May 09, 2007
Why Israel is doing Arabs a favor by ignoring the Arab Peace Initiative
Because Arabs can score some PR points out of it, but would face the tough issue of dealing with it if they had to sit and really negotiate it. Or worse, find some formula about refugees that one of our duces would think is a face saving one and come to have to actually implement it. Of course, if we were smarter, it wouldn’t be a tough point at all. But see, in negotiations, we’re idiots.
I know this entry comes a bit late, the Arab Peace Initiative has been put back on the table several weeks ago already, but I felt inspired by a recent discussion of it with a concerned friend. At the beginning of the Oslo process, when Israelis were sending delegations of the finest international law and negotiations experts, Palestinians were sending teams of little bullies, thinking that the kafya military green wearing Sopranos would be as good with their brains as they are with their muscles.
A “just solution” to the refugees issue, says the proposal. In other words, we know the reservation line for Israel is not to take back any significant amount of refugees, so the chieftains would try to find a twist that will allow them to step over Arabs’ (that Israel takes a significant amount of them back). From their so public savvy thrones, they think they will be able to sell it to their gullible subjects. Then they will have to enforce them at gun point, like pretty much everything else.
Let’s face it. Both reservations lines are mutually exclusive, there’s no zone of possible agreement. Mind you, there have been creative solutions that could accommodate them both, confederations or what have you. But with the current balance of power, or the lack of thereof, there’s simply no incentive to even remotely consider them from the stronger side. Israelis can simply take anything they want by themselves. So Arabs have nothing to gain from actual results stemming out of any negotiations with Israelis. Nor do Israelis for that matter, unless it’s a complete capitulation from Arabs.
No, I’m not a warmonger. I’m not a radical. Unlike the radical warmongers, I don’t support starting off battles we are not going to win. I’m a pragmatist. But unlike defeatists who claim they are pragmatists, I don’t mind the status quo. Mutual ignorance is cool. It doesn’t cost a dime. And you can postpone dealing with the problems you can’t solve today to focus on those you can. After all, why this rush to normalize with Israel? Heck, how many Arab countries have normal relations with Botswana, Laos or Belize? Is anyone pressing Arabs to normalize with those countries?
So Israel’s doing Arabs a favor I was saying. Sitting on a negotiation table at this stage is to Arabs like giving some retard a loaded gun under the pretext that he’s going to defend himself. The most likely result is that the retard’s going to shoot himself. If we were smarter, it would be no problem sitting there for decades if necessary, negotiating if there’s room to negotiate, or listening to Umm Kalthoum if there’s none, all the while having some competent PR folks shed crocodile tears over Israeli bad faith and sing an odd to our good faith.
But then, if we weren’t some big time retards, the balance of power would be in our favor.
And by the way, it’s not all the leaders’ fault. Kama takunu yuwalla `alaykum. "As you are you so will your leaders be". Retards.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
I'm against negotiating mainly because the sight and sound of Saeb Erakat has the same effect on me that George Bush does. Erakat is the true symbol of the Palestinians, a 'chief negotiator' who in, what?, 20 years? has managed to successfully negotiate nothing. The Israelis should be paying his salary, if they are not already.
Hussein Agha deals with the same questions in the current NYRB (www.nybooks.com) btw.
The current American and Israeli Administrations are happy with things as they are. Perhaps a change in the US (Obama has at least recognized that Palestinians are human beings) might lead to something but for now it's better to do nothing.
Posted by: jr786 at May 9, 2007 09:39 AM
I don't think I follow your line of reasoning here. As I see it, touting the Beirut proposal has four major advantages for the Arab and Palestinian side:
-- It shames Israel back into talking about final-status issues, and puts the political, legal and moral issue back at the centre of the dispute, after years of haggling over wall routes, Fatah-Hamas clashes and Qassam firings.
-- It puts a dent in the total refugee return taboo, and the sooner, the better. As it is now, Palestinians seem intent on sacrificing realistic goals to uphold the one goal they know they can never achieve.
-- It dangles the prospect of a negotiated peace in front of Israelis, which could hopefully make them elect someone other than that notorious deal-breaker & populist Netanyahu (or worse).
-- It shows the world that the Arab demands are not at all as extreme as they're often perceived to be. In fact, they're probably less intransigent than Israel's. Public diplomacy.
