Michael's point has some validity. It would not be good for the Palestinians or others to draw the lesson that terrorism pays and that means that the roadmap should be corrected so as to be implemented to reward anti-terror, not terror.

The reality, of course, is that the notion that terror pays is at best a fantasy: It has only brought the Palestinians more misery and a reduced chance of obtaining an independent state, in particular one that is politically and economically viable. My impression is that terror is being used less as an instrument of negotiation than as an instrument to kill any negotiation. Indeed, Israel would be more likely to negotiate a more favorable settlement for the Palestinians if there were not a terrorism problem or were at least a serious effort on the part of the PA to deal with it effectively.

The case of the Chechens is different: Their aim is not to drive the Russians into the sea.

"A formal abandonment of the "right of return," where millions of Palestinians are expected to settle in Israel."
Translation: defy international law.

"No future Palestinian state should be geographically larger than the one already offered by Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak in 2000."
The one that gives Jerusalem to Israel? Please. Mr. Totten should be a stand-up comedian. And he should stop linking to articles from 2001...

defy international law? Why not?

The Arabs do it all the time.

Actually there is no law that says that there is a right of return. Ask the Germans who formerly lived in Poland.

Ask the Jews driven out of Arab lands with the shirts on their back.

Wars are about collective punishment. The way to avoid that is to prevent your government from going to war. Baring that you should see they don't lose. Can't do that? Most unfortunate.

The Right to Return has a solid legal basis. The United Nations adopted Resolution 194: Paragraph 11 states: "...the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date... compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return. Resolution 194 was affirmed practically every year since with a universal consensus, except for Israel and the U.S. The resolution was further clarified by UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 which reaffirms in Subsection 2, "the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return". Hindering return is an act of aggression, which deserves action by the Security Council. Israel's admission to the UN were conditional on its acceptance of relevant UN resolutions including 194.

Furthermore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 13 reaffirms the right of every individual to leave and return to his country. Moreover, the Principle of Self Determination guarantees, inter alia, the right of ownership and domicile in one's own country. The UN adopted this principle in 1947. In 1969 and thereafter, it was explicitly applied to the Palestinian People, including "the legality of the Peoples' struggle for Self-Determination and Liberation", (GAOR 2535 (xxiv), 2628 (xxv), 2672 (xxv), 2792 (xxvi)). International law demands that neither occupation nor sovereignty diminish the rights of private ownership. When the Ottomans surrendered in 1920, Palestinian ownership of the land was maintained. The land and property of "the refugees" remains their own and they are entitled to return to it.

Secondly, why bring up the Arabs? I thought this was about a Palestinian state, not about the crimes commited by the unelected, barbaric, tyrannical, oppressive and corrupt leaders of Arab countries. Am I wrong?

The Palestinian refugees did not tell the leaders of the Arab countries to go to war.

Arash, millions of Turks and Greeks settled for just that. Ditto tens of millions of Muslims & Hindus in India/Pakistan. So, as it happens, did several hundred thousand Jews from Arab countries, exposed to hatred, violence and persecution in those lands. In fact, such population exchanges are very much the norm in conflict situations.

Indeed, Arash, your post is a good illustration of the central problem: a Muslim world willing to fight to the last Palestinian, and committed to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.

Give it up. Give it up, before both Jerusalem and Mecca become distant memories.

The Bushies are being "Joe Isuzu" sincere WRT a Palestinian state.

There will never be a Palestinian state because any Palestinian state will be terrorist supporting by definition. The Bush Administration's actions should be viewed in this light.

The current actions with the Palestinians are simply setting up a future rejection of the concept by trying everything else first.

As for the Israelis, the American government is waiting for them to have an "Oran moment" on its national security. And by that I mean what Churchill did in 1940 in ruthlessly sinking the striking arm of the French fleet at anchor at the Battle of Mers-el-Kebir near Oran, Algeria.

The American government is waiting for a sign that the Jewish state is really willing to do what ever it takes to ensure its security. That means a forcible eviction of Israeli settlers from non-strategic ground in the West Bank and Gaza followed by putting down the Palestinians a'la Jordan's "Black September" slaughter of male Palestinian fighters.

Until it does, why should the Bush Administration care more for Israeli citizen's than its own government?

Joe: Why are Jewish settlements okay, and the right of return is taboo? As far as I know, you haven't addressed this.

One of the points made over the last 10 years is that the wars in the former Yugoslavia has driven people from their land and homes and that they should be allowed to return - even if the conquering group has now redistributed the property to members of their own national or ethnic group. Why? Because it is stolen property and the new occupants are in possession of ill-gotten gains.

