Opinion  Ray Hanania
Different approach to negotiations
Ray Hanania
Published: 12.06.06, 18:50
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
33 Talkbacks for this article
1. Terror and murder are not "negotions"
yehuda ,   new york usa   (06.12.06)
While Ray Hanina's is undoubtedly sincere, and wants peace, he seems to find "both sides" equally mistaken. That is not true. The Arabs have always rejected a "two state" solution! Whatever Ray feels the Arabs need, they were already offered it, and rejectied it. First they rejected the Peel commission, which would have given them a state, and MOST of the Jewish part of Israel. Then they rejected the UN partition plan, which again would have given them MORE than Ray thinks they want. Then came the "three nos", Then even after Sadat, the Palestinians rejected any Israeli state on any terms. Came Oslo, and more terror. the Barak-Clinton formula failed, according to Clinton, because Arafat demanded an Arab majority, ("right of return" ) in Both states. Now comes the overwhelming Arab vote in favor of Terror and Murder, (hamas) and again "push the Jews into the sea". Once Sadat showed he wants peace, by going to Israel BEFORE any agreement, the agreement just became details, and Begin gave him almost everything. Their is NO evidence, that the vast majority of Palestinians will settle for anything less than "push the Jews into the sea", and until they realize, that as long as they keep trying, they are the one's that will lose everything, peace is impossible.
2. So biased and naive
Mike ,   TA   (06.12.06)
"Palestinians and Israelis are unavoidable partners in Palestine, both claiming the same land as their own..." in Palestine?? Ray, you are a mediocre comic and a complete hack at political analysis. Why Ynet continues to publish your garbage is beyond me... You are a wannabe "Palestinian"....as a christian, they would burn your business, murder your wife, and rape your daughters... By the way, your internet TV show "CounterPoint" looks like a junior high production.
3. To Mr. Hanania
Josh ,   Jerusalem   (06.12.06)
Your distortion of reality amazes me every time Ray. I sometimes wonder if you do it on purpose, or if you're just missing a screw.
4. Have to Re-establish Trust First
David ,   NYC   (06.12.06)
I agree with a lot of what Ray says, but he's completely wrong about Camp David. Israel offered the Palestinians a state in at least 95% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, with sovereignty in Jerusalem, and a resonable compromise on the right of return. Arafat not only rejected that offer outright, he then launched the second intifada to try to get through terror what he couldn't get through negotiation. I agree that it's important to show Palestinians a vision of what they can have, of their ultimate state, but doing everything in one "big step" is impossible. Israel needs to know that a Palestinian state won't just be used as a base for attacking Israel. So far the Pal track record isn't good. Before the 67 war and the occupation, the West Bank and Gaza were used by Pal terrorists to launch terror attacks against Israeli civilians. During the Olso period, the PA territories were also used as staging ground for massive suicide bombings and other attacks. And every obligation and promise the pals made under Oslo to fight terror and end incitement were broken. Newly "Liberated" Gaza is also being used to attack Israel. Israel can never agree to "one big step" because there is absolutely no reason to have any faith or trust in Palestinian promises right now. Only a gradual process can re-establish trust between the two sides, and that will take time.
5. always saying no
Amy ,   albany   (06.12.06)
I thought your insight into the Palestinians looking at the stone before that could see the road might also play into this. Can't they dream a dream and show how Israel fits into their vision? Terrorism and intentionally injuring civilians as a strategy for partnership is perverse. Why not emulate Ghandi instead of the tribal vengance we mostly witness by Palestinians and other Arabs?
6. Different approach to negotiations
Allan ,   Delray Beach, FLA   (06.12.06)
Ray Hannia said: "Israelis continually blame the Palestinians for the failure of peace, but that’s all propaganda". Propoganda, my ass! Everytime the Palestinians were presented with a reasonable settlement offer they rejected it. Not only did they reject it but they escalated their acts of terror. So, I ask you Mr. Hannia, where is the propoganda? Is use of the homicide bomber to project an opposing position not propoganda and arrogance? Remember, throughout human history it was always the victor that dictated the terms of the peace, not the loser.
