+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

The Israeli negotiator who thinks the two-state solution is still possible

Veteran Israeli negotiator Shaul Arieli discusses the failure of the Oslo Accords, various Israeli prime ministers’ commitment (or lack thereof) to ending the occupation, and the only solution he believes both sides could live with, however unsatisfied they might be with it. 

Shaul Arieli is a man on a dual mission: educating Israelis about the conflict and diplomatic process with the Palestinians, and making the point that the two-state solution is both possible and necessary. His latest publication in Hebrew, A Border between Us and You (Yeditoth Ahronoth Books 2013), is a 500-page handbook to the history of the conflict, with an emphasis on the diplomatic and political process. It is written in very simple (and sometimes simplistic) language, with lots of maps, tables and even entries describing notable leaders on both sides. Arieli was thinking about Israeli teenagers when he wrote his book, but lately I find myself going back to it again and again to find a figure or to check historical details for one of my posts.

I asked Shaul Arieli for an interview in order to gain more first-hand knowledge and analysis of the history of the negotiations, including what’s really behind terms like “settlements blocs” and “land swaps.” Lately, the mere idea of talks has been put under scrutiny (much of it justified, in my opinion), so I wanted to know what went wrong in the past, and have we, as some claim, “passed the point of no return” with regards to the two-state solution (check out, for example, this piece by Ben Birnbaum in TNR).

Shaul Arieli (CC)

Arieli, 54, is the seventh son of Jews who emigrated from Iran. He served in various roles in the IDF, the last one being the commander of Gaza’s Northern Division before and during the first Oslo Accord, a position he left in order to serve in the negotiating team that was formed in Prime Minister Rabin’s office. He took part in negotiations under Netanyahu (in his first term) and Barak. Ariel Sharon stopped the diplomatic process, and Arieli joined the Geneva Accord – an informal agreement between PLO leaders and Israeli negotiators, which has since taken the form of an advocacy organization.

Arieli is a member of The Council for Peace and Security, an Israeli think tank dedicated to advancing a settlement with the Palestinians. He is also the author of nine books on the conflict. He has led hundreds of tours of the West Bank, separation barrier and East Jerusalem to Israeli politicians, diplomats, businessmen and activists. Lately, he made the news after Yair Lapid prevented his party members from going on one of Arieli’s tours to East Jerusalem, claiming that “our party opposes a division of the city.”


Of all the Israeli prime ministers you served under or observed, who came closest to a final status agreement?

Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert wanted to reach an agreement (even if Barak denies it today). Sharon didn’t believe in agreements. I had the chance to see the way prime ministers matured in their positions. The dramatic changes took place with Barak and Olmert – by the time negotiations broke they were in a very different place. The only leader who was negotiating something real, something possible, was Olmert [in Annapolis]. But it was too late in his term, when he was almost a lame duck. Olmert internalized the concept of reciprocity. Barak never did, and Rabin was in a different era. He didn’t have the chance to end the process.

Did the Palestinians refuse?

I will quote Olmert himself: the Palestinians never refused. They didn’t accept some of our proposals, just as we didn’t accept some of theirs. Israelis think that Olmert gave “a generous offer” to the Palestinians. But the Palestinians would say the same. Mahmoud Abbas was ready for land swaps that would leave 75 percent of the settlers under Israeli authority, including in neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. Abbas went a long way toward Israel on every issue.

Where do you think Netanyahu stands?

Olmert was able to set the four terms of reference that the international community would agree to: a relatively demilitarized Palestinian state (the Palestinians want “a state with limited arms” but the idea is similar), 1967 borders, partition in Jerusalem, and a return to the Palestinian state and not to Israel proper.

Then Netanyahu came, and he had tremendous experience and knowledge on these issues. After all, he took pride once in his ability to kill the Oslo process. I served under Netanyahu and I think he still believes in what he wrote in his book in 1995 – that ‘placing a PLO state 15 km from the beach of Tel Aviv poses an existential threat to the state of Israel.’

