The NY Times has a transcript of the speech read by President Bush at Annapolis yesterday here.
The key bits:
The Palestinian people are blessed with many gifts and talents. They want the opportunity to use those gifts to better their own lives and build a future for their children.
They want the dignity that comes with sovereignty and independence. They want justice and equality under the rule of law. They want freedom from violence and fear.
The people of Israel have just aspirations as well. They want their children to be able to ride a bus or to go to school without fear of suicide bombers. They want an end to rocket attacks and constant threats of assault. They want their nation to be recognized and welcomed in the region where they live.
…
For these negotiations to succeed, the Palestinians must do their part. They must show the world they understand that while the borders of a Palestinian state are important, the nature of a Palestinian state is just as important. They must demonstrate that a Palestinian state will create opportunity for all its citizens and govern justly and dismantle the infrastructure of terror. They must show that a Palestinian state will accept its responsibility and have the capability to be a source of stability and peace for its own citizens, for the people of Israel and for the whole region.
The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin — bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement. This settlement will establish Palestine as a Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. Israel must demonstrate its support for the creation of a prosperous and successful Palestinian state by removing unauthorized outposts, ending settlement expansion and finding other ways for the Palestinian Authority to exercise its responsibilities without compromising Israel’s security.
…
Arab states should also reach out to Israel, work toward the normalization of relations, and demonstrate in both word and deed that they believe that Israel and its people have a permanent home in the Middle East. These are vital steps toward the comprehensive peace that we all seek.
Will this may be the time that the Israelis give in and allow the creation of a true Palestinian nation? Anything less is certain to be used as a rallying point to continue the largely manufactured conflict. But would an independent Palestinian state end the fighting between the region’s Muslims and Jews? Not likely.
Indeed, the Palestinian independence movement exists solely to serve as a focal point of the region’s hatred for Israel. Those feelings will not evaporate with the formation of Palestine, though perhaps some of the steam behind the movement will be released and a temporary reprieve granted. And perhaps such an interlude of peace could become permanent. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
Almost exactly a decade ago a friend of mine who calls himself a Palestinian was speaking to me about the peace process that had just broken down and said, “We got close this time. I really thought that it might happen.” Then he shrugged. “Maybe next time.”
I wondered then if a separate state would matter. The same question still needs to be answered.
h/t memeorandum
Maybe for the surrounding states, but the people within the occupied territories certainly want their independence and have a valid claim to it. I think you’re painting with too wide a brush…
That may be so for the everyday Palestinian, Chris, but they’ve chosen leaders who don’t act in their best interests. And those leaders certainly are guilty of the same tactics that Marc is criticizing here.
After oppressing people for decade after decade, you shouldn’t be surprised when they choose militant leaders.
And are you saying that because they chose they leaders unwisely, they should forfeit all claims to human rights? Would you be comfortable with the Germans living in Palestinian like conditions today because Hitler was their chosen leader?
When did I ever say anything like that, Chris? Particularly since I’ve already conceded to you on multiple occasions that I feel that there have been wrongs committed by the Isrealis in the way they’ve handled the settlements.
So, who was oppressing the Arabs in Palestine before the creation of the state of Israel? They reacted militarily not to oppression, but to the reality that they’d no longer be able to dominate the Jews in their midst.
What about the violent Jewish settlers, and groups like Irgun? You should look them up. Palestinians were being brutally forced off their land decades before 1948.
Um, a reference about violent Jewish settlers and/or Irgun? Your assertion, your burden of proof.
Meanwhile, you might try reading up on Hebron and Safed (circa 1929) to see who was initiating violence.
Google is your friend
Yes, Chris, I see several Palestinian agitprop sites when I Google “Irgun” but little else- and I’m not sure how I’m supposed to reference a vague claim of ‘violent Jewish settlers’.
So, if you want to convince me or anyone else, you’ll have to provide some sources.
And my point about Irgun is that from what little I do know about it, it came about AFTER the 1929 riots, which were instigated by Arabs and killed Jews who barely defended themselves (and the British police didn’t defend them either).
So why is it that you make statements like this about the Palestinians:
Yet you wouldn’t use the same apologetics for the Jews who supported a militant solution? And for the record, I don’t condone either one in that regard.
I will expect the violent uprising against the Jordanians for the current lack of a land called “Trans Jordan” any day now.
You simply said: “So, who was oppressing the Arabs in Palestine before the creation of the state of Israel?” And I answered that question. I wasn’t arguing about any sort of original sin
I wasn’t apologizing for it, I still said they chose their leaders unwisely. My point was that it’s human nature to want to fight back. If we want to shape the world to be a more peaceful place, we have to realize that our actions have broader consequences. The Israelis have historically quelled moderate national movements inside the occupied territories. Each time a more militant foe emerges from the rubble.