The exact same thing goes for the Palestinians. I don't understand it, Joe. I'm asking Israel to comply to moral and legal rights, and now I'm a Jihadist and commited to destroying Israel? I find that typical.

I don't understand how Mecca and Jerusalem will become distant memories. We need Mecca so we can go to work with our cars and Jerusalem is a city honored by all three religions. Or is it some superiority complex? Please elaborate.

Arash, the Palestinians themselves long ago forfeited by their actions, in rejecting the resolutions you now cite, any right of return.

The PLO accepted the resolutions in 199 and again in 1993.

Correction: The PLO accepted the resolutions in 1988 and again in 1993.

Arash,

The claimed "right of return" is nothing more, and nothing less, than a offensive tactic aimed at destroying Israel. It is part of a "Palestine from the Jordan to the sea" approach. This has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with hate.

To pretend otherwise is beyond dishonest. Otherwise, the goal of return for the refugees would involve the lands of an established Palestinian state.

Once the boundaries of a Palestinian state are defined (and very possibly before that, via the wall), the issue of the settlements will adjust itself. Again, just as these adjustments have taken place in most previous conflicts.

RE: Mecca and Jerusalem as distant memories. If we keep feeding the determination to destroy Israel, what we are feeding is the very real possibility of a future war that could leave both of those cities, and large sections of the Middle East elsewhere, uninhabitable for centuries. You want Israel destroyed? I don't think they'll go quietly. Be careful what you wish for.

There is a way out, of course. It involves real peace, and real acceptance of Israel's existence as a Jewish state. The PLO's acceptance of that principle is highly debatable, and yours doesn't seem much in evidence either.

Arash-

You are not a jihadist.

You're an idealist who accepts accepts at face value that the Palestinians inherently have the "moral and legal rights" recognized by the "international community". I don't accept that, from a purely ethical perspective, because the Israelis are "entitled" to equal and offsetting "rights" in the Arab world that are of at least equal if not greater "legitimacy". The short answer to your question why it's "okay" to have settlements is that 200,000 Jews can live in the West Bank only under military protection whereas over a million Arabs live in Israel and don't require that protection. I think you assume wrongly that the international pseudo-consensus on the issue of relative rights actually reflects a moral position, rather than a strategic one.

Even assuming some basis for such rights, the reason that some will conclude, without great difficulty, that the Palestinians have forfeited them is that you are not merely asking Israel to comply with those moral and legal rights, you are asking the Israelis to commit suicide. As a practical matter, and I think ethical one, when the implementation of rights requires voluntary submission to genocide, a reasonable person should recognize that those rights are forfeited.

Finally, it really doesn't matter how much sympathy I might otherwise have for the cause of Palestinian Arabs because, because Trent is correct that the Bush administration is really playing Joe Isuzu. Even if it is not, it is virtually impossible to avoid the conclusion that a Palestinian State in peaceful co-existence with Israel is a virtual contradiction in terms in that it is hard to imagine such a state as anything other than a base for terrorist and military operations by the Palestians and the Arabs in general against Israel. No such state can come into existence or, if it did, to satisfy the suicidal gamble that the international community, which includes you and your views regarding Palestinian rights, would like the Israelis to take, it could only be an exceedingly short-lived one.

More generally, like it or not, the Palestinian question has become absorbed into the larger question of the war on Islamic terrorism. For the Palestinians, that is a potential positive in that that same international community, which here includes the United States, is perfectly willing to make the Israelis swallow their own legitimate claims for strategic reasons that have little to do with morality. But the Palestinians show little willingness to seize that opportunity.

Re: "Right of Return:"

So the inhabitation of Palestinian refugees onto Israeli land is hateful and aimed at destroying Israel?

What do you propose? Putting more Palestinians into buntusans in the 2nd most densly populated city in the world? I see one other solution: give us more land and remove all your settlements. Demographic studies show that 78% of Israelis live in 14% of Israel and that the remaining 22% live on 86% of the land that belongs to the refugees. Further, of the 22%, 20% live in cities while the remaining 2% live in kibbutzim and moshavs. Approximately 5,000 refugees live per square kilometer in the Gaza Strip, while over the barbed wire their lands are practically empty. You don't want genocide? I understand. Land for peace. Simple as that.

Joe: You think the wall define the border? More land-grabbing? Come on. It cuts 15% into Palestinian land and isolates villages from the major cities. It cuts off fertile land, olive groves and water resources for the Palestinians. Destined..for the settlers. It's nothing but the South-African solution: apartheid. To differ on this, is pure dishonesty.

