If you don't have a WSJ subscription:

http://www.shmuley.com/news/details/my_jewish_perspective_on_homosexuality

I've argued Judith's naivety in the article linked.

The timing is propitious only for Obama and US politics. His presidency (outside of huge deficits / social healthcare) has failed miserably. He's desperately.

Neither Israeli's nor Palestinians are desperate for a "resolution". Israeli's are not under acute daily attack, level of violence is generally "restrained", Unpleasant, something needing correction, but chronically manageable, in particular given other social / economic issues. The Time article may be an anti-semitic canard, but with a grain of truth - ie Israeli's (Jews in particular) have suffered worse and each time learned to carry on with life as normal as best as possible.

More importantly the Palestinians wont gain by a "solution". Their economy is improving, but is still heavily supported by foreign aid, some 2/3rds of all employable young males under arms. Corruption is rife, but would only be worse with full PA control. Internecine violence is bearable, kept partly under wraps by the IDF and Hamas is kept at bay. If the IDF walked out tomorrow, foreign aid begins to dry up - the situation can ONLY get worse. Why reach agreement? Rather find a lame excuse to end talks?

Claire, I'm not sure the negotiations are a waste of time necessarily, I'm not decided. But I can see some very compelling arguments that they're at best neutral, possibly highly destructive and counter-productive - a fortiori for the freeze.

Oslo logic is not always bad - but it has proven bad with the Palestinians. If Arafat "won" against Oslo Logic, why would Abbas be rational to try an alternative approach? Further, you suggests reasons to think Abbas isn't Arafat, I've seen a few but the counter argument - i.e. that he's as bad or worse (either because of his ability to deceive, or his weakness) seems emintently more compelling given his behaviour and the pressures he finds himeself under - not to mention his stated intellectual and ideological position, not to mentio that of his terror gang.

Perhaps more viscerally, why should Judith or any other Israeli take the risk? It's not like there aren't alternatives. Repeating an action expecting a different result each time is hardly highly thought of in intellectual and scientific circles.

Claire,

If the choice is between Iran getting a nuke and using it, or nuking them first - why is that a bad option? You can call it WWIII or a nuclear holocaust or anything else, but bottom line I'd rather see a large number of dead aggressors (read Iranians) than a single dead innocent victim (read, American, Iraqi, Lebanese, Kurd, Israeli, etc)

Claire,

You pose a false choice, and make two inferences, on each side of your equation both of which are false. Not enough words to elaborate. But...

Why agree to a freeze which costs huge political capital locally and creates hardship on the ground not to mention a gross violation of civil rights and hand the PA a victory when there is absolutely nothing to be gained by doing so? The PA will walk out anyway and assume what was offered as a starting point for the next talks. Precisely why the freeze was a dumb, indeed dangerous, idea to start with.

You're arguing Oslo (i.e. 1993) logic, i.e. if Israel makes a small concession they might get something in return, or at least show the other side's intransigence. This logic has been extremely detrimental to Israel and is based on false reasoning. At least one third option exists, i.e. that the PA takes the concession and still gets away painting Israel as intransigent with the assistance of the useful idiots and worse. If there are more than 2 potential outcomes, there may be more than 3 as well.

Claire, valid point, but I don't understand how your point follows as the logical next statement to your previous post.

Is there any mainstream claim that those people will "just become Palestinian citizens"? The notion is itself is merely to point out the double standards and absurdity of the situation. Further those towns are expected to be exchanged for other land in the 2 state model, why is their size (within reason) relevant?

The "settlement freeze" isn't an issue of expanding the footprint, it's not about mass new towns, it's about a few extra houses, balconies/closed in porches. To sell it as more is to believe the PA spin.

Indeed the whole term "settler" is a poor translation and fallacious in a post-colonial/biblical world - the "settlements" arent some pioneering venture - we're talking about a block of flats on the end of an existing town.

The fact that a freeze is demanded at all is testament to Obama's disastrous involvement and the lack of bona fide's from the PA. Its a transparent ploy to escape from the talks, give Obama a bloodynose in the upcoming elections and save face with Hamas.

Claire,

You're missing the distinction. The so called "right of return", is a discussion of allowing the descendents of ostensibly some 700,000 refugees in 1948 to return to the borders of Israel "proper" (however that state will ultimately be defined).

Expanding settlements is not about mass population movements, it's about families adding on an extra room, enclosing a balcony and allowing their 25yr old married children to buy a flat next door as opposed to moving in an hour away. At worst it's about also absorbing 10% of the annual new immigrants (some 20,000 people or less at the moment)

Conflating the two is a serious misunderstanding of the issues. The first is comparable to requiring Arab countries to allow back or make reparations for the +/-700,000 Jews expelled in (and around) 1948. The latter is the equivalent to not allowing Israeli Arab's to build in Israel. As if Israel's Supreme Court would permit it.

Also, what will Netanyahu/Israel gain by extending the freeze? The freeze itself set back negotiations by at least 12 months. The most cruel action in war is to let the enemy think they can win.

Jeepers, how many actuaries are there on this site.

Any thoughts on race /ethnicity distinct pricing? Is that also discriminatory?

Iran might be rational. But it is rational to make, and act on, that assumption?

In other words, is the evidence of their raitonality so compelling as to risk them going nucelar? Put it that way and I'm beginning (?) to doubt Riedel's rationality.

Humza, thanks for the response. I value the dialogue.

