Q: What borders?
A: The line as it existed on June 4th 1967. Everyone knows where that line is, everyone knows that Israel has claimed sovereignty on the *other* side of it since 1949, and everyone - bar Israel - has considered any attempt by Israel to apply its laws *over* that line as being "null and void".

So the June 4th 1967 line it is.....

Q: But what about the settlements?
A: Yeah, what about them? if the border is recognized as the June 4th line then there can be no more beating about the bush regarding their status; they aren't "illegitimate", they aren't "unhelpful" and they aren't "disappointing". They are I.L.L.E.G.A.L. Israeli colonies.

Q: But how do you move them?
A: You don't have to move them. The "settlers" can have a choice; stay where they are as "Jewish Palestinians", or they can make aliyah back to Israel. That choice is theirs, just as it is for any Jew anywhere in the world.

But those settlements can't be *Israeli* settlements, precisely because they are on Palestinian sovereign soil.

Q: So how do you get the IDF out of there?
A: How did the UN get the South African army out of Namibia?

Not even the USA accepts - nor acknowledges, nor condones - any Israeli claim to extend its domestic laws beyond the Green Line. The USA does not recognize that anywhere in the West Bank, nor anywhere in East Jerusalem, nor anywhere in the Golan Heights.

That has been the USA's position since 1967, and that is its position now, and it is N.E.V.E.R. going to change that position, precisely because that policy position is anchored in international law.

But note this: the USA's insistence that the only way to resolve this conflict is via bilateral negotiations is not anchored on any international law, but merely to its whimsy. And as such that policy can - and in the coming months, will - be subject to change.

There simply can be no denying it now: the USA will never achieve its policy goal by attempting to pander to Israel's greed for land, because that greed has been revealed to be far, far too much for the USA to stomach.

The USA has to go to Plan B, and the only viable plan is for the USA to subject Israel to a cold shower. The first step is to unilaterally recognize Palestine, just as it unilaterally recognized Israel back in 1948.

That single act would do far more to advance a resolution to this problem that 40+ years of failed diplomacy.

"But it will look odd to recognize Palestine, and then have the IDF go in with US arms and kill Palestinian civilians in Palestine, would it not?"

No odder than the USA recognizing that there is a sovereign state called "Iraq", yet that didn't stop the USA from invading and occupying it.

The IDF is **already** the occupying power, and no recognition of Palestine by the USA will turn that situation into a "non-occupation" i.e. there is simply nothing new in the argument that the IDF can "go in with US arms and kill Palestinians civilians" precisely because it has been doing that for 40+ years.

But a US recognition that this territory *is* sovereign, and that sovereign *is* a state called "Palestine" changes the end-game, precisely because you can not annex the territory of another state by war.

But the USA would not be doing anything inherently contradictory in:
(a) recognizing that Palestine is a sovereign state that is under an IDF occupation and
(b) arguing that this occupation can only be ended by a final status treaty between those two states of Israel and Palestine.

After all, "occupation" is not at all the same thing as "annexation", and many occupations end with a final status peace treaty between "the occupying power" and "the occupied state".

Instead of addressing his vile characterizations of you as 'Neo-Lindberghian,' he falls back on the old line that you're writing gives fodder for racists. He ignores how his writings do the same thing and that even Abe Foxman has said "Just because a bigot agrees with you, doesn't make you a bigot" (regarding the Park 51 islamic centre in Lower Manhattan).

He also attempts to refute your statement of how there is no meaningful Saudi or Arab lobby to counter the Israel lobby by showing a wide range of lobbying firms who have received Saudi funds and lobby on their behalf. He fails to mention that these firms lobby Washington on a wide range of issues for different clients, and that they're not related to the Israel/Palestine issue, but mostly for oil/arms issues. He presents a clear false equivalence and ignores your obvious point, that their is no meaningful Arab version of AIPAC, ADL, JINSA, ZOA, Conference of Presidents, etc.

What a tool.

The UN tried to act as an impartial broker in 1947...and its compromise led to war that engulfed the entire region.
It's not happening again.

People forget that Israel accepted the UN Partition compromise, but the Arabs rejected it and 5 Arab armies invaded the new state of Israel. The Arabs have rejected every other chance for peace since then. Still, the majority of commenters on this site seem to be unaware of this history, placing all the blame on Israel. Always remeber, there would be no "occupation" if there was no Arab war in 1967. Of course, if you are one of the extremists who believe Israel itself is "occupied" there is no sense in conintuing this discussion. Don't claim you want peace and justice for the Palestinians if you support hardline positions that force the Israelis to defend themselves through war. You made that bed, now go and lie in it.

