Helena Cobban has a good post summarizing the history of Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations. She doesn’t mention the indirect negotiations mediated with Abe Suliman and Alon Liel, but otherwise it looks pretty complete.
This summary requires a bit of discussion. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s been almost two decades now since we have sat down at the table and started talking about peace. And guess what, there was almost never anything unbridgeable in the positions, certainty not after Oslo in 93, when the Syrians started viewing themselves as free to sign their own bi-lateral agreement with Israel, separate from the Palestinians.
So… why don’t we have peace with Syria? That’s because I and the rest of the citizens of Israel are a bunch of certified DUMMIES. A herd of catatonic meat-eating sheep. In almost all the negotiations with Syria, negotiations broke down due to political expediency calculations from our joker-of-a-leader de-jour. The only one who wasn’t a joker, and was dead serious—was also seriously dead, literally, because of that. I’m talking about Yitzhak Rabin of course.
How does it happen that in our famed “Western Democracy” the people don’t DEMAND a peace that is beyond any doubt achievable and moreover how come this society doesn’t hold its leaders accountable for squandering a chance after chance, to put another stake in the heart of this monster called enmity-and-war? What are the chances that we would have been spared the Second Lebanon War if such a peace deal was obtained before? In my opinion, a 100% sure case no such war would have happened, but try to tell an Israeli about it, and you’ll get a blank stare… hey, this is all programming on his TV, what say does he have about it? Peace with Syria is… you know… a matter for the experts, the Uzi Arads and the Amos Yadlins, there are all sorts of considerations for and against, and who knows whether the Muslim Brotherhood will not take over tomorrow? Better leave this thing to the Mossad and army intelligence to figure out. Peace with Syria is not something for the populace to have an opinion about, it’s a military thing, so let go with the tough questions. Besides, who said the war with Lebanon was all bad? We got to rebuild the army as a result of that, change some doctrines and test new weapons, and to be totally honest, the lengthy process of obliterating Lebanon over 30 days, had its sweet unforgettable moments. OK, so we had to sit in shelters and soldiers and civilians died. Yeah it’s not nice, but that’s the way it is here, and don’t fool yourself it can ever be different!
Thus, nearly a generation has passed, and nothing has changed. The Israeli and Syrian armies are still sitting across the border in the Golan, each in their rusting tanks, as a relic from the cold war, in a world that has moved on.
Israel is always happy to appoint investigative committees to check the performance of the state and its violence inflicting branches before and during wars. But what about an investigation into missing an opportunity for peace? Whom would it find guilty, and who would be considered a good servant of the people? The table below provides some clues.
| Year/venue | Israeli PM | Syrian President | Why did it fail? |
| 1991, Madrid Peace Conf | Shamir | Assad Senior | Syria was committed to comprehensive peace. Israel was stalling. |
| 1994, US | Rabin | Assad Senior | Rabin has committed to withdrawing to 67 lines. Was assassinated following this and Oslo. |
| 1996, US (Wye) | Peres | Assad Senior | Peres terminated negotiations after Hamas attacks and in order to fight Hizballah, to get popularity for elections against Bibi. |
| 1996, Damascus | Bibi | Assad Senior | Bibi sent Ron Lauder to Assad and offered him something unknown. This then gets squashed when Sharon wings Bibi from the right and threatens his position as a PM. |
| 1999, US (Wye) | Barak | Assad Senior | This is the only case where there is some uncertainty of where the blame goes. The proceedings were never made public. It is claimed that the reason for failure was Syrian demand for access to the sea of Galilee |
| 2006-2008, Turkey | Olmert | Assad Junior | Progress was made on and off on back channels and then through indirect negotiations with Turkish mediation. Ultimately the sides got very close to agreement, and then Olmert lunched the Gaza war. |
Examining the table above, we see that in all cases, except when Barak was negotiating (he gets the benefit of a doubt), in all those cases, Israel fumbled it, either cynically and deliberately as in the Peres and Olmert cases, or due to the volatility of the country, as in Rabin’s assassination case.
