Reasons Why Peaceful Resolutions for the Arab-Israeli Conflict Always Fail

"...despite the clear discrimination against non-Muslim minorities in most of the Arab and Muslim world (denying equal rights in church construction, for example), many in the Arab world point the finger only at Israel when they talk about discrimination."

Voted up! This IS the dynamics of the why negotiations have failed. The only thing missing are the generous terms the Palestinians have walked away from. I don't think we should be worrying about them any longer. No more negotiations until the Palestinians prove they are worthy.

The article, and all viewpoints expressed on it are ones with which I strongly concur. 

Weill done to one and all. 

You cannot negotiate or compromise with those who are open about wanting to exterminate you.

Sometimes it is just as simple as that.

P&AB to One and All.

Enoch. 

Great article.

All 11 of the reasons that peace will fail are the fault of the Arabs , none are related to a fault of Israel. 

LOL.  This is what passes for objectivity. 

What do you expect when the source is a known anti-Muslim website? 

Everybody has to have a scapegoat, Israel is the Arab/Persian worlds scapegoat 

Those adamant that there can never be peace will surely never know peace...

1. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not about borders. It is about the existence of the state of Israel. In 1947, the United Nations Partition Plan -- Resolution 181 -- gave the Palestinians and Arabs control over most of the Holy Land. The rejection of the plan by the Arab nations, and their declaration of war against Israel rather than their acceptance of peace, was the first clear indication that the Arabs' desire was never to provide a state for the Palestinian people, but rather has been from the beginning to erase Israel from the map. This destructive intent is memorialized in the Hamas Charter, which unashamedly asks for the eradication of the State of Israel. This intent is also aligned with the Iranian leaders' continuous entreaties to destroy Israel. An evaluation of relevant social media commentary in the Arab world demonstrates a genuine desire by many -- if not most -- of the Arab population to see the destruction of Israel and the killing not just of all Israeli Jews but of all Jews :

Give 1/2 of a people's country away to a foreign invaders and expect them to be happy about it. A foreign invader that doesn't share a common religion, belief system, allies, or history. Think the Palestinians would have been happy if any of the other minority religions within the country were given power over the majority Sunnis? Just look at the warring government factions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for your answer. Also, his response leaves out the Zionist expulsion of Palestinian Arabs from their territories after Resolution 181.

aljazeera

Every year on May 15, Palestinians around the world, numbering about 12.4 million, mark  the Nakba , or "catastrophe", referring to the  ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the near-total destruction of Palestinian society in 1948.

The Palestinian experience of dispossession and loss of a homeland is 69 years old this year.

On that day, the State of Israel  came into being. The creation of Israel was a violent process that entailed the forced expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homeland to establish a Jewish-majority state, as per the aspirations of the Zionist movement.

Between 1947 and 1949, at least 750,000 Palestinians from a 1.9 million population were made refugees beyond the borders of the state. Zionist forces had taken more than 78 percent of historic Palestine, ethnically cleansed and destroyed about 530 villages and cities, and killed about 15,000 Palestinians in a series of mass atrocities, including more than 70 massacres.

Though May 15, 1948, became the official day for commemorating the Nakba, armed Zionist groups had launched the process of displacement of Palestinians much earlier. In fact, by May 15, half of the total number of Palestinian refugees had already been forcefully expelled from their country.

From the same article.

In early 1947, the British government announced it would be handing over the disaster it had created in Palestine to the United Nations and ending its colonial project there. On November 29, 1947, the UN adopted Resolution 181, recommending the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.

At the time, the Jews in Palestine constituted one third of the population and owned less than six percent of the total land area. Under the UN partition plan, they were allocated 55 percent of the land, encompassing many of the main cities with Palestinian Arab majorities and the important coastline from Haifa to Jaffa. The Arab state would be deprived of key agricultural lands and seaports, which led the Palestinians to reject the proposal.

Shortly following the UN Resolution 181, war broke out between the Palestinian Arabs and Zionist armed groups, who, unlike the Palestinians, had gained extensive training and arms from fighting alongside Britain in  World War II .

haaretz

2. The cause of the problem is NOT the land After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, several Arab nations were created by fiat. The Arab world accepted this without any problem, as these were Muslim-majority countries.