"People forget that Israel accepted the UN Partition compromise"

Actually they didn't. Ben Gurion only accepted the UN Partition in principal, but rejected any suggestion of borers because he had already planned to take more Palestinian land

"but the Arabs rejected it and 5 Arab armies invaded the new state of Israel."

False again. The 1948 war followed Israel's declaration of independence.

"The Arabs have rejected every other chance for peace since then."

False again.

"Still, the majority of commenters on this site seem to be unaware of this history, placing all the blame on Israel."

Israel is the only one of the 2 that has stolen and continues to steal land and is occupying the other.

"Always remeber, there would be no "occupation" if there was no Arab war in 1967."

Absolute rubbish. There was no Arab war in 1967. Israel launched a war against Egypt to steal land. Israel had been trying to get Egypt into a war since 1956.

"Yitzhak Rabin, who served as the Chief of the General Staff for Israel during the war stated: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."

Menachem Begin stated that "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Major General Mattityahu Peled, the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war, said the survival argument was "a bluff which was born and developed only after the war... ..."When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war —what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today." [77] Peled also stated that "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal (Israeli military)."

Here endeth the history lesson.

The Germans aren't from Germany, the Turks aren't from Turkey, the Americans aren't from America...
If you want to go back far enough we all came from Africa.

What matters is finding the most practical and effective solution. As soon as you have people talking about mythic historical connection to the land (on both sides) you get intractable conflict. It's time to put that aside.

Two states. Both bi-national. Some Jews live as a minority in Palestine, some Arabs live as a minority in Israel. Those who don't want to live as a minority can cross the border. Palestine can bring as many refugees back as they want, Israel can build settlements in the desert. Agree on that, and all the other issues will fall into place eventually. If Hamas doesn't like it, they can have Gaza.

You're surprised I said something reasonable? I barely post here anyway. You don't know me...

I agree that the water from the West Bank should go to the new Palestinian state...but what does the Golan have to do with all this? Golan wasn't part of Israel pre-67, but it was part of Syria...if the Syrians want it back that's their problem. Egypt cut a deal with Israel to get the Sinai back.
It would be in the best interests of both Israelis and Palestinians to find a comprehensive two state solution...I don't see why the status of the Golan is an issue in negotiations between the two.

That's how Dennis Ross is referred to in Washington.

However Ross is right about oen thing. The United States will not make progress toward peace in the Middle East with the Obama administration's new plan, because Oabama's new plan is the same as Bush's plan.

Of course, Ross is a smiling assassin who has worked overtime to undermine Obama since Obama took office.

“In the second chapter, entitled "Linkage: The Mother of All Myths," Ross writes: "Of all the policy myths that have kept us from making real progress in the Middle East, one stands out for its impact and longevity: the idea that if only the Palestinian conflict were solved, all other Middle East conflicts would melt away. This is the argument of 'linkage.'"

Simply having a chapter written in it without hearing the argument proves nothing, but if it is typical of Ross's conflation and dishonesty, it will be full of lies, omissions, and rife with Likudnik talking points.

If Dennis Ross believes that "the United States will not make progress toward peace in the Middle East with the Obama administration's new plan." then why would the Obama Administration offer him a job at State and (perhaps more importantly) why would Dennis Ross accept such a job offer?

By way of comparison: I would find it hard to believe that AIPAC would ever offer Norman G. Finkelstein a job after he published "Beyond Chutzpah", but I would be even more astonished if Finkelstein turned around and accepted that offer.

So why did Ross accept, "knowing" that the policies of this Administration run counter to his own belief-set?

I have my own suspicions, most of them reflecting upon the character of a man who says one thing but does another....

that's actually dead on. I agree 100% with J Thomas's view. it is fairly unbelievable that our country, which prides itself on separation of church and state, multiculturalism, etc...would give such support to a nation that defines itself as that of something striving to be of a singular religion. Kind of messed up. Palestine can be ignored no longer. This situation has caused too many problems for the world over the years (OBL and AQ included). Israel MUST BACK DOWN, for the good of humanity, and for their own good. Despite their belief in being the "chosen people", this situation in Palestine will only lead to ruin for the nation of Israel.

Your comments betray your America-centric worldview. No doubt, the United States is a wonderful multi-ethnic democracy. But can you name another country remotely like it? European countries all have small minorities that they struggle with, and Japan for all practical purposes bans immigration. No one talks about destroying these countries.

Why then, is it so inconceivable and terrible to you and others here that Jews have a state? Because it's a religion? Who cares? Hell, it's a lot easier for someone to become Jewish than to become British.