You state G-d, Religion and Country are all compatible, which empirically doesn't seem possible, but I'll take your catch all of "Islam as I practice it" to be your "get out of jail free card". With your indulgence, I'd like to ask further:

1) By "as you practice it" do you mean "orthodox / traditional" Ahmadi practice, or something else? In other words, would (for instance) Dr. Abdul Karim Saeed Pasha (current Emir) agree with you that there is no contradiction between US law and Ahmadi Law? Would he agree beheading infidels for blasphemy isn't kosher?

2) Do you not think it's a little duplicitous (I'm sorry, I can't off hand think of a more generous way of putting it) to claim to represent "moderate muslims", or even Islam, when Ahmadi's are some 10mil out of 1.6bn muslims and almost universally reviled by "mainstream" muslims as infidels?

In short, you may be correct that Ahmadi Islam is the real deal, but that tells us very little about the rest of the 1.6bn muslims and their interpretation of Islam?

Humza,

Claire indicated you're a pious & practicing Muslim. You've mentioned your fear of G-d and love for your religion and country. For brevity I'll use the term Sharia Law to describe the requirements of Islam of it's followers. I appreciate there's a lot of lost nuance. A hypothetical question:

1) If Sharia Law was at odds with US law over a particular issue in which there was no discretion, which would you follow?

2) If Sharia Law required you to put someone to death, surely as a devout follower you are required to do this? How/why is not doing this different to not praying 5 times, not giving Zakat etc?

(Aside, this is an effort to understand the fundamentals, it's not an attack or condemnation)

Thanks Claire.

Correct, there's not much argument about negotiations. It's rather a more fundamental argument about the long term goals and aspirations of the PA/Palestinians in general and consequently what can be expected to arise from negotiations.

Broadly there's a lot of talking at cross purposes, i.e. no common language. "Success" in the negotiations means very different things to different people, and more so for "peace". I've yet to meet a single person in Israel (Arabs, Jews etc) who claims not to want peace. I have met a number of people whose definition of peace involved murdering Jews. It's like a Brit speaking to an American, you think you're talking the same language, but you're not.

It's considered axiomatic that negotiations & compromise are a good thing. There's overwhelming evidence to question this assumption. People get stuck in a narrative that makes them intellectually comfortable and forces false choices.

My initial post wasn't "ad hominem", it's to point out and question the axioms/assumptions of the argument. Kicking the tires of the fundamentals (i.e. the rules) gets people upset for some reason.

As an aside, the "Religious Fundamentalist" has nothing to do with close minded fanaticism. Rather, it's a nic I picked up on another blog where I argued that if you picked up a ball in the middle of a soccer match you were no longer playing soccer and you had to admit you were playing rugby.

Judith, don't be so quick to judge. You're missing the point and writing me off based on a nic/location. That's sad.

I didn't mean to suggest you're a sucker, maybe naive. I mentioned the concept to provoke thought that western mores don't fit well in the levant. e.g. freier vs altruism. Where did I suggest the West Bank was necessarily the same as Gaza?

You're making the same logical error Claire does in ascribing to me the notion that there are no civilized Palestinians/Arabs/Moslems. I'd be offended if I didn't otherwise ascribe it to a familiar set of biases and knee-jerk responses against for eg Bet Shemesh :-)

I distilled your argument. Then suggested it wasn't compelling, then suggested a motivation for your belief based on your weltaunshaung. Contempt??? huh? Did I misstate your position?

Who's condemning everyone to an eternal battle? Indeed, if I'm correct about the futility of negotiating at this stage then it's you causing the eternal battle? I haven't proposed anything! And nowhere in this thread have I commented on the wisdom of land for peace swaps?

Claire, I'm not arguing anything you suggested, 200 words and clarity/nuance don't gel apparently.

1) I'm not suggesting anything about Judith's relationship with G-d per se. I'm suggesting her relationship with religion and Western/American "economic" rationality is such that she doesn't fully appreciate religion as a motivation.

2) The opposite of A and B is not neither A nor B. You misrepresent my statement.I didn't suggest people can't be bought off, I submit that middle class suburbia is not a sufficient motivation to overcome the lure of eternal paradise.

3) Would it change your view of the validity of my statement if I claimed to be a policeman in East Jerusalem? (since you raised it) or an insurance salesman in Ramala?

4) I said nothing about Islam being monolithic. I am suggesting that the West Bank under PA control would turn into another Middle Eastern basket case. Either a dictatorship or a theocracy.

5) Aside: I haven't proposed an alternative narrative, I pointed out the two key arguments and their fallacies and suggested a reason why Judith might be partial to these biases.

Judith,

After admitting significant ignorance of Islam, and consequently dismissing it as a meaningful factor in the West Bank, your argument boils down to two fundamental points:

1) "we" have to do something, so lets talk

2) when the economy is "booming" they'll stop murdering us. Or to put it another way, we can pay them not to murder our children.

You've ignored (i) the consequence of being perceived to have "lost" the battle by handing over more land to the Dar el Islam, (ii) enforcing the perception that terrorism works, and (iii) "proving" the hypothesis that the Zionists are tired of fighting, have given up and will be packing up to leave if Hamas/Hezbolla et al can just fight them off for a bit longer.

I don't find your argument compelling, I find it naive and unsubstantiated, both in your writing and on the prima facie evidence.

I think your ostensibly tenuous personal religious connection leads you to underestimate its relevance in the Middle East and Israel in particular and thus project your American definition of rationality on "Ahmed & Dalia" - which I find strange given the amount of time you're in Israel (freier?)