PeterDavid.net

Peter, I hope your prediction doesn't come to pass, because I think it would be a war with no winners. Mind you, that hasn't stopped people in the past.

Oooh, Pete, you're going to have so much fun reading all the hate mail you're going to get.

I don't have much sympathy for those in Gaza since, even though most weren't around for it, they're on land that was stolen from the Palestinians, but I can't help but think that this is a bad move.

Revolutions start not when one side reaches rock bottom but when one side starts getting what they want. The terrorist attacks are not going to stop because of this. They're just going to increase because the terrorists will see that they might be able to get everything back. (And I suspect that some of them might not even be satisfied with that.)

We can only hope that, instead of more Hezbollahs, the Palestinians will get a peacemaker who can give them their dignity back with no bloodshed. Unfortunately it just seems that its easier for both sides to act with and respond to killing each other.

Since Hamas is declaring this a victory for their "armed" conflict, I'm fearful of the latter also. After all if it worked once why not again?

Shocking as it may be, I probably agree with 99% of what you wrote. Israel is not perfect and has done things which are wrong, but they are not developing a culture of true hatred like the Palestinians. As long as the Palestinian leaders and people continue to reject Israel as a legitimate country, war is inevitable.

The burden at this point is on the Palestinians to avoid the war. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, their fate is really in their hands.

Iowa Jim

There's also another danger that should be considered: the creation of an israeli OAS. Remember Yitzaak (sp?) Rabin?

Sadly, I have to agree. I think there's too much hate, on both sides, for this to end anything. (And for anyone who says the Israeli's aren't cultivating a true hatred, you should have been on campus this last week during an Israeli conference; it's been a long time since I've heard so much hatred directed towards an ethnic group, and it was stomach churning.)

Eventually something drastic is going to be done, and, agreeing with PAD, there's going to be a full blown war. And since the US is already over there, it won't be much for us to get involved there, too. Won't be long before the entire Middle East is awash in war.

Oooh, I'm just the optimist today, aren't I? Blah.

You're right, Peter. That is what will happen. But there is no doubt of the outcome, as Isreal is simply too powerful for any of the islamic opponents in the area. How so. Atomics...

People are complicating the issue...Let's break it down to its most basic...

Israel has agreed to give land for peace.
It has already given land and gotten no peace.
The solution: Give more land...

Does that sound logical to you?

Furthermore, the land wasn't stolen from anyone. Stealing implies a theft that didn't occur.

I think that they had to at least try this. If there are just too many bigoted, zealotous Palestinians who continue attacking the very existence of Isreal, and it does come to war (and personally I hope that there are enough Palestinans who just want a solidly established homeland of their own, as Isreal has gotten, and want to live their lives in peace, that this can be avoided), at least they will have taken every reasonable measure to accomodate the Palestinians before the final resort of all-out war. If this doesn't lead to an immediate, lasting decline (towards cessation, of course; but as long as any zealots are still operating, a total end to attacks could still be a while in coming no matter what is done) in terror attacks, then war may be inevitable, but this is a concession which has merit, and had to be attempted before deciding that warfare is the only solution.

I'm not sure you're right about the inevitability of a war. The Arabs can't afford to begin a war the might lose because without the Soviet Union forcing the USA to force the Israelis to hold back I can't see them settling for the less than total victories they could have had in the previous wars. If Iran were to attack and be defeated I think the Israelis would send them back to the stone age.

And the Palestinians can't wage a real war by themselves. Never have and never will.

Atomic weapons are the x-factor, the one thing that could make a way more likely. Not that I think the Iranians would be so stupid as to drop a bomb on Israel, thus ensuring their own erasure from the Map of The World. Having nukes could, however, be a trump card if, as I expect, the Israelis defeat their conventional forces and take the fight to Iran itself.

(At any rate, the Iranians have to go through several other countries to get to Israel. Not so easy, especially when one of them is full of US soldiers).

Egypt? It's been a while since the Egyption had the pleasure of watching the rest of the Arab states willing to "Fight to the last Egyption" as one of them put it to me. I haven't seen anything to indicate to me that Egypt is ready for war. If that changes war becomes far more likely.

Syria? Possibly, they have the desire. Given their inability to hold on to their interests in Lebanon, I think the Israelis will tear them up. Even before we send the Kurds from Iraq into Syria. Tell them whatever they break they can keep.

Jordan? Again, not much of a threat, unless the Palestinians (who make up a majority of the Jordanian population, if I recall correctly, decide to go for broke.

So for a real full scale war to happen there would have to be some changes in the situation as it now stands. The Arab Sates and Iran can no longer be sure that losing will not mean the end of them. They can't be sure that turning off the oil supplies won't result in an American invasion. They's have to be nuts, Saddam nuts. The Iranian fundamentalists may be that crazy...I don't know if the average Iranian wants a war, I doubt it.

Seems to me that the Israeli plan is to pull out, wall off, let the Palestinians run their own affairs right into the ground and if the day ever comes that they seriously try to take on the Israelis in a real war...well, it won't be pretty or take long. But frankly, I just see more of the same old terrorism.

What you have to keep in mind is that Israel was spending an inordinate amount of time and resources providing security for a small minority but extremely vocal portion of their population. In Sharon's mind, the pullout of Gaza is not a capitulation to Hamas, but an acknowledgement that securing those settlements were not worth the cost.

I don't often try to be optimistic, but with the change in leadership among the Palestinians and the shifting of Israel's resources towards a more defensible position, I think there's at least a hope that some stability can be achieved here. Will Hamas and other terrorist and radical groups try to ruin it? Certainly. Can this be overcome? Sure, but only if the Palestinian leaders finally show that they are willing to shut down the terrorists themselves, something Arafat was never going to do.

I am gonna get flamed so much for this but here his my 2 cents. Isral is the center point for alomst everthing going on over there. And yes i know it is Holy ground bla bla bla.....
I say move ALL of Isral over here...Got plenty of land out in the midwest what are speaking a national park come on. It will be better for all
1st let the palenstines have the basically Dirt let them try to farm it and do whatever WITHOUT our help. have fun guys.Thats what they want anyway so they should be happy.
2nd. With the Middle east now just ahappy bunch we pull out all out troops funding everthing. Yhat should save us quite a few pennies.
3rd Isral gets better land to devloup on plus since they are now living here and producing we can tax and get some good needed revenue back...

I mean what are we talking about 3 million peeps thats a small city dam give them Huston about the climate and there is some oil under there to start ....anyway i need another drink just my 2 cents

"I say move ALL of Isral over here...Got plenty of land out in the midwest what are speaking a national park come on. It will be better for all"

I don't think it's going to get you flamed so much as laughed at. I really don't see America setting up a new country in the middle of, say, Nebraska, and I don't see the Israeli's willingly leaving Jerusalem unless you're prepared to move the wailing wall here brick by brick, and even then, not likely.

PAD

PAD

And for anyone who says the Israeli's aren't cultivating a true hatred, you should have been on campus this last week during an Israeli conference; it's been a long time since I've heard so much hatred directed towards an ethnic group, and it was stomach churning.

I have friends who lived in Lebanon in the 1990's. They had an interesting perspective and told me firsthand of the many things Israel has done that I find just plain wrong. There is no question that there is hatred on both sides. That said, there is a culture of hatred on the Arab side that is far more specific and racist than in Israel. As one friend put it, an Arab is able to live in Israel relatively unmolested, but it is very difficult for a Jew to live in Palestine. You don't have even fringe Jewish groups trying to talk children into being suicide bombers.

At the end of the day, Israel has actually conceded things, perhaps more than they should have. The Arabs have yet to even acknowledge Israel's right to exist. As long as that mindset persists, a war seems very likely if not inevitable.

I am all for peace. My prayer is for peace in Jerusalem. And that must be a fair peace that recognizes the role Arabs should play. But the hatred for the Jews is so deep, it really doesn't matter what the Jews do at this point. Short of them all drowning themselves in the Dead Sea, nothing would satisfy some of the strong Arab factions that exist.

Iowa Jim

Clarification: I apologize. I should not have used the word "Arab" and should have said Palestinian. While the Arab world as a whole tends to be anti-semitic, there is something more specific with the Palestinians. (Understandably so if you consider their claim on the very land where Israel exists.)

Iowa Jim

"Furthermore, the land wasn't stolen from anyone. Stealing implies a theft that didn't occur."

how was the land aquired? i don't know the mechanics of the founding of the settlements.

