BS: Middle East: Solutions

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 09:20 AM

It's always amusing to see the tireless pontificationg of CarolC.

CarolC, another American, a citizen of the most imperialistic occupying force of the contemporary world.

Israel's occupation can be argued on the basis of direct defense and terrorist threats.

CarolC's country, though, commits war and occupation, and kills 10 times more innocent civilians in a year than Israel has in 37 years, purely in the name of oil and to avenge a slight to CarolC's president's daddy.

As long as CarolC's own country is occupying Iraq and any other country, nobody in Israel has anything to learn from any American, escpecially one named CarolC.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 09:05 AM

It's always amusing to see this Bobert character mentioning nukes.

Bobert, an American, the citizen of the only country in the world to ever use nukes on human beings.

Not once has Bobert's country used nukes on human beings. Bobert's country has done it twice.

And in the years since Bobert's country became the first and only country in the world to use nukes on human beings, Bobert's country has amassed an arsenal of nukes greater than that of all the rest of the world combined.

As long as Bobert's own country maintains and expands their arsenal of nukes, nobody in Israel has anything to learn from any American, escpecially one named Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 06:52 AM

But, as kendall asked way back, what does "Israel's right to survive" actually mean? If, in the course of time, people defined as Jews were no longer in a majority, would that mean the country had ceased to exist? If there had been no flight of refugees in 1948 that state of affairs would very likely exist today, even within the boundaries of Israel.

..............................

Peacekeeping is difficult and dangerous, whether it is done by outsiders who have been shipped in to do so, or by people recruited locally. So is maintaining an army of occupation.

There aren't any risk-free options. Whatever happens there are going to be people who suffer. Anyone who undertakes a role as a peacemaker or a monitor knows that there is a possibility that they will be killed, and when that happens it does not mean that what they were doing was a mistake and a waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 02:56 AM

UN Peacekeepers/Monitors have been deployed in that area on and off since 1956. They have proved to be fairly marginal and ineffective.

UN has never, ever, had a "Peacemaker" role. Those advocating such a role should have a look at the UN Charter which defines the bounds of what UN "Blue" helmets can and cannot do - it is limited to establishing a "peace line", interposing it's (UN) troops between the parties in conflict to physically keep them apart until talks start and a negotiated settlement can be reached. They can only come into such a situation if invited, they cannot impose their presence.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: Nerd
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 01:11 AM

There's Bobert with his "nuking the Palestinians" fixation again. When you bring that up you remind me of the beloved but weird uncle at the family gathering, Bobert. Like him, I know you don't mean it!

Actually, your "other" solution, of a treaty guaranteeing Israel's rights AND establishing a Palestinian State, is what I hope will happen eventually too.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 12:22 AM

Peace? Ahhhh, that elusive element can not be reached until there is a chizzeled in stone agreement that provides Isreal with a declaration of it's right to survive at the exact same time providing for a Palestian state.

Ain't rocket science...

There aren't any other options here short of nukin' all the Palestinians...

You pick............

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 12:03 AM

Or protectors or monitors. I bet any of these would be preferable to the Palestinians than the current situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 10:10 PM

So, how about peacemakers?

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: GUEST,She who saw Chomsky on Mass. Ave.
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 09:46 PM

CarolC's demand for peacekeepers is premature. The prerequisite to peacekeepers is peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 06:42 PM

Somehow turn around thinking so they can live somewhere else and still have Palestine as a homeland..like Mother Ireland etc

That's happenimngh in principle already, actually - there are Palestinians in a diaspora all over the world, including the USA. Like Irish emigrants they retain their love of the mother country, but have no plans to uproot themselves and return home. However, unlike Irish emigramts, if home is in Israel itself, they don't have that option. Nor, in real terms, do they have it, if their home is in Gaza or the West Bank.

I think it is very likely that in the context of a peaceful settlement, either a two state one, or a one-state one for that matter, most Palestinians would very likely live outside the Holy Land, in the same way that most Jews do, and playing very similar role in the societies they lived in.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 06:22 PM

What is left out of that statement is that the Palestinian Authority has been asking for peacekeepers to be deployed if Israel follows through on Sharon's plan to withdraw Israeli settlements and forces from Gaza.

