DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Rich on January 29, 2008, 10:45:52 AM
-
Give Gaza to Egypt
By Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | 1/29/2008
(http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/516.jpg)
Startling developments in Gaza highlight the need for a change in Western policy toward this troubled territory of 1.3 million persons.
Gaza's contemporary history began in 1948, when Egyptian forces overran the British-controlled area and Cairo sponsored the nominal "All-Palestine Government" while de facto ruling the territory as a protectorate. That arrangement ended in 1967, when the Israeli leadership defensively took control of Gaza, reluctantly inheriting a densely populated, poor, and hostile territory.
Nonetheless, for twenty years Gazans largely acquiesced to Israeli rule. Only with the intifada beginning in 1987 did Gazans assert themselves; its violence and political costs convinced Israelis to open a diplomatic process that culminated with the Oslo accords of 1993. The Gaza-Jericho Agreement of 1994 then off-loaded the territory to Yasir Arafat's Fatah.
Those agreements were supposed to bring stability and prosperity to Gaza. Returning businessmen would jump-start the economy. The Palestinian Authority would repress Islamists and suppress terrorists. Yasir Arafat proclaimed he would "build a Singapore" there, actually an apt comparison, for independent Singapore began inauspiciously in 1965, poor and ethnically conflict-ridden.
Of course, Arafat was no Lee Kuan Yew. Gazan conditions deteriorated and Islamists, far from being shut out, rose to power: Hamas won the 2006 elections and in 2007 seized full control of Gaza. The economy shrunk. Rather than stop terrorism, Fatah joined in. Gazans began launching rockets over the border in 2002, increasing their frequency, range, and deadliness with time, eventually rendering the Israeli town of Sderot nearly uninhabitable.
Faced with a lethal Gaza, the Israeli government of Ehud Olmert decided to isolate it, hoping that economic hardship would cause Gazans to blame Hamas and turn against it. To an extent, the squeeze worked, for Hamas' popularity did fall. The Israelis also conducted raids against terrorists to stop the rocket attacks. Still, the assaults continued; so, on January 17, the Israelis escalated by cutting fuel deliveries and closing the borders. "As far as I'm concerned," Olmert announced, "Gaza residents will walk, without gas for their cars, because they have a murderous, terrorist regime that doesn't let people in southern Israel live in peace."
That sounded reasonable but the press reported heart-rending stories about Gazans suffering and dying due to the cutoffs that immediately swamped the Israeli position. Appeals and denunciations from around the world demanded that Israelis ease up.
Gazans crossing into Egyptian territory on January 23 through a breach in the 13-meter tall fence.
Then, on January 23, Hamas took matters into its own hands with a clever surprise tactic: after months of preparation, it pulled down large segments of the 12-km long, 13-meter high border wall separating Gaza from Egypt, simultaneously winning goodwill from Gazans and dragging Cairo into the picture. Politically, Egyptian authorities had no choice but uneasily to absorb 38 wounded border guards and permit hundreds of thousands of persons temporarily to enter the far northeast of their country.
Israelis had brought themselves to this completely avoidable predicament through incompetence ? signing bad agreements, turning Gaza over to the thug Arafat, expelling their own citizens, permitting premature elections, acquiescing to the Hamas conquest, and abandoning control of Gaza's western border.
What might Western states now do? The border breaching, ironically, offers an opportunity to clean up a mess.
Washington and other capitals should declare the experiment in Gazan self-rule a failure and press President Husni Mubarak of Egypt to help, perhaps providing Gaza with additional land or even annexing it as a province. This would revert to the situation of 1948-67, except this time Cairo would not keep Gaza at arm's length but take responsibility for it.
Culturally, this connection is a natural: Gazans speak a colloquial Arabic identical to the Egyptians of Sinai, have more family ties to Egypt than to the West Bank, and are economically more tied to Egypt (recall the many smugglers' tunnels). Further, Hamas derives from an Egyptian organization, the Muslim Brethren. As David Warren of the Ottawa Citizen notes, calling Gazans "Palestinians" is less accurate than politically correct.
Why not formalize the Egyptian connection? Among other benefits, this would (1) end the rocket fire against Israel, (2) expose the superficiality of Palestinian nationalism, an ideology under a century old, and perhaps (3) break the Arab-Israeli logjam.
It's hard to divine what benefit American taxpayers have received for the $65 billion they have lavished on Egypt since 1948; but Egypt's absorbing Gaza might justify their continuing to shell out $1.8 billion a year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Miniatures (Transaction Publishers).
-
<<Those agreements were supposed to bring stability and prosperity to Gaza. Returning businessmen would jump-start the economy. The Palestinian Authority would repress Islamists and suppress terrorists. Yasir Arafat proclaimed he would "build a Singapore" there, actually an apt comparison, for independent Singapore began inauspiciously in 1965, poor and ethnically conflict-ridden.
<<Of course, Arafat was no Lee Kuan Yew. Gazan conditions deteriorated and Islamists, far from being shut out, rose to power: Hamas won the 2006 elections . . . >>
I have never yet seen a Zionist propagandist mention one major reason for Gaza's failure to prosper: the ongoing Israeli stranglehold on Gazan exports. Israel controls the seaports and the airports of Gaza, despite their much-publicized "withdrawal." Whereas the former Jewish settlers of Gaza, very efficient farmers, were able to export their produce to Europe directly from Gaza, no Gazan products can be exported from Gaza. The Israelis force all Gazan exports to be exported from Israeli ports. To get there, they must go by truck through check-points into Israel. Often the trucks can be stalled for days at the checkpoints under a blazing sun. When they get to the Israeli docks, the trucks can often be stalled for days more waiting to clear "customs" and "security." The net result is that the Turkish and European importers, who were used to receiving fresh shipments of Israeli produce from Gaza, now find that the same farms are delivering wilted, spoiled or otherwise unattractive or damaged goods and have ceased doing business with them.
The myth, perpetuated by lying Zionist whores like Pipes is that the Israelis were good enough to withdraw and hand over everything to the Palestinians, who, third-rate human beings that they are, have fucked up this Israeli "gift" by their chronic inability to manage anything and their inherent gangsterism and Islamic fundamentalism.
It's a real shame that the "news" from Israel is mediated by the MSM and run through its filters. A totally distorted picture reaches the American sheeple, who therefore have virtually no understanding of the actual situation there, as compared to say the Europeans and Asians, who can see very clearly exactly WHAT is going on there.
-
:D
-
The moron finally runs out of lies and bullshit. Thanks for at least admitting it.
-
That must be it Uncle Mike.
That must be it .... :D
-
Issues, MT?
-
Maybe, MB. Tell me what you think of that last exchange and I'll answer your question.
-
Which exchange? The post from the day before that I never answered?
I have a feeling I shouldn't get into the Israeli argument with you.
-
Issues, MT?
Well, in the world of the political debate, everybody's something.
I myself am Dane/Welsh.
The fact that they are both majorly minor nations probably accounts for nobody raising my ire by saying the words "Wales" or "Denmark."
There has to be some kind of physics law which accounts for what would probably happen if the membership of a debate group reached a certain critical mass--at that point, everybody is something, so every issue of debate would have to be censored for clearance against all things taken personally.
All sniffing righteously in turn, we would plummet into pollyanna.
I won't even mention religious denominations.
Yoikes.
-
Well, in the world of the political debate, everybody's something.
Don't we desire a wide range of points of view to be available ?
I think that the success of 3DHS has been in attracting a small community that covers a wide range .
I think you are pleading for tolerance , but I am not certain.
-
I'm not taking it personally. I'm a total wasp, so I have no horse in this race.
I *do* wonder why MT's rhetoric is so hateful against Israel-which is why I asked if he had issues. Given that neither side is perfect, and that the entire situation is truly a gallery of the absurd, being overly hateful toward one side or the other seems odd.
-
I myself am Dane/Welsh.
Dai and Blodwyn were engaged to be married. Dai was sent by his company to London on a two-week sales training course. The course was fine but the evenings were boring and by the second week Dai was fed up with sitting around in his hotel bedroom and went down to the bar for a few drinks where he met a couple of girls of the night, who enticed him into spending his money.
On returning home Dai?s conscience got the better of him and he broke down and confessed to Blodwyn that he had been unfaithful to her twice.
Blodwyn said she was glad Dai had been so honest ? she too had to confess that she had been unfaithful twice whilst Dai had been away... once with the Tredegar Male Voice Choir and once with the Ebbw Vale RFC first XV.
-
<<Which exchange? The post from the day before that I never answered?>>
Let me start all over again. I did not understand your post, <<Issues, MT?>> But I took a chance. I was referring to the last exchange in this thread between Rich and I. Sorry I didn't make myself clear.
<<I have a feeling I shouldn't get into the Israeli argument with you.>>
I'm sorry you feel that way. I'll never go out of my way to be abrasive if I know in advance that the other person bruises easily. What's the point? I'll just adjust my debating style to a more gentlemanly level but we could still have an interesting exchange of views. Believe it or not, I'm a lot more interested in an exchange of ideas than I am in venting, although I have to admit that venting has its attractions. Go ahead, MB, I won't bite.
-
Would Gaza, and the people of Gaza, prosper as Egyptians?
I like the thinking , really out of the box.
Maybe it would work.
-
Thanks for clarifying. I left the other thread alone because you seem terribly Anti-Israel, even though imo all parties in the conflict deserve criticism. And no, I don't bruise easily but hateful rhetoric particularly in re: to Jews disturbs me for some reason :-\
I have never yet seen a Zionist propagandist mention one major reason for Gaza's failure to prosper: the ongoing Israeli stranglehold on Gazan exports. Israel controls the seaports and the airports of Gaza, despite their much-publicized "withdrawal."
Israel is doing that to exert pressure on Palestinians and Egypt to take some measure of managed control over the area. NO ONE wants to step in and take over; wtf do you expect Israel to do??? Israel is trying to exist and defend itself and if that means stepping up pressure by strict port control, cutting off oil&electricity, etc than that is what it means. Can you propose a better solution?