I do agree that there's a point in sitting out the Bush administration, though. It has done nothing but mess things up, for both Palestinians and Israelis, and if the best they can come up with is a Palestinian state with "temporary borders", then there's no point in engaging with them at all. But from the Arab perspective, it's better that Israel takes the fall for the lack of contacts, which is also why making noise about Beirut and peace and love is sensible.
Posted by: alle at May 9, 2007 12:03 PM
I think you misunderstood the entry.
It shames Israel back into talking about final-status issues, and puts the political, legal and moral issue back at the centre of the dispute, after years of haggling over wall routes, Fatah-Hamas clashes and Qassam firings.
This is where I'm talking about scoring PR points.
-- It puts a dent in the total refugee return taboo, and the sooner, the better. As it is now, Palestinians seem intent on sacrificing realistic goals to uphold the one goal they know they can never achieve.
The Palestinian leadership has shown a lot of willingness to sacrifice the refugee issue. I'm not going to go all over the process again. But whether they sign off the refugee question or not, leaving the question unsolved (ya3ni no significant return) is definitely not going to create any kind of peace that would hold against a reversal of balance of power. Or that would even be stable on the short-mid term, there's just too much opposition to it.
Thinking Palestinians today can achieve anything significant, whether by force or by negotiation is not realistic in itself anyway. In the end, the actual choice is, status quo with having signed off that right, or status quo without having done it. I don't see the advantage of the former. Which is one of the main points of the entry.
It dangles the prospect of a negotiated peace in front of Israelis, which could hopefully make them elect someone other than that notorious deal-breaker & populist Netanyahu (or worse).
Israelis will elect whoever suits them, not just in function of Palestinians. And when it comes to Palestinians, Israelis have a very solid majority agreement on the core questions (no refugees, keeping at least important chunks of the West Bank).
The Bag Guy Good Guy thing is delusional. No, I'm not saying Israeli governments are all Bad (tm). All I'm saying is they will defend their interests, regardless of anyone else's feeling about them, period. Which is the right thing to do. Arabs ought to do the same.
It shows the world that the Arab demands are not at all as extreme as they're often perceived to be. In fact, they're probably less intransigent than Israel's. Public diplomacy.
Look, Arab leaders don't often say things smart, but on this one, the Assads have a couple of good words. The father said something along "let them give the full land back, and we'll fax them a full peace right back". The son, when Syrians were called radicals because they deemed that giving up 5% of the Golan was unacceptable, said that if that was considered radical, then let Israelis give the whole Golan plus 5% from the other side.
The point is, "extreme demands" are in the eye of the beholder. It's PR which makes them perceived as being extreme or not, not how much you actually give up or claim. And in PR, we deserve a Nobel Prize in incompentence.
I do agree that there's a point in sitting out the Bush administration, though.
This is definitely not one of my points, very much the opposite. Bush or not, Arabs should be sitting there under the banner of negotiations. Now whether they're actually negotiating or playing cards under Umm Kalthum tunes should depend on pragmatic considerations relating to how much of THEIR interests are achievable at the moment.
But we're incapable of that as well. In fact, as soon as we'd sit, because we're so little objective oriented and so illiterate when it comes to negotiations, we'd just screw up. We're unable to shore up our alternatives to negotiations. We're unable to be seductive to the public. We're unable to undestand that, in negotiations too, you have to be able to assess when you can't realistically achieve your goals, and not translate that into giving up on them.
Shame the Israelis? The David Grossmans maybe, but I would bet that most other Israelis of conscience have already left Israel.
The only people that need to be shamed are the American voters, who are the only ones capable of deciding anything about Palestine. These discussions/negotiations are always farce.
Without political military or economic power Palestinian insistence on the right of return is the only negotiating point the Palestinians have. When enough people, Americans, understand that the current situation gives that right to some born again Russian Jew from Minsk while Palestinians who have been connected to the land for centuries get displaced then, and only then, will shame become a factor. But getting that simple fact through the screen of Israeli propaganda is almost impossible.
Palestinian negotiating incompetence is an old lament, as is Arab/Muslim indifference. Personally, I support Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and I don't give a fuck what anybody thinks.
Posted by: jr786 at May 9, 2007 01:26 PM
jr786 - Shame the Israelis? The David Grossmans maybe, but I would bet that most other Israelis of conscience have already left Israel.
Yeah, only the evil cyborgs are left now.