Netanyahu, when he came back to office in 2009, didn’t try to introduce his own demands. He went to changing the terms of reference. He declared that 1967 borders won’t serve as basis for the negotiations, and if he accepts land swaps, it will never be in a 1:1 ratio. He wants to annex 10 percent of the West Bank and give the Palestinians 1 percent in return. The same goes for Jerusalem. As long as he continues to speak about a united Jerusalem, anything he might say about the two-state solution is meaningless.

Bibi is the one who moved back from what was agreed upon. There is no reason to enter negotiations without the principles that were agreed upon, without the framework.

Netanyahu wants the process, not the agreement. Bibi doesn’t care about the Palestinians. He is interested in the way Israel is treated by the world. So he will take his time, and as far as he is concerned it [the talks] can take forever.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “As far as he is concerned, the process can take forever” (photo: Kobi Gideon / GPO)

Over half a million Israeli Jews live beyond the Green Line – almost one in every ten Israelis. Leaving the negotiations and other political problems aside, what makes you think that a solution based on the 1967 borders is still possible?

Let’s examine the numbers. 85 percent of the Israelis living east of the Green Line are in the settlements blocs, on a territory which is less than 6 percent of the West Bank. In the triangle around Jerusalem alone, there are 80 percent of the Jews living beyond the Green Line. The biggest city east of the Green Line is [the ultra-Orthodox] Modi’in Ilit, with 54,000 people. That’s 10 percent of the settlers, right on the Green Line. Together with the another ultra-Orthodox city nearby, Beitar Ilit, that’s 100,000 people. The much-debated Ariel is actually the smallest town in the West Bank, not the biggest.

Another third of the settlers [outside annexed East Jerusalem] are secular Jews, who sit in mostly secular settlements like Ma’aleh Edomim, the Jordan Valley and so on. Seventy-five to 80 percent of them will remain under Israeli sovereignty.

The problem is the remaining third. These are the ideological, and they settled in places which were meant to prevent Palestinian contingence. Most of their settlements are near road 60, which crosses the Occupied Territory from north to south. Seventy of those settlements have less than 2,000 people in them. More than 60 percent of those settlers will have to be evacuated. These are the people of Gush Emunim, and with them it won’t be just an ideological struggle, it’s also the struggle over their homes.

When we speak about 1:1 land swaps, that includes East Jerusalem too, right?

Yes. The annexation wasn’t recognized by the international community. Not even by the United States.

Can Israel keep that 6 percent you mentioned in 1:1 land swaps?

It’s a problem. The 6 percent include Ariel and Kdumin, which go 21-23 km into the Green Line, and cut the Shomron [the northern West Bank] in two. Furthermore, coming up with 6 percent of land on the western side of the Green Line [to hand over to the Palestinians] will be impossible. 3-4 percent is probably the upper limit.

So Ariel and Kdumin will have to be evacuated?

Kdumim – yes. With Ariel, evacuation is very likely but it’s not inconceivable that it will remain in Israeli hands. Its price in land swap will be very high though.

At the end of the day, we are talking about evacuating one percent of the Israeli population. Do the other 99 percent agree to be captive to the interests of the 1 percent? To sell their future for the future of the 1 percent? I am sure that if the government went for a real deal, it will still have the support of 70-80 percent of the public.

How much of the West Bank is now annexed de-facto to Israel by the security barrier (the Separation Wall)?

The planned path is leaving 8 percent of the West Bank west of it, ‘on the Israeli side’. But the barrier is not completed, so currently it’s 4.5 percent.

What is the solution for the refugee problem which was negotiated?

Israel never recognized the right of return, and the Palestinian will never give it up. So there should be a distinction between the recognition and the actual return. Israel will need to recognize its share in the responsibility for the suffering the Palestinians have gone through. Regarding the actual return, in Annapolis Israel offered 25,000 people, and the Palestinians wanted 100,000. By the way, it was Olmert who put forward this number, while Livni refused to have even a single refugee enter Israel. The number 100,000 relates to the historical agreement by Israel in Lausanne, 1949, to receive 100,000 refugees. Obviously, this is a number Israel can live with.