I agree that it is a shame that Israel has been unable to defend itself in a way thats not humiliating to the Palestinians, but the Arab world itself(Lebanon, Syria) has been just as bad if not worse. Egypt had closed the international crossing to Gaza under the sad impression that it may force Israel to open crossings(despite the rockets and mortars)-that is why the repercussions of the wall to Egypt being torn down recently will be an interesting thing to watch. Hopefully it will force negotiations, but I can't see Egypt playing nicely.
A big part of the issue, as well, is that were an agreement reached the Palestinians would have to face the fact that they're not going to take over Israel any time soon, and the desire to not recognize Israel has gone rom political to religious. Now the situation is more dangerous than ever. This is sad, really, because a Palestinian declaration would massively change the apartheid situation in Lebanon.
As I said, it's a theatre of the absurd. No one's at fault yet somehow they are all to blame.
-
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0128/p01s03-wome.html
I'm really upset that this didn't play out differently. I was hoping it would let Israel off the hook in re: to supporting Gaza.
-
Daniel Stupid Pipes deserves a antiblog of his own. Pipe Down, it should be called.
Gaza is a prison with two million hungry inmates. They are no Egyptians, they are Palestinians. The Egyptians do not want them, they are too radical, and the Egyptians already have too many of the Muslim Brotherhood to oppress, torture and kill. Egypt did control Gaza once, before the Israelis took it away from them. They did a poorer job of running Gaza than they did of running Israel.
The Israelis tried running Gaza too, and it didn't work. They were forced out by political pressures from within and without.
The people of Gaza elected Hamas, and all the enemies of Hamas have done everything in their power to keep Hamas from doing much more than presiding over rising desperation. Last week the Gazans broke out of their prison. Had they torn down a wall into Israel, they would have been massacred, but Mubarak, goon that he is, could not attack desperate people.
Why should Gazans be denied the right to export their goods?
The rocket attacks could be turned into a non-menace by Israel simply moving its people out of the targeted places. They don't do this because they seem to enjoy martyrdom. Everyone in that insanew part of the world enjoys martyrdom. Carefully considered, martyrdom and guilt are th Middle East's main exports.
-
Thanks for clarifying the question, MB. Sure I've got issues. You can't be Jewish and not have issues with regard to the State of Israel. It's a very personal thing. My wife has family there. We both have family who are Holocaust survivors and even more who were Holocaust victims, even though we never knew them. So we both know a little bit about fascism, too. It's one of those things, that when you are reading a newspaper, and there is just one tiny little article about the Jews, or Israel or the Nazis, your eye just gets pulled into it and you can't help but read it. This stuff is very personal to us, and to almost every Jew that we know. It's not our whole life but it's an indelible part of us, something you just can't get away from, no matter how much we may have assimilated into the North American life-style.
-
<<The Israelis tried running Gaza too, and it didn't work. They were forced out by political pressures from within and without.>>
Actually, XO, they were forced out by money pressures, just as they were forced out of South Lebanon. They simply couldn't afford the cost of occupying all those areas. Gaza in particular had only 8,000 Jewish settlers in a sea of a million Arabs, so it made more sense to pay off the settlers and "get out of Dodge."
I agree with the rest of your post, though. Egypt doesn't want the responsibility or the radicalism and the Palestinians don't want the chance to experience Mubarak's torture chambers.
Gaza, the rockets, and the dilemma seem to be emblematic of Israel's future problems, though. A land which costs too much to occupy, a people which can't be exterminated, a technology (rocketry) which can only grow more effective over time - - - geeze, what is the end result when the people of the West Bank are finally reduced to the misery of the Gazans? Lotsa rockets, an occupation which costs more than it delivers . . . at some point, Israelis may have to say to the West Bank settlers, "Folks, you're on your own from here on in. We're pulling out in six months. Come back to Israel with us, otherwise have a nice life with your Arab neighbours."
-
I imagine you follow what is going on in the Israeli press more than I do, I had the impression that the average Israeli decided that Gaza was not worth the bad press that Israel was getting at home and abroad (Gaza was rarely or never historically part of Israel in Biblical times), and the constant woundings and killings of Gaza colonists and the troops defending them. I didn't read much about the monetary cost, but that had to be a very expensive way of supporting 8000 or so Israelis surrounded by millions of people who spent most of their lives hating their guts.
Gaza is sort of like an entire society driven insane by abuse. IT;s sort of like what do you do with all the junkyard dogs when they decide to sell the junkyard and turn it into condos. I can't imagine any sort of successful outcome for the people of Gaza at the present time.
-
>>Egypt did control Gaza once, before the Israelis took it away from them.<<
LMAO ...
I love this kind of bullshit, I really do. Da big bad Iwaelis goose stepped over and just took it away from da widdle Egyptians.
Aren't you leaving out a big chucnk of history here Uncle Mike? Could you be more dishonest?
Of course not, it's the big lie.
-
>>Egypt did control Gaza once, before the Israelis took it away from them.<<
===================================================================
Explain, Richie, how this is not true.
No one is arguing that the Egyptian Army is even remotely competent, or that the Egyptian government is even minimally qualified to run Egypt, let alone Gaza AND Egypt.
The only solutions is that eventually, Palestinians will run Gaza. The Israelis cannot, the Egyptians will not. There is no one else left.
-
You actually "teach," and you don't know the history of the Gaza strip? Another example of why the public school system is failing America's youth.
That's right folks, those mean ole Israelis marched right in and took it. Unprovoked, and just for spite.
Good grief ....
-
<<That's right folks, those mean ole Israelis marched right in and took it. Unprovoked, and just for spite.>>
I think you're missing the point, Rich. It doesn't really matter much to the Gazans HOW or WHY or WHEN the Israelis "marched right in and took it." The vast majority of them weren't even born at the time. They live in absolutely hellish conditions, which everyone, even the Israelis, will admit.
Israel has occupied Gaza for over 40 years. These people's lives under Israeli occupation have been pure misery. Even after their "withdrawal," the Israelis still have a stranglehold on the Gazan economy and won't let go any time soon.
The Gazan civilians are entitled to a life. They don't have to love Israel as a precondition to having a life and they don't even have to accept Israel's existence. It's their right as human beings to believe whatever they want about Israel's right to exist and still to have a life regardless of what they believe.
If the Gazans cannot or will not stop the rocket attacks on Israel, then the Israeli defence forces have the right to enter Gaza themselves and try to pacify it within the rules of warfare as embodied in the Geneva Conventions. But if they invaded they would have the responsibility of securing the welfare of the general civilian population, as for example, the Allies did in Germany. The Israelis instead have chosen not to assume the responsibility of occupying a land which they claim is attacking them, but instead they are deliberately taking reprisals against the civilian population, which is forbidden by international law and is profoundly immoral and repugnant to most sane and normal people in the world.
-
>>If the Gazans cannot or will not stop the rocket attacks on Israel, then the Israeli defense forces have the right to enter Gaza themselves and try to pacify it within the rules of warfare as embodied in the Geneva Conventions. But if they invaded they would have the responsibility of securing the welfare of the general civilian population, as for example, the Allies did in Germany. The Israelis instead have chosen not to assume the responsibility of occupying a land which they claim is attacking them, ? <<
As I read this I found myself nodding my head and thinking, ?Okay, he?s actually making sense here for a change.? But then this:
>> ? but instead they are deliberately taking reprisals against the civilian population, which is forbidden by international law and is profoundly immoral and repugnant to most sane and normal people in the world.<<
You and I will never agree on this subject until you can get past this anti-Israeli propaganda. Simply put, it?s nonsense and it?s counter productive to any kind of middle ground. There can be no disputing that Israel is being attacked from all sides in this conflict. It also cannot be disputed that the ?civilian? population in Gaza is indistinguishable from the ?terrorist? population and are more than likely the entire population.
If Arabs/Egyptians are so worried about these mythical Palestinians, why the hell do they erect a fence to keep them out?
-
<<There can be no disputing that Israel is being attacked from all sides in this conflict. >>
Well, don't get carried away. They're being attacked from Gaza and possibly on a very small scale from southern Lebanon.
<<It also cannot be disputed that the ?civilian? population in Gaza is indistinguishable from the ?terrorist? population and are more than likely the entire population.>>
Well, if that were true, the Gazans would have an army of a million and the Israelis would be in some very deep doo-doo. The civilian population in Gaza is easy enough to distinguish - - they're the kids in elementary school, the mums with baby carriages, the old men and old women. The "terrorists" are overwhelmingly male, aged from late teens to mid-forties or fifties and don't bear any resemblance to nursing babies, young mothers or elderly people.
-
If the civilian population and the terrorist population gave a shit about the poor little kids and the mums with baby carriages (boo hoo), and grandma and grandpa they would stop killing the Israeli children, the Israeli mothers and children, and the Israeli grandparents today. If there is no army of terrorists and no civilians support them, it would be very simple to make peace and move forward. But we both know there is only one thing on these people's mind; Kill every Israeli man woman and child. Until they stop teaching their children to be racist genocidal monsters, Israeli has no duty to any of these people. None. Let Egypt deal with their Arab/Muslim brothers. If they were any kind of Muslim they would do so for no other reason than their religion teaches them to do so.
No Mike, this is a farce. This war in to deeply embedded into Arab mentality to ever be anything other than an effort to committ genocide about the Jews. It's up to the mothers pushing around those babies to teach them that all this racism and hate is wrong and maybe then we can have peace in the Middle East and perhaps even the world.
-
I have to agree with Rich on this one.
Egypt did control Gaza once, before the Israelis took it away from them.
Israel "took it away"? I think the entirety of the Six Day War was more complicated than "Israel took it away".
The people of Gaza elected Hamas, and all the enemies of Hamas have done everything in their power to keep Hamas from doing much more than presiding over rising desperation.
Hamas is a militant Islamic faction that advocates the sort of religious nuttery that terrifies the world(ie, suicide bombings). They attack Israel daily, have implemented a nearly totalitarian police state, and as long as Hamas runs the PA you can kiss negotiable opportunities goodbye. Brings to mind that Eban's (in)famous quote: "The palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity".
