel to leave Hamas alone. Not at all. I asked in an earlier post how unarmed civilians should force Hamas out of Gaza when the over-armed IDF couldn’t. You have an answer? Let’s hear it.

As for questions regarding sovereignty etc, I specifically requested, to no avail apparently:
“Please refrain from answers like “we can’t do that unless Hamas….” Just assume their attitudes will change or, if you like, assume they will be swept away by a “civil uprising”. Would you agree to do it then?”
If you still assume that I asked you to “leave Hamas alone”, I can only assume you did not read my post. Read it again. Then answer.

I can also rephrase the question as an hypothetical answer to the call for a “civil uprising”:
If I start a civil uprising and we succeed in chasing Hamas out, will you let us have open borders, full sovereignty, our own security forces, free access to our relatives on the West Bank, etc. etc.? In short, what would you give us in return?
Because if your answer is either “nothing” or “I can’t say”, that’s not an incentive.

Koshiro, I can’t speak for Israelis, but I think everything has to be prefaced with “If Hamas,” or “If the Palestinians,” because until the Palestinians can accept Israel as a Jewish majority state, these’s simply no way forward. For the last 60 plus years, the Palestinians have taken an all or nothing approach, and I’m not certain that’s changed. Certainly, there’s a high level of Israeli mistrust over Palestinian intentions, especially given the Hamas position and the level of support for Hamas.

I think the Israeli reservist spells out pretty well what would happen if Hamas and those that share its ideology were removed. I don’t know why you can’t see that, but hopefully the Palestinians who read the letter can.

The Israeli position is clear, and has been for the last nine or 10 years, and the letter echoes this. If most Israelis believed the Palestinians would leave them alone, they would be more than happy to let the Palestinians have their own country. The Palestinians have been offered a state on 90 plus percent of the West Bank (the exact amount seems to float), plus all of Gaza, along with some land trades and some sort of connection between Gaza and the West Bank. Something close to this was offered in 2000 and rejected by Arafat. Something like this was offered last year if I remember right. And if I remember right, Abbas rejected it.

I assume any Palestinian state will have limitations on weapons, and there will international monitoring to insure compliance. Given the mistrust and the Arab position on Israel, this is quite reasonable. It’s also not unprecedented. Egypt agreed to military restrictions in the Sinai, and many countries have managed to survive and thrive with various restrictions. Finland, for instance, had weapons and size restrictions placed on its armed forces after WWII ended. If you went to Helsinki, on an island in the harbor, there was for a long time one of the submarines the Fins were forced to scuttle. (I don’t know if it’s still there.) Eventually many restrictions were lifted. If Palestine proved to be a good neighbor, I think it’s would be perfectly reasonable to re-negotiate conditions. Although, if Israel and Palestine were at peace, why waste the money.

Instead of asking what Israel will do for the Palestinians, maybe try looking at it from another point of view. Israel left S. Lebanon (and Lebanon has full sovereignty) and all they got for it was rockets and kidnappings and conflict and condemnation when it tried to defend itself. Israel left Gaza and all they got for it was rockets and kidnappings and conflict and international commendation when it tried to defend itself. That’s not much of an incentive to give up more territory. What are the Palestinians offering?

And before talking about the blockade again, remember that before Hamas came to power, the crossing Gaza to Egypt was open, and I believe Gaza had access to Israel for goods, but that people couldn’t move easily. Others here can probably provide more details. If the Palestinians had been able to refrain from attacking Israel, I think they could have made a legitimate case for more control over their borders. But they didn’t, and it became a wasted opportunity. To believe everything should happen at once is foolish.

I’m Jewish, but not Israeli. I hope some Israelis will jump in and comment. I suspect none have (Ibraheem isn’t Israeli either) because of how your comments sound. If you were Palestinian, your questions would be one thing. But because the Israelis have answered them many times, and the reservist’s letter also answers them, and you are a self-described outsider to the conflict, your comments make you sound like a troll who simply wants to complain about Israel. I hope I’m wrong about that though.

