Netanyahu should admit Israel doesn't want peace

Oh, and Netanyahu should also use the term "Lebensraum." That's all Israel wants, right? Just some "living space" for an expanding population...

are you sincere: do you chose segreationism? Please realize, segregationism is out, in the US and everywhere else. It really does not sound funny, a your call to go back into the Ghetto.

in this point, once I disagree with Gideon. Netanyahu wants peace: his peace, in all, which he believes Erez Israel. Jews-only-peace, but not justice and democracy for all who's homeland is Israel in Palestine, or: Palestine in Israel.

Avi Shlaim on Israel killing Sheikh Yassin. This after Yassin ordered hundreds of terrorist attack against Israeli civilians killing and maiming thousands of Israelis. To let Shlaim the fool know, terrorism is down 90% since this mass murderer Yassin was killed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/28/israel The decision to execute Yassin has to be seen in this light. Some Ministers and the director of the internal security service opposed the proposal on the grounds that it was illegal and would only increase the violence, but the majority voted in favour. It transpired that the cabinet decided to eliminate not just Yassin but the entire Hamas leadership in response to the double suicide bombing in the port of Ashdod. This means that Israel will strike at Hamas leaders whenever opportunities present themselves, not only in retaliation. Israeli strikes will be followed, inevitably and inexorably, by Palestinian retaliation with suicide bombs. This is a recipe for violence and bloodshed without any hope. Sharon has truly opened the gates of hell.

Oh I see, you set me a task? Well considering you spent twenty posts ignoring or simply dismissing (but never refuting or explaining)the 'documented' verifiable evidence pertaining to 'tentative thoughts' of Eban, I hardly think you should expect me to hand in my homework for some time yet. A pitiful attempt to narrow the discussion to your favoured sources whilst desperately ignoring awkward data which disprove favoured theories. How very sad.

What Israel-friendly version? As I mentioned earlier, the most sustained discussion of this is in Gorenberg, which is largely a critique of post-war 1967 Israel. Of course, now that even you recognize you can no longer credibly maintain your argument on the basis of facts you abandon that route and try the usual accusations of pro-Israel propaganda. If you had bothered to do the research required to discuss this competently (such as reading Gorenberg or the whole group of scholars I cited) you would know that tactic is as bound to fail as your previous effort, for example, to use Shlaim as a source and then complain if you are expected to read what he actually says. Sad.

Gideon, will you marry me?

As limited as Kimmerlings and ben ami's no doubt. Ever considered that you just prefer the Israel friendly version of events for ideological reasons? Please don't be too shocked. In fact the Arab position even after Khartoum was never as recalcitrant as the hasbara version would have us believe. As for Eban changing his mind, enough of the transparent apologetics. Barely a month after that decision(June 19th)was made, and thus well before the Khartoum meeting with "the three noes", politicians approved plans for building settlements on the Golan Heights. Before that Jerusalem had been 'unified' in the teeth of strong opposition from the Americans (the Israelis argued, with a fine feeling for semantic subtleties, that 'unification' was not the same as 'annexation'). Mid August far reaching plans for the settlement of the West Bank had been adopted. eh?

Please, enough with the Rusk quote, which you have repeated how many times now because it is easier than doing any sustained research. Of course the Israelis changed their minds. What does that prove about any of the relevant issues? Nothing. They changed their minds because as Bundy, who headed a special National Security Council committee at this time on the Israeli Arab issues following the 1967 war put it: "We can't tell the Israelis to give things away to people who won't even bargain with them" (Gorenberg, p. 83). But then you are rather selective in your use of American officials and sources, though I guess you have to be since your research is so severely limited.

What's amazing is that whatever Dean Rusk says is irrelevant. That what IS written in the archives(not what is not written)is irrlevant. That what hebrew speakers like Shlaim,ben ami or Kimmerling couldn't glean from your wonderous hebrew sources is nevertheless telling.groan...

You should do an inventory of all the evidence you have chosen to ignore; it is called your closed mind. Did you respond by reading and commenting on the specifics of any historians I cited? Then you asked what new or further evidence they had, and I noted their citations of Israeli sources which you dismissed because you do not understand the language or do not have access to the sources, rather than simply acknowledge there is evidence they draw on that you do not have access to. By contrast, I examined the Shlaim book and review in detail after you cited them, but you can't take the time to examine the book even after YOU cite it. Amazing.

There is an issue regarding whether he was in fact a Syrian official, but by all means ignore all evidence you can't get from the home comforts of the severe limitations of the Internet, including the information from sources you cite, and of course do not bother to read any historian I cite either. I did an internship in an archive, and the fact that something is NOT included somewhere is meaningless. I provided you with the sources of evidence for Egypt and Syria's knowledge and you dismissed them because you did not understand Hebrew or know the sources. What research did you do in Israeli archives; wait, I forgot, you can't leave home for research.

The archival evidence 'a sliver' is substantial unlike your dismissal of Shlaims sources without any elaboration. It is precise minutes of the discussions between Israeli ambassador and Eban himself with the Sec of State and other officials as opposed to your innuendo. It is possible to examine these archives online. Shlaim did it. If you think they are unimportant or not relevant you are either insincere or drunk. I am not wasting my time getting hold of the Shlaim book simply because you regard Shlaims sources as unreliable("one of the problems is the Egyptian and Syrian officials"). Prove they are unreliable. I do not need to have the book in front of me for you to take a few lines to do that. Utter nonsense. What is clear is that Eban's own later account is unreliable. This is why, (repeated here because you never once addressed it other than to dismiss it). "Eban stated Israeli inter-ministerial committee had come to some TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS which he would like to discuss with Secretary BUT NOT OTHERS" New York, June 22, 1967 "We`ve changed our minds". Abba Eban to Dean Rusk late summer, on Israels earlier professed denial of any territorial claims. Contextualize at your leisure, but you are starting to sound desperate. Not only Shlaim but Kimmerling and ben ami have seen enough to cast considerable doubt on Ebans unsubstantiated claim. I have seen quite enough of your flimsy defence of it.

The archival evidence 'a sliver' is substantial unlike your dismissal of Shlaims sources without any elaboration. It is precise minutes of the discussions between Israeli ambassador and Eban himself with the Sec of State and other officials as opposed to your innuendo. It is possible to examine these archives online. Shlaim did it. If you think they are unimportant or not relevant you are either insincere or drunk. I am not wasting my time getting hold of the Shlaim book simply because you regard Shlaims sources as unreliable("one of the problems is the Egyptian and Syrian officials"). Prove they are unreliable. I do not need to have the book in front of me for you to take a few lines to do that. Utter nonsense. What is clear is that Eban's own later account is unreliable. This is why, (repeated here because you never once addressed it other than to dismiss it). "Eban stated Israeli inter-ministerial committee had come to some TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS which he would like to discuss with Secretary BUT NOT OTHERS" New York, June 22, 1967 "We`ve changed our minds". Abba Eban to Dean Rusk late summer, on Israels earlier professed denial of any territorial claims. Contextualize at your leisure, but you are starting to sound desperate. Not only Shlaim but Kimmerling and ben ami have seen enough to cast considerable doubt on Ebans unsubstantiated claim. I have seen quite enough of your flimsy defence of it.

The archival evidence you regard as 'a sliver' is substantial unlike your dismissal of Shlaims sources without any elaboration. It is precise minutes of the discussions between Israeli ambassador and Eban himself with the Sec of State and other officials as opposed to your innuendo. It is possible to examine these archives online. Shlaim did it. If you think they are unimportant or not relevant you are either insincere or drunk. I am not wasting my time getting hold of the Shlaim book simply because you regard Shlaims sources as unreliable("one of the problems is the Egyptian and Syrian officials"). Prove they are unreliable. I do not need to have the book in front of me for you to take a few lines to do that. This is obfuscation. What is clear however is that Eban's own later account is unreliable. This is why, repeated here because you never once addressed it other than to dismiss it. "Eban stated Israeli inter-ministerial committee had come to some TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS which he would like to discuss with Secretary BUT NOT OTHERS" New York, June 22, 1967 "We`ve changed our minds". Abba Eban to Dean Rusk late summer, on Israels earlier professed denial of any territorial claims. Contextualize at your leisure. Not only Shlaim but Kimmerling and ben ami have seen enough to cast doubt on Ebans unsubstantiated claim.

