Despairing, Gideon Levy calls on Obama to forget about the absurd peace process

Twenty evacuated settlements are worth more than a thousand peace formulas, and 2,000 released prisoners will move the sides forward more than 10,000 words.

I would suggest prisoners and removing roadblocks, and selling settlement buildings (rather than just forcefully removing Jews from them).

I have a great idea, Witty. How about I kick you and your family out of your home at gunpoint, then sell it back to you?

Or maybe, I should just blow it to bits. Then you can come back to me and ask me, (nicely, of course–anger never helps things), if i'd be willing to help you "perfect your land rights."

Which is worse, an injustice done in the past, or an injustice contemplated and then done in the present?

Kicking current residents from their homes is an injustice proposed. Compensating for a prior wrong at least helps.

Your proposal for a pendulum swing creates 2 wrongs. The first wrong is not righted as most of the people that were originally harmed (and only in land that had specific prior residents) are long gone. Some other opportunist takes the land AND newly constructed and invested house over.

And, then the second wrong of a second forced dispossession occurs, leaving a couple hundred thousand either homeless or ripped off.

At the same time, compensation to Palestinians if allowed to remain, or compensation from subsequent residents for the additions made if required to move, result in those in need getting some funding for a new start, and doesn't require violence (with nearly certain subsequent cycles).

The KEY logic that is accomplished is the transition of contested property to consented. (Not every individual will feel that that is justice, similar to my mother-in-law whose property in Hungary was expropriated in 1944 by Hungarian fascists, transferred to Germans, taken over by Russians, transferred to the socialist Hungarian state, then sold to the post-socialist locality. But, she was never compensated for the forced taking and then opportunistic transfers.)

This would be a large step further than that.

Your preference for escalation of conflict, could occur. It would be horrible for all parties. Better that a relatively fair process yeilds a significant reduction of hostilities, rather than give a whole other class of parties reason for war.

Bruce,
By containment, I mean a significant change from the past absence of any accountability.

For example, by containment, I mean an end to settlement expansion, and end to bulldozed homes.

The United States is NOT the sovereign entity responsible in the region, so unless you are suggesting US military intervention, then the best that can happen with the current Israeli government is to hold things steady, keep things from getting worse (which would happen in spades under the Bush administration).

There is no good answer to those questions.

The answer of throw another 500,000 out is not a good answer either.

The only answer can be the best one in the situation. The problem with anger as politics is that the result of it is further wrong, strengthening the mutually hateful pendulum swings, rather than relaxing them.

I doesn't stop the wrong from recurring in the present, but actually makes the mediation of differences that much more difficult.

Compensation can be structured to remedy individual cases where they are identifiable, and to fund community restoration where the individual cases are not identifiable.

It is necessary, if you are interested in the rule of law, to address the relative status of title of both Israeli settlers and former Palestinian residents by occupancy (not by purchase or other perfected title).

LeaNder,
I'm sorry that retribution is appealing to you, and collectively directed.

Well, how hard is the Why? People were there, making their living off the land for generations, when other people came–and took the land for themselves. That's the overriding narrative
nobody can dispute–the rest is small potatoes. So start from there, and deal with the lesser
after starting from that truth. The ball is truly in Israel's court in the biggest way. Obama needs
to kick some stiff-necked ass, for starters. Uproot those settlements of the last 40 plus years for starters.

"Twenty evacuated settlements are worth more than a thousand peace formulas, and 2,000 released prisoners will move the sides forward more than 10,000 words. "

LeaNder,
I'm sorry that retribution is appealing to you, and collectively directed.

Interesting response, but not a good one. You have to pretend that you take his obviously sarcastic remarks seriously to arrive at the solution. I read it as a sarcastic response to your obsession with a fair treatment of the settlers. He confronts you with a Palestinian tale transfered to the States. Closer even puts you into the skin of a Palestinian. He basically asks you, what would it feel like, if this happened to you?