1. I had specifically asked you not to take cover behind the “if Hamas” stuff because, as you might recognize, it serves as a convenient excuse not to answer.

2. Then you state that this supposed Israeli reservist’s visions would come true if Hamas were ousted.
How? You seriously believe that these grand dreams of Singapore-like prosperity will magically come true? If there is still a blockade? If Gaza inhabitants still can neither trade nor travel? If Gaza has neither a seaport nor an airport? Because, you know, you haven’t said anything substantial about these crucial issues, let alone sovereignty and security. Should Israel end the blockade, lift travel and trade restrictions, and allow reconstruction of airports and seaports if Hamas is ousted? Can you answer this time? Because if you can’t even say what Israel should do after your proposed “civil uprising” against Hamas, this whole thing is entirely pointless.

(And IMHO, the “Singapore” thing would still be mighty naive if all those conditions were met. History and geography are too different.)

3. Now you get back to answering the questions by stating that “Israelis would be more than happy to let the Palestinians have their own country”, and you maintain that Israeli proposals to that effect are already there. Let me tell you that you are somewhat misinformed. The Israeli position was clearly that any Palestinian entity to emerge would have a conditional sovereignty – that is, no sovereignty – in key areas, among them:
- Use of airspace (to be submitted under overriding Israeli control.)
- Use of electromagnetic sphere (ditto.)
- Territorial integrity (IDF demanded right to operate inside Palestinian “state”.)
- Security (Israel demanded that the Palestinian “state” would be completely demilitarized.)
- Borders (Israel demanded control, and would have at best accepted international monitoring.)
If these proposals – which you can read up in the various protocols, for example of the Taba talks – are to be taken as an answer to the question if you would ever agree for Palestinians to live as free citizins of a free, sovereign state, the answer is a flat “no.” You’d say they shall never have this opportunity, because these conditions were meant to be permanent.

And that doesn’t even touch upon territorial issues (like “swapping” prime land which cuts the Palestinian “state” into pieces for uninhabitable deserts), water reserves (the lion’s share of which Israel sought to control), etc. etc.

The Taba talks in which these proposals were made were, by the way, not “rejected” by Palestinian leaders but were discontinued by Ariel Sharon – because they were too “soft” on the Palestinians, of course.

Moreover, Palestinians – and the world at large – are not stupid. When Israel says the two-state-solution is on the table, and yet continues to build and expand settlements at a higher rate than ever before, one can draw certain conclusions about the sincerity of these statements. Nevermind Netanyahu, likely winner of the next Israeli election, whose party explicitly denies any Palestinian right to statehood.

4. The letter, in an extremely patronizing tone, paints things in a simple light – “just be nice and peaceful and everything will be all right”. Things are not that simple. There are complicated and difficult political issues at hand, and none of these are adressed in this condescending documentation of naivite. I hope you are smart enough to see this.

Koshiro, let me state for you an analogy. Assume I am a guy who has a house with my children and pets living in the house. Let me assume i have a lousy neighbor on my south and another lousy neighbor, his brother, on the north.

So this guy thinks i should not be in my house so this, sudden Neighbor, sets his children on my house and my family. One of his children shoots Bibi gun from one window on my on my family member, another shoots 12 mm mini shot guns from another window, another just fires fire crackers in middle of night and another just shoots sling shots. I have about 20 children so one gets killed, another loses an eye, and my dog might lose a leg. All over 8 years.

So my children are terrified and want to move from the south side of my house to the north side. The southern neighbor tells his northern brother to see what he is doing and to do the same. Every body in the neighborhood is telling me to stay calm and to be patient till my neighbor becomes rational. Despite the fact that i tell my neighbor that i just want to live in peace and that he should behave otherwise i will make him suffer.