The archival evidence you regard as 'a sliver' is substantial and pertinent unlike your dismissal of Shlaims sources without elaboration. It is precise minutes of the discussions between Israeli ambassador and Eban himself with the Sec of State and other officials. It is possible to examine these archives online. Shlaim did it. If you think they are unimportant or not relevant you are either insincere or drunk. I am not wasting my time with the Shlaim book simply because you regard Shlaims sources as unreliable("one of the problems is the Egyptian and Syrian officials"). Prove they are unreliable. I do not need to have the book in front of me for you to take a few lines to do that. This is obfuscation. What is clear is that Eban's own later account is unreliable. This is why. "Eban stated Israeli inter-ministerial committee had come to some TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS which he would like to discuss with Secretary BUT NOT OTHERS" New York, June 22, 1967 "We`ve changed our minds". Abba Eban to Dean Rusk late summer, on Israels earlier professed denial of any territorial claims. Contextualize at your leisure.Not only Shlaim but Kimmerling who offers other references and ben ami have seen enough to cast doubt on Ebans unsubstantiated claim.

I sent in an earlier response yo your #164, but let me add that I could say you should research the sources I have used, but in fact I took the trouble to get the only secondary source YOU cited with a fairly detailed discussion of the cabinet decision and offered to examine that in discussion with you in detail, but that is still not enough and you want me to explain to you what evidence is cited in that source. That is ludicrous, and I have explained before that one of the problems is the Egyptian and Syrian officials Shlaim says support that no offer was made to Syria or Egypt, and I gave you the endnote number and page. If you cannot take it from there you should just give up and stop wasting my time.

The book review from Shlaim you originally used contained NO evidence to support his claims, but you mentioned his Iron Wall, which does cite evidence. I have indicated preliminarily where I believe some problems lie, and for you to state that I have to provide an argument to YOU before you can even be bothered to obtain a copy of the secondary work with the fullest discussion of your position is ludicrous. I do not find your research in primary sources even close to what would be required. That is why you need to rely on secondary sources until you develop the wherewithal to do a competent investigation of all relevant primary source material, not some sliver, which provides about nothing.

"rather than spend your time posting to me further about a book you cited" I am not sure how genuine you are being on this matter. My original quotation of Shlaim was from an article in the UK Guardian he wrote and not directly from his book. I have only mentioned him in passing since and mainly in response to your own keenness to discuss his book. Yes I might be persuaded to get a copy of his book, but not until you provide some indication as to what it is that you have found fault with. Thus far there is only a hint of suspicion and that frankly is not persuading me it is worth the trouble. As I said, make a specific case of some sort beyond innuendo then I may well get a copy of the book. When I question your sincerity on the discussion regarding the veracity of the said 'offer' it is not without good reason, such as your strange and rather amusing comment; "most (evidence) of which are not even relevant". As if the archival State Dept evidence which 'flatly contradicts' your position is somehow "not relevant", and as if Sec of State Rusk's recollections are of less merit than Ebans. How so? Maybe you meant to say 'not convenient'? If something is said which is both verifiable and infers that no offer was ever made to the Arabs, it not credible to say it is "not relevant", merely convenient for someone whose mind is made up regardless.

The fact that you do not understand the language or have access to the source material that is cited as evidence hardly speaks to its insufficiency but rather to your own limitations in examining and understanding the available evidence, which is why I have tried to explain to you the necessity of relying on secondary sources rather than purporting to do research in the primary sources unless one is prepared to acquire the linguistic competence and wherewithal to examine all relevant primary sources and not some minuscule part of them as you have done. One can examine the secondary sources critically and when you get a copy of Shlaim you will be able to do so, or start.

You keep repeating the same things over and over again, endlessly now, most of which are not even relevant, much less persuasive, evidence. Clearly Shlaim makes the strongest case for the position you take. I have offered to discuss it with you in detail, but, sorry, my precondition for discussing a book with someone is that he or she has or has access to a copy and can therefore discuss competently what is in it. If you think that is an unreasonable precondition, sorry, but I suggest you take the time to get the book, which should be available at many public libraries, rather than spend your time posting to me further about a book you cited but have no access to at present.

Has Morris, Wasserstein, Schindler or Gorenberg found any evidence in the US archives to support the existence of an offer or the proof that an offer was transmitted? If so what is it. Simply stating "Lammfromm, 576 and Gazit, Peta`im, 143-44" is not very revealing or useful. Re Shlaim. As for my unwillingness to discuss Shlaims account. I read his book over two years ago but do not have the book to refer to. Please go ahead and make your case against his evidence if you wish. Yet I have repeatedly posted on US archival material which clearly indicates that the offer was either not conveyed or not even intended to be conveyed, yet you offered no explanation for this. Were the Americans asked to convey what were merely `preliminary thoughts` to Syria and Egypt. If they had been asked and had they conveyed such an offer, there would have been a memorandum of some sort about it, plus information on the reaction of these two Arab countries. There is nothing at all in the US archives or the Israeli archives, to my knowledge. This is supported by the following statement by the then US Sec of State Dean Rusk in his memoirs entitled `As I Saw It`. "Then following the Six Day War, Israel decided to keep the Golan heights, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai, despite the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol on the first day of the war went on Israeli radio and said that Israel had no territorial ambitions. Later in the summer I reminded Abba Eban of this, and he simply shrugged his shoulders and said, "We`ve changed our minds". With that remark, a contentious and even bitter point with the Americans, he turned the United States into a twenty-year liar." Was Rusk lying? There is concrete evidence that the June 19th decision was conveyed to the US merely as `preliminary thoughts`. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State/1/ New York, June 22, 1967, 0455Z. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration: [Secretary and Ambassador Goldberg received Israeli FonMin Eban along with Rafael and Harman 7:15 p.m. June 21. Hour`s conversation revolved around two main topics: (A) Situation in Near East and Israeli view re settlement and (B) present parliamentary situation in UNGA. This telegram covers topic (A)./2/ Eban stated Israeli inter-ministerial committee had come to some TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS which he would like to discuss with Secretary BUT NOT OTHERS(my emphasis).] It all comes down to the insistence of Eban versus evidence to the contrary and the absence of any solid supporting evidence for Eban`s contention. That the reality of the said offer to Syria and Egypt is in considerable doubt and dispute, even amongst historians should be plain to all but the most prejudiced. What little evidence does exist(archival) flatly contradicts your claim and the claims of your preferred historians.

Thank you, Gideon Levy, for your courage and your commitment to honestly speaking out what there is.

Gideon, You repeatedly refer to We:Because that is the truth. We don't want peace.; We can enact more and more racist laws; We can completely stifle; etc, etc... Please learn that that is not what most of us want. So do not put us and me in the same category with yourself, because I and we are not like you. In fact, you remember the wicked son in the Hagadah? You remember what a father should answer him? That you would not have been saved.

There are more writings older than the 19th century about the people known as Palestinians than you ever imagined, and which, obviously, you have never read. During time of Biblical references to Canaan, the land was also know as "Palestine." Herodotus in 5th century B.C referred to the land as Syria and "Palestine." Inscription of Egyptian temple Habu (Ramses III) refers to bound "Palestinians." Assyrian emperor Sargon II referred to land as Pilist, linguistic equivalent of Palestine. Thutmos II 1492-1479 B.C campaigned in "Palestinian." In 7th century, Byzantine docs referred to "Palestine." When the Israelites crossed the river Jordan into Canaan, the land was inhabited, among others, by three semite nations: Amorites, Hittites and Jebusites. The Jebusites had already built Jerusalem and inhabited it for 100 years after the Israelites arrived. In the academic world, many notable scholars and historians are convinced the Jebusites are the forbears of Palestinians.

Now we are back to Shlaim? Yet you refuse to discuss Shlaim, in particular his endnote number 56 on page 623 of Iron Wall, which purports to provide evidence that an offer was not made and yet is factually inaccurate. Let us start with that, since I have repeatedly brought it to your attention. As far as further or new evidence is concerned, Lammfromm, 576 and Gazit, Peta'im, 143-44 are cited in the secondary source material I mentioned to support the Syrian and Egyptian knowledge of the offer.

