The USA changes direction in peace quest

Pan Arabism (otherwise known as Islamism, which is not only "Arabism") could not not care less about "Zionism". All they care is about Jews (or any other ethnic group of a different faith) having the same rights as Muslims, something Islamism cannot tolerate.
It is not a clash of 'civilisations'. It is a clash between civilisation and a Dark Ages' cult.

jose
Pan Arabism is not strictly islamism but arose in the Ottoman Empire about the same time as Zionism emerged as a political movement (previously it was confined to religious Jews inhabiting the Holy cities of Palestine: Jerusalem, Tiberias, Zfat and Bnei Brak)
It first found expression in Egypt which managed to break away from Ottoman rule. The Syrian province of the Ottoman Empire included Palestine and after the Balfour Declaration of 1917 it was divided by Great britain and France according to the Sykes Picot treaty. Syria (including Lebanon was under French protection wheras Palestine east and west of the Jordan was in the British Mandate. Shortly after the British split Palestine in to Transjordan which was directly ruled from London and the Mandate area of Palestine west of the Jordan. Transjordan evolved into teh hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the first ruler was the Emir Abdullah great grandfather of the current King Abdullah.
In the War of Independence, Transjordan had the most effective army facing Israel, it was led by British officers seconded from the British army including the famous "Glubb Pasha". Very quickly they overran the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and the defenders were taken prisoner of war and many were held for a few years. Famously the Arabs destroyed Synagogues and raised other buildings as well. West Jerusalem held out against sustained onslaughts and seige which went on for about a year.
I was born in that seige in the Bikur Holim Hospital and my life was saved (also the lives of the thousands other Jews living in West Jerusalem at that time) when the Palmach (strike force) broke through using an alternative route called "The Burma Road" .
I have digressed from Pan Arabism although it is important to remember that a key figure was Haj Amin al Husseini who was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and because of that a very important man inside Palestine and beyond in the wider Arab world. There is no doubt he was deeply anti-Jewish to the extent of collaborating actively with Hitler and the Nazis.
Substantially Pan-Arabism was a nationalist movement rather than religious and very much in line with many other nationalisms in that period including Italian, German, various British colonies especially the Irish, etc.

I agree that pan-Arabism is a separate ideology to Islamism, although they share common goals. Both are very dangerous for the free world and need to be resisted or contained. Israel is on the front line against both and needs the full and unconditional support of all other free democratic nations.

Against fanatics, compromise is suicide.

matt, just for your info, Pan-Arabism has its roots in 1930s Syria and Lebanon. The main proponents of this ideology were Maronite Chistians, Israel's allies in Lebanon. If anything, before Nasser, the Muslims shunned the idea. In fact, Nasser only used Pan-Arabism for internal political expediency and to get one over Syria, which viewed itself as the centre of the Arab world. If you read Mohammaed Hasanin Heykal, perhaps the man closest to Nasser, or Yisrael Gershuni, Israel's leading expert on Egyptian nationalism, you might find that in commonn with most Arab leaders, Nasser never believed in Pan-Arabism, preferring instead narrow nationalisms.

Pan Arabism never worked as there were no common political interests between Arab countries, quite the opposite: they have many reason to make war. The basic idea was extended to all Muslim countries, replacing politics with religion. And it has a much greater success than the previous version.
The goal is much the same: create a supra-national entity, whose common politics would be dictated by a single body, a religious oligarchy.
Ghadaffi was stuck a long time with Pan-Arabism but has shifted into Islamism, but obviously he does not trust the system too much. He might be afraid of the consequences for his personal power.

Jose, just one small factual thing: in Islam, politics and religion are the same. It's an all-encompassing religion, much like Judaism.

Except that Judaism doesn't seek to impose itself on da infidels, turning dem into dhimmis.

Yehuda, you say that the conflict will only abate with the establishment of (another0 Palestinian state. On what do you base this assumption? Given that Fatah has said it will never recognize a Jewish state, under any conditions, and Hamas' rejection of not only Israel, but of Jews on this earth, isn't it more likely that the conflict will continue - albeit with Israel in a worse position than before?

