"For now, the most important contribution President Obama can make to peace is not by predetermining borders but by signaling Palestinians they must choose between genocidal Hamas or America’s support for a future state.

It's also time to tell the Palestinians this inconvenient truth: There can be no peace until they realize that the real “Naqba” or Catastrophe has been their own failure to reject Arab leaders who continue to offer the Palestinian people a future built on little else than hatred of their Jewish neighbors.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/23/arab-spring-facebook-obama-netanyahu-faceoff-whats-president/

I doubt anyone here would disagree....

Michale.....

Consider the reconciliation pact between Fatah and Hamas, I would say the opposite is true.

MORE Palestinians are leaning towards Hamas than Fatah..

It's becoming clear that the only "peace" that will work is an imposed "peace"...

But that's not workable either..

"Those who hate and fight must end it themselves. Or else it is never really ended."
Commander Spock, STAR TREK, Day Of The Dove

Michale.....

i'm not so sure that single-minded goal still holds a majority the way it did, or if so it's a slimmer majority than before. that being the case, the only rational way of permanently resolving the conflict is to win more people over. if the crazed "all-or-nothing" crowd become a minority among the palestinians like they are among the israelis, then they'll be more able to negotiate. there was substantial progress along those lines in the 1990's, so we know it's possible.

this past decade things have taken a step back, with mainstream israelis disillusioned about the prospects for success. but it's still not beyond hope. for all the missed opportunities of the past, all it takes is once.

While the settlers may be viewed as crazy by mainstream Israelis, they are still head and shoulders above what mainstream Israelis think about Palestinian terrorists..

As to ending the dominance of terrorism, it has been amply proven that Israel giving up land actually INCREASES terrorist attacks...

you don't like the idea of holding out a the carrot of open borders once the violence has long ended? i have yet to hear any better ideas...

Israel has always used the carrot first..

Everything that the Palestinians are demanding now (except for Israel's suicide.. :/) had been offered to them in the past..

But, as is their forte, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity...

Palestinians have been offered every sort of financial, economic and nationalistic incentive imaginable to end the violence...

But the ONLY thing that the majority of Palestinians want is something that they will never EVER get.

The destruction of Israel...

And now, with Hamas actually part of the Palestinian government again, the prospect for peace in the region has reached sub-zero possibilities.

Michale....

if anyone cared about fairness, there would never have been wars or terrorism in the first place. but i think you're operating under a fallacy where the settlements are concerned. the majority of israelis are not settlers and really couldn't care less about the settlements. therefore removing them would not be much of a sacrifice, and ending the dominance of terrorist hamas in gaza would be well worth it.

all most of israel wants is for the rocket attacks and suicide bombings to permanently end. as long as the palestinians have nothing to live for beyond israel's destruction, we will never see an end to the attacks. therefore, it is in everyone's best interests to have some sort of incentive for the arabs to create a society that is productive rather than destructive. you don't like the idea of holding out a the carrot of open borders once the violence has long ended? i have yet to hear any better ideas...

The problem with ya'alls plans (Liz and Joshua) is that it punishes Israel and Israel alone..

It gives the Palestinians everything they want and Syria, Jordan and Egypt get off scot free....

Why??

What exactly is Israel guilty of that they would deserve such punishment??

All Israel is guilty of is getting attacked by three nations and kicking their collective asses six ways from Sunday.

That is ALL Israel is guilty of...

To do what you suggest is akin to the British coming over to the US in 1870 and getting back their territory while US leaders grovel and apologize that the US kicked the Brit's arses 40 or 50 years ago..

I really don't understand why some in the US are so hellbent to give Israel to the Palestinians...

Especially considering our own history in the area of displacing native populations...

Liz,

Oh I know that my plan has less than a snowball's chance in hell of being implemented..

But the biggest thing going for my plan is that it is fair..

It punishes those that caused the problem.. As I said above, the war-makers..

Regardless of the pie-in-the-sky plans here, one thing is clear.

Before ANY negotiations are possible, before ANY settlements are closed or moved, before ANY thoughts of a Palestine state is entertained....

The terrorism against Israel must stop...

Asking Israel to do ANYTHING before that happens is just so unfair, it's mind-boggling...

Michale.....

I just wanted to check in and apologize profusely for thinking that Joshua's post was from David.. I have no clue WHAT I was thinking... Sorry about that..

I'll chime in on the responses once my head clears... :D

Michale.....

liz,

with all due respect, i'm under no illusions about my plan being feasible in real life. my bubble is not burst, we're just pie-in-the-sky tossing ideas around. at the moment, there probably is no plan of any kind that would be feasible. that's just the nature of the conflict.

the end-game i proposed was a confederation, which is sort-of halfway between one state and two. in theory, i really don't think that's such a bad idea - a jewish state and an arab state, where peace leads to fluid borders and free residency. as to how one would eventually get there, who knows.

