PhotoDude.com

I would offer that an 'adjustment' to the amount of US funds going to each side might be looked at. All I know is what I read in the papers; if one side gets $40 billion per year for whatever reason(s) and the other side doesn't (for whatever reason(s)), I think there might be friction generated from that. Just a thought.

I'm all in favor of reassessing all of our foreign aid, but it's also important to understand the roots of the aid we currently give Israel. As a part of the Camp David deal in 1976, we agreed to give Israel $3 billion per year, and $2 billion per year to Egypt. $5 Billion a year from Uncle Sam's pocket, for 27 years, to buy peace between Israel and Egypt. If that sum now generates friction because the Palestinians aren't getting a share, well, what are we to do? Back out of our deal, one we've upheld because it is damn near the only peace treaty in the Middle East that's ever stuck? The only other option is to give the Palestinians some kind of "matching money" as well. Again, on Uncle Sam's tab. I would imagine the Road Map (way down on the end no one has looked at) contains economic waypoints as well, because any Palestinian government will need vast aid to develop some kind of economy. But will it be in the form of a commitment of $X Billion per year? I doubt it. But if it was, and it was announced tomorrow, do you think it would have any impact on the violence? I read an interesting thought today, and I wish I had the time or energy to track it down to link. But, to paraphrase, it spoke of how a government almost always has the monopoly on violence within the society it rules. However violent the people might get, the government can trump them. Riots bring riot police, and if that's not enough, the National Guard with M16s. It's as true here in the US as it was in Saddam's Iraq. But it is not true in Palestine. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the like have the monopoly on violence. And they exercise it regularly. There is no legitimate Palestinian government to seize that monopoly from them, there is only a defacto Prime Minister who vows he won't crack down on the militants in that way. Until that basic conundrum is alleviated, this theory goes, there will be no peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Good and excellent insight about "no legitimate Palestinian government." I don't want to sound like Jesse Jackson, but I do think that reasons to 'keep hope alive' are critical to both sides. In that vein, I have yet to see a plan that attempts to balance the current & future hopes (not desires!) of each against the other. I simply cannot accept that there is no common ground, no common denominator, no basis for living (rather than dying) together over there. I wish I had the answers! Over the years, I've seen Arafat and his cronies accept this or that peace accord with only one view in mind: how easy it will be to torpedo once implemented. This is not acting in good-faith. To that end, Arafat needs to be slapped & slapped HARD, not for his actions, but for his intent. I would not advocate taking his life, but rather changing his thinking. Over the years, I've seen Israel under various Prime Ministers offering the olive branch numerous times, but also doing pretty much what it wanted to regardless of U.S. or world opinion. To that end, it sometimes seems to me that Israel reserves a right of thinking it is always an us-versus-them situation as the last-ditch answer to any and all problems. With this mindset, any negotiations between the belligerents are always going to be a sham. My solution will sound silly, radical and perhaps naive, but what I would advocate is developing a campaign that would get Israel to asking itself and acting upon the question: "What can we do for the Palestinians?" The same campaign would be aimed at educating the Palestinians to asking and acting upon "What can we do for the Israelis?" I have not yet fully developed exactly how this would be done, but it is my only alternative to agreeing 100% with you that these two are otherwise going to be eternally at war with each other. And if I do agree to that extent, then it is the beginning of the end of keeping MY hope alive. I don't know the answer to your excellent question(s), but I know there has to be an answer.

I'll go way out on a limb here and suggest there really is hope. Hope begins when you decide that Hamas does not represent the Palistinian people, and that it is, currently, the problem. The Isrealis are willing to talk peace. Abbas is willing to talk peace. The US is there in force, and willing to help. Hamas wants to blow shit up. Eliminate Hamas from the equation and you have a chance. To restate your question, what hope is there for peace if Hamas is still around?

