Sunday, December 28, 2008

What Israel must now do...

The Palestinian cause for own Nationhood is basically lost. Divided among themselves, defeated in Gaza, incapable of stopping any further Israeli colonisation of Judea and Samaria and without any serious support from the International Community (IC, the International Cowards in this case), any dreams the Palestinians may still have fostered should now be firmly laid to rest. Paying lip service to the Two State solution by figures like Tony Blair or Washington is deeply immoral. The Palestinians are powerless in the face of all this and no one is going to hand them statehood on a silver platter. Without at least some negotiating and bargaining clout, coming to the table is simply asking for another smack in the face. The powerful have choices the weak don't have; it's a moral imperative the powerful put these choices to best use: to their own advantage.

Israel must now capitalise on the momentum it's gained at a moment when clearly the direction it has taken a long time ago goes unopposed. If only to give some meaning to the latest round of bloodletting, Israel must now make good on the advantage it has acquired in 40 years of Occupation.

Firstly it must finish off the job in Gaza: merely killing 280 or so Hamas fighters isn't good enough when later it transpires that its rocket launching capabilities haven't been diminished sufficiently. A fully fledged invasion and renewed military occupation of Gaza, until the last Hamas fighter has either been killed, expelled or captured is the only thing that will do. Considering that half-measures will only strengthen Gazan support for Hamas, this is logically, strategically and even morally the only right thing to do.

Secondly but more importantly, in Judea and Samaria, Israel, spearheaded by their "finest" (the current settlers), must accelerate Jewish colonisation: the mood in the country is clearly ready for it. The Far Right, increasingly both vocal and active in securing more settlements is on a roll and will need little encouragement: even covert condoning by any Israeli government should be enough; these people will know when to take a hint. Perhaps the government could even set its finest linguists to work to come up with a euphemistic term for this operation, something a la previous 'disengagement' or 'realignment'? Any resistance from Palestinians can and should be used to Israeli advantage: the old 'freedom fighter or terrorist' dilemma isn't really a dilemma, it's more matter of putting the desired spin on things. Nothing a well-oiled PR campaign cannot achieve.

Israeli settlers must occupy at least fifty percent of actual territory in Judea and Samaria within the next five years and ensure that enough Palestinians are expelled/transferred to guarantee that subsequent annexation of the colonised and the remaining territory and any Palestinians therein contained cannot lead to a demographic nightmare for Greater Israel.

Time is of the essence: some Americans are starting to grumble about 'Israel's diminishing strategic importance' and assorted dangerous talk. The new President elect, although currently clearly very stum on the I/P subject may want to get a second term legacy project out of the I/P conflict. But we know the Americans love winners and if Israel acts swiftly and creates a 'fait accompli', Judeo-Christian sentiment and sympathy will prevail.

Israel has nothing to fear but fear itself. Unassailable on the ground, air and sea by either the Palestinians or any neighbouring Arab state, and in possession of nuclear weapons (including second strike capability), it must now give some real value to Palestinian suffering by ensuring that forty years of it have served at least some purpose: the realisation of the restoration of Biblical Israel.

And for the Palestinians there remains one glimmer of hope at the end of a long tunnel: that by 2020 or so their situation will have deteriorated so much that the International Community may at last do more that just take notice and take notes: it may decide to act but by then it'll be too late, at least in all likelihood...


Update: Israelis that condemn the action:

Gideon Levy - Ha'aretz

Blood will now flow like water. Besieged and impoverished Gaza, the city of refugees, will pay the main price. But blood will also be unnecessarily spilled on our side. In its foolishness, Hamas brought this on itself and on its people, but this does not excuse Israel's overreaction.

The pictures that flooded television screens around the world yesterday showed a parade of corpses and wounded being loaded into and unloaded from the trunks of private cars that transported them to the only hospital in Gaza worthy of being called a hospital. Perhaps we once again need to remember that we are dealing with a wretched, battered strip of land, most of whose population consists of the children of refugees who have endured inhumane tribulations.

For two and a half years, they have been caged and ostracized by the whole world. The line of thinking that states that through war we will gain new allies in the Strip; that abusing the population and killing its sons will sear this into their consciousness; and that a military operation would suffice in toppling an entrenched regime and thus replace it with another one friendlier to us is no more than lunacy.