You have written the most confused posting I have ever read. Sixty two years ago, (1947), Netanyahu did not agree to two states, "but the Palestinians ... didnt agree." On 14 May 1948, under UN resolution 181, Israel declared statehood. The next day, 15 May, Jordan occupied the West Bank and Jerusalem. Netanyahu wasn't born yet, and the Palestinians had no say in the matter, one way or the other. Just in case you have never heard of it, the Israeli Gov't would sign a reliable agreement with the Palestinian National Authority, (the PA). Please find some other historical mentor for your poor children.

So from your response I can infer that Shindler in 2008 offers nothing more than a resume of former accounts already well known. Then why stress the modernity of Shindler's acount? ("in a more recent scholarly work") You think that an addendum referring to the "one scholar" who takes "my position" is not merited, despite it being in support of the interpretation of Shlaim;Iron Wall, and Kimmerling who wrote in his 2003 book;Politicide: Ariel Sharons War against the Palestinians, the following: "according to new evidence provided by Israeli researcher Dan Babli, the US never delivered the message, presumably because they were not interested in reopening the Suez canal or in providing other benefits to Soviet client states." Does Morris or Shindler have any comment on the following documented fact? The American records of the meeting between US Sec of State, Dean Rusk and Abba Eban confirm that Rusk makes no mention of any request by Eban to transmit these so called terms to Egypt and Syria.

Sharp words, written well. As a citizen of a state that has supported Israel blindness since many years I have been filled with admiration for Israel and the Israeli's who stood up against greater danger than anyone has done. Until I learned of the settlements and the Palestinian cause. Many Israeli's deny the Palestinian cause, claiming "the Palestinian doesn't exist" or "there are more Arab states they could live in". But then these Israeli's deny these people to live on the lands their ancestors has lived on for many centuries. Netanyahu is such an Israeli! And for me and many Dutchmen it becomes clearer and clearer that the current leaders of Israel are on the wrong track in their dealing with peace. The settlements are wrong, and the denial of a viable Palestinian state is wrong. This doesn't mean that we are against Israel! We believe in Israel as a democratic state in the Middle East. I only think: if Israel wants to be truly democratic, they can't suppress millions their rights

Why Netanyahu keeps lying? Ten month freeze can only mean two things: 1- By the end of ten months we will have negotiated a peace and we will start building again? or 2- we will not have negotiated peace and we will start building again? What is the difference between these two positions? NONE. What is there to negotiate? Netayahu has said very clearly that: -The problem will not be solved in Israel; - There are no concessions on: Settlements will continue, houses demolishing will continue, no right of return, no compensation, Palestine is Jordan, The Palestinian state will not exist, Israel is a jewish country. etc. What is there to negotiate? Mass transportation to Amman?

Netaniahu is serious(ly) lying because he has already determined that NO MATTER THE STATE OR RESULT of the peace talk after 10 months he will restart new settlement.

My preferred interpretation of events? It is the "interpretation" of Shindler (Cambridge, 2008, pp. 136-137); Benny Morris(Vintage, 2001, p. 330); Bernard Wasserstein (Yale, 2004, p. 122); Oren (Oxford, 2002, p. 313); Gorenberg (Holt, 2006, p. 52, 110). Yet you post an addendum to announce that one scholar takes your position, although he provides no evidence to support his conclusions. The most detailed and supported account regarding the cabinet meeting and offer is that of Gorenberg in Accidental Empire.

By all evident evidence the US, the UK, and the zionists. Nobody else.

And how many Jews (or Christians) would be allowed to participate in the "Democracy" of a Palestinian State? Try zero.

"The International community has made it clear their intent is to stop Israels occupation and illegal settlement activity....Israel will not deter that. Israel has two options....sink or swim." Lame. The international community has made it clear that final borders are to be negotiated. Jews were kicked out of East Jerusalem and the West Bank by Jordan in 1948. It wasn't illegal for them to reclaim their properties and develop them into communities after being able to return 19 years later.

more empty phrases from sheep country !

Isn't it time Palestinians stopped whinning and negotiated like adults instead of waiting for others to do their work for them.

As an American, it is absolutely amazing to read this article by Gideon Levy, thinking PM Benjamin Netanyahu should make a speech stating that "He does not want peace." Of course, he wants peace, but as an intelligent leader, and knowing the Scripture, he knows what you evidently do not know, which is that Israel is not supposed to give up more and more land. Furthermore, if he froze the settlements, do you honestly think that is going to bring PEACE with the Palestinians? NO! If he gives away the Golan Heights, is that going to bring PEACE? NO! They will only demand more land with each and every section Israel gives to them. It is the Palestinians who DO NOT WANT PEACE. They want to take over Israel until it no longer exists, leaving only an Arab nation. Wake Up! You need to support Benjamin Netanyahu who is wise enough to do everything possible to protect Israel. I admire and respect him and believe he is a good and honorable man. I pray for God's protection over him.

So sorry but one does have to laugh at the thought of he should tell the truth. Like that would ever happen. I will not hold my breath on the truth ever being told. I am quite sure I would die waiting. War is all Israel wants and all the land . That has been beyond obvious for years. All 60 of them.

If Netanyahu would declare not longing for peace but for land, water and imperial power he would quit the thesis of eternal jewish victimhood by extinguishing any support of other nations, worth billions of dollars a year. The show must go on. The show will go on. Shalom? Just a joke.

Europe didn t come to a firm and courageous decision? That?s right. Guess, why? Every time western governments and every time non-Jews dare to criticize Israel they automatically are blamed as anti-semitic. That?s daily routine. Especially Germans are used to that. So we all smile at everything what is happening: We don?t mind the destruction of installations and infrastructure in Gaza, supported or even paid by EU and destroyed by IDF; we don?t support UN-sanctions against Israel, but we support IDF by giving military submarines as a gift, we stand by Israel and its deep desire to launch nuclear war in ME by attacking Iran. I remember a heartbreaking campaign of a jewish organization in Germany, supported by German politicians, to help the population of Israel in its utmost demand for water. We do that, knowing exactly that it is Palestine what needs more water, not Israel. European chancellors and presidents always favor Israel for not being blamed as the new Hitlers.

The International community has made it clear their intent is to stop Israels occupation and illegal settlement activity....Israel will not deter that. Israel has two options....sink or swim.

How could Haaretz let Gideon Levy print this trash? Israel has acted in peace for almost a century. Time for the Arabs to act in peace. Thats something that has been lacking for more than 1 century with very few acceptions of Arab leaders. Why dont the Arabs want to create another Arab Palestinian state? Why doesnt the PA care more about its people than care about doing things against ISrael. when will the Arab world wake up to realize its leaders have kept them uneducated, in camps, revised history. The Arab world is a house of cards ready to fall, and thats a good thing. Gideon Levy's rediculous yellow journalism just feeds their revisionist history. He does more harm to peace than Likud ever could do.

Mr Levy You are a wise and honest man, you see the truth and see a clear path going the right way. It is sad that there are not more of those who think like you. Thank you

He'd get my vote if I was an Israeli citizen

As you have hate in your heart I feel pity for you.I say love thy neighbour and bitterness will consume you from the inside out if you let it.Learn to love the best in people and try overlook faults in others and you will be loved in return.

Excellent condensed synopsis of Holy Land in the last 100 years, should be required reading for all. Unfortunately, the Peaceniks rarely pay attention to facts.

When I read this column, I feel phsyically sick. why? Speaking as a European who lived and worked in Israel from 2000-05, I know that every word of it is true. It's disheartening- a state with so much potential (beyond the economic) is hellbent on entrenching itself as a third rate ethnic democracy- suuch a waste.

...who lived in Gaza and wrote an article accusing Hamas or the "Palestinians" of everything he accuses Israel of, then there would be no more Gideon Levy. But he is not. He lives in Israel, so he can write whatever nonsense he wants without having to fear anything. And this is, of course, how it should be. Gideon vomits, and the racists rejoice. It has happened before, it will happen again. I think I will watch a movie now.

Here is a better way of dealing with this matter ... stop all the negotiations at the top and substitute them with lower level officials who talk with lower level Pal officials. They can talk about how to integrate services like buses and water and garbage collection etc.If the Pals won't talk just do it unilaterally. Move on to 'life as she is lived'. Stop trying to 'square the circle'. The Pals cannot accept any agreement with Israel and altho' Gideon Levy is fundamentally right ... Israel is happy to go on as she is now ...the Pals also are happy to go on as it is now. Israeli soldiers/officials should try and get over the grubby racist way they treat the Pals and try 'soft power'...politeness,manners,'live and let live', They will find that this makes a difficult situation more manageable for all involved. Gideon, why should the Pals do a deal?? Allah has never abandoned the muslims and won't abandon the Pals ... all they have to do is keep fighting. They believe this.