No, I don't want Jerusalem destroyed. It was you who brought it up. Stop your continuation of hateful stereotyping, please.

Arash,

For the record, I think most of the Israeli settlements should be dismantled.

There is another way for a Palestinian nation to exist, which I have never heard anyone propose before. Granted, the chances of it coming to pass are infinitesimally small.

Israelis and Palestinians could implement the Swiss Federation model. Both the state of Israel and a future Palestinian state could both be sub-units of a Federal Republic, which would be sovereign over both sub-states. Each sub-state would have full jurisdiction over its own territory.

Unfortunately, as long as the Palestinians continue to wage war on Israel, such a plan is unfeasible. A very similar situation could have occurred in the US after the Civil War.

Gabriel, an idealist accepts the validity of those ideals for the other side as well. Arash is not an idealist. I can't say if he's a jihadist, but I can say that he seems to support the core of their program which is the destruction of Israel.

The question is simple: do the Palestinians want their own state more than they want Israel's destruction?

Arash's posts clearly incline toward the opposite view. These positions have not secured and will not secure a viable state for the Palestinians. Nor will they achieve the destruction of Israel, except at costs that we all shudder to contemplate. Thus far, these policies have also produced nothing but misery for the Palestinians he claims to champion.

Israel has the right to remain a Jewish state, and to live within secure borders, and to have those things not be dependent on Arab governments who have shown many times that they cannot be trusted to keep any treaty for any reason other than deterrence.

The Palestinians may also gain a state with contiguous borders, one in which they too can be secure against persecution (a real problem in the Arab world), and which even includes a number of the Israeli towns etc. so charmingly referred to as "settlements" in its boundaries. But this may not happen and certainly will not last unless they recognize the above imperatives for Israel, cease their official incitement of genocidal hate and violence, truly cease their war - AND abandon their larger plans re: neighbours like Jordan.

With statehood comes responsibilities as well as rights, as well as the prospect of real consequences (like full-scale declared war) for one's decisions.

If they do not do these things, (and this depends as much on the Arab states who have always used them as pawns as it does on the Palestinians themselves), their future will become even bleaker. That will = a choice of continued war, with a stealily rising prospect of tragedy for all.

So far their choices of allies and role models (Grand Mufti's alliance with Hitler during WW2, followed by the Soviet Union's patronage, followed by Saddam and Iran/al-Qaeda) have not been wise.

Joe,

You're not going to get much disagreement from me on any those points. I think I've made clear that I by no means believe that Arash has the ethical high ground but the practical low ground.

That being said, Arash is not spewing jihadist hatred by any means and I respect his right to his opinion. I know the "objective pro-jihadists" - remember I'm surrounded by them - but wouldn't ascribe that label to someone like Arash.

Joe: you did not address the point. The Right of Return must be solved. You don't want them in Israel, to safeguard Israel's Jewish character.

Fair enough, but you must offer--or work together to achieve--another solution. Once again, I ask: what's your solution. Because there is no way that settlers and the returning refugees can live in one Palestinian state.

Clarify your stand on the settlers issue; on the wall; and on the right of return.

To address your points made:

No, I do not wish Israel's destruction. Once again, you continue your flawed assumptions. Did I state I did? I'm sure I didn't. Israel has a right to exist; I recognize Israel by its 1967 borders.

Secondly, I think Egypt has been more than honorauble in their peace treaty haven't they? Yet it's Israel violating Lebanese airspace time after time.

According to the roadmap, the incitement must stop. Whether it's bigotry and racism against Jews or anything else that creates an atmosphere of hate, it should be abolished. This process takes time. Hamas is in control of the social services, we have to regain it. USAID has done a poorly job at it. Mr. Bush announced plans--as did Mr. DeLay--to implement these steps together with Mr. Abbas.

I agree with the responsibility issue. Terrorists attack = retaliation. If the Palestinian leadership is unable to stop, I will recognize Israel's right to retaliate.

I'm considered a moderate on this--yes, that's right--so it's kind of odd to be called a supporter of the destruction of Israel. Joe, don't jump to conclusions. Rather, ask questions and address the issues.

Question about an issue: Is there really a legitimate issue called "Right of Return"? Who is returning where and why? Do we mean compensation to 800,000 Jews having fled Arab lands? Compensation to their offspring? Compensation for the damage caused Israel from 50 plus years of Arab aggression? Compensation paid by the Arab States (and maybe the U.N.) for causing the flight of Palestinian Arabs from Israel or maintaining them in a permanent state of refugee status?

I don't see how you can address an issue unless you establish that it exists and, if so, what it means.