We Israelis like to pride ourselves on our democracy. Democracy is a system of governance where the people decide about their destiny. When exactly in the last two decades have the people been able to control their destiny with respect to peace with Syria? It could be argued that the passivity in this policy matter is reminiscent of American-Cuban relationship, which could have been reformed already if it was a priority for America. However, it would be foolish to compare the balance of powers between Israel and Syria to that of America and Cuba. Staying in a state of war with Syria has its consequences and, again, the war in 2006 was a reminder for the costs of a status-quo.
Now compare for a second the ability of Israel to articulate, gain support for, and execute policy to that of Syria—a dictatorship. The Syrians have been saying the exact same things since 1994. Whenever we drop the ball and go get it again, they stay where they are, like a rock. Their policy towards Israel is popular with the people (Assad got the highest support rating in a recent poll comparing the popularity of Arab leaders).
I am of course not in support of dictatorship for Israel, not even if the dictator is a benevolent one with an attractive spouse and an iPod, but one can only say: damn! What would it take to get some accountability and continuity in our governance?!
I’m looking forward to Bibi’s turn at extending the list of failures. Maybe a surprise? I dare not be optimistic.
June 14, 2009 at 10:25 am
Bibi doesn’t want to be remembered as himself in the 1990’s, as some Shamir, or certainly not as a Golda! He wants to be remembered as a Begin (or a mini-Begin). I’m betting on that and, therefore, on the “surprise” we’ll experience some time in the near future (my guess 6-12 months from now). Tonight, he’ll tell his main-audience (his party and his government) what they want to hear. And that will give him political-oxygen for another 6 months. During this time, he’ll do a lot more than just “talk to Abu Mazen”…
June 15, 2009 at 12:29 am
Hi Shai,
Your optimism is an art form, I’m thoroughly jealous
I hope you will be proven correct in your predictions. However he didn’t say anything about that today, which is to be expected, after all from his perspective he’s extinguishing fires, so why start another one? (Although, experienced fire fighters know that this is actually a robust fire fighting technique: if you’re in the savanna and a fire chases your back, start a fire in front of you… then you can move into the scorched area and be protected…)
June 15, 2009 at 4:14 am
Yossi,
I wonder if Bibi’s not doing exactly what you just described, namely, starting that 2nd fire. Most on the Right (right of Likud) were not happy with his speech. They heard, basically for the first time, a very clear vision of a Palestinian state. To them, it is now completely up the Palestinians to decide whether they’ll have a state. And this is something they never accepted. The near-50% of Israelis that simply do not believe there has to be a Palestinian state were not happy with Bibi yesterday.
Although I was a bit surprised at Labor MK Daniel Ben-Simon’s statement last night, suggesting it was an historic day and a wonderful speech, in a way he is right – for all practical purposes, from the Right’s point of view, the Palestinian State was created yesterday at Bar Ilan University. They won’t accept it so easily. That “2nd fire” will continue to burn for a while, and it may well be precisely the scorched earth you’re referring to, which will let Bibi move into if he plans to bring a complete end to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Will he actually do it? I don’t know. Why am I obsessively optimistic? Because I can’t stand the alternative…
I’d rather die naive and happy, than pragmatic and sad. But I also think there’s a reasonable probability that I’m right about Bibi. I don’t think it’s that far-fetched.
June 15, 2009 at 5:00 am
Shai,
I agree with Daniel Ben-Simon, it was a watershed moment for politics in Israel, if only from the declarative perspective. Not that objectively a courageous step has been taken, but that the right, after long decades, decided to pop its head from where it was stuck deep in the sand. Everything is relative.
June 15, 2009 at 5:03 am
- Syria is a dependable distraction. As I have mentioned before, I don’t see pressure coming from anyone in particular to move on this front. A Golan withdrawal would be full of friction. Put those together & I can see another 20 years of this. Easy.
In my opinion, Israel has been flopping around with their position with Syria for this reason. The talks themselves serve various purposes.
- It’s fundamentally misleading to think of democracy as ‘a system of governance where the people decide about their destiny,’ & leave it as that. The emphasis is on “system.” Voting seems to be universally accepted as a part of it. But it is the system itself which is usually the most important component.