7. # 4 David
Nathan   (06.12.06)
I wish you could tell me where to find a text - an offcial Israeli Text offering the Palestinians : " a state in at least 95% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, with sovereignty in Jerusalem, and a resonable compromise on the right of return." Hearing such claims on FOX holds no value. The offer was " BULL**" otherwise you would've seen it on NYT and WP front pages..
8. Everyone knows
Elad Lending ,   Israel   (06.12.06)
what the solution will look like. 1. Some sort of land bridge connecting Gaza and the West Bank 2. Some sort of legal fiction concerning Jerusalem, so that both sides can claim it as their capital, and Israel can claim it is undivided. 3. Some sort of theoretical Palestinian Right of Return to save Palestinian Face, while in practice little to none. 4. Appropriate changes to the offensive clauses of the Palestinians' charter. 5. Appropriate changes to the offensive elements of the Palestinians' schools' curricula. Everyone knows these things Ray. The only question is how many more people need to suffer or die, before the Palestinian leadership comes to grips with what everyone knows.
9. "unavoidable partners in Palestine"..Ha Ha Ha Ha
Merlin ,   Boston, USA   (06.12.06)
There is no Palestine. It ceased to exist when the British left. Arafat said he made up Palistinians to dupe the world into siding with him against Israel. As for refugees - those who lived inside the green line prior to 1948 are refugees. All the Jews who fled to Israel from Arab lands are also refugees. So that account balance is more than paid in full to the benefit of the Arabs. The descendents of the Arabs after 1948 are just squatters. Trying to turn squatters in to refugees is real arogance.
10. Peace is a daily way, not a negotiated destination
andrew ,   miami,fl   (06.12.06)
11. not to be rude but...
Ralph ,   Central Area   (06.12.06)
Ray you forgot to mention that there is no such thing as a "Palestinian" (unless you mean all Jews and Arabs who live in the area known during Roman times as Palestina).
12. The One State Palestinian Final Solution
Kenneth Besig ,   Kiryat Arba Israel   (06.12.06)
The difference between the Palestinian negotiating position and the Israeli one is the difference between life and death. The Palestinian negotiating position begins and ends with the goal of the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel, the expulsion or extermination of her Jewish citizens, and the establishment of another broken down and impoverished terrorist Arab Islamic state. The Israeli negotiating position is one that would allow for two states, one Jewish and one Arab, to succeed and thrive in this region. Now if Israel were to propose that all of the Jews here would either commit mass suicide, or just get out of here, then the Palestinians might agree to make peace, but anything less than mass Jewish suicide will never be accepted by the Palestinians.
13. Ray: Palestinians do not exist in their vision ...
Steve ,   USA   (06.12.06)
Ray, So long "Palestinians do not exist in their vision" it is impossible to negotiate. It is serious enough that Hamas does not recognize Israel. What is more serious is it does not even recognize itself as independent from its branch in Syria so it cannot negotiate, because "Palestinians do not exist in their vision". It is so convenient that Israel does not exist in the Hamas vision that no one Arab has had to face the fact that "Palestine" does not exist in the Hamas vision either. Ray, I have a great idea. Write up your plan for your people. Then negotiate with the government of Israel to see what its positive and negative points are. Then put it up for a referendum with your people. Then try to get past Hamas in implementing it ... and surprise, Hamas will block you, because there is no "Palestine" but just a quagmire of Arab irresponsibility for violence against Jews and Israel. Ray, that is the circle of violence that is hurting your people, and I see no way to pull the Arabs or the Jews out of that quicksand so long as Hamas has military control. And, that military control that blocks all peaceful sanity is exactly what is convenient for those who have priorities other than peace in this region. Quote: Defining the end point Still, the real difference in this from Israelis is that Palestinians do not exist in their vision as the Israelis do. They live in a conflict of details. They must be able to see a clear vision of where negotiations will lead for negotiations to be successful. Palestinians need to know where they are going first before they can take on and resolve the tough details like the right of return or more compromises on the city of Jerusalem.
14. Hanania and negotiations
Sam ,   Canada   (06.12.06)
There is no indication that Palestinians are open to any negotiations other than receiving the 1967 borders AND a FULL Right of Return for all refugees and descendents. There is no indication they will stop their violence because they still hope to get everything.There is no indication that ANY Palestinian faction is ready or able to take full control making negotiations useless.
