What is it that Israel can give Palestine and vice versa that will stop...

[tedzbear]

...this senseless bloodshed? It can't be as complicated as the American media is making it sound!

What I am trying to figure out is WHAT is the one thing the Arabs want and what is the one thing Israel wants? I assume for the Arabs it is an independent nation of Palestine with all land returned, and for Israel, I suppose it's the opposite: very little land returned and no more suicide bombers.
Isn't Israel entitled to keep the occupied territories because it won them fair and square in the 7 Day War? After all, they were attacked first in that war and they won the war in self defense. That is the spin I have always heard in the U.S. press. Israel wouldn't have these occupied territories if Egypt hadn't invaded it first.

Since the U.S. supports Israel with billions of dollars in military foreign aid no wonder we are hated by the Arabs. I used to think the Israelis were the good guys but not any more. It seems like Israel and the United States have avoided a truly peaceful resolution just as much as the Arabs have. Today I saw a bumper sticker on a Lexus saying, "United States and Israel: United against Terror." I thought to myself, oh boy, I wish it was that simple. Israel and United States "the good guys?" without any blood on their hands??? I don't think so.

Here is my link:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1504&ncid=1504&e=2&u=/afp/20030820/ts_afp/mideast_blast_030820005427

[punpirate]

1. Okay, some corrections to perceptions....

Israel is not entitled to the occupied territories "won" in the 1967 war. It is against international law to annex territory gained in war, and further, it is against UN resolution 242, which mandated Israel relinquish the occupied territories. Second, in the 1967 war, Israel was not attacked first. Egyptian forces were massed on their border, and they decided to strike pre-emptively.

There are longstanding issues, which neither Islamic Jihad nor Hamas seem to be willing to concede. One of the central issues to those groups is the "right of return," which allows Palestinians removed from Israeli territory unwillingly during the 1955-6 extradition period to return to their homes in Israel. This is also supported by UN resolution (UN Res. 69?), but Israel has not complied. Implicit in this is requirement for Jerusalem to remain as an open city, neither under the sole control of Israel, Palestinian Authority or Christians, but, rather, available to all.

The greater issue at the moment is the Israel border fence which is cutting off thousands of Palestinians from their land, water and livelihoods, and which is being built inside of existing settlements. If the wall were being built along the so-called Green Line (the border between Palestine and Israel as defined in 1949), it would cut off many encroaching Israeli settlements from Israel proper.

Cheers.

[wtmusic]

2. nice summary punpirate

complicated issue, but while Israel keeps welching on their commitment the bombings continue.

[punpirate]

3. I agree... it's quite complicated...

... but the key to the US having influence on the situation is a US suspension of economic aid to Israel and an enforcement of the Export Arms Control Act, until Israel gets the point. That's not likely to happen, since Sharon and Bush are playing good cop/bad cop routines with Abu Mazen and ignoring the root causes of the difficulty. *sigh* In fact, most administrations since 1967 have been avoiding UN Resolution 242, to the point of (as in Reagan's case) sending troops into Lebanon to support Israel's occupation there (and we all know what happened to 240-odd Marines in that instance).

Unfortunately, there's been so much demonification of each side by the other over the years that only something dramatic done by the US to suspend it all will work, but there's no will do so in this administration. The US would prefer, for now, the Sharon view that Arafat is capable of controlling and inhibiting Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, and nothing is further than the truth. That's why the US and Sharon have embraced Abu Mazen--they hope (incorrectly) that he can sidestep Arafat and effect peace on Israel's terms. And yet, when the Palestinians consider the situation, they know that Arafat, as the originator of the PLO, would do anything possible for them.

If it were simply a matter of Arafat and Sharon dealing with each other diplomatically (whether for the American-created "road map" or any other issue), there would be a significant sense of hopelessness on the part of all concerned. If the current administration were willing to apply a little real pressure to both Sharon and the Likud party and to the opposition groups in Palestine, it might lead to some lasting resolution. No political will to do so in this administration, since there are so many right-wing Christians (who support Bush) believing that conflict there will fulfill dispensationalist theory. *sigh*

It's a bad situation, and not likely to be resolved any time soon. Bush did say the US would not pay for the building of the fence, but only after Congress had desired to appropriate a third more assistance to Israel this year than Israel had asked for--therefore, the restrictions on US funds to build the wall are effectively meaningless. The difference is still a billion dollars more than the fence requires.

