American Jews Have Abandoned Gaza, and the Truth

American Jews have difficult times, in many ways, they are like Muslims, fear what the rogues among them will say to them. You and I both have been in Public, and we know what the rogue Muslims say when we take the right stand. I have endured quite a lot of abuse from a handful of Muslims and Jews alike... who had lost all sense of justice; they will be left behind. 

We need to help our Jewish friends to come through this, and most of them are like Muslims - and want to be a just people.

I had a friend's son stay with me for a week while he was serving as an intern at capitol hill, he was a Jewish kid, he has been to Israel, and served there.. but most people come back conditioned believing their propaganda, this kid did not buy into it. He saw what was wrong was wrong and what was right was right.

I am hopeful, the Jews who follow Judaism will finally win for their stand on Justice

Mike Ghouse
# # #


by Peter Beinart
Courtesy - Forward 

 American Jews Have Abandoned Gaza — And The Truth
Read more: https://forward.com/opinion/399738/american-jews-have-abandoned-gaza-and-the-truth/


What Israelis Hear when you say there was a Massacre in Gaza 
https://forward.com/opinion/398107/what-israelis-hear-when-you-say-there-was-a-massacre-in-gaza/?attribution=articles-article-related-1-headline

Bernie Sanders Criticism of Israel is Radical. And he is taking it Mainstream.

https://forward.com/opinion/402885/bernie-sanders-criticism-of-israel-is-radical-and-hes-taking-it-mainstream/

This seems to be the consensus of the world, Ben Netanyahu is alienating Israel from the community of Nations. The Jewish people need to stand up against his policies. 

Mike Ghouse

Opinions

We are lifelong Zionists. Here’s why we’ve chosen to boycott Israel.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-zionist-case-for-boycotting-israel/2015/10/23/ac4dab80-735c-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html

An Israeli soldier detains a Palestinian boy during a protest in the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh in August. (Mohamad Torokman/Reuters)

By Steven Levitsky and Glen Weyl October 23 at 8:01 PM

Steven Levitsky is a professor of government at Harvard University. Glen Weyl is an assistant professor of economics and law at the University of Chicago.

We are lifelong Zionists. Like other progressive Jews, our support for Israel has been founded on two convictions: first, that a state was necessary to protect our people from future disaster; and second, that any Jewish state would be democratic, embracing the values of universal human rights that many took as a lesson of the Holocaust. Undemocratic measures undertaken in pursuit of Israel’s survival, such as the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the denial of basic rights to Palestinians living there, were understood to be temporary.

But we must face reality: The occupation has become permanent. Nearly half a century after the Six-Day War, Israel is settling into the apartheid-like regime against which many of its former leaders warned. The settler population in the West Bank has grown 30-fold, from about 12,000 in 1980 to389,000 today. The West Bank is increasingly treated as part of Israel, with the green line demarcating the occupied territories erased from many maps. Israeli President Reuven Rivlin declared recently that control over the West Bank is “not a matter of political debate. It is a basic fact of modern Zionism.”

This “basic fact” poses an ethical dilemma for American Jews: Can we continue to embrace a state that permanently denies basic rights to another people? Yet it also poses a problem from a Zionist perspective: Israel has embarked on a path that threatens its very existence.

As happened in the cases of Rhodesia and South Africa, Israel’s permanent subjugation of Palestinians will inevitably isolate it from Western democracies. Not only is European support for Israel waning, but also U.S. public opinion — once seemingly rock solid — has begun to shift as well, especially among millennials. International pariah status is hardly a recipe for Israel’s survival.

At home, the occupation is exacerbating demographic pressures that threaten to tear Israeli society apart. The growth of the settler and ultra-orthodox populations has stoked Jewish chauvinism and further alienated the growing Arab population. Divided into increasingly irreconcilable communities, Israel risks losing the minimum of mutual tolerance that is necessary for any democratic society. In such a context, violence like the recent wave of attacksin Jerusalem and the West Bank is virtually bound to become normal.

Finally, occupation threatens the security it was meant to ensure. Israel’s security situation has changed dramatically since the 1967 and 1973 wars. Peace with Egypt and Jordan, the weakening of Iraq and Syria, and Israel’s now-overwhelming military superiority — including its (undeclared) nuclear deterrent — have ended any existential threat posed by its Arab neighbors. Even a Hamas-led Palestinian state could not destroy Israel. As six former directors of Israel’s internal security service, Shin Bet, argued in the 2012 documentary “The Gatekeepers,” it is the occupation itself that truly threatens Israel’s long-term security: Occupation forces Israel into asymmetric warfare that erodes its international standing, limits its ability to forge regional alliances against sectarian extremists and, crucially, remains the principal motive behind Palestinian violence.

In making the occupation permanent, Israel’s leaders are undermining their state’s viability. Unfortunately, domestic movements to avert that fate have withered. Thanks to an economic boom and the temporary security provided by the West Bank barrier and the Iron Dome missile defense system, much of Israel’s secular Zionist majority feels no need to take the difficult steps required for a durable peace, such as evicting their countrymen from West Bank settlements and acknowledging the moral stain of the suffering Israel has caused to so many Palestinians.

We are at a critical juncture. Settlement growth and demographic trends will soon overwhelm Israel’s ability to change course. For years, we have supported Israeli governments — even those we strongly disagreed with — in the belief that a secure Israel would act to defend its own long-term interests. That strategy has failed. Israel’s supporters have, tragically, become its enablers. Today, there is no realistic prospect of Israel making the hard choices necessary to ensure its survival as a democratic state in the absence of outside pressure.

For supporters of Israel like us, all viable forms of pressure are painful. The only tools that could plausibly shape Israeli strategic calculations are a withdrawal of U.S. aid and diplomatic support, and boycotts of and divestitures from the Israeli economy. Boycotting only goods produced in settlements would not have sufficient impact to induce Israelis to rethink the status quo.

It is thus, reluctantly but resolutely, that we are refusing to travel to Israel, boycotting products produced there and calling on our universities to divest and our elected representatives to withdraw aid to Israel. Until Israel seriously engages with a peace process that either establishes a sovereign Palestinian state or grants full democratic citizenship to Palestinians living in a single state, we cannot continue to subsidize governments whose actions threaten Israel’s long-term survival.

