With ‘road map´ in tatters, Sharon begins imposing unilateral solution

[Herschel]

In the nearly two months since Mahmoud Abbas resigned as Palestinian Authority prime minister, the United States has stepped back from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In the meantime, Israel has adopted a two-pronged policy, taking bold unilateral moves while encouraging Abbas´ successor to form a government with which Israel can negotiate.

In the hiatus following Abbas´ departure, the Israeli government has approved the route of the controversial security fence separating Israel from the West Bank; hinted at plans for a second, eastern fence that would cut off the Jordan Valley from the West Bank; stepped up anti-terror military activity, and called for bids to build over 300 apartments in disputed areas.

The policy cuts two ways: It begins to impose an Israeli vision of a weakened and truncated Palestinian entity, and it puts pressure on the Palestinians to start negotiating in earnest before that vision becomes a reality.

On Oct. 1, Israel´s Cabinet approved a route for the security fence that — if all the planned sections eventually are joined — would include sizable tracts of the West Bank on the Israeli side.

Moreover, in an Israeli television interview last week, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon intimated that, despite American objections to the main fence´s route, he was contemplating a second, eastern fence along the Jordan Valley.

That would have major implications: If both fences are built, the entire West Bank would be fenced in and the Palestinians would get no more than 60 percent of the land.

cut

http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=13371&intcategoryid=1

==========================

This solution may well be closer to what the ultimate settlement will resemble.

[Darranar]

1. So the Israelis get a lot of fertile land...

and the Palestinians get a hardly viable state? That isn't a "solution," that's ethnic cleansing and land thief.

[The Magistrate]

2. 'Bold Unilateral Moves"?

That is a damned polite thing to call the refusal to dismantle settlements, and annexation of land to which Israel has no shred of legal claim.

[bemildred]

3. Well. I suppose this makes it something other than

wild and unfair speculation by Israel haters in any case ...

About the intent of the "security wall", I mean.

[The Magistrate]

5. To Make That Stick, My Friend

You would have to number me among haters of Israel.

The thing is perfectly clear: no speculation involved.

[bemildred]

8. No criticism of you intended, Sir.

I just had not seen it put baldly before.
I don't expect this would lead to any peace that
one can rely on; on the other hand I am doubtful
that it will come to pass in the way stated.

[The Magistrate]

10. On That Last, We May Disagree A Little, My Friend

There does not seem to me to be anything in the offing that will stop it. Sharon has the power to push it through, regretably.

Nor did you comment seem disparraging, Sir, and mine was merely to point up the foolishness of that line of defense in this matter. No friend of Israel can support this seizure of land.

[Darranar]

11. He has the power to do so...

but doe he have the courage to accept the consequences?

If all goes well, public opinion in Israel will turn against Likud because of this, a few of the parties in the coalition will waver, and Sharon will stop to spare his political future.

But that is likely hopelessly optimistic.

The best that can be hoped for is a defeat of Likud in the next election, after Sharon has already had a chance to carry out this plan. And even that seems in considerable doubt.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Again, there is an option

He is clearly trying to force the Palestinians to negotiate. If they do so, they can alter the way things would be. If they do not, that is their choice.

[Darranar]

14. No, he's not...

he's clearly trying to steal land. This is a blatant land grab.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. A serious question

OK, suppose you are right and it's a blatant land grab. Shouldn't the Palestinians try and head him off at the pass and work out a peace treaty that prevents it?

[Darranar]

16. What, exactly, can they do?

They tried negotiating - Bush, Sharon, and Arafat undermined Abbas and the moderates.

I'll tell you one thing, though: Sharon is only hurting the peace process, by continuing the ethnic cleansing and oppression of the Palestinians.

Many among the Palestinians view Sharon as a hypocrite, as do I and many others. He speaks out in favor of ending the occupation, yet he makes an effort to entrench it is a large section of the land. He says that he is serious about peace, yet he fails to freeze settlement growth and tries to grab more land. And he excuses all this by saying that the PA is not cracking down on terror.

All he is doing is weakening the PA (by making their peace attempts seem worthless) and helping the terrorists (by making it seem as if violence is the only defense.) And it isn't like the PA has the resources to do what the IDF has repeatedly failed to do.

[The Magistrate]

20. It Does Not Seem Likely To Me, Mr. Muddle

That Sharon has any particular interest in negotiations.

He had an opportunity early this summer; he did not take it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. Not negotiations

Peace. Yes, there is a difference.

There are only three possibilities for Sharon's actions:

* He is doing this as a land grab as you believe.
* He is doing this as a way to force the Palestinians to the peace table in a way advantageous to Israel. (My belief by the way.)
* He is keeping his options open. Pushing the second, but recognizing if it doesn't work it becomes, de facto, the first.

Not one of those cases is good for the Palestinians. So, it seems to me, that it remains in their best interests to not let it happen. That, under saner leadership, would result in a full-court press by the Palestinians to get a peace treaty, to shut down terror and to settle the issue before they lose more ground. Despite recent back-room peace negotiations, it has not done so.

I'm not talking about piddling here. It is clear that the Palestinians are LOSING GROUND perhaps quite literally. If that is the case, then they must work out the best peace they can now because next year their situation will have less leverage. That requires a major public initiative by Arafat and he is not doing it.

[Classical_Liberal]

24. They will lose it no matter what.

They should go for full citizenship, and forget about the provisional government farce. They won't have a country till Sharon wants it worse than the Palestinians.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. They will lose THAT

Israel doesn't want a sudden influx of unhappy Arab citizens.

[Classical_Liberal]

95. To late.

They already have them. Now Sharon will stand naked with the fact that he is imposing Apartied rather than fighting terror, and the progressive jewish community has to come down on one side or the other.

The Palestinians gave him 6 months notice today, thank god!

[Darranar]

27. Your trust in Sharon is amazing...

as is your belief that the Palestinains will want peace more as more and more of their land is taken away.

You've said repeatedly on some of the gun control threads that if someone tries to steal something from you you'd shoot him. Do you doubt that all this is doing is making the Palestinians MORE angry at Israel and MORE prone to support the terrrorists? Have you ever looked at your logic from the other perspective?

If all of Israel's inhumanitarian actions would end once the need for security passed, why do you not believe the same of the inhumanitarian tactics used by the Palestinians? Neither atrocity is justifiable; neither is excusable. They both damage the peace process severely. Yet both are a reaction to a situation.

Sharon never has had a real interest in a just peace (as much as can be had). Such a peace requires concessions, not further aggression. He desires peace from victory; he desires a state of Palestine that lacks true sovereignty, that Israel can essentially control, with much of the West Bank annexed directly to Israel.