The Palestinians have been asking for years for peacekeepers to be deployed... long before this "plan" of Sharon's to pull out of Gaza became part of the equation. So your use of the term "left out of that statement" is nothing but hyperbole.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: GUEST,mgarvey
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:45 PM

Where are the suggestions? Well, I have some...
1) give right or return to people whose former villages are now abandoned..I think there are quite a few.
2)   Have extensive vocational education for Palestinians. Have those who wish to become experts in mobile rescue operations...this can be done even from the camps...if there is an earthquake or natural disaster mobilize them to help with medical and construction help.
3) Find some employment that the world can offer them in cramped quarters..one thing that comes to me is optomotry..or making eyeglasses, dentures etc.
4) US and former colonies of British Empire offer massive immigration for millions of carefully screened people to get them out of camps.
5) Somehow turn around thinking so they can live somewhere else and still have Palestine as a homeland..like Mother Ireland etc.
6)   Repair of housing that has been bombed etc.
7) Trips out of the camps..excursions to other areas for peaceful vacations, work projects, help with harvests here and there..to help counteract the overcrowding etc....especially for children and young adults.
8)   More worldwide interaction..again much for children and young adults..they keep asking "why does the world hate us." (See Children International Site for messages from the children).
9)   Ways for them to continue their traditional arts (needlework for the women) and crafts.
10) Medical facilities in place so they do not have to cross checkpoints.
11) Ways for them to grow food in their occupied lands..
12) More respect in general for their history and needs..with simultaneous zero tolerance for terrorism.
13) Better control of what they are teaching kids in schools paid for by U.N. etc...stick to non-propoganda.
14) Ways to get the garbage and sanitation issues resolved.

That is all for now. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:45 PM

And with Hamas greatly strengthened now by this assassination... That, I think, is one of the main reasons it happened.

No Palestine Authority which has any real authority, and there's no negotiating partner. And when you don't want to negiotiate, because you think it's not in your interest, that is just what you want.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: GUEST,C-watch
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:35 PM

There seems to be a problem with that link to Al Jazeera.

Try this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: GUEST,C-watch
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:22 PM

The Palestinians have been calling for, asking for, and even begging for international monitors and peacekeepers to be placed in the Occupied Territories.

What is left out of that statement is that the Palestinian Authority has been asking for peacekeepers to be deployed if Israel follows through on Sharon's plan to withdraw Israeli settlements and forces from Gaza. It doesn't take much to figure out that protection from Israel is secondary to protection of the Palestinian Authority from the greater threat of Hamas.

Read about it from Al Jazeerah's info site. Hardly a pro-Israeli source.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:02 PM

Seems to me that an awful lot of people do justify violence, provided it's from the side they identify with.

I don't believe that in general political leaders, on either side, do these kind of things to make themselves feel good, even if in some cases it does make them feel good. They operate on the basis of calculating what the results will be, both on their own side and on the other side.

It seems pretty obvious to me that one effect of this assassination will be to strengthen Hamas, and to strengthen the kind of groups who are associated with the Al Qaida franchise. Another set of effects is going to be upon the way Israelis, and those who support Israel, feel towards Sharon and his government.

Obviously there's a limit on speculation as to how the effects are going to balance out, and also on how Sharon and his team calculate it is going to work out.

My instinct is that the upsurge in violence and the increase in the strength of Al Hamas and its friends that can be anticipated is seen as a desirable result by Sharon, as a calculated sacrifice for a greater gain.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and it's seen as undesirable, but worthwhile when balanced against some perceived domestic political advantage. Very likely we will never know. But I don't think there's anything particularly bizarre about this kind of notion - it's an elementary chess strategy to sacrifice pieces for a reason. After all, this happens all the time in the case of organisations deploying suicide bombers.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 03:51 PM

Bingo. Now, we got lift off.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 03:50 PM

No, brucie. I don't think we should justify any violence. The Palestinians have been calling for, asking for, and even begging for international monitors and peacekeepers to be placed in the Occupied Territories. I think this request shoud be granted, and the Palestinians should receive the protection of the international community.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 03:49 PM

Yes Brucie we all hate violence, but most States cynically use violence to further their agendas.
How many times has America tried to murder Fidel?.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 03:37 PM

So, do we now 'justify' violence? Because if it's gonna be wrong, then it has to be wrong for everyone, NO excuses. No buts.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 03:28 PM

Mcgrath is right .Sharon believes that the only way the State of Isreal can survive in the long term,is to escalate the conflict to the extent that America is forced to move against both the Palistinians and finally the whole of Islam.
Although I understand the crime that has been committed against the Palistinians,and I would hope for a two state settlement,I fear that even if Sharon is a monster, His analyis may well be correct...

