Well, i'll be...

[GePap]

Ned:

I agree that most settler will remain as they are, but since most settlers live in a few huge settlements right outside Jerusalem, this is compatible wit thinking that almost all the settlements will go, sicne the vast majority are small. As for Arab states paying Israel for Jewsih land: I hardly see that happening. Besides the fact that that would open Israel to Palestinian claims for reparations, ususally money is left as awater under the bridge.

NOw, as for the negotiating partners. I agree that the PA as was constitutted aftre Oslo is corrupt and inept. It was Arafst's way of staying in power with hiw Tunis gang, and he has never had the will to take on Hamas unless Hamas was directly threatening his power. As long as this PA exists, moderat Palestinians will notcome to fore since they will be outmanuevered. BUt Odin and Cyber are right that Sharon is sabotaging the peace process. You ask why, well simple, because the right in israeli doesn't want a peace that ends with either a Pal. state or Pals. as Isrealis. They want a peace that ends with the Palestinians as second class individuals in a Jewish state covering all of the 1947 Mandate region, or a Mandate region free of Arabs period, for the more radical ones. Since most of the Israeli public does want to eventualy get out of these occupied regions and get on with their lives free of the huge sacrifices they must bear for "Greater Israel", the Right can't move openly. But look at how successful they have been at gaining greater support by stalling peace. The peace camp is broken and the enemies of any further peace are in power. In fact, the only things holding the right back now is the US, so intent on making preparations for its coming war in Iraq that it will not brook any outrageous acts by Sharon, and no Israeli leader will do anyting to threaten Israeli-US ties.

[Az]

You ask why, well simple, because the right in israeli doesn't want a peace that ends with either a Pal. state or Pals. as Isrealis. They want a peace that ends with the Palestinians as second class individuals in a Jewish state covering all of the 1947 Mandate region

no they do not. The mid-right in Israel has accepted the Idea of a palestinian state. I find it weird, that so many people ignore the fact that the Israeli leadership only loses because of the conflict. The otherwise prosperous Israeli economy is flat, because of the security situation.

[GePap]

Sharon, Netanyahu, or Eitam count as middle right?
Hey, it is Likud that made it part of their party platform to opose the creaion of a Palestinians state.

And how does the leadership loose? Yes, the Israeli economy has taken a nasty downturn since 2000, but Sharon will win January's elections without much problem, regardless of the economic situation. Fine Labor quit the government not only because of the settlement issue but also because of the budget, but in the end Sharon also got his budget passed.

There is a small but vocal and staunch minority that opposed peace, and they are more motivated to vote in the current situation than the center or the left (specially the left). After all, when issues of national security predominate, who gives damn about unemployment?

[chequita guevara]

Unemployed Israelis?

[GePap]

There's a 10% unemployment rate, the highest ever in Israel's history.

[chequita guevara]

No, it was an answer to you question, "who give [a] damn about unemplyment."

[Az]

Exactly, che. The Economical situation will mean the most in the next term, in my view, but I see a clear solution to the problems in the next 4 years of Sharon's leadership.

I forsee a political middle-ground coalition, with the 2 large parties and the shinui liberals, also with the russian immigrant satellite party, that will count for around 70 of the 120 seats. A deal will be made between Mitsna the new leader of the Labor party and Sharon, so that he'll supply 4 years of political stability and the solution to the economical and political problems, after which, Sharon will retire ( he'll be 80 by then ) and will support Mitsna as the next prime-minister.

Sharon counts as middle-right, Netaniyahu as right,and Eitam as far right ( at least with my book ).

Sharon is a pragmatist and always was. he had no problem destroying settlements when he felt like it was the right thing to do, e.g. Yamit. ( IMO, Israel should've negotiated some sort of deal to keep that area Israeli. Now, it's desert, and will surely remain that way, until some sort of decent egyptian regime will rise )

The party center did vote against the creation of a palestinian state, but that doesn't say much. After all, the PLO, the only reasonably sane (though corrupt )organization in the palestinian ranks, still has it that Israel has no right to exist.

[GePap]

Nah, most of them will vote Likud.

And there will be no corrections of my terrible grammar when trying to type fast!

[Az]

serves you right for trying to outtype me.

[GePap]

The PLO changed its charter, and has already accepted the existance of Israel. This is year old news already.

I still think a Right wing coolition is the most likely. not a centrist one. And while Sharon is a pragmatist, having read all the interviews he ahs given in a long time show me a man that is in no hurry to get anyting done, and certainly not one who really cares for the US 'road-map'.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Ned:

As for Arab states paying Israel for Jewsih land: I hardly see that happening. Besides the fact that that would open Israel to Palestinian claims for reparations, ususally money is left as awater under the bridge.