A ray of hope for Israeli Palestinian peace process

HOPE FOR ISRAEL PALESTINIAN PEACE PROCESSMoving forward with Israel Palestinian confederation

http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-ray-of-hope-for-israeli-palestinian.html

Each one of us is responsible to contribute towards the common good of the society we live in. We must work towards creating cohesive societies, where no one has to feel insecure, apprehensive or fearful of the others.

Thank God for providing me the opportunity to do my share of the  peace work involving Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan and a few other conflicts. I am inspired by the words of Jesus, and the commitment was reinforced when I stood on Mt. Beatitude where Jesus delivered his sermon, Blessed are the peace makers, I felt the sermon deeply touching me. My other three inspirers are Prophet Muhammad, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. 

 I have been to Jerusalem, talked to groups of Israelis and Palestinians, Knesset Members and Palestinian Parliamentarians, traveled extensively in Israel, and God willing I will be going to Jerusalem again on 12.12.12 to witness the elections proceedings in Israel as a board member of the Israeli Palestinian Confederation, more about it appended below.

Who am I to worry about Israelis and Palestinians? What inspires me to be involved in the Israel Palestine conflict? The following is the story of my struggle to see a cohesive world, the story will take you through different emotions but at the end, I hope you feel a sense of hope. It is a three part story published in Huffington post.  I have kept up with the conflict since I was a teenager, and had always wanted to contribute in the smallest possible way I can - Resulting in production of 5 Annual events called reflections on Holocaust and Genocides, with media coverage, and a full blog www.IsraelPalestineDialogue.com with 100 articles. 

.........................  

WHAT IS ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFEDERATION?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k9BnIWAtgE&feature=player_embedded

.........................  

THE GOOD NEWS

It is a blessing to have met Josef Avesar who heads the IPC. It was also a pleasure to write a note about the book, included in the inside pages of  the book,  “Peace, a case for an Israeli Palestinian Federation” and the book was presented to Sean Hannity of Fox News, when I was on his show. Check out the website to purchase the book www.ipconfederation.org, it was released on United Nations day last year.

It’s a small step forward, but will gradually bring about a positive change. Nothing ever happens without making an effort.  I am pleased to be a part of this organization and admire the leadership of Josef Avesar.

We have 633 candidates for Parliament and 117 for President. The elections will start in 72 days. To view the candidates or read about the Constitution, please go to our website: www.ipconfederation.org.

......................... 

NEW YORK TIMES AD SEEKS CANDIDATES FOR THE PARLIAMENT
http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2012/10/new-york-times-ad-seeks-candidates-for.html

......................... 

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC: A PRAGMATIC WAY TO RESOLVE CONFLICT
http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-pragmatic-way-to-resolve-israeli.html

......................... 

BASIC SOLUTIONS
http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2009/09/solutions-for-israel-and-palestine.html

......................... 

HUFFINGTON POST  ON THE CONFLICT - 1 OF 3
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ghouse/israel-and-palestine-moving-forward_b_1258261.html

......................... 

HUFFINGTON POST ON THE CONFLICT -  2 OF 3
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ghouse/commitment-to-israelpales_b_1263793.html

......................... 

HUFFINGTON POST ON THE CONFLICT - 3 OF 3
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ghouse/commitment-to-israelpalestine_b_1263803.html

.........................Mike Ghouse is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. He is a professional speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, civic affairs, Islam, India, Israel, peace and justice. Mike is a frequent guest onSean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News and regularly atHuffington post, and several other periodicals across the world. The blogwww.TheGhousediary.com is updated daily.

Only The U.S. Can End The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

I have been reading Professor Ben-Meir's take on Israel and Palestine conflict, we have identical take on the issues. I have explored the same idea for years; the Neocons unfortunately have become parasites of the Republican party, them and guys like Netayahu and his ilk,  talk about the security of Israel, but do the exact opposite of it.  They believe in bully power, the power that will keep Israel insecure for generations, justice to the Palestinians and security to Israel will be sustainable, if it happens through a genuine dialogue.  

Romney would be bad for Israel's security and Justice for the Palestinians. He just does not have what it takes to bring deeply rooted conflicts to heal, he is business man, either he will cut the losses in the middle or stick with the friend Netanyahu to Israel's detriment. We the people,  will end up paying the price in terms of anguish, and a sense of doing the wrong to both the people. He will be no different than our former president, operating from the seat of his pants, rather than brains. Obama had great chances, but blew it, but he will not screw it up to hurt Israelis, Palestinians, and us the Americans. He is the least worst choice now.

Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.net 

Only The U.S. Can End The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Oct 1, 2012

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be resolved without the direct and active involvement of the United States, using both inducements and coercive diplomacy to bring about a peaceful solution. If the conflict remains unresolved over the next couple of years it will most likely precipitate a massive violent conflagration to the detriment of the Israelis and Palestinians and will also severely damage the U.S.’ security, economic interests and its credibility in the region. For these reasons, what the next president of the U.S. does within a few months after his inauguration will determine the future prospect of a solution, and the extent to which the candidates adhere to their campaign rhetoric will have a clear and immediate effect on how the Israelis and Palestinians react to any new American initiative to resolve the conflict. 

Mitt Romney’s position toward the conflict raises serious questions not only about his timidity but also his shortsightedness in connection with a complex conflict that has been simmering for decades and will, without a doubt, explode if a resolution is not found soon. In a number of bewildering statements, Romney blamed Palestinian “culture” as the cause of their current predicaments and faulted them for having “no interest whatsoever in establishing peace.” With these comments, Romney is in fact sending the Israelis a clear message that they should maintain the occupation, further expand the settlements, and keep the blockade on Gaza, while inferring the U.S. will not bother to interfere. Conversely, Romney’s message to the Palestinians is that they have missed many opportunities in the past to achieve peace, their yearning for statehood is a pipe dream, and they should expect little, if any, assistance from a Romney administration. 

In the wake of the Arab Spring, however, as the Palestinians watch young men and women in several Arab states fighting and dying for their freedoms, their own relative passivity at the present will not last forever. Romney’s preference of “[kicking] the ball down the field,” (that is, letting events take their own course) is dangerously misguided and ultimately detrimental to the cause of peace. 

Indeed, should Romney become President and move to translate his campaign rhetoric into policy, he will seriously endanger Israel’s very existence, which he presumably wishes to protect, and will compromise its future as an independent democratic Jewish state while contributing to its isolation from the international community. At the same time, he will encourage the Palestinians to rise up out of desperation and hopelessness to end the occupation at whatever cost, akin to the rise of Arab youth against their own governments who are prepared to die for their freedom. 