Dav: you are correct in the sense that Israel is not alone in its lack of multiculturalism etc..and it is not even close to being as closed in as Japan, Korea etc. However, those countries are not involved in a serious armed struggle with global consequences in the way that Israel is. According to both Osama Bin Laden and Zawahiri, Al Qaeda began as a way to combat Israel, and then evolved into combating the U.S. also, because of Israel's perceived dependence on the U.S. among other things (including our "occupation" of holy lands). The Palestinian issue is also the main global rallying cry and recruitment tool for terrorists. It would be a HUGE deal for global peace and for the U.S.'s relationship with Muslim populations if we could somehow chastise Israel for its years of illegal occupation (yes, by international standards, it is illegal...then again, so was the invasion of Iraq). Bottom line, a war against terrorism cant be won, but it helps tremendously if Muslims no longer believed that we were part of some zionist conspiracy to destroy them. thousands of Americans are dying in wars that essentially have no end unless Israel concedes some major issues. And since Israel wouldnt even be a viable country without the USA and Great Britain etc...it would be nice to see some thanks, maybe even some respect that Israel is damn lucky to have any land at all, let alone Jerusalem, which should belong to the world, and not to a Jewish state that claims it because it can. I have nothing against Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc... i just am sick of this inability to compromise while young americans die for a cause they dont truly understand, which has its roots firmly planted in the Israeli occupation and treatment of Palestine.

No argument that the occupation is wrong, nor that it's not in American interests, though I personally think the linkage between Israel and terrorism against the US is overstated (Bin Laden isn't too happy about having US troops in Saudi Arabia, last I heard). No argument that the US shouldn't be pressuring Israel on settlements -- and I think it is, otherwise we'd have seen this deal done.

My issue is with the notion that because Israel has enacted bad policy, it doesn't deserve to exist.

"I. Gaza becomes part of Egypt and the West Bank goes to Jordan with a mutually-agreed border between Israel and Jordan."

Ever bother to run this idea past the Palestinians, or don't they have a say? Of course, neitehr Israel nor Palestine would agree to this plan.

"The fate of the settlements is one of those details"

Yes, and the details is where the Devil resides. The details is what undermined Camp David and Olmert's offer.

"2. Discussions of the "one-state" solution ignore a basic reality of the Muslim world: non-Muslims are not welcome there."

Blacks were not welcome in the South either. Racism needs time to subside.

"Contributors to this blog are either unaware or have purposely concealed the reality that all minorities in the Muslim world are subject to ongoing persecution."

That's if they are not recognized as equal citizens with equal rights.

"There were once a million Jews living in that world, now there are close to none. Most of the Jews were simply expelled and their property seized."

False. Most of the Mizrahi Jews from the Arab states migrated to Israel to help colonize the place.

"European countries all have small minorities that they struggle with"

None of which are discriminated against under state laws because of their minority status.

"No one talks about destroying these countries."

No one talks about destroying Israel either.

"Why then, is it so inconceivable and terrible to you and others here that Jews have a state?"

Because they are not happy with just a state. They want their state and to continue stealing land. No one begrudges Israel within the 1967 borders.

"Hell, it's a lot easier for someone to become Jewish than to become British."

Not if the fundamentalists have their way.

"1. As usual, Walt ignores an alternative that, on closer consideration, is probably a better bet than any of the solutions he considers: Gaza becomes part of Egypt and the West Bank goes to Jordan with a mutually-agreed border between Israel and Jordan."

Such arrogance!

Israel is the occupying power in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and it is axiomatic that while an occupying power has "authority" over a territory it is not the "sovereign" of that territory.

And if Israel is not the sovereign (and it isn't) then:
a) it has no legal basis for "offering" to cede sovereignty to Egypt/Jordan, nor
b) is there any legal basis for Egypt or Jordan to "accept" a sovereignty that is not Israel's to offer.

As usual, zionists simply dismiss the importance of international law, and then blythly assume that everyone else has an equally-cavalier attitude towards it.

Funny, but neither Egypt nor Jordan take that same view, Marty, which is why they will not accept what you consider to be "a better option".

They can't, precisely because as far as they are concerned international law means that your plan ain't an option at all...

"The Palestinian state has always been intended as a mechanism for depriving the Jews of their state."

No, actually, you can't hope to argue that case.

There were Mandates established for Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Syria, and all of them were explicitely stated to be set up under the aegis of Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenent i.e. these Mandates were established to shepard the people of those territories to eventual statehood.

You have it exactly backwards. It is only in the Mandate for Palestine that you see an extra wrinkle added AFTER the initial mention of Article 22 i.e. the inclusion of the Balfour Declaration, which stated that Jews could come to Palestine and create a "national home" there.

Get it? The intention was always that in Palestine (and only in Palestine) it would be the JEWS who would come and by the very nature of their coming they would undermine the right of the existing ARAB population to eventually have a state of their own.

Or, put another way: it was the JEWS who flooded into Palestine who expected to deprive the Arabs their state, not vice versa, and the Arabs of Palestine can be justifiably miffed that they were ripped off in a way that none of the other Mandated territories were.

