Semi-Daily Journal

Arafat's tactics have ALWAYS played for the long term - he figures that, bluntly, the Palestinians will outbreed the Israelis and that Palestinians will be willing to take much more punishment than their opponents. It's very immoral as it ensures terrible suffering by all, but it could yet work.

I really don't think he's that keen on the suicide bombers. For one thing, Islamic fundis alienate the Palestinian Christians - an important part of his traditional power base whose very existence is studiously ignored by both side's backers (the Arab states and the US). HE wanted a second intifada on the pattern of the first - one that would give him the moral high ground, would highlight how continued occupation of the West Bank was incompatible with Israeli democracy (which in the long run it certainly is), would destroy Israel's international support, would damage its economy and would demoralise the IDF - all of which the first intifada went a long way towards doing.

But its much easier to let slip the dogs of war than to get them back on the leash. If he really denounces the Hamas and al Aqsa wild men he'll lose all credibility with most Palestinians - but he must know they've destroyed the Israeli peace movement, the Palestinian economy and his own international support.

And the main reason he rejected the Barak offers (the Camp David one wasn't great, but the one immediately prior to the elections was much better) is simple - he doesn't trust Israeli governments to honour their word. And frankly after what the Netenyahu government did post-Oslo (with Sharon as Housing Minister) why should he? Clinton should have worked on getting enforcement mechanisms into place (ie credible threats of heavy sanctions) before getting down to details of territory.

Haven't read the Atlantic Monthly article. But I've been following the "Council for Peace and Security". It's an association of retired high officers in the IDF, Mossad and Shin-Bet. (http://www.peace-security.org.il/enghome.html)

The retired generals don't seem to think that a military occupation of the West Bank is an "essentially military and security determination". They're calling for unilateral separation, the dismantling of isolated settlements to "shorten the lines of defense", as the best way to improve Israel's security.

Then again, such a plan has some similarities to Mizna's proposal in the last election, and that was trounced at the polls.

What I never see discussed is the economic prospect for Palestine after a resolution. The Palestinians in the West Bank are a land locked people in the midst of impoverished fellow-Arabs in Lebanon, Syria and Egypt and impoverished Palestinians in Jordan. Once they achieve self-determination they are likely to lose much of the international relief their current situation "entitles" them.

Any resolution will require the conceding of the "right of return" issue by the Palestinians. That issue will return as the explanation for the inevitable economic failure of any Palestinian state and so will the violence.

CMike any stable and enduring settlement has to include MASSIVE international aid - Clinton's approach was built on that. I can't see this Administration being keen (though actually it would be a bargain for American taxpayers), and even if they were it would only work if others put lots of money in too - and the Bushies have gone out of their way to alienate potential donors.

My thinking is that Israel will expel the Palistinians as a whole and drive them into Jordan. This seems to be the solution that is preferred by the hard- right in Israel and they are the ones calling the shots now.

Syria and Iran in particular wish to destroy Israel, and are supporting terrorism against Israel. When the Palestinian government finally turns against terrorism there will be every possibility even likelihood of returning to the conditions for peace and a Palestinian state negotiated for by President Clinton and Senator Mitchell.

Palestinian suicide bombers killed 7 in Jerusalem today. Israel cannot stop all attacks and its economy is is the tank. So Israel can look forward to 10 years like the last two years (or last six months); that's acceptable?

The greatest period of Israeli security was in the 1990s when the Oslo peace process was proceeding. The Taba Proposed Agreement of January 2001 is still viable. Once meaningful progress is once again seen as possible, support for suicide bombers on the West Bank and Gaza will begin to evaporate.

On the right of return, why not a symbolic recognition of Palestinian aspirations tied to net Jewish emigration to Israel (e.g., at a low 1 to 5 ratio and not to exceed 25,000 in any year).

A Democratic Presidential should both take a tougher line on Islamic Jihad and Hamas, support Israeli security concerns but forthrightly state that new settlement activity on the West Bank and Gaza must stop immediately (as Bush himself demanded and then dropped) or financial aid to Israel will be withheld beginning on January 20, 2005.