Be that as it may, Yvetta, Judaism is still an all-encompassing desert religion, just like Islam. And let's not forget that Islam is 1400 years old, compared with Judaism's 3300. It hasn't like Judiam and Christianity, had time to go through any Reformation. So, in a few 100 years time, there will be Orthodox Islam, Reform Islam, Comnservative Islam, Reconstructionist Islam and Muslims for Jesus.

Jose, just one small factual thing: in Islam, politics and religion are the same. It's an all-encompassing religion, much like Judaism.

This is not a fact, but an anachronism. Judaism isn't anymore while Islam still is.

Jose, Judaism still is an all-encompassing religion.

Jose, Judaism still is an all-encompassing religion.

Then, there is no Jewish State.

Why do you take the "angle" that the failure of the talks is "because Israel would not renew the moratorium"?

Rather than the truth of the matter, which is the failure and refusal of the Palestinian Authority to recognise Israel as the Jewish State and their repetition of the 3 x No's

1.NO peace with Israel
2.NO recognition of Israel
3.NO negotiations with Israel

Why and how do you expect Israel to negotiate seriously with this fron the other side?

Jon, I don't understand why a state should recognise the religiosity/ethnicity of a neighbouring state. That seems to me, in the words of Leviticus, chapter 19, to put a stumbling block in front of a blind man. As Israel itself hasn't seriously defined what it means to be a Jewish state, why should the Palestinians recognise it as such? And if they did, what Jewish state would they recognise? An halachic one (Israel isn't, thankfully)? A Jewish and democratic one (good, but for how long?) A state in which all its citizens have a part?
And what exactly are the boundaries of this Jewish state? If Israel keeps building on territory supposed to be going to the Palestinians, can you blame them for feeling that the Israelis haven't been acting in good faith?
We all want Israel to continue as a Jewish and democratic state -- that's the essence of Zionism -- but it ain't half shooting itself in the foot at the moment.

The failure of the talks was programmed by the PA from the beginning. They did not comply with any of the requests, including recognising Israel ("Jewish State" or not, by the way).
And of course, since the PA does not represent the voters' majority, and did not enforce elections as was necessary in January 2010, PA is de facto a minority dictature supported by the Western countries while Gaza is an elected religious dictature that will be difficult to remove from power as they reject elections.

Israel has no partner to make peace with.

Jon, I don't understand why a state should recognise the religiosity/ethnicity of a neighbouring state

Don't tell that to the 22 Muslim states: they are not aware of that! And they carried out a very efficient ethnic cleansing over the years that let nearly each of them with a very small minority of non-Muslims. They all use Sharia law as the base for their laws, although it varies greatly in its application.

The frontiers of the state of Israel haven't been defined by anyone. Armistice lines exist and the Green Line of 1949 is one of them. There is also the 1967 line, but when Muslims speak of the "1967 borders" they curiously consider that they are the 1949 Green Line.
Therefore, negociations are needed to determine these frontiers in any other way than unilaterally. Rejection of direct talks by Palestinians is a clear way to say they don't accept anything but the three Karthoum's "no".

Jose, the Muslim states don't claim to be democratic. Israel does, with good reason. So let's compare apples with apples.
If Israel were, unilaterally, to determine it's own boundaries (67, more or less) then that would give the Palestinians a good idea what they can expect.
As it stands, Israel by continuing to build in the territories is acting unilaterally, while moaning when any one else threatens to do the same.

If Israel were, unilaterally, to determine it's own boundaries (67, more or less) then that would give the Palestinians a good idea what they can expect.

Please don't uphold the 'Palestinian' narrative. There is no "1967 boundaries" except the July 1967 boundaries. And then the 'territories' (I think you mean Judea Samaria) are legitimate places to settle.

Israel does not threaten anyone in the PA when they build whole cities in Judea Samaria, don't mix your facts please.
both Israel and PA are acting unilaterally there and only the 'Palestinians' complain about Israel.

joemillis, what don't you understand?

The PA refuses the right of Israel to exist in ANY form.

