Palestinian aspirations are clear, but what does Israel want? (Gideon Levy)

[Violet_Crumble]

Does anybody know what Benjamin Netanyahu wants? Has anybody ever understood what his predecessors wanted? Where are they headed? And where are they leading us? One after another, Israeli politicians have been asked these questions, only to reply with the standard rejoinders: "You don't expect me to answer this question" or "Let's leave this for the negotiations." Vague answers, obfuscations, evasive and noncommittal cliches - promises, promises. There was one clear, unequivocal answer - none. There is no other country whose citizens, friends and enemies have not the slightest clue about which direction it is facing. For our enemies not to know is understandable, but don't we deserve to know more? Don't we at least deserve to know the ultimate goal?

While the Arabs have always declared their aspirations - and did so with clarity, precision, sharpness and at times extremism, the Israelis have donned masks. While the goals of warring parties in international conflicts are known to all, and while everyone knows what the Palestinians are after in the Middle East - the '67 lines, a state, a solution to the refugee problem, the right of return - nobody knows what the Israelis want. Do they wish to annex the territories? Come on. Do they want to evacuate them? Not now. If not now, when? It remains unclear. How much of the territories? Nobody knows.

A few days ago, journalists broached the question of a construction freeze in Jerusalem to a few ministers. Almost all of them refused to give a response. Why should they? This is nothing less than a scandal. A minister who is not ready to state his position on an issue is derelict in his duties. When a prime minister refrains from doing so, it is 10 times as grave. While Swedish law obligates the publication of every letter sent from the office of a minister, we cannot even extract a response from our top officials over critical issues.

The blame, as usual in these instances, is shared by us all. Through the years we have implicitly agreed that our leaders would guide us on the basis of fraud, or at the very least distortion. The mantra of there's-no-need-to-say-it-aloud has become a matter of consensus, almost an axiom.

The conventional thinking whereby striving for peace is likened to market bartering and late-night horse-trading, as if it were verboten to clearly specify a final price, has become official policy. What might work for the illusory world of advertising and marketing, or the avarice of the consumer culture, has become a philosophical cornerstone in this country. Vagueness is the message. Perhaps this country has no goal, or a way to get to a goal, and the vagueness is meant to obfuscate this disgrace.

Is the prime minister of Israel ready to withdraw from the Golan Heights in exchange for peace with Syria? Yes or no? Don't we deserve to know? Which parts of the West Bank, if any, is he ready to evacuate? And what, for heaven's sake, does our defense minister want? What are his policy goals? Does anybody know? And why is it that if we were to know the answer, this would weaken our position and not strengthen it? Is vagueness tantamount to strength? Is trickery a modus operandi?

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1160894.html

[Poll_Blind]

1. Eretz Yisrael? n/t

PB

[kayecy]

2. Well?????.......Anyone clear as to what Israel wants?........

Well?????.......Anyone clear as to what Israel wants?........Seems a bit ridiculous to continue a 60 year conflict without being clear on what you hope to achieve.......Perhaps it is a state secret?

[Igel]

4. Anyone clear on what "the Palestinians" want?

Does "Palestinians" include Hamas' settling for a hudna, while stating its intent to liberate Jaffa? Or the Palestinians that are willing to settle for the '67 lines--some of them likely minus E. Jerusalem? Do they consider the '67 truce lines to be malleable and subject to negotiation? Do they insist on the lines the UN originally drew--possibly with changes? Do they agree that an international city or joint sovereignty of Jerusalem is a good idea?

Do they all require compensation? Or do they all reject the idea? Do they all require a contiguous state because only such a state is viable--although it would pretty much, under most scenarios, require a non-contiguous Israeli state? Do they all want a secular state? A de facto Islamic state? An Islamist state?

Do they all require a right of return for all the refugees, including whose who fled 50 years pre-conception? Or just for those who actually fled? Or a token number to show that they triumphed? If so, what's the number of returnees required?

What's the name they want? People's Republic of Palestine? Republic of Palestine? Palestine? Islamic Republic of Palestine? Palestinian Emirate? When did they poll all the Palestinians--or even just those in the West Bank and Gaza--for this?

Levy first fudged by claiming, implicitly, there is a single set of items that "the Palestinians" want when there is no such thing. He's picked out a subset and foisted a tacit whole-part fallacy on us. This made the diversity of views on the Jewish Israeli side seem uniquely incoherent when he presented the whole as the whole, although, in fact, the Jewish Israeli side is merely similarly incoherent. It's a clever rhetorical tool. Has little to do with dialog or accuracy, shows an acquaintance with logic and a willingness to ignore it when it suits him, but does score rhetorical points. Might even convince people that, in spite of everything other than appearances, he's right.