President Clinton wished the Palestinian right of return to be addressed by Isralei property payments to Palestinian families. There was much support in Israel for the approach. There is a need for continual negotiation even in the terrible midst of violence, and it is time for the Europeans to lend support for a peace process and make it clear that Israel must be fully protected.

The assertion that Arafat "unleashed" the terrorists, etc, etc, - what is the documentation for this post hoc telepathic account of Arafat's intentions and actions? Please let us in on this juicy inside stuff. One could get the impression, by reading lots of newspapers from around the world and surfing the web, that Hamas et al have rejected Arafat's authority over them.

The assertion that Arafat "unleashed" the terrorists, etc, etc, - what is the documentation for this post hoc telepathic account of Arafat's intentions and actions? Please let us in on this juicy inside stuff. One could get the impression, by reading lots of newspapers from around the world and surfing the web, that Hamas et al have rejected Arafat's authority over them.

Yes, and too.

Here's the article on Hezbollah setting up a branch office in Baghdad. The bigger story is that everybody else is forming a militia.

-- Josh Marshall

Once of Saddam's foreign minister said (prior to the war) that Bush would turn Iraq into "Greater Israeli" and it looks like Bush is doing a pretty darn good job of destroying the peace in the Middle East.

My, Dr. DeLong certainly does put great stock in the propaganda eminating from the Israeli Defense Force and its American assets.

Let's ignore everything the Israelis have done since 1967 to make a two-state solution impossible. Let's ignore the more basic questions of Israeli's legitimacy as a settler state in region colonized by the West after World War I. Let's even ignore the looming demographic wave that will soon complete the transformation of Israel into an apartheid settler state.

Let's just flush all that down the memory hole, and focus instead on Yasser Arafat -- the demon in the keffiah -- and his horrible suicide bombers.

Killing innocent civilians with suicide bombs is SO much nastier than doing it with F-16s, no?

But of course, the IDF has to have spotters on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza to call in those F-16 strikes. And an occupation army on the ground to protect those spotters. And armored bulldozers to crush the stray Western protestor.

And while we're at it, why not an American occupation army in Iraq (and who knows, maybe other places as well in due time) to keep the neighbors quiet?

All I can say, Dr. DeLong, is that if you truly buy Carter's drivel, then quit bitching about the Bush Administration's conduct of the war in Iraq. Because as far as I can see, they are doing exactly what needs to be done to make the IDF's "tactical" approach strategically viable.

Some free advice: Stick to economics, Brad. Because when it comes to the Middle East, you are completely clueless.

derrida,

You posted that a Palestinian state would need MASSIVE international aid. What is ballpark on a MASSIVE on amount and what is the time period?

At the end of the aid period, I am curious as to what the economic basis for self sufficiency will be. Will Palestine be a center for heavy industry or high tech? MASSIVE oil revenues have not led to value added economies elsewhere in the region.

The sovereign West Bank Palestinians will continue to see themselves as an deprived ghettoized people. Their proximity to and interdependence on First World Israel will continue to radicalize some large number of them.

I am not taking a position here on right and wrong here.
Rather, this notion of Palestinian statehood and MASSIVE international aid is a proposal that just kicks the can down the road.

If Arafat really expects the Palestinians to “outbreed” the Jews, he might have to wait a long time since the actual demographics don’t seem favor this projection. Ben Wattenberg (a demographer), writing in the May 16, 2002 issue of the Wall Street Journal says the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) for Arabs has been falling and falling fast over the last 40 years. Some examples: Egypt 7.1 to 2.9, Syria 7.8 to 2.6, and Jordan 8 to 4.3. The current TFR for Jewish Israel is 2.7 against 5.6 (down from 8 in 1970) for the Palestinians. Wattenberg says the UN projects an Israeli population of 8.5 million by 2025 against 7.1 million Palestinians. While part of the growth in Israel will come from Israeli Arabs, it’s clear the Palestinians aren’t going to outbreed the Israelis any time soon.

"Some free advice: Stick to economics, Brad. Because when it comes to the Middle East, you are completely clueless."

Too harsh, I think, Billmon. Brad brings up some good points about Israeli defensive needs. It's hard to imagine anything more fearful than suicide bombers at the grocery store. Americans have freaked out about 911 and our lives are completely safe. So the Israelis can be forgiven if they are slightly crazed.