Palestinian insistence on the right of return is the only negotiating point the Palestinians have.
But it's not a negotiating point. Any Israeli who is seriously interested in a two-state deal has realized long ago that the Palestinians will in the end give this up, under some clever rhetorical formula. And Israelis who are not interested in a two-state deal -- well, for them it doesn't matter what the Palestinians say. It's like Hamas's refusal to recognize Israel outright: as an issue of political or religious principle, okay, but to think you're holding a negotiating card there, you must be a loon. Israel exists, and Israelis are quite aware of it. What Hamas thinks about it is background noise.
This issue needs to be discussed, and the public taboo broken, now, because when the "concession" is finally made, they have to be able to get it through parliament (or whatever institution will be signing off). Palestinian politicians have been prisoners of their own rhetoric for so long, and I could easily see how a decent future deal is derailed by opportunists who are otherwise pro-negotiation, bringing up "total return" just to ride the outrage.
Personally, I support Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and I don't give a fuck what anybody thinks.
Well, then you won't mind if I say I think you could do a lot better.
Posted by: alle at May 9, 2007 03:11 PM
shaheen - I think you misunderstood the entry.
Hm, I think so too. But this is interesting, so a long response follows.
The Palestinian leadership has shown a lot of willingness to sacrifice the refugee issue. [...] leaving the question unsolved (ya3ni no significant return) is definitely not going to create any kind of peace that would hold ...
I think we mostly agree here. You're right that the leadership has shown that flexibility, but (a) public opinion in the West & Israel doesn't know that, and it would help a lot if they did, and (b) Palestinians in general may know it, but they won't support it openly. There's still a total blockage of discussion of the right of return, when in fact Palestinians need to -- desperately need to -- get a debate going on how to implement a partial RoR, who gets to go where, what can be done to maximize the impact, and so on. Of course it'll be hard, existential even, but that taboo has to go, so people can move on to valuable debates & implementation, and so leaders stand a reasonable chance of making a deal stick once they sign it, without facing an explosion of symbolic Danish cartoon-style protests from people who deep down are pretty okay with it.
In the end, the actual choice is, status quo with having signed off that right, or status quo without having done it.
I see your point, but I don't agree. The "status quo" of the Isra/Pal issue has been much overrated -- leaders in the US, especially, think they can always put it off until next year. But there is no such status quo, the conflict is changing permanently, even if slowly. The closest thing to a status quo is increasing Israeli colonization, Palestinian emigration and decay of the national movevent into corruption, fundamentalism and factionalism. All three things work against the two-state solution short-term, and the wider Palestinian national project long-term.
The two-state solution's window of opportunity won't stay open forever (it might have closed already), and while this is a long-term existential issue only for Israelis (who are moving towards a South African dilemma), Palestinians need to adjust their thinking to it. If they're going to go for two states, and they think it can work, then they need to start making tough decisions ASAP to seize the opportunity. But if not, then they should go get their rifles, because the status quo is eating them alive. If a determined president comes along post-Bush, peace stands a chance, but if not, in say ten years, there'll be nothing to negotiate about anymore.
Israelis will elect whoever suits them, not just in function of Palestinians. And when it comes to Palestinians, Israelis have a very solid majority agreement on the core questions (no refugees, keeping at least important chuncks of the West Bank).
Yes, there are many other issues that affect the vote apart from the Palestinian question (the Pensioners' Party breakthrough in the last election says something), but Palestinians should not underestimate their effect on Israeli politics either. And while Israelis are united around these issues, the right wing in Israeli politics is hesitant (or, worse, refuses) to make peace even on those terms. Also, Netanyahu is a notorious populist and deal-breaker, who could squander any opportunity to solve the conflict for personal advancement, like he did last time, even if the US would apply maximum pressure for negotiations. There are definitively degrees in hell here, from the Palestinian perspective.
[Papa Asad] said something along "let them give the full land back, and we'll fax them a full peace right back".
Good, but who knows about it? That's why the Beirut initiative is a good thing, and also why it is getting attention: enough people in the west haven't heard about this attitude, and think it represents a new opportunity for peace. Of course, it's more like an old opportunity for peace, but if that's what it takes, then so be it. The important thing is that even moderately interested people are beginning to notice that it is Israel that is turning down very reasonable peace overtures now -- for a good many of them, the image of the Arab world's position was until now set by the triple no of Khartoum. Point being: it is perhaps even more important to speak softly, when you're not carrying a big stick.
