Of course, I prefer anything rather than the status quo, where Palestinians work as Israel surrogates, and reduce Israel’s burden while providing no advantage to us. But also, it won’t happen because there is too strong of a system of these buffoons sitting embassies and staying in fancy hotels, which the officialdom of the PA gives credibility to. Also, I hate that the PA “leaders” believe they can sign deals in the of the Palestinian people. So I am all for dismantling the PA.

Israel would then become a federal government with two states, what is Israel now in the 67 lines, and what is Israel outside of those lines, thereby granting the Palestinians autonomy but the federal government will always be elected 70% by the “Jewish state” of the federation. We will stop conducting any census as they are a waste of money. If in Lebanon this kind of system is not considered apartheid, why will it be apartheid in Israel?

What do you think of my latest crazy-idea: The Palestinians should immediately and declaratively drop their national aspirations, dismantle all governing mechanisms in the West Bank (and if possible, Gaza), and demand to be incorporated into the internationally-recognized State of Israel. The PA, on behalf of the Palestinians, should “hand over the keys.” Finito.

What do you think, isn’t this a more effective way?

(QN, sorry for going off-topic for a minute…)

Every time I respond to one of your long comments, you come back with one three times as long!

I’ll have to get back to you tonight, after I do a full day’s work for a full day’s pay…

The reasons I would start with the military position rather than systematic changes in the political structure are that 1) Hizbullah takes the military aspect of its program most seriously, 2) it could be a unifying nationalist argument (which is what Hizbullah says constantly), 3) breaking down Lebanese confessionalism is currently a zero sum game. You give the Shia more power, the christians get less… (and obviously, lebanon is still working within the confessionalist framework), 4) Israel is a legitimate threat, 5) it would be a massive confidence building measure…. and other things too.

also you said, “these guys (M14) want Hizbullah to disarm!” True enough. But the question is how? it’s not going to happen through confrontation with Hizbullah. And I think Hizbullah has shown a lot more flexibility on these issues than M14 has. That is why the good faith should start there.

So, for example, what do you think would happen if M14 demanded weapons capable of defending Lebanon from Israel as a condition of friendly relations with the west? well, there are three options, all of which would be good for Hizbullah. 1) the west agrees and everyone except israel is happy, 2) the west doesn’t agree and relations between M14 and the west are harmed, but M14/Hizbullah relations improve, 3) a third party like Russia or China fills the void, which is good for everyone except the USA and Israel.

Of course, M14 would have to be willing to follow up on such a move, but you get the idea…

One other point that I have made before, and just want to clarify, is my reference to 1701. When I refer to it, I do not refer to the outcome. I think Hizbullah accepts the outcome. I refer to the way it was negotiated, and the lack of effort put forth by the Lebanese government to make it a balanced resolution. And I think this is a key point. Because, I think one of Hizbullah’s prime motivators for wanting to join the government is to be able to protect themselves from the implementation of laws that are biased against them. 1701 is a good example. Jumblatt’s communications fiasco is another.

So, if that’s the case, if you are Hizbullah, it’s not much to ask that the political establishment does more to protect Lebanon (they already agree in theory). Because, obviously, Hizbullah sees through the current empty talk about being the last country to sign a peace deal with Israel… and such. These are empty words. If you are Hizbullah, you want to see the political establishment show some real effort first. To quote Ayatollah Ali Khamenei responding to Obama’s Nowruz message, “Change only in words is not enough.”

I know there is a split in Lebanon about whether Hizbullah should keep its weapons. But the question is, if you were Hizbullah, why would you disarm and make yourself susceptible to the liars and thieves populate the Lebanese establishment?

For the moment, let’s even start with the assumption that Hizbullah wants to integrate (generally speaking). If you are Hizb, how can you trust the M14 forces? We both know Hizbullah has good reason to think Israel is a mortal enemy, and they have legitimate fears and grievances about Israel, that M14 consistently downplays those concerns, and that M14 acts with more deference to the foreign policy concerns of the USA than Hizbullah.

What seems to me like the fundamental cause of the differences in our positions is that you start by thinking that Hizbullah needs to integrate (maybe for the sake of legitimacy and Lebanon’s safety, in your view). But you know Hizbullah doesn’t see it that way. And you also know Hizbullah doesn’t need the system as much as the system needs Hizbullah.

Again, from Hizbullah’s perspective, why should they integrate into a burning house? Ok, let’s assume they want to. But right now, there is only cost for them to do so. My point is that they would need to see more before they would integrate. And M14 taking the resistance part of Hizbullah’s program seriously would be the best place to start. (and I agree that Hizbullah would see through empty gestures, that’s why Hizbullah is not going to integrate this week. remember, Hizbullah also saw through the empty gesture of trying to directly confront them by taking down their communications network).