The rocket attacks could be turned into a non-menace by Israel simply moving its people out of the targeted places. They don't do this because they seem to enjoy martyrdom. Everyone in that insanew part of the world enjoys martyrdom. Carefully considered, martyrdom and guilt are th Middle East's main exports.
I admit that if they evacuated the citizens in Sderot & the like, that it would certainly cut casualties-but I would still consider it a menace, and Hamas would simply find new targets or take a different route to being a menace.
As for martyrdom: no. Israel has every right to exist, and they are not the ones guilty of avoiding reality in favor of trying to bend it to "God's Will", which is the crux of Islamic thought.
<<The Israelis tried running Gaza too, and it didn't work. They were forced out by political pressures from within and without.>>
Actually, XO, they were forced out by money pressures, just as they were forced out of South Lebanon. They simply couldn't afford the cost of occupying all those areas.
Shaaba Farms?
They live in absolutely hellish conditions, which everyone, even the Israelis, will admit.
Israel has occupied Gaza for over 40 years. These people's lives under Israeli occupation have been pure misery. Even after their "withdrawal," the Israelis still have a stranglehold on the Gazan economy and won't let go any time soon.
Lebanon and Syria impose far worse conditions.
The Gazan civilians are entitled to a life. They don't have to love Israel as a precondition to having a life and they don't even have to accept Israel's existence. It's their right as human beings to believe whatever they want about Israel's right to exist and still to have a life regardless of what they believe.
Therein is the issue. They are so adamantly opposed to recognition of Israel in any manner that they will forsake themselves viciously. EVERYONE WANTS A FREAKING "PEACE" DEAL. Palestinians refuse repeatedly, mainly due to religious issues. These people are not thinking clearly, partly due to their environment but moreso due to their religion. This is extremely frightening due to some of the crazier-than-Hamas Islamists who want to restore the Caliphate.
Let Egypt deal with their Arab/Muslim brothers. If they were any kind of Muslim they would do so for no other reason than their religion teaches them to do so.
I think Israel is pining away for that day. The Arabs have committed greater atrocities against the Palestinians than anything the Israelis could be accused of.
This war in to deeply embedded into Arab mentality to ever be anything other than an effort to committ genocide about the Jews. It's up to the mothers pushing around those babies to teach them that all this racism and hate is wrong and maybe then we can have peace in the Middle East and perhaps even the world.
Word.
-
Egypt did control Gaza once, before the Israelis took it away from them.
Israel "took it away"? I think the entirety of the Six Day War was more complicated than "Israel took it away".
====================================================================================
Did I say it wasn't complicated?
I said that Israel took Gaza away from the Egyptians. This is a true fact. And in the end, they could not control it, and had to leave. If they invaded again, they would again find it to be impossible, more so than any damage their makeshift rockets will ever do.
The Palestinians suffer many, many more deaths than the Israelis.
-
>>Egypt did control Gaza once, before the Israelis took it away from them.<<
===================================================================
Explain, Richie, how this is not true.
No one is arguing that the Egyptian Army is even remotely competent, or that the Egyptian government is even minimally qualified to run Egypt, let alone Gaza AND Egypt.
The only solutions is that eventually, Palestinians will run Gaza. The Israelis cannot, the Egyptians will not. There is no one else left.
Are the Palestinians competant in this way that th Egyptans and Israelis are not?
-
<<If the civilian population and the terrorist population gave a shit about the poor little kids and the mums with baby carriages (boo hoo), and grandma and grandpa they would stop killing the Israeli children, the Israeli mothers and children, and the Israeli grandparents today.>>
Let's at least be clear about the numbers. The Jews have killed many more innocent Arabs than the Arabs have killed innocent Jews. In addition to having their children maimed and killed before their very eyes, the Palestinians have had their homes and orchards bulldozed, their livelihoods destroyed, their land stolen and for forty years have lived in hovels as refugees on their own land. And you really expect that these Palestinians, with all they've suffered at the hands of the Jews, are really going to give a shit about the Israeli children and mothers and grandparents? Brother, it just doesn't work that way on this planet.
<<If there is no army of terrorists and no civilians support them, it would be very simple to make peace and move forward. >>
The fallacy of course is that the "terrorists" and the civilians who support them are not the problem but the reaction to the problem. The problem is the occupation. It is a festering sore that is at the root of all the other problems. 40 years they occupy Arab lands, force the Arabs to live under military occupation like no other people on earth have lived; one UN resolution after another tells the Jews, End the Occupation! and the Jews laugh at the UN and tell them what they can do with their Resolutions. So much for the way of peace. So, in answer to your, "If there were no . . . " - - as long as there is an Occupation, there will be what you call "terrorists." The civilians will never accept the occupation and the "terrorists" are the only means of Resistance that they possess. These are a people without an army, without guided missiles, without drone aircraft, without F-16s. But the one weapon they have is the lives of their sons, and they'll fight on with what they have to fight with.
<<But we both know there is only one thing on these people's mind; Kill every Israeli man woman and child.>>
You don't know that and I don't know that. Unlike you, I actually know Palestinians. I work with them. My pharmacist is a Palestinian - - lovely lady. You are just telling lies and bullshit about people you know nothing about. Like a Nazi talking about Jews. They are plenty angry and I don't blame them for being angry. If what happened to them happened to me, I'd be plenty angry too. I'll bet if the same things happened to St. Richard, he'd be pissed off as well. It's true, though, a lot of them have got to the point where they don't care if the Jews live or die. Why should they? Who cares if their kids live or die? Shot to death for throwing stones at soldiers. Drilled through the forehead sitting in their own living room or gunned down caught after curfew coming home with the milk.
<<Until they stop teaching their children to be racist genocidal monsters, Israeli has no duty to any of these people. None. >>
You're not even close to the real world. They teach their kids that the Jews have taken their land and killed their people. That only war will get back the land and avenge their dead. That the Jews will pay. What do you expect? They are trying to raise a generation of fighters, not a generation of negotiators. They negotiated, they signed deals, and the Jews broke every one. When the time came to transfer land, they stalled for months; they raised conditions that were never in the original agreements ("incitement" -- the Arabs were "inciting" their kids to kill Jews - - using the very same textbooks they had been using for years.) "Incitement" wasn't even mentioned in the agreements, but the Jews had a new excuse to weasel out of their deal. So they proposed to hand back 50% of what was agreed, and then agreed to 65%. And all the time, while the parties continued to "negotiate" for the return of the West Bank, through the negotiations and through the months when the parties were supposed to be implementing the agreements, the settlements never stopped for a minute. Thousands of Jews came pouring into the West Bank to establish settlements on the very land their government was supposedly negotiating to return to the inhabitanst. OF COURSE they are teaching their kids to fight the Jews, which means to kill the Jews. How else are they going to get the Occupation off their backs and live as masters of their own lands?
<<Let Egypt deal with their Arab/Muslim brothers. If they were any kind of Muslim they would do so for no other reason than their religion teaches them to do so.>>
You know that's not gonna happen, Rich. They're not "any kind of Muslim," they're Muslims at war with the Muslim Brotherhood, and that means they're Muslims like us, Muslims that like to drink alcohol, dance in nightclubs and have fun. Which the Muslim brotherhood is very much against. And they don't want to take in a million future members of the Muslim Brotherhood who know all about underground cells and rocket launchers and explosives. They've got their own problems.
<<No Mike, this is a farce. This war in to deeply embedded into Arab mentality to ever be anything other than an effort to committ genocide about the Jews. >>
Rich, what you call genocide they call war. The Jews have their land and wont' give it back after 40 YEARS. What the fuck do they care about killing Jews? If they have to fight to get their land back, they'll kill Jews. It's not an end in itself. That's only in your imagination because you can't admit that they have a reason to hate. But they do - - treat me like the Jews treated them for 40 years and I'll hate you too. Negotiations haven't gotten them anything and the Occupation is in its 40th year. And the settlements are expanding as we speak. Be honest at least - - would YOU put up with a foreign occupation, living in a refugee slum with no livelihood for 40 years? PLEASE don't tell me you'd accept it with peace in your heart.
There's no peaceful solution possible any more. There was once, for a long time. The Arabs thought they'd at least get the West Bank. But the Jews are fucking them. Anyone could see it. They fenced off parts of the West Bank with a wall, and the rest is being settled, and the settlements are constantly expanding. Nobody settles land whose future giveaway is being negotiated. Any idiot can see that the Jews mean to hold the West Bank. There's only one way to get it back. The Jews had a chance at a two-state solution, which would have left them with a Jewish homeland. Now there's only the one-state solution and the Jews are fucked. Sure, they'll fight to keep what they got, but it's a losing battle. Even the Americans are gonna desert them, faster if Obama wins, later if it's Hillary, but the Americans are too smart to be jerked around forever, and when it's time to bale out, they'll know.
<<It's up to the mothers pushing around those babies to teach them that all this racism and hate is wrong and maybe then we can have peace in the Middle East and perhaps even the world.>>
Oh, God, Rich, grow up for Christs sake. It isn't racism when somebody pushes you off your land and into some fucking hell-hole for life. It's not racism to hate the people who bulldozed your home and tortured your brother in prison and killed your baby sister. It's not racism to hate the guys who stop you at gun-point at some crossroads and force you and your whole family to wait for six hours in the hot sun while somebody's got to get to a hospital to give birth. You know what those mothers with baby carriages are really teaching their babies about the Jews? The same thing that my mum taught me about the Germans.
-
<<Which exchange? The post from the day before that I never answered?>>
Let me start all over again. I did not understand your post, <<Issues, MT?>> But I took a chance. I was referring to the last exchange in this thread between Rich and I. Sorry I didn't make myself clear.
<<I have a feeling I shouldn't get into the Israeli argument with you.>>
I'm sorry you feel that way. I'll never go out of my way to be abrasive if I know in advance that the other person bruises easily. What's the point? I'll just adjust my debating style to a more gentlemanly level but we could still have an interesting exchange of views. Believe it or not, I'm a lot more interested in an exchange of ideas than I am in venting, although I have to admit that venting has its attractions. Go ahead, MB, I won't bite.
