An excellent article about what's going on with Israel and Palestine...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-24/why-palestinians-have-time-on-their-side.html

Why Palestinians Have Time on Their Side


By
Jeffrey Goldberg

If I were a Palestinian (and, should
there be any confusion on this point, I am not), and if I were
the sort of Palestinian who believed that Israel should be wiped
off the map, then I would be quite pleased with Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu’s performance before Congress this morning.
I would applaud Netanyahu for including no bold initiatives
that would have suggested to the world that Israel is alive to
the threat posed by its seemingly eternal occupation of the West
Bank.
In fact, I would make support for Netanyahu the foundation
stone of my patient campaign to dismantle the world’s only
majority-Jewish country. I would support not only Netanyahu, but
the far-right parties of his governing coalition, the parties
that seem uninterested in democracy and obsessed with planting
more Jewish settlements on the West Bank.
The settlements would have my wholehearted backing. I would
encourage my brother Palestinians to help build settlements at a
brisk pace. I would ask the Israelis to build an even more
intricate system of bypass roads on the West Bank that would
connect Jewish settlements to one another and to Israel proper.
I would ask my ostensible allies among the Arab nations to
provide interest-free mortgages to Israelis in Tel Aviv, so they
could move out to the settlements for some fresh air and a
little more yard. And, while I was at it, I would insist that my
leaders abort their campaign for United Nations recognition of
an independent state of Palestine.
Entanglement


My goal: To hopelessly, ineradicably, entangle the two
peoples wedged between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean
Sea.
Then I would wait as the Israeli population on the West
Bank grew, and grew some more. I would wait until 2017, 50 years
after the Six Day War, which ended with Israel in control of the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip. I would go before the UN and say
the following:
"We, the Palestinians, no longer seek a homeland of our
own. We recognize the permanence of Israeli occupation, the
dominion of the Israeli military and the power of the Israeli
economy. So we would like to join them. In the 50 years since
the beginning of the ’temporary’ occupation, we have seen
hundreds of thousands of Israelis build communities near our own
communities. We admire what they have built, and the system of
laws that governs their lives. Unlike them, many of us live
under Israeli military law but have no say in choosing the
Israelis who rule us. So we no longer want statehood. We simply
want the vote."
And this, of course, would bring about the end of Israel.
Apartheid State


Either the Jews of Israel would grant the Palestinians the
vote, at which point their country would lose its Jewish
majority and its identity as a refuge for the Jewish people, or
it would deny them the vote, and become an apartheid state. The
latter option is untenable, of course: Many Jewish Israelis
would be repulsed by this thought; other nations that already
consider Israel a pariah would now have just cause; and Israel
would lose its last remaining friend, the U.S., because no
American -- including and especially young American Jews --
would identify with a country reminiscent of pre-Mandela South
Africa.
If Netanyahu had been thinking strategically, he might have
realized this when he went before Congress this morning. And he
might have done something bold: Acknowledge that the age of
Jewish settlement is over. He did mention, fleetingly, that
certain settlements would be set adrift in a theoretical peace
deal. But he seemed unaware that he was delivering a speech that
could easily have been given 10 years ago.
It is not 10 years ago. Israel is now 10 years closer to
achieving full pariah status. And -- in part because the
Palestinians lack the patience to pursue a strategy of gradual,
irreversible entanglement -- a moment of truth for Israel is
rapidly approaching.
UN Vote


The Palestinians are seeking a UN vote in September on
independence. They will prevail in the General Assembly, though
not in the Security Council. President Barack Obama, with whom
Netanyahu just picked a fight, will have to spend a good amount
of political capital to stymie the Palestinian campaign, even
though he appears to have nothing but contempt for Netanyahu’s
lack of vision.
But American opposition to this unilateral declaration will
be in many ways immaterial. Israel will soon enough be seen by
most of the world as the occupier not of disputed territory but
of a foreign country. The Palestinians will wake up to find that
a General Assembly vote did not, in fact, give them true
independence. And then there will be an explosion.
The Palestinians who are watching Yemenis, Libyans and
Syrians fighting for their freedom will soon be inspired to once
again take up their own fight.
Existential Threats


Netanyahu, who understands the existential threat posed by
Iran, does not seem to understand the nature of this other
existential threat. His five predecessors as prime minister --
including Ariel Sharon, whose heart did not bleed for
Palestinians -- understood it. President Obama understands it,
too.
The number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River
is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic
realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories," Obama
told members of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, on May 22.
"This will make it harder and harder, without a peace deal, to
maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state."
An eternal truth of Middle East politics is that the
Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Lately, though, this has become an Israeli specialty. If Israel
misses the chance this year to set the Palestinians on a course
toward independence, it will jeopardize its future as a Jewish
democracy.
A Magnanimous Vision


Yes, it will be dangerous for Israel to return to its 1967
borders, or anything close. The potential merger between Hamas
and the more moderate Fatah is cause for despair, but it should
spur Netanyahu to try to split the moderates from the radicals
by offering a magnanimous vision for peace. He should realize
that it will be fatal for Israel to maintain control over
millions of Palestinians who seek what the people of Yemen and
Libya and Syria seek: freedom.
Absent any hope of progress, the Palestinians will do what
they can to undermine Israel. But all they have to do is wait.
(Jeffrey Goldberg is a Bloomberg View columnist. The
opinions expressed are his own.)