The negotiations were and are doomed to failure whilst the PA still advocates the clauses in it's charter, for example:-

Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation - peoples and governments - with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard. Accordingly, the Arab nation must mobilize all its military, human, moral, and spiritual capabilities to participate actively with the Palestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. It must, particularly in the phase of the armed Palestinian revolution, offer and furnish the Palestinian people with all possible help, and material and human support, and make available to them the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution, until they liberate their homeland.

Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal,

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood.

And as for their frinds in Gaza, Hamas, they have this to say:-

Surat Al-Imran (III), verses 109-111 Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors

Article Fifteen: The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Obligation
When our enemies usurp some Islamic lands, Jihad becomes a duty binding on all Muslims. In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad.

Article Twenty-Eight: The Zionist invasion is a mischievous one. It does not hesitate to take any road, or to pursue all despicable and repulsive means to fulfill its desires. It relies to a great extent, for its meddling and spying activities, on the clandestine organizations which it has established, such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions, and other spying associations.

Article Thirty-two: Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present [conduct] is the best proof of what is said there. Leaving the circle of conflict with Israel is a major act of treason and it will bring curse on its perpetrators.

Article Thirty-Five: the current Zionist invasion had been preceded by a Crusader invasion from the West; and another one, the Tatars, from the East. And exactly as the Muslims had faced those invasions and planned their removal and defeat, they are able to face the Zionist invasion and defeat it.

And so on and on and on..........

And you want Israel to negotiate with these people who are avowed to the destruction of Israel?

Jon, I think joemillis believes a number of legends about 'Palestinians', such as acceptance of Israel. The fact is that they cannot present any peace plan because they do not plan to make peace. Therefore, they present demands, as if they had won a war.

Exactly so, Jose, very well put!

Jose and Jon, has Israel ever presented any peace plan? No, it hasn't. I believe that neither side really actually wants peace, so they should be left to their own devices until they come to their senses.

Jose and Jon, has Israel ever presented any peace plan?

Yes, it has. First, it has accepted Oslo accords and began implementing the accords. 'Palestinians' haven't yet started and, quite the contrary, started the so-called "Intifadas", supported by suicide or otherwise-bombing.

I believe that neither side really actually wants peace

All polls show a majority of Israelis does. All polls also show a majority of 'Palestinians' don't.

so they should be left to their own devices until they come to their senses.

That is what happens, but then why criticise Israelis for the same thing 'Palestinians' do, ie building in Judea Samaria?

And of course, Israel has accepted the "roadmap" and has completed several steps including evacuation of Gaza settlements. 'Palestinians' have not even completed the first step required from them by this "roadmap". Quite the opposite, their violence increased dramatically, as they were encouraged by what they saw as a 'victory for the resistance'.
And of course, they continue to incite to racial hatred in all their TV programs and school books, praise those who deliberately targeted civilians by dedicating streets or squares in their names.
Glorifying violence will not put an end to it.

simonson, the only time you rabidly rant is when you can attack Israel or fellow Jews.

So put a sock in it.

samsimonson has certainly a great experience on ad hominem. Maybe joemillis will recognise them for what they are, this time.
Blaming a 'minority' for posting while not being able to refute a single argument is exactly ad hominem: blaming the messenger because one does not like the message.

I will respond to a few points now
The difference between Pan-Arabism and Islamism
There is no doubt that Pan Arabism is a modern historical phenomenon which was more nationalistic than islamist, although it is fair to say that many of the adherents had a deeply held belief in Islam.
joemmills
made some interesting points about the origin of Pan-Arabism in Syria, although I thought that the Egyptian revolt against the Turkish Ottoman Empire (sorry I can't remember the actual date) preceded the Syrian version.
Anti-Jewish pogroms were recorded as early as 1830 in Tzfat following an earth quake.
jose and jon_i_cohen
in my view you are too quick to condemn everything the Arab side does and too forgiving of everything Israel has done. It is necessary if any progress is ever to be made to take a more objective view and to try and suppress Zionist bias. For example you have not mentioned that Saudi Arabia published a proposal for recognition of Israel which virtually all Arab and Muslim states have publicly supported, including the Palestinian Authority. This proposal has been deemed worthy of consideration by the israeli Government but not as a take it or leave it ultimatum. Another words Israel insists that when peace is finally achieved it will have followed a negotiation process between the parties concerned.
amber
it is not correct to state that Fatah does not recognise Israel but it is fair to say that Fatah is an umbrella organisation which does contain some groups that are hardline and reject Israel. With respect to Hamas in my opinion they will come reluctantly to the negotiating table when they see that everyone else in the Arab? Muslim world post facto the peace agreement will be heartily fed up of them, Hitzbulla and Iran.
I would like to come back later to take other points raised