The way I see it, the situation is pretty grim. "The Isrealis are willing to talk peace. Abbas is willing to talk peace. The US is there in force, and willing to help. Hamas wants to blow shit up" I don't think so. If by "talk peace" we mean going beyond rhetorics and having the intention to actually reach an agreement, it depends on who is doing the agreement. If by "Israelis" we mean israelian civil society, maybe. Certainly not Sharon. I don't know about Abbas. If by "US" we mean the Bush regime then "willing to help" would require a major redefinition. And the Islamic resistance is certainly playing a much more central role than just "blowing shit up". Eliminating the popular support of Hamas is definitely the way to go, the question is how. I would favor more work on undermining their raison d'etre than following Sharon's style of intimidation, physical elimination and, through "collateral damage", indirect support. I agree with Dan that an "adjustment" in military aid to Israel would be a good move. And I also agree with PD that the military aid provided to Egypt and Israel has kept peace between both countries. But maybe we should ask why. I personally believe that military aid to Egypt has only served to keep Mubarak more than 20 years in power. And the folks in the White House like Mubarak. No money, no Mubarak. No Mubarak, hell may break loose (a fundamentalist-friendly regime! a socialist regime! God forbid!). So, a good solution may be to repeat the Egyptian experience in Palestine, putting money on a guy like Abbas before he starts getting crazy ideas like helping in building a truly democratic nation. That, of course, is a good solution for everyone except for the Palestinians. The other possibility is supporting the proper conducts for international conflict resolution (e.g. the UN), instead of having Bush play the role of a viceroy (there may lie one of the reasons why Islamic resistence is opting out of this whole deal). I know the UN has a rather dissapointing record in peacekeeping, but what would be a better legitimate alternative? The Palestinian Authority has asked for its presence in the past, with the refusal of the Israeli government... why not now? Pose the question to PM Sharon, and see how much he is willing to give for peace.

The Bush Administration is trying to assuage Arab opinion by telling the Israelis to do what they just ain't gonna do (stop defending themselves); and to assuage Israeli opinion by telling the Palestinian Authority to do what they just ain't gonna do (confront the terrorists themselves, and thus sign their own death warrants.) This is not a "road map." This is a demand for a double suicide, and it is absolutely crazy. It is in the 'telling' rather than the 'asking' that the devil of the details lies. I ask you: who likes to be told what to do? Tom Sawyer got Aunt Polly's fence painted by realizing that any given passer-by actually wants to contribute and participate. His genius was in understanding that any worthwhile endeavor requires a buy-in. His further-genius was in understanding human nature. The solution is to create an empty 'road map'. A roadmap as bare as Aunt Polly's unpainted fence. Let each side buy-in to each side's content. In short, create a horse-race to peace. Let the opposing sides offer the apple-cores, the spinning tops, the pieces of colored string that will afford them the opportunity to paint the fence for a least a little while. From Tom Sawyer's point-of-view, the object is to please Aunt Sally; from her point-of-view, the object is to get that dang fence painted. From the view of those offering treasures, the object is to have that paintbrush of peace in hand as long as possible. For the bragging rights, of course!

"(there may lie one of the reasons why Islamic resistence is opting out of this whole deal)" Stop giving nice names to terrorists. Hamas and other terror groups will not be satisfied with anything Isreal does or any concession Isreal makes. (at least not anything that would not be completely suicidal to Israel as a nation). And Abbas said he won't do anything about Hamas and other terror groups.

Sally & Polly are one and the same. Merely an identity-crisis. Forgive her.

If you suggest Hamas is the sole catalyst for this, well, obviously Hamas is a problem, one Israel has clearly declared war on. But what of the report I read the other day, of the tens of thousands of Palestinians who marched in Gaza chanting "only jihad for Israel"? When/If Hamas goes away, is that sentiment likely to go with it? Or will it just regenerate NeoHamas? This is not a "road map." This is a demand for a double suicide, and it is absolutely crazy. But, this "road map" is the will of the international community, doesn't that carry some weight? Rather than a demand for double suicide, I'd say it's a demand for each side to do what the other requires for their security, i.e., long term peace. You rightfully point out neither side will go that far. But let's remember, this is attempt #4,297 at Peace in the Middle East. This is not the only map. The maps have come and gone. The underlying problems remain. The other possibility is supporting the proper conducts for international conflict resolution (e.g. the UN), instead of having Bush play the role of a viceroy (there may lie one of the reasons why Islamic resistence is opting out of this whole deal). Well, it seems like every other person on this planet declared either, "you Yanks can't attack Afghanistan until you solve the Palestinian-Israeli problem," or "you can't attack Iraq until you solve the Palestinian-Israeli problem." European leaders pushed Bush to directly engage himself in this problem. Now he's a "viceroy" for trying? You can't demand a man get involved and then belittle him because he does, saying he is the reason militants are opting out. Poor innocent Hamas doesn't want to deal with that most unpleasant and objectionable Bush character? Could their reluctance be the problem, rather than Bush's presence? Or must all their demands be met? And, Federico, when you suggest bringing in the UN, you may not be familiar with who put this road map together. It was done by representatives of the US, the UN (Khofi Annan), the EU, and Russia. Subtract The Man Everyone Love to Hates (Bush), go to the UN, and you'll get ... the same plan. The plan isn't the problem. Nor is Bush. Voltaire once said, “A long dispute means that both parties are wrong.” We've got 55 years of varying degrees of warfare to qualify as "a long dispute." Perhaps the problem is getting both parties to admit they are wrong, and then move on from there. Clearly, many people on both sides are still focused on "winning," i.e., "being right." So how do you do that? And if you can't get, for example, Hamas, to agree they were wrong, how do you deal with them? I don't think the stern talking PM Abbas prefers will quite do the trick.