~joshua

You guys are talking as if your plans are basedu upon anything remotely resembling reality. I really hate to bust your bubbles but they are not.

There are two options for Israel and the Palestinians:

(1)) a two-state solution, the parameters of which are quite well known; time is quickly running out for this solution, however, if it's not too late already;

(2) a one-state solution which, in time, will result in either an 'apartheid-type' Jewish state in which a minority population rules over a majority or a democratic Israel that ceases to be a Jewish state.

The best option is, of course, the two-state solution. Unfortunately, neither side in this affair have, over the years, demonstrated that they are capable of providing the kind of leadership that would be required to make this happen.

Will such leadership be shown now? Not until both sides understand that they have nothing to gain in the long run from sticking like glue to the status quo.

you attributed my plan to david? most of israel wouldn't mind making the settlers move. the rest of the israeli population tends to view the settlers as crazies who are part of the problem. as far as i'm concerned, getting rid of hamas and the west bank settlements would kill two birds with one stone.

other than jerusalem, the main sticking point in negotiations is the palestinian desire for freedom of movement versus the need to protect and maintain israel as a jewish state. at least in theory, confederacy could resolve that conflict. after years of peaceful relations, members of either confederate state would become free to reside in the other, but not vote or become a citizen.

~joshua

If I recall correctly, when Bush started wars with Congressional authorization, I said that Congress shouldn't have authorized it. I don't think I decided that they hadn't. Of course, that was starting wars whereas this is intervention in a pre-existing war.

There's too much deference to the executive branch on foreign policy. Some authorization should be revoked. But it should actually be revoked, not just denied. Congress should pass declarations of war when we go to war. Congress should specifically restrict what the US can do as part of NATO actions in the absence of a declaration of war. The UCMJ should routinely impose requirements that various specific things can be done only under a declaration of war. And so on. But Congress hasn't done any of those things.

The North Atlantic Treaty, its protocols, and the relevant statutes are valid. If Congress wanted to abrogate them, it could have. But it cannot (retroactively, in the case of the treaty itself) deny itself the power to enact them.

The question is whether they authorize US participation in the NATO intervention in the Libyan civil war. No one making noise about the Resolution seems to be addressing it.

I think your plan puts too much on Israel.

There are almost half a million Israelis in the West Bank.. Yea, I know.. How many millions of Palestinians were displaced..

But the reality is, the Palestinians are a conquered people. Israel won the war. A war not of their choosing, I might add...

The onus of responsibility SHOULD be on the war-makers.. In this case, Palestine, Egypt, Syria and Jordan..

It's up to THEM to accommodate Israel, not the other way around.

To put your plan in a different context, it would be as if we gave Florida back to the Seminoles (the tribe, not the football team.. :D) and forced relocated every Florida resident to other states..

I don't WANT to move! :D

Michale.....

my proposal would be a israel-palestine confederacy. i would take incremental steps toward semi-unification:

Step 1: the PA temporarily gives up gaza and its screwy non-contiguous land, and in exchange israel deports every single settler in the west bank. hamas leaders can either join in the peace process and accept israel's legitimacy, or go to jail.

Step 2: a confederate palestinian state is declared in the west bank. any israeli arab who wishes to vote in the P.A. election may do so. Any settler who wishes to move back there must follow a building code that the P.A. sets.

Step 3: the 1967 lines are declared to be the "symbolic" border between states. A schedule is set for gradually making the real borders more open, but only under the condition that there are no outbreaks of violence. both sides mutually set investigation procedures and VERY harsh punishments for anyone who plans or engages in a sectarian attack.

Step 4: the goal is declared that after a set number of years of normal relations without armed conflict, members of either confederate state will be free to reside in (but not vote in or become a citizen of) the other.

perhaps it's a bit idealistic, but that's the best solution i can come up with. thoughts?

I feel like DeadMeat in HOT SHOTS... :D

Anyways, here's my 3 step solution...

1. Palestinians stop the terrorism.

2. Palestinians acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

3. Egypt cedes all control of the Sinai and that becomes Palestine. Israel takes the lead in a massive terraforming project of the Sinai, assisted by Syria and Jordan and the United States.

Now, think about it... The new Palestine would have THREE long coastlines that could be developed for ocean front tourism. Egypt and Palestine would administer the Suez Canal jointly and all funds from the operation of the Suez would be shared equally..

Access to the Holy Sites of Jeruselum could be arranged, assuming that Palestinians obeyed the first two steps...

I know, I know.. There is a butt-load of nationalistic reasons why this would never work.. Predominant of which, Egypt would not want to give up the Sinai nor share control of the Suez..