But Sharon has been pulling the bait and switch on the Oslo accords for years with West Bank settlements and the IDF has been killing Palestinians with thoughtless regularity.

It's difficult to take sides when both parties are letting terrorists drive the political process. When you begin using violence to solve policy issues, then you have to apply steady dollops of violence to keep the ball rolling. It’s a nightmare situation, the political equivalent to a liquidity trap, and a situation the US should avoid like a SARS hottub party.

But, alas, we have already starting down the same I-can-solve-my-problems-with-enough-bullets path that Israel and Palestine have failed at.

>>My, Dr. DeLong certainly does put great stock in the propaganda eminating from the Israeli Defense Force and its American assets. Let's ignore everything the Israelis have done since 1967 to make a two-state solution impossible. Let's ignore the more basic questions of Israeli's legitimacy as a settler state in region colonized by the West after World War I. Let's even ignore the looming demographic wave that will soon complete the transformation of Israel into an apartheid settler state.<<

Does any of this have any bearing at all on what the consensus view of the IDF is coming to be? No, it does not. The essential insight of Oslo was that the terms the Palestinians can get depend on how secure Israel feels: the greater the feeling of security in Israel, the better the terms they will offer the Palestinians.

You may not like the fact that this is coming to be the consensus view of the IDF. That doesn't change the fact.

Dr. Delong: If your post is about the consensus view of the IDF towards Palestinian violence, then the IDF is out of touch with reality.

Thru the magic of cut and paste, this is what I said on Billmon's (http://www.billmon.org/) site:

"The first Intifada occured while Arafat was in Algiers, not on the ground in Gaza. It was the Palestinians themselves who decided to stage this protest, not Arafat. (I have no great love for Arafat except that he put Palestine back on the map and has kept it there for the past 30 years. No small feat.)

But if nothing changes, nothing changes. Whether the Palestinians go back to throwing rocks or continue to blow themselves up is a *tactical* question, not a philosophical one. As long as America continues to take sides (as it did in Lebanon, earning us our very own suicide bomber), the violence will continue, regardless of how many troops Sharon has on the ground."

Many of the above comments are naive to say the least. The reality of the matter is that there are a sizable number of Palestinians who have absolutely no interest in living in peace with the Jews. They will not rest until the Jews are completely pushed out of the area. These folks are racists. One could legitimately argue that a majority of the Palestinians don't feel that way. Still, the hard core minority will likely continue to intimidate the majority. The only real answer is to kill or jail the “true believer” militants. Nothing less will suffice.

Bernard Lewis is right to point out the rage of the Muslim world. This sexist and reactionary religion, even its more moderate interpretations, has done nothing but spread poverty and desperation among its believers. Alas, our western politically correct Liberals can’t deal with the truth.

Please note my references to the Palestinian radicals' racism and sexism. Why is it that this is downplayed by the Liberals? Why is it implied that these Palestinians are some sort of victims?

"This sexist and reactionary religion, even its more moderate interpretations, has done nothing but spread poverty and desperation among its believers."

right after...
"These folks are racists."

Hmm. Mote, beam... eye...

David Thomson, slightly reworded. First the premise.

Many of the above comments are naive to say the least. The reality of the matter is that there are a sizable number of Israelis who have absolutely no interest in living in peace with the Palestinians. They will not rest until the Palestinians are completely pushed out of the area. These folks are racists. One could legitimately argue that a majority of the Israelis don't feel that way. Still, the hard core minority will likely continue to intimidate the majority.

So then do we draw the conclusion?

The only real answer is to kill or jail the "true believer" militants. Nothing less will suffice.

I think we need a better analysis than this. And we certainly need better conclusions. Self-righteous dehumanising of the other side has been the curse of the Israel/Palestine problem for far too long already.

Very tidy, Brad, but you haven't explained the settlements in your perfect theory of Israeli action. I think they should be in there somewhere in your justification, no?
You also seem above to dissociate yourself from the IDF position. I can only wish you had done so more clearly in your post, where your commentary reads as a pretty explicit endorsement for precisely the IDF's views. Perhaps now is the time for you to demonstrate what you hinted at in this thread, and say you explicitly do NOT share the worldview of the IDF, you are simply presenting it, as a commentator does. That will avoid confusion.