They did? Where the hell does this guy get his information from? The Middle East is at constant war with itself with several unrelated factions within the same country struggling for power- with proxy help from Arab nations with the same religious beliefs.

Look at Iraq. Think the Sunnis and Kurds like living under the rule of a Shai government loyal to Iran, with Iranian militias rampant within it's borders? ISIS/ISIL didn't spring up from no where.  Before that think the Kurds and Shai loved living under the Sunni Saddam? Would Saddam have tried to annex Kuwait if the Arab world really accepted these "Arab nations created by fiat"?  Iran and Iraq fought 8 years over land.

How about Syria? Where Assad (an Alawite- Shia based) minority lead government dominates the larger Sunni population, and significant Kurdish one?  You have the Iranians supporting the government; with Saudi Arabia and Egypt supporting the Sunni rebels- many of which are displaced Iraqis.  With Turkey backing yet another faction of Sunnis to the north and fighting the Kurds in Syria.

Sykes and Picot divided up the ME not using common sense taking into account people with divergent religious beliefs, tribal, and even clans that never got along to make borders; but resources and geographical land markings. It was about equally dividing resources up between the British and French empires, nothing more.

4. Inability of the Arab mind to admit its wrongdoings Many in the Arab world falsely believe that Israel expelled all Arabs. In fact, there are nearly two million Israeli Arabs who live in Israel as citizens, making up 20% of the population. Many in the Arab world tend to ignore that it was the Arabs who expelled the Jews -- in a humiliating way -- from countries such as Egypt, Iraq and Algeria. Arabs' failure to admit their own mistakes and crimes against their Jewish communities adds another obstacle to peaceful resolutions to the problem.

So what Israel did expelling millions of Palestinian Arabs doesn't matter since Arab countries expelled Jews? Neither the Israelis or Arabs will ever admit what they did was wrong. See link # 2 above as backup. Good luck in over coming that.

8. Lack of Pragmatism

Another factor that impedes any peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is a general lack of pragmatism in the Arab world. For example, despite the many economic benefits to Egypt from the peace treaty with Israel (such as the return of the Sinai Peninsula and renewed access to the Suez Canal, both of which were a boon to trade and tourism), many Egyptians and the Arab of other nations still reject and refuse to follow the peaceful path of President Anwar Sadat. Arab resistance to peace with the Jewish people, despite the economic gains that resulted from the Camp David Accords, was clearly demonstrated when tens of thousands of Egyptians attacked and burned the Israeli Embassy in Cairo.

This kind of unpragmatic approach to the problem will always be an obstacle to solving the conflict only via economic incentives.

So ignore the Israeli settlements and confiscation of land? Concentrate only on the economic benefits that Israel has to offer. The rest of the Arab world can gain greatly, all it  has to do is throw the Palestinians the rest of the way under the bus; and force them to accept whatever peace deal Israel offers.

Israel has the right to exist. So do the Palestinians. The two will never do so side by side peacefully. It was set up for failure from the start.

An Arab Muslim wrote the article I posted. 

I don't care who wrote it. His knowledge of history is abysmal. He must lead a very sheltered life if he doesn't know about the religious, tribal, and even clan differences in Palestine and the rest of the ME.

Jews were ALWAYS in Israel,

So were Arabs and Christians. Your point is?

Jews have an historical and legal right to Israel, including Judea and Samaria, and the only problem is that there isn't an unbiased world court where that proof can be presented and would have the effect of getting a proper judgment:

No, they have a militaristic right to Israel; propped up by the most powerful nation in the world. Don't worry, no power can remove them, unless the US drops support. Which will never happen. The Arabs are too divided to ever mount any type of real challenge to Israel anyways.  They would have to stop fighting each other long enough first.

We have gone round and round on their "right", as Britain promised the Arabs the land as well; and Israel has violated Balfour Declaration.

history

“His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”  

The part in bold was not abided by.