An Israeli democracy the elected a dictator every 10 years would be fundamentally different to the current one. A system (such as the US’s) that encouraged fewer, stronger parties would also produce very different results.
June 15, 2009 at 5:53 pm
“… the right, after long decades, decided to pop its head…”
Yossi, I doubt it was the Right as much as it was Netanyahu. From what I’ve been hearing yesterday and today, the Right isn’t happy. They feel Bibi surrendered to Washington. In Yesha, they’re promising to continue building inside existing settlements, and some have already threatened a “response to the speech” in the form of tens of new settlements.
The bold move was in that fire Netanyahu lit up, amongst those on the Right and the Settlers, who will have to deal with this long enough, hopefully, for him to move forward on other fronts.
Netsp,
I disagree with you about Syria. It is by far the easiest problem to solve, and by far the most beneficial to us in the short term. In fact, it is my belief that in return for a peace agreement, which will likely include a gradual, 10-15 year long withdrawal from the Golan (i.e. the withdrawal of 26,000 Jews), we will receive not only Syria as a partner and possibly broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but perhaps the entire Arab world as well. Imagine the kind of (positive) pressure at long last upon the Palestinian people, Fatah, Hamas, and us in Israel, from the entire Arab world that has begun normalizing relations with Israel, to finally put an end to our differences.
An end to the Arab-Israeli conflict undoubtedly includes withdrawal to the 1967 borders. That means also on the Golan. If Syria is offering, for over 5 years now, to make peace, how can we NOT pursue this all the way?!? What, are we now so comfortable (so intoxicated) with our own power, and with the weakness of our neighbors, that we can afford to just let time fly by? Whose lives are we gambling with in the process, if not our children’s?
Unlike many others in this country, when my grandchildren will one day ask me “Saba, did you do everything you could…?”, I want to be able to say “Yes, I did.”
June 16, 2009 at 2:18 am
Shai,
It’s not that I think it’s technically difficult to solve. It is actually quite ‘cheap’ to solve. The problem is motivation.
I have no particular opposition to withdrawal from the Golan. But also no particular motivation. There are no severe moral/human rights issues (relatively speaking). I don’t share your optimism about the utility (for Israel) of such a deal. So in a way I am part of the problem here.
Regarding the speech, I am very worried about this trend. The settler right is by far the group most politically active & capable of civil action in Israel. This speech is excellent practice. Gives settler teenagers something easy to protest, resist & be active around. It help in building the infrastructure.
They may become an unstoppable force at some point.
June 16, 2009 at 2:47 am
Shai, Netsp,
I think netsp had a very good point about the “system”. In a different system, the political cost of failing to provide peace with Syria could have been higher (as well as that of many other problems that are not viewed as “existential”). The volatily of the current system serves well the military sector as well as the clan of rotating politician hacks/thieves.
Netsp,
You’d rather Bibi would have replied with a Haiku: minimalistic, short and cryptic like many of your comments
June 16, 2009 at 5:36 am
Yossi, the system that would have delivered political a political cost of failing to provide peace with Syria would be a non democratic one.
The people don’t want, don’t care or don’t see the point.
June 16, 2009 at 5:48 am
What’s so cryptic?
I don’t think that anything I said is really that abstract or unclear. I just don’t think there is anything fundamental about any potential deal with Syria.
A Palestinian deal is about the nature of a Palestinian state, a Jewish one, the rights of people, the end of actual physical fighting, the ability of person A to get to place B or buy a house in place D. About reality.
A Syria deal is about keeping together the ‘no border changes’ status quo. It’s about a bit of land. It’s about chest thumping & national pride. It’s about diplomacy
Palestinians need a state. Assad doesn’t need a few hills.
June 16, 2009 at 8:12 am
Netsp,
Israel is deemed a criminal, oppressor and a regional bully by most of the Arabs in the Middle East. In order to have a chance at real peace one day (not the kind of cold peace we have with Egypt and Jordan), we in Israel must begin to change that image. How can we do this? By showing that we are finally coming to terms with the idea that not all the lands we’ve conquered are ours to keep.