The moment the settlers are pulled out a deal will be possible. Until then, no dice. I wouldn't deal with Sharon either. There is nothing to discuss.

Which is to say DD is correct - unless there is outside enforcement of terms there can be no deal, because neither side has any reason to trust the other.

"I can only wish you had done so more clearly in your post, where your commentary reads as a pretty explicit endorsement for precisely the IDF's views. Perhaps now is the time for you to demonstrate what you hinted at in this thread, and say you explicitly do NOT share the worldview of the IDF, you are simply presenting it, as a commentator does. That will avoid confusion."

I've read the Atlantic article and I don't think it's too much to say that the Israeli public is more or less on the bus:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=294150&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

If that link doesn't work go to Haaretz.com and noodle down to Editorial & Op-Ed.

Um, lousy metaphor there, I realize now. However, I think that Brad is just reporting here, nothing much overlaid. The key issue seems to be how long the US is willing to prop up the Israeli Government in the face of a failing economy. $10B/yr is not really too big for the US for the forseable future, it appears.

Good fences make good neighbours.

Pick a line, almost any line. Build a wall. A very tall, electrified, patrolled by UN troops, wall.
Israeli security, contiguous Palestinian territory, aid for the aggrieved parties. I know that's simplistic, but will anything else work?

R.L. Carter,
Please cite reference for the $10B/yr US subsidy.
My last was the WSJ at approx $4B/yr. The Journal art may have said there may have been additional military $ not listed. Memory does not serve well on the date of the WSJ article so maybe inflation has boosted it to $10kB.

In re US aid to Israel: the usual amount is about $4bn a year, but the "give me $75bn to kick the crap out of the Iraqis" request to Congress included a $10bn payout for Israel.

In re US aid to Israel: the usual amount is about $4bn a year, but the "give me $75bn to kick the crap out of the Iraqis" request to Congress included a $10bn payout for Israel.

David is right. It's naive to ignore the racism, misogyny and hatred that has become an important a part of the Palestinian movement. Though I’m not sure Bernard Lewis is my scholar of choice.

The way I see it, there is a huge difference, between the Israeli and Arab far right. The most megalomaniac Israeli cannot think it possible to invade and subjugate the entire Arab world. The sheer number of Arabs and the amount of territory to be captured and controlled make even the thought foolish. By comparison, pushing Israel into the sea seems perfectly within reach for the Arabs. Little wonder that they have tried 3 times and continue to do so even today. I am no supporter of Sharon—indeed I have never thought of him as anything but a crass criminal. But, as Prime Minister of Israel he is oath bound to protect Israeli lives. Suppose he has intelligence about a bomb-making factory in Gaza. What he is supposed to do. Sit on his hands, lest the French ambassador calls Israel a “shity little country”. He has to go in, with tanks, F-16 and whatever else he has. Now intelligence and military action are both messy. Sometimes you get wrong information, sometimes you don’t aim correctly. The cost is human lives, innocent human lives. Sad as it is, I don’t see the solution. It’s upto the Palestinians to give up violence. Easier said than done, though!

David is right. It's naive to ignore the racism, misogyny and hatred that has become an important a part of the Palestinian movement. Though I’m not sure Bernard Lewis is my scholar of choice.

The way I see it, there is a huge difference, between the Israeli and Arab far right. The most megalomaniac Israeli cannot think it possible to invade and subjugate the entire Arab world. The sheer number of Arabs and the amount of territory to be captured and controlled make even the thought foolish. By comparison, pushing Israel into the sea seems perfectly within reach for the Arabs. Little wonder that they have tried 3 times and continue to do so even today. I am no supporter of Sharon—indeed I have never thought of him as anything but a crass criminal. But, as Prime Minister of Israel he is oath bound to protect Israeli lives. Suppose he has intelligence about a bomb-making factory what he is supposed to do. Sit on his hands, lest the French ambassador calls Israel a “shity little country”. He has to go in, with tanks, F-16 and whatever else he has. Now intelligence and military action are both messy. Sometimes you get wrong information, sometimes you don’t aim correctly. The cost is human lives, innocent human lives. Sad as it is, I don’t see the solution. It’s upto the Palestinians to give up violence. Easier said than

David is right. It's naive to ignore the racism, misogyny and hatred that has become an important a part of the Palestinian movement. Though I’m not sure Bernard Lewis is my scholar of choice.