Mike is like my podiatrist, a secular Jew. He and I discuss these issues occasionally. He even says what Mike says about synagogue, namely that his wife "drags " him to it occasionally and he has a difficult time staying awake! :D
Both support Judaism, just not many of the actions of the Jewish State, e.g. Zionism. Is this your view in summation, Mike?
-
Are the Palestinians competant in this way that th Egyptans and Israelis are not?
=================================================================
When I said that the Egyptian government was not competent to run Egypt, I did not mean to suggest that any other group was more qualified. Only Egyptians should be running Egypt.
The Palestinians have no country at all, so it really does not matter whether they are competent or not. If there were a Palestine, it should be run, well or poorly, competently or incompetently, by Palestinians.
Hamas has no control over the borders of Gaza. They cannot ship anything, even vegetables out or in by land, sea or air. They have no revenues. There is no way that anyone can provide good government in a Hellhole, other than Satan, a mythical entity who is said to have no interest in good government anyway.
You appear to be good at silly questions these days.
-
<<That's right folks, those mean ole Israelis marched right in and took it. Unprovoked, and just for spite.>>
I think you're missing the point, Rich. It doesn't really matter much to the Gazans HOW or WHY or WHEN the Israelis "marched right in and took it." The vast majority of them weren't even born at the time. They live in absolutely hellish conditions, which everyone, even the Israelis, will admit.
Israel has occupied Gaza for over 40 years. These people's lives under Israeli occupation have been pure misery. Even after their "withdrawal," the Israelis still have a stranglehold on the Gazan economy and won't let go any time soon.
The Gazan civilians are entitled to a life. They don't have to love Israel as a precondition to having a life and they don't even have to accept Israel's existence. It's their right as human beings to believe whatever they want about Israel's right to exist and still to have a life regardless of what they believe.
If the Gazans cannot or will not stop the rocket attacks on Israel, then the Israeli defence forces have the right to enter Gaza themselves and try to pacify it within the rules of warfare as embodied in the Geneva Conventions. But if they invaded they would have the responsibility of securing the welfare of the general civilian population, as for example, the Allies did in Germany. The Israelis instead have chosen not to assume the responsibility of occupying a land which they claim is attacking them, but instead they are deliberately taking reprisals against the civilian population, which is forbidden by international law and is profoundly immoral and repugnant to most sane and normal people in the world.
Let's move the folks in the Gaza Strip tyo the Sinai then and away from Isreal (with proper infrastructure, etc.). Perhaps a little distance from Isrelis settlements might cool things down?
-
<<Mike is like my podiatrist, a secular Jew. He and I discuss these issues occasionally. He even says what Mike says about synagogue, namely that his wife "drags " him to it occasionally and he has a difficult time staying awake! Cheesy
<<Both support Judaism, just not many of the actions of the Jewish State, e.g. Zionism. Is this your view in summation, Mike?>>
That's pretty much it, Professor.
But it's hard to say I "support" Judaism. It's a religion I have a lot of problems with - - the dietary restrictions, for example, and the very existence of God. Even the "Chosen People" concept which I used to think was the flip side of the coin to the "Master Race." I understand it now to mean that we were "chosen" to carry out God's laws and be an example (the Israelis - - some example!!) to the rest of the world. Not "chosen" in the sense of favouritism or entitlement. But even so, it's offensive - - why can't Martin Luther King be an example, instead of Richard Perle?
What I support is more or less the concept of the Jewish people. I think we have an attitude that's really distinctive - - we were persecuted so long that most of us have an instinctive affinity for the underdog, an inborn liberalism that defies all attempts to subvert it. And we're extremely skeptical of authority, any authority, because we know in our bones that the cops, the army, the government can all be our deadliest enemies. Can lend themselves to oppression much more readily than to the protection of the weak and the vulnerable. We learned that the hard way and we didn't forget it. We don't trust kings, Presidents or popes. We have a cynical distrust of any official bullshit. And nevertheless, we kept our sense of humour, our love of family, our love of learning, of music, our drive and our ambition. We had a 2,000-year-old dream that one day we would return to the land of our ancestors, and in my own lifetime, it happened.
-
>>Let's at least be clear about the numbers. The Jews have killed many more innocent Arabs than the Arabs have killed innocent Jews.<<
No, if we were being clear about the numbers we will have to determine who these ?innocent? Arabs actually are. Who are they? Why were they in a position to be killed by Israeli forces? Who does the reporting? The answer is that terrorists lie. You can?t tell the players without a program, and you can?t tell a terrorist from a civilian. Especially when terrors are writing the program.
>>In addition to having their children maimed and killed before their very eyes, the Palestinians have had their homes and orchards bulldozed, their livelihoods destroyed, their land stolen and for forty years have lived in hovels as refugees on their own land.<<
Once again, pure propaganda. In the interest of clarity, I think we both can agree that killing is something we both wish wasn?t happening. I?m going to assume you believe that when it comes to Arabs, and Jews. The difference, as I see it, is that Arabs living in Gaza take a different view than Israelis. Israel would like to live in peace. Arabs want the Jews either out of the Middle East entirely, or dead. Preferably both.
>>And you really expect that these Palestinians, with all they've suffered at the hands of the Jews, are really going to give a shit about the Israeli children and mothers and grandparents? Brother, it just doesn't work that way on this planet.<<
A Jewish mother is sitting in her kitchen reading the morning paper sipping on her tea. A rockets rips through her apartment and she?s dead. A teenage girl get?s on a bus to visit her friend across town. A crazed homicide bomber boards the bus and rips her to shreds along with everyone else on the bus. A bomb goes off in an Israeli night club killing and maiming hundreds.
What?s the difference here? The difference is the people you defend TARGET CIVILIANS. In Israel, the Israeli army NEVER intentionally targets civilians. Do civilians die from Israeli?s actions? Yes. And when they do, they are held accountable by the Israeli government. Who hold the terrorists accountable? Not you. In fact you defend them.
>>The problem is the occupation.<<
There is no occupation. Israel is a sovereign nation. Had Israel not been attacked by it?s neighbors, and had the Muslims practiced what they preach, there would be no refugee problem. The refugee?s are a manufactured problem. It works for the other Arab nation, so they keep them in the camps and use them as weapons in their on going war against Israel. Syria, Jordon, and other surrounding Arab countries got the Arabs to leave Israel because they started a war and then wouldn't let them in their country. Arabs live in Israel, work in Israel, and occupy important positions in the Israeli government. When Arabs want peace, they get it.
>>You don't know that and I don't know that.<<
I don?t? I can read. I can see. Why can?t you?
>>Unlike you, I actually know Palestinians. I work with them. My pharmacist is a Palestinian - - lovely lady.<<
Appealing to authority doesn?t prove anything. I?m sure your Palestinian pharmacist is a lovely woman, but who cares? What the hell does that prove? Why is she here, and not over their if she?s such an authority on what makes the terrorists tick?
>>You are just telling lies and bullshit about people you know nothing about. Like a Nazi talking about Jews.<<
Right, Your pharmacist is a Palestinian so you know it all. And once again you can?t go 2 minutes without using the word Nazi, or fascist.
Get a fucking clue.
I?m not going to bother addressing the rest of your manic rant. It?s pointless.
-
Palestinians are people. Most of them are not terrorists, but none of them believe that the Israelis have any right to demolish the homes of Palestinians, or chop down their olive trees, or build huge walls separating them from the rest of their countrymen. Eventually, unless there is a mutually agreed on peace, the Jews are doomed, because their birth rate is much lower than that of the Palestinians and the 'Israeli Arabs' who are the Palestinians who refused to be driven away in 1947, and they will be outnumbered.
This is a fact, and it is well known to all. With or without US aid, with or without a Wall enclosing all of Israel into a voluntary ghetto it will happen, within the next 60 years or so.
Time is on the side of the Palestinians. There is not one damned thing you can do about it.
Israel accomodates, or Israel is doomed, The time for a settlement is running out.
-
>>Time is on the side of the Palestinians. There is not one damned thing you can do about it. Israel accomodates, or Israel is doomed, The time for a settlement is running out.<<
Yeah, Israel is just shaking in it's boots. Can't you tell?
:D
-
It matters not.
Israel is doomed, shaking in their boots or dancing the hora.
Armed to the teeth or holding a menorah.
-
<<No, if we were being clear about the numbers we will have to determine who these ?innocent? Arabs actually are. Who are they? Why were they in a position to be killed by Israeli forces? Who does the reporting? The answer is that terrorists lie. You can?t tell the players without a program, and you can?t tell a terrorist from a civilian. Especially when terrors are writing the program.>>
The innocent Arabs are children. They are people killed in their homes. Farmers in their fields shot and killed by settlers. Worshipers in a mosque massacred by a Jewish settler. Kids demonstrating against the occupation and shot to death by soldiers. Kids in school hit by Israeli rockets. The numbers don't lie. Who is doing the reporting? Every reputable news source in the world acknowledges that the Jews kill many more Arabs than the so-called "terrorists" kill Jews.
<<The answer is that terrorists lie. >>
The Jews lie too. They lied about Mohammed al Darra, the 12-year-old they shot to death and it was caught for TV. Bundled with his father against a wall for protection from Israeli rifle fire, but the Jews killed him and even killed the ambulance driver who had cometo help him. And now they are lying about it, trying to blame it all on the Arabs. Of course, they don't mention the ambulance driver in their lies. That's a little too much to explain away.
<<Once again, pure propaganda. >>
The 40-year military occupation is pure propaganda? The bulldozed homes, the murdered children propaganda? The million Arabs living as refugees in Gaza pure propaganda? Sure, Rich, sure. It's propaganda.
<<In the interest of clarity, I think we both can agree that killing is something we both wish wasn?t happening. I?m going to assume you believe that when it comes to Arabs, and Jews. The difference, as I see it, is that Arabs living in Gaza take a different view than Israelis. >>
Yeah, that's for God-damn sure. The Arabs want to live free of the Occupation and the Jews won't let them.
<<Israel would like to live in peace. >>
Yeah on the land they displaced the Arabs from. Why should they live there in peace while the people they took it from by force want it back? Is that reasonable?