The refugees are the strongest bargaining chip the Palestinians have, but I believe that what’s really important for them in the negotiations is land. Compromise is possible.

Is there a point of no return in Jerusalem?

The real threat is the attempt [currently taking place – N.S.] to build projects for Jews inside the Palestinian neighborhoods. The projects in Jabel Mukaber and Mount Scopus are a real threat to the two-state solution. But even if those are completed, we could end up with a solution of an international regime in the city.

So what is the point of no return for the two-state solution?

I don’t think it’s a point in the land. It’s a political decision, on both sides. You can see the emergence of such a decision among young Palestinians, especially those who live abroad or have western orientation – to change the resistance into a human rights battle for civilian rights within the State of Israel. On the Israeli side, a decision to formally annex the West Bank could mark such a point.

The Israeli settlement of Beitar Ilit. Yes, the left is trying to delegitimize settlements (photo: ActiveStills).

The ultra-Orthodox settlement of Beitar Ilit (photo: ActiveStills).

Will a two-state solution really satisfy both sides?

[Historically] both sides wanted the entire land to themselves, and I discuss this fact in my book. So in terms of national narratives, there is no room for a common denominator. But [Security Council Resolution] 242, following the Six-Day War, gave a diplomatic way around that. It showed that settlement is possible without accepting the other side’s narrative.

I don’t talk about peace agreements. I discuss final agreements. A new reality that gives every side something but not everything. Both sides need to be very modest in their desires for the final agreements.

So why does the Israeli public believe that an agreement is impossible?

It’s an emotional result of the second Intifada, which was accompanied by declarations like Ehud Barak’s about the fact that ‘there is no partner.’ Those chipped away at Israeli trust dramatically. Needless to say, the Palestinians lost all trust in the Israelis too […] Khaled Mashaal famously told the PLO that 20 years of negotiations with Israel didn’t get a single shoe of a single settler out of the occupied territory. ‘You need to tell the Arab people’ – Hamas says to Fatah – ‘that moving from armed struggle to negotiations was a failure. Israel doesn’t understand anything but force.’

The Jewish public also believes that PLO is temporary and that Hamas will soon take over with a vision of a single Arab land on the entire territory. But the public fails to understand that by holding on to such views, it aids Hamas.

The third problem is the regional changes, and the fear that those changes will lead to Islamic regimes in the area that cannot be negotiated with. Here also, the public doesn’t distinguish between the real and imagined threats.

And on top of everything, there is a feeling of power. That our way is actually working. Take a look – the West Bank is quiet. Israelis feel that they were able to win the psychological battle in the second Intifada.

But things are really quiet.

This is not because of IDF operations. There were more casualties after the Israeli invasion of the West Bank cities in 2003 than before. What stopped the casualties was the security coordination with the Palestinian Authority, which was based on mutual interests. This could all end in a second.

Some people on the right think that Israel should annex the West Bank and give Palestinians Israeli citizenship – sort of a rightwing version of the one-state solution. What are your thoughts on this issue?

The people you are referring to are ignoring 40 percent of the Palestinians who live in Gaza. 1.8 million people who are left outside. Annexing the West Bank will make Hamas the sole representative of the diaspora, and it will continue the struggle from Gaza.

I don’t believe in the binational model. The economical gap is huge. Also, what will become of the refugees? The Palestinians will not forget them – they will demand a return to the unified state. The Jewish elite will flee the country, and you will be left with a poor, religious Jewish minority inside a Palestinian state. I don’t accept this model.

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, U.S. president Bill Clinton, and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat at the signing of the Oslo Accord (photo: Vince Musi / The White House)

What went wrong in Oslo?

First, the expectations of the sides were very different. The Palestinians felt that they gave up all they could until Oslo, and now they should get something in return. We felt that we gave our concessions by recognizing the PLO, and now we should get more. When I prepared the negotiation file for Ehud Barak I wrote under ‘The Goal’: Establishing a Palestinian state on in the West Bank based on resolution 242. But he wouldn’t have it. He said – our goal is to reach a just partition of the West Bank. In other words, the Israeli willingness to fully implement 242 was very limited.