The irony, of course, is that we have invaded Iraq, in part, for its failure to abide by UN resolutions. Our willingness to exclude Israel from that calculus shows the US as hypocritical in the extreme.

Cheers.

[tedzbear]

4. Thanks for your help...

I do appreciate your quick education. But now I have even more questions:
I assume when you say "international law" you mean the Geneva Convention? If not, I wonder what law you mean?
Do you know what year UN resolution 242 was passed? I wonder how the United States voted on that one.
Wow. I didn't know Israel struck Egypt pre-emptively. You mean like we struck Saddam pre-emptively? Of course, Saddam didn't have his army massed on our Canadian border, now did he? Still, I have never seen that little fact mentioned in American media discussion of the 1967 war.
I also had no knowledge of the "right of return" issue and the 55-56 extradition. Wow.
Also, I didn't know the Arabs would be willing to make Jerusalem an open city either.

Too bad most Americans are as little educated to the historic realities as I was. Today I saw a Lexus with the bumper sticker: "United States and Israel: United against Terror."
As if it were that simple! As long as most Americans think so, there will never be peace in the middle east or anywhere else for that matter.
:spank:

[punpirate]

5. I'll try to answer to the extent I know the answers....

Yes, I believe the international law referred to is based on the 1949 Geneva Convention (the presumption for non-annexation may date back to the 1932 conventions originally promulgated by the League of Nations). Even if it weren't UN Res. 242 was in effect. UN Res. 242 was passed by the UN in 1967, not long after the conclusion of the 1967 war. If I recall correctly, the U.S. abstained from the vote on Res. 242, but did not veto it.

More info on the 1967 war is in James Bamford's _Body of Secrets_. See if your local library has it on the shelves. It's quite illuminating of the times.

As for Jerusalem, it's a curious problem--from a religious viewpoint, all three primary religions in the region (Muslim, Jewish and Christian) see the (as the Christians call it) Temple of the Rock as a religious icon. It's located inside the walls of Jerusalem, and has affected all aspects of that city since Israel was declared an independent state.

I think you would do well to do a search for "Grace Halsell" on Google. She was a former speechwriter for Lyndon Johnson, and has written a couple of books about the influence of the religious right in this country on Israeli policy. You can also get a quick overview (he modestly says) by doing a search on DU for my article entitled, "The Armageddon Policy."

Cheers.

[tedzbear]

25. Thanks again punpirate.

I am grateful for the info.
Re: Temple of the Rock. Isn't it interesting that this spot is a flashpoint for the world's 3 big religions? It will require them to get along with each other and share or else it will lead to the world's total destruction.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. The Temple Mount Or Dome of the Rock

has religious significance to Jews and Muslims. To the best of my knowledge it has no significance to Christians.


It's telling that the Muslims built a shrine on Jewish holy land some six hundred years later.

It would be like if a Jew went to a Christian's home and replaced his cross with a Star of David.

When Clinton was proposing a plan to Arafat to end the I/P crisis Arafat even denied the existence of the Temple Mount.

He denies all Jewish claims to the area.

The Middle East is a very complex place. It's not suitable for ad hoc analysis or bumper sticker solutions.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. The U.S Voted Yes on 242

which says Israel shall withdraw from occupied territories.

The big debate was over the word all as in "all occupied territories"

When the word all was removed the U S voted yes.

What I reject about these threads is the lack of subtlety and nuance.

This isn't a case of Cowboys and Indians.

[Resistance]

6. Israel's 1967 attack on Egypt

Was alot more than just a pre-emptive "strike". It was a massive blitzkrieg (that had been planned by the Israelis for years - they admitted it) which destroyed Egypt's entire air force while it was still on the ground. As a comparison, the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor left 188 planes destroyed, while Israel's blitzkrieg on Egypt left over 300 aircraft destroyed, leaving a total of approx. 375 Arab aircraft destroyed in one day alone (June 5th -- they assaulted Syria's Air Force as well). This so-called 'war' was over before it even started.