Some Israelis don't want a Jewish state at all. Others insist on Jerusalem being undivided. Some don't. Some insist on the West Bank, but are less clear on Gaza. Many don't. Most? Perhaps. Lots of points of views. Perhaps as many as there are on the Palestinian side. Perhaps more. Perhaps fewer. I can't know. Neither can Levy.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

16. 2 states, Jerusalem as capital. 1967 borders. Right of return.

Name? Exact number of refugees? Are you for real?

[pelsar]

19. hamas disagrees....as does islamic jihad...

i believe they too are Palestinians.....or do they "not count"....(are they traitors?)

[kayecy]

20. But what does the democratically elected government of Israel want?...........n/t

[aranthus]

21. What does it matter?

If Progressive is right (as I think likely), then the majority of Palestinians want a minimum of Jerusalem and the Right of Return. Assuming those are non-negotiable, what does it matter that some agree with a two state or a one state proposal? What do borders matter? Israel can never agree to the RoR, and likely would never agree to giving up Jerusalem. So what Israelis are really faced with is not how to negotiate peace with the Palestinians, but how to deal with a situation where the core Palestinian demands make a peace agreement impossible.

That being said, Levy is probably correct that the Israeli body politic is fractured, and is mostly focused on supporting anyone who can promise security now, even if they don't have much of a strategic vision.

[azurnoir]

22. Are IJ or Hamas representing all Palestinians?

are they even in control of the majority of Palestinians? No and BTW what do the rightwing Parties ib Israel want?

but thank you everytime Iread one of your statements regarding Hamas or IJ being justification for any Israeli action towards the Palestinians I understand a little more just why Israel allowed them to grow and come to power and why Israel was so determined to destroy Fatah

[ProgressiveMuslim]

24. Here's the thing Pelsar... the gov't of Israel says all the "right things" but does as

it pleases on the ground. I think Hamas is the opposite. The public rhetoric (and I'm not even sure what that is nowadays) might be more strident, but I think fact if there were a reasonable settlement, they would definitely jump on it.

[aranthus]

25. That assumes that we agree on what is a reasonable settlement.

Would Hamas accept a state in Gaza and within the green line, with some local control over East Jerusalem and no right of return (which is about the most that israel is willing to do)? Would a majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza? How about the diaspora? What do you consider reasonable, and why do you think Hamas would jump on that?

[azurnoir]

26. are you thinking of Kadima?

"Israel says the right things but does as it pleases....." ? The current rw government is a bit more "candid"

But what I find most interesting here is the insistence on what Israel would be happy with or is willing to do with little regard to Palestinians it seems for some "might is right" is all good at least when its Israel

[ProgressiveMuslim]

44. I don't know what you mean....

in my POV, all Zionist governments mouth the peace platitudes, but in fact act in contradiction to those aims!

[azurnoir]

70. Kadima is far better at playing nicey nice politics

where as Likud is not however the actual results in action are quite the same, Kadima gives Israel's excuse makers more meat to work with so to speak

[LeftishBrit]

78. I think Kadima are probably less inclined to take 'Do bite the hand that feeds you!' as a valid

foreign policy; and would be more co-operative with Obama.

They are not necessarily more peace-loving than Likud, but are definitely more pragmatic. Which would be a good thing right now.

I would prefer Meretz, but that's not going to happen.

[pelsar]

60. sure....hamas will give up their whole 'reason to be"

their whole faith to join in on a settlement with israel. They cant even get along with the PA. BUT it is true, they say what they mean with one voice. That is the advantage of having a dictatorship, you get to shut down all of those who disagree.

What levy is complaining about is democracy....where everyone gets to open their mouth and have their say.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

61. What a crock of crap.

[oberliner]

8. 70 percent of Israelis support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state next to Israel

Apparently that number is lower (and declining) on the Palestinian side.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

13. haha

And thats why they Rabin was killed and the iron wall was built ON AN OCCUPIED LAND.

[oberliner]

15. 71% among Israelis and 57% among Palestinians supported the “two-state solution"

A majority of Israelis and Palestinians prefer a two-state solution as the most acceptable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, as opposed to a single binational state or a Palestinian-Israeli confederation.

This is the clear conclusion drawn from the latest public opinion survey conducted under the auspices of the Harry S.Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.

The March joint Israeli Palestinian poll focused on the main political outlines for a final status Palestinian- Israeli agreement. Those surveyed were asked whether they preferred a solution of two states for two peoples, a binational Palestinian-Israeli state, or a Palestinian-Israeli confederation.

