Comments on: Gaza and Israel: Thomas Friedman is naive

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:13:41 +0000

Actually, what needs to happen is that

#1, the Palestinians grow, find or push forward a leader who knows how to engage without simply provoking via rocket irritations. Hanan Ashrawi comes to mind but she is in the West Bank - I'm not sure who such a person would be in Gaza.

#2 - They must choose and push forward leadership that will engage for as long as it takes to permanently resolve the land division and rulership issues related to nation-building.

#3 Neither side can come to the table and expect to demand and receive a one-state solution with the expulsion of whichever population doesn't want the one-state or to leave - this is an unacceptable option.

#4 However, the parties can drill down to why it is that they want one-state and then craft a one-state OR A TWO-STATE that enshrines those needs WITHOUT EXPULSION of any population

They can use the process to offer and reject as many permutations of what such a nation or nations would look like given the various needs of the populations, but at no time is military force to be used in the formation of these nations (or nation).

Anyway - those are the non-negotiables I'd start with.

But for the record, Chris, we have to stop with this "what will Israel do for the Palestinians." It takes two to tango so let's not insult anyone if we're talking about moving forward.

By: ChrisWWW

ChrisWWW — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:52:54 +0000

DLS,
And I suppose, under your worldview, it'd be okay for Israel to continue the blockade, keep statehood off the table, and expand the settlements in the West Bank.

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:05:52 +0000

HAMAS stops firing rockets into Israel. That's the real deal.

I suspect people like Friedman actually would believe HAMAS was being honest about any truce it would sign, then break later.

By: ChrisWWW

ChrisWWW — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:25:15 +0000

If Israel had just let new elections happen in Gaza, Hamas had a great chance of losing. Support for their rule was eroding, which was thanks partly to the otherwise odious/war crime/act-of-war that we know as the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

With Israel's latest massacre in Gaza, they've pushed the Palestinians there into solidarity with Hamas. At this point, it seems as if there are two ways forward for Israel. End the massacre and deal with a military weakened but more politically popular Hamas, or reoccupy Gaza and completely eradicate Hamas and hope that a better ruling party rises from the ashes. In the latter scenario, it seems unlikely that a more moderate group will just spring up, and the Palestinians won't accept an Israeli run political party after the recent bloodshed. Unless, of course, Israel wants to actually take responsibility for improving the lives of the Palestinians in real concrete ways, like ending the blockade, giving them money, food, rebuilding infrastructure, etc.