That solution is horrible for the Palestinians, but he doesn't care. Why should he? Does Bush care about the innocent Afghanis and Iraqis slaughtered in his two wars?

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. No particular trust in Sharon

But Sharon is not Israel. He is there because of the ongoing terror attacks. If Israel had peace, it would not have a warrior as leader.

The Palestinians are very bad at marketing their cause. The terrorism has lost them friends certainly here, but more importantly in Israel where they need them. The Palestinians will never have a state without Israeli help and acceptance. To continue to attack in the face of that is insanity.

[The Magistrate]

63. It Is Regretable, Mr. Muddle

But there is simply no reason to conclude on the evidence of his actions that Sharon is even attempting to force the leadership of Arab Palestine to negotiations.

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. So you choose version one

Still, the results are the same. If the Palestinians don't stop it by bringing peace, then they lose out.

[Darranar]

65. How, exactly, can they do so?

Are the Israelis not committing horrible crimes?

Can't they, too, make an effort to stop it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

98. Answers

How can they do it? Arafat needs to seize the day and decide to be genuinely pro-peace. That DOES mean he has to shut down the terrorists. Do that and Israel will negotiate. Internal and external pressure would be too great.

Second question: No.

Third question: Why should they? Until they are offered peace, why should they do anything?

[Darranar]

99. Now let's apply your logic to the Palestinian side for a moment...

How can they do it? Sharon needs to seize the day and decide to be genuinely pro-peace. That DOES mean he has to shut down the settlements and tear down the wall. Do that and the PA will negotiate. Internal and external pressure would be too great.

Second question: No. The suicide bombings are the main weapon they use. Stopping them would only encourage Israel. (Before you respond, note that I do not believe this at all. The suicide bombings are horrible crimes against humanity, but many palestinians don't see it that way, the same way many Israelis refuse to see their countiry's crimes and mistakes.)

Third question: Why should they? Until they are offered peace, why should they do anything?

[ForestsBeatBushes]

100. Okay, so now that my morning coffee has spritzed all over the place,

allow me to re-print your 2nd paragraph:

"Second question: No. The suicide bombings are the main weapon they use. Stopping them would only encourage Israel. (Before you respond, note that I do not believe this at all. The suicide bombings are horrible crimes against humanity, but many palestinians don't see it that way, the same way many Israelis refuse to see their countiry's crimes and mistakes.)"

So, stopping the suicide bombings would only encourage Israel? Yes, but most likely not in the way you appear to mean.

What I quoted above from you leaves me in virtual shock.

[Darranar]

102. No, no, no...

can't you read? Read what's inside the parentheses!

Of course stoping the suicide bombings would advance the cause of peace, btu soem don't see it that way. Muddle defends the wall because it "pressures the PA." In fact, it puts peace further away. And the same argument could be put in support of the suicide bombings; that was my point, not that I believe that argument.

[hossdiddy]

101. Any unilateral move

by Israel to shut down settlements would be viewed as weakness by the Pals and their supporters in the Arab/Muslim world. Internal pressure? Majority of Pals feel that their is not enough room for 2 states. External pressure? Certainly the Arab nations would exert pressure : To continue their proxy war against Israel. The money and weapons would flow at full force.

No, it would bring far more bloodshed, as they would feel that their long-awaited victory (River to the Sea) is in sight.

Just keep building the security fence, and then sit back and watch the Pal civil war begin.

[Darranar]

103. LOL!

So wouldn't any move by the "Pals" to stop the suicide bombings be seen by Israel as a weakness, therefore allowing Israel to continue the settlements and the wall?

[Darranar]

104. And for those still confused...

I am simply using their argument against them, not advocating this argument.

I hate the suicide bombings and those who launch them.

[hossdiddy]

107. The vast majority of Israelis

don't have genocide and slaughter on their agenda. They do have peace as their ultimate goal. The Pals and the Arabs ultimate goal is victory. (River to the Sea)

If the suicide bombings were to stop, their would be overwhelming internal and external support for peace (i.e. US money to Israel would indeed stop, if the Pals/Arabs showed a true inclination to a reasonable resolution, and Israel did not support it) and the Pals would get their State.

[Darranar]

109. So the vast amjority of "Pals" do?

You are really funny.

[hossdiddy]

112. and your

denial is comical.

Poll after poll shows the majority of Pals support suicide bombings and don't feel they can have ANY viable state as long as Israel exists.

[Darranar]

116. And the polls show similar things about the Israelis!

How many seats does Likud have in the kNesset? Sharon, with his ethnic cleansing and butchery, has built up quite a following!

Of course the Palestinians suppport suicide bombings, and of course the Israelis support "security" actions! That doens't mean that supporters of either form of terrorism should be killed.

If the brutality of the IDF towards the aplestinians ended, so would those poll results.

[hossdiddy]

155. security actions are terrorism?

Orwell would ne proud.

Defense against terrorism is terrorism in your vocabulary.

[Darranar]

158. How are the settlements defense against terrorrism?

How is ethnic cleansing "security"?

Orwell would indeed be proud...

After all, war is peace...

[hossdiddy]

159. How are the settlements defense against terrorrism?

The settlements are in many places in communities that were ethnically cleansed by Arabs in the 20s and 30s. Would you like to reward this by keeping them forever Judenrein?

Also, the pre-1967 "borders" leaves Israel too thin/vulnerable in areas, and as the Arabs have continually attacked them, they can indeed take land to have defensible borders.

[bluesoul]

160. Hossdiddy

Talking about justifying land grabbing and stealing..

[hossdiddy]

163. bluesoul

if you don't like losing land, then don't start wars.

if you do, and then you lose some land, don't whine to me.

[Darranar]

164. So you support the right of return for Palestinians?

Or just for Israelis?

The vast majority of settlements and settlers were not ethnic cleansed from lands in the West Bank. Most of it is simply land theft.

The Green Line does not leave Israel indefensible at all, and the Arabs haven't attacked Israel in thiry years.

[hossdiddy]

165. the Arabs haven't attacked Israel in thiry years

lol.

All those terrorist attacks I read about are over 30 years old.

[Darranar]

166. Palestinians, not Arabs...

there's a difference, you know.

[hossdiddy]

167. Palestinians not Arabs....

Ummm, the fact that SA provides funding to Pal suicide bombers is not an Arab attack?

The fact that Egypt provides weapons to Pal terrorists, is not effectively an attack?

The fact that Iran and Syria fund and train Hezbollah, that is not an attack?

(I know, Israel attacking a Syrian terrorist training camp is somehow "provocative", but the camp being there in the first place, that's not a provocation)

The Arab states have indeed not launched a conventional attack against Israel in over 30 years (as they were constantly beaten badly and humiliated) but the war continues through their terrorist proxies.