The results were as follows:

* 71% among Israelis and 57% among Palestinians supported the “two-state solution,” namely the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside of Israel.
* Compared to the two-state solution, only 24% of the Israelis and 29% of the Palestinians supported the solution of a binational state, in which Israel is unified with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to establish one state in which Palestinians and Israelis would have equal rights.
* The third outline for a political settlement is a two states for two peoples solution, with joint political institutions which will lead eventually to a confederation of the two states. Only 30% of the Israelis and 26% among Palestinians supported this solution.

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2010/p35ejoint.html

[kayecy]

18. Your survey missed out one or two 'minor' points..........

Two states with what borders?......With a sovereign Palestinian State?.......

How could anyone sensibly answer such a survey unless these points were specified......Even Likud would accept a Palestinian state providing it was no more that a series of Bantustans with the IDF controlling the Jordan River.

[oberliner]

29. Not my survey

You can write to the survey creators if you are unhappy with their techniques.

There are other surveys that show similar results.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. I don't think kaycey meant that literally...

Also, I've noticed you pointing out what you consider to be shortcomings in surveys before or where you've had issues with techniques. Kaycey's doing exactly the same as what you do, so why would you tell them to write to the creator of the survey? kaycey has as much right as you do to point out any shortcomings in surveys...

[kayecy]

33. Come on Oberliner........Don't dodge the question......What borders does Israel want?.........

Jordan River?....Green line?.....All settlements?.....East Jerusalem?........Why keep it secret?.....Aren't the Israeli public to be trusted?

[oberliner]

34. Here are some specifics from other surveys

A Palestinian state in the entirety of The West Bank and the Gaza Strip except for several large blocks of settlements in 3% of the West Bank which will be annexed to Israel. Israel will evacuate all other settlements, and the Palestinians will receive in return territory of similar size along the Gaza Strip.

A Jerusalem compromise in which East Jerusalem would become the capital of the Palestinian state with Arab neighborhoods coming under Palestinian sovereignty and Jewish neighborhoods coming under Israeli sovereignty. The Old City (including al Haram al Sharif) would come under Palestinian sovereignty with the exception of the Jewish Quarter and the Wailing Wall that would come under Israeli sovereignty.

Israelis and Palestinians tend to support these components in similar percentages.

[kayecy]

36. What percentage of Israelis approved a Palestinian state along the lines you describe?.........

Thank you for the details of these other surveys (although it would have been better if you had quoted your sources). In the surveys, what percentage of Israelis approved a Palestinian state along the lines you describe?......Does the present democratically elected G.O.I. want the same?........If so, what is stopping them declaring it to the world?.......Netanyahu would experience an instant elevation in world opinion!

[oberliner]

37. 40 percent of Israelis support the Saudi Peace Plan, 46 percent support the Clinton Parameters

That is as of August, 2009.

The source is the same as the other survey I cited (Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research).

Feel free to peruse the various surveys on that site for more information on Israeli and Palestinian public opinion regarding the two-state solution (and many other issues) over the past 10 or 15 years.

[kayecy]

42. Thanks for the extra info but have you misunderstood the figures?.....

Thanks for the extra info but have you misunderstood the figures?.....

Saudi Initiative "54% of the Israelis oppose and 40% support the Saudi initiative which calls for Arab recognition of and normalization of relations with Israel after it ends its occupation of Arab territories occupied in 1967 and after the establishment of a Palestinian state."

Looks like a majority of Israelis (and almost certainly Netanyahu) oppose a two-state solution on the lines of the Saudi Plan.

Clinton/Geneva Parameters "Israelis are now split half between support and opposition to the overall package. This minority level of support (46%) represents a significant decline compared to the consistent majority support for the package among Israelis since December 2004 ."

Again, it looks like a majority reject the Clinton Parameters.

So, we are left with the original question "What does Israel want with regard to borders?"......The survey results you have quoted are really no help and certainly not with regard to what the G.O.I. wants.....The survey results don't even support your claim that most Israelis want a two-state solution.
.
I suggest that the GOI is reluctant to publish its equivalent to the Saudi Plan because in truth, it wants to screw the Palestinians for as much land as it can in asymmetrical negotiations.....Everyone has a different view of what a 'fair' solution would be but if, as I suspect, the G.O.I. said it wanted all the settlements, and East Jerusalem and Hebron, it would receive world-wide condemnation.
.

[oberliner]

43. Here's how I see it

The Saudi Plan gets 40 percent support.

Clinton Parameters brings it up to 46.

Generic "two-state solution" takes it all the way to 71.

I'd say that gives us three "camps" among the Israeli populace.

The biggest group, 40 percent, who support a two-state solution that would involve Israel ceding all of Gaza and the West Bank including all of East Jerusalem to the newly created Palestinian state. Those borders would then be the 1967 borders.

Another group, about 30 percent, who don't support any kind of two-state solution at all.