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 03:14 PM

No, in this case, GUEST, C-watch, it is what you are saying that is "false propagandizing". There have been unilateral cease-fires on the part of the Palestinians that were shattered when the Israeli government conducted "targeted killings" of Palestinians leaders. In the last of these (prior to the killing of Yassin), the target of the assaination survived, but his small child was killed. It was after that killing that the Palestinians ended their own, self imposed cease-fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 03:07 PM

All the same things could be said about killing Bin Laden.

I agree witht his completely. Bush should not be trying to kill bin Laden. bin Laden should be captured and brought to trial in front of an international court.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: GUEST,C-watch
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 03:05 PM

There's no cause and effect there whatsoever. Israel continues to kill Palestinians even when the Palestinians are conducting unilateral cease-fires. Palestinians know that they will be killed and their houses demolished no matter what they do.

CarolC,

That is false propagandizing. There have been no "unilateral cease-fires" by the Palestinians. On the rare occasions that the Palestinian Authority has agreed to, or called for, a cease-fire, they've been shattered by either Yassin's Hamas or Arafat's own Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade.

It takes at least two sides to have a conflict. When I look back at what you've written about this conflict on this forum, it is painfully obvious that you place 100% of the responsibility on one side and one side only. Although I'm pro-Israeli, I know it's not that simple and that the Palestinians do have legitimate demands and that a negotiated settlement is ultimately inevitable.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: Nerd
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 02:55 PM

All the same things could be said about killing Bin Laden. He's an old man with kidney disease who probably needs (or will soon need) dialysis and his eyes are probably failing; he probably won't be the mastermind of too many more attacks. By killing him, the US will create a martyr, get more people to join Al Qaeda, etc, etc.

But don't tell me for a minute that this is the REASON Bush wants to kill him. Bush is acting out of a desire for revenge, and a desire to show strength. This is the same thing the Israelis are trying to do. To claim they have bizarre ulterior motives of INCREASING violence against their own civilians in order to perpetuate war is just wild conspiracy theory.

And by the way, I don't agree with Sharon's action, and don't necessarily agree with Bush's actions against Bin Laden (I'll have to see them first). I am generally pretty liberal. But to demonize the right (in any country) by saying they WANT their own civilians to be killed in order to fulfill a larger political agenda goes pretty far, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 02:47 PM

And how does being dead do anything to reduce his symbolic power? He's far more dangerous now than he ever was when he was alive.

Where does this fantasy come from that killing an individual who is some kind of leader is going to weaken or destroy a movement or organisation?

I believe when Hitler heard that Roosevelt had died, there was great rejoicing, because he thought it might make some difference to the American war effort.

It doesn't work like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 02:41 PM

Kind of like the Palestinian terrorists who know that every time they murder Israelis, more Palestinians than that are likely to be killed in the reprisals that they know will come from Israel.

There's no cause and effect there whatsoever. Israel continues to kill Palestinians even when the Palestinians are conducting unilateral cease-fires. Palestinians know that they will be killed and their houses demolished no matter what they do. And they are right. And by behaving in this way, Israel removes any incentive the Palestinians might have for not conducting reprisals of their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: GUEST,C-watch
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 02:31 PM

There is no reason on earth to think that the killing of an old blind paraplegic in a wheelchair could in any way weaken an organisation like Hamas.

Yassin was a paraplegic since age 12. It's evident that being wheelchair-bound never hampered his ability to orchestrate terrorism. He founded Hamas in 1987 and proved perfectly capable of building the organization to its current strength from a sitting position.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 02:28 PM

By the above logic, all around him should have died happy, knowing they were accompanying a self-proclaimed martyr to glory.

That kind of logic is a closed circuit, much as human aspirations which seek to reinforce themselves via self-fulfilling prophecies.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 02:22 PM

Your "temporarilies" sounds very optimistic to me, C-watch. Whistling in the wind. There is no reason on earth to think that the killing of an old blind paraplegic in a wheelchair could in any way weaken an organisation like Hamas. His importance was as a symbol, and his power as a symbol has been magnified now.

Absolutely the last thing you wish to do, if you want to kill a movement is to kill some charismatic leader in a way that makes him appear a martyr. You'd really think after all these years the penny would have dropped.

Hamas is a movement that depends on supporters, and all the indications are that this killing will lead to a surge of support among people who have previously been disengaged or suspicious - and not just in Palestine. I have a horrible feeling that it is also going to make it much much easier for Al Qaeda to recruit.

