Live Q&As

First, let's get some history straight.  The state of Israel was NOT founded simply because of the Holcaust.  The nations of the world may have finally voted in favor of the State in 1947 because of their own feelings of guilt and/or compassion in light of the Holocaust, but that was their issue, not the Jews'.  The Jewish people had longed for, dreamed of, and prayed about returning to a reborn State of Israel for thousands of years, and the modern movement known as Zionism, was more than half a century old by the time the State of Israel was founded. 

I don't know what you mean by "the Arabs", but if you are referring to the Palestinian people, they care because they too want a nation of their own.  The fact that past events, especially the actions of other Arab states, may weaken their historic claims, actually does not matter.  They are a distinct community and seek political self-determination, and why should that claim not be recognized?

The world should care for any number of reasons, not least of which is that what goes on in the Middle East effects us here in the US, that Israel is a valuable ally with a society very much like our own, and that when possible, we seek to nurture peaceful, democratic movements whereever they may be.  While the real threats to the US arre not centered in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, resolving it would strengthen our own strategic interests in the region.

You may not be an expert, but you raise wise questions.  thank you.

In fact, the vast majority of Israelis do NOT want to rule over a a bunch of non-citizens, which is the real issue, not the fact that Palestinians are a religious or national minority.  The fact is, that there are more than a million non-Jewish citizens of Israel, most of them Arab Muslims.  They vote, pay taxes, and sit in the national assembly, the Kenesset.  But your point remains crucial, and why the creation of a Palestinian state is not only in the best interests of Palestinians, but of Israel.

For Israel to remain both Jewish and democratic, their must be a Palestine for those who live under Israeli control but are not citizans of Israel.  The concerns n the Israeli side about how to accmplish this include the results of it's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, and a host of other issues about the fundamental security of Israel and it's citizens.  But that said, more could and should be done to speed up the creation of a Palestinian state, which, if done properly, will is in all people's long-term interests.

The existence of Palestine is not the least bit inconvenient to the United States.  The United States simply insists that progress toward peace should be accomplsihed around a negotiating table at which all parties to the conflict can sit, not through UN votes.  Frankly, I am not sure I totally agree with that, but it is hardly a crazy proposition, especially as the State which the UN just recognized is governed by two distinct governments, and one of the them is a terrorist organization.

I certainly agree that re-hashing the same old stories and well-rehearsed historcial claims, is not a way to create a better future.  It's not that they are unimportant, but that they lack the nuance and complexity to which you refer.

There is no question that both sides need fresh thinking to create a fresh reality.  I think that the UN vote could have been a time for both sides to unleash some of that, but neither did.  For example, it would have been interesting for President Abbas to ask for a vote on a more modest proposal -- one which would not have been as provocative to many in Israel, and for Israel to have backed the notion of a UN vote which recognized a state of Palestine, at least in some broad sense. 

Unilateralism can be damaging to the peace process, and that is what the Paelstinians did.  On the other hand, I do NOT think that this necessarily has to damage the peace process at all, as long as all sides remain cool, President Abbas is held to the words you quoted above (including a willingness to cut loose Hamas if they remain committed to the destruction of Israel), and Israel not take a punitive course in light of the Palestinian initiative.  After all, as PM Netanyahu said, "the vote changes nothing on the ground".  If that is so, then there is nothing to get so bent out of shape over.

You are 100% correct about everything you wrote.  on the other hand, I am not sure that it matters in this instance.  If Israel agrees, as it clearly does, that the path to peace lies with the creation of two states for two peoples, and Palestinians are prepared to live alongside a Jewish State of Israel, as at least the PA leadership seems increasingly willing to do, then this vote could be a mometn of real opportunity.  I think those are the more important issues on which to focus, at least right now.

You want me to explain why the people who sent my daughter and many other members of my family into bomb shelters last week are victims?  The funny thing is, I could, and some of it would actually be true.  Gaza is hardly a great place to live, and at a fundamental human level, when Gazans suffer, it should bother all people.  Of course, that is hardly an excuse for pursuing a policy which calls for the destruction of the Israel, as Hamas government does, and why virtually the entire world backed an end to recetn hostilities based on the principle of "quiet for quiet" i.e. no politcal advantage would be gained by Hamas by virtue of it's rocket campaign.

Most Israelis do not view this move as anti-Semitic.  They view it as wrong-headed and unhelpful, but not anti-Semitic.  And your claim about the only thing which all Palestinians want is to destroy Israel, is simply wrong.  I do not even think that is what all Gazans want, but until they choose a new government -- one not committed to that -- it may be a more justifiable claim in their case.

The UN can not force anyone to accept anything.  They can not force Israel and the US to accept this vote, not can they force Palestine to accept Israel.  The latter, is something which Palestinians must do for themselves.  but when they make moves in that direction, as Mahmoud Abbas has done, I think that such moves must be rewarded and built upon.

Because it's not.  You may not like that answer, but in fact, that is the truth according to international law.

I think that like the previous questioner, you confuse what you would like to believe with what others have actually determined.  To be clear, I am not suggesting that Israel is perfect by any means.  but it is somewhat irnic that you invoke international law just weeks after Hamas used military tactics which all agree are in fact, violations of the laws you invoked.

Depends upon what kind of Palestine.  Believe it or not, not all Palestinians are terrorists.

If you are asking about the necessity for Israel to remain militarily strong as a foundational element of it's secure existance, I could not agree more.  I also think that one of the ethical obligations that comes with real strength, is the obligation to take certain chances, especially when those chances are reasonable and in everybody's long-term best interest.

I do hear you, but implore you not to despair, especially because you recognize that only option 3, as you describe it, is the way to go.  Not only that, however one feels about yesterday's vote at the UN, the President of the Palestinian Authority stood at the podium and declared that his cause was no less, and therefre also no greater, than that of Israel.  Whether one believes him or not, that is an amazing and promising thing.  If you had said 20 years ago, that the move toward Palestinian Statehood would draw strength not from the deligitimization of Israel, but from an affirmation of its legitimacy, they would have said you were crazy.  But that is what happened yesterday.  It's actually rather amazing.  We can not be naive, but we need not lose hope either.

Because it opened the door to equvalence between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, because it declared borders rather than negotiated them, and many other issues which circumvented the negotiating process through which this must be resolved.

Having said all that, I appreciate the need for public and official recognition of their cause, and believe that it could signal a moment of opportunity in which both sides re-engage each other.