In the end i decide to shoot at any window from which my house is under fire so my neighbor’s family members get killed as a consequence. All people start telling me that i am using excessive power and that my answer is disproportionate. However, my neighbor learns a lesson and his family members are telling him to calm down and that he is not bein rational or reasonable. My neighbor is just saying that he won and that his dead children made the whole world hate me………. But i got a more stable situation and my neighbor knows he can not Bullshit his way around any more despite the fact that he is putting a brave face and he is still telling every body that i am a criminal…………

Frankly, i think you can rationallize all your garbage theory and name calling or your hate for me. I know i am fighting back and i am not helpless. and i don’t even have to read your garbage any more or pay attention to its content.

This scenario….
a) does not have anything to do with the reservist’s letter, which at least superficially, though naively and condescendingly promotes peace, instead of your flat-out justification for violence
b) is entirely nonsensical, because communities of millions of people, like states, aren’t families
c) does not answer any of the questions I posed.

P.S.: And no neighbouring family of any kind could have a large enough number of children (and adults) for you to kill to even approximate equivalency to the ratio between killed Israelis and killed Palestinians in that scenario.

Koshiro, the whole point of the negotiations with Abbas is to create an independent Palestinian State bordering our independent Jewish State. The point is to have two wholly independent countries. That can’t and won’t happen as long as you have an entity such as Hamas in power who not only doesn’t agree to the establishment of a Palestinian State but also refuses to cease attacking the other country –and refuses to cease attacking other Palestinians who do want a Palestinian State.

As far as building and expanding settlements that is not happening –the settlements that are being built in (places like Gilo, Ma’alah Adumim, Ariel) are not even on the negotiating table as far as borders go as they will be retained by Israel and equivalent land given in exchange. That is such a given that they were not even discussed in the last eight years as part of the negotiations. The government is not building in settlements that are slated to not be retained, which includes approximately 70,000 people who will either be uprooted and brought into Israel or who will remain and become Palestinian citizens rather than Israeli citizens –there are around 10,000 people living in the West Bank who prefer the idea of giving up their Israeli citizenship for Palestinian citizenship.

1. Please take a look at what I wrote about the Israeli position in the Taba talks. Take a look at the EU report on those talks itself, if you will. They do not envision anything that could be termed a sovereign Palestinian state.
Let me ask you, personally, again – would you ever grant the Palestinian state the following, if the conditions were peaceful and nice, and if it were up to you:
a.) Full sovereignty over territory, borders, airspace, electromagnetic sphere, territorial waters, trade, ressources (especially water) in its own territory.
b.) Bona fide armed forces of any kind. (That these would be a lot smaller and less capable than the IDF can be taken as a given.)
Please, just let your imagination run wild. Assume Hamas is toppled, violence dies down, a stable Palestinian authority is reestablished, and now you have your say. Would you agree to the above?

2. As for the tangential topic of West Bank settlements. You might want to look up on what “equivalent” land Israel offered in exchange for the settlements (and the roads connecting them) inside the green line. It’s small specks of desert far in the south.
Your statement that “the government is not building in settlements that are slated to not be retained” is probably true. But it is meaningless, seeing how it can be logically rephrased as “the government will retain all settlements it decides to build.” The original idea back in Oslo was to freeze settlement construction – not to build anything new. You, of course, know that Israel has not adhered to this.
But I assume that what you meant that Israel is only expanding settlements which will be “easy” to absorb into Israel proper in a peace treaty. You are still mistaken:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1037270.html
And that is very recently. During the whole last decade Israeli settlements – to speak nothing of so-called “outposts” – have been constructed and expanded deep in supposedly Palestinian territory. Israel, in my eyes, does not have credibility when it speaks about a two-state-solution and still allows this to continue.

