PDA

View Full Version : Devising a New Strategy for Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict



michele
07-07-2006, 05:29 PM
Martin S. Indyk
Director, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution

Panelists:
Khalil Shikaki
Director, Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research
Amnon Lipkin Shahak
Former Deputy Prime Minister of Israel



here is a video briefing. If that link doesn't work you can access it at the top of the article (found here). Here is a snatch from the PDF:

The Saban Center for Middle East Policy held a policy briefing with Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, former Deputy Prime Minister of Israel and former Israel Defense Forces' Chief of General Staff, and Khalil Shikaki, the Director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah. Martin Indyk, Director of the Saban Center, chaired the discussion.

The briefing was held at the conclusion of the seventh Daniel Abraham Israeli-Palestinian Workshop, in which a group of leading Israelis and Palestinians, along with representatives from the international community met for two and a half days of closed-door discussions in the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. The purpose of this year's Workshop was to focus on discussing recommendations for U.S. policy in promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace within the context of Hamas' victory in the January 25, 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council elections and Israel's proposed unilateral disengagement from the West Bank following its earlier disengagement from the Gaza Strip in August 2005.

Martin Indyk began the briefing by noting that there was urgency in the Workshop discussions because of the likelihood that a humanitarian crisis would emerge within the Palestinian territories within a matter of months.

Khalil Shikaki argued that the Bush Administration needs to define better its objective in the Palestinian territories. Most Palestinians, Shikaki argued, believe the goal of U.S. policy is to force the collapse of the Hamas-led government that assumed power following the January 2006 elections. However, the Bush Administration has not been clear if this is actually its intention, or if it trying to induce Hamas to moderate its policies.

Shikaki said that the United States should demand that Hamas agree to place itself under the umbrella of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Hamas would be hard-pressed to oppose this proposal because most Palestinians support the idea of having the PLO remain as the representative body of Palestinians in their negotiations with Israel. In explaining the political views of the Palestinian public, Shikaki said that a majority of Palestinians support a two-state solution to the conflict and believe that Hamas should recognize Israel. However, although Palestinians have specific demands of Hamas—to moderate, recognize Israel, and pursue a two-state solution to the conflict—they do not support the international community applying pressure on Hamas.

Amnon Lipkin-Shahak began by giving an overview of the Israeli political landscape. He argued that the results of the March 28, 2006 elections indicated a strong shift to the Left in Israeli politics. Lipkin-Shahak noted that although a majority of Israelis supports a negotiated settlement to the conflict with the Palestinians, if negotiating with the Palestinians proves to be impossible, then Israelis support implementation of unilateral measures.

Lipkin-Shahak argued that part of the reason that Hamas was elected was the inability of Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to gain widespread Palestinian support for his Fatah Party. What is needed, Lipkin-Shahak argued, is an internal movement within the Palestinian territories to rebuild the Fatah Party.

Lipkin-Shahak said that Israel is concerned about the impending humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories and argued that Israel should take action to prevent this from materializing. However, Lipkin-Shahak argued that Israel will still put its security as a top priority and will finish construction of the security barrier. In addition, Israel will evacuate settlements in the West Bank.

Indyk presented some of the conclusions he had drawn from the Workshop. He noted that by law the United States cannot engage with Hamas, nor should it attempt to do so. Indyk argued that U.S. policy is achieving the opposite results of what is needed. The United States has held up $450 million in appropriated funding to the Palestinians, but Hamas has used this to gain public support. Indyk suggested that the international community should create a trust fund, within which the United States should deposit the $450 million and Israel should deposit Palestinian tax revenue. Such a trust fund, Indyk argued, could be used to prevent a humanitarian crisis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Indyk suggested that the United States work to strengthen the office of the presidency, which Mahmoud Abbas holds. In particular, the United States should help build Abbas' security force, the presidential guard. Abbas' security force has been used effectively in the past to prevent terrorists from crossing into Israel.