The way I see it, there is a huge difference, between the Israeli and Arab far right. The most megalomaniac Israeli cannot think it possible to invade and subjugate the entire Arab world. The sheer number of Arabs and the amount of territory to be captured and controlled make even the thought foolish. By comparison, pushing Israel into the sea seems perfectly within reach for the Arabs. Little wonder then that they have tried 3 times and continue to do so even today. I am no supporter of Sharon—indeed I have never thought of him as anything but a crass criminal. But, as Prime Minister of Israel he is oath bound to protect Israeli lives. Suppose he has intelligence about a bomb-making factory what he is supposed to do. Sit on his hands, lest the French ambassador calls Israel a “shity little country”. He has to go in, with tanks, F-16 and whatever else he has. Now intelligence and military action are both messy. Sometimes you get wrong information, sometimes you don’t aim correctly. The cost is human lives, innocent human lives. Sad as it is, I don’t see the solution. It’s upto the Palestinians to give up violence. Easier said than done!

"The most megalomaniac Israeli cannot think it possible to invade and subjugate the entire Arab world. The sheer number of Arabs and the amount of territory to be captured and controlled make even the thought foolish. By comparison, pushing Israel into the sea seems perfectly within reach for the Arabs."

That's unsubstantiated guff, given that Israel is both an (unstated) nuclear power and has among the most heavily-subsidised armed forces in the world.

One doesn't have to be much of an expert to suspect that the suicide bombings this week aren't an 'unleashing' by Arafat of terror in order to improve the Palestinian bargaining position, but an attempt by extremist groups to derail any such negotiation, and retain influence on events. He may be corrupt and decrepit, but I truly don't think he is that stupid.

As for the premise that the IDF regards a continued presence in the West Bank as vital; that's most likely true. But as the ceasefire in Northern Ireland has shown, it is incumbent on a future Israeli government (of a younger generation) to trust a future Palestinian administration (again, of a younger generation) sufficiently to 'demilitarise' the occupied territories.

"Bernard Lewis is right to point out the rage of the Muslim world. This sexist and reactionary religion, even its more moderate interpretations, has done nothing but spread poverty and desperation among its believers. Alas, our western politically correct Liberals can’t deal with the truth."

My buzzword bingo card is full now, David. Congratulations! How many more crass generalisations can you fit into a sentence?

"Please note my references to the Palestinian radicals' racism and sexism. Why is it that this is downplayed by the Liberals?"

Is it? I don't see that: I see condemnation of the use of terrorism, combined with an appreciation of the degradation of the majority. But that doesn't get on Fox News too much.

"Why is it implied that these Palestinians are some sort of victims?"

Again, you're playing Dorothy alongside a bunch of straw men. But in the most general terms, perhaps the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory for over 30 years has something to do with it?

Vivek

You are setting up a false opposition. The question is not whether the Israeli far right wants to destroy all Arabs, it is whether they want to expel all Palestinians from what they regard as part of greater Israel. That is as clearly an element of Israeli opinion as pushing Israel into the sea is on the other side. Neither view has anything to contribute to the challenge of peaceful co-existence, and both have to be addressed.

"Very tidy, Brad, but you haven't explained the settlements in your perfect theory of Israeli action. I think they should be in there somewhere in your justification, no?"

-Posted by John Isbell at May 18, 2003 04:27 PM

The word 'settlements' doesn't occur in that article. Probably because the settlements falsify that article's claims. If Israel's only interest in the West Bank was defensive, then the last thing that they'd do is park a bunch of their civilians there.

The argument is pretty self-defeating. Yesterday and today's events show that the strategy IS NOT working. If anything they are increasing. That Israel needs a military presence in Gaza and the West Bank is big BS: as history has proven over and over again, there is nothing better than invading a country to fire up internal resistance. Even moderates are willing to fight if they are invaded. What do we expect the Palestinians to do? Start wearing a collar so that Israel can chain them as slaves more easily?

