

America and Israel

Will the relationship change? Yes it can

Israel and the Palestinians seem stuck in a poisonous morass, as Israeli voters shift to the right. President Barack Obama has a chance of hauling them out of it

See article

Readers' comments



Gennady L is RIGHT.Instead of making 'the best deal ever offered' to the Pal's, Arafat began a war. Can it be any clearer? Arafat stated … basically … that if he made that deal he'd be killed/assassinated. It's too bad he didn't make the deal. :)But really … no Palestinian leader has kept the 'resistance' far from his policy platform. That is, no leader wants to reign in the 'hot heads', the 'jihadi groups', the 'resistance'. That's too bad. Nothing will emerge … nothing … without Palestinians keeping their own hot heads', 'jihadi groups', or the 'resistance' in check … there will never ever be a deal with the State of Israel. Why would there be?

Gennady L

avidobserver, I never talked about Eretz Israel, and I am a supporter of a 2 state solution. But keep in mind that Israel will be required to give up it's military gains right away in exchange for peace (i.e. Palestinian non-aggression). As I said before there is an issue of trust. Israel has a proven track record (Egypt, Jordan, unilateral Gaza pull out). Palestinians especially under Abbas have never been able to hold true to their word and maintain many previously negotiated cease fires.Also, as you re-call, under Barak Israel in principle accepted president Clinton compromise regarding most contentious issues (East Jerusalem, holy sites, some settlements). That was a HUGE change in their position and demonstrated their commitment to peace. Instead of responding in kind, Palestinians started a new intifada. Now peace is further away than ever


The IRA wasn't attempting to spread their religion, change the legal system to Sharia, etc. when Senator Mitchell was negotiating with the IRA. Hamas advocates genocide of the Jews-something the IRA never came close to advocating. So let's not equate Hamas with the IRA, okay? It's a slippery slope when we start doing that. I am not Jewish and I am not Israeli, and I am a moderate. But I say a big NO to negotiating with Hamas. They are a poor man's al Qaeda, and we should draw the line somewhere on who we will, and will not, negotiate with.


Gennady L, what Arafat got from peace was an empty promise and double the number of settlers in the West Bank, and that is why intifada 2.0 came about. And the contradiction is your own. Either advocate the existence of Eretz Israel and accept the implications of it, or stop talking about it. You can't talk about Eretz Israel and a two-state solution. That's the contradiction. Reconciliation in Northern Ireland has come a long way in the last few years because there was a sincere effort to address the grievances of the weaker party, not just keep trying to bully them into submission. And yes, there is friction between communities elsewhere, but the one side is not always trying to be duplicitous in its dealings with the other.As I said, when Arafat made peace he got an empty promise and continual expansion of settlements; the alternative was intifada. Palestinians have tried peace and they have tired intifada. Neither has moved successive Israeli governments to negotiate in good faith. What do you propose?

Gennady L

avidobserver, your last 2 posts seem to contradict each other as you answer your own question. Most jews want nothing to do with Palestinians, and would prefer to separate as soon as possible (hence Avigdor Lieberman). 2,000 years of history shows that the 2 people cannot get along. If North Irish, Belgians, Scotts and English, Quebeques and Canadians don't seem to be able to get along, there is a snow ball's chance in hell that Israelis and Palestinians will. The cultures are way too different. Israel is democratic society with Western values and living standards. Palestinians are mostly of Arabic dissent. You can see what kind of life they are likely to have by looking at the lifestyle and standard of living in other Arab countries. Other than climate and hummus they share very little.But I strongly disagree with your point regarding Arafat (as do alot of Palestinians). As I said before, given the poisonous atmosphere in the region, build up of trust is essential. Instead of going back and trying to continue to work towards peace (by all accounts 2 sides were extremely close), Arafat chose intifada 2.0 It was a gamble and he lost. Palestinian situation today is a direct result of that erroneous decision. Israel demonstrated it's willingness to compromise and uphold it's end of the bargain by making peace with Jordan and Egypt, while Palestinian track record of upholding it's commitments is very poor. Until a strong leader willing to make painful compromises emerges on the Palestinian side, there will be no peace in the region


Remember the old saying: be careful what you wish for, it might just come true. Consider the modern-day realities of Eretz Israel. It's the one-state solution. In that case, the only way to maintain it as a Jewish state would be disenfranchisement of its Arab inhabitants (that is, a new apartheid) or massive ethnic cleansing.As I said, time for a little reflection and introspection?


"the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and the Litani River to a line south of Beer Sheva.... by and large [we have] been willing to share this land with the Arab residents of the country and even divide it politically"But - regardless of 21st Century ethnic realities, who lives there now and what the rest of the world feels is just - you claim it, and you'll decide if indeed it is divided or not. Not really an iron-clad assurance for the Palestinians, is it. Today you are flexible... what if you wake up in a bad mood tomorrow, or 'by and large' you just decide you like it too much to share after all?Most definitely, Arafat would have been a fool to sign.