For example you have not mentioned that Saudi Arabia published a proposal for recognition of Israel which virtually all Arab and Muslim states have publicly supported, including the Palestinian Authority.

Please note that the Saudi proposition is exactly to return to the point that Arabs did not accept in 1967. Return to indefensible borders, with terrorists in Gaza, Lebanon and Judea Samaria. Answer is obviously "no". It is a ridiculous proposal that tries to obliterate the reasons why there has been a war in 1967. This is not "Zionist bias", it is simple logic, something that you do not seem to be able to master.

it is not correct to state that Fatah does not recognise Israel

It is perfectly correct to state so. It is still explicitely written in the PLO Charter, of which Fatah is a majority member. Now, prove me I'm wrong and show me the new PLO Charter (post-Oslo Accords).

Please check your other 'facts' before posting. That would spare me the waste of time correcting them.

Yehuda
"it is not correct to state that Fatah does not recognise Israel"

I am afraid that you are very much mistaken:-
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141067

The Fatah Revolutionary Council that is led by Abbas, and which leads the PA, last month issued a proclamation rejecting all proposals for peace, including land swaps, and refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish State.

They have NO intention of recognising Israel.

Jon, let's wait for Erdman to show us the new updated version of the PLO Charter recognising Israel, let alone a Jewish state.

I think it's going to be a long wait.

I think it's going to be a long wait.

Please also note that Saudi want also Israel to admit the "right of return" of 'Palestinian refugees'. Including the 98% of whom were not born within the 1949 armistice line.

Of course the ludicrous Saudi proposal is rejected by Israel because it wants to remain a Jewish State and the Saudi would like to abolish that in the next Israeli election. Then, the new parliament (I dare not call it "Knesset") would change the name of the country to "Islamic Republic of Palestine" or the like. Special laws for the 'protection' of minority religions would be voted. Special taxes would be imposed on them for this protection needed to protect them from their enemies (in democratic countries, this is call "racket").

I think it's going to be a long wait.

I'm ready to wait for Erdman answer to my simple challenge until hell freezes over! :)

Well although I disagree with Yehuda about a lot of things, he is a gentleman and always responds politely. So his reply will be interesting.

So his reply will be interesting.

Evading answer is to be expected.

Mr Erdman, Fatah does NOT recognize Israel. Nor does it condemn the activities of the Al Aqsa Martyrs; brigades. Abbas is a Holocaust denier.

What's there to talk about?

For practical reasons, and saving other people's precious time, could Erdman answer my challenge and produce the updated version of the PLO Charter showing that PLO recognises Israel, does not recommend violent struggle to conquer the land of Israel (including the part within the 1949 armistice line)?

That would be nice. Failure to do so, let's say, within a couple of days would mean that I have proven my point. OK?

To help a bit Erdman, here is what was said by Palestinians:

Reportedly, an internal PLO document from the Research and Thought Department of Fatah stated that changing the Covenant would have been "suicide for the PLO" and continued:

The text of the Palestinian National Covenant remains as it was and no changes whatsoever were made to it. This has caused it to be frozen, not annulled. The drafting of the new National Covenant will take into account the extent of Israeli fulfillment of its previous and coming obligations... evil and corrupt acts are expected from the Israeli side... The fact that the PNC did not hold a special session to make changes and amendments in the text of the National Covenant at this stage... was done to defend the new Covenant from being influenced by the current Israeli dictatorship.

In January 1998, before the second Gaza meeting, Faisal Hamdi Husseini, head of the legal committee appointed by the PNC, stated "There has been a decision to change the Covenant. The change has not yet been carried out".