What Israel can do to get peace is obvious Jasper...end the occupation and illegal settlements. Remove its troops and control over Palestinian Territory and house its settlers on its own Sovereign Territory. Israel has never fully settled its OWN Sovereign territory. It has no need for Palestinian territory other than greed. If we talk of wars past. The antagonism against Arabs came from Plan Dalet and that is where Israel lost its trust. 67 war was an offensive by Israel...not defensive. Israel has no legal claim on the West Bank other than greed.

Bravo! We have always known what Netanyahu is about. This gives us an opportunity to show who the people of Israel truly are. It has been a sham! We are not people of conscience. We are people who have shown no interest in anyone's well being except our own. Israelis are certainly not the victims. They are the perpetrators of unspeakable crimes and those crimes are inflicted on their neighbors and on themselves.

My preferred interpretation? It is in fact the "interpretation" of Shindler (2008, pp. 136-137); Morris (2001, p. 330); Wasserstein (2004, p. 122); Oren (2002, p. 313); Gorenberg (2006, p. 52, 110). Have you read these sources? I would call the weight of agreement here a scholarly consensus, not my preferred interpretation.

I like your texts and respect your view on things, but now I think it is time for you to go.

Israel is rapacious: no sacrifice by others is too great. Israel has consumed one Palestinian lamb every day for the last twenty years. What makes you think that they are not prepared to sacrifice them all. And then what?

The book by Shlaim, an endnote in which I mentioned in my previous response, is The Iron Wall, the title of which I may not have mentioned in that post. You cited that work in our previous discussion, so it is puzzling that you have avoided discussing the evidentiary basis of Shlaim's conclusions when I have repeatedly noted to you specifics regarding problems in that evidence.

i should say the people who have voted for netanyahu, lieberman and the other government parties are equally guilty as those politicians, because without their votes those leaders and parties would not have the power, as they have now. both are guilty, accomplices and are responsible, for a situation which lasts already since 1948. do the zionists really want peace, not only on their terms but also with brave compromizes. both parties would have interest in peace, for what is the alternative? thousands of palestinians have been thrown out of their country. how would the zionists or any other people think if they were/are thrown out of their own country by another/other people(s)? both have the same right of return to the territory of about 26000 km2 in the middle east to settle there.

Many of the comments here confirm Mr Levy's arguments. It would be ever so interesting to watch how the people of Israel would react to such refreshing candour, not to mention the international world.

The Gibeonites were smarter than the Israelites. Thus, they were able to stay in the land--a rude awaking for Joshua, etc. At this time Manasseh was not a pariah. Joshua was a Joseph Ephraimite, and cousins with the Manassehites. They still had royal sway then. During the Period of the Judges, Manasseh became a pariah because of a preponderance of dark skin. Judah, trying to assert its rule also tried to make Joseph Ephraim pariahs without much success. This approach did accelrate the kingdom split, mainly Judah's fault, but not entirely. I am blessed literally with the blood of all Twelve Tribes, also by adoptions.

To say that Israel doesn't want peace is ridiculous. Israel YEARNS for peace. Israelis are overwhelmingly sick of war and death. If you don't believe that, you're living in la-la land.

....into negotiations anymore. In the end, peace will come, when the Interna- tional community will have the stomach to force upon a solution on both parties. Israel will have to be pressured into with- drawing from most parts of the West Bank and accepting East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinians (if that is possible without dividing it, that's okay with me, even if I doubt it), and the Palestinians and Arabs will have to be pressured into giving up the right of return (probably with the exception of a small minority of refugees), and accepting Israels right to exist as a mainly Jewish state. Only (brutal) pressure will bring results, nothing else....

It appears as if Ben-Ami is, rather, simply an echo of Shlaim, given the similarities in their conclusions and presentation regarding the cabinet meeting(and the eight works by Shlaim listed in his bibliography) and Ben-Ami's failure to present any evidence whatever to support his conclusions regarding the cabinet meeting. That is why I have repeatedly challenged you to discuss Shlaim, whom you cited in our original discussion, and who does at least offer evidence, particularly his endnote number 56 on page 623, which shows, however, that the evidence he offers is incorrect and fails adequately to support his conclusions.

Why I haven't read this article till now . It is so relaxing to know that there are still people who like to be honest and direct .

smadar, look forward to your dreams when you blow out the candles ,if you have enough breath left!

Once again, as he has so many times before, Gideon Levy has told the truth about Israel. What I would add to his sad but correct article is that it is not only Netanyahu who has thwarted peace but every PM who has come before him. Israel has long proven by its actions that what it wants far more than peace is land and as much land as it can grab without paying a penalty. Surely the U.S., as Levy so correctly states, under the thumb of the Israeli Lobby, will do nothing but only give more U.S. tax dollars so the settlements and land theft can continue. Gideon, I wish you were cloned a million or more times. Perhaps then there would be a real opportunity for peace. Sadly, your numbers are all too few and I am afraid that real peace will remain only a dream.

Some interesting remarks from ben ami--re Barak,s/Israel,s peace intentions. See page 250/251. Der Zweifler has the horse before the cart. All evidence available supports the contention that Israel does not want peace. Hell, just look at the Likud Charter and add that to comments made by former Israeli leaders.

And the "3 No's of Khartoum" were in response to?

it may help you to understand just why Israel is not a partner in peace. The Palestinians have already compromised by allowing Israel to stay on land that is outside the borders declared by BG in 1948. Israel is the one with the power--Israel is the one who can and does block any attemopt to make peace. How can you be so blind or convinced by Netanyahu,s lies. Even if he wanted to make peace ,big if, he is at the behest of the illegal settlers, so is in no position to go against them. Israel has sown it,s own demise. The only outcome now is a Bi National State--there is nowhere to put a viable contigiuous sovereign State for the Palestinians and they are not going anywhere. I do however admire your eternal optimism.

"Shindler comments in a more recent scholarly work that" More recent? 2005 to 2008. Please explain how this is in any way significant? Does Shindler bring some "solid evidence" to bear. Something new that ben ami would not have been aware of in 2005. Or is it simply Eban's echo again, reverberating through the decades regardless. As for footnotes, you will notice my own words: "that he (ben ami)makes some passing reference to this 67 so called peace offer episode". Yet this paragraph is in the context of a wider and quite detailed appraisal of Israeli-Arab peace/war moves subsequent to 67 so need not be summarily dismissed(as were the archived discussions of Sanders and Rusk and Eban et al which did rather jar with your preferred interpretation of events).

There are more writings older than the 19th century about the people know as "Palestinians" than you ever imagined, and which, obviously, you have never read. During time of Biblical references to Canaan, the land was also know as "Palestine." Herodotus in 5th century B.C referred to the land as Syria and Palestine. Inscription of Egyptian temple Habu (Ramses III) refers to bound Palestinians. Assyrian emperor Sargon II referred to land as Pilist, linguistic equivalent of Palestine. Thutmos II 1492-1479 B.C campaigned in Palestinian. In 7th century, Byzantine docs referred to Palestine. When the Israelites crossed the river Jordan into Canaan, the land was inhabited, among others, by three semite nations: Amorites, Hittites and Jebusites. The Jebusites had already built Jerusalem and inhabited it for 100 years after the Israelites arrived. In the academic world, many notable scholars and historians are convinced the Jebusites are the forbears of Palestinians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuheir_Mohsen Zuhair Mohsen is perhaps most widely known in the West for having made the following statement in a March 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw[1]: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism. "For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." While this contravened the PLO charter, which affirms the existence of a Palestinian people with national rights, it was in line with al-Sa'iqa's Syrian-Baathist ideology. Zuheir Mohsen (Arabic: زهير محسن, also transcribed Zuhayr Muħsin or Zahir Muhsein) (b. 1936, d. July 26, 1979) was a Palestinian leader of the Syria-controlled as-Sa'iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979. Previously active as a refugee in the Jordanian wing of the Ba'th party, he was installed in this position after defence minister Hafiz al-Assad's 1969-1970 takeover in Syria, which he had supported against the previously dominant regime of Salah Jadid.

to make foreign policy changes, then it's predictable PM Netanyahu will also make necessary concessions for peace with the Palestinians as he's stated. How is it that both Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert believe that he is capable? You know that I've always questioned his perspectives about the M.E. and the Likud's policies over the years, but as you see no matter which Israeli government governs, whether from the right (Likud/Shas), the left (Labour/Meretz) or centre (Kadima), it's very difficult to do anything progressive towards peace. Everyone has their own perspective but eventually, the Israelis and Palestinians will have to work together to make the compromises for coexistence. I'm hopeful this will be the case.