Because it is undeniably true that in none of the OTHER Mandated territories were the existing population expected to watch passively as foreigners flooded in and took over the joint.....

Wow, so GB was able to integrate all those white Christain people into one harmonious society, and all it took was a millennium! And yes, the whole 4 percent of their population from South Asia has been integrated wonderfully. No problems with extremism or the like.

It is impressive that Brazil has integrated white and nonwhite citizens better than the US. Know what other country has done a good job integrating white and nonwhite citizens? Israel! In fact, it's actively sought out nonwhite populations from Yemen and Ethiopia. Most of my family there would now be considered "mixed race" if they lived in the United States. Funny, huh?

And no, Japan doesn't oppress it's minorities, because it essentially has none. Mind you, they used to actively seek out minorities to oppress, but you're right, they've mostly minded their own business since we dropped nuclear bombs on them.

It's fine that you want America to act in it's own interests. The problem is when you confuse that with thinking other countries need to be exactly like America. That's the difference between a Richard Nixon foreign policy and a George Bush foreign policy.

"Because it is undeniably true that in none of the OTHER Mandated territories were the existing population expected to watch passively as foreigners flooded in and took over the joint....."

The Palestinians were promised independence in 1915 and then along came Lloyd George and reneged on the deal. Of course, Truman came along and added insult to injury.

From an article on Time magazine of January 1952:

“The word 'American' no longer has a good sound in that part of the world [the Middle East]. To catch the Jewish vote in the U.S., President Truman in 1946 demanded that the British admit 100,000 Jewish refugees to Palestine, in violation of British promises to the Arabs. Since then, the Arab nations surrounding Israel have regarded that state as a U.S. creation, and the U.S., therefore, as an enemy. The Israeli-Arab war created nearly a million Arab refugees, who have been huddled for three years in wretched camps. These refugees, for whom neither the U.S. nor Israel will take the slightest responsibility, keep alive the hatred of U.S. perfidy.

“No enmity for the Arabs, no selfish national design motivated the clumsy U.S. support of Israel. The American crime was not to help the Jews, but to help them at the expense of the Arabs. Today, the Arab world fears and expects a further Israeli expansion. The Arabs are well aware that Alben Barkley, Vice President of the U.S., tours his country making speeches for the half-billion-dollar Israeli bond issue, the largest ever offered to the U.S. public. Nobody, they note bitterly, is raising that kind of money for them.”

Funny, that asylum wasn't offered to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who went to Israel after rotting for several years in displaced person camps.

More to the point, I don't want a Jewish state in Alabama. I don't daily pray for rain in Alabama. No Jewish poet has ever said "If I forget thee Birmingham may I forget my right hand." I don't want a state in Alabama for the same reason Palestinians don't just want citizenship in Jordan or Syria. Or America for that matter. That's why the two state solution, as impossible to achieve though it may be, is the only realistic one that doesn't crudely correct one injustice by creating another.

"Johnboy, there may be a possibility here. International law is supposed to serve us, and it can be set aside when it does not serve us."

Let's start from first principles, shall we?

As in..... if you want to offer someone sovereignty over a piece of territory then YOU HAVE TO BE THE SOVEREIGN before you can make that offer, precisely because if you ain't the sovereign then that territory ain't yours to give away.

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip ain't Israel's to give away, precisely because it is the "occupying power", not the "sovereign power". It therefore isn't Israel's to give away.

How difficult is that to understand?

"If the Palestinians and the Israelis and the Egyptians and the Jordanians all agree to do something, why not allow it?"

Bingo! You include the words "the Palestinians", and in so doing you included the ONLY entity that can legitimately claim sovereignty over this territory.

So everyone else you mention after "the Palestinians" is redundant i.e. it doesn't matter wether "the Israelis and the Egyptians and the Jordanians " all agreed to do this, becasue WITHOUT the agreement of the Palestinians it would be illegal.

"But if Palestinians agreed to be owned by Jordan and Egypt, then it's different. Jordan and Egypt can invite other nations to send in troops to help defend the area, kind of like the US troops are in Korea."

No, actually, the Palestinians can always appeal for a collective self-defence against an outside agressor. They don't need to be "owned" by anyone to do that, and in 1948 they did exactly that and five Arab countries answered that call by coming to their aid.

Those Arab states failed miserably in that attempt, sure, but there was nothing illegal about their attempt in 1948-49 to come to the assistance of an Arab popln who were under attack by the Haganah and Irgun.

It has tried for over 40 years to get the international community to recognize its sovereignty over East Jerusalem, and it has not got one single, solitary country to extend that recognition.

Perhaps, juuuuuuust perhaps, you might like to consider that this failure comes about because such recognition Can Not Be Extended To Israel, precisely because international law does not allow it.