President Obama himself has contributed to the current impasse in part by insisting early in 2009 that the peace negotiations should start by first freezing the settlements, which was a nonstarter for the Netanyahu government, and by failing to visit Israel when he travelled three times overseas visiting four Arab/Muslim states. The president went to Turkey in April of 2009, in June of the same year he visited Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and in November 2010 he traveled to Indonesia. For most Israelis, skipping Israel three times was nothing short of a slap in the face, especially in light of the fact that the President made a solution to the conflict a top priority by appointing former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell as a Special Envoy to the region only 2 days after his inauguration. To demonstrate his seriousness about the urgent need for a solution, the next President must visit Israel and the Palestinian Authority and make it abundantly clear where the US stands. 

Nonetheless, President Obama, throughout his presidency and recently reiterated in his speech at the U.N. General Assembly, has insisted that the only solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict rests on creating two independent states, a Jewish and a Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace while growing and prospering together as neighbors. Any other message coming from the White House, regardless of party affiliation, will fundamentally be injurious to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. The notion from some American politicians who have said that the U.S. should not have a greater desire for peace than the parties to the conflict is shortsighted. The U.S. has serious stakes in the region and responsibility toward its allies. The lack of peace will continue to undermine the U.S.’ interest, erode its influence and jeopardize its role in shaping the outcome of the multiple upheavals sweeping the region in the wake of the Arab Spring. 

To advance the prospect for peace between Israel and Palestine, the next president must take a number of critical steps. First, within a few months after the election, the President should visit Israel and Palestine and directly address the Israeli people as well as the Palestinians, strongly suggesting that only peace will serve their greater interests. He must look into the eyes of the Israeli and Palestinian public and emphasize that the U.S. is committed to a two-state solution and will remain consistent and resilient until such a resolution is achieved. The president should also accentuate that the U.S. will use all means available at its disposal to advance the two-state solution and stress that further delay would only harden the many facts on the ground, especially the expansion of settlements, becoming irreversible and rendering any future peace agreement virtually impossible. 

Second, the President must carry with him a general framework for an Israeli-Palestinian peace based on prior agreements negotiated between the two sides, especially those achieved in 2000 (at Camp David between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak) and in 2007-2008 between Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas. In both sets of these comprehensive negotiations, the two sides have been able to resolve the vast majority of the conflicting issues. In the 2007-2008 talks, then-Israeli Prime Minister Olmert stated both sides had come “very close, more than ever in the past, to complete a principle agreement that would have led to the end of the conflict.” These prior agreements should be placed on the table anew and modified in order to create a clear basis for negotiating a peace agreement with the U.S.’ direct participation. 

Third, to increase the framework’s effectiveness, a new internationally recognized special envoy of the caliber of President Clinton should be appointed with a clear presidential mandate to work relentlessly to advance the negotiating process while keeping a top level American official in the region to press on with the negotiations during the occasional absence of the special envoy. To avoid deadlocks, the rules of engagement should be based on an incremental agreement on various conflicting issues, ideally starting with borders. The Palestinians should abandon their precondition to freeze the settlements before they enter the negotiating process. An agreement on borders will in and of itself resolve 70 to 80 percent of the final status of the settlements and define the parameters of the Palestinian state. Such an agreement will also facilitate the negotiations of other conflicting issues, including the status of Palestinian refugees, Jerusalem, and Israel’s national security. Finally, the negotiations should not be open-ended; a timeline must be established, albeit with some flexibility, to prevent either party from playing for time. 

Fourth, it is imperative that the U.S. reaches out to other leading Arab and Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, to exert pressure on the Palestinian Authority to make necessary concessions. Egypt must also be approached about beginning the process of influencing Hamas to change its open enmity towards and hardline policy against Israel. In particular, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood-led government should persuade Hamas to renounce violence as a tool by which to reach its political objective of establishing an independent Palestinian state and remove from its charter the clause that calls for Israel’s destruction. These Arab states, especially Egypt, have serious stakes in finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, any new conflagration between Israel and the Palestinians will impact directly and indirectly not only on their interests, but could also draw them into the conflict which they want to avoid at all costs given their own internal political combustion and uncertainty. 

Fifth, once the Israelis and Palestinians engage in negotiations, the U.S. should press both to immediately begin the process of changing their public narratives about each other by mutually ending acrimonious statements and expressions of hatred and distrust. To that end both governments should encourage universities, nonpartisan think tanks, and media outlets to deliberate publicly about the psychological dimensions of the conflicting issue and begin a process of changing mindsets about some of the inevitabilities of reaching an agreement. 

Even when the leaders reach an agreement behind closed doors, they cannot simply come out with pronouncements of concessions that were made by either side without first preparing the public. For example, an agreement on Palestinians refugees will of necessity entail the return of only a small fraction of refugees to Israel proper under family reunification, when in fact the vast majority of Palestinians still believe in the right of return. Additionally there can be no two-state solution without Jerusalem becoming the capital of Israel and Palestine, albeit the city will remain united, which will be difficult for the Israeli public to accept. For these reasons, changing public perception about each conflicting issue is central to ratifying any peace accord. 

Sixth, in reaching out to the Arab and Muslim world, the President should help reignite the Arab Peace Initiative (API) which still represents the most comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The revival of the API remains critically important as even top Israeli officials, including the former head of the Israeli Mossad, Meir Dagan, have stated that the plan is central to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. As the whole region undergoes revolutionary change in the wake of the Arab Spring, restarting the API will have special importance in reaching a comprehensive peace and long-term stability. The creation of a “sovereign, independent Palestinian state,” which the API calls for, will greatly contribute to stabilizing the region. Indeed, various Arab and Muslim countries will begin to normalize relations with Israel and foster a lasting peace that will ultimately improve the lives of millions of ordinary citizens throughout the region. 

The Arab-Israeli conflict has been overshadowed in recent months by international concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, the bloody civil war which continues to rage in Syria and the unending insurgencies and terrorism that continues to plague many nations. Meanwhile, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is quietly simmering underneath the surface and is becoming ever more perilous. Israel continues to expand existing settlements and legalize others while the Palestinians remain hopelessly factionalized and aimless, unable to present a unified front to be taken seriously, and thus, leaving the festering conflict in the hands of radicals on both sides. 