15. Then put something on the table
Yehuda ,   USA   (06.12.06)
I understand the process you are proposing Ray. Negotiate what the final solution upfront. There will be milestones to getting there, but the Palestinians need to see the end prize. I think that Israel has disclosed what it thinks the end game should look like: Palestinians get Gaza, 9x% of the West Bank, govern Arab sections of Jerusalem and financial compensation vs. right of return - a symbolic number being absorbed into Israel but anything that could change the demographic Jewish majority landscape is unacceptable. The Palestinians have said Pre-67 borders with all of E Jerusalem and Right of Return for long term calm, not permanent solution. I think that we cannot agree on the end goal as any solution that Haniyeh comes up with will destroy Israel, and anything that spineless Abbas comes up with is not acceptable to the Palestinians. Ray, do the palestinians agree with what Israel is proposing? Have we simply been haggling too much? Or are most Palestinians in the Hammas camp as they voted for them?
16. Comprehensive solution first
wider perspective   (06.12.06)
I have always said that the comprehensive agreement should be hammered out first, and then the implementation can be gradual and reciprocal. But in the past, a completely opposite approach was taken: gradual negotiations and implementation while the comprehensive agreement remained uncertain and obscured somewhere in the future. When Israel procrastinated and obscured the painful concessions, it undermined PA's willingness to dismantle terrorist organizations - because PA would like to keep them in case it would need to press Israel for more concessions (Palestinians don't have an army, unlike Israel). And any terrorist had the power to do grave damage to the peace process and that's what they did. See how different the comprehensive-agreement-first approach would be! After the final agreement is struck, PA would no longer need to keep terrorist organizations as a possible future leverage; quite the opposite: the terrorists who oppose the comprehensive agreement would be an obstacle to the implementation of the agreement and PA would be motivated to fight them.
17. #12 Kenneth Besig
wider perspective   (06.12.06)
Once the Palestinians approve the referendum for two-state solution later this summer, the poison you spew will lose substance and you can start packing your bags.
18. Some Comments, Ray
Br   (06.13.06)
Ray, I appreciate this new look at the conflict, but I do think that both sides have been a bit clearer on their positions than you indicate. For example, Israel is pretty clear on the right of return -- its a non-starter. Everyone knows that, so to say that Palestinians need to know what will happen there is disingenuous, I think. Jerusalem is a bit trickier, but there are indications that it could be divided. (Although, frankly, I think that would be heartbreaking for many on both sides) Beyond that, I'm not sure how much more Israel can do to make the Palestinians "see the big picture." No one helped those who founded the State of Israel see the vision other than their own community. I would call on Palestinian leaders to do the same -- give their people a realistic vision for what their state can and should be. If Palestinian leaders encouraged their people to plant in the desert, work in industry, etc., instead of commemorating the Naqba and shouting slogans about how Haifa and Jaffa are "occupied" land, perhaps the negotiations could be on a more even level. Saying that the Palestinians need answers from Israel to set their vision is patronizing at best. Why can't the Arab world -- and the world at large -- treat the Palestinians as adults who can and should put forward a positive vision and a responsible path? Placing the blame on Israel's negotiating and "bargaining" style infantilizes the Palestinian leaders and public and is frankly, surprising to hear from you. Just my opinoin obviously. Respectfully delivered, I hope. Interested in your response/thoughts.