As I’ve said time and time again, the solution is to address the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people. Give them sovereignty, give them enough land to propser, move the wall back, release the untried from prison. Then if the Palestinians push too far, they have no excuse.
LOL, quite right, Jimmie. After all, the Palestinians in the Trans Jordan territory have been oppressed and denied their right of self determination for decades now, so obviously they will revolt against that injustice.
What, they’re not doing so? Whyever could that be??
Chris,
Your last paragraph assumes that those concessions would quell the Palestinian instigated violence, and history has proven time and again that this is not so. Their leaders from the beginning have fought for all or nothing.
Well, if I understood you, you were doing so because you implied that the Arabs were resorting to terrorism only after mistreatment at the hands of the Jewish settlers.
This is the second time in recent weeks I’ve heard this claim, but I’ve yet to see it substantiated. What is your definition of a “moderate national movement”? Can you point me to any “moderate national movements” which did not call for the total destruction of Israel, and which were not led by terrorists?
C Stanley,
I was just looking to dispell the myth that the Israelis/Zionists were innocent Ghandi-like bystanders until 1948.
You don’t know until you try. And I’m not sure what history has proven that it won’t work. Palestinian land has shrunk on a fairly consistent basis for decades now.
And what you’re not seeing is that it doesn’t matter one damn bit if the Palestinians stop the violence. What matters is that it’s the right thing to do morally. I’m frankly surprised that I have to keep explaining that.
Who’s promoting any such myth? But when the Jews didn’t fight back, they were rewarded with massacres, and the British govt didn’t do much to protect them. And then when some took an extremist approach, going on the offense instead of defense, the British govt condemned that. The Zionists then fought for Israeli independence from the Brits, and they had some justification for doing so even if I don’t approve of the tactics used.
Every act of aggression by the Palestinians from the time that the two state solution was first implemented has proven that, Chris. And can you name one instance in which Palestinian land has shrunken due to aggression instigated by Israel? Or is it shrinking because they’ve attacked Israel and then been beaten and had to concede the land in order to surrender?
Yes, the Palistinians showed great ability in reducing violence and self-governence with the whole Gaza Strip… thing.
You won’t know until the Palestinians try.
In Lebanon as well. I await the condemnation, the marches, the boycotts from all so-called supporters of the Palestinians.
*crickets chirping*
Oh right I forgot, when other Arabs are busy butchering each other, it doesn’t count. When it’s the Jooooows though, well, that’s completely different. Just *what* was I thinking?!!?
We’ve been through this before. When they left Gaza they took MORE land in the West Bank. Basically trading desert land for arable land.
How about every settlement they’ve built and every village they’ve bulldozed on Palestinian land in the last decade? This isn’t ancient history, this stuff is going on now.
Going through it before does not equal your being right before.
Your still ignoring the Palestinians inability to reduce violence and self-governance.
The Palestians have no land. Start there.
No one seems to offer up any evidence to the contrary. I’ve got a huge wall and settlements to prove my point.
No I’m not, I’m just saying in the case of occupation, settlements and further grabs for land, it’s irrelevant. Morality is the key.
If the Palestinians have no land, then they are Israeli citizens and should have the same rights as other citizens in Israel. Including voting. Otherwise they are prisoners.
Do not attempt to switch the argument around again. Do you have the ability to show the Palestinians ability to self govern and reduce violence - or not.
That is what they are attempting to negotiate, until then they are neither. For prisoners have no right to leave. In contrast they can leave Israel - that is if they were not kicked out of every other Country already.
Interested,
I haven’t switched the argument around. There are two components to it. Doing what is RIGHT, and then a good deal of hope and bargaining.
I think this has a lot of parallels to the debate over torture and indefinite detention of suspected terrorists. We shouldn’t wait for Al Qaeda to be dismantled before we stop torturing people. We should stop torturing them because it’s wrong.
I mean, seriously, the best argument that anyone can muster here for continuing the occupation and expanding the settlements with bulldozers and tanks is “An eye for an eye.” How is that civilized? Do you realize what you’re advocating? Is our benchmark for conduct Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia and Hamas?
Okay, Well I would call your refusing to answer and trying to switch the argument around to a different point and topic - as switching the argument around. But whatever floats your boat.
Apples to Chickens.
Still waiting for your answer on how well the Palestians have shown the world for their ability to gain Independance via land from Israel, with their self-governance and reducing violence.
They haven’t been given the opportunity. They live under a military occupation remember? The conditions in the occupied territories are squalid. They are under constant threat of the IDF. How many functioning societies have ever grown out of these sorts of conditions? Is there even one?
But the ‘occupiers’ have made it clear that they can have that opportunity any time they want- they simply have to take the first step of electing leaders who don’t seek to destroy Israel.
They were given control over the Gaza Strip.