And a third group, about 30 percent, who support a two-state solution, but who are probably hoping to retain part of East Jerusalem (perhaps some of the Old City, the Jewish Quarter?) as part of Israel in that agreement.

I think that there can some room for negotiation between Israelis and Palestinians to come up with an agreement that gets the last group on board (perhaps a one-for-one land swap for some of the land around Jerusalem?) and would then win the support of the large majority of Israelis.

[kayecy]

48. My take on your figures is as follows.......

100% of Israelis will accept One-state with Palestinian Bantustans
71% will accept a generic 2-atate (including Netanyahu if it conforms to his demands)
46% will accept the Clinton Parameters
40% will accept the Saudi plan


Since only the 71% and 100% constitute a majority, we are still left with not knowing what Israelis, never mind the Israel government wants in the way of borders except your unspecified 'Generic two-state'


Can you explain what you mean Generic two-state?

[oberliner]

49. Your 100 percent number is just made up from nothing

It is truly bizarre that you would think that "100 percent" of Israelis would support what you described.

There is absolutely not survey that would support your invented claim and numerous surveys (such as the one I posted) that suggest otherwise.

I've explained what I believe to be the breakdown of the Israeli populace on this question in my last post based on the surveys I've presented.

"Generic two-state" means that they support a two-state solution but may disagree over some of the details, primarily involving Jerusalem.

Those who are not among the 40 percent of Israelis who support the Saudi Initiative but are among the 70 percent who support the two state solution probably envision a scenario where some of the large Jewish settlements (such as Ma'ale Adumim) become incorporated into Israel in exchange for land within Israel being incorporated into the new Palestinian state.

[kayecy]

50. I think you have misunderstood me.......

It is truly bizarre that you would think that "100 percent" of Israelis would support what you described

I have not invented a claim, I am merely suggesting that no more than a handful of Israelis would object to a one-state solution with Palestinian Bantustans if the Palestinians accepted it

Why, unless they had an unusually strong sense of historical justice, would any Israeli object?....Anyway, the 'one-state solution with Palestinian Bantustans' solution is academic as probably few Israelis think it could be achieved.

The point I am making is that your 40% for the Saudi Plan and 46% for the Clinton Parameters is irrelevant since neither is the view of the Israel majority.

Those who are not among the 40 percent of Israelis who support the Saudi Initiative but are among the 70 percent who support the two state solution probably envision a scenario where some of the large Jewish settlements (such as Ma'ale Adumim) become incorporated into Israel in exchange for land within Israel being incorporated into the new Palestinian state.

That is a reasonable statement except that you use the word 'probably'. ....Surely, any survey worth being quoted, has to specify what is meant by '2-state'.....You may be correct in your 'probably' assumptions but you could equally be wrong and what the survey respondents understood is perhaps something on the lines that Netanyahu probably means by his 2-state solution.....ie all Jerusalem, most settlements, IDF along the Jordan River and limited soverignity.....Have you any evidence that your 70% did not in fact mean such a definition of 2-state?
.

[shira]

52. Kayecy, 90% of Palestinians are for full RoR....meaning 90% are against 2 states

Unless you believe an Israel with a majority Arab population constitutes one of those 2 states.

http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000724.html

[kayecy]

54. So?......What has that got to do with the 2-state borders that the G.O.I. wants?............n/t

[shira]

55. It means land isn't the issue because even if the borders went back to 1949...

....the RoR, which 90% of all Palestinians expect, kills the deal. Unless RoR is dropped as a demand, there's no hope.

BTW, this is where you and your fellow "pro-peaceniks" who purport to care for Palestinians (not that you do) are supposed to actually try effecting change - pressure Arab states to make the refugees citizens (or at least give them that choice) and not allow them to keep millions of refugees in camps for another generation.

[kayecy]

56. My little discussion with Oberliner was about Israel's objectives....NOT Palestinian expectations...

You are welcome to add to this discussion, but please don't just play the spoiler by introducing distractions....If you think you know what the G.O.I.s objectives are, please state them.


As for you telling anyone that they are '....supposed to'.....Isn't that being just a little arrogant?......

[shira]

57. Ok, but you're missing the elephant in the room because RoR is the issue, not land

[kayecy]

59. OK, so you think Israel is fighting to avoid giving Palestinians a RoR.........What else?...........

You disappointed me......Neither you nor the GOI feel able to indicate what borders Israel is fighting for.........

It seems a bit immoral to continue a conflict without knowing what sovereign borders you hope to achieve......Even Saddam made it clear he wanted the whole of Kuwait to be a province of Iraq........

[shira]

63. You don't get it - borders could be 1949 but 90% of Palestinians expect RoR

Do you not understand that every 9 of 10 Palestinians are not for an authentic 2 state solution? They're for 1 Palestinian state and an Israeli state that would soon become yet another Arab state. Talking borders is nothing but a distraction due to the elephant in the room. Demanding RoR is nothing but a ploy to eventually take over all Israel within the green line.