Yes of course, that is what being fully independent means. There would need to be a good while of keeping good faith (e.g. no rockets being launched at us, no attempts at terrorist attacks and bombings and so forth) before all of that could come online but certainly. The idea is for there to be independence in phases –partly also because it will take time for the Palestinian government to get on its feet, train up its police forces, build up its infrastructure and so forth. Even without a peace agreement that is happening slowly in the West Bank, with Palestinian police now getting training in Jordan and taking responsibility over more and more sectors that were previously only under Israeli control and now are pretty much entirely under the doman of palestinian police, and a great deal of cooperation going on between the IDF and the palestinian police forces.

Look, Jordan has its own police, its own military, its own airport, its own control of borders and so forth and we have zero problem having Jordan bordering us and are thrilled to our toenails with our peace accord with Jordan and the substantial trade and economical cooperation with them. Should the West Bank and Gaza behave like Jordan NO ONE would have a problem with their having military, and so forth.

Well, actually, that is not true –the Jordanians would probably have a problem with the Palestinian State having its own military due to the whole civil war attempt in Jordan in the 70s and 80s and Hamas’ recent plans with the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan to do a coup there. So yeah, Jordan would have a bigger problem with it than we would.

I feel like I’m feeding the troll here. Koshiro, you give the same lame response, “you never answered my question,” when it’s been answered again and again. (I’m sure I’ll hear the whine again.) As Yaeli, who is Israeli said, the goal is to establish a Palestinian state next to Israel. What about that don’t you understand. Yes sovereignty would be phased for security reasons. Given the mistrust, and the 60 plus years of trying to destroy Israel, that’s understandable. Negotiating away some sovereignty is not unique. Honestly, it’s taken 100 years to get where we are; we’re not going to get out of the situation overnight.

I had a long response to your comments, but it’s pointless since whatever anybody writes, you’ll whine about something, and honestly I’m much more interested in hearing from some Palestinians. Like I said before, if you think Israel should vanish, just say so. At least then you are being truthful and you can go back to Electronic Intifada or wherever feeling good about yourself. For you, whatever’s wrong will always be Israel’s fault.

When Arafat got up and walked away from negotiations in 2000 and started the Second Intifada, he really set back peace prospects. The agreement was dead long before Sharon became PM, and it didn’t die for any of the reasons you give. Denis Ross, who was the negotiator, said it was over Jerusalem. Others have said it was the right of return. The fact is, nobody who wasn’t there really knows what happened at Camp David II. What we think we know comes from leaks and comments by participants, and their statements vary wildly. We don’t know for instance what were true red lines and what were negotiating positions. Oddly enough, that’s why negotiations are needed.

As George Mitchell told me once several years back (okay, I’ve only talked to him once), both sides will have to make concessions in order to get concessions on those things important to them. What I think the reservist is saying is that as long as Hamas, which wants to destroy Israel, remains in power, there simply is no way for the two sides to sit down and work out those concessions. You mention sovereignty a lot. Let me give you an example of sovereignty: it’s the Israelis and Palestinians sitting down to negotiate an agreement that meets their needs, not yours or even mine. (If I want a say, then as most Israelis would tell me, I need to pack up my family and move to Israel.)

You want an agreement before negotiations even start, and you want it to fit your perceived needs, which in all likelihood you picked because they are conditions you think Israel will never accept. All the Israelis really need to promise is to negotiate in good faith, to make concession in order to get concessions. It seems they’ve been willing to do that and I think that willingness is implicit in the reservist’s letter. (That you can’t see it isn’t a surprise.) All the Palestinians need to do is make the same promise. Can that really happen as long as Hamas is in power and trying to destroy Israel?

@ Yael
Thank you. It is good to hear these assurances. It certainly is much more reassuring than the “reservist’s letter”.

Now, you say, the Palestinian side is not yet ready for this, and I completely agree – violence must be stopped, Hamas must be either ousted, disbanded or radically reformed, and a dependable Palestinian security infrastructure must be developed that will cooperate and coordinate with Israel. Palestinian political leaders must, of course, understand that the borders – agreed upon in future negotiations but largely building on the 1967 borders – will be final and inviolable for both sides. That is, they are not to be regarded as a “temporary arrangement”, as some Palestinian leaders in the past would have it.