Indyk offered his views of what will happen in the upcoming meeting in May between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Indyk predicted that Olmert will be looking for financial compensation for Israel's future withdrawal from the West Bank. In addition, Olmert will likely ask President Bush to announce that Israel's withdrawal complies with the territorial component of U.N Security Council Resolution 242. This will present an opportunity for Bush, Indyk argued, to press Israel to implement land swaps that make up for the settlement areas from which will not withdraw. Doing this, as well as pressing Israel to allow for territorial contiguity between Jerusalem and the West Bank, would set the framework for future negotiations.

full transcript
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Geronimo
07-07-2006, 05:35 PM
What do you think would be an ideal solution to the conflict? What comprimises do you think both sides should be made?
Reply

Dahir
07-07-2006, 05:48 PM
What do you think would be an ideal solution to the conflict?
I always thought that a good solution would be all-out warfare, but the US just couldn't resist the temptation of heavily arming the Israeli side. Then again, even if the US stepped to the side, it wouldn't be war, but total genocide. See, the "Palestinian Territories" are not sovereign, nor do they even have an army of their own, and the air strikes on their soil is a result of Police State punishment.

I guess there really is no ideal solution to this age-old situation.
Reply

Geronimo
07-07-2006, 05:51 PM
Originally Posted by Dahir
I always thought that a good solution would be all-out warfare, but the US just couldn't resist the temptation of heavily arming the Israeli side. Then again, even if the US stepped to the side, it wouldn't be war, but total genocide. See, the "Palestinian Territories" are not sovereign, nor do they even have an army of their own, and the air strikes on their soil is a result of Police State punishment.

I guess there really is no ideal solution to this age-old situation.
Arab already tried this in 1948 and it ended very badly for them.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Dahir
07-07-2006, 06:53 PM
Arab already tried this in 1948 and it ended very badly for them.
That didn't work, of course, but neither is today's situation. If things don't change, something bad is bound to happen.

What's the big deal there anyway? Why can't Arabs and Israelis get together and name Israel the Holy Automonous region of Jerusalem. That would be right.
Reply

Geronimo
07-07-2006, 07:49 PM
Originally Posted by Dahir
That didn't work, of course, but neither is today's situation. If things don't change, something bad is bound to happen.

What's the big deal there anyway? Why can't Arabs and Israelis get together and name Israel the Holy Automonous region of Jerusalem. That would be right.
But under who's Magistrate would it be under? Someone has to make the laws.
Reply

searcheroftruth
07-08-2006, 02:52 AM
theres no comprimises with Israel
Reply

Dahir
07-08-2006, 03:00 AM
Geronimo says:

But under who's Magistrate would it be under? Someone has to make the laws.

searcheroftruth says:

theres no comprimises with Israel

The funny, yet sad part of this is that you are both wrong and right, and even after your views are expressed, a library of questions follow.
Reply

Zulkiflim
07-08-2006, 03:46 AM
Salaam,

In the Holocasut,the Jews were oppresed and humiliated and abused and finally they found death..

There were no great retaliation byt he Jews for theyw ere weak.

And now after going thru the wak phase they now are strong and will prefer to humiliate others than be humiliated against.

What they suffer under Hitler,they now practise on Palesitnians..

The only way for the war to end is if the palesitnian as one attack Isreal and let relive the torment they went thru..

LEt them relive the experience what hitler places on Palstinains..
Then and only then will the war end,for then people will realise peace is better than war..

Also there is another faction to this war,,EVANGLICAL....They want the prophecy of rapture to come true...and for that to happen the JEws must live in Isreal at ALL COST>.

That is why the west especially the US support Israel..for they want their saviour to return..
And when he supposedly returtn every Jews will be murderd..
They beleive that the blood of jews will usher in thier lord..
What a peace loving god..dont you say...

LEarn from history,conflict of whatever reason..the OPPRESORS NEVER WIN..
Reply

catmando
07-08-2006, 04:01 AM
Originally Posted by Zulkiflim
Salaam,

In the Holocasut,the Jews were oppresed and humiliated and abused and finally they found death..