I've been watching this stuff unfold now on the U.S. channels, the BBC and a few other foreign nets. My prediction? I think, and it makes me ill to my core saying this, is that this was the first step towards an all out flame out over there. Israel has had the last little war it fought to hold over everybody's heads. You kick the crap out of everybody and you get seen as the biggest badass on the block. But when you basically destroy the lives of your own people as a peace offering? This move will get played up by the extremists and the propagandists as a sign of weakness on Israel's part. It'll be used to push Israel even harder for more. Maybe even in ways that will leave Israel no choice but to push back. Hard.

I think we'll see some real bad things coming out of this by around 2007. If there's not a bloody war over there by 2010 I'll be surprised. Happily, pleasantly and gladly surprised but surprised none the less.

This post seems terribly propgandic. The same story they have been selling over here in the west for years, I suppose.

In reality, it's all bad on all sides, but I think a more apt equivalence would have been:

"After a total relocation of a people that were already there to concetration camps thousands of miles away, some of the ethnic groups started a misguided compaign of terrorism that lasted for 10 years. The US, comparing the cost of defending New Castle, Delaware, vs, not having to deal with the problems that occupation involes, decided to strip New castle of all its resoures and infrastucture and give it to the Indians as a peace offering."

It's an ugly thought to consider, but perhaps it'd be better to just have the bloody war and be done with it. The Israel/Palestine conflict has been going on for what, fifty years now? It's been a war of attrition all this time - terrorist attack and military counterattack, et cetera ad infinitum. Maybe the only way to really achieve peace in the region is for one side to completely obliterate the other.

Is there any regular visitor to this site actually living in Israel/The West Bank/Gaza Strip? I think they'd have valuable insights/reports.

I've talked to Israelis and Palestinian Arabs and Persians and other denizens of the Middle East (I live in San Jose) and a lot of them admit ambiguities.

Bottom line, uninformed opinions are destructive (granted, not as destructive as physical violence.) Many of the people I've met from those areas believe in a chance for peace. Gaza, for the most part, seems to have been more trouble for Israel than it was worth.(Though, perhaps it was a buffer.)

Arafat seems to have both gavlanized/solidified the Palestinian Arabs and sabotaged the peace process during his lifetime.

Abbas seems to have a cleaner slate, a better rapport with the Israelis and the ability to deliver results. Will the violent extremists convince enough people that they are the ones responsible for the Israeli pullback? In a dream world, people would look at the violence commited for years that had no positive results and ask what changed and what was the likeliest reason for the pullback, Abbas, Hamas, Sharon, etc.

What's goingg to be the long term result? I dunno. I still don't have an accurate enoungh view of history to figure out how this whole mess got started, and I've spent quite some time on different sources.

The most optmistic result I see is that Israeli/Palestinian hatred eventually dwindles to the kind of black vs. white hatred in the U.S.: Sad and depressing when hate crimes happen, but not something that's currently leading to riots in the streets, dividing/destroying the country, etc.

Anyways I rambled more than I intended. FOr those who want more info, I suggest Thomas Friedman's "Longitudes and Attidues" (I haven't read his other books yet, but I think that they'll be valuable in learning about that region.

For some optimism, check out seedsofpeace.org

OK, it is a little difficult to explain this stuff to people who are not Israelis. Sometimes even Israelis don't get it. But here goes.

1)There will be no full-blown war. The Palestinians don't have the military ability to conduct a war against Israel beyond terrorism. They definitely don't have the ability to eliminate Israel. And the Israelis will not kill all of the Palestinians (despite anti-Israeli propaganda portraying it as genocidal). The rest of the Arab world has no intention of risking their own countries fighting Israel. So what you have is more Palestinian terrorism or less Palestinian terrorism, more Israeli repression or less. Not war. It's a little like Iraq. Wars are easy. What comes after is difficult.

2) The point of the withdrawl from Gaza is not a move for peace. It is actually based on two assumptions. One, that since the Palestinians will not agree to peace with Israel, but staying in Gaza is a burden (for many reasons), it is better to leave Gaza unilateraly. Two, since Israel is acting unilateraly it can decide what to do without the hassle of having to bargain with the Palestinians, and can therefore decide on its own which lands to keep and from which to withdraw.
It should also be noted that some Israelis in the peace camp do not accept the first assumption and think it is used to justify the second. While others agree with the first assumption but not the second. Some Israelis on the right accept that the Palestinians do not want peace, and that Israel should act unilateraly, but not that Israel should withdraw.

3) The Palestinian leadership is going to try to use the withdrawl from Gaza in order to gain prestige for itself in the world and with the Palestinians by trying to build a strong and able government (now there is anarchy and corruption). However it needs to assure the Palestinians that by doing so it is not giving up on other Palestinian demands. Mentioning Jerusalem is a symbolic reference to these demands.

4) The Palestinians (especially the terrorist organizations) will view the withdrawl as a success for terrorism. What is more, the Palestinian leadership will not dismantle the terrorist organizations, because it does not want to risk a confrontation with them. It will try to bargain with them so they will not act from areas controled by the Palestinian leadership, thus threatening its image and buildup efforts. The terrorist organizations, who have gained prestige by using terrorism, will probably not want a confrontation with the authority, or to threaten the buildup, so they will try to move their efforts to the west bank. When terrorism will occur, the Palestinian leadership will say either that they cannot prevent all attacks, or that Israel is still occupying the west bank, or that the attacks are in response to Israei acts. All claims are part true part false. They will cause Israelis to mistrust Palestinians even more.
It should be noted that the terrorist organizations include people who clearly say they want to see Israel eliminated, as well as others who say that they want peace, but feel it is justified to fight to force israel to make concessions.

5) The Americans will not be militarily involved in conflicts in Israel/Palestine. It does give money to Israel, which Israel then gives back to the Americans by buying American weapons. But we do our own fighting. (not me personaly)

6) There is hatred and racism in the Israeli side. But there is more hatred in the Palestinian side and the Arab world in general because they have a higher degree of indoctrination. Which is not to say that there is no indoctrination in Israel, but less. You also have to take into consideration a cultural factor. A suicide bomber acts out of hatred. An Israeli pilot bombing Palestinians acts for the same reasons as an American pilot bombing Iraqis or Vietnamese.

7) There are extremists in Israel who are willing to use violence, but they are not strong enough to form something like the OAS. Rabin was killed by an individual who felt he had popular backing, but not by an organization hoping to take over the country.

8)The way the settlements in Gaza and the West Bank were built is that Israel treated land in those areas, not privately owned, as open to development by Israelis as if it was publically owned by Israel. However, after the 48 war, Israel did take over privately owned lands formerly belonging to Palestinian refugees. It often used them to house Jewish refugees from Europe or the Arab world. The tricky part is this: it is easier for Israel to give the Palestinians the lands of the settlements, so they can build new homes for themselves. Restoring the privately owned lands to the refugees would amount to dismantling Israel proper. Yet, there are refugees who still hope to get their private lands back.

I hope that helps.
Micha

"After a total relocation of a people that were already there to concetration camps thousands of miles away, some of the ethnic groups started a misguided compaign of terrorism that lasted for 10 years. The US, comparing the cost of defending New Castle, Delaware, vs, not having to deal with the problems that occupation involes, decided to strip New castle of all its resoures and infrastucture and give it to the Indians as a peace offering."

Richard, replacing one propaganda view with another is not going to get you anywhere. The story is way more complicated than that.

The idea that one nice big war between the Palestinians and the Israelis would settle all accounts is wrong. As Micha points out, the Palestinians haven't the ability to go to war against Israel. And even if they did and were beaten in the 3 days that it would take, the Israelis would not kill each and every one of them. So we would be in a situation where a strong Israel occupies large areas of beaten, demoralized Arabs...pretty much what we have now.

The only way they can beat Israel is to keep bleeding it with a constant stream of civilian killings while using the willingness of some in the West to keep up the economic and political pressure on the Israelis...pretty much what we have now.

Call me an optimist but I don’t see an all out war happening. Most of the people forcibly evicted from their homes are noncombatant civilians. Seeing pictures of the Gaza strip I was struck how similar it looks to suburbs in America and I just don’t see normal people killing people. Don’t get me wrong I believe that this incident will fuel unprecedented terrorist attack carried out by radicals but normal people don’t become solders and terrorist after getting kicked out of their home. They tend to immigrate to foreign countries and begin their lives anew.