Why indeed should Israel wish for peace with a people who want her destruction? Levi is a misfit. Surely he must be aware, if the Palestinians ,God forbid were ever in the situation of ruling over the "Holy Land", there would be no Gas Chambers, everone big or small young or old would be slaughtered by those Loonies. A religion which condones , that a father will give his 10 year old daughter to a man over 50 , who has allready 3 wifes! I am sure Levi would like this!

" Jeremiah searched trough the streets of Jerusalem for a man who acts justly who seeks integrity" Jeremiah is still looking, and Netanyahu is far from being the answer.

The nomadic arabs followed the work and came to work for the zionists. Eventually some founded villages because life under the zionists was good & better than under Turkish rule There were also a few isolated small arab villages and there were jews who had lived there for thousands of years although they mostly lived in cities like Hebron, Jerusalem & Tsfat. In WW1 the British want arab help and they promised arab independence in the region ( arabs assumed they would get the entire ME ) but the French & British divided up the ME between theselves It upset the arabs & the jews who had been led to believe they would get a homeland. The arabs rejected the idea of giving the Holyland to the jews and the British compromise was to create Transjordan in 80% of Palestine & the remaining 20% they were given a League of Nations mandate to rule & prepare to impliment Balfour but the British decided they wanted to stay. In 1947 the UN voted for partition of that 20% 51 to jews & 49% to arabs.

I have the Ben Ami book. Can you point to one piece of supporting evidence, in a footnote or otherwise, he offers to support his contentions? It sounds as if he is simply following Shlaim. I informed you at the time that I had found at least one, and probably two, significant and relevant errors in Shlaim's account, and would be willing to discuss them with you, but you failed to respond on that issue. Shindler comments in a more recent scholarly work that "on 19 June 1967, by the narrow majority of eleven to ten, the Israeli cabinet offered to return Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria" (History of Modern Israel, 2008, Cambridge University Press, pp. 136-137).

The British illegally gave away 80% of Palestone mandated to them by the League of Nations to create the jewish homeland to create the arab state of Transjordan by importing a Heshimite prince from Arabia. The remaining 20% was not arab territory there were arab RESIDENTS & there were jewish residents but politcally it didnt belong to either of them If you lived in what the British called Palestine then you were a palestinian and not even a citizen but a subject of the crown. The real palestinians are the jews who were living there continuously long before the arabs left Arabia.. What they call palestinians today is a political invention of the PLO. It gave their cause credibility if they were trying to destroy Israel for the palestinian people who came from historic Palestine Most the REAL refugees were decended from as far as Iraq when the followed the early zionists at that time the idea of a nation state were not part of arab culture it was a European one & they were nomadic

Sir, Indeed if/when Israel would cede the territory of Judea and Samaria, the local Arabic bands will arise. Foreign residents calling themselves by foreign-British name is self revealing. "Palestinians" are not as worthy as Israelis in many senses except the residency rights - and their rights should be respected. "Palestinians" declined having their territory - did not claim it in 1947- and their will should be respected.

Der Zweifler, you may remember our earlier correspondence where I proffered the view held by many, that immediately after the Six Day War, no offer was actually made to the Arab parties to accept a withdrawal of Israeli forces, or rather that it was not clear that such an offer was ever conveyed to the Arabs or any offer that was intended to be conveyed. You contested this on the basis that Avi Schlaim's claims to this effect was not reliable or some such comment. You preferred to ignore the other quotations from State Dept archives which I did present involving discussions between high ranking Israeli officials including Eban and the then Sec of State Rusk as well as others,, these of course undermined your argument and strongly supported my own contention. However, I would just point out that having recently read Shlomo ben ami 's; Scars of War Wounds of Peace, that he (ben ami)makes some passing reference to this 67 so called peace offer episode. Being a former Foreign Minister and somewhere to the right of Schlaim in his political views and a historian of some repute you might be interested to know his own views: "notwithstanding Eban's insistence that this was indeed the case there seems to be no solid evidence to corroborate his claim. No formal peace proposal was made either directly or indirectly by Israel. The Americans who were briefed of the Cabinet's decision by Eban were not asked to convey it to Cairo and Damascus as official peace proposals, nor were they given indications that Israel expected a reply. At its meeting on the 19th June the Israeli Gov developed policy guidelines ; it did not discuss a peace initiative, nor did it ever formalize it as such." P125 Regards ibsen.

... is Land for Peace. But what is not taken into account is that from the 1920s up until today, there is not the slightest evidence that the bumper sticker speaks truth. The Jews in 1948 had to fight their way to shore to claim their UN-blessed new home. That and two other wars to follow were existential: The stated purpose was elimination of Jews. Ceding Gaza did not produce one second of peace, to the contrary. Both Fatah and Hamas are of like mind on the future of "Palestine": No Jews from Lebanon to Aqaba. While they say they will "accept" 100% of WB, they also say that will never end the struggle. There is no daylight between Arafat, Meshaal, and Abbas, at least on this issue. So please explain what Israel can do that will create peace? Anyone?

"They didn`t, the British did. They named the former Ottoman territory `Palestine`, hence the people being referred to as Palestinians. There is a veritable growth industry in Israel trying to pretend that Palestine and Palestinians don`t really exist." Cummings, can you refer us to a 19th century (or older) book about the people now known as, "Palestinians" so we can better understand the rich history you attribute to them?

r cumming my esteemed colleague from wherever you live, history did not begin when the Muslims captured Israel in 640 AD. First animals owned Israel and all the land on earth. Then humans came and dispossessed the animals. Then one set of humans dispossessed other humans of the land. At some point, Jews controlled Israel. While their ability to have a sovereign Jewish government was denied them by a series of foreign invaders throughout history, Jews still lived in Israel. There have always been some Jews living in their own land, for the last 4000 years. To say that no Jews lived in Israel prior to the Zionist Movement is the BIG LIE.

It is clear that "Palestinians" do not want to live peacefully alongside Israel; hence the attacks against Jews. It is also clear that Israel does not want to live next to people who might kill Jews at any moment; hence the attacks against "Palestinians." Jordan already has a peace treaty with Israel. The "Palestinians" can be induced to leave Gaza and west bank for Jordan. The international community can support the transfer of population with money and other help to the immigrants and to develop Jordan's infrastructure. Jordan is already at least 75% "Palestinian." Haaretz usually censors me. I hope this goes through.

This is nothing new. Israel never wanted a Palestinian State, despite the rethoric. In fact there are two things Israel wants: 1) avoid any negotiations that could lead to a Palestinian State, and 2) ensure that the Palestinians get he blame for the absence of negotiations.

and would be anyhow even if there was no Israel. War replete with full scale nuclear exchanges and it's ensuing millions upon millions dead.

Unless both sides want peace, any unilateral moves will be seen as weakness. Jews have been weak long enough. Now it is time to defend the gains that have been made.

Its obvious that everyone here that disagrees with Levy's article bascially confirms what he is saying. Everyone here critisizing him is infact confirming his point, that contradiction that bibi has of saying he wants peace, but evverything all his actions go in the oppostite direction makes no sence. And people remarkes here supporting bibi are just as contradictory, which is the point of the article. Excellent article, from an objective person.

some of the settlers behave abominably.they are subject to the law.when they are not pursued and jailed it is monstrously unfair. my point is that many jews look upon the hills of the west bank as the original jewish homeland.that may be unfair to you but it is a fact.

By settling the land and wiping out the people that lived there at the time.

Its refreshing to hear that some people see the truth most of the world see, but the deference its from within Israel. I know many in Israel will disagree with this article, I just hope the majority agree for the sake of peace.