On the Israeli side, it would be necessary for Israel, as a state, to take the step that you already took, namely to agree to the idea that Palestinians should have a sovereign national statehood. To formulate this as a concrete, positive vision for the future would certainly be an incentive for the future. In my opinion one reason for the Palestinian reluctance to come to an agreement based on “Camp David” and “Taba” was the fear that the extremely limited (to the point of not existing) sovereignty in these proposals would have been regarded as the last word, had they agreed. How do you feel about that?

@ Mike
I am sorry, but if you are going to insult me, make unfounded assumptions about me and treat me in a patronizing manner, I do not see a base for discussion at this point.

Well Koshiro, why don’t you tell us about yourself then. Whatever conclusions I’ve come to about you, right or wrong, it’s been based on what you’ve written. And don’t tell me I’ve misread your comments and should go back and read them again. That’s patronizing and insulting.

Let me ask you this: what do you base your conclusion that the Palestinians backed out of Camp David II because of sovereignty concerns.

No, asking you to go back and read my posts again would probably be pointless. I doubt that if before you concluded from them that I just an Israel-hating troll who should just go back to “Electronic Intifada”, rereading them will change that opinion. But on the other hand, rephrasing my stance in another post would probably be pointless as well, so I’ll leave it at that.

Since this seems to be such a big deal in this debate, I thought I would put a link to the actual non-paper written by the EU observer.
http://www.bitterlemons.org/docs/moratinos.html

Most of the information relevant to posts here is in the security section, Section 4. It’s a primary source, so people can decide for themselves if the description of this document matches the actual document. I’m sure people realize no official transcript of the negotiations has ever been released, so it’s anybody’s guess how closely this document compares to reality. I’m also sure people here are aware that the positions were stated during a negotiation process, and that once negotiations broke down people moved quickly to cover their asses and re-write history.

Koshiro, why I’m even addressing you is beyond me, but I think that if you have based your comments of what Israel has offered the Palestinians on the non-paper, then you have wildly misrepresented the Israeli positions.

Just to give you an example, look at section on airspace. The Israelis acknowledge the Palestinians will have sovereignty over their air space and full civil aviation rights. The Israelis aren’t asking to control Palestinian air space, they are asking for a unified air traffic control system. It’s a big, big jump to go from unified ATC to saying Palestine will have no sovereignty over its air space. Give the space constrictions, I can’t imagine not having some sort of unified control of air traffic, as the non-paper says the Israelis requested. Israel also requested they be in charge of the ATC system, which isn’t surprising, just as it isn’t surprising the Palestinians didn’t like the suggestion. Still, telling a plane when to turn right or left, climb or descend is a long way from denying Palestinian sovereignty.

Given the close proximity of the two countries, once Palestine exists, there will have to be cooperation on air space, the electromagnetic spectrum, water and other issues. Palestine will never have complete control over these areas any more than Israel will. As good as the relations between the U.S. and Canada are, where jurisdictions overlap, each country has had to cede some sovereignty on these very same issues. I could go on for a long time about trans-border water rights on the Columbia River for instance, but it would bore the crap out of you. Ceding certain rights is not an abandonment of sovereignty; the ability to cede rights via treaty is the very heart of sovereignty.

Finally, if I’ve come across as a first-rate a$%hole, it’s been entirely in response to what you have written. Take this for what its worth, but you seem to blame the reader for the way the reader has interpreted what you have written instead of re-assessing your writing. That’s a big step on the path to lazy writing. Usually, if the reader draws a different conclusion than the one you intended, the fault is with the writing, and therefore the writer I suppose, not the reader. The reader won’t come to a different conclusion based on re-reading the piece because the piece hasn’t changed. Because the writer hasn’t done his or her job, the reader can’t fill in the blanks no matter how many times he or she looks at the piece. You can ignore almost anything I say, you can even ignore what I say about writing, but it’s one of the few things in this world where it’s actually worth listening to my advice.