Oh well. Gotta go. Hope you learned something.

[Darranar]

169. Yah, yah, yah, yah...

So the US is ethnic cleansing the Palestinians.

[bluesoul]

106. Wow

"Just keep building the security fence, and then sit back and watch the Pal civil war begin."

So this is good because a civil war would begin? Your motives and mentality are dazzling. Plus I suspect you don't have much to do with the term "progressive".

[hossdiddy]

108. Absolutely...

let the terrorist factions fight each other in a power struggle.

Dead terrorists are in everyone's interests.

[bluesoul]

110. Dead "terrorists"

Are all those Palestinians resisting Israeli occupation terorists? Does this include all those children, minors, women killed by the IDF as well? Just wondering...

[Darranar]

113. They all want to drive Israel into the sea, bluesoul!

They're all vile terrorists, women and children included!

</sarcasm>

[hossdiddy]

117. They're all vile terrorists, women and children included!

I know. When you can't win an argument, just put words in the other side's mouth.

Pretty common tactic.

[Darranar]

120. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Do you read your own posts?

[ForestsBeatBushes]

124. Is that a laugh of desperation?

What in the world causes some Jews to so identify with those who want them dead is just unfathomable to me.

[bluesoul]

132. And let me phrase this:

What in the world identifies ANY progressive/liberal with the policy of people like Sharon is beyond me....

[Muddleoftheroad]

136. Sharon

He is the man of the hour, nothing more. Israel is at war and nations choose war leaders during such a time. A nation at peace would not choose or support Sharon.

More than any Likud member, the terrorists made Sharon happen.

[bluesoul]

139. Maybe

But Israel's 30 year long policy of occupation and settlements made terrorists happen even among people that would normally never become one...

[hossdiddy]

114. Nope

the women and children are unfortunate consequences of the Palestinian/Arab tactic of terrorism.

[bluesoul]

121. Your comments

are a nice reflection of your mentality and ideology... :kick:

[hossdiddy]

127. I

take that as a compliment. I do indeed have moral clarity.

Your comments show your true colors.

[Darranar]

126. So then all the men are vile, genocidal terrorists?

[Muddleoftheroad]

131. You normally debate better than this

Trying to put words in the mouths of others isn't your style.

[Darranar]

141. That's because most of the people I debate with are reasonable...

you included.

[hossdiddy]

149. "So then all the men are vile, genocidal terrorists?"

Ha!

Read up on what a straw man argument is.

[Darranar]

151. I'm very well aware of what it is, thank you...

So you've said that the palesitnians support genocide, ethnic cleansing, and terrorism - so we shouldn't care about them.

So, therefore, you see them as vile, genocidal terrorists.

[bluesoul]

153. Well

If he really sees them as such then in his mind and world there will NEVER be peace and all Israel has to do is get rid of them. Or they should move to Jordan or something...yeah

[hossdiddy]

157. All of the Palestinians

(and anyone else) who support suicide bombings, are indeed vile. If that moral judgment horrifies you, so be it.

It never said we shouldn't care about the Palestinians. They don't all support terrorism, and while I won't absolve the terrorist supporters of all blame, they do live in a despotic tyranny where they are brainwashed 24-7 by PA controlled media, schools, mosques.

That being said, the fact that the majority of Pals support terrorism is used to refute your erroneous claim that all that is needed is more Israeli concessions for peace to come about. Those concessions would increase the support for terrorism,as it would be seen as working.

[Muddleoftheroad]

125. Sooner or later

The Magistrate made this case more eloquently than I, but if the Palestinians are to be a state, then they need to speak with one voice both politically and militarily. That does mean sooner or later Arafat or his successors will have to fight it out with the terror factions. It's happened in other nations. Ireland got its state and almost immediately had to fight the radicals and shut them down.

[Darranar]

130. Agreed....

We agree completely, Muddle, on this.

The problem is getting them the supprot they would need to do such a thing. Ireland did it AFTER they got a state.

[Muddleoftheroad]

168. Ireland

Ireland also made numerous accomodations, accepted a less-than state and agreed to shut down attacks on the British as well as accepted not keeping the north.

[Muddleoftheroad]

105. Israel has a state

Last time I checked, the Palestinians do not. THEY are the ones who need to settle this issue.

No, Sharon does not need to do either thing you say. If there is a peace settlement, then the wall should be rebuilt along THAT border. But the wall needs to remain.

Well, if "many Palestinians" view the suicide bombers as their weapon, fuck them. All your statement says to me is that "many Palestinians" are not worth negotiating with. So, net result, they get no state. They get an imposed border they hate. They get no trade with Israel. They get no jobs IN Israel. They get nada.

Third question: Again, they need peace more than Israel because the facts on the ground turn against them every day. Every day they delay, it becomes clear that whatever result they get will be worse than what Barak offered them. Yes, their little blow-up dolls are killing Israelis, but the Palestinians are losing the war.

[Darranar]

111. So you don't care about the palestinians?

Since you view the Israeli "security" actions as responses and the Palestinain terrorists as instigators, you let all the blame fall onto the Palestinians.

I showed you how the blame could all be left on the heads of the Israelis. Neither way of looking at it is right. But the point is taht if EITHER side, Hamas or Sharon, decided to try peace, peace would come.

[hossdiddy]

115. But

you are incorrect.

Sharon can not try peace as their is noone on the other side to try peace with. Well, there are a few, but when found out, they are generally hung from the nearest lamppost as "collaborators"

[Darranar]

118. Abbas could...

Ala could... Sharon blew it twice.

Other moderates would rise to power if concessions were granted.

[hossdiddy]

123. So Arafat

appoints some puppet, and then concessions (that would greatly endanger Israeli lives) must immediately be granted to bolster these so-called moderates?

The disaster of concessions to violent party was shown at WWII.

Why repeat history's mistakes?

[Darranar]

128. So-called moderates?

Arafat's puppets?

If they were puppets, whyd did Arafat undermine their every move? he tried to make them puppets; because Sharon refused to grant concessions and give them the support of the populace, they resigned.

[Muddleoftheroad]

133. Not Sharon's job

It's not Sharon's job to sort out the mess that is the PA. It's the Palestinians job.

[hossdiddy]

146. puppets

It was a nice puppet show, where Arafat and them would orchestrate these disagreements, and the resignation would be blamed on lack of Israeli concessions.

[Muddleoftheroad]

119. Pretty big inference there

I am dealing with reality. The Palestinians are the only ones who can alter the situation as it stands. If Israel takes action, it still faces enemies, many of whom who wish to destroy it. That meeans there is no motivation to do so. If the Palestinians shut down those terrorists, then we have two sides that conceivably can make peace.

