Bush seen as Lame Duck in Middle East Tour.

Part of the reason that he is doing this is because there is nothing on the domestic front that he can get through -- his plan to gut the Social Security System fell flat, and there are growing investigations and hearings on the misconduct of his office. And the fact that Bush has always tried to outdo his father in everything he does is leading him to think that he can somehow pull off what his father failed to do -- broker a successful peace agreement between Israel and Palestine.

All of this means that it is up to us to continue the process of working out a possible peace agreement that we should then push on our leaders -- doable, should we win the November elections. The first thing that we must do in any attempted effort to succeed where others have failed is to elect Democrats to office; it is under Democrats such as Carter and Clinton that we have made the most progress in resolving these debates. The next thing that we must do is continue the process of dialogue between the defenders of both sides so that we can rise beyond the propaganda of both sides and come up with a workable peace agreement.

First of all, we have to talk about the framing of the debate. There were a lot of framing issues that came up in our last discussion of this issue here. The pro-Palestinian defenders would frame this as an occupation; therefore, nothing can be done until Israel unilaterally ends its settlements and its use of collective punishment. The argument goes that it does not matter whether the Palestinians fire rockets into Israel like it does now or they are totally nonviolent; the burden of proof for change rests of Israel.

Coupled with this argument is the argument that Israel is similar to South Africa. However, here comes the problem. Israel's defenders would never accept such a frame; they would blow off any Israel=South Africa arguments as mere ad homenim Israel hate instead of a legitimate argument against their policies. So, I propose a different framework for discussion -- Israel = America, with all of its attendant shortcomings.

The fact of the matter is that although there are some elements of similarity between Israel and the South African Apartheid regime, the fact of the matter is that there are many more between Israel and this country. Yes, there are parallels -- the walls, and the de facto enclosure of the Palestinian population through the use of military checkpoints. But Israel purports to be a country where all people are equal, just like this country. South Africa, on the other hand, never made any pretense of trying to create a situation where Blacks were equal.

There are other similarities between Israel and America as well, both good and bad. Israel formed as a place of refuge for Jews against persecution; America formed as a place of refuge against persecution as well. Consequently, both countries formed a place where their people could be free and never have to worry about returning to the tyranny of the past. When we revolted against the British and won our independence, we vowed "Never Again" when we set up our system against tyranny. Israel vowed "Never Again" when they set up a place of refuge where the world's Jews could have a home to go to if they were ever persecuted again. I suggest that, given the fact that our example inspired millions to throw off the yoke of tyranny, we inspired the Zionist movements that led to the formation of Israel in some measure.

But, far too often, we have failed to live up to our own ideals. We enslaved the Blacks and had an ongoing policy of "Indian removal" for many decades. We invaded and occupied countries, including Cuba and the Philippines and Iraq. And instead of creating an equal society of Blacks and Whites after the Civil War, we created a society of Separate but Equal. And Israel has done the same sort of thing with the Palestinians; I suggest that a better comparison would be with our own policies of segregation rather than with South Africa, given that Israel purports to be a country that treats all its people equally and given that the wall is a symbol of separateness.

What is happening is that Israel is saying one thing yet doing another. They purport to be for the two-state solution, yet they allow soldiers and settlers to occupy the lands of the Palestinians. If they are serious and sincere about wanting a two-state solution, they must treat Palestine as a sovereign nation instead of occupying it like they are now.

Hankg elaborates:

The reason you have not seen rocket launches from Syria into Israel is that Syria is a functioning state with an economy, autonomy and society and elite's with much to lose. The Palestinians have been reduced to a people with nothing to lose. No state, no economy, no civil society. When the Israeli's destroyed land titles, school records, infrastructrure, government buildings and the beginnings of what might have been the structure for a Palestinian state as part of the collective punishment of the Palistinian people -rather then making terror less likely they vastly increased it's base.

They have it backwards; you won't get peace until the Palestinians have a state, economy, autonomy and the Palestinians have something to lose. They will then have the motivation to control rogue elements and protect what they have.

But Pumpkinlove argues:

People believed this before Oslo so they created the Palestinian authority, a proto state.   They were given control a third of the West Bank and shared control with Israel of another third which included joint patrols.    They had something to lose.

It didn't stop Arafat from launching the second Intifada.

But here is an instance where the South Africa analogy is totally appropriate -- the problem is that Israel was creating a proto-state instead of a fully-sovereign state with the full rights and responsibilities that real nations have. South Africa, remember, tried to create a series of "homelands" that were merely proto-states that were completely helpess and dependent on South Africa for survival. In this instance, it is too much like the "White Man's Burden." The attitude of "Let me help you form your own state" is patronizing and implies that the other person is inherently inferior to the person offering the help. But the attitude of "I will let you form your own state" implies that the other person is an equal and is totally capable of forming their own state.

There is another line of argument as well -- the argument that Israel has already withdrawn from Gaza and that they have made a mess of their affairs. But Rusty Pipes' rebuttal is convincing:

It hasn't needed to keep boots on the ground in Gaza to continue to occupy Gaza by remote control.  It has effectively sealed Gaza off from contact with the outside world, destroying its infrastructure, industry and ability to engage in trade by controlling all exits by land, sea and air -- the very rare instances in which Israel has allowed Gaza's crossings to be opened have not even sufficed for humanitarian needs, much less for regular trade.

