When are we going to tell Israelis to get out of the Occupied Territories

[BaliBabyDoc]

Let's see . . . I guess from your link we would learn the behavior of leaders is quite static. Hence Sharon will ALWAYS support settling the Occupied Territories, Bush still snorts and drinks, and Clinton has his hand up some skirt . . .

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Grey
Ornery that has been the condition before, we all see how long that lasted . Sadly since both sides have such weak leadership the only way this can get resolved right now is through a very bad war.

If war is what resolves this dispute, then Israel has every right to sit where they are.

 

[Ornery]

I'm this close to starting a new topic. I'd like to hear some clever, fair solutions to this situation. IMO, the fu*king Palestinians are the bad guys from beginning to end. They brought the occupation on themselves. They bring retaliation on themselves. They ARE terrorists and don't apologize for it. Seems to me a good solution is going to call for sitting on these maniacs!

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Let's see . . . I guess from your link we would learn the behavior of leaders is quite static. Hence Sharon will ALWAYS support settling the Occupied Territories, Bush still snorts and drinks, and Clinton has his hand up some skirt . . .

Nope, but in this case it sure seems to be. What about when Clinton tried to negotiate an independent Palestinian state in the last few years of his presidency. Barak bent over backwards to offer concessions to Arafat to found an independent state, and Arafat turned him down completely. Barak basically committed political suicide in that attempt, by the way. I have seen nothing that leads me to believe that with Arafat in control a Palestinian state will ever happen......

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

That's why amongst all of the failed Bush policies . . . insisting that Arafat relinquish power to a prime minister has been a resounding success. Can you imagine what progress might have been made if Bush had picked up the pieces of the failed Clinton/Barak/Arafat peace plan to create a real roadmap to peace? Bush has been in office for more than two years . . . his roadmap to peace materialized last month . . . clearly he didn't give a poo.

You are absolutely right . . . Arafat has done essentially nothing which demonstrates a commitment to peace with Israel. It is his failed leadership which made selection of a prime minister possible. Unfortunately, the other side of this equation, Sharon, has done NOTHING to demonstrate his commitment to peaceful coexistence with a future Palestinian state. Although their response to the brutal attacks from terrorists is understandable . . . the people of Israel did themselves and the region a disservice by re-electing Sharon. The US government is also culpable b/c we did not release the roadmap b/c Sharon feared it might strengthen support for the center, center-left, left, and raving left in Israel.

 

[Jmman]

As in all countries, the political climate usually vacillates from one extreme to the other depending on who is in power. Barak was one of the most "Dovish" Israeli leaders ever. He was willing to make massive concessions in order to make peace with the Palestinians, and what was the result of that endeavour? More violence than ever. The election of Sharon who is very hawkish is just a result of the failure of Barak to succeed in the peace process, and part of the blame lies squarely on Arafat's shoulders. I don't fault the Israeli people at all for the election of a "strong" Israeli leader either. Name me a country that wouldn't do the same thing when faced with the rampant terrorist activities of the PLO, et al.
The Palestinian people have to be held culpable as well since they support this madman Arafat. Hopefully at some point in the future, a more moderate PLO will realize that you can't expect the Israeli's to negotiate a peace at the barrel of a gun, especially when the Israelis carry an even bigger gun.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The Palestinian people have to be held culpable as well since they support this madman Arafat. Hopefully at some point in the future, a more moderate PLO will realize that you can't expect the Israeli's to negotiate a peace at the barrel of a gun, especially when the Israelis carry an even bigger gun.

Just as many Palestinians (and their supporters) would flip over that coin and say . . . the Israeli people have to be held accountable for supporting a violent man who is commited in plan and action to settle the West Bank and Gaza. Hopefully at some point in the future, a more moderate Israel will realize that you cannot expect the Palestinians to negotiate a peace at the end of a Hellfire missile or bulldozer, especially when the Palestinians outnumber the Israelis and appear to have a large complement of people willing to kill civilians by any means necessary.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Rather than start a NEW topic, I did a search and decided this one would work best. If it doesn't, I WILL start a new topic, so be warned.

I was first wondering how many people here thought that Israel shouldn't be recognized as a state in the first place. For the sake of argument, I'll assume it's a very small, ignorant minority.

I'd then like to know how many think this would be a fair solution: Have Israel give back the Occupied Territories on one condition. If attacks continue afterwards, they take them back with no apologies. Simple and fair, no?

I don't know that any Palestinian government, democratic or otherwise, can assume full responsibility for what Hamas and the other wacko groups do... But otherwise your offer seems pretty sound...

 

[Jmman]

I think there is a very large moderate base in Israel who are for peace, and who would be willing to make concessions for that peace. Barak never would have been elected if he didn't have popular support. In my opinion the Palestinians(and the Arabs) have gotten themselves into this conflict, and they are going to have to lay down their arms before a viable solution can ever be achieved. Let's not forget the roots of this conflict. The Arabs and the Palestinians were clearly the aggressors in 1948. As far as the settlements, that whole argument is a ruse. From 1948 to 1967, no Jews lived on the West Bank but that certainly didn't lead to a peace agreement. Furthermore, considering the danger to their own security, do you blame them for settling these areas?

According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution. Rostow noted, "allows Israel to administer the territories" it won in 1967 "until 'a just and lasting peace in the Middle East' is achieved," Rostow wrote.2

That pretty much sounds like they even have UN approval to control those areas however they see fit.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Rather than start a NEW topic, I did a search and decided this one would work best. If it doesn't, I WILL start a new topic, so be warned.