We started this step 30 years ago with the Sinai, and sort-of continued it with the withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza. Unfortunately the latter, which happened unilaterally, were deemed Israeli surrender (running away) to Hezbollah and Hamas. But it is clear that withdrawal by agreement does contribute positively to changing Israel’s image in the Arab world. To me, this image is of strategic importance to Israel. It may be what determines whether a new generation of children will be pushed by their parents to blow themselves up on our buses, or whether another thousands combatants will enroll in Hezbollah training, or whether another set of young PhD students in Iran and Syria will volunteer to help develop chemical and biological weapons. It undoubtedly contributes to the support of nuclear programs that will counter Israel. Our image, is a greater threat to us, than all the weapons of our enemies combined.
Since I doubt we’ll be able to withdraw by-agreement anytime soon from the West Bank, I look at the only other possibility that will help change the way we are perceived, and that will have to take place sooner or later – the Golan.
I believe you’re severely underestimating both the potential benefits to reaching an agreement with Syria and, more importantly, the cost of not doing so. We are not left with many options to choose from. For our national security interests, both short and long term, we must make progress either with the Palestinians, or the Syrians, or both.
June 16, 2009 at 9:54 am
I suppose that the reluctance for Israel’s political machine for peace is based on following “facts”
a) a nation in a strong military position sees rarely a need for compromises and the majority of Israelis “like” the present illusion of their supremacy.
b) Israel needs desperately the waters of Golan and West Bank
c) the “Jewish nation” and Zionism need instability and chaos around Israel to keep up the Jewish immigration and donations going
d) the influential position Israel has in the world and especially in US politics is based solely on the present unhealthy situation. Without that Israel’s influence would shrink to the size of its population and economy (= to from much to very little).
e) peace would also bring in the light – finally – the Israeli nuclear “deterrence” and most probably lead to the demolition of that if the region wants to be a non-nuclear region.
f) the Israeli economy in its current form benefits from the present situation more than what peace would bring along.
Israel is as likely to make peace caused by internal pressure as Germany was in 1939 after the invasion of Poland. Bibi’s present peace “demands” were made such that it is 100 percent certain that Palestinians or Arab nations can’t approve those and make even the start of serious negotiations rather uncertain. So the “admission” of the Palestinian state by Bibi is worth basically nothing for Palestinians and the Arab world. A desperate attempt to buy some more years to keep the Israeli Jewish society from not boiling over.
The fact is that Israel’s strong position is based on the instability it has created around it. The problem for Israel is that this instability now is to costly and dangerous for the major powers which before have let and helped Israel to become an overaggressive mini superpower. If and when peace is done it is caused simply by outside powers, not by a common internal will of a change in politics.
EU needs the region to calm down to get the energy lines built through Syria and Turkey. USA and EU need the markets of Arab and Muslim countries for their industries and naturally the wast capitals which the end of the oil era will inexorably put in the “hands” of Arab and Muslim regimes. The world is now radically different than it was in the 70’s. In the 70’s the main customers for oil and targets for capital investments were basically only in the “West”. Now there are several other options competing from the Middle Eastern resources, capitals and markets. In that competition open support to present Israeli policies is certainly not an asset so the dreams of Russia and India becoming new Israel’s godfathers are simply amusing.
Surely we will not see very radical fast u-turns, but the trend is obvious. Israel will be forced to peace and the Israeli Jews majority and especially the ruling elite must be prepared to take a bitter medicine in coming years.
June 16, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Simo,
Thank you for writing. Your voice is important and needs to be heard.
I agree with much of what you said, and disagree with some. Don’t have the time to comment now, but will do so a bit later.
Shai.
June 16, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Simo,
I absolutely agree with you that there have been very real benefits to this instability which Israel has created for itself and around itself for so many decades (especially from 1967 on). And I agree that Bibi’s “offer” was ridiculous. What would Bibi say if the United States demanded that Israel first recognize it (the U.S.) as “The Christian State”? Or “The White State”? What neither Bibi, nor most in my country, understand is that these demands are nothing short of Racism. No one in his right mind can accept them. And if what we mean is not racist, then we’d better find a new definition and a new title to the request.