19. check this link out: funny persian comedian (the only one)
(06.13.06)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLa1ycHHER8&search=persian Ray you should do standup with him hes great :)
20. Re #17: No two state solution in referendum
Steve ,   USA   (06.13.06)
B"H Quote for me where exactly in the pensioner's plan there is a "two-state solution". There is no such solution on the table AT ALL! Referendum or no, the only State solution is that represented by Israel, which Hamas is seeking to destroy on behalf of Hamas of Syria. Hamas represents a zero state solution, where the Arabs inside the Arab states are sent into Israel as a big terrorist camp like Gaza presently is. But no Arab state is going to confer statehood on that region in such a scenario, because it is not in Arab state interests to do so which back the Hamas organization. The Arab states want to abandon these people. The Hamas position is right of "return" which is really an excuse for the Arab countries to make sure those in camps IN THEIR COUNTRIES do not receive citizenship rights. Iran talks in hints on the sole right to receive a weapon of mass destruction to send the Arabs to the trash bin of nuclear dust, but talks in split toungue attacking the "zionists". That is Iran's statement about Israel: no state whatsoever, as it persues nuclear technology to enforce it! That is why I think that cutting off electricity is not smart. Israel needs to work to enable as much sanity as possible in the region, starting by protecting those cut off from their Arab citizenships in every other Arab country. The game is that the Arab countries use these pawns in their attacks on Israel as proxies who claim responsibility for attacks funded and orchestrated from outside. The worst thing to do for those living there is to cave into the Arab state pressures to abandon these people to terror of the Hamas government. If you see a donkey under its master's burnden fall on the road, be the first to help the donkey, even if it is the donkey of your greatest enemy. The suffering is the direct result of Arab governments not taking care of their own and desiring to send displaced Arabs into Israel with no state responsiblity whatsoever.
21. The main problem, Ray, is the terrorists.
howard ,   pacific coast, usa   (06.13.06)
These are the people who are shooting at each other in the streets of Gaza. These are the people who have shot 1000+ rockets at Israeli schools and homes since the Disengagement. These are the people who are launching suicide bombers to blow up Israeli restaurants and hospitals. These are the people who are running the HAMAS-PA right now, whose only solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is genocide, and who refuse to prevent any of the aforementioned terror attacks. These are the people whose naked aggression from Palestinian Gaza make it impossible for Israelis to support duplicating the Gaza experience in the WB. The Palestinians could HAVE peace and a state. The first step would be to say conclusively, "the conflict is over in Gaza. The Gaza border is the legitimate and enduring international border. It is a peaceful border. There must be peace and prosperity in Beit Hanun -- and in Sderot. We will enforce PA sovereignty on our side, and not allow extremists to carry out acts of violence from or in our territory." Then they must enforce that peace on their side. Once the PA does this, it will FINALLY give Israel confidence that there can be a permanent, peaceful solution with the Palestinians in the WB and Jerusalem. That confidence does not exist today, anywhere in Israel, because the behavior of the Gazans has destroyed it. Israel has made a huge concession to the Palestinians by leaving Gaza altogether -- but the concession was also a test. Thus far, the PA has utterly failed that test. Only after the Palestinians figure out how to live in peace with each other and live in peace beside Israel, will the Palestinians gain a state. The problem is that the Palestinians are ruled by criminal and terrorist gangs -- heavily funded from abroad -- who profit greatly from chaos and bloodshed, and who do not want to take the very, very simple step that would bring hope to their people. For the vast majority of Israelis, the problem is not so much the land, as the security. Israel can't be as generous as you'd like, because when it offers an olive branch, it gets Qassams and suicide bombings in return. No, Israel won't take positions that guarantee a PA state until it sees that the PA can live as a neighbor, in peace.