Also, get this: Israel assaulted Egypt while the US was actively engaged in dialogue with Egypt, and trying to work out a diplomatic solution to the issues and concerns at the time. But Israel totally ignored the diplomatic process - Why? Because Operation "Moked" had been planned and in the works for a long time, and they weren't about to lose the opportunity to destroy the Arab enemy and take as much land as possible. This is the truth that Israel has successfully been keeping away from American ears; instead they've been selling a bullshit myth about how they were "Attacked from all sides" and they're just "defending themselves" against the ruthless Arabs who want to 'throw all the Jews in the sea'.

On Edit: I want to add that the recent history of the region (by recent I mean the past 100 years) is jam-packed full of on the one side, Israeli myths and outright lies, and on the other side, the truth of Zionist aggression and ethnic cleansing. The myths and lies generally amount to a perception of Israel simply wanting a little bit of land to make a homeland and why won't these damn Jew-hating Arabs give it to them. The reality they don't want you to know is that the Zionists have employed every tactic necessary in order to take away as much land as possible from the native Arab population, and their tactics seemingly have not had any boundaries whatsoever. In the time of Hitler, the Zionists even fought against British and American proposals to boost Jewish immigration (to get Jews out of Germany) because they wanted all Jews to go to Palestine instead.

My only point here is to say, be careful of the deceptions and myths, but if you are willing to put a little time into your research, the facts are all there to be discovered.

Check out this study sometime, if you have a chance: ISRAEL'S SACRED TERRORISM by Livia Rokach - it is a study of the diary of Moshe Sharett, Israel's 2nd Prime Minister, written by the daughter of the Sharett's Minister of Interior. The study is shocking and revealing, yet Israel's gov't has done everything they can to suppress Rokach's work.

[durutti]

7. Explanation

...this senseless bloodshed? It can't be as complicated as the American media is making it sound!

It is extremely complex, which is what makes it such a fascinating thing to study. Thousands and thousands of books have been written on the topic.

What I am trying to figure out is WHAT is the one thing the Arabs want and what is the one thing Israel wants? I assume for the Arabs it is an independent nation of Palestine with all land returned, and for Israel, I suppose it's the opposite: very little land returned and no more suicide bombers.

I'm no expert (I don't really believe in "experts"), but I've read and written a lot about the conflict. Here's my two cents...

The Palestinians generally want an independent state the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the right of return or compenstation for Palestinian refugees. Some of them (but not many) are willing to agree to less; and some of them want more.

We can infer from its actions that the Israeli government is willing to allow for nothing more than a Palestinian bantustan. (Bantustans were the theoritcally autonomous (but actually subservient) black homelands in apartheid South Africa.)

In other words, there's almost no common ground.

Isn't Israel entitled to keep the occupied territories because it won them fair and square in the 7 Day War? After all, they were attacked first in that war and they won the war in self defense. That is the spin I have always heard in the U.S. press. Israel wouldn't have these occupied territories if Egypt hadn't invaded it first.

LOL. Okay. First of all, it was the Six Day War. Secondly, Israel attacked first. I've never even read a pro-Israeli source that claimed otherwise.

The claim is usually made that Israel attacked preemptively, in self-defense. However, many people (myself included) believe that it was a nothing more than a case of Israeli expansionism.

Historian Stephen Green got ahold of State Department archives from the mid-to-late 1960s. As early as 1965, the State Department had concluded that: 1.) Israel was looking for an excuse to attack its neighbors 2.) Israel's Army was much stronger than all the Arab armies combined and 3.) Israel would win a war with the Arabs within a week. The Brits, writing at the same time, gave it 10 days.

A demilitarized zone was established on the Syrian-Israeli border in 1949. Israel ignored it and engaged in constant provocations, attempting to annex the territory . Israeli soldiers entered the territory, driving Arab villagers out and destroying their homes. Syria responded by shelling them.

Shortly after the Syrian response, the Israeli airforce attacked Syria, shooting down six planes, hitting thirty fortified positions, and killing 100 people.

Israel continued with its provocations, openly threatening to destroy Syria. "The moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian Government," Yitzhak Rabin said on Israeli radio in May 11, 1967. Also, the Soviet Union claimed that its satellite photos showed that Israeli troops were preparing to attack Syria. They didn't; but it's a subject of debate as to whether or not all the Arab armies knew this.

Syria requested Egypt's assitance under the Mutual Defense Pact of 1966. Nasser had to fulfill his obligations under that agreement, so he removed the small UN force stationed in the Sinai and closed the Straits of Tiran. He also moved a force into defensive positions in the Sinai.