"the day in which I will die as a shahid [martyr] will be the happiest day of my life." (Al-Quds, July 26, 1998) I suppose Israel has made him happy. No joke, C-watch, that's probably true. He made a point of travelling then same route to and from the mosque, and he knew that Israel had targetted him before. He knew that his death would strengthen Hamas. If he saw the missile coming he undoubtedly did die happy.

From the point of view of Sharon it may well be a success, assuming, as seems reasonable, that he is not concerned to get rid of terrorism, but to use it as a way of furthering his aims. But for ordinary Israelis, and potentially for all of the rest of us, this was a disastrous act. "It was worse than a crime, it was a mistake" as the saying goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: GUEST,C-watch
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 02:20 PM

How about just not acting in a way that will produce exactly the opposite result from the one they say they want?

Kind of like the Palestinian terrorists who know that every time they murder Israelis, more Palestinians than that are likely to be killed in the reprisals that they know will come from Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 02:07 PM

Fair?

How about just not acting in a way that will produce exactly the opposite result from the one they say they want?

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 12:21 PM

Some of this sounds to me like saying Eichmann shouldn't have been dealt with because he was kidnapped from the house on Garibaldi street so he could be brought to trial in Israel. Mt God, why is it only the Israelis who should play 'fair'?

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 11:28 AM

You hang out with terrorists, you should be real familiar with the clauses in your life insurance.

I think there is more than one way to go here. Each strike on terrorists reinforces the side which perceives the terrorists as effective. But each 'successful' strike on terrorists reduces their effectiveness.

The extreme difference in frame of reference here, between packed venues of admirers of Hamas and their leaders, and those who seek a negotiated settlement, WHICHEVER SIDE THEY ARE ON, I think is the real war.

When Meir Kahane was assassinated in Israel, I don't recall packed halls of Israelis proclaiming the loss of a martyr and vowing bloody vengeance.

The safe and accurate prediction: More of same.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: GUEST,C-watch
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 10:28 AM

Post-9/11, would we pass up a chance to kill Osama Bin Laden in a similar manner to that Israel used on Yassin? I don't think so.

Though terrorist efforts may increase *temporarily*, in the long run the elimination of Yassin will upset Hamas' leadership and violent capabilities, and serve as an essential deterrent to ongoing Palestinian terror. His elimination will serve peace *in the long run*. He was personally responsible for all the most dreadful attacks in Israel. He was a dangerous extremist Islamic ideologist. What Bin Laden was to 9/11 and many other terrorist operations, including last week's in Spain, Yassin was to the Palestinian terror murders committed in Israel. Yassin directed dozens of heinous terrorist attacks, his hands were drenched in Israeli blood.

Yassin continually called for suicide terrorism as a "religious obligation," and even said about himself that "the day in which I will die as a shahid [martyr] will be the happiest day of my life." (Al-Quds, July 26, 1998) I suppose Israel has made him happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 09:58 AM

"Surgical strike" which killed seven other people and injured over 15 others who just happened to be there? God save us all from a murderous surgeon like that if we ever need an operation.

You'd think, when the target is a blind man in a wheelchair on a route that he regularly took, that they could have been a wee bit more "surgical" than that.

I cannot believe that in any sense this was intended as a way of "weakening" Hamas. And I cannot believe that the Israeli believed it either. The object was to strengthen Hamas in relation to the PLF, and destroy any chance of a peaceful settlement in one with the famous "Road Map". The hope is to inflame the situation, and ensure reprisals, both in Israel and elsewhere.

I gather that both the Israeli Interior Minister and the Israeli Minister of Justice were opposed to this assassination. They were outvoted.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 09:35 AM

Pretty fair trade. Surgical strike on a known terrorist organizer and leader. Sure beats blowing up a bus of civilians.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 11:47 AM

You mean the assassination by Israel of Sheik Yassin, together with a bunch of bystanders? It reads to me as if that was the idea behind this. To make sure that, even if the USA were to start leaning effectively on the Israel Government to make a deal, there'd be no danger of there being anyone in a position to respond, by making sure that Hamas is in control.

The online edition of the moderate Israeli paper Haaretz had Danny Rubinstein arguing 'that the killing "may well turn out to be a blow - not to Hamas, but to the Palestinian Authority". This is because, he writes, "the more Israel hits Hamas leaders and rank-and-file members, the more their popularity climbs".