There is a bedrock principle of int'l law that is waaaaaay, waaaaay more important that Israel's desire to rid itself of the West Bank, and it is "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war".

As principles of international law go it is SO important that the Allies were willing to suffer millions of casualities to uphold it between 1939-1945.

Your blyth dismissal of international law as nothing but a figleaf to cover whatever it is that Israel wants to do is, honestly, breathtaking in its arrogance.

Int'l law isn't so cavalier; it is a system of checks and balances DESIGNED to stop nations simply doing whatever they want, and one of the most imporant DESIGNS of int'l law is to stop aggressive warmongering states from doing what you propose i.e. seizing foreign territory and then treating that territory AS IF it now belongs to the occupier.

"I have no idea what you're talking about."

And THAT is the only thing you have written over the last few days that has the slightest ring of truth to it.

I am talking about a simple principle: The West Bank does not B.E.L.O.N.G. to Israel, and therefore Israel is not in the position to "offer" that territory to Jordan, nor is Jordan allowed to "accept" that offer.

Hardly rocket science.....

"It doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said."

*sigh* You said that Israel should offer to give this territory to Jordan, and Jordan should accept that offer.

"You appear to be saying that Israel should be stuck with the West Bank because they aren't allowed to let go of it? Like the proverbial tar-baby?"

*sigh* Israel can not GIVE AWAY the West Bank, precisely because it is not Israel's to give away.

If it is to "give away" the West Bank before vacating the premises then it must identify the SOVEREIGN, and then make a deal with THAT SOVEREIGN.

And THAT SOVEREIGN is not "Jordan", nor is it "Egypt".

It is "the Palestinian people", and their sole and universally recognized representative is the "PLO".

Not the Hashemites.
Not Hosni Mubarek.

It is the PLO.

Sheesh.

"I say that when all parties are willing to do something, it makes no sense to say that international law prevents them."

!!!!!!!!

There is only ONE party that can sanction what you want to do, and that is "the Palestinian people".

Not "Israel"
Not "Jordan"
Not "Egypt".

And the sole and universally recognized representative of the Palestinian people is the PLO.

Not "Israel"
Not "Jordan"
Not "Egypt".

Nothing in int'l law prevents Egypt, Israel and Jordan ***PROPOSING*** a deal that involves the West Bank going to Jordan and the Gaza Strip going to Egypt, but int'l law definitely does preven that deal from happening IF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE REFUSE TO AGREE.

Sheesh.

How difficult is that to understand?

"If the Palestinian people agree, then why not?"

!!!!!

The Palestinians have ONE sole representative: the PLO.
The PLO does not agree.
The PLO has never agreed.
The PLO will never agree.

You may as well posit a "solution" that involves the Palestinian people all agreeing to accept a airline ticket to fly to Tahiti and retire there on an Old Age Pension.

Or to posit a "solution" that involves each and every Arab Palestinian agreeing to a circumcision and a rabbinical conversion to Judaism.

Or to posit a "solution" where the Palestinians all agree to take the Masada Option.

"Subject to agreement by all parties."

Except..... the one and only party whose agreement is REQUIRED:
does not agree,
has never agreed,
and will never agree.

With rather leaves you in a policy position rather akin to "J THOMAS's Wet Dream".

"Israel is in possession at the moment, no matter how wrong that is."

OK, now you are just flaunting your ignorance.

Israel is the occupying power.

A belligerent occupation gives the occupying power AUTHORITY over the occupied territory. It does not grant the occupying power SOVEREINGTY over that occupied territory.

Just accept that as a truism, because it happens to be true.

"Well, no. Perhaps they have an obligation under international law to do that. But when have they cared a damaged rat stomach about international law?"

Look, if you are claiming that a rogue country is one that believes it is not beholden to international law then you will get no argument from me.

Israel can - and no doubt will - continue to act with total contempt of international law.

Where there is a difference between you and me is in deciding what that means: to *me* it means that Israels actions are "illegal", and will continue to be "illegal" for as long as Israel continues to carry them out. But *you* appear to be arguing that if Israel acts in total contempt of internationa law then... the international community must eventually agree to "legalize"those actions.

"Would Jordan agree?"

No, because such an "agreement" can not bring about the "agreed result"

Actually THINK about it: if Jordan said "yeah, OK" then all that would happen is that the uniforms of the Army of Occupation would change from that of the IDF to that of the Royal Jordanian Army i.e. an agreement between ISRAEL and JORDAN can not result in the West Bank becoming "Jordanian territory" but merely "Jordanian-occupied territory".

And if this agreement can't produce the desired result - and it can't - then why would Jordan "agree" to something that is nothing but a farce?

"It depends on the details, doesn't it?"

