But it must be argued with. Israel is surrounded by states with a majority of people who could claim hatred based on religious beliefs. Yet Israel is secure from them in great part because Israel is not daily threatening them the way they do the Palestinians. The only time this argument is pulled out is when they want to argue that no political deal will work and aggressive force is their only option. The Iranian deal is an obvious case in point. Israel should be secure, but pandering to this just assists them to ensure a Palestinian state is never established. The answer to them has to be, whether they hate you or not, the requirement is the same.

Hi Ken. I don’t disagree with anything here. A two state solution is essential, and I’ve said that several times, along with my wish that both sides would stop using past grievances as an excuse not to move forward. My point is only that even if that happens there are groups in Palestine for whom any solution will change nothing. Their irrational hatred of Jews that comes from their extreme religious beliefs will remain. I’d love to see a two state solution that enables Palestine to develop without the issues they are currently constantly beset by, such as lack even of the enough electricity and clean water in a region where that shouldn’t be an issue. Israel, backed by the US, does need to be the one to take the lead. However, there are elements within Palestinian society that won’t change whatever happens, and those elements cannot be reasoned with because of religion. Because of those elements, Israel has a valid fear, and an excuse that can’t be argued with when it comes to sorting the problem.

Too much qualification for me, Heather. Of course Israel has valid security concerns. They go all the way back to the dubious decision to create the state in Palestine. But that is history and there’s little point in going back to any historical sins, be they Palestinian, Israeli or the international community. This is not to justify Palestinian atrocities. Apart from their wrongness, the Palestinians have constantly acted against their own interests. If they would adopt non-violent resistance, I think Israel would have no where left to hide.

The only reality that matters is that someone needs to do something different in the present. Natural law, not to mention international law, says the occupying power has certain responsibilities. It is Israel and their existential backers, the US, who need to make the crucial good faith moves toward a real peace. A Palestinian commitment to non-violence would certainly help, but that isn’t something the international community can make happen, nor is it reasonable to expect the much weaker party to make such a first move.

Carter points out that a one state solution with equal rights is not workable and that’s why no one even suggests it. In this case, the illegal settlements must be halted and reversed to the point that a feasible Palestinian state can be created. I can’t see another solution that will lead to an eventual peace, can you? And this depends on Israel acting or being forced to act.

The Hamas Charter or anything else changes nothing. We need to be careful that even outrageous religious beliefs aren’t allowed to be used as an excuse for what we know needs to happen. We are not going to extinguish religious hatred, yet a solution needs to be found regardless. The degree to which evil religious urges get expressed is inextricably bound to what else is happening in that society. Currently, Palestinian society can see no future where their lot improves. They can reasonably expect their lives to keep getting worse. Even if there weren’t a religious excuse to hate Jews, this helps create one. The whole world agrees that two states is the path to securing the security of Israel. That Israel refuses means security is not actually their goal.

Interesting article Ken. I have a lot of respect for Carter too. Although there is much in it I agree with, I also think the Israelis have valid security fears that must be acknowledged. As I’ve said elsewhere, I agree that currently the main bar to a two-state solution is Israel, but that hasn’t always been the case.

I think too many people ignore that there are Islamist terrorists in Palestine who want to kill Jews just because they are Jews, and they will continue to do that whatever the political make-up of the region. Their beliefs have nothing to do with political activism. The Islamists believe they are doing what God wants them to do when they kill Jews, and nothing Israel does will change that. The security fears of Israel are valid and genuine and too many ignore them, or say that Israel invites the threat because of their actions. Documents like the Hamas Charter show that those groups will continue to attempt to kill Jews no matter what happens.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_brutally_frank_jimmy_carter_calls_out_israel_on_permanent_apartheid_20150

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/israel-opposition-iran-deal/401129/

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/iran-deal-politics-rouhani-khamenei/400985/

Possibly the biggest thing this deal has going for it is that the hard liners on both sides hate it.

Sally said: “you complain about the allocation of certain areas (Area C) in the West Bank as being unjustly claimed by Israel, but are you completely unaware of the Oslo Accords, signed by both sides and designating some parts of the WB to Israel and other parts to a future Palestinian state”.

Sally, Oslo II defines Area C as:
″areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement″.

“Area C (full Israeli civil and security control): circa 72-74% Under the Wye River Memorandum, Israel would further withdrawal from some additional 13% From Area C to Area B, which officially reduced Area C to circa 61% of the West Bank.[5][6] Israel, however, withdrew from only 2%[3] and during Operation Defensive Shield, it reoccupied all territory

Area C, 99% of which is excluded from Palestinian use, contains most of the West Bank’s natural resources and open spaces,

Settler population by year in the Israeli-occupied territories from 1972 to 2007
Area C includes all Israeli settlements (cities, towns, and villages).[3] In 1972, there were 1,000 Israeli settlers living in what is now Area C. By 1993, their population had increased to 110,000. As of 2012 they number more than 300,000 – as against 150,000 Palestinians, the majority of whom are Bedouin and farmers, constituting 5% of the Palestinian population on 60% of the land, who are cut off from services available to other Palestinians in Areas A and B.

According to a 2013 EU report, Israeli policies in the area have undermined the Palestinian presence there, with a deterioration in basic services such as water supplies, education and shelter. Nearly 70% of the Palestinian villages are not connected to the water network that serves settlers, which accounts for the fact that Palestinians in the zone use only a quarter to a third of the pro capita consumption of settlers.[13][14]

Palestinians cannot build in Area C without an army permit; however, building applications are costly and have a lowly 5% approval rate. As a result, most Palestinians who build there do so illegally. Israel demolishes about 200 buildings per year in Area C.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank_Areas_in_the_Oslo_II_Accord

Do you deny that the Israeli government clearly has no intention of ever accepting a two-state solution?

Three things:
1. Iran will be seeing if the Russians will let their scientists work in Russian facilities to keep their skills up while they have to mostly close down their program. Russia is unlikely to have a bar of it.
2. Help in hiding stuff they’ve already got. Russia is too paranoid to help a country so close conceal nukes.
3. Help in security/intelligence in the region between Iran and Moscow, especially former soviet states. Might be some quid pro quo here.

So what do you suppose the Quds and the Russians are cooking up?

In fact, the points in this article are ones I should have made in my post. I get the feeling that the visit of designated terrorist and Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani (who shouldn’t have been allowed out of the country) to Russia recently was a sop to the revolutionary guard, to give them a win when they’ve had so many losses. They’ve lost power imo due to the Iran Deal, and aren’t liking it. See: http://nypost.com/2015/08/06/irans-terrorist-general-violated-un-travel-ban-with-visit-to-russia/