Which ties in with what the Washington Post reminded its readers of about the origin of Hamas: "(Sheik Yassin) rose to prominence in the 1980s when Gazans turned increasingly toward a fundamentalist brand of Islam, encouraged at times by the territory's Israeli military occupiers, who saw Islamism as a political rival and counter-weight to Yasser Arafat's exiled Palestine Liberation Organization."

....................

But for a more positive story, here's a link to a piece about some brave young Israelis - Teenagers who stand for honesty, decency and sanity

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 10:59 AM

So much for peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 07:12 PM

I've always thought it was a tragedy that, after 1967, an offer wasn't put on the table by Israel saying "Now Palestine/Eretz Israel is united once more, and it should stay united - and all exiled Palestinians can come home, and we will share this land between us in peace."

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: Peace
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 05:29 PM

I am inclined to agree with GUEST C-watch. I don't think there is a specifically military solution available. I'd like to see a 'peace' force in there. Canadians are good at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: GUEST,C-watch
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 05:24 PM

McGrath,

While I don't see much possibility of the Palestinians ever having military superiority over Israel, I do think that a negotiated settlement is inevitable in the medium term, and that that is what the vast majority of Israelis want. As I said, Israel has demonstrated for many decades now that a decisive military victory over the Palestinians is not what they seek.

However, as I said in my first post to this thread, I don't think the settlement will come while Bush, Sharon and, especially, Arafat remain in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 05:04 PM

Very true, McGrath. Without the Palestinians being in such close proximity to the Israelis, Israel would probably be a lot more vulnerable as a target for nuclear attacks from any number of sources than it is now.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 03:44 PM

From a purely military standpoint, Israel is so far superior to the Palestinians that an all-out war for the survival of only one or the other, would not be a contest.

Short term that is true. And that is what makes it possible for Israel to negotatiate a settlement that will preserve its interests, and that s why it is important that it takes advantage of this temporary opportunity.

But long term "the purely military standpoint" is unlikely to stay the same way that happens to be today. History doesn't work that way. Military superiority just fades away, given a few decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: GUEST,C-watch
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 03:21 PM

From a purely military standpoint, Israel is so far superior to the Palestinians that an all-out war for the survival of only one or the other, would not be a contest.

If Israel had any desire to score such a defeat over the Palestinians, it would have happened long ago.

Despite the statistics that about twice as many Palestinians than Israelis have been killed during this Intifada, the fact is that Israel takes much more care than most countries to protect innocent civilians. If they didn't, the Palestinian death count would be much higher. More along the lines of what we've seen in Iraq, where approximately 20 times as many civilians than Americans have been killed.

One thing that should be pointed out is that almost all of the Israeli deaths have been randomly targeted civilians victimized by suicidal homocide bombers, while most of the Palestinian deaths have been either terrorists, terrorist masters, or the unfortunate civilians that the terrorists and their masters hide behind.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 03:03 PM

The Israli/Palestinian problem won't be settled until one has defeated the other.

Maybe you need to define the term "defeat", DougR. Seems to me the Palestinians have already been pretty well defeated, short of being gotten rid of altogether. They are a people living under occupation.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 01:52 PM

Quite possiblt true,Doug. And that is very depressing, because in the long run that is going to mean that Israel will go the way of the Crusader states within a few generations.

Now is the time when it is still possible for Israel to reach a settlement which will ensure that doesn't happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: DougR
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 01:34 PM

The Israli/Palestinian problem won't be settled until one has defeated the other. I've said that before, and I still believe it. It's not what I would prefer, I would prefer that negotians would work. I don't think they ever will. You have to have two parties ,each of whom are willing to compromise for negotiations to succeed. This is not the case with either Israel or Palestine. As has already been pointed out, neither Carter or Clinton could do it, and Bush's Roadmap lies languishing on the peace table.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 12:02 PM

But what does "right to exist" actually mean? If there were an Arab majority, as would very likely have been the case if no refugees had left in 1948, would this mean that this conflict with "the right of Israel to exist".

It seems to me that when people speak of "the right of Israel to exist" they are conflating two meanings of "Israel" - one being, the nation state, and the other is, the Jewish people.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 11:09 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions
From: kendall
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 08:53 AM

I don't mean to "drop a clod in the churn" here , but let's discuss this phrase, "Israel's right to exist"
Where does this right come from?

________

I presume this is the same kendall whose home is on land that was stolen from the Abenakis.

Giving it back any time soon, kendall?