Hezbollah was not weakened as a result of the Second Lebanon War; to the contrary. Hamas will not be weakened due to the Gaza war; to the contrary. In a short time, after the parade of corpses and wounded ends, we will arrive at a fresh cease-fire, as occurred after Lebanon, exactly like the one that could have been forged without this superfluous war.


Amira Hass - Ha'aretz

In the Sheikh Radwan neighborhood alone, there were 43 fatalities. One mourning tent was set up for all of them. Most of them were young policemen who had joined the civilian police and were killed during the course commencement ceremony.

Training camps of the Izz-al Din al-Qassam and interrogation and detention centers were deserted when they were bombed. But police centers in the Strip, which give services to people, were teeming. No one believed that they would be bombed.

In the afternoon, they were still looking for bodies in the debris. Khalil Shahin rushed to the police station in the center of the Strip. "A huge building, and all of it on the floor," he said. Some 30 people were killed there. He knew that his nephew, a civilian, was killed when he went to clear up some matter at the station.


11 Comments:

At 3:32 PM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

A random visitor who isn't familiar with your blog just might think you really are a supporter of Israel's Far Right Nuts (and as I said before, the IFRNs aren't the ones behind the current excellently executed and justified operation against Hamas).

The situation is much more complicated than what you present here. If you really think all Israel wants is to control all the territories you're very wrong. We truly do want the two-state solution, and this is not just lip service. The problem is that some groups like Hamas don't accept that solution.

I'm interested in knowing what you really think would have brought an end to (or reduction of) the barrage of rockets on Israel.

 
At 5:14 PM, Blogger Cookie..... said...

Well mate, I must say that I had to read your article twice, do a lot of blinking, and then had to make sure I was reading "Devloping You Web Presence", and finally arrived at the facetious conclusion you intended.

This is just one more dangerous world situation inherited by the President Elect. God Bless him, he's going to need it.

A little projection here on my part. The MSM who absolutely adores and idolizes "The One", may have done him a great dis-service by all wonderful things they have written about and felt he can solve. I have spoken to my moderate liberal neighbors who absolutely are falling all over themselves believing that "HE" can, and will solve all (or most) of the problems now facing our nation and the world. He's only a man, and I believe that some folks will be very disappointed and dis-illusioned when he understandably fails at finding solutions to some of the situations he is now faced with.

Although I do not like Obama, I truly do wish him all the best and will (dast I say it) pray for him. Who in their right mind would want to be President of The United States at this time in history?

 
At 5:15 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Emm:

This is more than just a spoof blog post: it shows what can be achieved by applying a certain type of logic that would be very appealing to many Israelis, not just FRN, as well as the many non-Jewish 'Israel Firsters'. I know many moderate Jews/Israelis/supporters (bloggers of course) who can recognise themselves in the scenario I present here and wouldn't make a single opposing peep if this scenario became reality (it is already becoming reality, albeit a slower pace than I "recommend").

"If you really think all Israel wants is to control all the territories you're very wrong."

Forty years of facts on the ground in the West Bank contradicts that. A whole string of governments has basically not lifted a finger to reverse the situation (of increasing colonisation), despite international condemnation and a clear legal framework that prohibits colonising territory gained by means of war.

"We truly do want the two-state solution, and this is not just lip service."

I have increasing difficulty in believing that (but I do believe you believe it). Israel has not much to gain from it (and much to lose). The powerful have the liberty to make decisions the weak can't make. The Palestinians have nothing to pressure Israel with, why then should it seriously contemplate giving anything up? Israel's might is also constantly (and also materially) backed up by the only superpower left, the US.

To believe Israel is willing to make substantial concessions, I'd have to believe Jewish human nature to be innately of higher moral value than that of any other people, for no people in a similar bargaining position would feel greatly inclined to make these concessions. We do what we do because we can. The whole situation isn't all that "Jewish" or "Israeli" either: it's easy to find close parallels, past and present. Slightly paraphrasing Shlomo Ben-Ami: "All nations are born in sin". Much as I'd like to believe otherwise, Israel is no exception...

You claim below that this has nothing to do with the West Bank and the settlers. Assume for argument's sake that you're right on this. Why then does the government not announce and initiate a plan to withdraw the settlers here and now? It would make great PR and restore some faith in Israeli intentions.