<<Arabs want the Jews either out of the Middle East entirely, or dead. Preferably both.>>
That is just such bullshit - - you just make up Arab opinion as you go along. Put whatever words in their mouths that best suits your purposes. There are obviously many Arab opinions on the subject of the Jews, from "Kill the whole God-damn bunch of them" to co-existence in a one-state or two-state existence. You have no proof at all - - NONE - - that "Kill them all" is majority Arab opinion on the subject. It is just not true.
<<A Jewish mother is sitting in her kitchen reading the morning paper sipping on her tea. A rockets rips through her apartment and she?s dead. A teenage girl get?s on a bus to visit her friend across town. A crazed homicide bomber boards the bus and rips her to shreds along with everyone else on the bus. A bomb goes off in an Israeli night club killing and maiming hundreds.>>
That's war. As long as the Jews occupy Arab lands and won't resolve the situation, Arabs will strike back. They don't have an army or an air force, so they strike with suicide bombers. Give them a regular army with regular weapons and equipment if you'd prefer them to wage the same kind of war on the Jews as the Jews wage on their people.
<<There is no occupation. >>
Get real. Of course there's an occupation. Even the Jews themselves admit there's an occupation. See "Finally Israel Admits the Truth - Sharon Uses the Word "Occupation" for the First Time," which was headline news when it happened, because the Jews had been repeating that same "there is no occupation" lie for years - - http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-debate/135964-finally-israel-admits-truth.html - - and the links in the article to the news sources.
<<Israel is a sovereign nation. Had Israel not been attacked by it?s neighbors, and had the Muslims practiced what they preach, there would be no refugee problem. The refugee?s are a manufactured problem. >>
The refugees are in no way responsible for the actions of Israel's neighbours, they are innocent victims of a war. Israel wound up in possession of the lands these people live on and for forty years thereafter, their lives have been a living hell. If they're a manufactured problem, the manufacturer's name is stamped all over the problem - - it's made in Israel. It's the Israel Defence Force and no other that occupies their land. It's the Israeli government that orders lands expropriated, houses bulldozed, soldiers to block traffic, and when the protests are met with gunfire, it's the Israeli army that is shooting the guns.
<<It works for the other Arab nation, so they keep them in the camps and use them as weapons in their on going war against Israel. Syria, Jordon, and other surrounding Arab countries got the Arabs to leave Israel because they started a war and then wouldn't let them in their country.>>
That is just pure bullshit. You are completely misrepresenting the history of the conflict. Civilians everywhere will leave a war zone and the Palestinian civilians of 1948 were no different. They had every right to leave a combat zone and every right to return after. International law recognizes a universal right of return when the shooting stops. The Jews don't.
This talk about Syria and Jordan "getting the Arabs to leave Israel" is just pure fiction. They did no such thing.
In 1967, the Arabs DIDN'T leave their homes, their homes were occupied by the invading Israeli army.
<<Arabs live in Israel, work in Israel . . . >>
So what? Who says they don't? How does that justify the Jews occupying the West Bank and Gaza for over 40 years? It's OK becuase they let a few Arabs live and work in Israel? Your thinking on this subject is really illogical.
<< . . . .and [Arabs] occupy important positions in the Israeli government.>>
They do? News to me. What important Israeli government positions are held by Arabs?
<<When Arabs want peace, they get it.>>
Obviously they don't want peace. They've been occupied for 40 years. They want the occupiers to leave and they want their land back. Peace has gotten them nothing but a royal screwing. The Jews continue to settle on their land, and the more peaceful it is, the more Jews come to settle it.
I think the general problem you have is that you proceed from a bunch of unexamined assumptions, about the nature of the Palestinians, what they really want (although it is true that at this point, some of them just want to kill Jews,) how they became occupied and/or refugees and especially how the Jews got hold of the land. As long as you continue to accept myth as fact, these discussions are kind of pointless. I really think you should read a little more broadly than you have been up to now. Noam Chomsky would be a good place to start. You seem to have a great grasp of all the Zionist propaganda machine's talking points, but know virtually nothing of the actual facts of the situation. It wouldn't hurt you to get to know some Palestinians and talk to them as well. You might not like what you hear, but the scary thing for me is that you don't even seem to have heard any of it before.
-
>>The innocent Arabs are children. They are people killed in their homes. Farmers in their fields shot and killed by settlers.<<
What complete and utter bullshit. You really are manic, aren't you.
-
<<What complete and utter bullshit. You really are manic, aren't you.>>
Unfortunately there is documentation available for each of those atrocities, each one of which is in fact very real for the victims and their families. Why anyone would close their eyes to reality and pretend it just didn't happen has always been a mystery to me. Bob Dylan wrote a line about it in Blowin' in the Wind - - How many times can a man turn his head, pretend that he just doesn't see? It doesn't matter in the end, it is the victims who know what went down, and it is up to the victims to avenge it. Not my job and not your job.
-
Seriously, if you're not seeing someone, you should.
-
This"conversation" has DEvolved. How about some constructive solutions instead of name-calling?
How about Isreal rebuilding the Gaza Strip and working with them there in exchange for hard and fast security guarantees? If those in Gaza want the "goodies", then it is up to them to control the radicals.
Deal?
-
Sorry professor, I think you can see I was at least trying to have a normal conversation on the subject, but I believe it's impossible for a several reasons so I won't attempt it again.
As for a solution? Time hasn't worked. Concession hasn't worked. War hasn't worked. Maybe starvation will.
What would you do if your neighbor was constantly shooting at you?
-
First, talk to him. If that was unsuccessful, I would either move or shoot back. Or, purchase some termites and let 'em loose on his house. hehehhe
-
<<As for a solution? Time hasn't worked. Concession hasn't worked. War hasn't worked. Maybe starvation will.
<<What would you do if your neighbor was constantly shooting at you?>>
Left out a little something there, Rich.
Question shoulda been, "What would you do if your neighbour was constantly shooting at you from the vacant lot next door that you forced him into when you kicked him and his family out and took over their house?"
I'd also like to say - - to Rich - - that we did have a real exchange of ideas going, when very suddenly you stopped exchanging ideas and began putting out one-liners questioning my sanity. I'm really sorry the exchange ended that way, frankly. I know I'm right and you're wrong (most of the world outside of the U.S.A. and Israel probably see it my way too, which of course doesn't prove I'm right, but it does kind of weaken your argument that my POV is the product of a mental illness) but I did think, as long as you were prepared to advance your views and at least listen to an intelligent critique of them, you might have started to rethink some of the fundamental underpinnings of your own outlook on the issue. I was actually interested to see how you'd respond to the points I made in my last post - - but the only response you seemed capable of was childish insults. Disappointing. But interesting nevertheless.
-
"Mohammed al Darra, the 12-year-old they shot to death and it was caught for TV. Bundled with his father against a wall for protection from Israeli rifle fire...."
Shot by Palestinians.
-
Oh, heavens. :-\ Pun intended.
I'm amazed that:
1. No one aside from Rich seems to be willing to confront the atrocities of the Arab world on their supposed Muslim "brothers", or the fact that the Palestinians are not innocent and have brought much of this on themselves;
2. That after mentioning the Six Day War, you *still* view it as simply "Israel took it over". You condemned me for a sweeping broad summation of the conflict, yet: Pot, meet Kettle. Wikipedia can be your friend;
3. That Israel is consistently claimed to be the bad guys despite their damndest efforts to reach agreements. To pull the quote out again: "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity";
4. That NO ONE gives credibility to the fact that the poor refugee Palestinians could solve their own plight, and are in large part responsible for it, because heaven forbid their twisted-religious minds allow them to recognize Israel;
5. That comparisons of Palestinians who are not part of the Islamic Fundamentalist mindset are used to discredit the very real and very terrifying and extremely large faction of the MidEast, and Gaza, who *are* thinking in that regard.
I could go on&on actually. It seems rather pointless. You don't want a discussion, you want a fight. MT & XO seem rather hell-bent on the whole "Israelis bad, Arabs good" propaganda.
Rich, you may enjoy Christian Science Monitor and Foreign Affairs. I would say the Economist, but they may be too liberal for you ;D I *really* enjoy the coverage of World Issues in those publications-they are very fair, very informed, if the latter somehwat conservative, publications.
-
On record several times over as not fond of Dubya, BUT I am impressed by this:
Now if only the Palestinians would allow it...
Bush tells Israel: End the Occupation
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1199964891995&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Employing unprecedentedly forthright language after two days of talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, US President George W. Bush on Thursday set out a clear blueprint for a Palestinian state, specifying the need for modifications to the 1967 lines and indicating a rejection of the Palestinian demand for a "right of return" for refugees.
The president said he believed the agreement should and could be signed by the end of the year, and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said Bush would be returning to the region "at least once and maybe more" before the end of his term to push his program forward.
Speaking in Jerusalem, Bush stressed that a final agreement would not be implemented until both sides fulfilled their road map obligations. At a press conference in Ramallah after meeting PA President Mahmoud Abbas, Bush announced the appointment of Lt.-Gen. William Fraser III, assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as the individual who will monitor each side's implementation of the road map obligations.
Bush, at that press conference, sounded more upbeat and confident than ever before, saying "I believe it's going to happen, that there will be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office."
Later in the day, in a dramatic, unscheduled statement read to US-based reporters at the King David Hotel, Bush said the contours of the two-state solution were clear.
"There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967," Bush said. He added, in language indicating a rejection of the idea of Palestinian refugees flowing into Israel, "The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people."
The president went on: "These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent."
Bush said that reaching an agreement would require "painful concessions" by both Israel and the Palestinians.
"While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous," Bush said. "I believe we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue." Bush did not specify what these new mechanism entailed, and Hadley said the contours were still being worked out.
The president said the establishment of "the state of Palestine is long overdue. The Palestinian people deserve it. And it will enhance the stability of the region, and it will contribute to the security of the people of Israel."
Following the statement, Bush went to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's official residence for a dinner with Olmert and his senior ministers: Defense Minister Ehud Barak (Labor), Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (Kadima) , Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz (Kadima), Pensioners Minister Rafi Eitan (Pensioners Party), Industry and Trade Minister Eli Yishai (Shas) and Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman (Israel Beiteinu).