Now whether they're actually negotiating or playing cards under Umm Kalthum tunes should depend on pragmatic considerations relating to how much of THEIR interests are achievable at the moment.
Of course. I'm just saying that they're not likely to achieve much of anything under this administration, so why bother. That's my pragmatic consideration, no pro- or anti-Bush principles involved. But while they're waiting, they're well advised to work on public relations: I see absolutely no urgency in a wider Arab recognition of Israel, since that is something of a negotiating card -- but to soften the Arab world's undeserved hardline image is a definite priority.
Posted by: alle at May 9, 2007 04:03 PM
we agree on a few points, I'll focus on the ones we don't.
First, we differ on one underlying assumption. You assume that the "two-state solution" is in Palestinians' interests. It isn't. Not economically, not culturally. So if that option goes away, if it didn't already, then good riddance.
Then, your analysis is flawed when it comes to possible negotiations outcomes. You assume that there's something, call it X, that Israelis value less than Arabs signing off the RoR, while Arabs value X more than signing off the RoR. That would be the necessary condition to make a deal on that point. There isn't. So what you call a decent deal is wishful thinking. A few dunums in the West Bank and Gaza in exchange for the RoR is unlikely to solve the conflict. And the balance of power is such that, there's just no incentive for Israelis to really care about Arabs signing it off or not anyway.
Palestinians need to -- desperately need to -- get a debate going on how to implement a partial RoR (...) that taboo has to go
How about Israelis breaking their taboo on not taking significant numbers of refugees? Rhetorical question. The point is, this again is a matter of PR and balance of power.
And most importantly, it goes to the point which makes Islamists so successful in the Arab world despite their retarded Qutbist attitudes or suicidal tactics. When it comes to national issues of interest to the average Moe, Islamists tell them "we'll fight for you". And they do, one can mock their cretinous strategic illiteracy, the shaky morality of their tactics or their counter productive methods, but they at least show that they're doing something. They don't feed the average Moe with a patronizing "give it up".
Working on Western perception of Arabs is definitely needed, big time. But when Arab liberals, classic or not, understand that liberalism is not about slavishly running after a "moderate" medal as defined by the West, when they stop leaving the monopoly of the average Moe's national concerns to the Islamists, then maybe liberals will eventually start gaining momentum.
shaheen - You assume that the "two-state solution" is in Palestinians' interests. It isn't.
Well, that pretty much explains the disagreement. My position, briefly, is that a two-state solution (1967, e. Jerusalem & no significant RoR; but no less either) solution isn't a very good outcome for Palestinians, but it's the one that has the lowest chance of ending in major massacres and ethnic cleansing of them in the future (and incidentally, the same goes for Israelis). Not a pleasant or perfect solution, if it is even a solution, but sort of a prisoner's dilemma thing. The one-state solution is theoretically very attractive for Palestinians -- less so for Israelis -- but only until you realize that it will most likely not end in one happy Arab-Jewish state, but rather in more war, and then in one Jewish state, period. Of course, that's still a chance people could be willing to take once the two-state option has become comparatively unrealistic enough, and with the wall & population growth and all, we're close to that limit now. If not past it.
There isn't. So what you call a decent deal is wishful thinking. A few dunums in the West Bank and Gaza in exchange for the RoR is unlikely to solve the conflict.
Well, implementing the RoR (or trying to) isn't likely to solve the conflict either. Some sort of a 1967-solution is simply more likely to cool the issue down and settle down as a permanent fact, until the conflict can, inshallah in some distant future, be overtaken by globalization and lowered borders and post-nationalism and whatnot.
How about Israelis breaking their taboo on not taking significant numbers of refugees? Rhetorical question.
Sure. But there's a different level of blockage on this: Israelis can take a number that won't seriously threaten their demographic superiority, and the West will help with any number or resettlement schemes, so they already have some room for (minor) compromise and can call that a concession. There would be protests etc, but hard facts could carry the day. But in Palestinian politics, when a politico even mentions the possibility of a minor concession on RoR, it tends to provoke instant death threats and potential chaos -- despite the fact that this is the Palestinian negotiating line today. There's a serious disconnect there. If Palestinians are willing to go through with a deal of the kind sketched out by their leaders (with very limited RoR, mostly diverted to other areas), then this taboo needs to be tackled quickly. If they're not, then they need to stop negotiationg about it, because then it's just weakening their position and undermining internal cohesion.