In The Iron Cage, Rashid Khalidi examines why the Palestinians were unable to establish an independent state, and recognizes that it was due in part to "failures and incapacities" among the Palestinians and not simply external factors such as other "parties" including the British, French, and Soviet Union that Khalidi believes frustrated Palestinian aspirations to statehood. You are incorrect to blame the failure to attain Palestinian statehood only on the Israeli occupation. Khalidi points to many earlier factors such as "greater income disparities on the Arab side by comparison with the relatively egalitarian Yishuv," which divided Palestinian society (just one example) (p. 20).

"Truth is, there are a great many of us who oppose the "land-for-peace" recipe for peace because we know it will not bring peace." let me guess : you want continued settlements and occupation for peace? You want one state for all? Your comments are meaningless because they do not articulate any position.

that people think that if Israel just pulled back to the 1967 borders there would be peace and harmony.Obviously there are a whole lot of people out there that don't understand the war-like nature of the Arabs and Islam in particular.

For your information the settlers consistute a big obstacle to peace in the region,their greed to palestinian land,commit, all sorts of hate crimes;killing innocent people,setting fields alight,hitting children on their way to school,expelling palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem leaving families in the cold,chopping down Olive trees.What did olive trees do to them? It is wrong and in human to impose the settlers on the palestians,what is going on in palestine to day can not be justified by any moral code of conduct,you must not render service to the settlers who knowingly or unknowingly dragging the jewish name into the mir.

war is more profitible no money in peace

It is simply the truth. How unusual. It's clear from the many comments published in this paper, a so-called moderate-to-left publication, that Israelis prefer blame to peace and really do just want the Palestinians to go away (code for that is "Jordan."). I agree with Levy, be honest about it. Everyone would think more of you.

As long as Israel manages to stay under a state of siege, Jewry from around the world will send them tons of money.

....why would he have spent the past 20 years of his political career with thwarting any kind of effort for a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians, so that he became even unbearable for solid right-winger Ariel Sharon....??? Why would he have told the settlers a few days ago, that after 10 months they can continue to build in the West Bank wherever they want...??? And why would he have led the campaign of hatred and incitement, which finally led to the killing of then PM Rabin...??? Have you already forgotten that...??? Gidoen Levy surely hasn't.

the name palestine was revived by the british mandate for ajewish state in 1922 it did not exist in 1917 and was really only created by arafat the egyptian. even when dividing the mandate illegally britain did not call it eastern palestine but transjordan. your argument is fallacious when applied to ireland spain catalans basques,turkey iraq iran the kurds the flemish in belgium tamils in sri lanka and kosovo serbia so on ! the arabs have no sovereignity nor de jure rights in the former mandated"palestine " territory !

but the officer in charge made a grievous error and wrote palestine. r cummings i have no doubt the palestinians are grateful for your support. israel would probably give up most of the land.with this condition.all military power in the region would be israeli.

Great article!! Except delusional people never experience Truthiness Break-Throughs. They suffer their brain dysfunction on everyone else, with an ardent persistance. Too much Survival Anxiety, with it's high levels of Cortisol damage dendrites and synapses to the point where objective thinking is physically impossible and illusory goals seem oh so attainable.

'Inhabitants of a territory is not a nation' The moment Israel's occupying army leaves and the PA has sovereignty over the territory, there will be a fully-fledged Pal nation. At the moment the territory is a non-state entity but it does not mean there is not a Palestinian people or legal territorial entity. There is a tendency to equate 'race' and 'nation'. They are entirely different. Kenya has 7 main African ethnic groups/races and as many again non-African. But they are all Kenyans. Israel has Jews, Arabs, Russians etc., but they are all Israelis. 'Nation' does not mean the exclusive preserve of one racial group. It is a legal description of a defined area with generally recognised borders wherein a constituted authority exercises sovereignty. To insinuate that Palestinians don't really exist or are not as worthy as Israelis, is to fail to understand that they already HAVE a nation, they just do not have full sovereignty yet, thanks wholly to Israel's never-ending occupation.

You are still on the wrong sight of the fight. Israel did not ban minaret, our muslims are happier than yours!

The Sinai with its oil was given up for peace, which never really came anyhow. Why don't you just invite the Romans back Gideon?

I'm not convinced by Gideon Levy's article suggesting that Netanyahu's motivation is not sincere about peace with the Palestinians and it's contrary to what he's stated and enacted, eg. settlement freeze. When he states he wants to return to negotiations with the Palestinians, it's towards working out the details to a final status agreement - this entails all core issues. As we see the current developments with challenges from various sectors, it's not an easy task to move forward in the Middle East, but not doing so will bring worse scenario. PM Begin, also from Likud, faced the same challenges before ceding the Sinai to Egypt, and we are partners today with Egypt. Gideon Levy should spell out exactly what PM Netanyahu and the Palestinians should be doing to bring progress because this article doesn't really convey concrete steps.

Levy - you sound like Judge Goldstone. He stated as fact Israel (as in YOUR country) deliberately kills civilians. You state as fact that Netanyahu doesn't want peace. Truth is, there are a great many of us who oppose the "land-for-peace" recipe for peace because we know it will not bring peace. We want peace for this nation every bit as much as you and the self-proclaimed peace camp do. It is precisely our conviction that the leftist approach to peace making will result in anything BUT peace that fuels our efforts to withstand that approach. To conclude that this makes us "opponents of peace" seriously gives away your naked bias in favor of "YOUR WAY." It does nothing to credit you as a journalist.

Israel wishes peace - unfortunately remaining neighboring states are Tehran controlled Shiite controlled entities not wishing peace with Israel. Hevenu Shalom Alehem but you did not want it.

"They didn`t, the British did. They named the former Ottoman territory `Palestine`, hence the people being referred to as Palestinians. Sir, At least some real approach. Just inhabitants of some territory lost by the real nation - "ottomanis?" Inhabitants of a territory is not a nation - Palestinians, Floridians, Bermudians, New Yorkers, New Jersians, etc.- are not the nations. Palestinians are not more nation than Alaskans. People who are referred by their geographic residence are just residents. They are residents of Judea and Samaria but if they prefer, Foreign/British name of the territory they are welcome to call the geography as they pleased.

SDHD gets close to the solution. It is not strictly necessary for the PA to give up any territory at all, as Israel has no valid legal claim on it. But they have accepted the reality of the big settlement blocs on the Green Line and agreed, at least with Olmert, to do a one-for-one land swap. They were offering to exchange 2.5% of the land, Israel wanted 7.5%, at least when Livni was negotiating. A compromise would therefore be around 5%. That would mean ceding Gush Etzion, Modin Illit, some settlements in western Samaria and several around West Jerusalem. About 40 in total and 270,000 settlers. It would NOT mean ceding Ariel or Ma'ale Adumin, which are too far into the middle of Palestine, or E Talpiyot, Har Homa etc in E 'J'sem. It would also mean vacating a lot of the smaller settlements in the east. That is the pill Netanyahu has to swallow. I doubt he can do it, he is trapped by his own electoral support and Eretz Israel beliefs. He will demand 10% or more and get no deal.

mr levy about europe you are right once more. Thanks to tell the truth.

Try to put on the face of impartiality, Gideon.Then your articles will appear relevant. Until Pals show they are interested in a real peace not the one where Hamas fired rockets on Israeli children for 8 years with the world doing nothing but a real peace I don't blame Israel for not wanting to play this game. This kind of article incites and does nothing for the cause of peace. Hold the Pals to the same standards of wanting peace-Their leadership doesn't

Were Israel to be honest about it's intent it would make everything far easier for everyone. The USA and the World would realize that the situation was hopeless and confront reality. Which is neither the USA, EU or Arab League is ACTUALLY going to do what would be necessary to force Israel to evacuate the West Bank and recognize a Palestinian state. Because Israel keeps on saying that it actually wants peace, fools in the USA and EU believe Israel. Honesty is not a bad policy. In the case of Israel it would be a liberating policy. No more need to lie, no need to pretend, no need to make excuses and prevaricate. Why not just tell the world that Israel wants Judea and Samaria, not Peace? Does Israel refuse to be honest with the world because it would require being honest with itself?