Bush reportedly called Olmert a "strong political leader" who was needed for the diplomatic process to continue.
Yishai presented the president a letter from Shas spiritual head Rabbi Ovadia Yosef calling for the release of Jonathan Pollard. Yishai also reportedly warned at the dinner about making peace with "half of the Palestinians."
Following dinner, Bush and Olmert met for another private meeting.
The president is scheduled to leave for the Persian Gulf tomorrow, after visiting Yad Vashem and Christian holy sites in the Galilee.
On Thursday, his second day in the country, he met with opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu (Likud), as well as with Ariel Sharon's sons Omri and Gilad.
Following his meeting in Ramallah with Abbas, he went to the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.
A senior official in the Prime Minister's Office said that Bush's statement on the contours of a future Palestinian state was "in accordance with the understandings reached between us and the American, and there were no surprises."
The official said the statement was a continuation of longstanding positions of the Bush administration. "We see the Bush remarks as a positive basis for moving forward with the Palestinians," the official said.
While Bush laid out how he thought the core issues of Jerusalem and the refugees should be solved, he was much vaguer on Jerusalem.
"I know Jerusalem is a tough issue," Bush said. "Both sides have deeply felt political and religious concerns. I fully understand that finding a solution to this issue will be one of the most difficult challenges on the road to peace, but that is the road we have chosen to walk."
Bush, in his statement, said he expected serious negotiations to start immediately. He also said he supported regular meetings between Abbas and Olmert because they "ultimately" will be the ones needed to make the decisions.
The Jerusalem Post has learned that drafts of this statement were shown both to the Israeli and Palestinian officials over the last few days, and the sides gave their input.
According to Israeli diplomatic officials, certain elements in the statement were welcome in Jerusalem, while others were deemed more "problematic."
Among the welcome elements were what was deemed Bush's clear rejection of the Palestinian claim of a "right of return" to Israel, by saying that a future Palestinian state would be a homeland for the Palestinians, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jews.
Jerusalem was also pleased that Bush essentially reiterated what was written in his 2004 letter to Ariel Sharon - namely that final borders will entail mutually agreed adjustments, language that Israel interprets to mean a US recognition that Israel can hold onto the large settlement blocs in a future agreement.
Likewise, there was satisfaction that Bush said "security is fundamental," and that "no agreement and no Palestinian state will be born of terror." Bush also reaffirmed America's steadfast commitment to Israel's security.
The most problematic aspect had to deal with some of the language, with eyebrows raised that Bush referred to the "occupation." Although he has used the word occupation before, one official said it was jarring hearing him say it in Jerusalem.
Regarding the road map, Bush said that "neither party should undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudices the final status negotiations."
He said that on the Israeli side that meant ending settlement expansion and removing unauthorized outposts, and on the Palestinian side that meant confronting terrorists and dismantling terrorist infrastructure.
Calev Ben-David contributed to this report.
-
Oh, heavens. :-\ Pun intended.
I'm amazed that:
1. No one aside from Rich seems to be willing to confront the atrocities of the Arab world on their supposed Muslim "brothers", or the fact that the Palestinians are not innocent and have brought much of this on themselves;
2. That after mentioning the Six Day War, you *still* view it as simply "Israel took it over". You condemned me for a sweeping broad summation of the conflict, yet: Pot, meet Kettle. Wikipedia can be your friend;
3. That Israel is consistently claimed to be the bad guys despite their damndest efforts to reach agreements. To pull the quote out again: "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity";
4. That NO ONE gives credibility to the fact that the poor refugee Palestinians could solve their own plight, and are in large part responsible for it, because heaven forbid their twisted-religious minds allow them to recognize Israel;
5. That comparisons of Palestinians who are not part of the Islamic Fundamentalist mindset are used to discredit the very real and very terrifying and extremely large faction of the MidEast, and Gaza, who *are* thinking in that regard.
I could go on&on actually. It seems rather pointless. You don't want a discussion, you want a fight. MT & XO seem rather hell-bent on the whole "Israelis bad, Arabs good" propaganda.
Rich, you may enjoy Christian Science Monitor and Foreign Affairs. I would say the Economist, but they may be too liberal for you ;D I *really* enjoy the coverage of World Issues in those publications-they are very fair, very informed, if the latter somehwat conservative, publications.
All right!!! :D
-
Thanks modestyblase.
It's nice to have someone (else) around with some sense when it comes to this subject.
-
<<I'm amazed that:
1. No one aside from Rich seems to be willing to confront the atrocities of the Arab world on their supposed Muslim "brothers" . . . >>
Well, the topic is the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. The "atrocities" committed by Arabs "on their supposed Muslim brothers" is a red herring, because logically, what Arabs do to each other can't possibly justify anything the Jews do to the Arabs. If I am fighting with my neighbour about ownership of a piece of land, I don't think any court in the world would want to hear how mean my neighbour is to members of his own family. It would have absolutely no bearing on the dispute whatsoever.
However, if your point in introducing this element into the discussion is to prove that the Arabs are collectively a bunch of degenerate savages who don't even have the decency to respect the lives of their co-religionists, I would say, firstly shame on you for stooping to such a blatantly racist smear of an entire race and religion and secondly, when it comes to committing atrocities on one's co-religionists, the Europeans and the Americans take a back-seat to nobody, if you consider the carnage of the two world wars and the U.S. civil war alone. Ms. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
2. No one aside from Rich seems to be willing to confront . . . the fact that the Palestinians are not innocent and have brought much of this on themselves.>>
First of all, "innocence" and "guilt" are not FACTS, as you claim, but merely OPINIONS. Hopefully, opinions based on facts. Second, I think most sane and normal people, if they can agree on nothing else, would have to agree that "guilt" and "innocence" are, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, purely relative terms.
Since you don't bother to state what facts you base your opinion on, I will have to assume that it is suicide bombings which make the Palestinians "not innocent" and lead you to conclude that they "have brought "much of this" on themselves.
Your conclusions are, of course, patently absurd on their face. First of all, the Palestinians had absolutely nothing to do with the occupation by the Jews of the West Bank of Palestine. They happened to be living (many of them after being expelled from their original homes in what is now Israel) on land caught between the armies of Israel and Jordan, occupied by Israel, and then in complete defiance of international law, settled by Israeli settlers, many of them arriving from Europe and America after the war. So it is virtually impossible to see, in any reasonable view of the situation, how the Palestinians can be said to have "brought much of this" or indeed any of "this" on themselves.
Possibly, however, you are referring to the suicide bombings. Again, your argument would make sense only to one who is completely ignorant of the history of the situation. Suicide bombings are a relatively recent response to the Occupation. The Palestinians suffered a military occupation for about 20 years until the first intifada broke out, when crowds of child demonstrators, some as young as 10 or 11 years old, throwing pebbles at Israeli soldiers, were gunned down in the streets. Yitzkhak Rabin gave the orders to his soldiers to "break the bones" of the demonstrators. In response to the brutality of the Israeli forces and the murders of their children, some Palestinians, driven to desperation by the never-ending oppression of the Occupation, turned to the only weapons they had, their own bodies, to bring the struggle back to the enemy. Suicide bombings are the only weapon of a people which lacks the weapons of war possessed in deadly abundance by their enemy.
You might want to at least glance at the actual facts, however, before coming to your conclusions of "guilt" or "innocence" - - for example, that since 2000, more than 4,500 Palestinians have been killed as opposed to only 1,100 Israelis. It should be pretty clear from these numbers (a 4-to-one ratio) where most of the violence is coming from. In 2007 alone, 373 Palestinians were killed by the Jews, as against only 13 Israelis, a ratio of almost 30-to-one. It is absolutely ludicrous to claim that the Israelis are the "innocents" in this lop-sided carnage against a defenceless civilian population. Further, <<[of] the Palestinians killed this year, 131 were not engaged in fighting at the time of their death, according to the report. That number includes bystanders, militants killed during arrest raids, Palestinians killed trying to infiltrate Israel from Gaza, and armed members of Palestinian security forces who were not actively involved in hostilities when they were killed.>> And, finally, <<[of] the Israelis killed by Palestinians, seven were civilians and six were security personnel.>>
http://www.sunherald.com/311/v-print/story/270946.html for the above death-toll summary
<<2. That after mentioning the Six Day War, you *still* view it as simply "Israel took it over". You condemned me for a sweeping broad summation of the conflict, yet: Pot, meet Kettle. Wikipedia can be your friend>>
So what details of the Six Day War do you think I left out that would have favoured the case of the Occupation against the Palestinians?
<<That Israel is consistently claimed to be the bad guys despite their damndest efforts to reach agreements. To pull the quote out again: "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity";>>
You know that is just total bullshit. What "damndest efforts" have they actually made? They stall for years "negotiating" agreements that it is obvious they never intend to keep (all the time pouring settlers as fast as they can into the land they are supposedly "negotiating" to give away) and then when the agreements are finally signed, they stall, delay and renege, using phony excuses ("the Arabs are 'inciting' violence") which were never even mentioned in the original "agreements." No real Palestinian leader has any faith left in the Israelis' intentions. Abbas, a corrupt puppet leader, is the only one who will even pretend that there is any point to negotiating with them.
You trotted out that old wisecrack about the Arabs never missing an opportunity, coined by a cynical and morally corrupted Israeli Foreign Minister as if it were proof of anything except his clever tongue. Of course, the Israelis are adept at pouring out lies and bullshit, not enough to fool the Europeans but certainly more than adequate for the dumbass Amerikkkan public.
<<That NO ONE gives credibility to the fact that the poor refugee Palestinians could solve their own plight, and are in large part responsible for it, because heaven forbid their twisted-religious minds allow them to recognize Israel>>
More bullshit. Where is the evidence of any Jewish commitment to end the occupation as soon as the Palestinians recognize Israel? There is no such commitment. All Israel has committed to is to negotiate more. That's not good enough but it certainly gives the lie to your claim that a simple recognition of Israel would solve all their problems. Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.