Furthermore, despite that fact that the first agreement stated that both sides cannot undertake steps that would affect the final status agreement – and that meant most of all construction – Israel went into a frenzy of establishing facts on the ground. The numbers tell the story here: from 109,000 settlers in 1993 we got up to 340,000 today. This was a totally conscious effort. Israel tried to increase the territories of the settlements as much as possible.

Arafat, on the other hand, didn’t understand that he was really perceived as the sole responsible representative for the entire Palestinian people. He allowed Hamas to topple the agreement. He thought that he could contain Hamas, but he gave it the chance to make the agreement fail.

You ask the Israeli public to move into a framework of a “win win” situation instead of a zero-sum game. Could you explain that?

The first half of the 20 century was a zero-sum game, when every side understood that each victory could only be made at the expense of the other side. Even in the negotiations, at the beginning, our feeling was that anything the Palestinians gain is at our expense.

What does a “win win” situation mean? That if I can help the other side create a stable reality, something he could really live with, my interest is satisfied too. It goes the other way too: we can use all our power to force on the Palestinians Israeli enclaves all over the West Bank [whithin the framework of a final status agreement – N.S.], even if I am able to pull this off, I will be sowing the seeds of the next disaster.

Today the second Oslo accord and the Paris protocol, which you worked on, are perceived by many not as a peace agreement but as a mechanism for control over the Palestinian population. They have become a sort of “final status” agreement, which for the Palestinians are much worse than the situation prior to Oslo.

You are absolutely right. But none of us believed that we are heading to another 20 years under those agreements. We thought that the autonomy would last five years at most, and we knew that the Palestinians at the time lacked some capacities. For example, they couldn’t establish their own financial clearing house so Paris had it done through Israel.

But as a permanent agreement, Paris isn’t fair towards the Palestinians.

Of course it isn’t! Of course! Look, the Palestinians really saw the Oslo agreement as an intermediate period. They really thought of Area C [left under Israeli control- N.S.] as a deposit.

Here is a story to illustrate this point: when we drew the maps on the intermediate agreement we did it by hand, so there were a few mistakes done. After the agreement was signed, we asked for several minor changes in the map, mainly due to requests by the settlers to Rabin. I went to Abu Alaa (Ahmed Qurei) with four such changes, but he would hear none of it. So we all went to meet Arafat at the Muqatah. Arafat hears it and says to Abu Alaa: ‘if this is what Rabin needs to make his public accept the agreement, sign it! This is a territory we would get in the final status agreement.’ The thinking that Area C is Israel’s is complete nonsense.

Children at Qalandiya checkpoint (angrywhitekid/CC BY NC ND 2.0)

What bothers you most when you examine the situation today?

The occupation itself. It’s hard to put it in words. What it is. The lack of rights. the lack of freedom of movement. Taking away their future, the right of citizenship. I know it sounds dry, but when you meet it every day you get the problem. It’s not just the poverty, the likes of which we saw in [refugee camps] Jebaliah and Shatti. There is poverty everywhere in the world. It’s something else.

Let’s suppose we could keep things as they are. That we could stand the international pressure, face the implications, face the changing Arab world, and so on. Is this the Israeli society we want? Ruling another people who has no rights? We cannot go on doing this.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Aaron Gross

      This was a really interesting interview, thanks for posting it. There seems to be a real bias against a two-state solution at +972, so I’m glad to see that side represented more (and not only because that’s the side I’m on).

      Reply to Comment
    2. Aaron Gross

      One bit of land that wasn’t addressed at all here: the Temple Mount. That was a big deal during the talks in 2000-2001, and then it was forgotten for a decade when a two-state agreement was no longer a possibility. I wonder whether that will be the final deal-breaker if we ever get close to an agreement?

      Reply to Comment
      • I havn’t gone into the Holy Basin for lack of time, but there are details on this issue in the Geneva Accord, and unlike the settlements, not much has changed since.