But, ya got to admit.. It does have it's benefits... :D

Anyways, that's my plan for peace in our time....

Michale.....

A 3-step process..

If we survive the end of the world, I'll pass it on.. :D

Michale.....

For better or worse, I've developed a certain and hardened intolerance for the kind of utter nonsense that would lead anyone to say that "Libya is Obama's Iraq."

Whoever said that, and meant it, deserves the award for most asinine comment of the day, if not of the last few hours.

Don't beat around the bush, Liz. Tell us how you really feel! :D

But you are correct.. There ARE dissimilarities between Bush's Iraq and Obama's Libya..

Bush would have NEVER snubbed Congress and ignore the War Powers Act like Obama has...

And the Left (CW excepted, of course) and many on the Right, would have never let Bush get away with the arrogance and disdain that Obama has shown towards Congress.....

“Since April 4 U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”
-President Barack Obama on why he has ignored the War Powers Act

Talk about tap-dancing! Jeeeezuus

Here's the facts. US Forces are deployed in a combat TOP for sustained, specific and ongoing military operations.. That comes under the purview of the War Power Act..

Further, the Obama Administration actually CITED the War Powers Act to justify the Libya Campaign at the start..

NOW that the WPA is "inconvenient", the Obama Administration wants to ignore it.

Some have cited the UN resolutions as why Obama can ignore the WPA.. However, that's a completely illogical and irrational response, not to mention COMPLETELY bogus..

The UN Charter specifically states that all countries MUST approve actions based on UN Resolutions thru their respective legislative bodies.

CW is dead on ballz accurate with the MDDOTW award.. However, I think the award should be expanded to ALL Democrats because of the blatant hypocrisy shown.

This latest episode simply provides more proof that the so-called "anti-war" elements of the Left weren't really "anti-war", they were just "anti-Bush"...

You can pooh-pooh away the Iraq/Libya connection, but the similarities are simply too numerous to ignore.. And the Dissimilarities simply put the Obama Administration in a worse light than the Bush Administration..

CW,

Surprised you didn't also comment on the sex scandal thing either, as I gave a Republican some slack on that one.

No need.. You summed it up perfectly.. I completely agree... It's the hypocrisy...

As for the bragging, well, you may be right, but Democrats normally aren't that good at this sort of thing.

Oh they're good at it.. Obama has brought narcissism to new heights... Check on some of his speeches about Bin Laden and see how many times he says "I", "ME" and other references to himself... :D

Michale.....

Somehow, I knew you'd like that Bush reference. But hey, fair's fair. Surprised you didn't also comment on the sex scandal thing either, as I gave a Republican some slack on that one.

:-)

As for the bragging, well, you may be right, but Democrats normally aren't that good at this sort of thing.

Osborne -

Best comment on the zombie thing I've heard is that the CDC forgot to add specifics about "go for the head, it's the only way to kill them!" Heh.

Been meaning to say I've been enjoying your columns over on Osborne Ink this week, too, but been too busy to comment.

:-)

-CW

Whoever said that, and meant it, deserves the award for most asinine comment of the day, if not of the last few hours.

2) Newt is toast. How do I know this? Not a single Republican I've talked to in the last year has mentioned his name in a conversation about presidential favorites, and many have said they despise him.

3) The War Powers Resolution of 1973 isn't the entire body of law applicable to the Libyan conflict. The problem is that our Constitution was written in a time before technology and communications made it possible to start a full-blown war on Saturday night at 3 AM; we've needed to update this since December 7, 1941 -- and still haven't. I'm also not convinced Congress makes better decisions than the president. Look at Bush, who had a Congressional authorization (but not an Arab League vote, much less a UN Security Council decision on Article 42).

I am eagerly awaiting THAT discussion!! :D

Perhaps, instead of siding with the Palestinians, Obama should have asked the Palestinians why is it that it has been 15 years and the UN *STILL* can't agree on a definition of terrorism...

Further, I will agree that every American who supports the Palestinians "right" of return has a valid point..

ONLY...

Only when those same Americans give up their homes, their property and all their possessions to American Indians....

Anything less is complete, blatant and utter hypocrisy..

Honestly ask yourself: if George W. Bush did the same thing, what would you be saying now about it?

Exactly!!

The Left would be screaming to high heaven and everyone here knows it! :D

Libya is Obama's Iraq...

"I noticed that the Obama campaign team is now offering mugs and T-shirts with the full Obama birth certificate printed on them. If you know any 'birthers' personally, you can now buy them their own mug or T-shirt which disproves their conspiracy theory. As an Obama campaign spokesperson put it: 'The only thing we can do is laugh at it, and make sure as many other people as possible are in on the joke.' I couldn't have put it better, myself."

We're Americans. We love to gloat... It's who we are... :D

Ni Ni :D

Michale.....