It does not do so. Politics being politics, political capital will need to be made from the victory in Gaza first. Then the mood of the country will have to be gauged again. In all likelihood the country will be in elated, nationalistic mood, not enormously conducive to start talking about the settlements.

"I'm interested in knowing what you really think would have brought an end to (or reduction of) the barrage of rockets on Israel."

It's a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't situation' situation, no question about that, of course. Israel has the right to defend herself. But are you convinced that eliminating 280 Hamas fighters will put a stop to the rockets? Will a fully fledged ground invasion? Is the outcome not relevant to the action itself? How will such actions somehow turn the Gazans against Hamas? Show me one (just one single) historical example where aerial bombardment turned a people against its leaders. Didn't happen in Nazi Germany, didn't happen in Britain during the Blitz, didn't even happen in the country that received the biggest aerial explosive payload ever (Vietnam).

As regards the regrettable collateral damage, if only it was regrettable only and containable within the present. Every Gazan kid who's lost a father, a mother a brother or a sister will now hate Israel with unspeakable ferocity and will (bar a few exceptions) vow to exact revenge (rightly or wrongly). Israelis seem to collectively believe this doesn't matter too much and that it's something they just have to live with. But in essence such a situation is very bad for any country.

Where will it all end? In tears, of course. Palestinians will continue their futile low level war on Israel. Israelis, emboldened by every "successful" counter-action, will be continuously less inclined to make any concessions and will continue to dictate the terms of any "negotiating" round. By a certain logic they'd be foolish not to: nobody will stop them.

The settler movement will continue to make small inroads into Judea and Samaria but probably will not achieve its full objective, faced with a government that blows hot and cold at the same time. The settlers will continue to enjoy support from luke-warm to downright fanatical from 20, 30 perhaps 40 % of the Israeli mainstream, and will remain in a position to hijack successive Israeli governments. As a voting bloc, they are too large to realistically ignore.

The only real solution is the one for which the world has no appetite: international intervention. Separating the warring factions, control Hamas, push Israel behind 1967 borders (well, more or less), prop up a demilitarised Palestinian state and try to get it to prosper economically. Won't happen though...

 
At 9:09 PM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

"I know many moderate Jews/Israelis/supporters (bloggers of course) who can recognise themselves in the scenario I present here and wouldn't make a single opposing peep if this scenario became reality"

Then we have very different definitions of what being a moderate Israeli/Pro-Israeli is.

"Forty years of facts on the ground in the West Bank contradicts that. A whole string of governments has basically not lifted a finger to reverse the situation (of increasing colonisation), despite international condemnation and a clear legal framework that prohibits colonising territory gained by means of war."

During the first decades of the occupation there was indeed no intention to end it. In recent years, however, the situation is different. Yes, our leaders have been sending mixed signals, I admit, but they have also shown a willingness to withdraw from Palestinian territories - starting with areas ceded to the PA in the 1990's and most recently with the Gaza withdrawal (which should not have been done unilaterally).

"To believe Israel is willing to make substantial concessions, I'd have to believe Jewish human nature to be innately of higher moral value than that of any other people, for no people in a similar bargaining position would feel greatly inclined to make these concessions."

It isn't about morals. It is about Israel's best interest. If we can live in peace instead of the constant threat of terror and war then a two-state solution is better than keeping control of the territories. That's also part of the reason we're not rushing to create a Palestinian state. We have to make sure it will indeed improve our lives and not worsen them.

"Why then does the government not announce and initiate a plan to withdraw the settlers here and now?"

Because it would be stupid to open two fronts at the same time: one against Hamas in Gaza and one against settlers in the West Bank. We can, and should, take care of settlers once the operation in Gaza is over (which I hope will be as soon as possible) - and even then only against the ones in settlements illegal even by Israeli law. Evacuating other settlers should only come as part of an agreement with the Palestinian authority.

"But are you convinced that eliminating 280 Hamas fighters will put a stop to the rockets? Will a fully fledged ground invasion? Is the outcome not relevant to the action itself?"

I'm not crazy about the idea of a ground invasion. It seems too risky to me. The outcome is the most important part of the operation, and I do believe the more Hamas is hurt the quicker a ceasefire can be reached. It can even be reached in an unofficial way where Hamas somehow saves face. A more muted response, or no response at all, would just continue the barrage of missiles on Israeli towns.