No, I have said repeatedly ALL actors in this play deserve blame -- the UN, the U.S., Europe, the Arab world, Israel and the Palestinians.

[Darranar]

122. But the terrorists would collapse...

if Israel tried peace!

A guerilla war needs the support, or at least sympathy, of the populace. They have it now. Without it, they would collapse.

Concessions would bring such reduction in support.

[Muddleoftheroad]

129. No

Quite the opposite. If the terrorists win big concessions and lose no ground themselves all it shows is that is the tactic that works. it would be repeated again and again.

[Darranar]

135. That's not true, Muddle...

because that's not the way it works at all.

The Palestinains AND Israelis are currently extremely cynical about the prospects of peace. They believe that the other side will neve roffer them a chance at peace. If it was offered, they would choose it.

[hossdiddy]

143. If it was offered, they would choose it.

Even, if the Pal population wanted a reasonable peace (something I don't believe after the years of brainwashing) they live in a despotic tyranny.

If it was offered (which it certainly has been (Camp David for one)), they have no ability to choose it. The Pal leadership (and their financiers in SA, Iran, Syria, etc) make all their decisions.

[Darranar]

145. It's called negotiating, you know...

refusing deals that are disadvantegous to you.

[hossdiddy]

148. negotiating????

That's the funniest line of day.

The Pals were offered a deal (most of what they say they want), and walked away without a counteroffer and started their Intifada.

Arafat spent most of his time at Camp David ranting to Clinton and others that the Jews had no historical ties to Jerusalem.

Their was no negotiating.

[Darranar]

150. So you believe the myths, do you?

Barak walked away - not Arafat. The intifadah was a result of both of those leaders' failure to negotiate for peace and not for peaceful victory, and of Snharon's march to the Temple Mount and the actions the day after.

[hossdiddy]

154. and you believe the revisionist history do you?

Read this interview with Dennis Ross, one of the US negoiators who was at Camp David, talking about Arafat's absolute intransigence.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50830,00.html

An excerpt :


"Number one, at Camp David we did not put a comprehensive set of ideas on the table. We put ideas on the table that would have affected the borders and would have affected Jerusalem.

Arafat could not accept any of that. In fact, during the 15 days there, he never himself raised a single idea. His negotiators did, to be fair to them, but he didn't. The only new idea he raised at Camp David was that the temple didn't exist in Jerusalem, it existed in Nablus. "

And the intifada was a spontaneous reaction to Sharon visiting a Jewish holy site, and not a planned war? LOL.

[bluesoul]

156. Oh my

And Dennis Ross and Fox News are crebile sources? Please don't make me laugh.

[hossdiddy]

161. And Dennis Ross and Fox News are crebile sources?

When the truth hurts, attack the source?

Even if you don't like Fox News, all this has are quotes. Or did Fox fabricate the whole interview for some nefarious purpose?

[bluesoul]

162. Accepting bantustans not states

The one interviewed is hardly credible and objective himself.

[SOS]

176. Arafat

did not walk away and start Intifada. Here are some dates to refresh your memory:

May 22, 2000 - Barak unilaterally withdraws from peace negotiations

Clinton is furious. 2000 is an election year in the US and a success at Camp David is a top priority. Clinton puts pressure on Barak to return.

July 11, 2000 - Under US pressure, Barak returns.

July 19, 2000 - After 8 days, Barak says "he's had enough" and again unilaterally withdraws from the negotiations.

September 2000 - With Barak's OK, Sharon visits Temple Mount. Palestinians riot.
Israeli forces kill 49 Palestinians.

November 2000 - After two years without a single suicide bombing, the attacks resume.

[hossdiddy]

138. Israel

tried peace at Camp David and got no such end of sympathy for the terrorists.

No, as long as the PA-controlled media, kindergartens, mosques etc continue their policy of brainwashing the populace (just think, any Pal under the age of 16, has spent just about all of their conscious life in this environment where suicide-murder is glorified, and Jews are demonized) the sympathy for this terrorist campaign continue.

At least, Congress is starting to see where the money we give the PA is going, and investigating it.

[Darranar]

140. Brainwashing?

LOL.

[hossdiddy]

144. Brainwashing?

24-7

[Darranar]

147. According to some...

Saddam did the same.

Yet the Iraqi people hated him.

It doesn't require "brainwashing" to get people to beleive junk. Many people on both sides believe junk.

[bluesoul]

152. Junk

And some of the junk that I am reading here is just unbelievable. :crazy:

[ForestsBeatBushes]

134. I care about all people.

However, it is naive to believe Hamas is going to try peace; and, if by some incredible occurrence, they did, do you really think all the other such groups would do the same? If (in this dream world that has been concocted), they all did, I believe Sharon et al would be voted out so fast your head would spin; why, the Israelis would call a special election just to do it.

[Darranar]

137. Of course!

And that's my point.

But it works the other way around, too.

[Classical_Liberal]

96. Not surprised he is pro nra

He is also against minimum wage, and other labor reforms. I have alerted about it, but to no avail.

[Muddleoftheroad]

97. If by "he" you mean me

You are wrong.

I don't support the NRA. I do, like MANY DUers and a huge number of our party, support gun ownership.

I am not against the minimum wage either. Your labor reforms comment is damn vague.

[Jack Rabbit]

21. What?

With whom are the Palestinians to negotiate peace if not Sharon? He's the Prime Minister of Israel. There is no one else.

Sharon's coming to power made a situation that was already bad worse. There has never been a peace process he liked; he railed against Oslo from first to last. He only embraced the Roadmap because it led nowhere and he only continues to embrace it because it is worthless.

If this is a blatant land grab -- and I believe it is -- then Sharon isn't going to negotiate. He's going to take it by force, period.

It really doesn't matter what the Palestinians do or don't do. Sharon never intended anything but to seize land and call it Eretz Israel. The suffering of Palestinians doesn't matter to him. As far as Sharon is concerned, Palestinians have no rights and never did, not even to the very houses in which they live.

[bemildred]

13. The outcome seems far from certain to me.

It does seem to me that there are political, economic, and
foreign policy issues that may prevent him, and life is a
chancy business in the best of times, but it would be
foolish to predict the outcome now. Let us watch and see
what comes to pass.

[Darranar]

4. "Bold, unilateral moves"...

to tear up the tatters of the roadmap, and the peace process as a whole, into even smaller pieces.

[Aidoneus]

7. there was a "peace process"?

was there ever any substance to it beyond the advertising campaign?

[Darranar]

9. There was an effort by some on both sides...

to cause a peaceful solution to the conflict.

Some of the "leaders" of this movement were hopelessly corrupt and had very bad policies.

[pansypoo53219]

6. just following

the path made by the idiot bushivics.