… omitted section on military use of airspace… failed to note what “overriding control” means – just show me an example where one country has overriding control over another country’s airspace … aquifers which are entirely in Palestinian territory – but still are to be entirely controlled by Israel – are not the same as border-crossing rivers… etc. etc.
Plus the general concept that such things are usually decided in (finite) treates between sovereign states, and not as built-in limitations of states themselves.
Conditional sovereignty means no sovereignty.

“Finally, if I’ve come across as a first-rate a$%hole, it’s been entirely in response to what you have written.”
No. It’s because, apparently, you wanted to come across as a first-rate a$%hole. It is entirely your choice if you want to respond politely or rudely or not at all to something – please do not pretend that it’s some kind of automatically triggered reaction.

Koshiro, these are emotional issues and it is at times hard for those of us who comment here to maintain a cordial tone, but that is what we do strive for and what is needed in order for dialogue to continue. It is frustrating that many of those who focus at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seem not to seek to look at the complexities of this issue or the history of the conflict in the region, but only to identify facts to criticize—no, to vilify one side or the other. This approach is not helpful or constructive. The media plays a sad role in this situation by offering biased reporting and incendiary reporting—very destructive.
I hope that you will continue to comment here.

Koshiro, I had hoped I was wrong about you, and if that were the case, I certainly would have apologized. Sometimes initial impressions are wrong. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. I do think I violated the rules for civility here on the site, and for that I apologize to everybody. As for Koshiro, all I can say is there’s a lot of ambiguity in the EU non-paper and you are reading it in a way that paints Israel in the worst possible light. (If you have inside knowledge of what went on, which would mean you were on the negotiating team, please let us know.)

For instance, it’s clear to me that in the section on air space, the overriding control under discussion is overriding control of the air traffic control system, not overriding control of Palestinian air space. The non-paper doesn’t say anywhere Israel will maintain overriding control over Palestinian airspace. It says system. I read this as ATC system. Somehow you read this as airspace.

I was an aviation reporter for a year at an aviation publication. My father was a Navy fighter pilot. I’m not an expert, but I have had to learn about air traffic control systems, so I’m not pulling this out of left field.

Should Israel control the ATC system, clearly that’s an area for negotiation. But let me give an example of why an integrated system is useful. If a 777 taking off from Yasser Arafat International Airport has a major mechanical and needs a divert field, odds are it will need to go to an Israeli field. In an integrated system, the controller already in contact with the plane can quickly identify divert fields, clear appropriate runways, and begin giving the pilot information and instructions. If the Palestinians and Israelis don’t have an integrated system, a Palestinian controller would have to contact Israel, the Israelis would have to ID the target, find someone to handle the plane, find a divert field, establish contact with the plane, and then begin giving the pilot directions. There are at least a couple extra steps in there, which means delays, which increases the chances that the 777 will be nothing more than a smoking hole in the ground.

You similarly read the non-paper in the most anti-Israeli term regarding the electromagnetic spectrum, and almost every other area, as well. The non-paper says the Israelis want to maintain control only over the portion of the spectrum applicable for military use, not the entire spectrum. Again, I’m not an expert, but before becoming a reporter I worked as a technical writer for a defense contractor in an applicable area, so I’m not pulling things out of left field. Typically, dedicated military use is at the extreme high-end or extreme low end of the spectrum. ELF for instance is used for communicating with submarines, which Israel has. So my guess is that these extremes are where Israel wants to maintain exclusive rights.

But again, the non-paper is vague. And again, you read that vagueness in a way that you can criticize Israel and only Israel. For instance, this is clearly part of a negotiation process. Perhaps the Palestinians will end up with more access to the more commonly used frequencies in exchange for giving up other areas, perhaps not. I don’t know, and unless you were at the negotiating table, you don’t know.