My first question is what happens to the people that get kicked out of their homes? Do they receive a check for the market value of their house form the Israeli government or something to compensate for the fact that they are now homeless? I have been listening to news reports and no one is tackling that question.

My next question comes from ignorance but why isn’t the world outraged that Jews are getting kicked out of their homes that they have occupied for close to four decades. I mean you have people getting dragged out by armed solders from their synagogues and no one getting outraged.

My final question is what is Bush’s stance on this? Again I am ignorant in this area of the world but this seems like this is a major set back in the war of terror. You have democratically elected government giving up land in response to repeated terrorist attacks. Again I am not trying to offend anyone it just that while news agency are only reporting the what and not the why and I would really like more information on this issue.

I agree that there will be a war. I do think Isreal will come out on top. Isreal is one country you don't want to mess with. I doubt that this one would even make it to six days.

PAD, I agree that I think you're right on the mark.

I'm also wondering if, should WWIII start with Israel & Palestine, if we should declare the writer of that particular bit of Trek Lore (that WWIII began in the Middle East) a Prophet.

Ryuukuro
I don't have much sympathy for those in Gaza since, even though most weren't around for it, they're on land that was stolen from the Palestinians

Well, you know, that land has been claimed by just about everybody for the last 2000 years.

Regardless, however, the Israeli's don't deserve what they've had to put up with. Nobody does.

Micha
There will be no full-blown war.

You're assuming that there is nobody else willing to get involved. I don't think it's so simple as that.

1
It's funny to read people talk about "the palestinians" and "the israelis" so carefree, and mention the racism in Arab nations as a stone hard fact. Let me just throw a few concepts:

1- Israel is, by far, the most technically and socially developed country in the area. I really do hope arabs countries would be more like Israel in many aspects. And I also wish it wouldnt be necesary to state such an obvious feeling whenever one's oppinion is going to express a certain degree of criticism towards Israel.

2- Arab culture is so racist and intolerant that in its 15 centuries of muslim dominance has allowed the continued existence of jewish, christian, zoroastrian and many more religious comunities. Arabs are so racist that for centuries welcomed those jews who had to leave Europe because of famed christian tolerance. Even today you can find jew ministers in arab countries like Morocco.

3- While early panarabist movement denounced Israel as a post-colonial imposition on an arab territory, it never identified Israel with jews, as most panarabic parties had a significant jewish membership. It was later, when socialist-leaning panarabism was undermined by Saudi Arabia and Western democracies in their "fight against communism", that wahabist voices started to make a religious subject of the conflict. It was then when the huge arab jew migration took place. So theres indoctrination, but not a natural tendency as many posters seem to think.

4- Palestinians witnessed as jewish colonist used terrorism to fight the british into getting what they wanted, a jewish state. Now some try do the same, given that they feel there is no other mean to that goal. I think they're terribly mistaken (an many simply ill-meaned), but cant help but feel Israel should deal with the fact that as long as Palestinian populace dont find other options, terrorism will be the "easy" way for too many. Most Israeli policies toward Palestine go in just one direction; try to keep them peaceful until they all give up and leave to "other arab countries". A good example is Israeli seizure of every water source in the territories, charging palestinians as much as three times what they charge Israelis for the same resource. Conservative parties in the Knesset block any attempt to change that unde rthe assumption that making life in the territories any easier for palestinians would just keep them there longer.

5- Settlements constitute an illegal seizure of land. Sometimes its a state disposing of occupied land as they see fit, which is bad. But on many ocasions settlements are born from private sponsorized initiatives. That is, groups of colonist entering the territories, seizing arable land and sometimes even homes at gunpoint, erecting a sinagoge and forcing Israeli military to defend it. remember, these settlements have nothing to do with kibutzs or early sionist movement and much with ultra religious intolerance and racism toward arabs.

6- Most neighbouring countries have come to a certain degree of understanding with Israel. Both Egypt and Jordan have semi-stable relationships with Israel and Syriam main concern is Golan Heights, since it is/was the source of a good part of their water supply, and that is already beign negotiated. Iran only conflict with Israel had to do with their support for Shiite muslims in Lebanon... I dont see a war anytime soon unless Israel starts it, and that wont happen as long as laborist and moderate Likhud is around. Expect religious right in Israel to grow even more militant.

7- Hamas power with Palestinian populace comes from the fact that for 20something years Israel neglected its responsability towards the palestinians. They wouldnt allow any palestinian civil authority and so education and health relied on private donations. Thats how Saudi funded Hamas won the streets with its free hospitals and schools. When Arafat's PA came to power it found there was already a statelike structure that it would take years and loads of money to replace, and that if they wanted to have any resemblance of control they had to cooperate with Hamas or healthcare and education system would colapse in the territories. Eliminating terrorism is easier said than done in a situation like that, as you americans are finding now in Irak.

(tya, be patient with my english, am a spaniard and its 6am Sunday after 5lts of beer)

That's what I don't get PAD. You understand it in Israel, but god forbid Americans take a action against terrorism.

"That's what I don't get PAD. You understand it in Israel, but god forbid Americans take a action against terrorism."

And you understand English, but God forbid you should correctly reference my position on something.

When America took an action against terrorism--namely the assault on Afghanistan with the intent of getting bin Laden--I supported that. What I objected to, and continue to object to, was the subsequent war on Iraq, sold to the American citizens as an essential part of the war on terror when it not only wasn't essential, but instead has generated more terrorism.

PAD

Mark my words: There's going to be a war. Not skirmishes. Not car bombings. There's going to be another full-blown war, and at the end of it, either there's going to be no Israel or the Palestinian question is going to be resolved because the Palestinians will be dead.

Umm... well, given the strength of the Israeli military, it's seems inconceivable that they could lose a war against a bunch of guys throwing rocks on adjacent territory, even with the aid of neighboring arab countries. So, is PAD really predicting that Israel will resort to genocide?

Israel's claim to Gaza has never been recognized internationally. Was it really viable to permanently commit the Israeli military to protecting 8500 settlers among 1.3 million Palestinians, until the Palestinians were willing to passively accept it?

I suppose the action will be judged by the result. If the result is that Palestinians see this pull out as a genuine concession in the interest of a greater peace, and meet that with a genuine move for a lasting peace, then it's likely worth it.

I disagree. Whether terrorist attacks lessen or intensify, the Gaza pullout is a necessary step. The Palestinians need to have land they can build a functioning state on. That doesn't necessarily mean that giving them this will cause peace, but so long as the Palestinians remain a refugee population, peace cannot ever be achieved.

Of course, none of that changes the fact that this is a total backstab by Ariel Sharon on the settlers, as he was primarily responsible for urging them to move there in the first place.

Well, I got a lot to say here. First let me introduce myself. My name is Erez (although I think "Araz" should be the way to write in English); I live in a city called Ra'anana, about 20 miles from Tel-Aviv, Israel. I'm a regular reader here. First time writing, though, mostly because my English isn't that well. So I'll start by saying 'hello', and apologize in advance for any spelling\grammar mistake I have.

Now, on with the show:

To totally understand what's going on here, you need to live here. And even then, most likely you won't understand the whole concept and aspects of what's going on. Heck, I was born here and I still don't know all there's to know about the israli-arabic conflict, which isn't to say I'm not interested. It's just says that's the whole thing isn't that simple.
Now, I don't want to start with the "who's been here before" argument. I want to focus in the present. And the present isn't that great.

It's time to tell a little more about myself: I am 22 years old. I finished my army-service one year ago. My health isn't that good, so I did office-work there.
My friends, on the other hands, were (and some still are) in the front lines, risking their lives every day. Some died. Some got injured.
I also had friends who died or got injured in terrorist attacks. It may sound horrible to you, but that's life here. Almost everyone got a relative\friend who got killed. It’s part of life here, and still, it's better than live on a foreign land, when you might feel unwelcome and hated because you’re a Jew (not to say that's the case everywhere, of course, but we can't ignore history).

I think that Israel is a great place to be and to live in for the Jews, despite all of the shortcoming. Heck, I don't think I got anywhere else to go in the world, even if I wanted out.