Earlier Jehudah Ben-Israel wrote:"...part of the peace agreement there was an offer to them to set up autonomy in the entire western bank and the Gaza Strip, one that in time, it was assumed, would evolve into independence."Given Israel's record of ignoring international law and continuing with the construction of settlements, what are the prospects of them recognizing the political aspirations of the Palestinians, and that so-called autonomy really becoming independence? They would more likely have resembled the apartheid bantustans. All that was on offer was a vague promise that might, "it was assumed", lead eventually to independence.Had Arafat agreed and signed it he would have been recognizing Eretz Israel. In other words he would have been legitimizing the occupation. If you were in his position, charged with securing a Palestinian state, would you have signed? Could you have signed?I should think he would have been an idiot if he had.

Jehudah Ben-Israel

"Perhaps those who continue to use the term Eretz Israel should indulge in a little reflection and introspection".

Eretz Israel (Land of Israel) is the name of a geographic location, roughly the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and the Litani River to a line south of Beer Sheva. This name has been there from time immemorial. To attempt to erase it for political expediency is simply unaccepted by the people of Israel (Jews).

Yet, the people of Israel, or the Jewish people if you will, by and large has been willing to share this land with the Arab residents of the country and even divide it politically. This willingness, however, does not negate the historic affinity that we feel towards the cradle of our Jewish civilization, which it is Eretz Israel.


Valli2 - the topic of a one state solution has been debated endlessly and is unattainable as it would mean the destruction of the Jewish State. Israeli's will never agree to it hence the two state solution. Andrewdal - Al Qaida wants you dead because your are from the West - their terror has nothing to do with Palestine. Your stance is similar to the idea of appeasement that was such a miserable failure with the Nazi's. Leaving Israel to its own devices won't lead to peace, exactly the opposite most likely. If you are for peace than you need to think of productive solutions - not preach hatred and clear anti-semetism.

Gennady L

Vladek2, you conveniently omit the previous history of the conflict. So let me re-fresh your memory. This is a 60 year old war, that was started by Arabs - that much is beyond dispute.When UN has finally given battered and bruised Jewish people a tiny slice of land, Arabs with shameless opportunism attacked. As British forces were withdrawing, Arabs were advancing, murdering any Jews that could not get away. Against all odds, Israel prevailed. So when you talk about "greedy hunger" for land, you need to brush up on your history. Don't forget that Palestinians claimed ALL land as their own until immense pressure forced them to compromise in 1991. You also choose not discuss the fate of the Jews who were thrown out from Libya, Morocco, Iraq, etc... On average, in material terms Jews lost a lot more than the Palestinians. Despite the "ceasefire", until 1968, Jews suffered daily attacks from West Bank, Lebanon and Gaza. People in the north had to tend their fields at night because Syrians were shelling them on daily basis. Can you imagine living under such conditions? Or is empathy for you a one way street? Just take a look at the map. What was Israel supposed to do? As for terrorism, your argument is full of double standard. How can you even equate the two? Palestinians PURPOSELY target Israeli civilians, whereas most civilian casualties on their side are the result of people being used as human shields. Yes, sadly, in any war there will be collateral damage, but when you compare this conflict to others - Bosnian / Serbian war, American wars in Iraq, Bosnia and Afganistan, Israel comes out extremely favorably in terms of civilian casualties as a ratio to militants killed. Israel, is the only country in the world that has a legal department overseeing actions of it's military to ensure maximum compliance with international laws.So when we discuss the chicken and egg problem of checkpoints and terrorism, it is my contention that the latter begat the former, and I believe history demonstrates that beyond doubt.Gaza is a case in point. Since Israel's withdrawal, Palestinians fired 8,000 rockets AT ISRAELI CIVILIANS, while electing Hamas whose views towards Israel are well known.Jews are fighting for their survival, Arabs are fighting to impose their will


Jehudah Ben-Israel, those treaties did not relate to areas considered Eretz Israel. And since you continue to refer to Eretz Israel you obviously don't think any concessions should be made to the population living there. In the light of that, I stand by what I said earlier. Arafat knew his chances of achieving a real state in what you persist in calling Eretz Israel were effectively nil. Yes, he would have been an idiot to sign and thus legitimise the occupation.Perhaps those who continue to use the term Eretz Israel should indulge in a little reflection and introspection.


How many decades the story of Palestine will be discussed? Only solution if the world leaders can defuse Nukes(only country posess it in the middle east) of Israel and then real solution will be started.We are very much worried about Iran's probable future capability in Nukes but not about Israel's one
which already in possesion for last 3 decades.Even Israel's so called foes are not bringing the matter in the discussion.This is another example of puppet diplomacy of middle eastern monarchs.

Gennady L

I am dismayed at the reluctance of your paper and the rest of the democratic world to holding Palestinians accountable for the actions of Hamas. After all, they had the power to elect whomever they chose, and with that power comes responsibility and accountability. This is in direct contrast to people living in totalitarian society without any power to influence their government's actions (as a former Soviet I can attest to this). My second point relates to the issue of trust. Say what you will about Israel, but in the 30 odd years of peace with Egypt and 15 years of peace with Jordan there has not been one significant incident between those countries and Israel. Even by your own admission, PLO's record in that area has been dismal at best. Israel is being told to give up material gains in exchange for nothing more than promises. It attempted to build that trust by withdrawing from Gaza. In response, Palestinians WILLINGLY elected Hamas, thus choosing to break all previous agreements painstakingly negotiated over the last decade and a half. You can't blame ordinary Israelies for being skeptical

Jehudah Ben-Israel

"…all Palestines'problems are the fault of Hammas".