Arash -

"The Right of Return must be solved." No it doesn't. The Right of Return is an expression of the desire of the Palestinians to unwind the War of 1948; the war's over, they lost. Neither the winners (Israel) not the winner's guarantor of security (the U.S.) is going to call for a rematch.

Now it may be a reasonable negotiating point to make in order to get some settlement - of land, rights, or money - as a part of a larger agreement that resolves this problem.

But all of these issues are window dressing for an effort by the Arab world to remove the irritant that is Israel using the blood and suffering of the Palestinian people. This is compounded by the thugocracy that has taken over the Palestinian proto-state, and has been looting it and systematically murdering and repressing any possible opposition. The Arab people - who expelled the Palestinians from Lebanon and Tunisia, as well as Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait, are happy to see the Palestinian youth destroy itself while wounding and embarassing Israel.

I believe in a two-state solution. But until the PA, or its successor-in-interest can gain some control over its territory, it is a pipedream.

A.L.

personally i think the clinton-barak plan went too far. the west bank is disputed territory, regardless of the claims over the entire land by both sides. yes, millions of palestnians living under occupation is bad, but to claim all of the west bank as palestinian based on that is a non-sequitor. palestinians do not have an entitlement right to the land. if they want a nation they need to start acting like one, and building those things that make a nation. if they continue to think that means suicide bombers, then they are going to lose everything they could possibly hope for.

putting it all in a vaccum, forgetting about the terrorism for a moment, and assuming the palestinians suddenly were interested in their own future rather than the destruction of israel, a two state solution is the best choice yes. i just dont see any reason that should involve more than 2/3rds of the land of the west bank. no amount of entitlement demands by those like arash will change the fact that there are two sides here, and that the palestinians must consider what is best for israel just as they demand everything that is best for themselves.

dismantle some settlements? sure. but why dismantle all, or even most of them? if both sides have strong claims to the land then why is it ok for palestnians to live in the west bank but not jews? why is it ok for "collaborators" to be murdered by palestinians in ways that remind us all of witch burnings and pogroms and fascist brownshirts and inquisitions, just for the crime of being friendly to jews, or selling land to jews, or in any way condoning the radical idea of living side by side with jews?

yes, gaza is overcrowded, and in the interests of mutual concern a deal can be negotiated in good faith that gives some land to gaza along the border with egypt. but that is the kind of deal that is negotiated among friends... not with the threat of bus bombings, child killings, and all the rest.

granted, im simplifying. there are many details of conflict that need working out. water-use, travel restrictions, etc. but underlying all these arguments are basic things that are too often forgotten. the palestinians lost these lands in wars they were willingly used as proxies in. the palestinians continue to aggresively support low level war with israel while demanding that israel do nothing in response. all of the other claims on land are just commentary and are matched by equal claims on either side.

if the palestinians are going to exalt war against israelis, they shouldnt bitch about the results of their own actions.

Gabriel: I have always advocated compensation to the Jews who fled Arab countries. But considering the corruptness of Arab leaders--whom I loathe-- I don't see it happening. Israel on the other hand is a democracy which in which I trust upon to follow international law. Right of Return as described in UN resolution 194: peaceful return or compensation. This will be controversial issue for both sides, and let's just agree to disagree on this point. We will see--hopefully--what future negotations will bring.

Armed Liberal: I don't think you understand. Because the Arabs lost a war, doesn't mean they have forfeited their rights.

And yes, the Arab countries have used the Palestininas as a political tool, but that's not the issue here. But I do agree with that point. Yet again, their misuse of the conflict does not forfeit Palestinians' rights.

Balagan: disputed territory? Only because Israel made it so. For 20 years the territories were occupied. The Palestinians lived in misery and were a source of cheap labor for the Israelis. Israel either makes the Palestinians citizens of Israel or Israel lets them rule their own affairs. To reject both is a disregard for human life. It's been going on for the past 36 years.

Let's be fair. Taking more land is not a solution. It's a part of the problem.

First of all, if 200,000 Jews want to live in settlements in a future Palestinian state, than the 3+ million refugees can live in Israel, right? Let's not hold a double standard here.

From my viewpoint, Jews can live wherever they want. However, they cannot live under military protection in settlements that steals fertile land and olive groves from the Palestinians. The Jews are welcome. Anyone from any religion is welcome. You claim all of Palestine? Than I don't see any difference between you and a hate-spreading Jihadist. Palestinians lay claim to 22% of the land. You can have the rest. The thing is that not everybody lays claim to all of it. The majority of both people don't want "all of it." Settlements is just another way for extremist Jews to take over all of the Middle East and establish Greater Israel; it's not any different from wishing the destruction of Israel as some do.