        Reply to Comment
        • Aaron Gross

          I was thinking more of a deal breaker between the two peoples. Israeli negotiators agreed to give Palestinians sovereignty over the Temple Mount as far back as 2000. Would Israelis have agreed to that in the referendum promised by Barak? Not clear.

          Reply to Comment
    3. David T.

      (1949, “Lausanne”, not “Luzan”.)

      Reply to Comment
    4. I second Aaron, above. And I continue to marvel at Noam’s dedication and reach.

      “The occupation itself. It’s hard to put it in words. What it is. The lack of rights. the lack of freedom of movement. Taking away their future, the right of citizenship. I know it sounds dry, but when you meet it every day you get the problem. It’s not just the poverty, the likes of which we saw in [refugee camps] Jebaliah and Shatti. There is poverty everywhere in the world. It’s something else.” : It is involuntary servitude, with one people kept subservient for the perceived security needs of another, irrespective of what might be causing the perception or underlying insecurity.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        It is unfortunately voluntary given the unwillingness to accept peace offers out of reasoning that only justifies the underlying insecurity of the other people.

        Reply to Comment
        • No, the hard social reality is that with each maturing generation the servitude is involuntary. Blood libel or other group blaming makes nice dichotomies but fails the lived world. Winning the security battle, you have become something else; call to the past attempts to maintain reality in the past. I understand the frustration. I think the Wall and Village protests are important partly because they break the prior dichotomy, allowing a dimly seen path. Such a path entails risk, and anyone who says not I think is doing a diservice to all.

          Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            Things that were unthinkable 2 generations ago (such as two states west of the Jordan) in Israeli society are now basically accepted wisdom in the center. Israel has made offers to the Palestinians that have been rejected. The Palestinians can accept a peace offer at any time and their current condition will end. However the are unwilling to compromise and accept Israel as a permanent reality, but as I have pointed out before, this is an issue of a lack of will (as opposed to ‘involuntary’) on the side of the Palestinians, not something that is forced upon them.

            Reply to Comment
    5. iyad

      I do believe its is possible.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Richard Witty

      It’s more possible than a viable single state.

      There will be a time when Israeli political opinion shifts to some trust, and until the West Bank is populated at around 25% Jewish settlements of the total population, the Geneva guidelines would still be implementable.

      The only proviso that settlers will have to adjust to, is that any that are outside of the immediate extensions from the green line, will have to accept being Palestinian citizens, or move back to Israel.

      It would be a good outcome for there to be a 10-20% Jewish minority in Palestine, corresponding to the 20% Arab minority in Israel.

      They should both strive to be the dual national AND democratic.

      Like a bicycle is stable when moving, a balance of component forces, that are unstable alone.

      Reply to Comment
    7. Palestinan

      “[Historically] both sides wanted the entire land to themselves”

      An Iranian colonist says “Historically the thief and the owner wanted the entire property to themselves” …really

      From Beesan (Beit She’an) to Al Mutelleh (Metula)the land is inhabited by almost 120,00 people,and it is contiguous with the West Bank.

      Reply to Comment
    8. Zephon

      THIS proves just who is the real threat to peace and he is the prime minister of Israel.

      Israel is its own worst enemy with Bibi in power.

      But I believe and see peace in my life time. THIS is very encouraging and for the first time I see sanity and real reason. But so long as Bibi is in power we can expect this man is only going to want more blood shed – he is not a man of peace or Judaism.

      Reply to Comment
    9. CDeSole

      It’s interesting that Arieli, himself a non-AHUSAL, fails to properly name the hypothetical Jewish residents of the One State — the Mizrahim.

      The wealthy elite he cites are, of course, Ashkenazim with EU passports.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        The class/race distinctions you are trying to draw are pretty silly. Arieli is part of the elite as are many other non-Ashkenazim. The distinction is also getting hard to make given the intermarriage rates between Ashkenazim and Mizrahim.