<<That comparisons of Palestinians who are not part of the Islamic Fundamentalist mindset are used to discredit the very real and very terrifying and extremely large faction of the MidEast, and Gaza, who *are* thinking in that regard.>>
The Palestinians can be of any "mindset" they choose and would still be entitled to have military occupation lifted off their backs. Who in the hell are the Israelis to dictate to the Palestinians or to anyone else, "You can have the basic human rights provided by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights," but first you must adopt a mindset that is acceptable to us?" This is probably the most outrageous of all your statements in its arrogance and its (obviously unintended) glimpse of the "mindset" of Israel and its supporters.
<<I could go on&on actually. It seems rather pointless. You don't want a discussion, you want a fight.>>
I'm sorry. Promise not to contradict you any more, OK?
<<MT & XO seem rather hell-bent on the whole "Israelis bad, Arabs good" propaganda.>>
That's extremely unfair. If something blatantly unjust is going on, I call attention to it, but I'll be damned if any of my reasoned and factual arguments, right or wrong, are at the primitive levels you just depicted. I suppose that if your arguments are rebutted in my posts, the proper response is to assume that your own arguments are clever and sophisticated, while mine and XO's are primitive, Neanderthal and buffoonish. Maybe it's good for your ego, but I can assure you, no one with half a brain is buying it.
-
Look here, folks. This should not be rocket science. Money, in my arrogant American viewpoint, can resolve many many problems. Move the dang Palestinians and Gaza folks, en masses, to somewhere else like ht Sinai. Pump in BILLIONS (no biggie, look how much we are spending in Iraq!) and build them basically their own civilization. Be sure to put some job opportunities there like plants, etc. to provide them both jobs and respect. Then, if they rocket Israel, nuke 'em off the face of the planet.
See, clean and easy!
-
Why not move 'em to Idaho or Nebraska? I mean, what country, especially in the land-poor Middle East, is going to give up its own arable land so the Israelis can keep the West Bank? They're already living on a land which supported vineyards and olive roves, what realistic substitutes can you offer them and what makes you think the present owners will be willing to hand it over any more than the Palestinians were prepared to hand over their lands?
-
Perhaps becuase hardly anyone lives in the Sinai...
Or, central Saudi Arabia, another sparsely populated area.
-
But it must have occurred to you, there's a REASON those places are "sparsely populated?"
-
Israel was sparsley populated at one time also. That is until Israelis bought land from local Arabs and made the land habital again
-
Israel was sparsley populated at one time also. That is until Israelis bought land from local Arabs and made the land habitable again
================================================
Most of the area of Israel is in the Negev desert and that is still sparsely populated. Not even Israeli genius can make it rain where is never has in centuries, or make water appear underground if it just isn't there.
If the Israelis were in fact such geniuses, they could settle all those West Bank colonists in the Negev. But, as MT said, there is a reason why this area is sparsely populated.
-----------------
And the Israelis didn't buy much of that land, they took it in a war. Under the rules of the UN, they are obliged to return it. Besides, owning real estate is one thing, and sovereignity is quite another. If you and all the Christians 4v Less Government, for example, decided to buy several desert counties of Nevada and settle them with godly crypto fascists, you would certainly have the right to try to make the land productive. But what you would NOT have is the right to secede from the USA and establish the Richiepoo Free State of Christian Quasianarchists.
-
The undeniable fact remains, Prior to Israelis legally purchasing land in what is now Israel, it was just so much desert. After these purchases the land, the country, prospered. Then of course people a lot of people decided they wanted it back.
-
But it must have occurred to you, there's a REASON those places are "sparsely populated?"
Sure, I said BILLIONS, didn't I? Allocate enough moolah and the rivers can flow again. desalination plants can be constructed, topsoil can be trucked in and so on.
Look, isn't this a better solution than having them at each other's throats?
Funding can come form a universal fund, funded by their "Muslim brothers" and those guys with the white hats, namely us.
The string if this is accomplished, however, is they can't contrinue their war against Isreal. After all, we are doing this to keep them apart and let the Palestinians build anew. If thye cannot accept this caveat, then too bad, the deal's off.
-
<<Allocate enough moolah and the rivers can flow again. desalination plants can be constructed, topsoil can be trucked in and so on.
<<Look, isn't this a better solution than having them at each other's throats?>>
It's a nice thought. To be honest, the reason it won't come off is because the "Arab brothers" aren't all that brotherly. They won't contribute a cent because it will offend their manhood that the Jews took land from them by force and they couldn't get it back by force. It would be an unmanly solution. Their attitude's akin to the U.S. sentiment, "Millions for defence but not one cent for tribute."
But it's a good idea anyway. I like it. Maybe if there were new leadership in the Arab world. A whole new generation.
-
After these purchases the land, the country, prospered. Then of course people a lot of people decided they wanted it back.
=========================================================
No, you have it all wrong again. After Israel took sovereignty of the land, then Jews all over the world were asked, begged, cajoled and wheedled to donate bazillions. One slogan was "a land without people for a people without a land", which was patently false. The Arabs who were run off, many by people with guns, never ceased to want their land back, with or without Jewish improvements.
About this time, a number of cures for epidemic and chronic diseases that had kept the population stable were introduced int the region, and the mortality rate in general and the infant mortality rate in particular plummeted among Palestinians, and now there are five or six times as many refugees as there were in 1947.
You fail to realize that the Palestinian attachment for this land is as great as the Jewish attachment for it. Certainly a lot more than the Boston Irish pining away for the Auld Sod of Erin or the Sioux pining away for the Black Hills.
-
MT, your anti-Israeli stance is mindboggling. You remind me of Chomsky. You both suffer the same thing: "All Israeli actions bad, no responsibility of Palestinians or other Arab countries allowed!" As I have stated and maintained from the get-go: ISRAEL IS NOT FAULTLESS. They have committed many inhumane acts in their fight for survival and safety, and those acts have not always been in the best interest of their own people. HOWEVER, to understand their behaviour one cannot analyse Israel alone; the neighbouring Arab states' behavior must be taken into consideration as well.
I am also keeping all points made as from the 1967 war & on, or this debate could get ugly.
Also, for the sake of clarification and so nothing further can be missappropriated: WHEN I AM DISCUSSING THE FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAMIC MINDSET, which *is* overwhlemingly most of the MidEast Arab's mindset, don't presume some superiority by talking about your not-fundamentalist, non-militant, reasonable palestinian neighbour in the west as if their open-minded, accepting perspective is exemplary of the mindset of the majority of MidEast Arabs.
So, play-by-play for the sake of ease:
<<I'm amazed that:
1. No one aside from Rich seems to be willing to confront the atrocities of the Arab world on their supposed Muslim "brothers" . . . >>
Well, the topic is the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. The "atrocities" committed by Arabs "on their supposed Muslim brothers" is a red herring, because logically, what Arabs do to each other can't possibly justify anything the Jews do to the Arabs. If I am fighting with my neighbour about ownership of a piece of land, I don't think any court in the world would want to hear how mean my neighbour is to members of his own family. It would have absolutely no bearing on the dispute whatsoever.
However, if your point in introducing this element into the discussion is to prove that the Arabs are collectively a bunch of degenerate savages who don't even have the decency to respect the lives of their co-religionists, I would say, firstly shame on you for stooping to such a blatantly racist smear of an entire race and religion and secondly, when it comes to committing atrocities on one's co-religionists, the Europeans and the Americans take a back-seat to nobody, if you consider the carnage of the two world wars and the U.S. civil war alone. Ms. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
How are the actions of Arab nations a "red herring"? I will need more than your opinion that the "Jews were worse". The example you used after that is in keeping with Western thoughts and traditions and perspectives, which in no way relates plausibly to traditional Islamic perspectives.
The Arabs do NOT respect the lives of their "co-religionists", as you call them, most certainly, and even moreso they have NO respect for the lives or outlooks of any other religion, race, etc. Palestinians have been forcibly maintained by their Arab brothers in an artifical refugee status, leading to legal apartheid in Lebanon and to an extent, Syria, via a U.N. rule that gives Palestinians permanent refugee status due to lack of a soveriegnty.
As for America and Europe: If you wish to discuss that, go right ahead and start a new thread for it. I'll be glad to discuss things like Germans being forced out of East Prussia, among others. Their conflicts are not what this thread is about.
2. No one aside from Rich seems to be willing to confront . . . the fact that the Palestinians are not innocent and have brought much of this on themselves.>>
First of all, "innocence" and "guilt" are not FACTS, as you claim, but merely OPINIONS. Hopefully, opinions based on facts. Second, I think most sane and normal people, if they can agree on nothing else, would have to agree that "guilt" and "innocence" are, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, purely relative terms.
Since you don't bother to state what facts you base your opinion on, I will have to assume that it is suicide bombings which make the Palestinians "not innocent" and lead you to conclude that they "have brought "much of this" on themselves.
Your conclusions are, of course, patently absurd on their face. First of all, the Palestinians had absolutely nothing to do with the occupation by the Jews of the West Bank of Palestine. They happened to be living (many of them after being expelled from their original homes in what is now Israel) on land caught between the armies of Israel and Jordan, occupied by Israel, and then in complete defiance of international law, settled by Israeli settlers, many of them arriving from Europe and America after the war. So it is virtually impossible to see, in any reasonable view of the situation, how the Palestinians can be said to have "brought much of this" or indeed any of "this" on themselves.
Possibly, however, you are referring to the suicide bombings. Again, your argument would make sense only to one who is completely ignorant of the history of the situation. Suicide bombings are a relatively recent response to the Occupation. The Palestinians suffered a military occupation for about 20 years until the first intifada broke out, when crowds of child demonstrators, some as young as 10 or 11 years old, throwing pebbles at Israeli soldiers, were gunned down in the streets. Yitzkhak Rabin gave the orders to his soldiers to "break the bones" of the demonstrators. In response to the brutality of the Israeli forces and the murders of their children, some Palestinians, driven to desperation by the never-ending oppression of the Occupation, turned to the only weapons they had, their own bodies, to bring the struggle back to the enemy. Suicide bombings are the only weapon of a people which lacks the weapons of war possessed in deadly abundance by their enemy.