"The only real solution is the one for which the world has no appetite: international intervention. Separating the warring factions, control Hamas, push Israel behind 1967 borders (well, more or less), prop up a demilitarised Palestinian state and try to get it to prosper economically. Won't happen though..."

Imposing a solution can't work. Will international troops be able to stop Hamas from firing missiles? Are foreign armies going to force Israel to its pre-1967 borders? International monitors after the two sides agree on a solution is something else, though, but even they won't be very effective unless the two sides take the peace treaty seriously.

 
At 4:15 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Emm, I'll address just a few points:

"Then we have very different definitions of what being a moderate Israeli/Pro-Israeli is."

No, I don't think we have. I think I know the demographic you refer to quite well. But I do also think your opinion on how moderate, mainstream Israelis look at this situation, is seen through your own somewhat rose-tinted glasses.

Had I cleaned up my spoof piece by eliminating the obvious spoof tell-tale signs and posted it anonymously at a variety of moderate Israeli/Jewish/non-Jewish supporter blogs, few would have protested, and several would have applauded, there is no question about that in my mind. And their commenters would mostly have fallen in line too. Empirically minded as I am, I may yet carry out such an experiment.

Assuming hypothetically that my spoof scenario was set in motion, would you seriously expect mass demonstrations on the streets of Tel Aviv against the government, (a la 300,000 in the wake of Sabra/Shatila)? That some, many perhaps, would object vehemently is of course a fact that I won't dispute. But enough to make a dent in the situation? It's all about numbers.

I don't [expect mass demos]. There simply isn't enough of a motive to do so. 60 years of occupation and assorted terrorism, combined with nothing but token disapproval by the IC have created an Israeli mindset in which Israel has little to lose by the status quo.

"During the first decades of the occupation there was indeed no intention to end it. In recent years, however, the situation is different."

Actually, at first there was considerable resistance from certain quarters of Israeli public life, notably Moshe Dayan and Yitzak Rabin (amongst others). Presumably they had the prophetic foresight to realise what all this colonising would lead too.

Today, name me one Israeli member of government (or one who aspires to be a member) who speaks loudly and clearly about pulling back from the WB. Instead they're all doing whatever they can to avoid Feiglin and if that means making compromises with a slightly less Far Right fraction, that's what they'll do. It's come to a point where those supporting the settler movement can almost dictate what the next government will look like... My Far Right friends Eitan and Mad Zionist are increasingly getting bolder too, with their plans for 'incentivated emigration'.

THAT is the result of 40 years of mainstream ambiguity and dithering.

Nothing tells the story of West bank settlements like a good old map.

Then there's the question of J'sem (you posted about it recently). Let's not go there...

"We can, and should, take care of settlers once the operation in Gaza is over (which I hope will be as soon as possible) - and even then only against the ones in settlements illegal even by Israeli law."

I cannot and do not believe this will happen any time soon: the incentive for the current Israeli government and the one that will succeed it is simply not there.

As I write this, the aerial assault continues, yet Hamas have been able to get a few rockets out too. When all this is "over", it won't be over yet. It will never be over: even if a truce can be arrived at (it will, of course), the rocket fire will start again, sooner or later, because negotiated truces (as opposed to 'natural truces', arrived at through balance of power and mutual deterrence) will always be fragile. See also Northern Ireland. Then your goverment can breath a sigh of relief and continue the chant: "de Gamas, de Gamas, de Gamas...", ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

"I'm not crazy about the idea of a ground invasion. It seems too risky to me."

This is perhaps one of the most interesting things you've written here so far.

Clearly in your mind the gain/loss ratio will shift too much to loss when your brethren start returning to Israel in body bags. Well, I contend that the current gain/loss ratio [for the aerial assault on Gaza] wasn't very favourable in the first place, as without a shimmer of doubt the now soon-to-follow truce could have been arrived at with much less explosive power and loss of life.

What you say here actually chimes in rather well and eerily with what Levy wrote yesterday:

Once again the commentators sat in television studios yesterday and hailed the combat jets that bombed police stations, where officers responsible for maintaining order on the streets work. Once again, they urged against letting up and in favor of continuing the assault. Once again, the journalists described the pictures of the damaged house in Netivot as "a difficult scene." Once again, we had the nerve to complain about how the world was transmitting images from Gaza. And once again we need to wait a few more days until an alternative voice finally rises from the darkness, the voice of wisdom and morality.