It's an expression of despair, And yes you keep writing about fair solutions to the settlers, fair solutions for the Palestinians only seem to enter your mind as an afterthought and attempts at balance. They too should get their days in court.

Somewhere you used the term "opportunists" for the settlers. Do you think they were completely unaware that all the state benefits they got for building in the OT/Judai and Samaria had some reason, do you think they were completely unaware that they actually took away Palestinians land?

Concerning your argument, one shouldn't go too far back history, obviously, but basically Palestinians should get their day in court too? No contradiction?

I am aware that you have friends among the settlers, thus I have a basic understanding you fear they could loose what they built up. But what about the Palestinians is the question, rykart, asks. They had and have to live with their losses?

Strange that the most different people use essentially the same argument. "…" did the same somewhere else. But obviously it must be appealing to me to read about a collective retribution against Jewish people. What else do you expect from us Germans?

First: If you haven't read me saying that consistently, then you're not reading my posts.

I was actually citing you, I thought that was obvious. I think this was the first time I heard "a day in court". And since I decided to reward distrust with distrust, I mediated a bit if the "day" could mean, something like: Not more than a day needed for each of these so-called titles. Sorry, no harm meant. Just being frank. And now I of course know it is a standard expression.

RW: I didn't say that you desired retribution, but that you applauded Rykart's attitude that is firmly retributionist, NOT present-forward

rykart, is often beyond what I can tolerate. But lately he caught my attention and this felt more creative, like an attempt to put you into the Palestinians shoes. No doubt verbally aggressive. But do words kill? AGAIN:

L:[He tried to put you into] the skin of a Palestinian. He basically asks you, what would this feel like to you, if this happened to you? It's a scream. A sarcastic joke.

But reducing it to "collective retribution" of course gives you a chance to ignore the content.

RW: No matter how angry you or others are at how they came to be there.

Allegation. I think I am more irritated by you than angry at you. Today I asked myself, what exactly it is that attracts me when a Jewish Canadian friend writes about religion and why I take his warnings concerning specific matters much more seriously than when you write it. And I think it has to do with careful discrimination and much less clichés.

Isn't rykart Jewish? Would he thus really embrace collective retribution? Wouldn't it harm himself. Why do you ignore this fact?

Besides, I am not all angry, but was admittedly vaguely amused about his comment. I was only curious what it triggered in you. Thus: thanks for the answer.

What specifically irritates you?

Then we can avoid the personal insults.

You were frustrated that I didn't subscribe to the exact phrasing of his suggestion that I "walk in Palestinians' shoes".

I am sympathetic with the experience of the Palestinians, and believe that analysis should be oriented towards improving their PRESENT condition, NOT retribution for past tragedies or crimes (whatever preferred language you choose).

I walk in my own shoes though, which include compassion and reconciliation as virtue.

I NEVER regard past-oriented "justice" AS justice. Justice is by definition future-oriented.

You want to call the difference between retribution and reconciliation inconsequential, go ahead.

He speaks only of wrongs. And that is a disaster for the people in the region, as very great wrongs have been perpetrated on MANY, and to then act out solely relative to the wrongs and not to a positive goal, is to escalate aggression, a further wrong that one has influence over in the PRESENT, a current wrong.

You know, the second wrong does not make a right.

"What specifically irritates you?

Then we can avoid the personal insults."

Really simple. You don't listen. Your mind is fixed on what you want to see.

This sentence really makes me angry:

"You want to call the difference between retribution and reconciliation inconsequential, go ahead."

I didn't communicate even something close to that. I suggested that maybe rykart doesn't either. But that he responds "emotionally" or obliquely to something you write. It surely can be read threatening, if you try really hard, but I don't think it is.

The reason why he responds like that is obvious. By reducing it to "retributive" you can ignore the message.

In contrast to reducing his message to a terrorist like threat, or feign to not understand, you could simply answer something like: Look rykart, I don't support the demolition of Palestinian houses either.

That is you could respond to his easy to see "emotional content"/his concerned empathy and not try to wipe it away with retribution or any other sublime/ethical abstract layers.