For either President Obama or Mitt Romney, finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should remain a top priority. The status quo is explosive and it can only lead to a new violent and death-defying confrontation that will leave no victors behind but will result in horrifying destruction and will irreparably deepen the already existing divide between the two sides.

The United States has both the interest and the responsibility to put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian self-consuming conflict in a region where the stakes for all concerned cannot be overestimated.

ISRAEL AND HAMAS: In the Wake of the Prisoners Exchange

25 October 2011

Professor AlonBen-Meir.com

The prisoner swap in which Hamas released Israeli captive Gilad Shalit in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons suggests that Israel and Hamas recognize each other's unmitigated reality and prerogatives. The deal was unquestionably motivated by mutually beneficial political calculations made on both sides, including a desire to overshadow President Abbas' efforts to seek UN recognition of a Palestinian state, to which Hamas and Israel object. Nevertheless, without an outright rejection of terror and recognition that Israel cannot be destroyed, Hamas' growth as a political force will remain limited and potentially mired in failure. Similarly, without Israel recognizing that lasting security is unlikely unless Hamas is included in the political process, efforts to advance a two-state solution will be fruitless.

The growing influences of Egypt and Turkey on Hamas, the Arab Spring and the promise of the Arab Peace Initiative all provide avenues to bridge the gaps between Israel and Hamas. To do so, the Quartet must rethink its three demands on Hamas, (renounce violence, accept Israel's existence and agree to past agreements) which will keep the two-sides mired in a dangerous status quo. Overcoming these obstacles will require new thinking to find a formula that enables each side to save face by altering their positions to move forward in a political process.

Israel's negotiations - even though through Egypt - are the first public indication that Israel recognizes it cannot militarily eliminate Hamas. Israel could not rescue Shalit through military assault, despite its pummeling of Gaza in the winter of 2008/2009. Hamas was emboldened as a result of the prisoner exchange. In a poll taken by Al-Najaf University in Nablus just after the prisoner swap was announced, 67 percent of Palestinians said that they believe that the deal "will increase the support of Hamas among the Palestinians."

Hamas has been further strengthened by the on-again, off-again Palestinian unity talks, which it has entered into without relinquishing any of its avowed positions to oppose peace with Israel. Hamas' chief, Khaled Mashaal has told reporters in the past that he would be willing to accept a two-state formula along the 1967 lines but without acting on it to bring about conflict resolution. Meanwhile, Hamas members have denigrated international efforts to gain Palestinian statehood at the United Nations and remained fiercely opposed to Israel's existence.

These inconsistent postures, including the generally self-imposed ceasefire for the past three years, have enabled Hamas to navigate international circles with the aura of possibility that it could be a partner for peace, even without espousing a unified, clear position or easing its hard-line stance as a ‘resistance movement' against Israel. This posturing forces Israel to spend disproportionately on defense and maintain a state of readiness with ever escalating debilitating financial and human cost.

However, Hamas' rise may be reaching an apex. According to the Al Najah poll, 77 percent of Palestinians believe "that the surrounding Arab and international circumstances necessitate concluding a national reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah." An equal number supported the Palestinian bid to gain statehood recognition at the United Nations. But with Hamas' Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh calling the UN gambit a mere "mirage," Hamas could in fact be blamed for the bids failure, as well as for the failure of reconciliation talks. Even more, whereas 57 percent of Palestinians expect a third intifada, the same number opposes the use of violence. Hamas' political viability could be undermined if it is blamed for another round of violence that dramatically sets back the Palestinian cause. Hamas' challenge is made more difficult as a result of the uprising in Syria which has thrust its patron, Bashar Assad in a fight for the survival of his regime.

Most importantly, Hamas' growth is contingent upon two realizations. The first is that under no circumstances can Hamas destroy Israel. Hamas knows that should it reengage in a campaign of terror against and seriously threatens Israel, Jerusalem will not hesitate to respond by decapitating its leadership, regardless of the international condemnation that would likely follow. Furthermore, until Hamas disavows violence as a tool, to achieve Palestinian statehood and its ability to shape the future of Palestine remains handicapped.

The second realization is that Hamas knows that it too cannot be destroyed. Although Hamas' public support has steadily declined in the past several years, it maintains strong grass-roots following. Whether through a unity government or free and fair elections, Hamas and its ideology of ‘resistance' will persist as a potent force in the Palestinian body politic. The question facing Hamas today is how to reconcile these two contradictory realities: that the organization will endure, but its ultimate objective-the destruction of Israel-will never be fulfilled.

A similar question regarding Hamas faces Israel. While previous and current Israeli governments know that it can wipe out Hamas' leadership, it cannot destroy its ideology, and as long as it remains on the outside of the political process, it can spoil any Israeli efforts to advance negotiations with its Fatah rival. Israel has succeeded in containing Hamas' violent activity, including rocket attacks, due to its considerable deterrence, but it is at least in part constrained by the international opprobrium that has followed its blockade of Gaza, which has further served to strengthen Hamas' position in the international arena.

This policy limbo gripping both sides hardens the status quo. At the same time, neither Israel nor Hamas is prepared to publicly recognize this fact and adjust their policies accordingly. Each side is merely treading water by maintaining these contradictory postures. What is needed is a face saving way out of this deadlock. The status quo will not produce peace or security. If Israel wants peace with Palestinians based on a two-state solution, it simply cannot leave Gaza out of the equation. Meanwhile, if a unity government is reached, and talks are currently being held between Fatah and Hamas, some in the international community are likely to withdraw Palestinian aid on the grounds that Hamas has not met the three Quartet conditions.

Hamas and Israel must adopt a new strategy in order to create a face saving formula that will enable each side to adjust its positions. So what can be done?

First, as the prisoner exchange deal attests, the growing influence of Egypt in Hamas' internal calculations could serve toward an easing of direct hostilities between Hamas and Israel. Israel has a strategic interest to maintain ties with the Egyptian authorities, particularly in the military establishment. With Bashar Assad's future in doubt, Hamas too has significant interests in maintaining solid ties with its Egyptian neighbors. Egypt's role can be expanded to issues related to security and economic concerns along the Gaza-Israel and Egypt-Gaza borders, as well as along the Gaza coastline.