On the other hand - I'm all pro about the Gaza pull out (or as we call it here - the HITNATKUT, which means separation). I don't think we had the right to be there. A few villages populated by less then 7000 people (around 0.1% of the Jews living in Israel) made more than a million Palestinians lives a living hell. They destroyed the Arab's crop and fields, they separated Arabian’s villages from each others (when a Palestinians wanted to go visit his friend or family in another village he sometime had to wait for hours for approval because an Israeli village was in the way). Most of the Arabs are regularly citizens. Some are terrorist, yeah, but most AREN'T. Pulling out of the strip is the only sane here to do. We had nothing to look for there in the first place, and it's too bad it took out government 30 years and a lot of dead soldiers to understand it.

These days are really bad for around 7000 gaze strip former citizens. They are in for a hard time readjusting to a new place. On the other hand, this just might be the start of a whole new area for all of Israel, going towards peace, or at least - less of a war.

I also don't agree that the Gaza pull out would lead to an all out war. I think that it can only make the situation better for all the sides.

(I hope I'm being clear enough. as I said, I'm not that good expressing myself in English)

If anyone wants to ask questions about the whole deal, the feelings here, or anything I wrote that wasn't clear enough - I'll be glad to answer and talk.

- Erez

Erez,

When I'm able to make informed statements in two languages, then I'll be in a position to critisize your English. Until then, I can only be impressed with your open-minded view of ALL sides of the situation "over there!"

It's easy for us to anticipate an all-out war based on practical concessions and realistic security decisions due to the chaotic situations that are occuring in Iraq. Unlike you, most of us don't live in an environment where we can see bullet holes in our municipal buildings and the smoldering remains of an exploded school bus and say, "Oh yeah. That happened last week." 9-11 was a major wake-up call to us that would allow people like you to legitimately say "Welcome to MY world."

My prayers go out to you, your family and friends through this difficult period and I share your optimism that this will ease cultural tensions in the long run instead of increase them. Terrorism relies on pessimism and fear and I refuse to give them the satisfaction. It's an honor to meet someone who shares that resolve.

Well said, Erez.

When you look at the population of Israel and look at the number of people who have been killed by terrorism there, it's like they have had 9/11 several times over. Imagine how things would be here if that were the case.

Arab culture is so racist and intolerant that in its 15 centuries of muslim dominance has allowed the continued existence of jewish, christian, zoroastrian and many more religious comunities. Arabs are so racist that for centuries welcomed those jews who had to leave Europe because of famed christian tolerance. Even today you can find jew ministers in arab countries like Morocco.

So theres indoctrination, but not a natural tendency as many posters seem to think.

Don't know where you got the idea that we think hatred of Jews is "a natural tendency"...hard to imagine the existance of a gene for racism.

As for the Arab and Persian governments of TODAY--which is really all that matters, it's lovely that they were once so tolerant but I'm really pretty much concerned with the attitudes of the living, not the ancient dead--one need only look at the attitudes of the governments toward the long discredited by anyone with an IQ in greater than single digits The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

From Wikipedia:

Many Arab governments fund the publication of new printings of the Protocols, and teach them in their schools as historical fact. The Protocols have been accepted as fact by many Islamic extremist organizations, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al Qaeda.

In the past, the Protocols were publicly recommended by Presidents Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat of Egypt, one of the President Arifs of Iraq, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, and Colonel Moammar Qaddafi of Libya, among other political and intellectual leaders of the Arab world, and in March 1970, the Protocols were reported to be the best 'nonfiction' bestseller in Lebanon.

Thank you for your kind words.

First, I have to say - things aren’t that bad here. Again, I know its sounds horrible, that whole "I know dead people" statement. It is horrible, and it's sad and true.
But on the other hand, we also got here a large amount of deadly traffic accidents the world don't here about (sad fact: every single day we got at least one deadly car accident. most days it's more. over the last weekend we got 6 dead in accidents. statistically speaking, that's a lot more then we what we get in terrorist-attacks).
we don't got bullets holes in our houses (at least not in the boarders of the 'green line'. outside the 'green line' boarders we got mostly Arabic population, and very dull Jewish population. like in the Gaze strip), and we don't often see blown buses.
Yeah, we got it once in awhile, but so does London, New York, and almost every other country in the world. As much as it's sad to admit it - our world has came to a boiling point when speaking about terror. It’s everywhere.

The difference between global terror and the terror over here is desperation. I think the terror-leaders have easier times finding potential suicide bombers over here. The Israeli-Arabic population mostly lives in terrible conditions, have almost no rights within the country. Their ID card is different color; they have problems getting into populated areas. They are desperate. In that condition, it's easier for the terror-leaders to brain-wash them and make them go and kill innocent citizens.

And no. I'm not, by any means, approving terror or suicide bombers. Never. I think the terror-leaders should be arrested for their crimes. Violence is NEVER the answer, and hurting innocent people will never work to bring a nation down.

But I do hope, that the Gaza strip pull out will make some of the Arabic population LESS desperate. Maybe with their life being easier, it would be harder for the HAMAS and JIHAD to recruit new members.

Again - the situation is complicated. I don't even want to mention the Jewish terrorists we got, and the threats to Ariel Sharon's life which become more vivid with every single day.

I would continue following the comments here, trying to express myself the best I can and help you imagine what it feels like over here, and who knows, maybe someday I'll even response to lighter subjects, like TV shows or comics or Disney world.

- Erez

Concession towards peace? I thought it was an attempt to protect the Jewish character of Israel. That's what I read in a couple of British newpapers, anyhow. So it must be true.

There was never going to much chance of peace with-out this happening, was there?

That said, I no longer hear of the two nightly shootings in Northern Ireland anymore, part of the wallpaper of my youth. A man could almost find himself holding out hope for the species.

>But there is no doubt of the outcome, as Isreal is simply too powerful for any of the islamic opponents in the area. How so. Atomics...

They didn't need them in the past to mop up their neighbours. Those who whine about how violent Israel is have forgotten what they can really do when push comes to shove. In fact, they've showed amazing restraint. So far.

And, with the unprecedently heavy American presence in the Gulf (well, unprecedented since WW II maybe?) things could get sticky if Israel (or its neighbours) loses its patience.

PAD, I would point out that the Palestinians have a valid claim to Jerusalem, equal to that of Israel. The Israeli government, following the Six-Day War, formally annexed East (Arab) Jerusalem in complete violation of all accepted notions of protocols involving territories occupied following war. This policy was denounced by all American administrations until that of Ronald Reagan which led the movement to recognize the annexation, not merely as de facto, but as de jure. (The culmination of that movement resulted in the Republican-controlled Congress passing the "Jerusalem Embassy Act" in 1995, though the US Embassy is still in Tel Aviv; the Act's primary success is that all official government papers and websites list Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The US government does maintain its Consulate-General in Jerusalem.) In the late 1980s, Jordan which had controlled East Jerusalem from 1949 until the Six-Day War ceded its claim to the city to the Palestinians, and since then, the Palestinians have maintained that East Jerusalem would be the capital of an independent Palestine; of course, since Israel annexed not only the actual city of East Jerusalem, but also West Bank territory surrounding Israel's unified Jerusalem, this has been the primary sticking point in all negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians--Israel can more easily divest itself of the "merely-occupied" West Bank than it can to territory it has unilaterally decreed is a part of Israel.
Of course, if the Israeli government hadn't maintained its illegal policy of building Jewish settlements on occupied territory for more than 20 years, this withdrawal would be much less problematic.

"But on the other hand, we also got here a large amount of deadly traffic accidents the world don't here about (sad fact: every single day we got at least one deadly car accident. most days it's more. over the last weekend we got 6 dead in accidents. statistically speaking, that's a lot more then we what we get in terrorist-attacks)."

I can't say I'm surprised. Even years ago, the one time I visited Israel, I was struck by how insane the drivers were. Pity it hasn't improved.

"PAD, I would point out that the Palestinians have a valid claim to Jerusalem, equal to that of Israel. The Israeli government, following the Six-Day War, formally annexed East (Arab) Jerusalem in complete violation of all accepted notions of protocols involving territories occupied following war."

I'm reminded of the sequence in "Liar Liar" where Jim Carrey's character, a lawyer forced through magic to speak nothing but the truth, gets a phone call from a recidivist client who has once again landed himself in jail and wants to know what he should do. And Carrey shouts succinctly into the phone, "STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!"

I would point out that if Arabs cease trying to kill Jews and destroy Israel, they would stop getting exactly what they deserved. You'd be amazed how unsympathetic I am to a people who throw ten to one odds against Israelis subsequently whining about how poorly Israel then treats them after their attempts at annihilation fail. People don't like it that, out of a determination for self-preservation, Israel annexed additional territory from which enemies were attacking them?