Here is why it won't happen. The Palestinians are not capable of making a cold, calculated decision like that. They will want nothing short of the annihilation of the Jewish state.

Hellsangel wrote:Here is why it won't happen. The Palestinians are not capable of making a cold, calculated decision like that. They will want nothing short of the annihilation of the Jewish state.

The point is that if we get to a stage where Arabs outnumber Jews in the old Palestine, it doesn't take any cold, calculated decision for the Palestinians to start demanding the vote within that state. And it would be much, much harder for Israel to deny the vote than to deny land or a state.

This is a good article. The ticking demographic time bomb is easy to miss with all the emotionalism surrounding the issue for israelis.

Kris wrote:This is a good article. The ticking demographic time bomb is easy to miss with all the emotionalism surrounding the issue for israelis.

I was doing some quick digging around after reading the article. Turns out there are just under 6 million Jews in what was old Palestine. And there are over 5 million Arabs (counting both Israel proper and the occupied territories.) The problem is nearer at hand for Israel than the country's government seems to believe.

charvaka wrote:
The point is that if we get to a stage where Arabs outnumber Jews in the old Palestine, it doesn't take any cold, calculated decision for the Palestinians to start demanding the vote within that state. And it would be much, much harder for Israel to deny the vote than to deny land or a state.

The same strategy that all muslim minorities adapt around the world - Phillipines, Thailand, Palestine, and yes, INDIA.

The 18% 5th column inside Israel is preparing just for such a day. Israel should agree to a 67 border with land exchange for East Jerusalem AND the 18% of the Arbas inside its border to be moved to the new Palestinian state.

Not happening, and the muslims will win Israel, Germany, france, England, and India over the next 200 years.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Israel should agree to a 67 border with land exchange for East Jerusalem AND the 18% of the Arbas inside its border to be moved to the new Palestinian state.

That's a pretty big change from the "not an inch to the Palestinians" position you were taking yesterday!

I have no preference to this or that or anything. After all I am a Saamiyaar with no bias or preferences.

Israel should not give an inch. But, already the west bank and gaza are ruled de facto by the Palestinians. The only sticking point is E.Jerusalem and the jewish settlements within the West bank.

The Israelis can give soverignty to the Palestinians under the condition that Palestinians give up their right to E-Jerusalem, AND exchange the Jewish settlers for the Arab Israelis residing inside Israel. US can bankroll the exchangeoperation - tedius but good for all in the long run.

The documents – many of which will be published by the Guardian over the coming days – also reveal:

• The scale of confidential concessions offered by Palestinian negotiators, including on the highly sensitive issue of the right of return of Palestinian refugees.

• How Israeli leaders privately asked for some Arab citizens to be transferred to a new Palestinian state.

• The intimate level of covert co-operation between Israeli security forces and the Palestinian Authority.

• The central role of British intelligence in drawing up a secret plan to crush Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

• How Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders were privately tipped off about Israel’s 2008-9 war in Gaza.

As well as the annexation of all East Jerusalem settlements except Har Homa, the Palestine papers show PLO leaders privately suggested swapping part of the flashpoint East Jerusalem Arab neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah for land elsewhere.

Most controversially, they also proposed a joint committee to take over the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount holy sites in Jerusalem’s Old City – the neuralgic issue that helped sink the Camp David talks in 2000 after Yasser Arafat refused to concede sovereignty around the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques.

The offers were made in 2008-9, in the wake of George Bush’s Annapolis conference, and were privately hailed by the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, as giving Israel “the biggest Yerushalayim [the Hebrew name for Jerusalem] in history” in order to resolve the world’s most intractable conflict. Israeli leaders, backed by the US government, said the offers were inadequate.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/01/24/palestine-papers-show-israelis-unwilling-to-accept-major-concessions/

artood2 wrote:
The offers were made in 2008-9, in the wake of George Bush’s Annapolis conference, and were privately hailed by the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, as giving Israel “the biggest Yerushalayim [the Hebrew name for Jerusalem] in history” in order to resolve the world’s most intractable conflict. Israeli leaders, backed by the US government, said the offers were inadequate.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/01/24/palestine-papers-show-israelis-unwilling-to-accept-major-concessions/

History will judge that Arafat overreached in his time. And that the Israelis overreached in 2008-9. The Israelis are still living in the post-9/11 world of counterterrorist sensibilities in their patron country the US; but they are not living in the post-Iraq and the post-OBL-killed world. They thought in 2008-9 -- and still think -- that the US will continue to be absolutist in its "no talking to terrorists" line and that they can piggyback on that in resisting concessions. They don't realize that the US happily negotiates with terrorists once other options are exhausted -- as it is now doing in Afghanistan with the Taliban.

The Guardian's link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/23/palestine-papers-expose-peace-concession

Palestine conceded a lot. It is a good time for Israel to get a good deal if they are interested in peace.