Second, just as Egypt has deepened ties with Hamas as its ties with Israel were placed into doubt following the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, Turkey-Israel ties have deteriorated as Turkey-Hamas relations have strengthened. Israel could signal to Turkey to play a mediating role between Jerusalem and Gaza, as Israeli President Peres acknowledged it did in the prisoner swap, bolstering Israeli-Turkish relations in the process. Turkey was a quiet but key player in Gilad Shalit's release, agreeing to accept some of the released Palestinian prisoners in Turkey for exile. Turkey's assistance in helping Israel and Hamas reach sustainable security, economic and political arrangements will be essential in restarting a process of mending ties between Jerusalem and Ankara.

Third, the Arab Spring forced Israel to listen to the demands of the Palestinian street. Palestinians in Gaza and in the West Bank are not likely to remain silent in a region that is undergoing a transformation of epic proportions. The Palestinians street cannot be left out of the revolutionary freedom wave crossing the Middle East for long. It is in Israel's strategic and security interests - and Hamas' political interest - to keep Palestinian protests peaceful so as not to derail any hopes of riding the Arab spring's momentum to a realization of Palestinian national aspirations.

Fourth, the long dormant Arab Peace Initiative could enable Hamas to soften its stance on the political process with Israel by aligning itself with the stated position of the entire Arab League. In turn, the Israeli public, notwithstanding the objections of the Netanyahu government, should be persuaded to accept the centrality, and in fact the indispensability, of the Arab Peace Initiative in principle as the basis for renewed negotiations with Arab states and a framework for talks. Egypt, because of its proximity, centrality in Arab affairs and security interests, and Saudi Arabia because it's the custodian of Sunni Islam must press Hamas to give up violence and accept the principles of the Arab Peace Initiative.

Finally, the Quartet should re-examine its formula for engaging Hamas, particularly in connection with recognizing Israel and accepting prior agreements. There are members of the Israeli cabinet who do not renounce violence, recognize the right of Palestine to exist or accept previously negotiated agreements. To ask it of Hamas is simply a ploy to avoid the inevitable-negotiating with them. Instead of the unrealistic conditions, the Quartet should publicly state one clear condition to be accepted by the international community: Hamas must renounce violence in any form, a condition which Hamas has de-facto accepted. Challenging Hamas to rise to the occasion could spur the kind of change necessary to break the deadlock that is currently gripping the Middle East peace process.

Since the Gaza war, Israel and Hamas have been engaged in a chess game, with each side making marginal gains, and losing critical pieces in relations to the other side. Today, they are in a deadlock, with neither side able to put the other in checkmate. Egypt and Turkey, with the support of the Quartet, can help the parties find a common denominator, utilizing the momentum of the Arab Spring and the promise of the Arab Peace Initiative. Now is the time to make concerted efforts to force a game-changer, without which the region could be headed toward a dangerous and violent explosion.

 

The Settlements by Alon Ben-Meir

The Settlements

October 3, 2011
Professor Alon Ben-Meir
 http://www.alonben-meir.comom

Both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas profess to seek a two-state solution, but still have not discussed the core issues that divide them. These issues are borders, security, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements and identity, each of which I will examine in the weeks ahead. The issue of settlements continues to serve as the immediate stumbling-block to renewing negotiations. Far more than a manifestation of the territorial dispute between the two sides, the settlement issue is intertwined with the principle ideology of Israeli and Palestinian identities. Every housing unit built beyond the 1967 Green Line has physical, psychological and political ramifications, making the issue a formidable obstacle to overcome if a two-state solution is to be achieved.

From the Palestinian perspective, the settlement issue is the albatross that undermines any prospect for a viable Palestinian state. Since the Oslo signing of the Declaration of Principles in September 1993, the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank has nearly tripled, from approximately 116,000 in 1993 to over 300,000 today. This number does not include more than 200,000 settlers in East Jerusalem, where Palestinians seek to establish a capital for their state, and where the Netanyahu government last week announced it would build another 1,100 housing units.

Physically, settlement construction confiscates land that Palestinians seek for their future state, bit by painstaking bit. Psychologically, construction sends the Palestinians a clear message: that Israel does not accept their claim to the land or their national aspirations, and has no interest in a two-state solution. Herein lies the rationale for the continued Palestinian insistence on a complete Israeli settlement freeze in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem prior to their entering into negotiations.

From the Palestinian view, if Israel were truly willing to accept a Palestinian state, it would cease construction that encroaches further into would-be Palestinian territory. Prime Minister Netanyahu and his cabinet ministers reinforce the Palestinian assertions that Israel is not interested in accepting a Palestinian state by continually invoking Israel's historic connection to the West Bank by referring to its biblical Hebrew name "Judea and Samaria."

Politically, continued settlement construction has moved Palestinian leaders further away from compromise with Israel. For any Palestinian leader to enter negotiations without a construction freeze would amount to political suicide. As more Palestinians question whether negotiations can truly lead to a Palestinian state, compromising on an issue that contradicts the very notion of the creation of their state has become a political impossibility.

From Netanyahu's perspective, settlement construction is linked with national identity. He has repeatedly placed the idea of Palestinians accepting Israel "as a Jewish state" at the center of the deliberations over renewing peace talks. From his perspective, until the Palestinians and the Arab world accept the legitimacy of this claim, peace will be impossible. Furthermore, Netanyahu can easily point to his 10 month construction freeze, during which time Abbas failed to enter into negotiations, as a justification for his refusal to accept another freeze, especially if it includes East Jerusalem.

Netanyahu fundamentally differs from his predecessors, Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak, who used the word "occupation" to describe Israel's continued hold on the West Bank. Netanyahu does not view the ancient Jewish lands of "Judea and Samaria" as occupied, and certainly not East Jerusalem, and thus does not believe them to be off-limits to Jewish construction. This explains why he has expended so much political capital in opposing a settlement freeze, despite continued pressure from Washington and the international community. Netanyahu tries to justify his refusal to freeze construction by linking the settlements to Israel's national security, which an increasing number of Israelis accept at face value.

Netanyahu has repeatedly claimed that Israel cannot accept "indefensible borders," based on the 1967 lines. He highlights that Israel would be only 9 miles wide if it were to relinquish its territory in the West Bank. However, this security argument is undermined by the reality that for any agreement to be reached, Israel will have to relinquish land. Unless Netanyahu claims that a 12 or 15 mile width is more "defensible" in today's missile technology than a 9 mile width, it is difficult to comprehend what Netanyahu's "defensible borders" looks like without a continued substantial Israeli military presence in the West Bank.