In another week or two, those same pundits who called for blows and more blows will compete among themselves in leveling criticism at this war. And once again this will be gravely late.


I'm wondering how you're feeling now (only into Day 2) about the IAF's handiwork, now we know a university has been seriously hit too? That many among the dead are police officers? That a prison's been hit? Never mind the collateral...

"Imposing a solution can't work. Will international troops be able to stop Hamas from firing missiles?"

I'm inclined to agree with you, yet the dynamic of the situation doesn't agree with your modestly optimistic stance. The world will not stand for another 40 years of this nonsense.

Or is that me being too optimistic now?

 
At 5:19 PM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

"Had I cleaned up my spoof piece by eliminating the obvious spoof tell-tale signs and posted it anonymously at a variety of moderate Israeli/Jewish/non-Jewish supporter blogs, few would have protested, and several would have applauded, there is no question about that in my mind. And their commenters would mostly have fallen in line too."

Most Israelis wouldn't mind your scenario if they actually thought it would improve Israel's situation. Most Israelis don't think it would, since it would not reduce terrorism nor is it realistically implementable.

"Today, name me one Israeli member of government (or one who aspires to be a member) who speaks loudly and clearly about pulling back from the WB."

All members of the cabinet who are from Kadima and Labor talk about pulling out of most of the West Bank if not all of it. Ehud Olmert, Tzippi Livni and Ehud Barack have repeatedly spoken about it. They may have not done enough to implement it, but they've definitely demonstrated a willingness to create a Palestinian state in the territories.

"Instead they're all doing whatever they can to avoid Feiglin and if that means making compromises with a slightly less Far Right fraction, that's what they'll do."

I think you're confusing Likud with Kadima and Labor. In the current Kadima-led government the most right-wing party is the ultra-Orthodox Shas, whose main demands aren't about the territories but rather related to church (synogogue, actually) and state relations. In fact, the reason we're going to elections in February is because Tzippi Livni didn't give in to Shas's demand not to talk about Jerusalem with Palestinians.

Feiglin is in the Likud, in a place that makes it very unlikely for him to enter the Knesset. There is a chance right wing parties will be able to block a Kadima coalition in the next Knesset, so that's something else related to the demands of forming a government in Israel. There's also a chance that because the right wingers are running several different parties they will end up having very few Knesset members and becoming less influential than expected.

"I cannot and do not believe this will happen any time soon: the incentive for the current Israeli government and the one that will succeed it is simply not there."

The incentive comes in part from the Palestinians. If they demonstrate that evacuating settlements brings more peace and stability there's a greater chance it will happen.

"Clearly in your mind the gain/loss ratio will shift too much to loss when your brethren start returning to Israel in body bags. Well, I contend that the current gain/loss ratio [for the aerial assault on Gaza] wasn't very favourable in the first place, as without a shimmer of doubt the now soon-to-follow truce could have been arrived at with much less explosive power and loss of life."

Yes, Israeli lives are more important to me than Palestinian lives. It's natural to worry more about your own side. I think this shock and awe campaign was necessary. This way we can reach a better truce.

In my opinion the previous truce was a mistake, since it allowed them time to improve there weapons, which can now reach further than ever before. But now we need a better truce, one whose terms will deminish Hamas's capability to re-arm and improve its missile range. This isn't easy to achieve.

I'm wondering how you're feeling now (only into Day 2) about the IAF's handiwork, now we know a university has been seriously hit too? That many among the dead are police officers? That a prison's been hit? Never mind the collateral...

I'm happy with the IAF, generally. The vast majority of targets were correctly bombed. I'm sorry about the prison, but not about the police (it's Hamas police - armed Hamasnik militants). Neither am I sorry for the destruction of the university, since it wasn't just any institute of higher education - it's the Islamic University, one of the worst hotbeds of radicalism in the Palestinian territories. Their labs were destroyed, and I'd be surprised if they weren't working on weapons in those labs.

 
At 7:14 PM, Blogger Gert said...

"This way we can reach a better truce."

The only truce that will ever be acceptable to Israel amounts to the annihilation of Hamas. Olmert, Livni and Barak want regime change and openly say so.

"This isn't easy to achieve."

No, it isn't and will take twenty years or so, during which colonisation of the WB can go on, unabated, accelerated even.