And I would add that I don't think that Hamas knows what they want. There are some people within that organization who want a two-state solution and peace just as much as we do; there are others who are militants in the way that you describe. The problem, I think, is that Hamas is an insurgent movement similar to the right here in America; however, once they have to govern, all their ideology and rhetoric breaks down. Like the Republican Party, which is splintering into its constituent factions, Hamas is doing the same over there. Hamas is an organization that was formed as a reaction to oppressors, an organization that is too much like the oppressors who persecuted the Jews around the world, cumulating in the Holocaust, and is therefore, not a credible organization as far as peace in the Middle East is concerned. And Fatah has long since been discredited by the Palestinian people as a corrupt party, even more so than the Republicans here.

Therefore, any kind of peace treaty has to involve some kind of political movement or formation of a political party that can both govern and earn the credibility it needs abroad. This is how the Republicans were formed; they were formed because neither of the two main parties at the time gave any representation of the growing anti-slavery movement in the country in the 1850's. There are, as I noted above, many moderate elements of Hamas who would come to a rapproachment with Israel; we must engage with these elements as well, either to divide or take over that party.

So, why doesn't Israel just withdraw, as the pro-Palestine defenders suggest? This is an issue of trust -- the fact of the matter is that Israel's defenders will answer that if Israel simply withdraws, the issues of firing rockets and terrorist bombings will only increase. And there is factual basis for this -- for instance, every time it seems like the two parties are close to a peace treaty, people whose minds are full of hate will kill and murder to sabatoge the progress that has been made so far. This happened during the last administration of Shimon Peres, where militants committed one bombing after another right before the elections to tip the balance to Netanyahu. This also happened right as Clinton was trying to negotiate a historic peace deal between the two parties as well.

Therefore, we must try to replicate what happened in Northern Ireland -- establish a verifiable disarmament process. One possible deal could be that Palestine would get their independence, UN inspectors would go into the new country and disarm militants and destroy weapons, and there would be international peacekeepers there to separate the two sides like there are in Bosina comprised of forces that are agreeable to both sides. This sort of disarmament must happen before any kind of economic development can take place; for instance, the recent $7.3 billion pledged for Palestine will not do any good assuming that most businesses are like Eiron's friend:

One of my clients wants to establish a medical textile factory in the region.  Not large, maybe 100 employees.  But we can't accept the political risk of opening a plant in Gaza.

There is another issue that must be resolved as well -- the issue of the Palestinian refugees. As the Palestinian defenders rightly point out, there can be no justice without some kind of reparations for the refugees. Obviously, the problem with full Right of Return is that it is not practical -- it would double the Israeli population overnight. But what could happen is Right of Return for Palestine, financial restitution, and a limited number -- say, 300,000 people a year, starting with the oldest -- who would be allowed to return to Israel.

One of the big questions is, if we were to engage in this peace process, would Palestinians ever get rid of their irrational hatred of the Israelis? After all, groups like Hamas call for the destruction of Israel in their charter even as they are divided about how to approach Israel. But, as heathlander argues, groups like that form as a reaction to occupation and oppression. The PLO was formed as a reaction to the 1948 flight of Palestinians from Israel; Hamas was formed as a reaction against the occupation of Palestine in 1987. The problem is that Israel's defenders would see this as nothing more than the very kind of anti-semitism that the Jews fled from that led to the Holocaust.

People have to understand that there are major differences between groups and political movements that are formed for the purpose of oppressing others and groups  and movements that are formed as a reaction to oppression. Let's use our own history as an example -- the KKK and Stormfront are formed for the explicit purpose of promoting lies and hate against Blacks and other groups that they don't like. However, groups like the Black Muslim Sect or the Nation of Islam or people like Muhammed Ali, who routinely ranted against Whites, became what they were as a result of oppression; they were not formed for the purpose of racial supremacy.

But the concept of forming groups as a reaction to oppression works both ways. Israel, recall, formed as a reaction to the worldwide persecution of the Jews. Given this history, cumulating in the Holocaust, we can see Israel and its demands that the Palestinians stop their rocket attacks as seeing them as the same kind of oppressors who would bring back these times of persecutions.

For all these groups forming as a reaction to this oppression, the fact of the matter is that we must determine the framework based on the right of self-determination -- a right that has long been established under UN law. The Palestinians are willing to accept the 1967 borders as a basis for negotiations, by my understanding. So, whether the borders are fairly drawn or not is a moot point. And by my understanding, that is what the Palestinian people want as well.

Let me carry the self-determination argument another step farther -- the Palestinian people should have the right to determine their own destiny in the same way that the Israeli people are. That means that since they support a two-state solution, from all the polls that I have seen, that we should work towards that goal. The key here is self-determination.

And the fact of the matter is that the Israeli people would never accept a one-state solution as the basis for a peace treaty. For many defenders of Israel, it would be tantamount to the destruction of Israel. For the supporters of the one-state solution to make their case, they must show how they can persuade the people of Israel to accept such a proposal and to elect officials who would push such a solution.