If the dispute over settlements was solely based on security or political issues, it could be reconciled through good-faith negotiations. However, the settlements represent more than a security and political disagreement. The issue is viewed as a matter of the inherent historical rights and existence of each side. This is what makes this conflict so intractable. All of this begs the questions: If the settlement issue is so deeply ingrained, how can it be resolved? Is there any way the Palestinians can compromise on the issue of settlements in order to return to the negotiating table? Will the Netanyahu government cease construction and accept a Palestinian state or will it remain committed to a losing strategy that is like a self-consuming cancer?

There is absolutely no way the Palestinians will ever compromise on this issue unless they are offered a more plausible alternative. Compromising now would be viewed as a capitulation for Abbas at a moment when Palestinians believe that they have gained momentum in isolating Israel in the international community, especially on the question of the settlements. At the same time, while Israel has a historical claim to the West Bank, Netanyahu has shown no indication that he is willing to reconcile this claim with the reality that a Palestinian state must be created if a democratic, Jewish state is to remain and thrive in the region.

There will be no solution to the settlement problem until both sides are persuaded to heed to the pressure of the Quartet (the UN, US, EU and Russia), and most directly by the United States, to agree on a new rules of engagement by negotiating borders first. Borders will not only define the parameters of the Palestinian state but will also address the settlements issue. A land swap in which Israel would keep the major settlement blocs in the context of a border agreement has long-been viewed as the answer to this conundrum. This will also give Mahmoud Abbas the political cover he needs to drop his precondition of a construction freeze by negotiating borders first, as long as future construction will be limited to the settlements that will become a part of Israel in a negotiated agreement. With construction freeze out of the way, Netanyahu and Abbas will then face the moment of truth.

Mahmoud Abbas must know by now that he has been playing into Netanyahu's hand. He must change his strategy to bring him even better results. Negotiating borders will lead directly to the heart of the settlement issue, and will require their immediate resolution.

Netanyahu must know by now that his strategy to create more facts on the ground by continuing settlement construction before negotiating borders with the Palestinians in earnest has run its course. The whole world is focused on Israel's settlements' activity because they speak volumes about Netanyahu and his government's ultimate intentions.

Palestine exists and Israel exists, just say it they do.

Palestinians talk about Israelis and Israelis talk about Palestinians, yet the dumb idiotic leadership has difficulty in saying it out loud. Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas, quit playing the damn games and simply acknowledge and move on. May God bless you guys with a single mouth each. There are nearly 30 articles on the topic at the site www.IsraelPalestineDialouge.com, I have selected a few:

........
You might find this video intriguing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WA2NlDU-LM

.......
The one time President can do some good before he is out, have the guts to recognize Palestine, it is good for Israel, good for Palestine, good for the Middle East and good for the United States.
.....

Mr. President, you must vote for Palestine now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNYmI6MlhZw

....Mike Ghouse - President Obama, have the balls to do the right thing. http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2011/09/president-obama-you-must-vote-for_18.html

....
Dr. Hanan Ashrawi - A good documentary on history of the conflictshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWODGWlpcIQ

Any normal human will not be able to see the attrocities of occupation. The Jewish people need to be free from their own bondage of hate.

....

Jew Settlers Stoning Palestine Children walking to school
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1ovdA1VZ-c&NR=1

.....

A Video Israel didn't Want Published from CBC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=4pJDR_AALE0

THE BASICS - MORE VIDEOS AT THE END

...

Mike Ghouse - Basic Solutionshttp://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2009/09/solutions-for-israel-and-palestine.html

...

MJ Rosenberg - Israel shooting its own foothttp://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2011/09/israel-shooting-in-its-own-foot-mj.html

...

Uri Avnery on the Votehttp://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2011/09/uri-avnery-on-palestinian-vote.html

....

Gideon Levy - Obama's Unique opportunityhttp://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2011/09/obamas-unique-opportunity-by-gideon.html

...

Eric Morgolis - September Madnesshttp://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2011/09/september-madness-eric-margolis.html

...

Adam Lebor - Israel should be the first to recognize Palestinehttp://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2011/09/israel-should-be-first-to-recognise.html

 .....

Reza Aslan - Yes to Palestinehttp://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2011/09/yes-to-palestine-reza-aslan.html

...

Rabbi Lerner - Recognize Israel

http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2011/09/recognize-palestine-rabbi-lerner.html

....
...

Jewish teenager violently arrested for speaking truth about Palestine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDNMVYjAilY&feature=player_embedded

...

Mike Ghouse is committed to building a cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day to the media and the public. He is a speaker thinker and a writer on the topics of pluralism, cohesive societies, Politics, Islam, interfaith, India and Peace. Over a thousand articles have been published on the topics and two of his books are poised to be released on Pluralism and Islam. Mike's work is reflected in 4 website's and 27 Blogs indexed at http://www.mikeghouse.net/ and you can find all of his current articles at www.TheGhousediary.com

Golda Meir on Accountability

This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy."

--Le Monde, 1971-10-15

1898 – 1978

Golda Meir

Fourth prime minister of Israel, elected on

17 March 1969, after serving as Minister of

Labour and Foreign Minister. Known as the

"Iron Lady" of Israeli politics, David Ben-Gurion

called her "the best man in the government".

Apartheid on Steroids

Apartheid on Steroids

by Stephen Robert

August 14, 2011

I grew up in a small town in Massachusetts where my parents headed our local synagogue, Hadassah and the United Jewish Appeal. My first trip abroad after university, in 1962, included a week-long visit to Israel, where I was awed by its accomplishments, as well as by its vulnerability. After the Six-Day War in 1967, I basked in the courage and military prowess of my fellow Jews. The eloquence of foreign minister Abba Eban, defending his beleaguered country at the United Nations, still fills me with pride. In the years since, I’ve been a contributor and fundraiser for the UJA-Federation of New York, a governor of the American Jewish Committee, which is dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, and a founding director of the Museum of Jewish Heritage—A Living Memorial to the Holocaust. I’ve made five additional visits to Israel since 1962, the last this summer as part of a humanitarian aid trip to East Jerusalem and the West Bank. As a Jew who has been an ardent supporter of Israel since its independence, it pains me to record what I saw there. But it is my love for Israel and for the Jewish people that drives me to speak out at this treacherous time.