If Israel is interested in peace, they need to be willing to make peace. If the priority remains to shield the settlers, let's go on like this by all means. Terrorism will not stop and Israel will continue to occupy the territories fuelling more terror, in a never ending spiral.

Brad, your description of the start of the intifada makes no sense, given that the trigger was Sharon's visit to Temple Mount. Hamas and the other terror groups don't even seem to have been involved for the first couple of weeks, given that at that stage the Palestinians were mostly fighting with sticks and stones. The terror groups were clearly well prepared and may have been planning something anyway but it's clear the actual timing was not chosen by them, let alone Arafat. I've never seens anything that directly links Arafat to the start of the intifada, though I've seen unsourced claims about it many times. In some ways I think it does him too much credit anyway - he's always been far more concerned with his own prestige and power than with the wellbeing of his people, and it would have been obvious that an intifada would bring Israeli retribution against him, and on the Palestinian side a transfer of power from the PA to the militant groups. As a more general question, does anyone know of any good books or articles that take an indepth look at how the intifada started?

Do I need to remind the audience that Hamas is Sharon's (yes, same Sharon) brainchild? His idea was twofold: a. discredit Arafat's movement through violence and internal dissent, b. introduce religious extremism in Palestine (Arafat himself is not particularly devout btw).

And it worked wonders. And it must mean that Sharon thinks that the hyper-Zionist dream is worth several hundreds, if not thousands, of Jews' life.

This is pretty well documented on- and offline. I still had some doubts until a few weeks ago, it just seemed to devilish to believe. But then, I tried this theory on 2 Israelis on 2 different occasions and they both confirmed this story. One was a peacenik (well, Israeli style), the other, a sort of "moderate" neo-conservative.

I know, it's old history, blah blah blah...

DeLong: "the terms the Palestinians can get depend on how secure Israel feels."

Bullshit. The "terms Palestinians can get" is determined by how many billions in cash and weapons Israel can get from the U.S., despite repeatedly violating international law and killing Palestinians on a daily basis.

This is so basic that your inability to realize it qualifies you as an idiot.

Need I point out the obvious: t's much more terrifying to live in the Occupied Territories than to visit cafes in Israel. Why doesn't anyone give a shit about the "security concerns" of dispossessed Palestinian families?

The blindness of this entire discussion is breath-taking.

DeLong: "the terms the Palestinians can get depend on how secure Israel feels."

Bullshit. The "terms Palestinians can get" is determined by how many billions in cash and weapons Israel can get from the U.S., despite repeatedly violating international law and killing Palestinians on a daily basis.

This is so basic that your inability to realize it qualifies you as an idiot.

Need I point out the obvious: it's much more terrifying to live in the Occupied Territories than to visit cafes in Israel. Why doesn't anyone give a shit about the "security concerns" of dispossessed Palestinian families?

The blindness of this entire discussion is breath-taking.

I don't agree that the policy is working. Just recently there has been another outbreak of bombing. The new Palestinian leadership should help the peace process. However, I think things will be stalemated for a long time if the current Israeli government stays in power. Rabin may have been the best hope to move Israel forward, but we can't bring him back and there is no one of his stature that can step up.

"The only real answer is to kill or jail the “true believer” militants. Nothing less will suffice."

I think DT is actually quite right on this one. Problem is: how is the PA supposed to reign in these hyper-violent nutcases with no police stations and no weapons whatsoever?

The record shows that, when allowed, the PA can and actually does a good job at jailing Hamas militants and assimilated, especially when there is cooperation with the IDF.

I don't think it's Sharon's militarism that has succeeded in curbing down the number of suicide attacks. It may have played a minor role but note that there is still more violence than there was in more peaceful times.

From what I have read, mainstream Palestinians have come to realize that these stupid acts of murderous "heroism" resulted in massive loss of international credibility (vis-a-vis international opinion) and legitimacy (principaly vis-a-vis the EU).

I do think that Arafat should have condemned the first attacks that followed Camp David II faster and more energically. He eventually did and keeps doing it. If you think about it for more than (half) a second, suicide attacks are simply not in the his interest or that of his movement.

As about the trust thing, ironically I think too many Israelis reason that if they were sitting in Palestinian shoes themselves, they would not trust Israel (and vice-versa to a slightly lesser extent). And that's why we need a credible broker and binding enforcement. Funny thing is that Israel would never ever accept to have blue helmets pacify the territories.