Of course Britain also promised Palestine to the Arabs.

worldfuturefund

Back in 1915, the British needed the help of the Arabs in defeating the Ottoman Empire in World War I. In a set of letters called the 'McMahon–Hussein Correspondence,' they promised the Arabs that if they rebelled against The Ottoman Empire (which had sided with Germany in the war), that they would get their own independent state (as depicted in the first map above). However, at the very same time the British made this promise, there was clandestine agreement in the works with France and Russia to carve up the Ottoman Empire amongst themselves. This was known as the 'Sykes-Picot Agreement.' Suffice it to say, the territory promised to the Arabs was not a part of their bargain. Then to make matters even more confusing, there was a third - and completely separate agreement with the Zionist community called the 'Balfour Declaration', promising the Jews their own ethno-state within the borders of Palestine.

So with these three contradictory agreements all made at the same time, it was clear that somebody was going to get deceived. In the end, the British promises to  the Arabs were a fraud.

The Arabs fought and died for the British, thinking that they would gain their independence as a reward for their sacrifice. Yet what ended up happening instead, is that the British and French marched into their territory and claimed the remains of empire for themselves.

bu

In order to enlist the military and political support of the Arabs, Britain promises to support their struggle for independence in most of the lands hitherto ruled by the Ottoman Turks, presumably including Palestine (see the correspondence between Sharif Husayn and MacMahon ).
At the same time, Britain agrees with France and Russia to carve up the Middle East into mutually agreed spheres of economic and political influence. The map drawn up in the Sykes-Picot agreement contradicts the promises made in the MacMahon correspondence.
Some authors charge Britain with outright duplicity, others are more forgiving, believing that the British later did their best to stabilize the tense situation they themselves had helped to create during the First World War. With respect to Palestine in particular, the Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour conceded as early as 1919 that

the Powers had made no statement of fact that is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate. (Armstrong, p. 374, quoting from Christopher Sykes, Crossroads to Israel , London 1965, pp. 16-17)

Be that as it may, it is clear that Britain's promises could not all be fulfilled and that the mandatory power proved unable to control the flames of nationalism it had nourished.

Neither side really wants peace. If Israel did they would remove all of their settlers from the West Bank; find a way to link the West Bank and Gaza geographically; and agree to divide Jerusalem.  That would mean negotiating realistic air space, water rights, coastal rights, and even rules for trade points of entry between the countries. If the Palestinians did they would realize that they will never get right of return for those Israel drove out; and seek to form alliances with Egypt and Jordan to open their borders for travel and trade.  That would mean giving up the thought of ever driving Jews out of Israel.  Neither country will ever open their border so long as they fear Israeli reprisals if Palestinians continue military aggression.

"Give 1/2 of a people's country away to a foreign invaders and expect them to be happy about it."

As Mark Twain said when he visited Palestine, the place was desolate - you could hardly see a soul anywhere.

Most of the Arab population grew when they came from other lands (like Arafat, the "Palestinian", who came from Egypt) to get jobs on Jewish farms and companies.

"Give 1/2 of a people's country away to a foreign invaders and expect them to be happy about it."

Then maybe you should give your home to Kavika, 1st Warrior or Raven Wing.

Mark Twain? Care to choose a better source?

hyperallergic

palestineremembered

thelede.blogs.nytimes

Apart from the demographic argument though, there is no doubt that Twain had a lot of unfavorable things to say about Arabs, and was not shy of saying them. In a column in Haaretz on Wednesday, the Israeli historian   Tom Segev noted   that:

Netanyahu took historian Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador-designate to Washington, with him on his trip. Oren wrote a fascinating book on American attitudes toward the Middle East, in which he says the Muslims disgusted Twain: “No number of negative adjectives, it seems, could express Twain’s disgust.”

To say Twain had a severe dislike of Arabs was putting it mildly.

No surprise you ignored the historical and legal right that the Jews have to the land of Israel.  I can tell you that the two NT members (that I know of) who have independently researched those rights in the past, both agree with the conclusions in the link I posted.  Your use of the Palestinian narrative as reported by Israel-bashing sources does not impress me.

See post 9.1.1

Historical rights. You can't cherry pick which ones you want to use.

IMPASSE

To say Twain had a severe dislike of Arabs was putting it mildly.

Interesting sidenote is he was not fond of Jewish people either