What I witnessed in the West Bank—home to about 2.5 million Palestinians and 400,000 Israeli settlers—exceeded my worst expectations. While the world’s statesmen have dithered, Israel has created a system of apartheid on steroids, a horrifying prison with concrete walls as high as twenty-six feet, topped with body-ravaging coils of razor wire. Spaced along these walls are imposing guard towers that harbor bunkers from which trespassers can be shot by Israeli soldiers. From this physical segregation—one land for Israelis; another, unequal land for Palestinians—flows a torrent of misery, violence and human rights abuses. The West Bank suffers from acute shortages of water, housing, jobs and healthcare. Palestinian children are separated from their parents, denied access to hospitals and stoned and beaten by Jewish settlers. Human rights sanctioned by international law, including the right to health, the prohibition on transferring populations into occupied territories and equal treatment before the law are routinely violated.

David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, once said that Israel will be judged by how it treats the Arabs. This is a moral test Israel now resoundingly fails—a failure that threatens to undermine all of its accomplishments and, as is increasingly clear, its future.

* * *

The wall that Israel is building does not follow the post-1967border. It makes major incursions into the West Bank, the largest about fourteen kilometers deep. Circuitous, twice times as long as the actual border, the wall snakes through the West Bank to envelop Jewish settlements and military bases, dividing Arab towns and families from each other. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) counts 505 checkpoints, roadblocks and other obstacles in the West Bank that prevent and impede movement.

This hulking, omnipresent physical constraint makes life for the Arab population a hellish nightmare. Travel outside many villages is allowed only with a permit from the Israeli army (IDF). Receiving a permit often takes months; sometimes permits don’t arrive at all (the IDF does not give explanations); when they do, they expire quickly. For security reasons, permits are usually denied men aged 15-30. Families are separated for years by these restrictions. A married couple—one partner from East Jerusalem, the other from Ramallah—may not be able to live together, and acquiring permits for visitation is an onerous process. Children—who account for almost half of the West Bank’s Palestinian population—are often separated from parents, indefinitely so.

Since many Palestinians are not allowed to travel to the nearest hospital without a permit, they are frequently cut off from medical treatment. Stories abound of people dying in ambulances, waiting to cross an Israeli checkpoint. Women in labor sometimes walk miles to a checkpoint, attempting to reach a hospital on the other side—it’s evidently quicker to cross on foot than in a vehicle. Worse yet, many of these mothers receive no pre- or postnatal care. Travel permits can expire before scheduled medical treatments are finished, and parents are often denied permission to accompany their young children to medical treatment centers.

Almost half of all specialty care patients in the West Bank are now referred to six East Jerusalem hospitals, which have become very difficult to reach. Even with a permit, many patients needing emergency care, including sick children, wait over two hours at checkpoints. Except for doctors, hospital staff must use one of three designated checkpoints and cross on foot, before taking public transportation to their hospital. These restrictions, which apply to medical students as well, cause chronic lateness, immense difficulty in recruiting staff and lower quality healthcare. As a result, in 2004, the International Court of Justice concluded that Israel’s permitting regime violates the right to health of the Palestinian population.

The occupation also makes agriculture an ordeal. Areas between the wall and the 1967 border (the green line) are designated seam areas; Arabs need special permits even to farm their land in these designated spaces. Permits have been declining, and the number of gates into the seam zones has been sharply reduced, placing farmers even further from their land. In response, many farmers have just given up on applying for permits at all.

Izbat Salman, a small Arab village in the Qalqiliya region, has much of its agricultural land behind the barrier wall in the seam zone. A 2003 UNDP report documenting the impact of the security wall there found that 70 percent of permit applications for visitors had been denied and that farmers must travel 14 kilometers to the nearest agricultural gate, which closes at 4 pm and on Israeli holidays. Farmers used to tend their fields after normal work hours, but that became impossible, and they experienced difficulty importing routine farm tools and equipment. According to the 2003 report, lemon and orange tree yields dropped by two-thirds since the barrier was erected. If security were the only issue, the wall would essentially track the current border. But the fact that the wall’s path places so much of the means of life—food production and access to medicine—outside the reach of Arabs suggests that it has been drawn to eviscerate the West Bank’s Arab society.

* * *

On the other side of the wall are the settlements, a misnomer really. In fact, many of them are small towns with modern housing, shopping centers and other amenities. Formally endorsed by Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1977, settlements took off vigorously. Zoning restrictions were relaxed so that Israelis could build detached houses on large parcels of land, at low cost, while retaining their places of employment in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Restricted roads were built so that Israelis could avoid trips through Arab villages. Expansion continued even under the pro-peace governments of Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak. Ariel Sharon’s administration went further, allowing illegal outposts not authorized by the government. Most importantly, in all these years, the rational for settlements was the creation of a de facto situation on the ground making reunification of Judea and Samaria beyond difficult. Security became a justification after the second intifada, with its horrific violence and suicide bombings. This was clearly a factor, but the barrier also constituted an increased land grab by the Israelis. Today, although they constitute almost 100 percent of the non-settler population, Arabs have rights on only 35 percent of the land on the West Bank.

The West Bank settler population has grown each year from 140,000 in 1996 to about 400,000 today. By vastly building up the settlements, Israel ostensibly improved its position in any peace negotiation. Ironically, the settlements may now make any peace impossible because the settlers have amassed great political power. Netanyahu actually won fewer seats in the Knesset in the 2009 election than Tzipi Livni’s Kadima party. Only by forging a coalition of right-wing parties that included settlers and their supporters could Netanyahu form a government. For this victory, he has paid a price: any move that upsets the settlers could easily bring down Likud’s fragile majority. Thus, Netanyahu may be powerless to control the deluge in the West Bank, or to propose any viable plan for peace.

East Jerusalem, the presumed capitol of Palestine, has also been devastated by the barrier wall and Israeli settlements. In 2002, following tragic suicide bombings, the Israeli government approved construction of a wall to prevent suicide bombers from the West Bank from entering Israel—quite a reasonable objective. But why does the portion running through Jerusalem measure 142 kilometers, with only four kilometers running along the green line? Besides added security, the wall has redrawn the boundaries of the city. Over one third of East Jerusalem has been expropriated for construction of settlements, despite the illegality of transferring civilians to the occupied territory. Just 13 percent of East Jerusalem land is zoned for Palestinian construction, and permits are virtually unobtainable. Green areas and unplanned areas comprise another 50 percent of the land. De facto, the Palestinians have been expelled from East Jerusalem. Most were never citizens but permanent residents whose status was revocable and not transferable to spouses and children.