"Their labs were destroyed, and I'd be surprised if they weren't working on weapons in those labs."

This is stuff in the order of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca", unsubstantiated nonsense, fit for consumption by a population that's already demonised Hamas beyond any recognition and attributed importance to them that they didn't deserve.

Hope you realise that part of Hamas' appeal to Gazans is that "The group devotes much of its estimated $70 million annual budget to an extensive social services network, running many relief and education programs, and funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. According to the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz "approximately 90 percent of the organization's work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities" (Wikipedia)

 
At 8:39 PM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

"The only truce that will ever be acceptable to Israel amounts to the annihilation of Hamas. Olmert, Livni and Barak want regime change and openly say so."

Israel would like to see Hamas overthrown but knows it isn't a practical goal. A good truce for Israel would be one where no rockets are fired on Israel (which depends on Hamas) and where Hamas's ability to re-arm during the ceasefire is reduced (this part depends on what our military does, like the 40 tunnels it destroyed).

"No, it isn't and will take twenty years or so, during which colonisation of the WB can go on, unabated, accelerated even."

The truce will be reached within days, or at worst weeks. This is a very limited goal. Once there is a truce, negotiations can continue with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and with the Arab League. If Israel wants to prevent Hamas from taking over the West Bank it has to reward negotiations with more withdrawals from the West Bank, handing areas to the PA.

"This is stuff in the order of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca", unsubstantiated nonsense, fit for consumption by a population that's already demonised Hamas beyond any recognition and attributed importance to them that they didn't deserve."

It's well known that Islamic University is a Hamas stronghold. And of course Hamas is demonised in Israel. They are a terrorist organization that is trying to destroy us. Since they control Gaza, I don't see how they have been attributed too much importance.

"Hope you realise that part of Hamas' appeal to Gazans is that "The group devotes much of its estimated $70 million annual budget to an extensive social services network[...]"

I do realize that, but I can't separate the good works from the bad works (terrorism). I'm sure they use their charity to recruit people to their radical cause.

 
At 10:12 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Emm:

At the end of the day your entire position isn't very different from that of your more radical brethren: they too claim to want peace, but only on their terms. This is what you're doing but in softer tones. Like I said, Israel will do what it does because it can. There is no quid pro quo here, the Palestinians will always be expected to do something first, followed by pending (or not) approval by Israel. This is the story of the last 40 years.

Hence, according to you we need to wait for a 'suitable' truce, only then can withdrawal start.

But the truce will not be to your liking because it won't be 'absolute': x days, weeks, months down the line and either side makes a mistake, and ooops, back to square one.

Abbas has acceded to just about anything Israel wants and he's still waiting. Looks like now he's actually condemning Hamas' miscalculation. Will he get thanked for it? Perhaps another peck on the cheek or two from Olmert as a consolation prize, at the next photo-op (perhaps one with Obama?)...

Meanwhile the colonisation continues, that's the hard reality. And that is also the root cause of the problem, not Hamas. Hamas is a problem, sure, but not the root cause...

As regards your optimism about an early start of solving the settler problem, you're being very naive. I can't see anything move in the next 6 - 12 months. I'll dearly apologise if I'm proven wrong on that.

Tom Segev knows what I knew all along:

"Israel is striking at the Palestinians to "teach them a lesson." That is a basic assumption that has accompanied the Zionist enterprise since its inception: We are the representatives of progress and enlightenment, sophisticated rationality and morality, while the Arabs are a primitive, violent rabble, ignorant children who must be educated and taught wisdom - via, of course, the carrot-and-stick method, just as the drover does with his donkey."

Unfortunately this isn't just an Israeli mentality: the entire West collectively looks at Arabs and Muslims with the same disdain. And why not: "White-on-Arab racism: because we're worth it!"

 
At 7:40 AM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

I'm not looking for an absolute truce, just the best one we can get.

What happens with settlements depends on the results of the Israeli elections. If Netanyahu gets elected then the settlements will grow. A Prime Minister Tzippi Livni just might evacuate more settlements.

I do believe in prid pro quo. I think we should have already given Abbas more than just the release of prisoners. We should have handed more territory to the PA. Hamas is a different story.

 
At 1:40 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Ok, Emm.

Guess we'll now have to see how this latest phase pans out, as well as the elections themselves. Now I need to get updated on the "war"...

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home