I give you two hypotheticals: If the Arab world said, "We will adopt a policy of complete peace toward Israel. We will not lift a finger against them, ever, no matter what," what do you think the Jews would do? I'll tell you what I think: I think they'd say, "Thank God that's over" and go about their business.

Whereas if Israel announced the exact same policy, what do you think the Arabs would do? I'll tell you what I think: Full scale assaults.

They annexed Jerusalem after the Six Day War? The Arabs TRIED TO KILL THEM ALL. They should count themselves lucky Israel didn't annex Cairo. And frankly, considering this country's reactions to terrorism, the US government has--I think--permanently given up the right ever to tell Israel to exercise restraint ever again.

PAD

I think a few things need to be clarified.

The state of Israel (in the pre-67 borders) has a 20% Arab minority who have full citizenship. Their situation is similar to that of African-Americans in the US. They have equality in principle, but in practice there are still many problems.

Israel is a Jewish state in the same sense that Ireland is an Irish state. It does not mean that whoever is not Irish/Jewish or not Catholic/a practicing Jew is persecuted. It also does not mean to all Jews must live in Israel.

After Israel won the 67 war against Jordan, Egypt and Syria, it also got control of the West Bank, Gaza, East-Jerusalem, the Golan Height and Sinai, and the population inhabiting these lands. At the beginning it was assumed that Israel would return the lands as part of a peace deal. But at the time, the Arabs were not considering peace. So, in a gradual process taking about a decade, Israel did something very stupid. It started thinking of these lands as if they belonged to her and openned them to settlers, while treating the people inhabiting these areas as an occupied people (like Iraqis under US control). The reason has partly to do with the fact that Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem are part of the historic land of Israel. This created a situation of legal and economic inequality between Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza and Israelis, although it did have some material benefits for the Palestinians. Like Erez said, the Palestinians did not have Israeli citizenship and therefore they had a different ID. (The use of ID cards does not have the negative connotations in Israel that it does in the US).

The Oslo accords complicated the situation even more, because it put some of the population of this are under the control of a Palestinian Authority in something that was less than a state. This was supposed to be temporary, until peace is reached, but since the peace process collapsed, that is the situation we have now.

Now, Israelis such as myself, who are committed to the principles of democracy, this inequality between Jews and West Bank and Gaza Palestinians is unacceptable. We also feel it is one motivating factor but not a justification for Palestinian use of terrorism. So we have three options:
a. To offer Palestinians full Israeli citizenship like the Palestinians in Israel. However that would result in the Jews becoming a minority, and the end to the Jewish state, Just as a majority of say, Mexicans, in the US, would drastically change the nature of America.
b. signing a peace deal with the Palestinians and withdrawing from the territories. The problem here is that many Israelis are not sure the Palestinians are willing to give up on enough of their initial demands to make peace possible, or that they are willing to give up the fight against Israel after withdrawl, or that they are capable of establishing a stable government. While others are not willing to scale down their own demands so that they will be even remotely acceptable to the Palestinians.
c. The third options is unilateral withdrawl without negotiating. This, among other things, is considered a good idea by some because it will secure the Jewish majority and therefore character of Israel as well as its democracy. The flaw is off course that it is unilateral.

Sharon apparently has decided on a variation of the third option, although his varationis probably different from the one supported by other Israeis who accept the same assumptions.

The settlers from Gaza will be compincated. Their anguish is partly because they have subscribed to the teachings of a Rabbi who put religious significance to the building of settlements. Withdrawl is therefore a step back from a religious perspective.

Israelis are notoriously impolite and, probably for the same reasons, bad drivers. I think it has something to do with the instability of our society, which has created a situation in which there is no agreed system of etiquette.

Micha

1"The Gaza pull out is the equivalent of American Indians waging ten years worth of terrorist attacks and getting Delaware back."

This is your most accurate and compelling argument.
For the Palestinians.

If you must make historical analogies to the Gaza pullout I think a better one would be giving the Mexicans part of Texas (Crawford?) after 84 years of on and off brutal fighting on both sides, and with the Mexicans expecting to get the Alamo if not more.

Micha

PAD said
"They annexed Jerusalem after the Six Day War? The Arabs TRIED TO KILL THEM ALL. They should count themselves lucky Israel didn't annex Cairo. And frankly, considering this country's reactions to terrorism, the US government has--I think--permanently given up the right ever to tell Israel to exercise restraint ever again."

Annexing territory in a time of war and is justifiable however keeping that territory and claiming it as your own after the war is not it simply creates another excuse for continuration of the war

60 years ago this week Japan was annexed by the allies after it's defeat ask yourself this question would it have been justifiable to keep japan as occupied territory? if that had happened would japan be the stable peacful democricy is today or would it be "the Evil empire" as it was then.

permanent occupation and worse settlement of another nation is never a good move history from around the world will tell you this it just leads to more conflict & bloodshed and the longer it gose on the more painful it becomes.

as for your last statement i doubt if there's a nation on da planet who hasn't occupied someone elses country at one point or another but that in itself ain't an excuse to justify it

I agree with most of what you said with one small caveat. Israel possesses the West Bank and possessed the Gaza strip not in the same manner that America possesses Delaware. Israel gained the territory in an war of agression begun by the Arabs to destroy it in 1967. The Indians did not seek to destroy the United States (although after having their land stolen by the government, or, in some cases, by the states, some might have liked to do so).

Again...saying "the Arabs" did this or that is a confortable way of ignoring that "the Arabs" who suffer the consecuences are mostly innocent of any act of agression. If you can blame a whole ethnic group for the deeds of some nations (none of them democratic), you can also blame "the jews" for anything the state of Israel does. Both things would be plain racism.

As for Jerusalem,in my opinion the best idea would be to demolish the whole town so theres nothing to fight about. But since its there, every community should aknowledge the importance it has for the others. It is not just a jew city because for centuries it has also been a rallying point for muslims. The crusades and the fight for Jerusalem are a defining moment for arab culture, even crhistian arab culture, Solimán beign what Jean D'Arc is for the french, El Cid for us spaniards or George Washington for americans. The state of Israel must deal with the fact that its land is also other people's land.

If Israel gives back every piece of conquered land everything should be ok. I do not support the terrorism but I understand how the palestinians feel. What would you do if Canada conquered two or three USA states?

PAD:

I urge you to write an SF novel with this plot...

The backstory: It's millenia in the future, Earth has long been overrun and overtaken by various alien conquerors. Humans are spread out throughout the whole galaxy, with fewer on Earth still than anywhere else. Some external Alien Race A from a nearby system takes over the whole solar system, and much more. They set up huge societies on many planets, and specifically set up a small colony on Earth out of respect for the human race and what they accomplished there. It's a small planet in their empire, and dwarved by the level of effort that go into all of their other many planets.

Another few milennia pass, and Alien Race A isn't quite as dominant. Humans, nomadic fugitives throughout the galaxy, have been half exterminated by a violent Alien Race B. Technically, Alien Race B controls the whole solar system including Earth. Out of guilt, new leadership within B gives humans back the Earth solar system. Alien Race A complains and launches a war, and in the end all that humans end up with is not the solar system, not even all of Earth, but Eurasia to call their homeworld.

A little while later, all of the Alien Race A folk both on Earth and everywhere else in the solar system and elsewhere come back and try to destroy the human society on Eurasia. The humans triumphantly fight back, and manage to gain control over the rest of Earth, getting North America, Africa, Australia, etcetera.

The book kicks in here, with Alien Race B trying to convince humans to give back all of the other "occupied" continents except for Eurasia to Alien Race A, who has been complaining non-stop since the last war with humans and has been launching all sorts of terror attacks to destroy them. Alien Race A claim themselves the rightful rulers of all of Earth, and are also still a powerful alien race in the galaxy controlling all sorts of other planets with exciting precious resources.

I wish I knew how it turns out, but if I were writing it, things would work out well for the underdog humans. I can only hope and pray the obvious parallel happens as well.

-Josh

All I can say is the old adage I've heard for years and years.

If the Palestineans were to put down their weapons, there would be no more war.

If the Israelis were to put down their weaopns, there would be no more Israelis.

Erez, thank you for your comments - they help a lot with understanding that there are TWO sides to this situation - as there always are - and that everyone needs to be aware of it. Peace and good luck to you!