"But, this 'road map' is the will of the international community, doesn't that carry some weight?" "And, Federico, when you suggest bringing in the UN, you may not be familiar with who put this road map together. It was done by representatives of the US, the UN (Khofi Annan), the EU, and Russia." I respectfully encourage you to check your data, PD. Officially, the UN, the EU and Russia "welcomed" (did not draft, did not push) the so-called "road map to peace". What I suggest is for the Security Council of the UN to do its job, even if it means to be vetoed by the US once again (and part of its job should be to ask the US government to voluntarily surrender Mr. Bush to the ICC, not "welcome" his proposals). "Subtract The Man Everyone Love to Hates (Bush), go to the UN, and you'll get ... the same plan." In the past there has been much more aggresive plans on the desk of the Security Council, most of them vetoed by the US. This is just one example. My dislike for Bush is far from arbitrary. Oh, I almost forgot: "Stop giving nice names to terrorists". Jensen: Did I ever ask you or anyone to call Mr. Bush an "authoritarian pseudo-president"? No, right? So I'll keep calling Hamas and the Islamic Jihad the way I find more suitable.

OK, I've rechecked my data, and find “The United States, the United Nations, Russia and the European Union are known as the Quartet when they deal collectively with the Middle East conflict.” From Clarinet: “Diplomats from the Middle East Quartet agreed Thursday to publish a road map for peace in the region once a new Palestinian government is sworn in, an official said [...] ‘There is a consensus not to modify the road map finalized by the quartet on December 20 in Washington,’ said the official, after a meeting of diplomats from the US, the UN, Russia and the EU [...] The Brussels meeting gathered EU Middle East envoy Miguel Angel Moratinos, UN envoy to the Palestinian territories Terje Roed-Larsen, Russian diplomat Alexandre Vdovin and US envoy William Burns.” Or perhaps you'll believe Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief: “Hearts and minds have to be turned against violence. That is exactly the meaning of the road map — a map for a Middle East in peace, a road that leads to it. The U.S., the E.U., the U.N. and Russia — the ‘quartet’ — officially presented the road map to both parties last week. This is a strong coalition for peace that started work a year ago.” So although you claim the UN Security Council is not doing its job, it would appear the UN Chairman and the representatives of at least four permanent members of that council have collectively put together this plan. “My dislike for Bush is far from arbitrary.” Perhaps. And perhaps you're not part of what I now see as a long partisan trend. A President who is so detested by his political opponents that they perceive his every initiative as evil, and oppose or mock it simply because of that Presidential endorsement, not the merits of the initiative. That President's name was Bill Clinton. Now we see the same thing happening with George Bush, with the revilers now the reviled. People often get to the point their personal enmity and bile for one man overwhelms their better judgement. And that is apparently an entirely bipartisan disease. Maybe that's not you. But the one thing most parties involved seem to agree on is that the US is the only one who can take the lead on this initiative with any hope of making it work. There's been a consistent call for the US to solve the Israeli Palestinian issue for years. It's most loudly heard just before we try to do something else, like our attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now you think Bush is in the way? Sounds to me like we'll be damned if we do, and damned if we don't. But we're getting used to it.