Las week was the 62th aniversary of Nov 29 recommendation. That very day no refugy existed yet, not even one...Netanyahu agreed to two States, butthe Palestinean actually didnt agree. Withwhom will you sign this days a reliable agreement? with Fatah, with Hamas? Are you in favor of a virtual agreement with a ghost?

to justify Israel's inability to do a fair deal on Palestine. In 1947, the UN gave away half of Palestine, an Arab territory, to a European caste who had once lived there. It is not surprising that the Arabs objected and fought! How would you feel - from the safety of London - if the UN decided to give away half of Israel to another race next week? Would you sigh, accept your lot and shake hands with them? And when they went on to evict Jews, seize their homes and land and businesses, would you turn the other cheek? Of course you wouldn't! The Arabs came to the point at Oslo of reluctantly accepting that what had happened could not be undone. The PLO recognised Israel. The Arab League has said it will upon Israeli withdrawal to the Green Line. The bit the Israeli narrative leaves out is that THINGS CHANGE: both sides have fought it to a standstill. Israel is no longer dealing with the Arabs of 1947. The only problem now is Israel's FURTHER land-grab of Arab territory.

Ever since the White Paper of 1939 peace has always had a low priority for Zionism. Before that, peace was necessarry for immigration.

'The Arabs used the word Palestine without knowing the meaning.' They didn't, the British did. They named the former Ottoman territory 'Palestine', hence the people being referred to as Palestinians. There is a veritable growth industry in Israel trying to pretend that Palestine and Palestinians don't really exist. Modern Palestine has of course been a recognised territory since 1922, 26 years before Modern Israel. It isn't Israeli territory legally, never was, never will be. This is the core fact at the heart of the Israeli lie. Not one Israeli leader, and particularly Netanyahu, can or dares to admit it, because the government would fall overnight. That is why Israel is always looking for a special deal, whereby it gets to keep the maximum possible amount of stolen land to appease its electorate, while knowing that the Pals and the UN will never buy it. There will have to be sanctions soon, as the Zionists are clearly incapable of doing the right thing.

in other words what are israel's plan,aims,envisaged final results.denouement.we also know,which is much worse,that the u.s.a. does not want peace,and again,the reasons perplex us.

A just vision is one that is reciprocal and not chauvinistically tribal in its morality. A vision that admits to the possibility of trading places, and being satisfied with the same outcome. What mutually fair outcome does Netanyahu see, after one year, five, and twenty? What is his vision of justice? After a struggle, American and South African whites succumbed to a higher justice, and gave up their privileged pedestal. What is Bibi's end game?

I am sure every government has WANTED peace but at the same time the attitude RIGHTLY is we want peace but we are not going to say no price is to high, you make your demand we will pay it no questions asked. The arabs think they can just give a shopping list of what they want and say now pay the bill. or else we will use terror. they have never learned the meaning of the word COMPROMISE. Its also a fact that the coalition system there is only are only limited concessions ANY government can make without falling. Livni wants to give away Jerusalem but she needs Shas to form a coalition & their price is guarantee that she will not sell off Jerusalem for a peace treaty and she refuses so Shas refuse to join her and the result is she can't form a coalition. Thats why we had elections after Livni took over Kadima she refused to give Shas that guarantee over Jerusalem so she couldnt put a government together. There are all kinds of issues that can bring a government down

You are yet again a journalist and humanist that sees through the rhetoric of politics, interests and the broken narrative that repeats itself over to a numb public. You have many who support you..including me. YOU are the real hope for Israel. Davide

the desparate writer likes to mention the jewish lobby in the usa there are more muslims then jews in the usa why dont the muslim in usa have their own lobby all these muslims do i cry about the jewish lobby that acts rather then talk are muslims incapable or do not desire such a lobby?

The comb over is nearly as obscene as his policies!

"LEFTISTS should admit they are in damage controll for the Pals"psm It is the "Izzies" who are in permanent damage control. As goes the Occupation--so goes the damage control. Poor psm---just cant get out of making excuses or finger pointing or sloganeering. He thinks the caps are what gets him attention. What freeze---psm--have you not noticed it does not meet the original roadmap requirements "ALL OCCUPIED TERRITORY".

Hi Dino, nice to see you again, the best representative of Europeans in Haaretz.

most of the settlers are anything but greedy.they believe in the jewish homeland.to solve the problems of the region you must first understand them. sticking your own labels on them does not further that ambition.

Natanyahu wants peace BUT on his conditions,by having the staus quo remain et al.Thus the situation will continue until we have another war, more bombing etc. The Palestinians also are afraid of governing their own stat.... So in the words of Kolehet,"There is nothing new under the sun"

"that is not jewish behaviour" that is the reaction of all those i have spoken to.even those who keep quiet are a little ashamed.

"Israel doesn't want peace," eh? Sounds kinda like "the terrorists hate our freedom" to this American.

Let the jews who claim to be the choosen race prove their title by choosing way of non violance for vindicating their psision on earth.Every country is their home including Palestine,not by aggression but by loving service,It has been said;Greed is sin and sin leads to death,the settlers are seeking land not peace.

living in israel he knows beter then anyone the depth of anxiety and heartache parents are subjected to at the thought of their children in the armed forces. i remember many years ago a bereaved mother saying all the land was worth less to her then a "square inch on her child's body" levy persistently blames israel.difficult to understand.

but they are not.so do i hate all scotsmen?over to you alistair.

we do not want to give up the jewish homeland.

What a classic! Alistair from Scotland has put in a nutshell what all lovers of Gideon's rhetoric have in the bottom of their hearts..

I am in full accordance with your excellent, clear article. Netanyahu must respond to this statement, lay all cards openly and show how honest or dishonest he is regarding peace.

gives comment on nothing at all .

....the moderate (Indonesian) version of Islam raising its voice again !! :)

...of the Jewish religion. If right-wing (and part of mainstream) Israel/ Diaspora would not have abandoned all the values of the Jewish religion out of a mixture of fear, greed and religious zealotry (expansive Zionism), there could be much more peace, harmony and stability in the region today. Exactly the same applies of course to the extremists on the other side (Islamic Jihad, military wing of Hamas, Hezbollah etc).....

And telling about the truth, we could also find another name for that country, because Israel means "the people that fights the same fight as Elohim fights", which is the fight for truth and justice, the fight that defend oppressed people. We could also say that Palestinians are not the Palestim of the Bible because if you study that name, you can find that it means "the elephant that runs over, crushes the basement" which doesn't look like the Palestinians.

For some weeks I have googled the West Bank. I distinguished the old towns from the settlements, I looked at the pictures, and I read the associated articles in the internet that tell about the closing of roads for non-Jewish inhabitants, about the deprivation of old towns like Salfit, while settlements like Ariel ares swamped with water and energy. The result is definite: no more chance for a 2 state solution! Just wait for the non-Jewish to ask for equal access to traffic, water, energy, work and passports. Neither Bibi nor any other leader can resist for long.

The pattern is to go through the motions of being involved in a 'peace process' which is all 'process' and no 'arrival'. This is a kind of sop to US, EU pressure / cojoling while all the time establishing facts on the ground in the form of settlements. The only positive development is that more and more people are wising up to the fact that Israel has no interest in a just peace with the Palestinians, the country is becoming a pariah state in the way South Africa under apartheid was and this is a scenario with no future in the long run.

There is big difference between Netanyahu does not want peace and wants to create great Israel and the Israeli people do not want peace. If both of them share the same goal then Hamas has the right to reject peace with Israel. By the way it looks from Netanyahu pictures that he is sick is that right?

"We all know that peace and colonial expansion in occupied land are totally incompatible and are Israel`s big lie." People who aren't morons know that Israel isn't expanding beyond areas where BOTH Jews AND Arabs have lived. Here is what's compatible as far as MAINTAINING a Jewish presence... The Palestinians give up their demand for 100% of the territories and settle for something in the mid-to-high 90 percentile.

"If Bibi had half the guts of Levy. The peace process would be well under way." There would be no Israel.

When the palestinians and all the arab countries,for that matter, wanted Peace ? But of-course no one who hate the Jews & Israel asked himself ! Israel was the first who wanted peace since 1947 ! And what the palestinians & the arabs wanted all these many years ?! You never asked yourself this question ! Lies are blind & can see only black !

Who sit back and refuse to negotiate expecting the EU etc will do it all for them.They ignore the settlement freeze which the settlers obviously see as genuine. The Pals cannot admit the obvious,the ball is their court,the fellow travellers have to move the spotlight back onto Israel.