I remain,
Sincerely,

Eric L. Sofer
x The Silver Age Fogey

What would you do if Canada conquered two or three USA states?

I think at this point, some states might be willing to go.

That said, your examples is using apples and oranges.

Excuse me, I meant the Arab Countries -- Egypt (which controlled the Gaza Strip pre-1967), Jordan (which controlled the West Bank pre-1967) and Syria (which controlled the Golan Heights pre-1967).

And the purpose of my prior post was tnot o cast blame on blameless Arabs, but to point out that Israel's control of the West Bank and Gaza were not caused by acts of agression by Israel, unlike actions by the United States government against the Indians. I don't think that there can be an argument with that.

"This is your most accurate and compelling argument. For the Palestinians."

The analogy referred to the use of terrorist tactics. In terms of the actual groups, Native Americans have a genuine beef with an American government that took their land and gave them empty promises. They were a genuine nation. The Palestinians is a generalized name that's been grabbed by a section of Arabs to make them sound like an individual nation, when the fact is that "Palestinian" refers to anyone in Palestine, Jews and Arabs alike. The use of it now makes as much sense as if all the Homeless people in the United States announced that they were to be dubbed "Homelesstinians" and were entitled to their own homeland.

What they truly are are cast-offs from other Arab nations who see them as a convenient means of (a) getting rid of their own lower, poorer class, and (b) outnumbering the Israelis to get rid of them. The fact that NO pressure is put on other Arab countries to provide homes for these people but rather the entirety of the pressure is put on Israel to do something about it is just another example of the double standard that Israel is held to.

PAD

I'm not sure how much I think it's a double standard to expect Israel to provide in at least some way for the people they happily utilize for low cost labor and services they can't/won't provide for themselves.

It's been 20 years (woah - how did that happen?) since I lived there for a few months, but I presume the policy still stands that no citizen can lawfully keep their business open on the sabbath unless it's explicitly and primarily for tourism purposes. So "the arabs" run those. They also occupy a niche in the country's labor force that is most similar to latin immigrants in the US.

Fact is Palestinians are for the most part descendants of the arabs that lived in Palestine before the founding of the State of Israel. Its true that those territories belonged to Transjordania after WWII but that doesnt mean the people should move to Jordan now (like, anyway, many did) since they still have a right to live in that land.

So ok, having them there can be inconvenient, but its their right to be there, their land to own. They dont have to move to other arab country because their land is Palestine, may it be an independent state, part of Jordan or something completely diferent.

And again, I realize its some palestinian factions to blame for most of the violence happening there, but as civilized and restrained the Israeli army behaves, it is still a foreign force in that land, and its mere presence make life humilliating and hard for a majority of palestinians who rightfully inhabit that land, while perpetuating the bussiness of those who live on violence.

The strange thing is that I, and I think Erez also, are less extreme than some of the pro-Israelis on this thread, including PAD himself, but less extreme than the pro-Palestinians.

I feel the Palestinians behave as if they were passive victims, although the have had an influence, usually negative, on events. Israelis are sometimes guilty of the same attitude.

I don't know if Israelis would agree to Peace that involves withdrawl from land if there was no threat of war of terrorism. On the one hand, Israelis did like getting those extra lands in 67, and some feel they have ignored opportunities for peace so they may keep them. But on the other hand, we never had a situation where terrorism or war were not an issue.

Don mixes up the fact that Palestinians have been a source of unskilled labor in Israel and the other fact that in a Jewish country like Israel businesses are more likely to be closed on Saturdays, although more are open than 20 years ago. This has nothing to do with Arabs. presenting it like that creates the false impression.

Jews are aware that Jerusalem is sacred to other religions. It is annoying that other monotheistic religions had to pick Jeruslem too, but we accept it. The problem has more to do with which nation is going to control what.

Terrorism here is not the act of individuals but of organizations enjoying much popular support. This does not mean all are guilty, but it should be taken into consideration.

I also want to add to what Erez said. Although we have the occasional terrorist attack, Israelis spend most of their time living a life very similar to that of Americans, comics, movies, parties, etc. Our security forces were able to reduce terrorist attacks from about once a week a the hight of the current cycle to once every few months, with usually few casualties.

I don't know if one disasterous terrrist attack with thousands of casualties like 9/11 is better or worse than the occasional attack with 3, 5, 10 casualties.

"If Israel gives back every piece of conquered land everything should be ok. I do not support the terrorism but I understand how the palestinians feel. What would you do if Canada conquered two or three USA states?"

From an Arab / Muslim / Paletinian perspective all of Israel is conquered land, so if Israel was to give that away there would be no Israel.

I do think Israel should withdraw from the lands taken in 67. But even here East Jerusalem should be considered seperatly, since it is of importance to Jews as well as Muslims and Christians.

Micha

The Last War

Freedom, Peace and Security will NEVER be won nor secured by the sword, another war will always need to be fought to end the fear of the sharp blade against the vital thoughts of change.

The last war will be waged without soldiers or freedom fighters, without blood shed or death, no rockets red glare, no bombs bursting anywhere.

The last war will not cause suffering, broken hearts, splintered spirits, or shattered bodies and souls, the creation of nature and man will not be crushed under the rolling thunder of armored machines, chemicals will not rain down from above, maniacal viruses will not attack from within, suicide terror raids, genocide, and nuclear holocaust will have no place in the last war, the casualties will be the end of competition, industry, government and religion which plan for and carry out the destruction, addiction and control of others.

The last war will be waged BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE, a war where all things will be TREATED as equal, a war employing weapons of MASS COOPERATION, battles fought and won with tolerance for all, understanding of difference, awareness of responsibility, a war in which compassion and love conquer and destroy the final evil enemy of humankind, the last war, the mother of all wars, the war to end all wars, must be waged upon fear.

We the People, declare a global war on fear.

How do we the people start this war, how do we wage this war, how do we the people win the last war ?

We start by turning away from those who support fear, by denying our services, our employment, our political, financial, moral and spiritual support to those who build and profit from the economy of competition, addiction and war.

We wage the last war by demanding that our energy and environment be clean and renewable, by demanding that the thousands of billions of dollars spent yearly on making the weapons and means of war be shifted and added to the nearly meaningless hundreds of billions which is reluctantly parted out for social, health, education and domestic infrastructure.

We win the last war by simply entrusting our votes, our support, our children's and grandchildren's lives to those of US whose words and actions - DELIVER - compassion, love and truth.

We the people can, will and must defeat fear.

©Bruce Larson*Moore
Of Poetic*Service

Love*Rulz - {Available on DVD ;}
http://www.timeless-ink-press.com

And the Spammers Cometh... Again.

What they truly are are cast-offs from other Arab nations who see them as a convenient means of (a) getting rid of their own lower, poorer class, and (b) outnumbering the Israelis to get rid of them. The fact that NO pressure is put on other Arab countries to provide homes for these people but rather the entirety of the pressure is put on Israel to do something about it is just another example of the double standard that Israel is held to.

Point well made. I guess there is hope for me yet since we seem to somewhat agree on at least one political topic. :-)

Keep this up and I will wonder if I entered the twilight zone or a mirror universe.

Iowa Jim

Don mixes up the fact that Palestinians have been a source of unskilled labor in Israel and the other fact that in a Jewish country like Israel businesses are more likely to be closed on Saturdays, although more are open than 20 years ago. This has nothing to do with Arabs. presenting it like that creates the false impression.

This is like saying that the French have nothing to do with Paris... other than that it's filled with them. Arabs play a role in the Israeli economy not only based on the ones who do unskilled labor but also the ones providing labor on the sabbath. You comment that more businesses are open on the sabbath than 20 years ago, but a little googling shows me that they are, in fact, doing so in violation of the law that continues to be in place.

Many security issues the country has can be directly traced to the fact that the Palestinians have to be allowed a certain degree of mobility to fill this economic niche. But at the same time that their contribution is valued the citizenry considers them a problem and de facto second class citizens. This place in Israeli society is one that rarely gets any play in news discussions here in the US, however.

No Don. You are mixing things. Israel does not use and does not need Arabs to fill jobs on Saturdays. The kind of unskilled labor they do or did is inactive on Saturdays. Restaurants, movie theaters, shopping malls have no use for that kind of labor. Israeli Arabs, who are full citizens, and who own their own businesses, such as restaurants or grocery stores, may profit because they work on Saturdays and rest on Fridays. In general there are more businesses open now than before dispite the law or using some clause in it I am not aware of. Many businesses are still closed. This has nothing to do with Arabs, but with the relationship between tradition and secularism in Jewish society.