        Reply to Comment
      • Tzutzik

        “The wealthy elite he cites are, of course, Ashkenazim with EU passports.”

        EU passports? What EU passports? Are you joking? Are you saying that ALL Israeli Ashkenassim have EU passports?

        I’ll tell you this: Most of us don’t. And we don’t want one either. How’s zat?

        Reply to Comment
        • Leen


          59% of Israeli Jews have approached a foreign embassy to get a citizenship though and most are taking advantage of EU passports. The 41% either cannot provide evidence of roots in the EU or are too patriotic. So I guess over a half want to get dual citizenship.

          But to be fair, lots of them are also going for US citizenship as well (90% of those who take advantage of the grandparent for citizenship clause are Israelis)

          Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Good job Leen, you are indulging in wishful thinking about rats wanting to leave a sinking ship, yes? But you forgot to present some relevant facts:

            1. Your article also said this:
            “A second-generation Israeli of Polish extraction might want a Polish passport so she can study and work freely throughout the E.U. for a few years. And an Israeli doing business in the Arab world would definitely need a second passport.”

            2. Nowhere did the article single out Ashkenazim. It also talked about Yemenite Jews seeking British passports.

            Nice try though Leen, keep on trying to sow simplistic disinformation. Oh and keep on dreaming.

            Even if your dreams would ever come true, heaven forbid, which European countries would accept millions of BLOODY Jews? Most of them are happy to have got rid of us. Especially us Zionist types. So why would they want us? So you see Leen, even if you are right about “us rats”, even then we are stuck here in Israel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            Calm down Tzutzik, I wasn’t implying anything (however you seem to have a field day assuming things about my post). I merely pointed out that you are in fact incorrect, that atleast half of the Israelis sought our or are seeking another citizenship.

            I am not against dual citizenships (or triple even), and I see nothing wrong with it but maybe you are.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            Also please point out where I have ever said that I want the Jews to leave? Or I called you ‘rats’?

            Your paranoia is disturbing and kind of scary to be honest.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            You may not have Leen. But my original post was addressed to CDsole who talked only about “Ashkenazi elites” and in a context in which he implied that we are preparing an escape route for ourselves. I say we, because I too am Ashkenazi. Of course he was just trying to vilify us and spread misinformation.

            You then jumped in and tried to back him up with your link that did not really back him up. So even at the risk of being called a paranoiac by you, I hope you don’t mind that I responded to you too?

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            I did not back him up, I merely corrected you as you assumed that the majority of Israelis do not have dual citizenship or wishing to seek one. Which in fact turned out to be false.

            Personally, I have nothing against dual citizenships (or multiple) and know plenty of people who do. If it makes them happy and it’s legal, good for them. I’m not going to get angry at an Irish-American seeking an Irish passport because of his heritage or culture. Hey even if he sees it as an escape route if America’s economy crashes and burns, and wants to move to the EU, I say whatever. Maybe you have other ideas and complexes about it, but I certainly do not. I just corrected your assumption that your statement that ‘most of us…’ is incorrect, or atleast extremely contensious.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            And yes, I called you out paranoid becuase you implied some really vilifying things about me when in actuality, I said nothing of this sort. And your evidence doesn’t change the fact that a majority are seeking dual citizenship or thinking about it, regardless of their intentions. You don’t seem to differintiate between the act itself and the intention.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “I did not back him up, I merely corrected you as you assumed that the majority of Israelis do not have dual citizenship or wishing to seek one. Which in fact turned out to be false.”

            That is not what I assumed.

            I corrected CDesole’s claim that “the Ashkenazi Elite” is seeking an escape foute.

            You then jumped in your link which talked about the majority of Israelis (not just Ashkenazim) and not for establishing escape routes but for other rational reasons.

            So your link did not back CDesole up but you can’t blame me for initially thinking that it was your intention to back him up, Even if now I understand that it was not your full intention. Only your partial intention.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            If you noticed Tzutzik, I corrected the above poster too.

            ‘But to be fair, lots of them are also going for US citizenship as well (90% of those who take advantage of the grandparent for citizenship clause are Israelis)’.