You might want to at least glance at the actual facts, however, before coming to your conclusions of "guilt" or "innocence" - - for example, that since 2000, more than 4,500 Palestinians have been killed as opposed to only 1,100 Israelis. It should be pretty clear from these numbers (a 4-to-one ratio) where most of the violence is coming from. In 2007 alone, 373 Palestinians were killed by the Jews, as against only 13 Israelis, a ratio of almost 30-to-one. It is absolutely ludicrous to claim that the Israelis are the "innocents" in this lop-sided carnage against a defenceless civilian population. Further, <<[of] the Palestinians killed this year, 131 were not engaged in fighting at the time of their death, according to the report. That number includes bystanders, militants killed during arrest raids, Palestinians killed trying to infiltrate Israel from Gaza, and armed members of Palestinian security forces who were not actively involved in hostilities when they were killed.>> And, finally, <<[of] the Israelis killed by Palestinians, seven were civilians and six were security personnel.>>
http://www.sunherald.com/311/v-print/story/270946.html for the above death-toll summary
*Sigh* I have stated several times that neither parties are innocent, and they both have their faults. When I can see an acceptance of this notion in your arguments, I'll respond further. As it stands, Palestinians are as much victims as Israelis are, as much perpetrators as Israelis are, and I see no acknowledgement of that simple notion in any of your arguments.
<<2. That after mentioning the Six Day War, you *still* view it as simply "Israel took it over". You condemned me for a sweeping broad summation of the conflict, yet: Pot, meet Kettle. Wikipedia can be your friend>>
So what details of the Six Day War do you think I left out that would have favoured the case of the Occupation against the Palestinians?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War see: Israel and Jordan specifically. "Israel took it over" is a very poor way of describing Israel capturing territories in an effort to safeguard themselves against the Arabs.
<<That Israel is consistently claimed to be the bad guys despite their damndest efforts to reach agreements. To pull the quote out again: "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity";>>
You know that is just total bullshit. What "damndest efforts" have they actually made? They stall for years "negotiating" agreements that it is obvious they never intend to keep (all the time pouring settlers as fast as they can into the land they are supposedly "negotiating" to give away) and then when the agreements are finally signed, they stall, delay and renege, using phony excuses ("the Arabs are 'inciting' violence") which were never even mentioned in the original "agreements." No real Palestinian leader has any faith left in the Israelis' intentions. Abbas, a corrupt puppet leader, is the only one who will even pretend that there is any point to negotiating with them.
You trotted out that old wisecrack about the Arabs never missing an opportunity, coined by a cynical and morally corrupted Israeli Foreign Minister as if it were proof of anything except his clever tongue. Of course, the Israelis are adept at pouring out lies and bullshit, not enough to fool the Europeans but certainly more than adequate for the dumbass Amerikkkan public.
Haha! Whats the point of anything they(Israel only) have signed, when they consistently face attack and threats from neighbouring nations?! As Abbas points out in the first public statement(sofar as I know) that Palestine has to compromise: "We will be flexible," said Abbas. "But before 1947, we had 95% of Palestine. In 1937, the partition plan gave the Israelis only part of Palestine. And they were very happy at that time. [David] Ben-Gurion was very happy with it. It didn't work. After that [came] the 1947 partition plan - we rejected this, so we lost... Now, we accept [the pre-'67 borders]." Of course, this is pointless now. Hamas so thoroughly controls Gaza that there *is* no point in attempting resolution as there is no Palestine in Gaza. There is a significant break in PA ideas and perspectives and those of the militant Hamas. I was amazed to find out that the PA accuses Hamas of acting with Israel to wipe out Islamic Jihad!!! And you expect these people to make sense???
<<That NO ONE gives credibility to the fact that the poor refugee Palestinians could solve their own plight, and are in large part responsible for it, because heaven forbid their twisted-religious minds allow them to recognize Israel>>
More bullshit. Where is the evidence of any Jewish commitment to end the occupation as soon as the Palestinians recognize Israel? There is no such commitment. All Israel has committed to is to negotiate more. That's not good enough but it certainly gives the lie to your claim that a simple recognition of Israel would solve all their problems. Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.
It wouldn't happen as soon as Palestine recognized Israel; thats like requesting all U.S. troops in Iraq come home overnight. There would have to be continuing and hopefully U.N.-forced and backed withdrawal of Israel as Gaza's "support system" and institution of Arab controlled(with very very tight U.N. oversight) "support" in its place. There would have to be close monitoring for some decades by the U.N. and other "peacekeepers" so as to avoid Israel being attacked by anti-zionist nutcases. There are plenty of reasonable solutions, including the one I referenced addressed by Dubya, but none that are siple unfortunately, due to both the devestated state of Palestine and the security needs of Israel.
<<That comparisons of Palestinians who are not part of the Islamic Fundamentalist mindset are used to discredit the very real and very terrifying and extremely large faction of the MidEast, and Gaza, who *are* thinking in that regard.>>
The Palestinians can be of any "mindset" they choose and would still be entitled to have military occupation lifted off their backs. Who in the hell are the Israelis to dictate to the Palestinians or to anyone else, "You can have the basic human rights provided by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights," but first you must adopt a mindset that is acceptable to us?" This is probably the most outrageous of all your statements in its arrogance and its (obviously unintended) glimpse of the "mindset" of Israel and its supporters.
Well, good. Lets pull all Israeli support of Gaza. Let's allow Israel to bomb 'em to smithereens when their Islamic Jihad lets-reintroduce-the-caliphate mindset rears its ugly head.
And the Israelis didn't buy much of that land, they took it in a war. Under the rules of the UN, they are obliged to return it.
If so, the U.N. would be forcing that issue. Just like they are allowinf the legal apartheid in Lebanon to go on and on. And the latter resolution is non-binding, at that!
-
For anyone who may care:
Michael Oren's Six Days of War gives a very well-rounded, multi-perspective view of the war. I've not read his other books, so if anyone else has your opinion is requsted and welcomed.
As mentioned previously, Christian Science Monitor and Foreign Affairs are *excellent* sources for not only the mideast issues, but all issues, without the typical taint of U.S. media, gov't., state dept., or oil company propagandizing ;)
-
And the Israelis didn't buy much of that land, they took it in a war. Under the rules of the UN, they are obliged to return it.
If so, the U.N. would be forcing that issue. Just like they are allowing the legal apartheid in Lebanon to go on and on. And the latter resolution is non-binding, at that!
===================================
All UN resolutions are non-binding until all the permanent members of the Security Council, which includes the US, votes to send troops to enforce the resolution.
What 'legal apartheid' in Lebanon are you referring to, anyway? Lebanon is not holding any one else's land.
The best example of apartheid these days is the West Bank: special roads for Jews, no checkpoints for Jews.
-
First of all, MB, I am very flattered to be compared to Chomsky. I don't deserve it in the least, because he has a much greater grasp of the facts than I will ever have, but even to be mentioned in the same breath as he is a real shot in the arm.
You seem like an intelligent person but you seem also to have some huge inability to grasp the basic facts in issue here. This is not some kind of moral beauty contest, where the country with the least blemishes wins the prize. Practically speaking, neither one of these two parties comes to the table with clean hands. You need to grasp that the fundamental issue here is the OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL of land. The Israelis aren't coming to the table to avenge their dead and neither are the Palestinians. The dead are dead, whether they were killed by suicide bombers or F-16 bombers. The CAUSE of this problem is the unlawful occupation by military force of 3,000,000 Arabs to protect the rapidly expanding settlement of 270,000 recently-arrived Jews among them.
Yet rather than discuss the fundamental injustice at the heart of the problem, the source of all the killing on both sides, you preoccupy yourself with correcting MY "mistaken" impression that the Jews are the bad guys and trying to show, not that the Israelis are the good guys - - for that would obviously be impossible - - but that although they're not perfect, the Arabs aren't any better morally.
Honestly, MB, you might as well save your efforts to convince me that you are aware of all the bad things that the Israelis have done, because for the sake of this argument, it wouldn't matter if they were morally unblemished white knights in shining armour and the Palestinians were a bunch of low-life snakes in the grass. The fact would remain, the Israelis have no right at all to maintain a military occupation of the West Bank and the Palestinians, snakes though they might be, would still have the right to live free lives unoppressed by Israeli military occupation. This is not just my view, it is the view in international law and has been expressed in numerous UN resolutions
-
XO(this is scattered as I am running out the door)-
Lebanon's discrimination against Palestinians is based on the lack of a Palestinian state. It is a "legal apartheid"-if they had citizenship of any sort, the U.N. could intervene and get Palestinians out of the armed camps in N Lebanon, etc.
Briefly, Lebanon has many laws which restrict Palestinian access to jobs, which bar them from owning property, etc. These are justified because the Palestinians have no state and thus are not due the rights accorded under Lebanese law to people from another country(per the U.N.). No other Arab nation is willing to grant them citizenship so they remain in "refugee" status.
Get upset all you want about the checkpoints and other oppressions of occupation on Palestinians in the West Bank but Lebanon and Syria impose worse conditions.
MT-I'm running out the door and will be busy w. business and travel the next efw days, but will read & address your comments when I get back.
-
Get upset all you want about the checkpoints and other oppressions of occupation on Palestinians in the West Bank but Lebanon and Syria impose worse conditions.
=========================================================
My taxes support Israel, not Syria and not Lebanon.
Refugees are not granted the rights of citizens accordng to the UN Charter, but those dispossessed of their land are guaranteed a right to return to it after hostilities cease. Even if every Palestinian were recognize Israel and even to to French-kiss the ass of every Israeli, Israel will still not allow the Palestinians to return.
Nor will Israel ever declare that anyone who claims to be a Jew does not have a right to instant Israeli citizenship. If I were a Palestinian, I would convert to Judaism.
-
......... guaranteed a right to return to it after hostilities cease.
When is that going to happen?
Nor will Israel ever declare that anyone who claims to be a Jew does not have a right to instant Israeli citizenship. If I were a Palestinian, I would convert to Judaism.
That sounds as if it might work , if only the Palestinians would not rather die.