The Palestinians are second class citizens because they do not have citizenship, because where they live has not been annexed to Israel legally. This is why, I, and many others think we should stop occupying these territories.

Palestinians are not filling a necessary niche in Israeli economy. Between 67 and 94 the lines between the West bank and Gaza and Israel were blurred, mobility was possible in both directions, and many Palestinians sought work in Israel. After the foundation of the Palestinian authority there was more awareness of borders + Palestinian workers started being involved in stabbing and suicide bombings. This resulted in more closing of borders, and fazing out Palestinian unskilled labor, which was replaced by legal and illegal aliens from Africa, the Phillipines, China and Romania. This was fine with Israelis, but bad for Palestinians, who needed the work. So, the problem is not that the Palestinians served a niche in Israeli economy as much as Israel served a niche in their economy. The question of the inequality of Palestinians has to do with the occupation, not work. and neither has anything to do with the Sabbath.

The Palestinians is a generalized name that's been grabbed by a section of Arabs to make them sound like an individual nation, when the fact is that "Palestinian" refers to anyone in Palestine, Jews and Arabs alike.

But the fact is, they have lived in those territories for generations, dating back even before the formation of Israel. And as such, they deserve to be enfranchised in a viable state. Since Israel obviously doesn't want to formally make those territories a part of their nation, and give the people living in them citizenship, the only other fair alternative is to set up an independent state within those territories. Anything else is denying those people their basic human right to self-determination.

"But the fact is, they have lived in those territories for generations, dating back even before the formation of Israel. And as such, they deserve to be enfranchised in a viable state."

Matt...they don't want enfranchisement. They don't want a viable state. They want to kill Jews. They want to kill ALL the Jews. They want to obliterate Israel off the map. If I went to visit Israel and they had a chance to kill me, they would seize it. And the reason that I say this is that they had a state handed to them...HANDED TO THEM...and Arafat turned it down. He turned it turn. After thousands of hours of negotiations...after Arafat initially said "yes"...he turned around and attached conditions that obliterated every single thing he agreed to.

They could have had a state five years ago. Instead they chose to kill Israelis.

I have no sympathy for them. None.

PAD

They could have had a state five years ago.

Do you think things could change now that Arafat is gone?

Matt...they don't want enfranchisement. They don't want a viable state. They want to kill Jews. They want to kill ALL the Jews. They want to obliterate Israel off the map. If I went to visit Israel and they had a chance to kill me, they would seize it. And the reason that I say this is that they had a state handed to them...HANDED TO THEM...and Arafat turned it down. He turned it turn. After thousands of hours of negotiations...after Arafat initially said "yes"...he turned around and attached conditions that obliterated every single thing he agreed to.

I think there is a lot of hatred from the Palestinians, yes. But I think to say the hardcore of Fatah or Hamas defines the entire Palestinian population is a mistake. I am not saying trust them. I am saying, that without a Palestinian state, this conflict will rage forever. At least with a Palestinian state, there is something to work with. If they attack, Israel can attack back. If their leaders fail to bring them prosperity, it's their fault. So I think that's something we need to push for.... certainly a genuine representative democracy is not going to happen overnight, but it's an evolutionary process, and the US and Israel's actions can push it in the right or wrong direction.

Because in the end, while the Arafats of the world may care for nothing but their own political power and enrichment, and the Bin Ladens may think of nothing of sacrificing human life for their warped vision, the average human being on the street, even with prejudices and bigotry, still wants to be able to provide a better life for their family. And if they see that possibility, then they will know they have something to lose, and that's a starting point for peace.

"At least with a Palestinian state, there is something to work with. If they attack, Israel can attack back. If their leaders fail to bring them prosperity, it's their fault."

Right there. That's the money phrase, the last sentence there.

We're talking about a people who have spent the last sixty years blaming everything that's gone wrong with their lives on the Jews. Not on other Arab countries for rejecting them. Not on their own leaders for catering to the desires of the extremists. On the Jews.

I think that's, bottom line, why Arafat turned down the best offer they would ever have gotten, preferring instead an intefada (hope I spelled that right). Because deep down he knew that the creation of a Palestinian state would theoretically mean an end to being able to blame the Jews when things go wrong.

The leadership doesn't want its own state. It wants scapegoats.

PAD

We're talking about a people who have spent the last sixty years blaming everything that's gone wrong with their lives on the Jews. Not on other Arab countries for rejecting them. Not on their own leaders for catering to the desires of the extremists. On the Jews.

Ok, but so did the Germans. Didn't change the fact that the Treaty of Versailles was an extremely bad idea, and with some foresight, the rise of Nazi Germany could have been averted. So, yes, the hatred is misplaced. But, the root of the hatred is ultimately their crappy position. Happy people don't hate (or at least not as much). So, regardless of whose fault it is, doesn't it behoove the Israelis, who are primarily threatened by this hatred, to take steps to quell it? Including facilitating the creation of a viable and prosperous Palestinian state.

I'm not saying it's going to change attitudes overnight, but if the Palestinians have decent homes and businesses to be concerned with, they're going to have to think twice about starting stuff with Israel.

"But, the root of the hatred is ultimately their crappy position. Happy people don't hate (or at least not as much)."

Sure they do, if hating is what makes them happy.

"So, regardless of whose fault it is, doesn't it behoove the Israelis, who are primarily threatened by this hatred, to take steps to quell it?"

Well, gee, America feels primarily threatened by terrorists. What steps did we take? Hmm. Oh, right, I remember. We declared war and tried to kill them all.

In point of fact, Israel already did what you suggest. They've BEEN doing that. What else were all the compromises that they extended through Clinton's negotiating if not taking steps to quell it. And Arafat wouldn't give an inch. He wouldn't even budge on the notion of commercial airlines being able to go over proposed Palestinian airspace so that they could land at Ben Gurion airport, for God's sake.

"Including facilitating the creation of a viable and prosperous Palestinian state."

They DON'T WANT THAT. They want to KILL JEWS. Fat Jews, skinny Jews, Jews who climb on rocks. Tough Jews, sissy Jews, even Jews with chicken pox. They want them dead. All dead. Every single one. Dead. Dead dead dead. It's like the pilot of "Red Dwarf." "Baby Jews?" "Yes, Dave, they want baby Jews dead." "What about really old crippled Jews. They want THEM dead?" 'Yes, Dave, dead." "What about really gorgeous female Jews? They couldn't want THEM all dead?" "Gordon Bennett, yes, Dave, all dead, all dead, Dave, Dave, all dead. All. Dead. Dave."

Consider that GOP leaders are reluctant to fly in the face of the desires of their most extremist supporters for fear of eroding their political base. The Palestinian leaders have even greater concerns over defying the desires of their most radical supporters: They'll end up dead. Not politically dead. Dead dead.

The Palestinians want negotiations? They want a homeland? Here's how they do it. They round up every known extremist terrorist, every single one who is involved with the killing of Jews, and they put them up against the wall and they say, "Hey, Israel! We want the deal that you agreed to and that Arafat turned down. And as a show of good faith, this is the fate of all those who want to kill Jews." And then they blow away all the Jew killers. All their leaders. All their would-be suicide bombers. No one survives. Leave their bodies as crowfood with big signs on them that say, "JEW KILLERS, YE BE WARNED." Excise the radicals as they would a cancer. Zero tolerance for Jew killers.

They'd have their own nation within 24 hours.

PAD

They DON'T WANT THAT. They want to KILL JEWS.

Ultimately, I don't believe that's the case with the majority. Yes, there's widespread hatred and prejudice against Jews. But I think you if you came to the average Palestinian and offered them, individually, the choice to kill some Jews, or to live with their family in peace and prosperity, they'd take the latter.

We know there are those who wouldn't, of course. But as we've seen in our own country, it doesn't take anywhere near a majority of a population to perpetrate mass violence and destruction. The trick is to continue to battle the extremists, while at the same time offering the rest of the population a reason to oppose them. There must be the stick and the carrot.

And yeah, Israel has tried and been unsuccessful in the past, but that's not a reason to stop trying. Especially with what is at stake.

"They DON'T WANT THAT. They want to KILL JEWS."