Nasser did not intend to attack Israel. His motion was merely a gesture of solidarity with Syria and a fulfillment of his obligations under their defense agreement. Nonetheless, Israel responded by starting the Six Day War.

Israel carried out a massive sneak attack, destroying 300 Egyptian airplanes in the first htree hours, then after the Arabs agreed to a U.S./UN/Russian-sponsored ceasefire, Israel kept gobbling up territory. Israel continued blowing the hell out of Syria for two days after the ceasefire.

And, just as the U.S. had predicted, Israel won the war in under a week. At the time, Israel was a huge military advantage over its neighbors. It's also worth noting that a third of the Egyptian army was in Yemen at the time. Johnson administration officials referred to the whole affair as a "turkey shoot".

Israel claimed that the closure of the Straits of Tiran would strangle Israel economically. This claims is utterly absurd -- only 5 percent of Israel's trade depended on movement through the Straits of Tiran. Israeli merchant vessels hadn't used the Strait for two years.

In 1982, the Israelis finally admitted that they started the war. Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National Defense College, stated, "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Other Israeli officials have been similarly candid. General Matityahu Peled, who oversaw the operation, said, "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only a bluff, which was born and developed after the war."

Similarly, Yitzkah Rabin (who was IDF Chief of Staff in 1967) commented, "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into the Sinai on May 14 would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."

The war's death toll was 778 Israelis, 20,000 Arabs, and 34 Americans (who were on the ship U.S.S. Liberty when it was (deliberately?) attacked by the Israelis).

The UN Charter forbids the acquisition of territory by force -- so even if all of the above is somehow wrong (which it probably isn't), Israel still doesn't have a right to the land. Furthermore, UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Since the U.S. supports Israel with billions of dollars in military foreign aid no wonder we are hated by the Arabs. I used to think the Israelis were the good guys but not any more. It seems like Israel and the United States have avoided a truly peaceful resolution just as much as the Arabs have. Today I saw a bumper sticker on a Lexus saying, "United States and Israel: United against Terror." I thought to myself, oh boy, I wish it was that simple. Israel and United States "the good guys?" without any blood on their hands??? I don't think so.

I agree. I think that further aid should be contigent upon Israeli compliance with UNSC resolutions.

IMHO, Israel and the United States are just as guilty of employing terrorism as their enemies.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. For A More Balanced Account of The Six Day War

I recommned "Six Days of War-June 1967 and the making of the Modern Middle East" by Michael B. Oren.

Yes Oren is an Israeli but his book has won acclaim from all sides of the political spectrum.

[StandWatie]

8. they weren't attacked first in '67

You can go back and forth forever debating whether they meant to (it's known that the Soviet ambassador woke Nasser and told him in no uncertain terms not to attack Israel first) but one way or another Israel struck first in '67 and I think it's an incredible feat of propaganda that no one remembers that.

[Darranar]

9. I feel...

that it was a justified pre-emptive strike-but, of course, it was pre-emptive, before a strike on them by the Arab nations.

[Proudlib]

10. Here Are Some More Facts

Nasser closed the straits of Tiran and blockaded Israel which is an act of war. His rallying of the Egyptian people for war against Israel was broadcast daily through the Egyptian media and had his armies massed on the Israeli border. Had Israel not attacked first Egypt would have. But I'm sure there are those here would argue that Israel should have just done nothing while another nation masses its armies at her border while the leader of the country talks about destroying Israel.

And if this war was an act of "expansionism" on the part of Israel, one would have a very hard time explaining why Israel returned the entire Sinai (per 242) and would have returned Gaza too had Egypt taken it.

Finally, Israel never would have the West Bank (illigally annexed by Jordan) had Jordan not attacked on the third day of the war.

[Darranar]

11. I never disputed any of that...

the fact is, however, that Israel attacked first. Not the Arab nations, Israel. i feel that that strike was justified. That doesn't change the facts, however.

[Proudlib]

12. I Know You Didn't

My post ended up underneath yours so it would appear that I was responding directly to you. I was actually responding to several of the posts prior. No hard feelings, I hope.


One other note, it is not Israel's fault that Egypt, Syria, and Jordan had the most inept military leadership in modern warfare. The only thing that made the war last 6 days was Syria's refusal to admit defeat. Egypt was routed in about 3 days while Nasser told his people about the great victories they were winning.