PLO spokesman Marwan Kanafani was videotaped telling reporters, "This is not an amendment. This is a license to start a new charter."

From the above, it is clear that the 'Palestinians' will not recognise Israel until it accepts all PLO demands (do they believe they won the war?), which is not likely to happen. Despite Arafat claims that the PLO changed its charter, there has obviously been no change at all, despite Oslo, despite the "roadmap" etc.

I note Mr Erdman has been unable to answer.

Please Amber, give him some time! Maybe I've been unabled to find any updated PLO charter. Maybe Erdman will be able to find this much coveted document that the world must believe to exist.
Since many countries in the world express the opinion that such modification has been done, maybe that is true.
Maybe for reasons unknown, this document has never been published on Internet, while much less interesting ones have.

But as Erdman presented Israel recognition as a fact, I think he probably has a direct access to the information that us, common human beings, do not have.
In this case, it will be easy for him to prove how wrong we are and win my little challenge.

amber & jose,
I have provided Mr Erdman with the relevant information relating to the PA/Fatah and the Hamas Charters in the post above, so unless Mr Erdman is privy to a "personal" copy of the charters that we are not aware of there is unlikely to be a response from him.

Mr Erdman is privy to a "personal" copy of the charters that we are not aware of there is unlikely to be a response from him.

Well, he must be, Jon. Didn't you read what he wrote. For him it is a fact that Fatah recognised Israel...
You don't imagine that he would state as a fact something for which he doesn't have a clue, do you?

I am sorry to disappoint many of you above but I can answer you. The difficulty YOU are experiencing is the inability to recognise there is something called de facto recognition which has been in place since more or less 1993 following the Oslo accords. Did you sleep through when Rabin and Arafat shook hands on the White House Lawn?
Changing the Palestine NC will follow after satisfactory negotiations are completed and the two sides have signed up to a peace treaty guaranteed by the Quartet. This will not be "when hell freezes over" as someone noted above, but could happen at great speed once all outstanding issues have been satisfactorily negotiated between the parties.
This need not take as long as many people think because believe it or not, the majority of both populations are yearning for peace which everyone knows will bring prosperity to all in the region. Unfortunately the warmongers who exist everywhere in the world are desperate to prevent peace breaking out. They will eventually be defeated and I do not mean at the end of a long barrelled gun.
For heavens sake give peace a chance.

Thank you Kahina, I do like to think that I am a gentleman and I am sure you are a lady

The difficulty YOU are experiencing is the inability to recognise there is something called de facto recognition which has been in place since more or less 1993 following the Oslo accords. Did you sleep through when Rabin and Arafat shook hands on the White House Lawn?

I am sorry to disappoint you but when the de facto recognition is contradictory with anything of legal value, such as a Charter or a Constitution, the de facto recognition is totally invalid.
This is not like saying the 'Palestinians' have no grudge against Israelis and recognize them de facto. The 'Palestinians' do have a grudge against Israelis and swear to destroy Israel by armed force in their Charter. While the articles saying this are not cancelled, it is still operational for Fatah. No de facto recognition can erase the Charter.
Can you imagine the USA lawmakers saying: "oh, we know that there is a Constitution garantying the right to vote for all citizens over 18. But de facto, we'll consider the correct age is over 50. And all those below that age won't be able to cast their vote."
I'll let you imagine what the Supreme Court will say...

So the recognition of Israel has to be de jure and the Charter modified accordingly. Erdman has failed to prove his point.

Thanks Yehuda.

1993 was a different era. Very sad how it's all changed. We were all optimistic then. But the Palestinians didn't keep their side of the bargain and launched their intifadas and continued to feed their children hatred of Israel. It's no wonder that Israelis moved to the right.

Until there is a root change in Palestinian education, that breeds new leaders, I can't see it happening.

Kahina
I agree taht education is one of the key areas in Palestine that badly needs reform. Another one which thankfully is going in the right direction, is improved economic prospects in the West Bank that will give young Palestinian men the hope of a future in which they can reject violence and make a living for themselves and their families.