[Saudade]

17. Wrong

"This solution may well be closer to what the ultimate settlement will resemble."

The "ultimate" (Final) solution will not look anything like this, because the anachronism known as "Israel" -- the last ethnically/racially defined "state" on earth after the fall of Apartheid South Africa-- will fail as long as it attempts to persist in it's out of date colonial endeavor.

Every national liberation movement in modern history has succeded, in spite of military prowess, because the human instinct for freedom will defeat technology every time, as history shows.

The State of Israel, begun in worthy idealism, is now crashing on the shores of historical truth and collective mental illness, and is now rotting from within, insofar as Zionism is a moral project, and the signs are all too clear: failing economy, misery in the populace, failed leadership by any standard (Sharon: "Peace and Security"), corruption, and the "existential threat" to Israel is entirely internal.

Israel will never achieve its territorial goal of annexing the Occupied Territories by ethnic cleansing, ever.

The Spirit of Resistance will never die.

[dfong63]

18. we bombed the Serbs for supposedly doing what Israel is doing

[The Magistrate]

19. No Need To Bring The Balkans Down Here, Mr. Fong

One war at a time is about all that can be comfortably handled....

[Classical_Liberal]

22. Until they get a country I hope the Palestinians don't

take the bait of forming a government again. They will just be held responsible for terrorism they don't have the ability to stop.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

26. But they have a country or two already!

Jordan, where almost all of them are from

or, perhaps

Egypt, the birthplace of Arafat.

Israel must be allowed to remain the refuge it is for the next time the collective "you" come after the collective "us".

[Darranar]

28. "Jordan, where almost all of them are from"?

LOL. You really believe that?

[Gimel]

67. Palestinians have more males

Where does the large ratio of males in the Palestinian population come from. Most of the deaths in this conflict are males. Why is the population top-heavy with males, while the Israeli population has are larger percentage of females?

This interesting question leaves little doubt that males are being replenished from Jordan or other Arab populations.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/arabs/palpop.html
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/Refugee_Growth.html

A study of the population from 1922 onward:
http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm

PA reports:
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - The Palestinian population in the
West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem has grown to 2.89
million, up sharply from just over 2 million in the mid-1990s,
according to Palestinian census results announced today.

<snip>

Abu Libdeh attributed the sharp increase mainly to systematic
underreporting of Palestinian population figures during the years of
Israeli occupation. He also noted the high birth rate in Palestinian
areas and said thousands of Palestinians returned from exile after
the 1993 autonomy accord with Israel.

<snip>
http://www.cin.org/archives/al-bushra/199802/0249.html

[Darranar]

70. LOL...

I assume you can do better than us-israel.org?

[Gimel]

75. Actually I heard it first

on Channel 2 TV. No URL however. The Palestinian sources don't seem to itemize and this is through Israeli news sources. I wouldn't accept any other source. After all, the Palestinian area is within Israel's borders.

[bluesoul]

76. Earth to Gimel

"the Palestinian area is within Israel's borders"

Say what?

[Gimel]

77. Thanks

Look at a map. And since when is there a Palestinian State? It's like if 12 States succeeded from the Union. Are they part of the US and when do they stop being part of the US?

[Darranar]

78. Those territories are occupied...

they are not part of Israel.

[IndianaGreen]

79. Palestine has as much right to exist as a state as Israel

One cannot have one without the other. Give it up! Go back to the 1967 borders and drive a wooden stake in the heart of the "Greater Israel" mythology.

[Muddleoftheroad]

170. Not hardly

Israel already exists. A Palestinian state does not. You can't change existing facts.

[sabbat hunter]

171. my belief

is that the arab countries, mainly egypt and jordan, historically are as much to blame as israel for there being no state of palestine.

prior to 1947 there was no israel and no palestine. merely an area in the middle east administered by the UN and england. It was called palestine on many maps but it was not a independent nation in any regards. the UN decided to split the area up into two nations, one arab (future independent palestine or whatever they decided to call it) and a future jewish state (israel or whatever they decided to call it).

an independent state of israel was declared along the lines declared by the UN. the surrounding arab nations did not want an independent, democratic nation of any kind in their midst (remember none of them at the time were even close to any kind of democracy) King Abdullah I of Jordan even is supposed to have offered Golda Meir a choice, have no state of israel declared and jordan would annex the entire area. in exchange the jews would have seats in his parliament (not that his parliament had any real power) . his offer would have meant no independent state for palestinians or jews. His offer was refused and war ensued.
at the end of the war of independence, jordan controlled large areas of what would have been palestine( west bank) and egypt controlled another, albiet smaller area (gaza). there was no push by the arab nations between 1947-1967 for a state of palestine to be declared in these areas. for they did not want one. I do not believe for one minute that if the fledgling israel had lost the war in 1947 that a palestine would have been declared. instead jordan and egypt probably would have fought each other to see who could control the area.

i believe that a large number of the arab governments (not the people but the governments, a large distinction) still do not care about the palestinian people. i believe they would prefer a weak palestine one that they feel they could control, much like syria controls Lebanon(sp?).

are there a large number of palestinians in jordan, syria, egypt. yes there are. some are refugees from the wars. some have been there for a while. most of the current borders in the ME are pretty artificial, imposed by western powers when the ottoman empire fell apart. so there are people who could say they are palestinians in the surrounding areas, because people move around. either because of jobs (going from one city or another or simply because they were herders moving their flocks around to arable land. )

but that being said they deserve their own nation. as do the kurds.

i think it would be ideal if everyone could live together peacefully, and perhaps in the future our world will be like how john lennon sang about in "imagine", but right now it isnt.

my question is this, why wasnt a palestine declared in 1947 along with israel? or even in the years between 1947-1967 when the areas were conqured by israel?'


peace
david
:hippie:

[Darranar]

172. You raise an important point...

Arab leaders were just as oppurtunistic as Israel was in regard to the Palestinians.

[sabbat hunter]

174. and remain so...

to this day. if the arab leaders truly wanted an indpendent palestine they would take steps to control the terrorists.
control the terrorists and sharon loses his base of power (fighting terrorist)
he loses his base and a more reasonable leader could be elected of israel.

peace
david
:hippie:

[Darranar]

175. I don't think they can, personally...

nor do I think they would, even if they could.

