Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Terms of Negotiations

Up front, unambiguous, and with no obfuscations: I'm in favor of the continuation of the settlement freeze. Not in Modi'in Illit, which will remain in Israel no matter what, and certainly not in any part of Jerusalem. But in all the places we know we'll leave some day - and let's define them broadly, not narrowly - I'm in favor of the freeze. I'd be in favor of it even if there were no negotiations: we know that someday we're going to disband those settlements, so there's no rational point in building in them, is there. So let's stop.

On that level, I've got no problem with the American position that since negotiations have finally started it would be a bad idea to interfere by building in the settlements. So long as the negotiations may possibly lead to peace, no changes should be made in the disputed areas.

By either side.

So while there's no problem with Palestinians building in areas we all know will eventually be part of their state (the corollaries of Midi'in Illit), it should be clear to all sides and the international community that the Palestinians, too, must refrain from actions which harm the negotiations. Things such as firing rockets at Israeli civilians, shooting at their cars, or stoning Israeli civilians. Shhh! There are negotiations going on, and all sides must refrain from harming them.

Why is this reciprocity not crystal clear? Because it isn't, you know.

Update: Khaled Abu Toameh (a Palestinian) says the same, only with greater fervor.


Anonymous said...

Avigdor Kahalani was complaining that the the negotiators were still speaking in Yiddish to the Arabs.

A recording should be available by tomorrow, although it may only be in Hebrew.

Anonymous said...

based on all I know about posturing manhood to agree now even to a prolongation of a second of the settlement freeze without conditions will be read as a victory and followed by more demands - Salami Tactic was what the Soviets were blamed for way back then, one slice at a time and it seems the Palestinians have been quite successful at slicing away up until now.

A conditional settlement freeze though with extension of building for every incidence including inflammatory language, language being different in Arabic than at the negotiations might be worth some negotiation efforts.

other than that OT I just stumbled on this: It is an superlatively weird argument. Is she known? Is the sainted by the "west" Sari Nusseibeh her boss?


Rachella Mizrachi, of Tel Aviv, lectures at Al-Quds in Arabic about what she terms the “experience of Jews from the Islamic world in Occupied Palestine.” While she mentions the Rambam, Mizrachi said, she focuses on the devastation of those Jewish communities of the Islamic world in the 1950s.

“The destruction of the Arab Jewish communities is another result of the Zionist project,” she said. Asked how her students react, she said, “They understand that the same man who destroyed our culture is the same ethnic group that is destroying their culture.”


NormanF said...

A settlement freeze will only make the Arabs more extreme. I favor Jewish settlement everywhere to make the Arab leadership face the fact that Israel is there to stay. As long as the Arabs say "no" to a Jewish State, "no" to Israel sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and Jerusalem, Israel should not grant them a veto over where Jews live. If the Palestinians want it stopped, they must make Israel a serious offer to warrant stopping it. But it must not under any circumstances, be given as a favor to them. The Arab mind is not like the Jewish and Western mind.

Sylvia said...


If that's what you want me to look at, there is indeed a handful of radical leftists from Arabo-Muslim countries with their own fabricated narrative.
I don't have time to relate to that now, but see the various reviews of Sir Martin Gilbert's new book "In Ishamael's House" on Bataween's blog for a more accurate - if not a complete - picture.

Barry Meislin said...

Why is this reciprocity not crystal clear?



What is there to reciprocate with a criminal state that had no business being allowed to exist, that has no business continuing to exist?

Whose existence is THE atrocity?

What is there to reciprocate with such an entity except to destroy it.

Or to ensure that the atrocity disappears.

Or to ensure that for as long as it exists, its citizens live in fear of destruction.


Those who speak in terms of "reciprocity" continue to understand absolutely nothing.

It's about time that one "get with the program."