There’s nothing in any of the sections to suggest any agreements would exist in perpetuity. In fact, since many of these issues are technologically driven, and technology as well as needs change, it wouldn’t be in Israel’s for an agreement to exist in perpetuity. So, unless you can supply evidence to the contrary, it seems again you are simply looking for an opportunity to criticize Israel. There are enough real reasons to criticize Israel – settlements, checkpoints, and others – that nobody needs to go inventing new ones. But that seems to be what you are intent on doing.

What I find fascinating is that you see issues described in the security section of the non-paper as being bigger obstacles to peace than those participating in the negotiations did. Look at how short the section is. Again, there’s lot of ambiguity, and there’s certainly disagreement between the two sides, but there’s nothing in the document to indicate the differences are insurmountable. In fact, most of the non-paper deals with borders, refugees, and Jerusalem, the same big three we usually hear about, the same big three most of those involved in the negotiations say resulted in their failure. So Israel asked for overflight rights. So the Palestinians said no. Who knows if that’s a deal breaker.

Certainly, what Israel is asking for in the security section reflects valid concerns. You can ask people to pretend Hamas doesn’t exist, but this is the real world, and even if Hamas doesn’t exist, the ideology it represents will continue. From 1964 onward, the PLO called for Israel’s destruction. When it dropped that, in English but frequently not in Arabic, Hamas and others took up that position. When Hamas vanishes, another group will have the same goal. The Israeli negotiating position shown by the non-paper simply reflects the reality of a neighbor that is likely to remain hostile for years, a neighbor that has been unable or unwilling to police its extremists, a neighbor that has often set up splinter factions to provide plausible deniability for acts of terror and war the same way corporations set up sham subsidiaries to evade taxes and regulations.

So far the only options anybody has offered Israel to these realities is do nothing or pretend either they don’t exist or will vanish as soon as a peace treaty is signed. To think that the ideology Hamas espouses will not continue for a long time even if Hamas does not continue is ridiculous. To demand over and over that somebody treat as real a ridiculous situation that will not come to pass for many years indicates a contrived agenda. To think a reader will follow along with a contrived agenda is condescending. To badger those who have decided not to go along with such an agenda by repeating the exact same comments with only italics and bold face but not new ideas or supporting information added, is not only condescending, but insulting and rude. The only thing that might make it worse is writing in all caps.

Reply, don’t reply to me at this point, I don’t care. Unless you provide evidence and reasoning for your opinions, this has simply become silly and pointless. For anybody else reading, I hope you can at least see how I reached my conclusions, but obviously, think for your selves. At the same time, don’t create obstacles to peace. There are enough real ones already.

Mike, you make some very interesting points –things I didn’t know about how air system control works for instance. I’ll add that one of things Israel is certainly concerned about comes from a current recurring problem and that is the rogue radio stations (people do them from their homes) that transmit on a frequency that interferes with the communication between the airport control tower and flights coming in to land –we’ve actually had some near disasters as a result of this frequency interference, including an instance of two large passenger planes nearly colliding in mid-air because all they could get was the signal from the radio station and not the information from traffic control as to the location of other aircraft potentially in their flight path. Our officials go after Israelis who set up such stations with a vengeance and shut them down (and usually jail them and fine them and so forth) but there has not been good cooperation with the PA on shutting down those doing this in the West Bank and so it has been the Israeli police who go in and raid the illegal “stations” and confiscate the equipment and so forth. With the two areas right on top of one another and our major international airport just a few stones throws from the border, it is a major concern.

I am interested in hearing what Koshiro has to say. I don’t want to cut off dialogue with someone because they take a stance far distant from my own. Sometimes, of course it is not possible to have dialogue if one party or another is not truly interested in talking and thinking about issues and reflecting on their own stances, and being willing and open to changing those stances in light of new information or from insights gleaned from the other side. I can understand Mike’s frustration and feelings but I, personally, don’t share his conclusions. So Koshiro, I’m willing to talk.