Anyone thinking RoR means 'peace' is delusional.

[kayecy]

65. Let me get this right.......You are claiming to be a 'pro-warnik'?......

Let me get this right.....You have no hesitation in claiming that you and the GOI believe that a peaceful outcome of the Israeli/Palestine conflict is a delusion......That Israel is helpless to do other than continue the killing and occupation?


Amazing!.....A regional super-power insisting on ever-lasting conflict simply because it is afraid a victimized, impoverished, unarmed minority might enforce a RoR!


Even our ultra-right friend Lieberman has at least a proposal for peace.
.

[shira]

66. Uh, no. But let me get this right. You're claiming to be pro-peace by pretending that

....a RoR that, from the start, has been nothing but a sick ploy to destroy Israel isn't contrary to the notion of a 2 state solution? As if RoR isn't a deal killer and not more a destructive issue than borders and settlements?

:eyes:

Can you admit, that at best, around 10% of Palestinians are for a real 2-state solution?

[kayecy]

67. I have 'claimed' no such thing..............

.......I suggested that if you thought borders were irrelevant, you must be "pro-continous conflict"....You replied "Uh, no."

Could you please be a little less cryptic....If you are not "pro continuous conflict", what exactly are you for?

But let me get this right.......You're claiming to be pro-peace by pretending that....a RoR that, from the start, has been nothing but a sick ploy to destroy Israel isn't contrary to the notion of a 2 state solution?

I would dearly love to help you to get this right, but since I am not claiming to be pro-peace (I don't think I have ever used the word), I am somewhat puzzled as to the point you are trying to make.
.

[Crunchy Frog]

32. Yeah, but the Palestinian state they want next to Israel is Jordan.

It's a problem for the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza.

[oberliner]

38. That is not true - I would encourage you to check out the PSR survey site

The Saudi Peace Plan calls for Israeli retreat from all territories occupied in 1967 including Gaza the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Forty percent of Israelis support that plan.

[aquart]

3. Clear?????

PS: The Golan Heights? Withdraw from the Heights? Whoever thinks that's on the table isn't grown up enough to look at a map with elevation levels.

1. When did it become a standard to give back land acquired in the gamble of war? When you play poker, do you all take back your own money when the game is over?

2. Define "peace with Syria." Does that mean the borders open and people travel freely between Israel and Syria? Yeah, Syria's really looking forward to that.

3. As for vagueness, that's a valuable, time-tested strategy. Elizabeth I of England reigned fifty years and never made up her mind about anything. Except executing her cousin Mary. And even that took decades.

[oberliner]

5. More than one third of all Palestinians do not want what this author says they want

The author of the OP writes:

"everyone knows what the Palestinians are after in the Middle East - the '67 lines, a state, a solution to the refugee problem, the right of return"

Yet, the following question was posed of Palestinians in a recent survey:

"According to the Saudi plan, Israel will retreat from all territories occupied in 1967 including Gaza the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and a Palestinian state will be established. The refugees problem will be resolved through negotiation in a just and agreed upon manner and in accordance with UN resolution 194 which allows return of refugees to Israel and compensation. In return, all Arab states will recognize Israel and its right to secure borders, will sign peace treaties with her and establish normal diplomatic relations. Do you agree or disagree to this plan?"

About 37 percent of Palestinians said that they disagree or certainly disagree with this plan.

[shira]

6. link?

[oberliner]

7. Survey was conducted March 4-6 of this year

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2010/p35e.html#tables

Question 42 asks about the Saudi plan.

[azurnoir]

9. Almost half dis agree with the Saudi Plan?

According to the Saudi plan, Israel will retreat from all territories occupied in 1967 including Gaza the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and a Palestinian state will be established. The refugees problem will be resolved through negotiation in a just and agreed upon manner and in accordance with UN resolution 194 which allows return of refugees to Israel and compensation. In return, all Arab states will recognize Israel and its right to secure borders, will sign peace treaties with her and establish normal diplomatic relations. Do you agree or disagree to this plan?

the answers are as follows the first number Total the second West Bank and the third Gaza

the percentage of Palestinians that agree to the plan is 59.9% and that disagree is 36.6% which is quite a bit less than "almost half"




1) Certainly agree


8.1


6.4


10.8




2) agree


51.8


54.0


48.2




3) disagree


25.5


25.4


25.8




4) Certainly disagree


11.1


10.0


12.8




5) DK/NA


3.5


4.2


2.4







Total


West Bank


Gaza Strip

[oberliner]

10. I think it's 36.6 percent who disagree or certainly disagree with the Saudi Plan

"Almost half" was not a fair characterization - I will amend it to "more than one third"

[azurnoir]

11. sorry that was a typo on my part

thanks for pointing it out

[oberliner]

12. No problem

I would argue with respect to the OP that the Palestinians are as conflicted over what they want as the Israelis are. Each side has some basic tenets that they would agree on, but there is quite a fair amount of disagreement with regard to the specifics among both Israelis and Palestinians. Wouldn't you agree?