...when Arab liberals, classic or not, understand that liberalism is not about slavishly running after a "moderate" medal as defined by the West, when they stop leaving the monopoly of the average Moe's national concerns to the Islamists, then maybe liberals will eventually start gaining momentum.
Here I agree completely.
Posted by: alle at May 10, 2007 07:31 AM
Yeah, only the evil cyborgs are left now.
I was thinking more of the Russian immigrants whose only Arabic is yalla, yalla, khallas, and emshi, But honestly, I don't care about Israel or Israelis at all.
As far as Hamas and Ikhwan, I should have added Hezbollah, too. The main reason being that this is who the Palestinians support and, as Shaheen mentions, the only organizations that have ever done anything, at least in the 27 years or so that I have followed the story. They have changed the equation, finally, and deserve unconditional support.
Posted by: jr786 at May 10, 2007 09:25 AM
No one deserves unconditional anything. And I'm sure you're aware that about half of Palestinians support Hamas, not "the Palestinians" in toto.
Posted by: alle at May 10, 2007 10:21 AM
...it will most likely not end in one happy Arab-Jewish state...
Whatever would happen to an adopted solution is based on whatever configuration of forces is in place. The shape of that solution would also be determined by it. The rest, massacres or the parties singing kumbaya is all theoretical whanking, or parties fudding to strengthen the outcomes they support.
Negotiation based solutions are adopted because alternatives are worse for both parties. Negotiations 101. And for now, none of the proposed solutions is more attractive to the stronger party, Israel, than the status quo. Arabs shouldn't shape their objectives in function of what is possible right now because nothing is. If Arabs want something - it doesn't matter what, one state, two, sovereignty 3ala dhahr 7maar - they'd better start building their positions for it, and make sure the alternative to it is worse for Israelis, so maybe they'll get something a few decades down the road.
just a few words. (Sadly, not much tim.)
You seem to be under the impression that the Palestinian people will not accept a solution of the RoR that does NOT involve massive movement back into Israel (i.e. inside the Green Line). If that is the case, then you are mistaken.
The current insistence on RoR sees the RoR as an ideal, a symbol if you will, NOT as a practical process of resettlement.
The vast majority of Palestinians do not insist on moving "back home". They do, however, insist on Israel acknowledging the RIGHT of Return - thereby admitting to its guilt and responsibility for the expulsion of the Palestinians. Palestinians want justice, not to move back to Ramleh. If Israel acknowledges the RoR (i.e. Int'l Law) then the Palestinians will graciously forego implementing it.
The deal has already been pretty much worked out: Israel accepts the RoR and in return the Palestinians accept that they don't all move back. There will be a few "family reunion" type things whereby a few ten thousand Palestinians move into Israel. All other refugees either stay where they are now or settle in the new state of Palestine (WestBank & Gaza). All refugees will be compensated (by foreign donor countries, of course). Arab countries with Palestinian populations will be ... errr ... asked/pressured to grant them permanent status. The only country that will see its Palestinian population leave is Lebanon. Those 300,000 will move to Israel, West Bank, or Syria.
There IS another point that should be mentioned here. It is quite possible that the final status border between Israel & Palestine will be such that major Arab areas in Israel (Nazareth, etc.) will go to Palestine in exchange for the 2 settlement blocs in the WestBank (Ariel & Etzion) and parts of East J'lem that will go to Israel - all in order to have Palestine have the same size in km2 as pre-67 WestBank/Gaza.
That's pretty much how it'll pan out.
Posted by: MSK at May 11, 2007 08:50 AM
I know Palestine and Palestinians almost as well as I know the Maghreb, sometimes even better. The question of what Palestinians want re the RoR is very variable according to individuals. I agree with you many just want that right reckonized, but many really want to have the chance to move there too - and it's perceived, deeply, as just an issue of basic justice.
re land swap in case of agreement. It's been mostly suggested by Israelis who want to get rid of the demographic "threat" of Israeli Arabs, but those concerned are dead set against it. Everyone knows a Palestinian state would look more like Djibouti than like Israel. Second class citizens or not, no significant numbers of Arab Israelis would remotely consider the idea of changing their status for that.