Hebron is the West Bank in miniature, and it is well worth examining. We toured Hebron with the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH), a civilian observer mission called for by both the Israelis and Palestinians. It monitors breaches of agreements and human rights, but its reports are confidential. The TIPH staff told us that they rarely get any reply to their reports, rendering the mission somewhat irrelevant. They do, however, have an acute sense of what is happening in Hebron.

Walking through Hebron, the largest town in the West Bank, we witnessed grievous and malicious violations of human rights. The main settlement sits above the old Arab market. Settlers throw huge rocks and garbage down on the market causing serious injury and disruption. In defense, the Arabs have erected a large net above their market to protect them. Now, the settlers throw Molotov cocktails that burn through the rope nets. We spoke with an Arab father whose 12-year-old son was recently blinded by a container of acid tossed from above. Children are stoned and beaten going to school, and Arab fields are torched when the settlers are angry, often at some policy of the Israeli government. If the government disappoints the settlers, the Palestinians pay the price. Many Palestinian shops have been shuttered by Israeli security, and 1,800 families have lost their income as a result. For the benefit of 800 Jews living in Hebron, life for 170,000 Palestinians living in the city center has come to a standstill. Most sickening of all, in a settlement called Kiryat Arba, the Jews have built a monument to Dr. Baruch Goldstein. In 1994, Goldstein stormed the Ibrahimi Mosque, killing twenty-nine praying Muslims. Small wonder that the TIPH believes that if the IDF were to exit Hebron, without question, the Jews would be massacred.

We asked the TIPH what the IDF does to stop crimes against the Arabs. They responded that the army views their mission as only protecting the settlers. Any action to contain these felons would be blocked by the government’s right wing. As we were hearing this appraisal, we saw about twenty IDF soldiers hassling a young Arab kid for walking on a street reserved only for Jews. For that he could be arrested, but blinding an Arab boy is not investigated.

How can Jews, who have been persecuted for centuries, tolerate this inhumanity? Where is their moral compass? How can this situation be acceptable to Judaism’s spiritual and political leaders? I don’t have that answer; except to say that Israel’s biggest enemy has become itself.

* * *

The Arab Spring should make it abundantly clear that the Jewish state is on the wrong side of history. When, exactly, the tipping point will come is not predictable. But when that point arrives, it will bring tremendous risks for Israel, and for almost half the Jews in the world who reside there. That Israel has the upper hand now portends nothing about the future. A small state of 7 million holding 4 million neighbors in prison, without opportunity, sufficient medical care, food, water and equal justice is not a sustainable situation. When, eventually, stasis gives way to unimaginable change, it will be too late to alter course. Israel, “right or wrong,” a position taken by many, will lead to a catastrophe. It represents a suspension of critical thought; characteristic of many radical ideologies. Friends of Israel would serve it better to know the true facts and then drive Israel toward a moral and practical solution.

What’s fair? There was a Kingdom of Israel near the time of Christ’s birth. Attacks by Romans, Syrians and others drove the Jews into a 2,000 year diasporic migration. During that long interval they were consistently persecuted, culminating in the Holocaust. Six million European Jews were exterminated in history’s worst genocide. Arab farmers eventually began living in the area that had been the Kingdom of Israel and have done so for hundreds of years. In the nineteenth century, Jews began to return as Zionist fervor and anti-Semitic persecution ignited immigration, later helped mightily by the Balfour declaration. The two groups fought constantly, for land, power and their perceived patrimony. Ending the British mandate over Palestine, the United Nations partitioned the land in 1947. Not acceding to the partition, the Arabs went to war. In the armistice, the Arabs were the losers, but they tried again in 1967 and 1973, losing even more territory.

Many Israelis and their leaders harbored the illusion that one day they could control all the land, certainly after their awesome victory in 1967. Pampered by the West, notably the United States, these unrealistic hopes were nourished. No doubt many Palestinians were equally unrealistic about what they could achieve. A big problem here is that there’s not much to divide. Like in a divorce where the marital estate is rather small, both spouses will likely be disappointed with their share. In this case, each side could blame their ancestors for not settling in a bigger and richer land.

With respect to fairness, the Israelis have done very well. Before the 1947 partition, the Jewish community owned only 6 percent of the land and comprised 35 percent of the population. The UN partition awarded them 55 percent of the land. The Palestinians, who had owned 94 percent of the land, were awarded 45 percent in the partition; Jerusalem was to be put under international supervision. After the 1948 war, however, the armistice line allocated Israel 78 percent of the land. Now many in the international community are advocating a return to those borders (with some land swaps) as a pillar of a peace agreement. Israel should be rejoicing under these terms, since they would receive 78 percent of the land available in 1947. An investment banker much of my adult life, I’d take this deal in a heartbeat.

Personally, I don’t believe the Netanyahu government is able to make peace and survive; the dependence on the radical right wing is too great. The issues in resettling about 150,000 settlers are intractable for the hard-line rightists. Some of Israel’s reservations seem hollow. Netanyahu said a divided Palestine government was an impossible partner in peace. Recently, when a unity government was proposed, he said he wouldn’t deal with Hamas.

The Hamas positions, in fact, resemble the PLO stance prior to the Oslo Accords. The Fatah/Hamas equation is difficult to gauge, but you can’t resolve the matter without talking and without preconditions. Like the PLO, Hamas appears violent and incorrigible. But Israel should remember the expression: “You don’t make peace with your friends.”

I believe the UN should recognize both a Palestinian state and a Jewish state, based largely on the pre-1967 borders. President Obama should lead this effort. This will legitimize both states, and put pressure on them to make peace. Economic levers should be applied, with both rewards and punishments. Settlements must be halted for talks to succeed, and steps should be taken to improve life in the occupied territories. Israel must regain the moral imperative, to disarm its enemies and secure its friends. Many believe there is an international campaign to delegitimize the Jewish state. At this point Israel is delegitimizing itself.

Stephen Robert, along with his wife Pilar Crespi Robert, is the founder of The Source of Hope Foundation. Its philanthropic mission is to aid desperate populations, particularly in providing food, water, health care, education and micro-finance opportunities. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and was Chancellor of Brown University from 1998-2007. In 1979, Robert became President of Oppenheimer & Co. and in 1983, assumed the role of Chairman and CEO. In March of 1986, he became the principal owner and resigned in 1997 after selling it to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. He is also on the Investment Committee of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

This essay can be found on the Web at: http://www.thenation.com/article/162756/apartheid-steroids

Copyright © 2011 The Nation