[Eg-ptiangirl]

14. It means 63% agree

simple Maths

[ProgressiveMuslim]

17. Can you respond to what Levy said about Israel? Do you agree with his observation

about Israel?

[oberliner]

28. I think he is wrong

Neither Palestinians nor Israelis have expressed clearly what they collectively want.

There is agreement on some things among Israeli and Palestinians and disagreement about other things.

Both populations are similar in that regard, not different.

[azurnoir]

23. I see I spoke up too soon you edited your post

without admitting to a mistake as I did

[oberliner]

27. In response to your correction

My response was:

"Almost half" was not a fair characterization - I will amend it to "more than one third"

[Jefferson23]

30. The opinion of Americans is crucial to initiate the political will that

is the main obstacle in the U.S. to intervene as an honest broker for peace. As the Zogby poll indicates, the shift is significant. Keep in mind
the statement below is not about any ordinary "settlement expansion is a problem for the peace process, blah blah blah." This is a very specific
statement and quite a revealing glimpse into the American opinion among Democrats.

"63 percent of Dems agreed with the statement “Israeli settlements are built on land confiscated from Palestinians and should be torn down and the land returned to Palestinian owners.”

edit for link: http://www.newamerica.net/events/2010/american_perceptions

AIPAC's head must have exploded when they read this poll and I wonder how many Israel first Democrats will now consider voting Republican if
Obama pressures Israel.

[oberliner]

35. Let's look a little more closely at that survey question

The survey is laid out in an interesting way.

First, a statement is presented on a topic as a fact. Then two other statements are presented, labeled A and B. The respondents are asked if they agree on A or B or both or neither.

Here's the one you cited:

Issue 3: Settlements: "The Israeli government and Israeli citizens have built settlements or outposts in the Palestinian West Bank.

Statement A: The settlements are necessary for the security of Israel and Israeli citizens have the right to build on land in the Palestinian West Bank.

Statement B: Israeli settlements are built on land confiscated from Palestinians and should be torn down and the land returned to Palestinian owners."

[Jefferson23]

39. And you learned what exactly?

[oberliner]

40. Here are my thoughts

Statement A begins with the clause: "The settlements are necessary for the security of Israel"

This is a rather strong statement that even many of the people who support settlements would not agree with.

I also think his use of the phrase "Palestinian West Bank" in both the initial remarks about settlements and in the text of Statement A is noteworthy.

If he would have used the phrase "West Bank" rather than "Palestinian West Bank" I wonder if the results would be the same.

Statement A is asking people to agree on two separate claims - that not only do Israeli citizens have the right to build on this land, but that doing so is necessary for the security of Israel.

Statement B, on the other hand, begins with a clause that repeats the information in the introductory remarks that are presented as fact:

"Israeli settlements are built on land confiscated from Palestinians" has already essentially been established as true by the earlier "Israeli citizens have built settlements or outposts in the Palestinian West Bank".

James Zogby, by his own admission, is attempting to re-frame the debate. This type of survey question is one way he is doing so.

Here are his own words on the subject:

President of the Arab American Insitute, Dr. James Zogby - the brother of Zogby International's president, John Zogby - also suggested that the low numbers supporting Palestinians and Abbas are partly a result of Palestinians' failure to make their case to the U.S. public or to define the lines of the conflict as it relates to Palestinians.

"Even the Palestinians say 'East Jerusalem' but it's not. These are actually Palestinian village lands. If you do not define you are defined. And this has all been defined now as Jerusalem which makes it easier to make the case that these are not settlements, this is capital," said Zogby at a New America Foundation event to release the poll.

"It's easier to lose the case when you don't make the case," Zogby continued.

http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=2949

I think Zogby is attempting to "make the case" by framing the poll questions the way that he did.

[Jefferson23]

41. I think the bottom line here is that Americans do not accept

that Israel is acting in the best interests to ensure a peace process. I do believe Israel's credibility has evaporated and your
take on the poll seems to be suggesting the responders are unaware of information that would otherwise lend itself a more friendly
result for Israel.

I think that is wrong to say Zogby is making their case for them, the Palestinians case was made and decided years
ago by the ICJ advisory ruling. It's just that the U.S. had no interest to take action then, but they do now, since the Petraeus
report.