[tedzbear]

28. Israel's success in the 6 Day War is primarily due to the aid of...

...the United States and its $ contribution to their military muscle. Without our military aid disguised as foreign aid Israel wouldn't have been so powerful. No?

[Darranar]

29. I disagree...

they won in 1948 when they were greatly outmatched with almost no foreign aid from the US. They caught the Arab nations by surprise in 1967, and they had excellent tactics then as well. US aid was indeed a factor, but not the primary one.

[Aidoneus]

30. eh

the relationship wasn't much by then.

The Soviets were a bigger "help" to Israel there than the US, strange as that sounds. They told Nasser & Syria that at no point should they make the first move, and made them think that they arranged the same agreement from the US for Israel. This both confused and hamstrung them for when Israel's long-planned blitz finally began.

[tedzbear]

31. Are you saying that the U.S. wasn't providing huge $ to Israel...

...at the time? Which was used to build up their military might???

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. As Mao

said

"Before you speak investigate."

Israel's main arms supplier prior to the Six Day War was France.

After the Six Day War, France cut off Israel and the U. S. became it's main arms supplier.

Also, the closing of the Straits Of Tiran to Israeli shipping was a causus belli for war.

[StandWatie]

34. an incredibly flimsy one

and one that stands in sharp contrast to the usual Israeli narrative where they were jumped on by suprise and reacted purely defensively.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. No

serious student of the Middle East has ever contended that the Six Day War was anything but a pre-emptive war.

That's why I try to avoid the I/P thread because both sides have their own narratives and fixed complaints and the debate becomes tautological.

[StandWatie]

37. by serious I assume you mean people who agree with you

Chomsky would at the very least say it's impossible to know and I would agree.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. I Am Conceding That It Was A Pre-Emptive War

Please reread my post.

[StandWatie]

39. ah, understood..

what I find fault with in the Causus Beli sort of debate is that both sides were doing provocative things. Israel's colonization of the Lebanese and Syrian DMZ was ongoing before the '67 war and while that is a much more provocative move I couldn't imagine the Israeli narrative ever accepting that a Syrian or Lebanese pre-emptive strike was acceptable.

[tinnypriv]

43. It wasn't a causus belli

n/t

[durutti]

18. Rebuttal

Nasser closed the straits of Tiran and blockaded Israel which is an act of war.

No it wasn't. Only 5 percent of Israeli trade depended on the strait. Israeli merchant vessels hadn't used the strait for two years. Furthermore, Nasser was in negotiations with the U.S., and offered to let the World Court resolve the issue.

Even the U.S. State Dep't thought Israel was looking for an excuse to attack its neighbors at the time.

His rallying of the Egyptian people for war against Israel was broadcast daily through the Egyptian media and had his armies massed on the Israeli border.

Wrong. Nasser said that if Israel wanted a war, Israel would get a war. He was merely fulfilling his obligations under Egypt's mutual defense pact with Syria. Egypt had every reason to believe Israel was going to start a war.

From a political standpoint, Nasser had to say something to that effect -- he was criticized by his foes for being too friendly towards Israel. In fact, State Dep't records show that Nasser expressed respect and goodwill for Israel prior to the Lavon Affair, which convinced Nasser that Israel could not be trusted.

Nasser sent two divisions into the Sinai -- not nearly enough to launch an offensive on Israel. They were in defensive positions. Fully one-third of the Egyptian army was in Yemen at the time. Nasser did not want to fight a war he knew he could not win.

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into the Sinai on May 14 would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." -- Yitzhak Rabin, IDF Chief of Staff in 1967

"The Egyptian Army approaches in the Sinai do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." -- Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin

Had Israel not attacked first Egypt would have. But I'm sure there are those here would argue that Israel should have just done nothing while another nation masses its armies at her border while the leader of the country talks about destroying Israel.

Again, Egypt was in no position to fight. At the time, Israel's military was more powerful than all of the Arab armies combined. The State Department estimated that even if all the Arab armies attacked Israel, they would be defeat within a week.

Egypt wasn't "massing armies" on Israel's border to invade. Egypt was in contact with the United States, actively pursuing a peaceful resolution while it moved two divisions into defensive positions to protect itself.