No, of course not all the problems of the Arabs of Eretz Israel (Land of Israel/Palestine) are due to Hamas's activity.

Indeed, those predicaments began long before Hamas came on about. I can think of the 1920s when the leadership of the Arabs here commence the long journey of leading the Arabs of the country to disasters, one after the other, and all of them as a result of refusing to accept the humanity and the right of the other, of a people that was neither Muslim nor Arabs – as Muslim-Arab leaders in other parts of the region have treated other peoples which were neither Muslim nor Arab.

The organized violent attacks of the Jewish community of the country in 1920-21, 1929, 1936-1938, 1947-48 are just the beginning of the enumeration of where the Muslim-Arab leadership of the country lead its people, and as a result of which those people have had to pay.

Hamas is only the latest chapter in this long list of misleaders…!!


Israel must take responsibility for this poisonous morass, and they alone can solve it. Obama can help by cutting off $6.0 billion in annual aid to Israel in these economic hard times.

Israel's treatment of the occupied Palestinian peoples is akin to war crimes. Having been in Palestine, I have seen clearly how Israel is the first step in the cycle of terrorism. Land confiscations, home demolitions, overt military force, checkpoints, detentions without charges are all part of a pattern of institutional terrorism. The Palestinians react with stones and home made rockets, but in turn are thoroughly thrashed more severely than Americans can imagine.

Israel has had a history of greedy hunger for Palestinian land regardless of the suffering and cost imposed on the Palestinians. It is a rogue nation that does not represent the historical values of the Jewish faith. In its pursuit of the suppression of the Palestinians and the USA's blindness to those injustices, Israel has critically damaged the respect of the USA by neighboring Arab countries.

The resolution is full Israeli military and settler withdrawal from Palestine along with reparations to the Palestinian people for all the hardship and damage to the Palestinians, i.e. much like Germany has paid the Jews. Only the USA can prompt that to happen through economic force with the withdrawal of its $6.0 billion annual subsidy to Israel.


A Bangladeshi said: "until the world get involved" This sounds like the refrain of all Muslims … once they've lost on the battlefield. Arafat and his call for the "international community" to come to the rescue of his group. What's up with that? How come you need the international community to do your bidding? The Jews were always looking for others to help them and that aid never arrived in time. You know why? You've got to look after yourself. No one looks after YOU better than YOURSELF. Israel has learned that lesson. There will be no PEACE up and until the Arabs (in Gaza, the West Bank et al) put down their weapons and accept the State of Israel. When and if that happens … there will be peace.By the way, Bangladeshi … tell us all about your passports … ISN'T IT TRUE (I know it is because I've seen it) THAT YOUR PASSPORTS ARE STAMPED VALID IN EVERY COUNTRY OF THE WORLD EXCEPT THE STATE OF ISRAEL? How come?

Jehudah Ben-Israel

"...he (Arafat) would have been an idiot if he had".

As I indicated in my previous post, his approach has been part of a pattern that goes back to at least 1920 among the leaders of the Arabs of Eretz Israel (Land of Israel/Palestine), and see where that has gotten them.

By contrast, Israel has signed a peace agreements with Egypt, 1978 and 1979, based on which it evacuated its troops and civilian population from the entire Sinai Peninsula, a geographic area three times the size of Israel with a lot of natural resources, all for the sake of peace.

Perhaps some introspection is called for on the part of the Muslim-Arabs…??


@ Ben -Isreal, the problem with your attitude and paranoia (and others of your ilke) is that you cannot accept ANY constructive criticism of Isareal's actions or attitudes without coming up with the mantra that whoever made the
comments is an anti semite and that all Palestines'problems are the fault of Hammas.
You all may be brainwashed but we can see clearly, thank you. And further more your ridiculous attitudes are loosing sympathy with all who can see injustice for what it is.


No doubt killing civilians wheather from Arab or Israel should be condemned. But look at the double standards of democracy. Gazan selected their representative 'democratically' and Israel sent them behind the bars. Moreover, Israel and west announced economic blocked as if the apartheid walls are not sufficient. Egypt wagged the tail and seconded her masters while other countries, particularly Arabs and Mahmood Abbas, are busy with bones in canine teeth. If democracy suits our masters it's OK, otherwise it is by the powerful, of the powerful and for the powerful.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
The crisis in Venezuela: Another day, more bodies
Americas view March 13th, 16:49
A tribute to Robert Ashley: A perfect life
Prospero March 13th, 16:22
Commodities and the economy: Copper bottomed
Buttonwood's notebook March 13th, 15:58
Germany's Hoeness trial: Uli goes to jail
Charlemagne March 13th, 14:18
El Salvador's election: An extraordinary result
Americas view March 13th, 14:13


Products & events