[oberliner]

45. I don't think most Americans care one way or another

I think there are some very passionate Americans on both sides of the issue, and a somewhat larger number of Americans who are vaguely interested, but I honestly do not think that the I/P conflict would make the Top 10 list of issues that most Americans are concerned about.

I'm not even sure it would make the top 20.

I would add that I believe that the majority of Americans have absolutely no knowledge of the report you mentioned and I'd say its about 50/50 that the average American even knows who General Petraeus is.

[Jefferson23]

46. With two wars going on simultaneously and Gen.Petraeus statements, interviews

over the last several years, you think it's only 50/50 the average American even knows who he is..ok. You are aware Petraeus has given
speeches at University too I hope and he is referred to often and on many levels by the press. I'll leave it that we disagree, very much so.


However, there is no question the conflict is poorly covered, if at all, by the MSM TV hacks, but I would wager that the more informed
Americans are, the stronger support there will be for the U.S. to take strong measures with Israel. It would be difficult to suggest the conflict would or would not make Americans Top 10 list considering the poor to non-existent coverage.


As far as the poll by Zogby, the responders likely are aware of OCL and the consistent abuse that Israel affords the Palestinians imo. I am inclined to believe the respondents are very much aware of the issues, if they were uninformed/disengaged as you suggest, it would have been more likely for them to have responded in the affirmative for Israel.

And the report was issued recently, and I have said before, it will be up to Obama to decide how he uses it for leverage, but it is there and hasn't changed. If he decides to take this conversation to the public more directly to circumvent AIPAC and their insidious actions
as they did through Congress recently, he will have the support he needs and then some....if he wants it.

Consider too, the writings of OpED's from Friedman and Kline, who have always been supporters of Israel but are now
speaking out in ways they never did before. Friedman, I don't want to subsidize it anymore...big change from mainstream voices, this is not
coming from CodePink.

These gentleman have a wide audience, and I believe those ideas will catch on more and more over the next several months. Btw, Friedman also
commented that he wouldn't exaggerate the report but would not suggest ignoring it either.

[oberliner]

47. 45 percent of Americans have "no opinion" about General Petraeus

I grant that does not necessarily mean that they don't know who he is, but that's still almost half of Americans not having any opinion about the man.

Citation:

Thirty-seven percent (37%) have a favorable opinion of Petraeus while 18% have an unfavorable view. A plurality, 45%, have no opinion of the General at this time

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/43_support_petraeus_recommendation_38_oppose

I'm not sure that I concur with your conclusions with respect to how much the respondents of the survey knew about OCL and the I/P conflict generally.

I do believe there is a strong case for the claim that the questions were phrased in such a way to make Zogby's preferred response to appear more attractive based on the way the information was presented. I have seen the ADL, AIPAC, J Street, and other organizations present polls that were similarly constructed in order to favor the response that they were looking for. I think this is not especially unusual as Zogby has made it clear in his writing and speaking that one of his goals is to try to reframe the debate.

As to your other comments, I'm not sure that Friedman's view has changed much over the last 10 years or so - he was one of the early supporters of the Saudi Initiative if I remember correctly. His op-ed with the comment about subsidizing also was also quite critical of the Palestinian side as well. He was basically suggesting that the US step away from the process completely until they are ready to get serious about a deal. And, which Kline are you talking about?

[Jefferson23]

51. I agree, that poll does not support your previous assertion, not at all.

From the same poll: "Sixty-five percent (65%) of Americans followed news of the Petraeus testimony at least somewhat closely this week."

Americans do not have the benefit of a MSM TV accurate account of the conflict, they didn't have accurate accounts of the health care
bill either. Yet, most Americans supported a public option. I mention this to point out public opinion within the mainstream has shifted
and I believe that will continue despite the lack of extensive coverage for I/P.

As far as Friedman, it is of no relevance that he holds Palestinian leaders accountable, he always has, always will...nothing
new there. What is significant is the statement about not wanting to subsidize it any longer. Anyone failing to acknowledge
the stark difference is applying wishful thinking imo.

I certainly did not intend to imply this is a done deal, for it certainly is not. But it does mark a different sense
of what role diplomatically Americans want their government to take.

I am not a fan of Friedman nor Joe Kline, but their opinions carry credibility, that is undeniable and their opinion
has changed.

AIPAC scrambled after the Biden incident to garner signers from congress to basically tell our president to back off. Scum like Dershowitz feel the threat is so great they need to keep writing about Petraeus, the report was a lie. He goes further at AIPAC conference, "it’s Islamic extremists who endanger American lives because they hate our freedom." What a Bushie line!

The desperate outrageous conduct by this group indicates they know the shift has come along finally too.

[Vegasaurus]

53. Palestinians want all of Israel

They want to "take back" all of "greater Palestine".