No, it does not. It depends upon ONE thing and ONE thing only: does the sole and universally recognized representative of the Palestinian people agree to that arrangement, or doesn't it?

If they do then this is legal.
If they don't then this can never be legal.

It really is as simple as that.

"If the details were to work out to something that the Palestinian people agreed to, then maybe. And if the Palestinian people agreed, who are you to say that international law prevents it?"

Oy vey......

I am saying that any agreement - no matter how generous the "details" - is null and void under international law UNLESS the sole and universally recognized representative of the Palestinian people signs on the dotted line.

That is the alpha and the omega of this issue i.e. when it comes to the disposition of territory then only the SOVEREIGN gets to decide how this territory gets disposed of.

And with respect to this territory there is only ONE entity that has any legitimate right to claim sovereignty over it, and that entity is "the Palestinian people", and their sole and universally recognized representative is the Palestine Liberation Organization.

You have posted - time after tedious time - your ideas on how a deal might be stitched up between Israel and Jordan, and that deal is then presented to the Palestinians to be rubber-stamped by them.

And in each and every occasion where you have presented that West Dream you have ended your post by whining some variation of: And what's wrong with that???????

THEY DON'T AGREE.
THEY HAVE NEVER AGREED.
THEY WILL NEVER AGREE.

That's what's wrong with that, J THOMAS, and if you can't see that then there is something very seriously wrong with you.

"Then what are you arguing about?"

I am arguing a consistent line, while you are all over the shop.

Let's go back to the beginning of this thread, shall we?

Marty24: "Gaza becomes part of Egypt and the West Bank goes to Jordan with a mutually-agreed border between Israel and Jordan."

I replied that such an "alternative deal" was no deal at all, because Israel and Jordan can not stitch up a deal between them regarding the fate of the West Bank; int'l law does not allow it.

To which you replied:
J THOMAS: "Johnboy, there may be a possibility here. International law is supposed to serve us, and it can be set aside when it does not serve us. If the Palestinians and the Israelis and the Egyptians and the Jordanians all agree to do something, why not allow it?"

That statement of yours contained a massive contradiction i.e.
a) int'l law can not be "set aside" merely because it is convenient for Israel and Jordan to cut a deal between them, **but**
b) if the Palestinians AGREE to a deal then int'l law is not being "set aside" i.e. a three-way deal between Israel/Jordan/PLO is perfectly consistent with int'l law.

You two sentences are therefore mutually-exclusive, and you have mantained this oh-so-tedious argument because you appear to be completely unaware of that cognative dissonance.

"I had thought you were saying that was against international law too, that the Palestinians could not voluntarily give up sovereignty."

If that was your "thoughts" then you have a very funny idea of the concept of "sovereignty".

Of course a sovereign can always *agree* to relinguish its sovereignty to Someone Else.

After all, that is how the Mandate for Palestine came about i.e. the existing sovereign ("Turkey") ceded its sovereignty to Someone Else (the "Principal Allied Powers") via the Treaty of Lausanne.

Without that treaty, of course, there could have been no legitimacy to The Mandate for Palestine (nor, indeed, Mandate Syria or Mandate Mesopotamia).

If you understand how "sovereignty" works then you'll understand the dynamics of this "peace process", and especially **why** the USA keeps insisting on being the mediator between the two sides i.e. Israel's list of demands (insofar as it actually articulates those demands) has absolutely no basis in int'l law precisely **because** it has no right to claim to be the sovereign.

So the Israelis have no recourse OTHER than to be recalcitrant, hoping against hope that everyone else grows weary enough that they let Israel have its way.

The Americans are providing the necessary political cover for that Israeli "strategy" i.e. the USA State Dept insists on ignoring the ILLEGALITY of Israel's (in)actions in preference to the POLITICS of this dispute, and so long as the State Dept is the sole address for mediation then the weakness of Israel's position (and LEGALLY Israel's position is monumentally weak) is simply held at arms-length.

But no amount of US obfuscation makes Israel's weak LEGAL standing go away, and if the USA ever changes tack then Israel will be left high and dry.

I would suggest that this is coming, and when it happens it will happen.... well.... just about as quickly as when Nixon hung the Koumintang out to dry and embraced Communist China instead.

Israel insists on acting AS IF America's blind support is eternal. I would suggest that it is deluded, and that delusion explains in large part why Israel's int'l standing has slumped so badly since its high-water mark in 2000/2001.

"agreeing to things that will get them killed, just as Nazi Germany would not have agreed to a peace that left them helpless."

Yet in 1945 Nazi Germany did exactly that i.e. they agreed to an UNCONDITIONAL surrender, which is as close to a "helpless peace" as any nation will ever agree to.

Do not mistake the "regime" for the "country", because the latter can survive even if the former is swept away.