22. Comment on #6
Ray Hanania ,   Chicago, IL USA   (06.13.06)
Allan, what you wrote encourages extremnists: "Remember, throughout human history it was always the victor that dictated the terms of the peace, not the loser. " That is exactly the mentality that fuels continued conflict. Because you are telling the Palestinian extremists to never surrender and keep fighting until they win. Your comment above presumes the Israelis have won. Boy, if this is winning you had better watch out for losing, because it will really be bad. To David, #4. I think you have a point but I agree with Nathan #7 who says that you are being fed a lot of BS. No disrespect but the offer was never the offer you describe. There were a lot of problems with the so-called negotiations that took place at Camp David, the most important of which was that Barak and Arafat never negotiated nothing, and met only once for tea by accident while each was strolling. EVerything was offered by word of mouth through intermediaries. We have to each stop accepting our own propaganda to find the truth. Wider Perspective has it right, I think. The Israelis should define the final offer to the Palestinians up front and then negotiate backwards on each detail. Tell the Palestinians, this is what you will get. Clear. Upfront and no BS. Then, define the tradeoffs and demands. One other benefit of this process for the Israelis is that if they reject your offer up front, why waste time negotiating. Same for the Palestinians, if the Israelis never intend to make a genuine offer of land for peace, then we know the only option is continued bloodshed, and that would be a real tragedy for all of us. Right now, we have hope of a compromise. Let's hope that when we do get back to the negotiating table, we don't end up at the cul du sac again. I think that those Israelis and those Palestinians who really want peace have a responsibility to STAND UP AND SAY IT LOUDLY AND STOP HIDING. The alternative is the worsening you kill them and they kill you trade-off. Neither side has the moral ground in that fight. Ray Hanania www.hanania.com
23. ocupation of the life of people
maysa ,   jerusalem   (06.13.06)
befor the intifada palastinians were on their lands working eating learning can go to amman easier than today from there can go to any country the people were not angry or complain of the ocupation ..but outside there was the plo reminded the world of palastin and those outside the country i mean the palastinian rufughees /but when there is no works to palastinians no opurtunities to live a good life that the rufughees outside were better than us here on our country the people fell the true ocupation .and this time a good time to palastinians to be one outside and inside and the story after that we allknow it ,,so it is ocupation of the people and israil do it step by step the palastinians were angry and still angry here in palastin on their land and angry man can do whatever he could if it is benifit or not
24. OK RAY
Joy Springreen   (06.13.06)
I HEAR YOU, even if i cant read me.
25. A Different Approach
steve ,   london england   (06.13.06)
None of the issues belonging to the eventual settlement of the conflicts between Palestinians and Israelis can be brought nearer to their resolution so long as the parties to negotiations adhere to a parochial platform. In the English speaking world the definition of the word ‘settlement’ has more than one simple semantic: SETTLEMENT Noun 1 : the act or process of settling 2 a : an act of bestowing or giving possession under legal sanction b : the sum, estate, or income secured to one by such a settlement 3 a : occupation by settlers b : a place or region newly settled c : a small village Verb : SETTLE Therefore the act or process of settling a dispute is synonymous with the idea of a place, and therefore, a ‘position’. English is a language that developed in an island nation. Israel and Palestine are not islands. Moreover, the Hebrew and Arabic languages do not have this linguistic feature and therefore the search for lasting international settlements between these culturally different peoples requires a greater degree of semantic definition. Who are the parties? What position do they prefer in the resolution to the conflict? Religious fundamentalist! Democratic secularist! Let us look at another English word: STATE Noun 1 a : mode or condition of being 2 a : a condition or stage in the physical being of something b : any of various conditions characterized by definite quantities 3 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b : the political organization of such a body of people c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character 4 : the operations or concerns of the government of a country 5 a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government 6 : the territory of a state Verb 1 : to set by regulation or authority 2 : to express words in speech or writing Neither Jews or Hebrews or Israelis or Muslims or Christians or Arabs or Palestinians will be able to find a lasting peace without also having peace and human accord with the UK and USA. The synonymity that exists in the semantics of these words constitute an idiom that is at the heart of English and American civilization and that is not statable in the imagination of or the social psychology of the Middle-East without a greater and more profound understanding of the Articles of Human Rights. It will not be enough if the concern to know these things is left to the academics and lawyers and diplomats of the region. Whatever may have been the holy writ and semantic rote over the past in the Middle-East the future semantics must be stated in the not uncertain terms of Universal Human Rights and the International Bill of Human Rights. The name of Israel’s new government is Kadimah and this means ‘let’s go forward’ and this is not an invitation addressed to Israelis only but is an invitation to all of the peoples of the Middle-East. It means let’s go forward together to reach for Universal Human Rights. It behoves upon journalists, the Mass Media in general and national and local leaders to play their proactive and pragmatic part in brining the definition of Universal Human Rights and the nature of the International Bill of Human Rights to the imagination of the people they broadcast to, publish to and represent. You cannot build a consensus on the past alone. There is no lasting settlement in the past. It is in the future. Each one of us must reach for his or her state of independence but none of us can even hope to survive without the common belief in the interdependence of our human rights. What language must the parties to negotiations in the Middle-East use!? The language of Universal Human Rights.