Right or return of millions of refugees is a way to do that without a war that they can't win.

But the end result of their aspirations is just the same.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. As usual with what you say, facts don't support you...

Check out a few opinion polls and you'll realise that they no more want all of Israel than Israelis want all of Palestine.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

62. Oh really? And you have access to this info how? A vision? God speaking to you?

You are nuts.

[shira]

64. 90% want RoR......what do you call that?

[whosinpower]

69. Given that there is abject mind blowing fear over RoR

That is indeed the elephant in the room. Israel refuses to deal with it, all the while eroding future palistinian territories through the use of settlements.

What do you call that?

Certainly not a viable two state solution.

[shira]

71. Seriously, even if Israel pulled every last settler out and retreated to 1949 borders....

...do you really believe Palestinians would drop the RoR demand, which incidentally involves over 4 million Palestinians now? Even if all 4 million aren't interested in living in Israel, Arab leadership isn't allowing any of them the choice to get on with their lives in countries they currently live in - which goes to show these 4 million plus are being used as a weapon.

[whosinpower]

72. Seriously

If Israel did pull back to the 1949 borders and pulled all its settlers out.....without a right of return to those palistinians who want to come back....without that, the settlers would just make a beeline right back onto land that does not belong to them. I can hear it now - "We pulled out, and it looks like no one wants it - why not make it productive???"

It is the elephant in the room. Your hyperventilating is proof. Your refusal to even entertain the thought of going to the table and dealing with this is indicative of a blinding fear.

[shira]

73. "refusal to even entertain the thought of going to the table..."

Olmert was just at that table and made a serious offer in 2008 to Abbas, which included a limited RoR, and that was rejected. It was a deal very similar to the proposed Geneva Initiative and I support it since its goal is to bring a complete end to the conflict and normalized relations with the Arab world.

What other reason is there for Arab states (with the blessing of Hamas and Fatah) to still - after 62 years - hold the lives of over 4 million Palestinian refugees hostage other than to cynically use these refugees as pawns to flood and destroy Israel?

[whosinpower]

74. I will repeat it again

RoR is indeed the elephant in the room. Israel refuses to deal with it, all the while eroding future palistinian territories through the use of settlements.

What do you call that?

Certainly not a viable two state solution.

Shira - I read Olmert's offer. First of all - going to the table and deal with it - does not mean you present an offer without allowing a negotiation of the points. Olmert maintained this offer was not up for negotiation. Abbas could not counter offer with anything. Your oh-so generous offer was a cram down - take it or leave it.

Your limited RoR - was 1000 per year. BUT - as I said, Olmert would not negotiate - he was pretty emphatic that this was a final offer...

So - when you bring up Olmert's generous offer, and I will concur that there were some points that were good - the simple crystal clear fact that Israel would not come to the table WILLING to negotiate, but instead declare their own terms without consultation to the palistinian leadership - is still indicative that Israel refuses to deal with it.

[shira]

79. Israel "refuses to deal with" RoR....

How should Israel deal properly with RoR, in your view?

As for Olmert's offer, it was strikingly similar - and about as close as Israel can get - to the Geneva Initiative.

And FYI, Olmert and Abbas negotiated for over a year with the Annapolis accords. Abbas never so much as responded to Olmert's final offer, saying the gaps were still wide (due to RoR).

[aranthus]

75. You don't understand.

Israel doesn't need to agree to a Right of Return to a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza; that's up to the Palestinians. So of course the Palestinians could return to the West Bank, and the settlers couldn't if Israel pulled them all out. RoR refers to a right to return to Israel proper, and not the West Bank.

[whosinpower]

76. OK - BUT

What is Israel proper?

Israel's border's have not been accepted or defined. This is a prime reason why the settlements are a huge issue. You are suggesting that the palistinians control the west bank and gaza - however, we all know that palistinians are continually displaced within the west bank in favour of an Israeli settlement.

Is it the 1949 border? Is it the 1967 border? Is it the ever evolving situation that erodes a future viable palistinian state in favour of future growth of Israel? There is a huge ambiguity that has yet to be defined or clarified.

Who controls who comes and goes in and out of the West Bank and Gaza? Is it the palistinian authority or is it Israel? That is an honest question - I do not know.

[aranthus]

77. Israel proper

means within the Green Line. The 1949 borders. Most of Israel's borders (those with Egypt and Jordan) have been defined. The international frontier with Lebanon is also pretty clear. Once a peace agreement is reached and the Palestinians have a state in the West Bank and Gaza, then they can control their own borders, just as Israel and Jordan control theirs.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. Well, incredible ignorance about what RofR is would be part of it...

And hatred would make up much of the rest, I'm guessing...