There were no great retaliation byt he Jews for theyw ere weak.

And now after going thru the wak phase they now are strong and will prefer to humiliate others than be humiliated against.

What they suffer under Hitler,they now practise on Palesitnians..

The only way for the war to end is if the palesitnian as one attack Isreal and let relive the torment they went thru..

LEt them relive the experience what hitler places on Palstinains..
Then and only then will the war end,for then people will realise peace is better than war..

Also there is another faction to this war,,EVANGLICAL....They want the prophecy of rapture to come true...and for that to happen the JEws must live in Isreal at ALL COST>.

That is why the west especially the US support Israel..for they want their saviour to return..
And when he supposedly returtn every Jews will be murderd..
They beleive that the blood of jews will usher in thier lord..
What a peace loving god..dont you say...

LEarn from history,conflict of whatever reason..the OPPRESORS NEVER WIN..
I'm surprised you, a Muslim, know about the Rapture theory. And you're quite right with what you say.

As to your last statement, I think the peoples conquered by the Romans, including the Jews, would disagree.
Reply

Trumble
07-08-2006, 10:28 AM
  • A two-State solution based on the pre-1967 boundaries, guaranteed by the United Nations, the borders (at least initially) policed by UN troops. I would suggest Pakistani, Russian and Chinese troops would be good for that task (not Americans).

  • Total Israeli withdrawl from the West Bank and Gaza.

  • The Al Aqsa / Temple Mount site to be UN guaranteed neutral terrority, jointly administed by appointed muslim and Jewish clerics, with appropriate responsibilities. Totally free access to the site (not to the mosque) for people of whatever nationality and religion.

  • The right of Israel to exist to be recognised by all states who have not yet done so.

  • All "resistance"/terrorist groups to renounce violence and their weapons verifiably destroyed. That includes extreme Zionist groups.

  • A total amnesty for all political prisoners.
Reply

Nablus
07-08-2006, 10:50 AM
Indyk predicted that Olmert will be looking for financial compensation for Israel's future withdrawal from the West Bank.


funny as if his fathers land
Reply

Joe98
07-09-2006, 10:44 AM
The solution is for both sides to agree on a border.

But many Palestianians want Israel wiped off the map and therefore refuse to recognise any border.

Therefore there can never be peace.
Reply

SirZubair
07-09-2006, 10:47 AM
Just one question..

..alot of people are quick to suggest "isreal should get out of palestinian lands.."

Where are they supposed to go?

Forget the fact that they illegally took over the land all those decades ago for ONE MINUTE.

Now think of it this way,what about the Israelie children,teenagers,men/women who have GROWN up there?Is it fair to ask them to "Get out of this land,your ancestors took this land illegally.." :?

Maybe suggestions such as "They should learn to Share and Care" would do more benefit.

Please,work with me on this one.For once i am not arguing or telling anyone off ( :p ),make some suggestions other than "Israelies should leave the land..."

And please,dont make stupid suggestions such as "Israel should be wiped off the map.." because it won't happen,so don't waste my time with such crap :)

So COME ON PEOPLE,lets BE PRODUCTIVE !
:thankyou:
Reply

Ghazi
07-09-2006, 11:50 AM
:sl:

It's history repeting it self all over again this isn't the first time nations have clashed over land, neither side is willing to give in and I've know where my loyalty is sadly I don't see the bloodshed ending soon.
Reply

SirZubair
07-10-2006, 05:58 PM
So nobody has any suggestions? :?

Why are people always crying and moaning,...but when it comes time to be productive,they hide behind rocks?

Come on people,i promise i won't hurt ya...
Reply

Geronimo
07-10-2006, 06:01 PM
Originally Posted by Zulkiflim
Salaam,

In the Holocasut,the Jews were oppresed and humiliated and abused and finally they found death..

There were no great retaliation byt he Jews for theyw ere weak.

And now after going thru the wak phase they now are strong and will prefer to humiliate others than be humiliated against.