[sabbat hunter]

179. arab governments

i think arab governments if they wanted could to a lot more to bring peace between israel and the palestinians, but it is not in their own best self interests to do so.

if there was a peace between the palestinians and israel it would in all likelyhood lessen the focus of hatred of israel by the common person in arab nations. no longer could their governments rally their people to support the palestinians against israel. instead those same people would probably look towards their own governments and begin to notice how tyrannical they are. the arab governments would be threatened by the people of their countries.

so instead the arab governments love the fact that there is still no peace. it take the focus away from their own flaws.

peace
david
:hippie:

[Darranar]

180. Agreed, hippiewannabe.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

173. Good post. One clarification.

Historical Background and Chronology

<snip>

UN Resolution 181, defined the outline of a settlement in Palestine creating both a Jewish and a Palestinian homeland. The 1947 UN Partition divided the area into three entities: a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an international zone around Jerusalem.

At midnight on May 14, 1948, the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed the new State of Israel. On that same date the United States, in the person of President Truman, recognized the provisional Jewish government as de facto authority of the new Jewish state (de jure recognition was extended on January 31). The U.S. delegates to the U.N. and top ranking State Department officials were angered that Truman released his recognition statement to the press without notifying them first. On May 15, 1948, the Arab states issued their response statement and Arab armies invaded Israel and the first Arab-Israeli war began.


http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/timeline.htm

[bluesoul]

81. Gimel

So in the end it's ALL Israeli land? Then why are we talking here about it? Palestinians should be driven from that land, even if they lived their for all of their lives because it was god given to the Israelis (or Jews since Israel didn't exist then) several centuries ago. Are you aware that your views are to the RIGHT of an average Israeli citizen and that even most Israelis I know would never claim that land that is Palestinian. Sometimes I really wonder...

[Violet_Crumble]

91. The West Bank and Gaza are NOT part of Israel!

No-one has claimed there is a Palestinian state, and seeing that has zero to do with the blatantly obvious fact that Palestinian territory is not part of Israel, I don't see what yr point was. East Timor wasn't a state while under Indonesian occupation, so I guess you believe it was part of Indonesia?

If the Occupied Territories were actually part of Israel, then why is it that Israel doesn't give citizenship to people who have been born and lived for generations in those parts of Israel? Why can't they vote in Israeli elections?

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

29. No they don't...

And the claim of extremists that Palestinans come from Jordan and therefore Jordan is the Palestinian state is in my opinion one based on a fair dollop of racist thinking. They're all Arabs, therefore let's lump them all together, not that we'd do the same thing to Caucasians. The whole ludicrous idea that Palestine was empty and all these Palestinians relocated there is not true at all. Anyway, even if it were true, and people can be moved back to where they came from, Israel's population would decrease significantly once they all returned to Russia or the US or wherever they migrated from...

Violet...

[bluesoul]

30. Pathetic

I can't believe someone has the nerves to say that the Palestinians have Jordan or Egypt where they can live. THis is the typical extreme RW BS that I didn't expect here. It is just as much as saying, that the Jews can go live in NY and don't need Israel. Forgeting that Palestinians have been living there for all of their life on that land, what is left of it that is. And yet they still bring up that BS. I am SICK of this hypocrisy and double standards, not even mentioning the notion of driving them elsewhere. Words from certain people have become very REVEALING...

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Yep...

Gotta agree with you on that, bluesoul. It's a school of thought prominant on some of the extremist/right-wing sites I've read, and it's disgusting. What I think it's the same as is if they were to say to New Zealanders that they have the US or Canada where they can live, and not consider the thought that people who have lived somewhere for generations have links to the land they're on and might not be too happy about being up and moved to a strange place. Which of course would leave to forced relocation, but there's no doubt these folk can twist the term ethnic cleansing so it wouldn't apply in that particular scenario...

Violet...

[rini]

31. No, let's read

the creation of Jordon. Just go to Google and read.

[bluesoul]

32. my god, i can't believe this

Are you implying that the Palestinians should move to Jordan? Why are you bringing this up? Excuses for ethnic cleansing? That land is THEIRS and there is a reason why IDF is called on being on OT as if OCCUPIED TERRITORIES. Get that? What matters is where their home is, not what I find on Google. I can find a bunch of stuff on google, like the fact that there was no Israel once when there were already Palestinians there, but that doesn't mean I am gung ho for eliminating Israel. jeezus

[ForestsBeatBushes]

33. The land is disputed and I

refer you to message 31.

[Darranar]

34. Disputed?

How, exactly?

[ForestsBeatBushes]

36. Enjoy the various definitions here, some not helpful to my cause!

http://hsc.csu.edu.au/modern_history/international_studies/arab_israel/ai_glossary/page163.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

38. How did that answer Darranar's question?

No offence, but can't you do better than a high school offering? Not that I'm not saying that students from Jamison High School are any less impressive than an offering from any other high school, but when it comes to why the Occupied Territories are occupied rather than disputed, it'd help you a fair bit if you looked to international law rather than what a high school student has to say...

Violet...

[ForestsBeatBushes]

40. Understood, Violet.

I was just trying to be fair and selected the first such googled site I found.

Thus, here are 2 helpful quotes to me:

Yishuv: Jewish community of settlers who first came to Palestine in 1882; and

Jerusalem: capital city of Israel, disputed territory as Jews, Muslims and Christians all consider Jerusalem a holy city;

plus providing other definitions contrary to my own as a token of good faith by me to you; summarily dismissed.

Can't blame a guy for tryin'...

[Violet_Crumble]

44. So would you care to try answering Darranar's question?

Just a hint, but selecting the first google site that comes up isn't too wise a move, especially as the internet is generally full of a lot of garbage and offerings from high-school students that people take and use without noticing that a high-schoolers definition of things may not be particularly useful...

So, in yr own words if you prefer, can you explain why the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is in yr opinion not occupied territory but disputed?

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

62. You Are Mistaken, Mr. Bushes

In your points above concerning the provenance of Arab Palestinians.

Trans-Jordan was indeed partitioned out of the original Mandatory Palestine by England, in 1922. This has no relevance to the existance of Arab people dwelling west of their on the littoral and in the Jordan valley. These were always a seperate community from the desert dwellers further east, although it is true that there was commonality among clans and communities in both sides of the river valley. Natural increase of population, particularly under the impact of improved public health and sanitation measures inaugurated by the Mandatory administration, is sufficient to account for the increased numbers of Arab persons dwelling there between the end of World War One and the end of World War Two. There was some small immigration of Arabs into Mandatory Palestine for economic opportunity, but had no signifigant impact on the population figures.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

66. I was mistaken in my quotation?

Perhaps you mean my source was mistaken in their writing.

[The Magistrate]

73. The View You Seem To Be Urging, Sir

That Jordan is a homeland of the Arab Palestinians, or even that Egypt is, is a mistaken one. It is based on a deliberately erroneous view of history and ethnography; those who put it about are generally aware of this, and do so deliberately, for purposes of propaganda. In this, they are no better than some, who urge that there is no reality to the Jewish temple at Jerusalem, or that European Jews have a seperate ancestry, and similar obfuscatory fables.