I disagree slightly with some of your points, namely:
1. The water issue cannot be an excuse. First, because we’ll most likely still have access to the Kineret (Lake of Gallilee), and second, because there have been numerous talks about water with the Syrians (for instance) with cooperation expected from Turkey and, quite likely, the Peace Canal Project or something similar being implemented following a peace agreement. Israel should not fear peace for that reason.
2. I think the main reasons Israel is viewed as a close friend of the United States are because of the very-influential Jewish community in the U.S., and because Israel is the most stable and closest to a democracy in this region. The instability in the region, in particular Israeli ongoing Occupation of Palestine, has only been a huge headache to all U.S. administrations, and in fact in full contradiction to its own policy towards this issue.
3. I don’t think peace with the Arab world would in any way change Israel’s nuclear stance, or policy. Israel considers only Iran as an existential threat (idiotic, I think), and Iran will be the last Islamic state to sign a peace agreement with us. Plus, there are plenty of examples of nuclear nations, surrounded only by friends and allies, and yet remaining nuclear (France, Britain, and now even the U.S.)
4. I don’t think our economy stands to lose anything from peace. Of course our military industrial complex might, though most of the money comes from export, not from supplying our own army. The majority of our economy is not military-related, and certainly would benefit from peace. By the way, one of my own personal indexes for what the economy thinks of peace, is the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. And for the past 20 years that I’ve been observing it, almost like a Swiss clock, it has always reacted very positively to anything peaceful or optimistic, and very negatively to the opposite. It is said that Farouq Al-Sharaa, in his first or second meeting with Barak in the U.S., asked him “So we’re making your stock market do well?…” And at that time, he was absolutely right.
I also very much agree with you that, in the end, peace will be forced upon Israel. No one has the time and patience to wait until 51% of my countrymen get over their intoxication with power, or their innate paranoia and ongoing existential fear of paper-tigers. I hope Obama will apply the maximum pressure of the United States. We need it desperately.
June 16, 2009 at 11:36 pm
One cannot say that “Israel” benefits from the current militaristic society, it’s certain sectors of society who happen to be very powerful—e.g., the generals at the top of the political system—that reap their benefits from the current situation. So their keep Israel as an aggressive Rottweiler. Now whether this Rottweiler is on a leash or not, depends on its master, as Yitzhak Laor says in the piece I quote below. If the Americans wanted, Israel was out of the territories and the Golan 30 years ago, but they were not interested in that, because that was an effective way to punish the Arabs when they were aligned with the Russians. Now this is all obsolete and while it takes time for policy to change, it will change to reflect the American interest eventually.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093244.html
The carrot’s moment has arrived
By Yitzhak Laor
Tags: West Bank, israel news
After Israel conquered Sinai in 1956, the United States allowed David Ben-Gurion to make his speech about the “Third Kingdom of Israel.” The Americans then sent the Israel Defense Forces quickly back to their tents. Had the Americans also wanted to resolve the conflict in 1967, they would have gotten Israel out of the territories four or five wars ago, with the same ease with which they coerced Yitzhak Rabin’s first government into the first separation-of-forces agreement with Egypt. But the years went by, the dead were buried, the disabled have covered many long kilometers in their wheelchairs, the American peace plans have continued to create hopes, and the United States has not expelled Israel from the Palestinian territories.
In his memoirs, Henry Kissinger boasts how he pulled the wool over Andrei Gromyko’s eyes when the Soviet foreign minister thought the Geneva conference after the 1973 war would bring a comprehensive solution agreed on by the great powers. The Palestinian question would be included. Kissinger also boasts how he put together, behind the Soviets’ backs, the disengagement agreements between Egypt and Israel in anticipation of a partial and separate peace. This is the key to reading the region’s history.
A withdrawal by us from the territories was always the American carrot. A carrot is accompanied by a stick, and over the years it was an Israeli stick, to the joy of our security elite (an inseparable part of the state’s leadership since 1967). For example, there were the bombings deep inside Egypt of cities and their residents, factories and even a school during study hours. This happened without pity, without the High Court of Justice, without B’Tselem.