What they suffer under Hitler,they now practise on Palesitnians..

The only way for the war to end is if the palesitnian as one attack Isreal and let relive the torment they went thru..

LEt them relive the experience what hitler places on Palstinains..
Then and only then will the war end,for then people will realise peace is better than war..

Also there is another faction to this war,,EVANGLICAL....They want the prophecy of rapture to come true...and for that to happen the JEws must live in Isreal at ALL COST>.

That is why the west especially the US support Israel..for they want their saviour to return..
And when he supposedly returtn every Jews will be murderd..
They beleive that the blood of jews will usher in thier lord..
What a peace loving god..dont you say...

LEarn from history,conflict of whatever reason..the OPPRESORS NEVER WIN..
How many gas chambers do Israel have? Have the death total reached a million yet? I think someone is exaggerating
Reply

Geronimo
07-10-2006, 06:02 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
  • A two-State solution based on the pre-1967 boundaries, guaranteed by the United Nations, the borders (at least initially) policed by UN troops. I would suggest Pakistani, Russian and Chinese troops would be good for that task (not Americans).

  • Total Israeli withdrawl from the West Bank and Gaza.

  • The Al Aqsa / Temple Mount site to be UN guaranteed neutral terrority, jointly administed by appointed muslim and Jewish clerics, with appropriate responsibilities. Totally free access to the site (not to the mosque) for people of whatever nationality and religion.

  • The right of Israel to exist to be recognised by all states who have not yet done so.

  • All "resistance"/terrorist groups to renounce violence and their weapons verifiably destroyed. That includes extreme Zionist groups.

  • A total amnesty for all political prisoners.
Sounds fair to me.
Reply

wilberhum
07-10-2006, 08:46 PM
Originally Posted by Geronimo
Sounds fair to me.
That would surly solve all problems. Two main problems though.
Neither Israel nor the Palestianians will do it.
Peace is not the primary objective. There will be no peace till it is.
Reply

aamirsaab
07-10-2006, 08:53 PM
:sl:
Originally Posted by Trumble
  • A two-State solution based on the pre-1967 boundaries, guaranteed by the United Nations, the borders (at least initially) policed by UN troops. I would suggest Pakistani, Russian and Chinese troops would be good for that task (not Americans).

  • Total Israeli withdrawl from the West Bank and Gaza.

  • The Al Aqsa / Temple Mount site to be UN guaranteed neutral terrority, jointly administed by appointed muslim and Jewish clerics, with appropriate responsibilities. Totally free access to the site (not to the mosque) for people of whatever nationality and religion.

  • The right of Israel to exist to be recognised by all states who have not yet done so.

  • All "resistance"/terrorist groups to renounce violence and their weapons verifiably destroyed. That includes extreme Zionist groups.

  • A total amnesty for all political prisoners.
In an ideal world, this could be achieved.
Sadly, the world we live in, is far from ideal.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-10-2006, 08:56 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Neither Israel nor the Palestianians will do it.
Agreed !

Peace is not the primary objective. There will be no peace till it is.
on the other hand peace is the very objective, but peoples desires get in the way you see. Why dont israel just give up the land to muslims and we can all live peacefully. I only see chaos if its the muslims who give up... i dont trust them israelli's who invaded a whole city just for one man.

:peace:
Reply

wilberhum
07-10-2006, 09:03 PM
Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
Agreed !
on the other hand peace is the very objective, but peoples desires get in the way you see. Why dont israel just give up the land to muslims and we can all live peacefully. I only see chaos if its the muslims who give up... i dont trust them israelli's who invaded a whole city just for one man.

:peace:
It is a catch 22. No matter what Israel does, there are still many that only want total distruction of Israel. And they want that more than peace. On the other hand, I think Isreal wants the land more than they want peace. Peace has to be the prime ovjective for it to work.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-09-2012, 02:14 PM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-28-2007, 01:26 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-17-2007, 12:07 AM
  4. Replies: 56
    Last Post: 06-24-2006, 02:47 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-17-2006, 10:42 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!