"As long as the USA supports them, and is unwilling to coerce them in any meaningful way, what difference does it make whether they're illegal by international law?"

Because that US support can not make the ILLEGALITY of Israel's actions go away i.e. while the USA will run interference for Israel it will not debase itself by claiming that Israel's illegal acts are actually "legal".

There *is* a consequence for that, and it *will* eventually make a difference i.e. if the USA stops running interference for Israel then the Israelis will face the consequences of their illegal acts, and the excuse of "But! But! The Yanks have always let us get away with it till now!" will simply not excuse its behaviour.

"I tend to think you're right about this. "

Then you have just contradicted yourself i.e. you have claimed in the first paragraph that it makes no difference wether Israel's acts are "illegal" or "legal", yet you agree in the next paragraph that it will make A Very Big Difference Indeed should the USA ever withdraw the political cover that it gives Israel.

It appears as if you are incapable of distinguishing between the POLITICAL and the LEGAL.

I'll say it one more time: the USA runs P.O.L.I.T.I.C.A.L. interference for Israel, but it does not (and will not) say that Israel's actions are L.E.G.A.L.

The consequences of that distinction should be obvious i.e. if the USA ever stops running that P.O.L.I.T.I.C.A.L. interference then Israel's position becomes dire indeed, precisely because its actions are just as I.L.L.E.G.A.L. as they ever were.

"It would make pretty much the same difference that it would have made if Israel was a shining saint of international law, and then the USA changed our political stand."

It would make a very big difference, because in the case YOU posit Israel would be a more impoverished nation, yes, but it would not be a nation that would be exposed to the prospect (the certainty?) of international sanction and boycott.

But a nation that is a serial abuser of int'l law is in a MUCH more perilous position if/when its main benefactor decides that It Has Had Enough Of Trying To Defend These Pissant Little Shits.

"It happens that the same things which are illegal under international law tend to be things that make them unpopular, but this coincidence does not make international law important."

!!!!!!

That isn't "coincidence", J THOMAS.

You are fingering a CAUSAL relationship between a country's serial violation of international law and that country's lack of "popularity" when it comes to international relations.

Being a rogue country does tend to make you less than adorable...... didn't anyone ever tell you that?

"If the USA decides to sanction one of our customers, Israel is there to sell them our spare parts at higher prices."

You **DO** understand that Israel can not on-sell US military goods without the prior approval of the US Department of Defense?

No? You didn't know that?

Question: If the USA decides to sanction a country then what are the chances that the USA Department of Defense will give Israel permission to move in and take up that slack?
Answer: Less Than Zero.

"So when Israel is unpopular, other nations feel safe to express their displeasure independent of international law."

Yeah, yeah, Israel is unpopular because the world is full of anti-semites. Sure it is.

How about this for an alternative: Israel is "unpopular" because it was always going to be a colonial-expansionist enterprise in a world in which colonial expansionism had already ceased to be legitimate, and that lack of legitimacy has let to it embarking on 60+ years of aggressive violation of int'l law in order to maintain whatever viability if currently has.

Or, more simply: you can't divorce the illegality of Israel's actions from its lack of "popularity", precisely because the latter is a PRODUCT of the former, and is not simply some weird "coincidence".

"So for example if Gaza and the West Bank were officially part of Israel, people would be just as upset at Israel doing airstrikes on ethnic Israeli citizens even though it would not be illegal, as they are now when it is illegal."

Bombing and straffing your own popln is illegal, J THOMAS, because the principles of "proportionality" and "distinction" are as applicable to internal armed conflicts as they are to international armed conflicts.

That's why NATO intervened in Kosovo, even though Kosova was "officially part of Serbia" when the Serbian airforce was busy bombing the crap out of it.

"International law is a diplomatic tool. If you want to attack somebody with world opinion, then you point out their international law violations. Otherwise you ignore those violations. As the USA has mostly ignored Israel's for 60+ years."

I see that you miss my point, which is this: ignoring those violations doesn't LEGALIZE those acts i.e. they remain illegal, even when they are committed under the blanket protection of Big Daddy, and so the ledgerbook of "debts due" continues to be filled in even if the debt collectors are kept at bay.

The *corrollary* is obvious i.e. if Big Daddy ever removes that blanket then there is 60+years of paying the Piper that will fall due.

Or, put another way: Israel "strategic relationship" with the USA hasn't *evaded* its comeupence, merely *delayed* it.

Israel is acting as if the moment when the USA withdraws its unconditional support will never come, because it acts as if it believes the protection of Big Daddy is its by *right*.

But that protection isn't a "right" but an *indulgence* by Big Daddy, and it is becoming daily an indulgence that Israel makes harder and harder to justify.

There will come a time when the USA will remove that protection, and when it does that debt will come due, and when that happens Israel will cry "Victim! Victim!" even though it is really the perpetrator of its own misfortune.