The system worked. In less than 30 years, the entire Middle East, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, underwent a pro-Western change, except for the Syrians (who have not yet received their territories). In 1967, on the eve of the occupation, the United States was at its lowest point in the region. The three secular regimes – Egypt, Iraq and Syria – were closer than ever to the Soviet Union, and no one serious would guarantee the existence of the two feudal regimes – Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
The turning point came with the Israeli victory. Today the Middle East is not merely poorer, it is fragmented, beaten and fundamentalist, and Israel has apparently completed its role. The fact that it identified itself as an ally and not a stick, and the fact that talk about withdrawal was always seen as an edict that did not necessarily have to be met is part of our tragedy in which the return to the 1967 borders and an independent Palestinian state have never been considered by the majority as being in our interest. And this is without any connection to the American policy that for many years did not favor a Palestinian state and therefore did not really oppose the settlements.
Now it seems the shrunken peace camp is again waiting for the sheriff to release us from the imbroglio created by our governments – settlements, taking over the Palestinian water economy and integrating the West Bank into Israel (without integrating its subjects).
If U.S. President Barack Obama indeed plans to solve the conflict, the carrot’s great moment has arrived. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech stuttered despite all its fluency and sweated from being so dry. He seemed to be waiting for the moment in which, within the American agglomeration of interests, the U.S. religious right would strengthen, led by Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin and the military industries, the greatest beneficiaries of the special relations with Israel (like our military elite, which has been living in a fool’s paradise since 1967).
The Israeli war machine has apparently done its job and can now close shop. Already in the 1991 Gulf War, it was hinted that the IDF should keep its equipment and weapons empire for policing the towns and villages in the occupied territories, or for harsh strikes in Lebanon (until it becomes completely Westernized). Over the decades, this machine has turned us into a nation that lives by the sword, drugged as if its power were unlimited. It’s a nation that protects a system for building settlements that is nothing more than an apartheid state.
No one will free us from the labyrinth if we do not do it ourselves. For that we need to be ready for a confrontation as well. Certainly not to build a national consensus around “large settlement blocs.”
June 16, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Oh Simo and while you are worried (or wishing?) that the transformation will taste like a bitter pill for Israel, I have no doubt in my mind that in all measurable indices of development such a change will benefit the lives of the majority of Israelis, be it GDP per capita or safety/security or cultural wellness. It’s true that we will not have the limelight anymore, we will be a “boring” country, maybe like the Czech republic or Slovenia, but people are going to be much happier.
June 17, 2009 at 5:54 am
I disagree with Laor when he says: “… in which the return to the 1967 borders and an independent Palestinian state have never been considered by the majority as being in our interest.”
That is plainly false. Over the past 15 years (since Oslo), in almost every single poll taken, by anyone, a majority of Israelis is FOR the return of the West Bank to the Palestinians and for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Even today, when most Israelis have clearly become more hawkish, and the Right is on top, still most Israelis are for a withdrawal from the West Bank. This is not the case, only with the Golan.
As for Israel becoming another “boring” according-to-its-size nation, I seriously doubt that’ll happen in our lifetime. This is still a crossroads for the three monotheistic religions, for three continents, with plenty of history and tourism to offer like most “boring” states cannot. I have no doubt whatsoever, that if there is peace in this region, real peace between Jews and Arabs, tourism is Israel will skyrocket. It already is, by the way, with Russian tourists (Christians). Tourist agents that speak Russian are in high-heaven nowadays.
The political climate in Israel has driven people away. Lots of our talent finds itself overseas (right, Yossi?!?) I’m certain that when there’s peace, much of that will return as well. If today Israelis are setting up startups in the expensive Silicon Valley, bringing in smart Indian scientists and paying them super-high salaries, tomorrow, they’ll run the companies in Israel, and bring people here. There already are companies like that, and there will be many more.
Simo, if the result is peace, I’m willing to swallow many many “bitter” pills. Let bitterness be our last problem.