Duncan asked: "As a more general question, does anyone know of any good books or articles that take an indepth look at how the intifada started?"

Try http://middleeastinfo.org
It's got a bunch of good articles and links to resources on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

A good overview of the history is A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict by Mark A. Tessler. I've heard recommended by many people.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0253208734/qid=1053388007/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-8056921-2316926?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I also like Benny Morris's Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679744754/ref=pd_sim_books_2/102-8056921-2316926?v=glance&s=books

I like Morris's _Righteous Victims_ too, but I should warn you that he's lost his intellectual and moral balance in his more recent writings.

Oh come on Chuck, condemnations by the General Assembly are not 'International Law'. And the Security Council itself is merely the rubber-stamping authority for Hobbsian adventures of it's permanent members.

I don't often agree with the Brad's politics (I do find him very enlightening on economics), but I think he's got this one spot on. "The terms the Palestinians can get depend on how secure Israel feels" strikes me as a very cogent appraisal of the matter. Removal of the settlers and a good fence would leave only the dicey matter of dividing up Jerusalem.

Well, and Lebannon, musn't have Syrians firing missiles at Tel Aviv.

Israeli nukes are only relevant in the case where 'being pushed into the sea' is actually happening, and they decide to take the Arabs to hell with them.

"The essential insight of Oslo was that the terms the Palestinians can get depend on how secure Israel feels: the greater the feeling of security in Israel, the better the terms they will offer the Palestinians."

Sadly that isn't so, in this way: the ONLY terms Israel ever offers, no matter how it feels, always amount to different ways of eliminating the Palestinian problem. Jump or be pushed is not a choice of "better" versus "worse" (for the Palestinians), but only of varying the pain and timing of the same bad (for the Palestinians) result. Using terror tactics on the Palestinians' part is an attempt to break out of the pattern - only, without any compunction about who gets caught in the works. It truly does make sense for them, and the fact that it won't work either is just the other arm of the dilemma. They truly have nothing to lose by making things easier for Israel.

So I suppose that actually WAS the Oslo insight - only, it was both wrong and wrongheaded ab initio.

"Removal of the settlers and a good fence would leave only the dicey matter of dividing up Jerusalem."

And the Jordan river... and who controls the border with other Arab countries... But it is not, at least from this perspective, unworkable.

Vivek: "Sit on his hands, lest the French ambassador calls Israel a “shity little country”."
1. If this is a true statement, it is appalling. I would have expected to see it get coverage, and a source would be nice. I'm not quite sure of its relevance, though.
2. If it's a fabricated statement, I'm again unsure what it is doing in this thread. Its only apparent purpose is a groundless smear at the French, when the subject is a thousand miles away. Similarly, I want the Dems to win, lest Bush say "The poor should just f***ing die in the street." You'll note Bush didn't actually say that. But if he did, hey.
3. I'm leaning toward 2. I'll keep my eyes out for Vivek from now on.

Hi John,

I found this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1721172.

I' write about the relevance a little later.

Vivek.

Hi John,

Here is one link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1721172.stm

Vivek.

I always have trouble posting. So I end up doing it a few times. I apologize if it bothers someone.
But I have a link that John would like:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1721172.stm

V.

"Need I point out the obvious: it's much more terrifying to live in the Occupied Territories than to visit cafes in Israel. Why doesn't anyone give a shit about the "security concerns" of dispossessed Palestinian families?"

I don't know if it's obvious to ME, at least. It's true that Palestinian casualties have been higher than Israeli casualties. However, one must bear in mind that Israeli casualties have been overwhelmingly civilians, while Palestinian casualties have been largely combatants. In short, the typical Israeli dead or wounded person is just as you say -- visiting a café in Israel or the like, though a minority actually do die in combat, whereas the typical Palestinian casualty was fighting against the Israeli occupation forces, though, in a mirror image of the Israeli case, a minority of them are innocent civilians who die in the crossfire, out of Israeli carelessness, or in whatever other ways civilians die in such things.