You don't think that will ever happen?

I believe very strongly that you are wrong, and that the sea change is coming far, far more quickly than people realise, and that the recent bickering between Netanyahu and Obama is the merely the first signs of a change in the wind.

"There are only nations which make other nations pay for violation of international law when they see it's in their national interest, and which illegally make others pay the same for legal actions when they think that's in their national interest instead. "Violator of international law" is a label to put on somebody you don't like, because you don't like them."

No, "Violator of international law" is a label you put on someone when they violate international law. You simply can not hang that label on someone when they AREN'T violating international law, and nobody - but nobody - bothers to try.

I'll point out the corrollary: no matter how "special" the relationship between the USA and Israel might be, Israel CAN NOT get the USA to hang a label on it that says "This is all kosher under int'l law".

The USA refuses to do that - and has ALWAYS refused to do that - yet under your thesis there should be no reason at all why the USA shouldn't rush to hang that US Seal of Approval around Israel's neck.

After all, according to you its just a meaningless label, and Israel *is* the USA's Very Special Friend, so..... why not grant it that seal of approval?

"It's only a tool that nations use to advance their interests."

No, sorry, that is simply taking the issue and turning it 180 degrees.

The USA will turn a blind eye to Israel's serial violation of international law, and it will even act to protect Israel from the consequences of those violations, but the USA *will* *not* debase itself by agreeing that what Israel is doing is legal.

That intransigence from the USA means that the determination of what is "legal" and what is "illegal" does indeed mean something, because if it didn't mean anything then the USA would freely toss around **both** labels like lollies at a party.

It doesn't.
It won't.

That alone should tell you that your basic concept is flawed.

Nor does one need to read German, Italian, French and any other European language to learn about WWII.

" the wikileaks documents show that arab countries couldn't give a shit about the palestinians"

False. It shows that the Arab countries consider the I conflict the most important issue.

"The shia Sunna problem is the new conflict, Israel and palestinians are small potatoes compare to the rest."

False. Jordan said that to solver the Iran issue, one must solve the IP issue first.

"If arabs would truely care about the palestinians they would resettle the palestinians in arab countries,"

False That's like arguing it the world cared about Jews, they would convince them to leave Israel and migrate to Western States, where they would be safer.

"clinton is a smart guy but to say that solving Isr-pal conflict will solve any other one is just ignorance"

No it's common sense and it's the unanimous consensus.

"the somaly fighter would not be able to point Israel out on the map."

The same could be said for most Zionists re Israel.

"It is true that Iran is connected to the pal-Isr conflict, if you stop Iran there will be a chacne for peace"

False. The conflict continued when Iran was a friend of Israel.

Stop baling everyone else for Israel's crimes Buddah. You sound like a spoiled child who refuses to accept responsibility for his bad behavior.

"pro Palestinians so conveniently seem to forget, the arabs rejected the partition plan,"

Sorry, but I don't remember the Arabs of Palestine being given a vote on the matter.

Their "acceptance" was neither requested nor was it required, and so their "rejection" of it makes not the slightest difference one way or the other.

"the dicided to try to eliminate Israel,"

When, exactly?

The Arab armies "invaded" the territory allocated to the "Arab state" in the Partition Plan, and did so at the request of those Arabs because the Haganah was already well into a pre-planned offensive against them i.e. Plan Dalet.

"the arabs decided to try again in 1967,"

Odd that, because it was Israel that attacked in 1967, and not vice versa.

"Israel had won"

Yeah, they launched a surprise attack from the air and then immediately followed it by an armoured offensive on the ground. No real surpises there.... that formula also worked a treat against Poland in 1939 and France in 1940.

"and now after there has never been a palestinian state there should all of a sudden be state."

Decades of negotiation towards "two-states-for-two-people" is "all of a sudden", is it?

"The palestinians refused camp david, oslo, they got gaza and created terror,"

You seem to be chronologically challenged, because you put Camp David (2000) before Oslo (1994).

"they refused olmerts offer,"

And what, exactly, was Olmert's offer, BUDAHH?

"now they even refuse to negotiate,"

No, they have stressed that they are perfectly willing to negotiate (which is Phase II of the Road Map) the moment that Israel lives up to its committment to freeze all settlement construction (which is in Phase I of the Road Map).

They have a point i.e. the PA has done everything required of it under Phase I of the Road Map, and Israel has done exactly...... nothing.

Bubkiss.
Zero.
Ziltch.

You gotta admit that the Palestinians have a good argument i.e. Israel's actions prove that if it doesn't w.a.n.t. to live up to its committments then it will simply deny that those obligations even exist.

Or, put another way: what is the point of negotiating a treaty with Israel if Israel insists that it has the right to ignore what is in that treaty?