Israelis still looking to compromise for peace

IMRA reports on a 2007 Survey of Israelis’ Attitudes on National Security

The question ranking four key values-a) a country with a Jewish majority; b) Greater Israel; c) a democratic country; and d) a state of peace is thus a loaded question in two ways:

    #1 It asserts that the Jewish majority – in particular after the withdrawal from Gaza – is a trade-off with retaining the West Bank.
    #2 It seems to leave out a “secure country” or perhaps a “defendable country” as a key value for policy making .]

Included in this link is the evaluations of the AJC

[..] The predominance of demography over geography is manifest in the readiness to evacuate certain settlements in the West Bank. Support for removal of all the settlements, including the large settlement blocks is negligible-18% in 2006 and 14 % in 2007. However, 46% in 2006 and 45% in 2007 support the removal of all the small and isolated settlements-taken together, 64% in 2006 and 59% in 2007 are ready to evacuate certain settlements in the West
Bank-this in the context of a permanent settlement. [..]

I recommend you read the whole evaluation.

In Jan ’06, I raised the question Is Israel’s greatest threat demographics or indefensible borders?

April 24, 2007 | 3 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

3 Comments / 3 Comments

  1. Absent a military defeat comparable to the beating the Israelis handed the Egyptians in 1967, a durable political solution is decades away.

    That should be obvious but yet the nations of the world keep insisting that a political solution be implemented.

    Any such “solution” that leaves in place the antagonist would only serve to expand conflict and make it intolerable.

    If, as it stands presently it should not be tolerated, what will the creation of a terrorist state do to placate the situation?

    Charles, whom always seems to make informed intelligent comments, says that “Absent a military defeat comparable to the beating the Israelis handed the Egyptians in 1967” peace will not be possible for decades.

    Something to consider is that as long as Israel is the victor there is a limit placed on the destruction to opposing forces and civilians. Israel in the past has always ceased fighting once the eminent threat to their survival has passed.

    This would not be the case if the enemies of Israel begin to prevail. They are the aggressors; know assuredly that genocide would take place against the Jewish people if Israel’s “neighbors” are allowed to gain the upper hand.

    For this reason alone Israel cannot/should not risk any diplomatic “solution” which cedes security, territory, or defensible borders. Unlike the repercussions Israel’s foes would suffer from the failure of a negotiated peace plan, the stakes of failure are far too high for Israel; there is no comparing the risk factor of the parties involved here. Furthermore, a careful consideration of the facts can only produce a conclusion that gives horrendous odds against any diplomatic solution having any chance at all of producing a long term peace.

    I see problems with the current governments of virtually all nations at this point; it appears that they are either malevolent or disillusioned. As for others’ comments referring to elected officials operating like “dictatorships,” there is something to that.

    Upon close inspection most if not all, governments today are closed societies. Even when there are opposition parties that clash head-on and despise each other, they still together have a lock on participation.

    They are also funded by some of the same BIG donors so that there are certain things that won’t change regardless of who comes out on top in elections.

    The one thing they have in common is that are all insiders are obligated to ascribe to certain agendas.

    I think Mark Stahlman has it right about revolutionizing government when he states that revolutions do not come from political insiders but from outsiders.

    …A revolution is a cataclysm. It’s such a sharp break with the
    past that no one would argue its severity. A revolution is a
    battle. The old system falls; a new system is erected. A revolution isn’t fought from inside the old system. Coup-d’etats are. Insiders and insider-wantabes…..aren’t revolutionaries. They are coup-plotters at their best and, more commonly, merely pathetic sycophants….

    If government is going to change there will need to be an outside force to act as a catalyst. Hopefully that outside force will create a movement that appeals to at least some on the inside. European government is locked-up and it seems that the US government for the most part is locked as well, as is the case with most other nations.

    Because Israel’s relationship with the international community is more like that of a misfit Israel has one of the best chances of breaking the bonds of this oligarchy of insiders if the Israeli people will wake up.

    This whole idea of internationalism must be scraped if it comes at the price of selling out security and empowering cruel and oppressive authoritarian and totalitarian societies or creating them.

    That’s what the “peace process” is about; it is about attempting to create global harmony regardless of the values of the participants in order to expedite global commerce.

    It is a disastrous mistake to empower despots in order to do business with them or attempt to create a global society. This will only lead to greater instability or far worse when interests conflict and there is a falling out.

  2. Charles martel is right.

    This is actually a dictatorship which is in position over Israelis. It must not be forgotten that Sharon tore up all the norms of bourgeois democracy before handing the baton on to Kadima.

    Of particular importance in this was the referendum re gaza withdrawal which his own party Likud held and which went against him, which he then disregarded.

    Kadima has carried on this tradition.

    It seems to me that the removal of this government now takes on the air and urgency of a revolutionary question.

    I do not think it will be easy. Take into account the brutal nature of the Sharon regime and its reliance on Stalinist forces in attacking the Jewish people of Gaza.

    There needs more discussion on how this can be done.

  3. The fine print tells the tale. While the poll suggests that 59% of Israelis would evacuate certain outposts in the WB, this is only within the context of a permanent settlement. Nothing has changed; Israel will only withdraw from the WB if and when a credible and durable political solution is achieved. Absent a military defeat comparable to the beating the Israelis handed the Egyptians in 1967, a durable political solution is decades away. And with every sign of Arab intransigence continuing, with every news report of Hizbullah and Hamas rearming, with every Qassam fired from Gaza, the number of Israelis willing to cede territory will grow smaller and smaller.

    Olmert, Livni and Peretz now have 3% support; soon they will be the only 3 people in Israel supporting disengagement.

Comments are closed.