"Ultimately, I don't believe that's the case with the majority"

Then you know what? If that's so, I think it's time to take an approach other than saying that it's the Israeli's responsibility to get things done. Because Israel tried and failed, and it was due to Palestinian intransigence. I say if that's not what the majority of Palestinians want, then they get off their asses and do something about it. Stage massive protests in favor of Israel. Round up guns and destroy them. Turn in the leaders of terrorist cells. Cooperate with the Israeli authorities 110%. Throw out the current regime and put in moderates who want only peace.

Right now, the only example I'm seeing of Palestinians working to achieve a homeland is by trying to kill innocent people. I don't think murderers deserve their own homeland. I don't think they should be the primary face of the Palestinians. And if the majority can't be bothered to take organized, aggressive action, then they are roundly deserving of whatever happens to them.

PAD

"Stage massive protests in favor of Israel. Round up guns and destroy them. Turn in the leaders of terrorist cells. Cooperate with the Israeli authorities 110%. Throw out the current regime and put in moderates who want only peace."

do you think Israel would give them the West Bank and Gaza if they did this?

also, i can't go with the staging massive pro-Israel protests. the only analogy i can come up with is hyperbolic. that's a little like expecting south carolina blacks in the 50s to march in support of Strom Thurmond.

many peoples have used terrorism. i won't justify it, but it has long been the last resort of the desparate. the King David Hotel bombing certainly wasn't an act of passive resistance.

just because people resort to terrorism doesn't mean they don't have legitimate concerns.

to clarify a bit, it's certainly an important step for the Palestinians to recognize the legitimacy of Israel. however, the idea of wanting massive pro-Israel protests just really hits the wrong tone for me.

actually, i think i was getting the wrong idea. public demonstrations supporting the legitimacy of Israel and a spirit of cooperation would be positive.

when i first read what you wrote, i had the image of a big protest of "we love Israel, we feel lucky they don't crush us, we hope they'll do something nice for us someday."

You know, I really can't help but feel sorry for the Palestinians. In the struggle between Arabs and Israelis, they are the football who gets tossed around and passed and used in proxy.

And yes, Arafat was an uber-schmuck. In case no one remembers, the current infada originally began when Palestinians started protesting against Arafat's government. Arafat, realizing he wanted to be a hero not a leader, helped turn the uprising against him into an uprising against Israel. Israel went through numerous changes of leadership and the US through several administrations, yet there was no progress in the Israeli/Palestinian problem; Arafat in charge was the only thing about the situation that didn't change. With him dead, perhaps at last real peace can be acheived, but it may take the better part of a generation to get back to the level of cooperation that existed way back in 2000.

I think both Peter and Matt have a point. What Matt says is the opinion held by even the pessimists of the Israeli liberal camp (to use American terms), namely, that a Palestinian State is in Israel's best interest regardless. However, many Israelis, even Liberals, feel sometimes like Peter, and fear that the Palestinians are not interested in Peace.

I do want to say that Palestinians are not killing Israelis because they are anti-semite. They are doing it because they think that the ends justify the means, that is terrorism. The question is, what are the ends? The reversing the foundation of Israel or the foundation of a Palestinian State next to Israel?

Arafat's rejection of Barak's offer does not prove that he's rejecting any peace offer. However, he is guilty of not making a counter offer (which we may have rejected); and worst, in supporting, or at least not opposing, the use of terrorism to force Isreal to make a better offer.

The current leadership has spoken against the use of terrorism ,because, they say, it harms the Palestinian cause, but their willingness to act against terrorism is very limited. The reason for that is that terrorism is not the act of a few individuals in Palestinian society, but a major part of the Palestinian ethos. People speaking against it feel they need to qualify and justify themselves. Nor has terrorism been the last resort. It has been almost the only resort.

I have attended non-violent demonstration of Palestinians and Israelis from the extreme left. These demonstrations (including one attended by Ghandi's grandson) had a very nationalistic tone (huge Palestinian flags), and were used mostly to count Palestinian grievences, not to actually call for Peace or the end of terrorism. They were non violent only in the sense that they were not violent themselves. I know that some of the Israelis attending did not feel good about that, although they really wanted to do something for Peace.

Talling about the King David hotel without adressing the conflict between the group that did it and the Jewish leadership is misleading.

The Palestinians are not a football. Their role in this conflict is active, not passive.

Lastly, I prefer to think of it as killing Israelis than Jews because the point of Israel was that Jews controled their own destiny among nations, which means that we get killed because of the policies of our governments, just like Americans. Which does not mean that non-Israeli Jews were not targeted, but not as much by Palestinians, I think.

If that's so, I think it's time to take an approach other than saying that it's the Israeli's responsibility to get things done.

If someone makes a huge mess in your backyard, and nobody else is willing to clean it up, are you just going to say "It's not my responsibiity", and let it stay a mess? At a certain point, we have to realize that it isn't a question of responsibility; it's a question of whose problem it is. And the Palestinians are much more of a problem for Israel than for any other nation in the region, therefore it behooves Israel to find a solution, even (especially) if no one else is doing so. It doesn't even have to be a moral consideration, or a matter of who deserves what, simply a matter of the reality on the ground.

I think the best reason for Israel to work to establish a Palestinian state is that it is much easier to hold a state accountable for its actions than dispersed terrorist organizations.

PAD:

You saying that all the palestinians want is to kill jews equals to, say, an iraqui saying all americans want is to kill arabs, wich obviously is not true. You take what a group of palestinians do and turn it into what they all do.

Ive met my share of palestinians, since there are many studying here in Spain (even israeli arabs who consider themselve palestinians) and when talking about "the conflict" none expressed the hatred toward jews that you so clearly see. As any group of people, it has its share of sheeps, wolfs and peaceful thinkers.

And "rounding up" all terrorist and killing them is easier said than done. As a country with a decades old problem with a terrorist group I can confirm you that you cant do that with militaristic violent means. Franco did and never suceed. Slow political tactics and improving things so people no longer can agree with the terrorist complaints is what work. It worked in Ulster and its slowly working in our Basque country. All the might, number and tech of the american army cant "round up" terorists in Iraq, how can palestinians do that with Hamas?

I don't think murderers deserve their own homeland.

I think you've hit on the best argumet for denying the Palestinians Jack-shit. Why reward them? Why encourage others to follow their example?

The only answer that makes sense to me is one that others have raised: having a Palestine gives Israel something to bomb, if (actually, when) they prove unable to actually run a country and go right back to attacking Israel.

Peter, I agree with you here. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear the end result is going to be more aggression against Israel. The only possible good I can see is that perhaps Israel will be less willing to concede next time.

Try to tell that to the people who lost their homes though.

I hope that if it does come to war, that Israel will be able to count on US support.

-Scott Hughey

Unfortunately Peter, you might be right. From AP wire today:
B>Shadowy Hamas bombmaker makes first public appearance since early

1990s
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) — A shadowy Hamas bombmaker who tops Israel’s most-wanted list on Saturday issued his first videotaped statement since going into hiding more than a decade ago.
Mohammed Deif praised Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a victory for armed resistance, rejected calls for his group to disarm, and vowed to continue attacks on Israel until the Jewish state is erased from the map.
Deif, who has escaped three Israeli attempts to kill him, has been living underground since 1992. He is so shadowy that the most recent photograph of him is from the 1980s.

El Hombre wrote PAD: You saying that all the palestinians want is to kill jews equals to, say, an iraqui saying all americans want is to kill arabs, wich obviously is not true. You take what a group of palestinians do and turn it into what they all do.

That's not a very fair interpretation of PAD's statement. I think it's much more accurate to interpret his position being that, if the Palestinians don't want to be associated with the murderers claiming to act in their name, then perhaps they should do something to publicly disassociate themselves from those murderers. The absence of a meaningful peace movement in the Palestinian Authority does tend to imply that the Palestinians largely support the terrorists, or are at least neutral. And it's hard to care much about the fate of people who are themselves sympathetic to, neutral toward, or willing to accept benefits from, terrorists.

I agree with PAD on this one.

Good after noon sir/Madam
I would like to say that first we have to trained wommen against terrorism with martial arts and others physical exercise.
Now a days we see people arrogant of others thought but in Arbian countries is being trained but not in USA, ASIA, UK and other europeans countries.
MOst important thing is that when we made the technology against terrorism so must used do not wait for time.
We need to stop the fluctuation mind being held every minute in human mind, means creativity, practial reports, automatic world.
people are good enough to run but not for enemies.
New Delhi
India