Go on Netanyahu: stop cheating, lying, delaying, deceiving; show the world your true face and Israel's hidden agenda: all the Palestinians out of the West Bank.

its called jordan on 78 % of the mandate !

Do you know how to wink and nod while lying to your audience? It doesn't work that way. Mr. Netanyahu would fall apart if he had to tell the unvarnished truth, just as you would if you tried his shtick. At least, thanks to the electronic media and people like yourself, the truth is starting to dawn on those sectors of the public that still read.

Gideon Levy should admit; peace with whom? Palestine is dead born start up, The Arabs used the word Palestine without knowing the meaning. Palestine is a Jewish ID,

...Netanyahu should admit Israel doesn't want peace ... He doesn't have to admit that, we knew it already since 40 years ago..

Indeed most Israeli's are not ready to surrender the land that has been occupied, and the price of that is ongoing conflict. The Golan and all the settlements have warped their values and perception. But Mr. Levy again ignores the underlying fact and precedent that the Arabs attacked Israel from the beginning and repeatedly. Peace is a two way street, and the Arabs down't want to acknowledge that. Israel should withdraw, but so should the Arabs acknowledge the fact of Israel's existence.

This story is just that; a fairy tale story. The only peace partner at the table is ISRAEL.. We give and we give and all we get in return is demands to give more and rockets from Gaza. How much more of God's given Land to the Jews must we give away for PEACE. The proble with the PA, Hamas and Iran is that they don't want peace with Isarel...they want ALL the pieces of Israel. THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!! The God of Israel will NOT let it happen, no matter what all the anti-semites in the world thinks...they are all IDIOTS. The Bible says thaat "God laughs at the wicked, for he sees that his day is coming" Psalm 37:13

Of all the truthful and insightful comments Levy makes this one stands out: "There will also no longer be a need to continue using the phrase "without preconditions" while decisively changing the situation on the ground over and over." A courageous man dares to state what the majority of the world believes :Israel does not want peace. We all know that peace and colonial expansion in occupied land are totally incompatible and are Israel's big lie. What does Mr Levy get in return? Accusations of being a self hating Jew, an antisemite, or a leftist liberal. Come on right wingers you can do better than that.

The peace process would be well under way.

Israel really WANTS peace. It just wants peace entirely on its own terms. You're right, in a way, when you say, "There are no terrorist attacks so there are no Arabs." But you should realize that the Israeli DESIRE is rather, "When there are no Arabs, there are no attacks", i.e. there is peace. This is the only peace that Israel as a whole desires, as you alluded to when you said "Maybe they will finally fulfill our dreams and disappear". The entire Zionist settler enterprise, the blockade on Gaza, the treatment of Israeli Arabs and Bedouin as second-class citizens (or worse) within the Israeli "democracy"... All of this is designed to eliminate or drive away the "others", so that Israel can be entirely a Jewish state and yet claim to be a democracy. And, of course, Israel must obtain for itself as much as possible of any potentially available land, water and mineral rights, and other strategic resources for its Jewish citizens. Will it stop with the Golan, Sinai, West Bank, etc?

Just because Israel doesn't capitulate in the way Levy wants doesn't mean it doesn't want peace. What a ridiculous libel.

There will be no peace or solution forthcoming while those who boast of freedom and democracy are intolerant of the views and culture of others living in there own land

Israel wants a fractured, ungovernable Palestine peppered with settlements and exclusive highways. In the new Palestine, settlers can provoke Palestinians and flee safely to their IDF protected compounds. Then the IDF can attack and occupy the remaining Palestinian ghettos under the pretense of protecting the settlers. There is no intention of peace, justice or truth from Israel. This is not Judaism. This is greed and hate.

Nearly all the Palestinian people, arabs and Moslems as well as most of the world population know that Israel does not want peace, so there is no need for Natanyaho speech to declare the real aims of Zionists in their expansionist state. Especially the Palestinians know this fact very well and we have prepared ourself for a long and continuous struggle to free our self and may be the Israelis from this wild and aggressive occupation.

Thank you for telling the truth

"There are no terrorist attacks so there are no Arabs." seems to me an acceptable definition of peace. The Pals could move to the Falklands or to the Kerguelen,Then they would no longer have to suffer the settlers. That would bring peace and wellbeing to the world.

urgently. we, jews, in our state palestinians in their state. We live separated forever we can't live together anymore.

define "peace"so I can decide if I want it or not. define "settler" so I can decide again.

When your friends come to the table and discuss reasonable stuff, in light of 2009 facts, then something will be accomplished. Until then, your silly words only add to the din. What will you place on the table when International sanctions are placed on Israel? What will you do when Israel finally loses American support which given Israel's contempt for America is likely to happen? What will you do when the International community really cranks the pressure up in the New Year....All well and good having smart answers now....you are at the start of your lowest status in International History...How much further you choose to go is up to you...it will get worse unless you end the occupation and illegal settlements...that is guaranteed.

No trust in the Palestinians is the cause of lack of pprogress. After withdrawing from Lebanon and Gaza, what did we get? A bad precedent all around

Gideon Levy's self hatred knows no bounds. His apparent rejection of any Jewish rights or self-respect within our ancestral homeland reeks of someone who has cast off the yolk of any affinity for the Jewish people. Always placing the blame for the ongoing conflict squarely by the feet of Israel and her leadership puts Levy solidly in the company of the world's despots and bigots. As far as I'm concerned, include Levy in with the prisoner swap for Schalit. He'll be happier with those he truly loves.

Say it loud - Say it proud!

I think all sides see the truth in what this article states. I feel sorry for israel and what lays ahead while they keep their heads in the sand and yell anti-semitism against the whole world- good luck israel- I really mean it

You realized the Israelis didn't want peace during the second intafada? Why did they withdraw from Gaza? Is it for Gideon's reason that, "what we really want to do: to build and build in the territories"? The problem is not Israel's unwillingness to make peace, the problem is the lack of a partner in such an arangement. It might have been easier if the "partners" didn't elect a terrorist regime bent on Israel's destruction. Gideon seemed to miss that fact.

It is only desirable that rock throwing and knifing, and shooting rockets and stuff like that stay low level like they are now. Do you think you have a TRUTH that everyone in the Holy Land will suddenly say, "Wow!" and jump into a tub of warm jello and hug each other and sing kumbali, and rejoice that Gideon Levy brought us all together? Didn't think so. When your friends come to the table and discuss reasonable stuff, in light of 2009 facts, then something will be accomplished. Until then, your silly words only add to the din.

It's not Israel who won't come to the table. This article is kind of crazy and amusing, but pure fiction. The only thing close to true in this article is that Israel is not convinced that the terrorists are capable of peace. Israel is not the one with stated goals of destruction, that is the doctrine of the popular and elected government of terror.

...that he's just another ultra left-wing Jewish anti-semite who believes that appeasing terrorists will make them love you. What a way to make a living. He's got all the morals and ethics of Bernie Madoff, but none of the brains.

Gideon, you are finally beginning to grasp the sad, tragic truth I saw after Israeli Jews turned to Sharon during the Second Intifada. It is like Sodom and Gomorrah. There are not enough Israeli Jews committed to peace to save Israel from the catastrophe that now appears inbevitable. So tragic.

The most honest man in Israel,Gideon levy.If all Jews were like you I would want to be Jewish too.Thankyou, Mr Levy,My wife and I think you are wonderful and if you were running Israel the world would salute you and your country

Everything written is common knowledge, but like you said, "there is a North Korean leader in Jerusalem who is as stubborn as a mule," and we all know mules don't care about what the horses think. That's why they either need to be tamed or put in their place.

... your clueless self running rampant again. So, why exactly should any PM negotiate anything away with the current Palestinian leadership? They have nothing of value they can deliver - be it quiet in Gaza or an acknowledgement that Israel must be a Jewish state. They can't - their entire narrative would come crashing down.

For all the reasons cited bt Levi, those with eyes and ears, and grey matter in between know full well what Netanyahu is all about, what he stands for, and what he opposes. Netanyahu represents evrything that is lothsome about Israel and some Israelis. Netanyahu is the chuvenistic, racist and dishonest politician incarnate. He is the secular version of the intolerant bigotted orthodox religious hordes. He and they are the idelogical latter day disciples of Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Hasmonaeans who brought misery on the Yehudaites. We all know that. Netanyahu needs to admit to nothing. His actions speek volumes.