            Having reread the post, I see nothing where he said that th Ashkenazis who have an EU passport want an escape route. In fact, I didn’t get the point of his post at all. This is a free site, Tzutzik, and people are free to joint discussions and debates and correct misinformation. WHich is exactly what I did. I merely pointed out that you are in fact incorrect about your assumption that ‘most of us don’t have an EU passport, and don’t want one’. Evidently, 59% of Israelis have one or want one. Regardless of their reasons and intentions.

            In fact, your initial claim seems to be a bit… strange. As if you are claiming anyone who has dual citizenship is automatically a ‘deserter’.

            Also why would I side with the viewpoints that ‘dual citizenships = deserters?’ I think that is a very dangerous assumption actually and a very dangerous viewpoint as those with dual citizenship can potentially be viewed as disloyal and become targets.

            If you are not a mind-reader, then next time don’t make assumptions about me, my posts or my viewpoints. There is no need to resort to personal attacks either. I gave you evidence that you are incorrect and then you went vilified me.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Oh and Leen

            Now that you explained yourself, i am withdrawing the comments that I made against you.

            But I won’t apologise for them because I am not a mind reader. You jumped into an interchange between me and another party who made a very unreasonable claim. Not only unreasonable but untrue claim against a particular group of people, the group that I belong to. He singled us out and he implied that we are deserters.

            You then jumped in to present your link with which you tried to contradict my rebuttal. Only you missed the real point that I was making and you appeared to side with CDesole. I now understand that may not have been your intention. But it was not obvious from your initial post.

            Reply to Comment
    10. been there

      “The West Bank is quiet’, the writer says. Meaning it’s only Palestinians who are being beaten, humiliated, murdered…whose children are being abused, traumatised, picked up in the middle of the night by the , oh so brave, IDF. That’s ok.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Of course that’s ok. All Palestinians have to do to make it stop is to accept the fact that the Jewish state is here to stay. The funnies part is that at the end they will accept it, so their resistance is futile.

        Reply to Comment
    11. Julie Gray

      This is a really interesting interview. Does Arieli have any plans to publish his latest book in English? And I’m also curious, and I know this sounds naive, but what can people do to get involved? It is easy to put your head in the sand and to ignore the problems here, on a day to day basis. But we are on the road to hell. What can Israelis do to voice their feelings on this, to make a difference? How can we take this seemingly impossible situation and shed some light on and regain some hope?

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        You can get involved by yourself rather easily. Just go to the Gaza Strip and try to persuade Hamas leaders that Israel is here to stay and they should not try to destroy it.

        After you fail miserably, your state would pay for your burial.

        Reply to Comment
    12. Julie Pritchard

      The interview with Shaul Arieli was very thought provoking and as given me a greater understanding of Israeli and Palestinians situation. Will Shaul Arieli’s book be in English.

      Reply to Comment
    13. Shmuel

      “The only leader who was negotiating something real, something possible, was Olmert [in Annapolis]. But it was too late in his term”

      The offer was made in mid September 2008. He had three months to respond before Operation Cast Lead commenced. According to Olmert himself, Abbas just did not respond.

      Operation Cast Lead started in December 2008. Three months after Olmert made his peace offer. Abbas used that as an excuse to break off negotiations entirely.

      Operation Cast Lead was ended in mid January 2009. Olmert remained Israel’s prime minister till March 2009. Again, Abbas had three months to respond after Cast Lead and before the elections. Olmert never got a response to his peace offer from Abbas.

      So, how can a sober, non wishful thinking non biased person believe that if Abbas really wanted a peace deal, any peace deal, with Israel, that he could not even RESPOND to the deal sometimes between September 2008 and March 2009? He had 6 months to respond and all he did was procastinate, quibble (about the right of return – see Condi Rice’s memoir) and use Cast Lead as an excuse to break off negotiations.

      Really, it was not a case of running out of time. It was a case of Abbas having cold feet about signing a peace deal with Israel.

      Reply to Comment
    14. Click here to load previous comments