If Israel hadn't attacked, there probably would've been peace, or at least relative calm -- which is exactly what Israel didn't want then, and doesn't want now.

And if this war was an act of "expansionism" on the part of Israel, one would have a very hard time explaining why Israel returned the entire Sinai (per 242) and would have returned Gaza too had Egypt taken it.

Israel kept the Sinai until the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt. Ironically, Israel was offered better conditions than the ones to which they eventually agreed in Sadat's 1971 peace offer.

Finally, Israel never would have the West Bank (illigally annexed by Jordan) had Jordan not attacked on the third day of the war.

First of all, the evidence indicates that Israel and Jordan conspired to divide up the areas that were to become the Palestinian state prior to the 1948 war. That's a big reason why Israel's neighbors attacked after Israel declared independence. The King of Jordan himself had imperial aspirations he wanted to conquer the rest of the Arab world. At the same time, he was very close to the British, almost a puppet, so he was disliked by the other Arab states.

Secondly, in 1967, Jordan was merely fulfilling its obligation as part of a defense pact.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Blockades

Are acts of war.

[tinnypriv]

21. Actually they're not

If you're interested in being factually corrected, I will provide corroberation. But the title of this post is accurate.

[tinnypriv]

22. An addition

Also, the Jordanian military was almost totally under Egyptian command and control before and during the 1967 war.

[tedzbear]

32. I see your point...

"Furthermore, Nasser was in negotiations with the U.S., and offered to let the World Court resolve the issue."

It does seem like Israel took advantage of a hot situation to attack. It wouldn't be the first time the USA's diplomacy backfired on other countries.
Example: When the USA told Saddam we would look the other way if he attacked Kuwait because of their slant drilling. We know what happened next.

[durutti]

16. Operative Word: Feel

As in, respond emotionally to -- since there are no historical facts that would justify such any analysis.

[Darranar]

26. I both think...

and feel that it was. It was clear that Israel was about to be attacked; there was a plainly clear threat. The strike was therefore justified. The occupation of several areas conquered during that war is another story entirely.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. Do You Deny That

Egypt was positioning their troops for war and making bellicose statements in the crucial days leading up to the Six Day War?

[tedzbear]

27. I remember even in school my teachers promoted that spin...

...telling us students that Egypt had attacked first (I was 12 at the time). No wonder I never bothered to study deeper. Because of my indoctrination by my educators and the media, I never questioned Israel's duplicity for a long time. I'm sure there are millions of Americans who still think like I did, that Israel had been attacked first. What a shame.

[rini]

13. read their manefesto

All they want is to drive every Israeli into the sea! Let me ammend that, every Jewish Israeli.

[StandWatie]

14. o0o0o0o

you figgered it all out!

Since I can find old Zionist demands for Transjordan and Lebanon I guess the only thing to be done is to smash the regime and get rid of these enemies of peace and if they become so battered and humiliated they propose to ammend these demands I'm not going to be fooled by this clever deception and will still demand complete military occupation of these elements of society :eyes:

[drdon326]

15. Sad but true, rini.

btw...check your in-box sometime.

[durutti]

20. Huh?

You can find all the official PLO documents here: http://www.palestine-un.org/info/frindex.html

Nowhere will you find anything advocating "pushing Jews into the sea".

Contrast this with the platform of the National Union -- currently a part of the Sharon coalition government -- which openly advocates "transfer" (read: ethnic cleansing).

[jos]

17. Rather than debating the '67 war

I'll try to answer your question.

Israel wants recognition and security and an end to the threat, however unrealistic, that it be "wipe off the map."

The Palestinians want a state of their own and a return of the refugees who left, voluntarily or otherwise, in 1948 and 1967.

Many Israelis don't want to hold on to the occupied territories, and rule all the land from the sea to the Jordan River. Many Palestinians want no recognition of Israel, and want to rule all the land from the sea to the Jordan River.

It is up to the moderates on both sides to see that a deal be made.

[quilp]

23. Israelis should keep Palestinian land because they were attacked by Egypt?

It's a good a reason I've heard yet. If the Israelis would claim their possession of Palestinian land through "conquest" at least it would be honest. But they claim it is the "Will of God". This way, of course, the Palestinians who have every much right to "reconquer" their land as the Israelis had to steal it, can be called "terrorists".

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Moving forward

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=205669