June 17, 2009 at 6:24 am
Shai,
I think most Israelis are accepting the idea of withdrawal from the West Bank, or have been doing so, either as an abstract concept or within the discourse of what Israeli center/left considers a “fair deal”, which is not far away from what Bibi proposed. Since that was never a serious deal, either with respect to content or with respect to timeline, and even those that did support the notion of a withdrawal, looked at it as a bitter peel to swallow, not as something to look forward to as a vital Israeli interest, I therefore actually agree with Laor on this assertion.
As far as Israel being “boring”, I guess you’re right Shai, I didn’t mean to say that Israel isn’t going to be attractive or fun, quite the contrary, just that it will not appear in every news cast next to Afghanistan, Sri-Lanka and Sudan.
June 17, 2009 at 11:47 am
Yossi,
You’re right about Israelis probably looking at a withdrawal from the West Bank as an abstract thing. As something theoretical that might take one more headache (terrorism) off their shoulders.
They are not voting in favor of a PM like Sharon or Olmert (who voiced their plan to continue the withdrawal also in the W. Bank) because they truly believe in the process, because they truly want the Palestinians to have their own state, because they’re aware of the hardship and suffering we’ve brought upon another people.
But, for withdrawal to take place, I don’t think that’s a prerequisite. The day will come, maybe, when Israelis will understand what happened over these past 60 years, not only to the Palestinians, also to us. But until then, I’m fine with putting a real “FOR” card with abstract reasoning in the ballot box. And the same goes for the Golan.
June 17, 2009 at 6:06 pm
[...] Rumyal (Yossi) writes: Helena Cobban has a good post summarizing the history of Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations. She doesn’t mention the indirect negotiations mediated with Abe Suliman and Alon Liel, but otherwise it looks pretty complete. [...]
June 18, 2009 at 1:18 am
Are you two accepting requests for posts? I suggest a slightly less serious one.
Bruno is coming out in a little while, again picking on poor old USA. Now the US is an easy target. Some daft reporter can come out of Kazakhstan & know exactly where to go to find the crazies.
If you swapped the US for Israel, where would a Kazakh or an Austrian go? Who would he meet? Could we stand what he would uncover? Would it make a good movie?
June 18, 2009 at 5:59 am
Netsp,
First of all, it’s an excellent idea. Second, Bruno himself WAS in Israel in fact, and did an interview next to the Old City with Israeli and Palestinian Heads of Security. It was apparently hilarious, because they obviously didn’t know who he was, and he asked (the Israeli) things like “Why do you dislike Hamas (pronounced ‘Hummums’) that much?” Or to both “Why don’t you solve the problem by just renting out this land?”… I heard this on radio a number of months ago, and thought it would appear in the next movie. From the promo, I guess it won’t. But “Bruno Goes To Middle East” exists!
Third, we are always open to new post ideas and, in fact, are hereby extending a formal invitation to you Netsp, and to others, to write. Jad’s piece was great, and we’d love to have you write something as well!
June 19, 2009 at 1:52 am
Netsp,
To reinforce what Shai said… we don’t take requests for posts… we require posts from frequent commentators. If you have posted more than 20 comments then it’s your kitchen duty time…
Now as far as Borat is concerned… How dare you?! People in Israel are exploding in buses, kids in Gaza have no roofs over their heads and you want us to consider something less serious?!
Just kidding.. I feel the fatigue too. Are my life always going to be mortgaged for these sad and stupid people? I hope not.
Bring Borat and let the fools entertain us.
Here’s a movie that reminded me of Israel. You know what they teach us at school “no more shall we go like sheep to the slaughter!”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gEDUDmZkyc
PS: when you asked about Borat I thought that the answer would be “no, it won’t work” because Borat’s humor works by peeling a veneer of decency from folks. So how can it work when people don’t have any? What kind of surprise will he expose? The 69 scene though will always be funny, that can work in Israel too.
June 20, 2009 at 7:01 am
Thanks guys. I’ll give it a shot.
I think I understand why you two have such long comments now. I’ll be more sparing with my comments from now on. Try to get more in to each one. I don’t want to be the ‘frayer’ in the kitchen all the time