Are you going to actually sit there and pretend with the greatest of all magical wands that the Palestinians showed nothing but total restraint, had mass protests to have their government crack down on militant functions within it’s population. And went further to reduce violence on it’s own? And then continue to daydream that the Israeli’s ignored all of that and ran rampant over the Palestinians?
Yes you could make a case for the Chicken & the Egg. But in no way possible can you say that the Palestinians are showing a willing desire to have a Palestinian State that is peaceful and wants to be partners with it’s neighbors. All they have shown is their inabilities.
Again… you bring up Gaza. An area with almost no arable land, and no jobs. Entirely dependent on Israel for food and economic support. So you’ve got plenty of unemployment, very little food, little electricity, overcrowding, regular incursions by the IDF, weapons and money being given to different factions by Arab neighbors, the US and Israel… and what else…
It’s a freaking hell hole. It should be 100% expected that the people inside of it are unable to govern themselves effectively, and, moreover, that they’re pissed off.
If that’s all then why wasn’t the state of Palestine allowed to exist after Arrafat removed that provision from the PLOs stated mission in the 1990s?
So who’s supposed to solve these problems, if not the Palestinians and their natural allies (their Arab neighbors)?
Yes, I bring up an area that direct control & responsibility went to the Palestinians that showed their inabilities in a thread about giving the Palestinians land.
Go figure, what was I thinking.
Indeed it should. That is if your bias is directly against Israel no matter what.
It should be expected that the Palestinians would have gone all out to show the world that they are able to govern, that they have the desire for a peaceful existence with neighbors, and that they can bring their radical elements into check. *IF* they were able to do that, the US’s hands would have been tied, and so would the rest of the world. Aid would have poured out of every crack and crevice and Israel would have been put in it’s place without an ability to argue against further land. Settlements would be bulldozed practically overnight.
The burden is on the Palestinians to prove it. It is not the responsibility of Israel to give the squatters (as you call them) whatever they could possibly desire with nothing in return.
Let them eat cake. Right?
I think that every point derived from the Gaza situation requires thinking around whether any group of people put in the same situation would react any differently.
Look, Chris, consider a comparison between Germany post WWII and Gaza post intifada. Oh, wait, the Palestinian leaders have never declared the intifada over, have they?
There were many who opposed the Marshall plan because it was seen as giving aid to those who had been our enemies. History proved them wrong because those enemies were ready to become our allies, and Truman rightly read that situation. That condition is key though; the Marshall plan wouldn’t have, and couldn’t have, happened had VE Day not happened and had Germany not been thoroughly divested of its militarism.
I’m not arguing with you about the problem of Jewish settlements (ironic though, that GWB is the one who’s addressing it instead of tapdancing around it as Clinton did- which most observers feel was the downfall of Oslo). I do think that this creates a situation of distrust and that there are segments of Israel that want to use the settlements to change the facts on the ground, which is a violation of the spirit of the accords if not the letter of them. But to elevate this to the primary problem or expect that the Israelis unilaterally withdraw without any evidence that they won’t be attacked is moral relativism at its finest.
Xel,
The one point where I disagree with that is that I’d expect the Palestinians to not focus all blame for their situation on Israel and the West, when there is ample reason to put that focus on the Arabs who’ve let them down (their own leaders and the leaders of neighboring countries who’ve shown no interest in helping them build a sustainable society, no interest in absorbing them into their own countries, and no interest in doing anything but using them as a flashpoint for Muslim anger at the West.)
Again, building more settlements is not making them safer. Maybe the wall is, but not the settlements, not the parts of the wall they’ve built that include Palestinian neighborhoods.
As for the Marshall plan, that situation might have been quite a bit different if say the U.N. decided that Bavaria would be partitioned off to create a new Israel. Might the people in Bavaria have protested? Violently perhaps?
Again, there is no Palestinian Land.
If there were - they would not be negotiating for it.
The situations of the Bavarians and the Palestinians aren’t comparable though. The Jews and Arabs were both residing in Palestine, and there really was no national group called Palestinians. The British mandate covered the entire territory, including Transjordan which was granted independence and became an Arab state. The fact that Arabs remained in the territory which became Israel necessitated some solution, particularly after those Arabs attacked Israel when she obtained sovereignty.
The only way you can make your analogy work would be for a lot of Jews to have survived the Holocaust and to have been residents of Bavaria to begin with. And then if the UN had created a Jewish state on part of that territory, I presume many non-Jewish Bavarians would fight against it but they’d not be justified in doing so and the rest of the world would uniformly condemn them for not making the best of what opportunity they had to create their own state next to the Jewish one.
If you all choose to take one side or the other, you’ll never solve anything in this situation. All the point and counterpoint is just gums flappin’.
Why don’t you take some time to do something constructive like throw some support to one Hanan Ashrawi. SHE is someone you can trust. I’ll let you “google” her and learn a little somethin’.