Most Israel supporters are under this delusion (probably due to media propaganda) that the Israeli government had always been serious to reach a peaceful two state solution to the conflict. The facts shows that nothing is further than the truth. Isreal had always been reluctant to move the peace process. They will put all sort of impossible- to- implement conditions before even agreeing to sit on the negotiation table. And when you point this out to israel suporters, most of the time they wil come up with the most ridiculous of excuses to justify Israel’s actions. Lets just face the facts shall we, ISRAEL IS NOT SERIOUS IN WANTING peace with palestinians.

Ibraheem wrote @ February 9th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Koshiro, let me state for you an analogy. Assume I am a guy who has a house with my children and pets living in the house. Let me assume i have a lousy neighbor on my south and another lousy neighbor, his brother, on the north.

Ibraheem, before you start sprouting stupid analogies like this may i suggest that you actualy read up some history on the creation of the state of Israel. Before u make a fool out of yourself. By the way your analogy should start with smething like this.

“I live in a big house. This house has been the family house for generations. One day we all have to leave this house, leave everything behind that we couldnt carry, and walk dozens of miles to another country. Some of my relaives died while fleeing. Meanwhile, our big house has been taken over by a family from POland (or some eastern european countries) whose never been to these parts of the world previously and whose claim to the house is basecd on biblical writings that some 3000 years ago these land belong to their ancestors (or something like that).”

MIke you wrote “The Israeli position is clear, and has been for the last nine or 10 years, and the letter echoes this. If most Israelis believed the Palestinians would leave them alone, they would be more than happy to let the Palestinians have their own country. The Palestinians have been offered a state on 90 plus percent of the West Bank (the exact amount seems to float), plus all of Gaza, along with some land trades and some sort of connection between Gaza and the West Bank. Something close to this was offered in 2000 and rejected by Arafat. Something like this was offered last year if I remember right. And if I remember right, Abbas rejected it.”

MIke, You sound like a nice guy but unfortunately another misinformed person or just cant be bothered to see things from palestinian perspecive.

I quote “As President Clinton made efforts to promote peace, there was a 90% growth in the number of settlers in the occupied territories, with the greatest increase during the administration of PM Barak. BY the end of 2000, Israeli settlers in the WEst Bank and Gaza numbered 225,000. The best offer to the palestinians – by Clinton, not Barak-had been to withdraw 20% of the settlers leaving more than 180,000 in 209 settlements covering about 10% of the ocupied land, including land to be leased and portions of the Jordan River Valley and East Jerusalem.

The percentage figure is misleading since it usually includes only the actual footprints oif the settlments. There is a zone with a radius of about 400 hundred meters around each settlement within which Palestinians cannot enter. In adition there are other large areas that would have been taken or earmarked to be used exclusively by Israel, roadways that connect the settlements to one another and to Jerusalem and “life arteries” that provide the settlers with water,sewage, electricity, and communications. These range in width from 50 to 4000 meters and palestinians cannot use or cross these interconnecting links. These honeycomb of setlements and their interconecting conduits effectively divide the West Bank into at least two noncontiguous areas and multiple fragments, often uninhabitable or even unreachable, and control of the Jordan River Valley denies the palestinians any direct acces eastward into Jordan. About one hundred military checkpoints completely surround palestine and block routes going into or between palestinian communities, combined with an uncountable number of other roads that are permanently closed with large concrete cubes or mounds of rocks and earth.

There was no possibility that any palestinian leader could accept such terms and survive, but official statements from Washington and Jerusalem were successful in placing the onus for the failure on Yasir Arafat.” End of quote.

Well it seems to me MIke you are one of those persons hoodwinked by Washington and Jerusalem.

Your comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (Required, not published )

Website

HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>