The problem of payment for expropriated Jewish land in Arab states is caused by the RoR formula contained in the U.N. resolutions passed after the' 48 war. The formula requires either return of the refugee to his home or farm, or compensation -- at the choice of the refugee. Since most of the refugee land is currently occupied by Israeli citizens, the return is unworkable except for perhaps a few thousand. This means compensation.

At the same time the Arab's were fleeing Palestine, Jews were fleeing Arab territories. It is the Israeli position that if they owe compensation to Arabs who fled Palestine, then Arabs similarly owe Israel for compensation for property of the Jews who fled Arab territories.

On face value, the Israeli position seems just. But this requires that any negotiations on RoR include all the Arab states, even those such as Jordan in Egypt who have already settled with Israel.

I agree, that it would be better that all this be left to history. But Arafat would not let the matter drop. He insisted on the U.N. formula during negotiations. In response to the assertion by Israel that they too were owed compensation, Arafat said that he could not negotiate on behalf of the other Arab states.

[Az]

The PLO changed its charter, and has already accepted the existance of Israel. This is year old news already.

I still think a Right wing coolition is the most likely. not a centrist one. And while Sharon is a pragmatist, having read all the interviews he ahs given in a long time show me a man that is in no hurry to get anyting done, and certainly not one who really cares for the US 'road-map'.

about the PLO charter, I have read it just a couple of weeks ago in the 2002 Middle East Almanach, published in the UK, and it establishes that jews do not deserve a state, since they're not a nation.

A right-wing coalition is not likely. Sharon will have a rather thin majority with the right-wing, while he could have a strong coalition with Mitsna, whom I always considered to be a smart and benevolent man. They have some history together, but so did Rabin and Peres, and they did just fine in the early 90s. Plus he has publicly accepted the idea of a palestinian state back in the late 90s, in an interview, IIRC..

[GePap]

The problem i see with that Ned is that Jews that left Arab areas were not refugees, as the notion of a refugee is defined. The flow of Jews out of Morrocoo, Iraq and Yemen took many years, up to decades. They left because of persecution but not because of immidate threats of force. They are, in that sense, similar to people leaving somewhere like haiti: bad life conditions making people chose to go elsewhere for a better life. They are migrants then, not refugees. What is to be done with the property of migrants then is a much more complex issue tht what is to be done with the lands of refugees.

If we talk only about the situation of the Mandate region, then Jewish holdings in those land that ended up being palestinians are tiny compared to Palestinain holdings in the lands that ended being Israeli. So Israel would be the one paying out big, not the Palestinians. Which is why I think Israel emans all Arab states, but as i said, since those Jewish migrants do not fit the UN definition of refugees the same rules do not apply.

[Ned]

GePap, on your second point concerning why he Sharon and perhaps others in the Likud are trying to sabotage the peace process you stated that their objective is to maintain control over the whole of Palestine while the same time not granting the Arabs equal rights if they remain or to forcibly move them out of Palestine. I agree that this is the conclusion that you inevitably reach when one states that Israeli leadership wants to disrupt the peace process.

I don't believe that either objective is possible and therefore your assertion is incredible . The world simply will not accept Israeli annexation of the whole of Palestine without Israel granting citizenship to the Arabs in the occupied territories. And if Israel were to ever attempt to force the Palestinians to move out of Palestine, even United States would go to war with Israel.

.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

about the PLO charter, I have read it just a couple of weeks ago in the 2002 Middle East Almanach, published in the UK, and it establishes that jews do not deserve a state, since they're not a nation.

A right-wing coalition is not likely. Sharon will have a rather thin majority with the right-wing, while he could have a strong coalition with Mitsna, whom I always considered to be a smart and benevolent man. They have some history together, but so did Rabin and Peres, and they did just fine in the early 90s. Plus he has publicly accepted the idea of a palestinian state back in the late 90s, in an interview, IIRC..

Well,something is up, since Palestinians, for example, have agreed to the principles of UNSC 242, which has the recognition of all states in the region as a precondition. Well, competing documents.

As for Sharon and a Paletinians state: He has never endoresed the notion of the palestinians getting anyting like what Taba gave them. Also, he continualy demands an interim period of many years, and his statements that Netzarim is as vital to Israel as Tel Aviv does not inspire confidence in Sharon as a peace-maker in me. Besides, every israeli leader who was around in the 70's has history together. Perers and Sharon certainly had history together..look were that anded.