26. Hey Ray; whats the deal?
Joy Springreen   (06.13.06)
I feel in my heart that all parties need a "deal" on the table that says "progress/reward/structure/future/co-existence/trust/courage/peace" something bigger and more representative than just "bantustan exchange" something that all Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese can feel good about. Listen to Maysa from Jerusalem. Surely what they say reflects the need for something outside of the narrow and single minded national aspirations of ideologies. Leb-Isra-Pal (BENELUX of the eastern mediterranean) with egypt actually setting Sinai up as "something" and Jordan as friendly buffer economy. ...and so the HOLY BRIDGE OF CONTINENTS is somewhere to go. To AND Through its the old phrase "wheres the beef?" or that other gem "show me the money" to also mean "I LOVE BLACK PEOPLE" ("black" in this context as an interchangeable term meaning Jew/Muslim/Christian/Lebanese/Israeli/Palestinian/Arab/Bedouin/Druze/whatever. delete and apply as appropriate.) working together as a 3 state free trade pocket people are thinking something to the lines of "ENOUGH WITH THE BULLS**T MAKE PEACE ALREADY?! YOU LOUSY BUNCH OF BELLIGERENT SHM**KS HONESTLY?! ALL BAR-KOCHBA ON ONE SIDE AND SALADIN ON THE OTHER!!!!" ..and meanwhile elsewhere over in the rest of the world, to tell you the truth, it's all getting rather...well....its all getting so tiresome. look, oil is running out and people are getting tired of it. if the "beach shelling" investigation proves a hoax, the hamas government are in deep-doggie-doo, couple that with their open declaration of war (on behalf of "the Palestinian People" i hasten to add) it all adds up to a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad situation but it could just go on forever and ever. Winding down generations and generations of children. so all of you wise up and make peace no matter how hard anyone tries to derail it, the world will never give up on Israel and at the same time will never give up on palestinians. so.. you either, sort it out! and get friendly with everyone OR keep writing the war that was never won but endlessly endured, until there are no sons left. and then what?
27. ray hanania
henry bonk ,   wellington, fl usa   (06.13.06)
Dear Ray, now I know why the Camp David negotiations failed. Barak did not smile enough when Araffat was present. Makes a lot of sense Ray. Now I know why you are an award winning journalist. Henry.
28. ray hanania
naven   (06.13.06)
You say " the palestinians need a clear vision of where the negotiations will end ". Well, one of these visions must be dropping the demand for the " right of return". As for Israel's approach to negotiations it has the same right to advance its interests as do the palestinians. naven, usa
29. to #22 Ray Hanania
Golan   (06.14.06)
Hello Ray Yes we probably should tell the Palestinians what we are prepared to give them However we have a problem in this: whatever we offer them its going to be rejected Ill tell you why: they are not satisfied with anything except having every single last one of their demands to be met What you want us to do? Its going like this: Jew: Ok so we give you gaza, west bank except east yerushalayim and we also want to keep ariel and maale adimim, what you think? Palestinian: no, we want gaza, west bank including ariel and east Yerushalayim. Jew: I cant do that Palestianian: well then we will fight you Jew: ok but if you do that we will kill you too And so it goes on. Kaha! Ma ata rotze? Ein ma laasot We not prepared to budge, and you also not prepared to budge So now what? You know, many years ago I had a beduin girlfriend, she was beautiful believe me, you never see one like this in your life I am Jew, she is arab, but we never have a problem when we were together Ill tell you why: we respect AND appreciate each others differences, and work through problems, and sometimes we have to learnt to agree to disagree AND NOT FIGHT AFTER Why fight? I fight too, spending time miluim every damn year, I see my friends from army its nice but its tough job, somebody got to do it If you not fighting us I got no problem, Im not fighting you after too Btw the link from #19 for Omid the parsi comedian is really funny (watch what he say about media coverage its true)
30. Arabs already have 22 countries.
Daisy ,   USA   (06.14.06)
Why create one on Jewish land? This whole controversy is about destroying Israel and killing Jews. That is what the Arabs really want.
Next talkbacks
Back to article