Arash, your arguments are frankly bizarre. You ascribe the most extreme of Israeli views to all of Israel and the most benevolent of Palestinian views to all of Palestinians ( in direct contradiction to polling that has been done on both populations ). You ignore history before 1967.

the notion that terror pays is at best a fantasy: It has only brought the Palestinians more misery and a reduced chance of obtaining an independent state

Your formulation assumes that the goal of Palestinian Arabs is an additional state. I think we can see clearly, from both rhetoric and actions, that this is not the goal; the goal is the destruction of Israel, and viewed in this light, terror does pay: it kills Israelis, and it provokes a defensive reaction that in turn serves as an excuse for international condemnation and isolation of Israel and Israelis. It brings the goal closer. How can you say it's not a success?

"I have always advocated compensation to the Jews who fled Arab countries. But considering the corruptness of Arab leaders--whom I loathe-- I don't see it happening. Israel on the other hand is a democracy which in which I trust upon to follow international law. Right of Return as described in UN resolution 194: peaceful return or compensation."

Arash you have an odd view of international law. In normal law, lawbreakers are the ones who take the heat. In your vision of international law, Arab despots get to ignore it, while Israel has to commit suicide according to international law. It seems strange.

The problem with 194 and peaceful return is the peacful part. My understanding of Arafat's position is non-peacful return plus compensation. That won't work.

One thing I don't understand is, why does there have to be a Jewish State? Why a Palestinian state? Jews and Palestinians should be able to live anywhere they want. Isn't it an absurd situation that if the Palestinians who wanted to return to their homes in Israel were to convert to Judaism, that they would be able to move there? And if they stay Muslim/Christian, they cannot? This makes no sense to anyone other than a religious fanatic.

The entire area should just become one state with secular rule, and protection of the minority populations. The entire idea of a state just for Jews or just for Palestinians is an outmoded concept that will only breed more and more hatred and violence.

Oh, and one more thing: how does it say that terrorism works by passing a compromise peace-plan? If I recall, the very first suicide bomb in Israel was in 1996, and designed to SINK the peace plan, the 2 state solution.

The terrorists are very clearly against the 2 state solution, so doesn't it mean that by going forward with it, you are going against the terrorists?

One last thing, and then I promise I'll shut up: 2 very interesting recent polls I read were that 90% of Palestinian refugees would choose NOT to settle in Israel, and 78% of Settlers, if compensated, would go back to Israel proper. Those are very heartening numbers for those of you advocating the 2 state solution. Perhaps there should be a fund set up, and paid into by all the governments of the region, that could compensate the Arabs and Jews who were uprooted in 1948. That is the only fair solution, you can't have one compensated and not the other.

Fred, its not a difficult concept to see that the Palestinian Authority increases the amount of terrorism when it doesn't get its way in negotiations.

Arash writes: "Armed Liberal: I don't think you understand. Because the Arabs lost a war, doesn't mean they have forfeited their rights. "

Yes, it can and does. And not because they lost a war, but because they initiated the use of war to resolve the dispute. You've created a double-standard that only rewards those who resort to war and terrorism by eliminating much of the risks of failure.

That's odd AL, because I don't think it was the women and children who took up guns and fought. They were forced to leave because of the circumstances created by their unchosen leaders.

Fred, the poll you cite has been discredit already, it was a misrepresentation by the media (once again.) The question was not "Would you like to return to Israel" but "only 10 percent of the small sample of Palestinian refugees polled, after having received from the government of Israel unconditional recognition of their right of return, would choose the first option outlined in the Taba proposal, although they do not believe Israel ever intends to honor such a proposal."

95% procent of the refugees demanded their right to return to be recognized. that's a big number; not 10%.

22% of "palestine" eh? so 78% of what is now jordan will now be given to israel and 22% of the land taht was formally "palestine" will be given to the palestinians? or maybe just an even swap.. 22% of jordan in return for the 22% of land in israel claimed by the palestians. i am not saying the land on which palestinians live is disputed. i am saying whether they get the whole west bank is disputed. they do not live on all of the west bank. period. why should they get all of it? they started, supported, and continue to fight in wars against israel. if they dont like the outcome they should look to change themselves and what they support first.

A little late, but I thought I'd link this piece on Nato as enforcer of Israeli-Palestinian peace. http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059478556069&p=1012571727126.

I think there are more advantages than those directly cited in the article: plausible acceptability to the Israelis, neutralization of the French, diminishing the U.S. as a target in a peacekeeping/enforcement mission (let's spread the hate). Interesting idea.