In fact, that's true even for many non Israeli Palestinians who'd sell their mom to get Israeli citizenship. In fact, for all their flaws, Israeli economic advantages and some amount of rule of law even when it comes to Palestinians are an incentive to many to be strong supporters of the RoR.
I found your discussion of negotiations enlightening. Particularly this part:
"Negotiation based solutions are adopted because alternatives are worse for both parties. And for now, none of the proposed solutions is more attractive to the stronger party, Israel, than the status quo. Arabs shouldn't shape their objectives in function of what is possible right now because nothing is. If Arabs want something - it doesn't matter what, one state, two, sovereignty 3ala dhahr 7maar - they'd better start building their positions for it, and make sure the alternative to it is worse for Israelis, so maybe they'll get something a few decades down the road."
1- How do you know the balance of power would change in their favour in two decades? And how do you know conditions wouldn't have deteriorated to some uncertain point so as to make positions even more intractible and power even more congregated on one side. Basically- it seems like you're gambling nothing now in favour of better-worse-or-nothing in the future.
2- Regarding "the perception of RoR by Palestinians", that is a funny question with no one answer. I think it does change from individual to individual, not differing in terms of seeing it as a question of justice, but in terms of how each individual would change his personal circumstances in response to different options.
And how it would play out would depend on host conditions, as well-- think of a young kid from Askar Camp near Nablus ready to make the move to Ramallah, but it's too alienating and harsh, so he goes back. I have no way to even imagine what Haifa would be like for him. I think if he had an option to go to Denmark, he would. There are other people whose dream it is to live in Netanya, not because of RoR or justice-roots connections, but because Netanya is not too far from Nablus and it's really nice. Maybe when they got there they'd be able to express demands for rights in RoR language.
Those are the real considerations I would imagine among Palestinians living in the West Bank, though I am not familiar with camps outside of there. But those who would move with kind of that "getting back to roots, my homeland" conceptions of RoR are elites. Diaspora elites, interior West Bank elites-- but elites, and I think their relationship with the idea of 48-Palestine to be remarkably similar to that of American Jews to Israel. They become attached on a certain level after economic-life issues are off the radar, and then it can become a new life-meaning. Maybe they'd (Western Diaspora Palestinians) have some of the pioneer zeal that could sustain them through life in Haifa, in the midst of an Israeli society.
But economically depressed people in refugee camps-- well, most people I've met are simply very pragmatic. They want to get married and have jobs and get their high school diploma. They'd brave out Shefa'amr if they could get work as a mason, but the method of deciding would be more similar to Russian Jews reasons for coming to Israel (economics) than Americans' (ideology). And Israel and Palestine are all pretty close. If the option existed and if one so desired, if the borders were not as they were, it would be easy to live in Askar Camp and work in Tel Aviv. If, if.
Posted by: Lisa at May 13, 2007 12:27 PM
The idea of "returning Nazareth" is not what is meant by "minor landswaps" to compensate for Ariel. "Returning" Arab population centers (not Nazareth, generally Triangle towns and villages) are ideas certainly growing in popularity among more extreme parties, but it's not part of the general discourse of Labour-Likud-Kadima-etc.
It arouses a lot of newspaper indignation when it's brought up, and a lot of the indignation is annoying-phony, but the idea is.. it's like the flat-tax idea in the US. I guess it -could- happen. People aren't passionately against it. It's just an outlier, not in the center.
Posted by: Lisa at May 13, 2007 12:37 PM
1. Israel isn't ignoring the proposals. Israel is making counteroffers. Isn't it what we call "negotiations"?
2. Your main premise is that there is nothing to win from peace. That's wrong.
Israelis have a lot to win from normalized trade relations and not living under immediate threat and shells. Having said this, they are not doing too bad anyway.
Arabs would be the real winners. If they can no longer blame "Zionist regime" for everything, they might actually learn that "progress" does not mean going back to the 7th century.
Palestinians... West Bank would benefit hugely. Gaza seems to be a lost cause with 90% supporting Hamas/Muslim brotherhood, but you never know.
Just think back and imagine for a second that there was peace in 1948 or that the Arabs genuinely agreed to peace at any other point since... Don't you think it would have been better for everyone? Israel would have been much smaller, but it still would have been better for everyone.
Oh, and don't you think that say Egypt benefited from Camp David?
Posted by: shlemazl at May 26, 2007 10:59 AM