I was first wondering how many people here thought that Israel shouldn't be recognized as a state in the first place. For the sake of argument, I'll assume it's a very small, ignorant minority.

I'd then like to know how many think this would be a fair solution: Have Israel give back the Occupied Territories on one condition. If attacks continue afterwards, they take them back with no apologies. Simple and fair, no?

I think that's fair, but I don't think you'll see Israel do it.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Ornery
Rather than start a NEW topic, I did a search and decided this one would work best. If it doesn't, I WILL start a new topic, so be warned.

I was first wondering how many people here thought that Israel shouldn't be recognized as a state in the first place. For the sake of argument, I'll assume it's a very small, ignorant minority.

I'd then like to know how many think this would be a fair solution: Have Israel give back the Occupied Territories on one condition. If attacks continue afterwards, they take them back with no apologies. Simple and fair, no?

I think that's fair, but I don't think you'll see Israel do it.

It's neither good nor fair. Has everyone slept through their history classes? Israel seized those territories following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War when Israel was unlawfully invaded by a coalition of Arab forces bent on (drumroll please) exterminating the Jews. As usual they got their asses kicked and the disputed territories became spoils of war. Prior to the invasion, those territories were held by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, but what's ironic is that those countries got those territories following a previous illegal invasion of Israel in 1948. While under Arab control those territories were no better off than they are today, they were little more than prison camps filled with homeless refugees. While the Arabs were oppressing the Palestinians there was no call to return the land, no suicide bombings, no PLO. It was only when the it was discovered than an invented Palestinian cause could be used as an excuse to kill Jews that those anyone began to give a damn about those areas. When Arabs were in charge there was no push for a Palestinian homeland. Much like Syrians now crossing the border to fight for Iraq, that region is ALWAYS dominated by one single political agenda: Arabs will grasp at any excuse to kill non-Arabs. When lacking a good excuse, Arabs will grasp at any excuse to kill each other.

 

[Conky]

The first post in this thread is nothing but flamebait. I am surprised the moderators let it exist in any forum.

The Israeli's have a right to their land(the land they now have) and to live. The Palestinians lost some land they thought was theirs and that is life on planet earth, get over it.

I predict a huge decline in palestinian suicide bombings in Israel because, 1)Saddam the financier of terrorism is now dead, and 2)Being a martyr isn't as cool as it used to be when you could leave your family a chunk of cash. 3) People think you are a dumbass for killing yourself for worthless causes.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
What are the "Occupied Territories"? To the PLO, its every inch of ground a hebrew is standing on.

Israel is a soverign nation now. I am all for the Palestinians having the same for themslves, a soverign nation for themselves. Problem is, they want the Israel soverign nation for themselves, and want no Israelis around at all. That doesn't work. Israel has as much right historically to the ground in that part of the world as any palestinian could claim. They want the same dirt because of the historical and messinaic nature of the ground there. A plan was worked out for sharing Jerusilum as the capital and for settlements in so called palestinian teritiry to be removed. A comprimise needd t obe put inplace and was well on its way t obeing resolved when Yasser Arafat did an about face and began a capitulation to extremist elements that have since lodged a a campaign of murder against unsuspecting defenseless ciivilians.

Because of that, they have lost all symapthy from me and most any clear thinking freedom loving compassinate that may have at one time listened and felt empathy for their situation. Now I really don't give a crap about palestinians, for that matter, much of any emapthy for middle eastern governments either. Lybia sucks, Syria sucks, Egypt sucks, Saudi Arabia sucks. Turkey sucks majorely after trying to extort billions from us for right of passage to northern arra of Iraq.

When those people in that region get an education, and decide to assimilate into the world peacefully, without desire of conquest or calling me an infidel, then I will re assess my position. Instead, on a global basis, Muslums have circled the globe preaching nonsense and inticing easily manipulative poor people to take up arms against westeners, all in the name of allah. It's BS, and I will never trust a muslum until that extremism is wiped from the planet.

Just my very humble opinion. I base it on current events in the world and reading from authors who profess to know something about these cultural differences. I can be sympathetic, just as those soldiers where when they aproached a taxi cab asking for help, and then got blown away by a terrorist bomb. Once burned, twice learned.

Wow.. nicely put.. every time I am about to lose faith in the AT community, someone FINALLY chimes in with something well thought out... In short.. I AGREE.

 

[Format C:]

I say we broker a deal with the new government of Iraq to carve out a state of Palestine in the western part of the country next to Syria and let the UN create and support an infrastructure until they're self-sufficient. If they don't want to move screw 'em and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Fencer128]

Until something can be brokered between the Palestinians and the Israelis there will be no peace. No other alternative. There must be some sort of agreement reached through concessions on both sides before this can move forward. This is not an option it is the only solution possible. This will not happen until the current violence de-escalates, and IMHO that won't happen until we see a change in the Israeli government (its kind of difficult to effect change of Hamas leadership).

From what Iremember from 3 or so years ago now the situation over there was a lot quieter than it had been for some time - and certainly compared to now. I also remember that the Palestinians were receiving concessions from the Israelis. Now, if we could just get a new government in that had even a hope that it would be prepared to do business with the legitimate Palestinian authorities - rather than just keep up the "eye for an eye" and "zero-tolerence" policies, then there *might* be a way forward again here.

Andy