In short, both sides face grim situations, but unless one considers whether one is a combatant or not to be an exogenous "fate" rather than a choice made with knowledge of the risks, isn't clear to me that much more terrifying to live in the occupied territories than to live in Israel. It's certainly a possibility, but it isn't obvious.

Brad insists, "Does any of this have any bearing at all on what the consensus view of the IDF is coming to be? No, it does not. The essential insight of Oslo was that the terms the Palestinians can get depend on how secure Israel feels: the greater the feeling of security in Israel, the better the terms they will offer the Palestinians".

Nonsense. It has already been said, but merits repeating, that this assertion is incongruent with the continued and expanding settlements.

And this is, indeed, what the Palistinians have been saying for some time now.

If the setlements were abandoned the move towards peace might have a chance. As it is, Brad's theory has been sort of washed out by the events of the past 48 hours anyhow.

Im somewhat disappointed by the general level of argument in this thread, and I think one problem is a general failure to distinguish necessary and sufficient conditions. For example, the removal of the colonialist settlements is a necessary condition for the cessation of hostilities, but I'm afraid it is by no means sufficient.

The original article is also off, in that the suicide bombings did not become routine until months into the violence. Before that, it was mostly riots, rock-throwers, snipers, and a few attempts at unattended bombs, some of which were disarmed. I think Arafat lit the match for two reasons: one to get himself a better deal, and two, to deal with the lingering historical paradigm that resistance is the marker of Palestinian authenticity. But the level of violent resistance escalated far beyond what he had prepared, and he was able to reassert a modicum of political control only by adopting his rivals' more explosive methods.

I would also like to agree with the previous posters that Sharon has repudiated his dovish mutterings from last month. He is a Greater Israel man. The only difference I can discern between him and the transfer (i.e., ethnic cleansing) advocates who sit in his Cabinet is that he is willing to allow Arab helots to remain on their personal freeholds (subject to frequent encroachment for security or settlement purposes) with a political structure whose primary purpose is security collaboration with Israel.

Jewish. Democratic. The Territories. Pick any two of three.

Im somewhat disappointed by the general level of argument in this thread, and I think one problem is a general failure to distinguish necessary and sufficient conditions. For example, the removal of the colonialist settlements is a necessary condition for the cessation of hostilities, but I'm afraid it is by no means sufficient.

The original article is also off, in that the suicide bombings did not become routine until months into the violence. Before that, it was mostly riots, rock-throwers, snipers, and a few attempts at unattended bombs, some of which were disarmed. I think Arafat lit the match for two reasons: one to get himself a better deal, and two, to deal with the lingering historical paradigm that resistance is the marker of Palestinian authenticity. But the level of violent resistance escalated far beyond what he had prepared, and he was able to reassert a modicum of political control only by adopting his rivals' more explosive methods.

I would also like to agree with the previous posters that Sharon has repudiated his dovish mutterings from last month. He is a Greater Israel man. The only difference I can discern between him and the transfer (i.e., ethnic cleansing) advocates who sit in his Cabinet is that he is willing to allow Arab helots to remain on their personal freeholds (subject to frequent encroachment for security or settlement purposes) with a political structure whose primary purpose is security collaboration with Israel.

Jewish. Democratic. The Territories. Pick any two of three.

Well, let me rephrase that a bit with sincere apologies. It should be:
“…sit on his hands, lest the French Ambassador calls Israel a “shitty little country”, as he has reported to have done.”

>>That's unsubstantiated guff, given that Israel is both an (unstated) nuclear power and has among the >>most heavily- subsidised armed forces in the world.

Its not unsubstantiated guff and nor am I setting up a false opposition. Israel sees the entire Arab world as hostile. Infact, Israel is a nuclear power precisely because they she feels insecure surrounded by a larger and more numerous enemy. That insecurity is magnified by European support for the Palestinian cause. And it pushes Israeli society further right to Likud.

If the world wants peace in the Middle East in the short to near term, they must learn to address that insecurity.

Vivek.

If you ask me I think the Jews should get off their land because the Palistinians have been there for their whole life. because here come the Jews with their big weapons and the Palistinians with rocks . These Jews have no mercy they capture little boys and he wets his pants they are inhumane killing little babies that are a couple of months now tell me what kind of human does that?Probably one with no heart.