[bluesoul]

74. The Magistrate, objective as ever

Precisely Magistrate! :toast:

[Jack Rabbit]

80. Well stated, Sir

The attempt to avoid a solution to the I/P conflict by suggesting that Jordan is the Palestinian state and that the West Bank and Gaza are properly part of Israel is scandalous. Jordan is ruled by a Hashemite king and Egypt is no more Palestinian than Argentina is Italian.

It is my view that:

1. Israel exists and has the right to exist;
2. Israel's borders are defined by the 1949 armistice;
3. The West Bank and Gaza belong to the Palestinian people; and
4. While Israel's position in the 1967 war was defensive, she has no right to permently claim land seized during that war; therfore
5. Israel and Palestine, a de facto state encompassing the West Bank and Gaza, must negotiate a peace agreement whereby Palestine agrees to peace with her neighbor and Israel withdraws her military forces from Palestinian land.

[The Magistrate]

82. Thank You, My Friend

It is difficult to see how any substantial disagreement with the positions you have annunciated above could be made by anyone conversant with the history of this matter, or desirous of a peaceful resolution to the on-going conflict.

[Darranar]

84. I agree...

A peaceful solution should be found for this conflict, and I think following those points will bring it about.

[Darranar]

83. Agreed.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

86. Taking my cue from Rini; asking you please to read this:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_ww1_british_mandate_jordan.php

Why was almost 80% of the Mandate territory of Palestine given to Arab Jordan?

<snip>

The world seems to have plunged into historical amnesia about this. Most people somehow forgot that Arab claims towards Palestine were already satisfied once. It is the Jews and not the Arabs who suffered from the "game" that was played between the Great Powers after World War I.

<snip>

From the moment of its creation, Transjordan was closed to all Jewish migration and settlement, a clear betrayal of the British promise in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and a patent contravention of its Mandatory obligations.

<snip>

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations recommended that both a Jewish State and an Arab State be created in the remainder of the Mandated territory west of the Jordan River, and that Jerusalem be internationalised. Even though this was dramatically favorable to the Arabs and punative to the Zionist Jews, the Jews accepted the proposal. The Arabs rejected it.

[Darranar]

87. How exactly was the partition "punative" to the Zionist Jews?

[The Magistrate]

88. It Was Origionally Hoped By The Zionist Organization, Sir

To establish the Jewish State on both sides of the Jordan River, though it had not been possible to purchase much land east of it by 1922. The terms given Emir Abdullah foreclosed this possibility. The partitioning off of the Trans-Jordan Emirate did not contravene the League of Nations Mandate, as this incorporated the Churchill White Paper, which made it clear the Jewish "National Home" was to be west of the river, and that this was not, in its establishment, to prejudice the rights of the Arab community. It could be seen, however, as a contravention of the Balfour declaration, but the word of England in this region, at that time, was a rather shifty thing for all concerned, and in this, the Zionists simply join a rather large crowd, which includes France itself.

The establishment of the Emirate of Trans-Jordan had little to do with the question of homelands. It was to prevent friction with France over Arab guerrilla raids against French Syria being carried out from the desert east of the Jordan, by establishing an authority with the ability to, and an interest in, doing so, without any great commitment of English soldiery to task.

[Darranar]

89. That doesn't make the partition "punative'...

It just means that the partition of the British Mandate into Transjordan and Palestine dashed any hopes of a vast Jewish state that was unrealistic in the first place.

And I think the link was speaking of the 1948 partition.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

142. It doesn't make it

punitive either; or, for that matter, putative (good grief; sorry in advance, but does anyone have a dictionary around here that could be loaned out?).

[rini]

47. Hope this will help

http://198.173.255.220/conen/conflict_2.html

[Darranar]

50. That's a worthless propaganda video.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Probably why my comp wouldn't play it...

I was going to download whatever it was I needed to play the video, but going by what you said, it doesn't seem worth my while just to watch mindless propaganda...

Violet...

[Darranar]

53. It's been posted before...

all it is is a lecture about how "little" Israel is always the victim.

[rini]

55. Actually

it's a video about history. Sorry if the facts contradict your conclusions.

[Darranar]

57. LOL...

leaving out lots and lots of facts and incorporating tremendous bias in reciting those facts makes it a propaganda video.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. rini should check out the facts offered by the anti-choice videos...

After all, they leave out lots and lots of facts and incorporate tremendous bias, but just like rini, the anti-choicers all proclaim these are the facts. The best 'factual' video I saw was one that had a sound of an adult heart going kerthumpa kerphumpa and then a picture of a cute gurgling baby a few months old with a stern voice speaking over the top of it gravely informing us heathens that by the end of the seventh week our babies look just like a baby and can think, feel, fart, solve complex algebra problems, and fill out tax returns, therefore it's a FACT that having an abortion is murder. Propaganda can be so amusing sometimes...


Violet...

[rini]

61. On the issue of choice

you and I have no differences, remember?

[Violet_Crumble]

92. I'm aware of that, rini...

And knowing that yr pro-choice and have probably been exposed to the anti-choice propaganda and claims that they have FACT on their side, I don't really understand why you can't see propaganda for what it is when it comes to other issues...

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

93. Sometimes repetition is the only way.

Never again.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

69. The Return of Rashoman

One side believes it to be 'a worthless propaganda video' while the other believes it to be history.

Before you judge someone, walk a mile in their shoes; and, it seems, here, even, before you judge a video, take a look at it.

[Darranar]

71. Uh, I did...

or more correctly, I watched it last time it was posted here.

[bluesoul]

72. Well

"This presentation isn't intended to be a comprehensive history of the Middle East, or to deal with all of the aspects of the Israeli-Arab conflict." is stated at the end of the presentation.

That's as close as they've come to the truth. If one looked at it from the Palestinian perspective we would get an entirely different picture of a presentation. So much about presenting facts...

[ForestsBeatBushes]

85. Hence, as I said, you are on one side the issue.

On the other, you will find those people (including myself) who consider it to be history.

[Jim Sagle]

177. Excellent summary - refutes all the filth spewed forth

by the Palestine Firsters and their stupes and dupes around the world.

[bluesoul]

178. Aha, OK

Just as long as all the Israeli Firsters are right about everything and claim the higher moral ground :hi:

[bluesoul]

35. Oh my

Disputed? Maybe in your mind. Not in the mind of those that respect international law UN conventions and a bunch of other things that Israel lacks to understand...

[ForestsBeatBushes]

37. Let's role play:

Here is your backstory:

Your grandparents were German and fought with distinction in WWI.

Most of your relatives, all of whom were Jewish as well as German, were sent to Dachau.

One of the survivors is one of your parents.

You live with his/her night terrors; you grow up seeing the tatoo on her/his arm.

Okay, any empathy anywhere in your blue soul?

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Let's not...

And I hope blue soul doesn't bother with it because it in no way addressed what they said in the post you replied to, and to be blunt yr repetitious flogging of the Holocaust to excuse anything Israel does is getting rather boring. There are two things I despise. It's when people compare Israel to Nazi Germany, and also when people cynically use the Holocaust to further their own weak political arguments. Both are abuses of the Holocaust as far as I'm concerned...

Violet...

[ForestsBeatBushes]

42. It's not meant to be a comparison,

it's meant to open your eyes to reasons for the I/P situation; not a cynical 'use of the Holocaust'; not 'repetitious flogging of the Holocaust to excuse anything...'; just an attempt to try to find some empathy. I see my attempts have been wasted and so shall do them


NEVER AGAIN!

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Yr post fell under the second category I mentioned...

There are reasons for the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (which is what was being discussed, remember?) and the Holocaust is NOT one of those reasons. How about sticking to what's actually being discussed instead of constant tangents about the Holocaust. Personally, I think it's pretty insulting that you feel the urge to 'try to find some empathy' about the Holocaust while yr posting on a liberal site. I take it as a given that most people view the Holocaust as a monstrosity and feel no need to test them out unless they give some indication they feel otherwise...


Violet...

[bluesoul]

43. WTF?

German? You've messed here everything up. Who said my granparents were German? Slovenian (Slavs) actually. And Violet is right. This constant use of the Holocaust is troubling to say the least. oh my...

[rini]

46. so was the Holocaust

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Ding!

That's a category #2 reference to the Holocaust! ;)

Violet...

[rini]

49. Damn!

I could have sworn I was answering blue, sorry about that.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. Uh, you were...

And I answered you. Is there some problem with that?


Violet...

[rini]

58. not a bit

[bluesoul]

54. Look

Actually it was way more then just "troubling" but that wasn't my point. The problem is misusing it by hurting others. Just as I would decide and kill some Germans because of what they did to my grandparents 60 years ago. Even though they wouldn't have anything to do with it. You get the picture..

[rini]

56. Of course

I get the picture. But what does that have to due with the discussion except to site historical facts, and conclusions based on facts.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

90. I was arguing it was a bad idea, remember?

I was using yr logic in an attempt to show you how wrong what you were saying was, remember? I specifically said that I find the idea of moving people back where others claim they come from, despite the fact those claims can be wildly incorrect, to be disgusting and pointed out why I believe there are racist undertones to that particular mindset. Though yr comment does make me wonder. You have absolutely no problem at all in the idea of carting Palestinians off somewhere else with no regard to their wishes, yet now have popped up appearing to believe that it's terrible if applied to another group. Why the inconsistancy?

Violet...

[ForestsBeatBushes]

94. Because the situations are inconsistent.

You have Israel where Jews have lived continuously for thousands of years without Statehood. The Holocaust of WWII suddenly shames the world into providing a State.

You have all the Arab States.

As Golda Meir once said, "We have an advantage over the Arabs. We have nowhere else to go."

Even so, Israel has always cared for any Jew who came there, but the Arab states appear to prefer to allow their brethren remain in refugee status (for their own propaganda purposes) rather than to welcome them (maybe with some nice Saudi Arabian money) to make happy lives in the masses and masses of land which make up the Arab States.

[Matilda]

181. Would you be happy to leave your native land

if you were paid enough money to do so? Not necessarily; there are
ties of the heart and soul that override monetary considerations.
The people we call today Palestinians have occupied the now-divided
land between the Jordan and the sea for over 1300 years - is it fair
that they should be expected to sever all ties and happily hand the
country over to people whose connection dated back to centuries
before the common era, and was of relatively short duration? It is
not hard to appreciate that many Jewish people could not contemplate
moving back to those European countries which had caused such
devastation to their families, and they needed and wanted a homeland
of their own. But that is emotional, and the decision to divide
Palestine was really neither wise nor fair. It makes about as much
sense as if all the disparate people of British descent scattered
througout all the former British colonies wanted to take over a part
of Britain based on the fact that their ancestors were British, and
they have sentimental ties to that country. It wouldn't be
considered a rational argument for one minute. But it was pushed
through the U.N. by President Truman, who coereced enough Latin
American countries to support him, for the simple reason that he
didn't want to put the Jewish voters in the U.S. offside - "I have
to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success
of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my
constituents."

However it was done, it was done, but the neighbouring Arab countries
were determined not to recognise Israel, and Israel, from the
beginning, was determined to win more territory for herself. In 1948
Menachem Begin declared "Eretz Israel will be restored to the
people of Israel. All of it. And forever". (Noam Chomsky, "The
Fateful Triangle"). Far from being innocent little Israel forced
to defend herself, Israel (backed in turn by the British, the French,
and the Americans) was from the beginning the aggressor, helped in
no small measure, I believe, by the collective guilt of the Western
world following the Holocaust. The Palestinians saw themselves as
an invaded country, and it was, and is, they who are the defenders.
Unlike Israel, they have no army and no sophisticated weapons, and
so they rely on guerilla tactics, such as suicide bombings. This is
not to defend their tactics, but to understand why they act as they
do. It is exactly the same as the Iraquis are now doing - nobody
can actually approve of the bombings currently being carried out,
but we can understand why they are doing it.

I don't actually have a "side" - I spent some time in Israel many
years ago, and loved it, learning the history from the Israeli point
of view, and defending it to the hilt. Only with time did my reading
lead me to realise that there is another side to the story. Sharon
and his actions I find disgusting and appalling, and I do believe
there never can be peace at least until the settlements are
dismantled. Israel can afford to do this - she has the power to
make certain that any Palestinian group that seeks to take advantage
of a perceived weakness will be quickly disillusioned, whereas the
"terrorists" - I prefer the term "defenders" - are all the weapons
that the Palestinians have. Given past Israeli aggression, and the
current domination of Israel, they cannot afford to put down their
weapons until Israel makes a move in the direction of a true peace.

The only hope I can see for a genuine peace is for pressure to be
put on Israel by an American President, who is intelligent, and
sensitive to both sides, not motivated by winning elections or
pandering to any section of the electorate, but only from a genuine
desire to resolve the situation in a way acceptable to the majority -there will, unfortunately, always be Arab and Israeli extremists
who will never be content, but actions by these people should not be
used as an excuse by either group to escalate fighting once again.

Sadly, the current incumbent of the White House is clearly not the
man for this job; we can only hope that by the end of 2004 we may
have someone with the intelligence and the will to do all he can to
call a halt to this tragedy.