Why There won't be Peace In the Middle East

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Narmer
That's because Israel wanted a weak Palestinian authority. You also forgot the Israel action of 1988 when they openly supported the birth of Hamas, to counter the PLO.

I'll keep this short: there was no Palestinian Authority in 1988; what was going on was the Intifada, so a divide and conquer approach seems rather logical.

I say this without commenting on what actual Israel did to support the "birth" of Hamas, since were missing details and context -- as usual. What you're really trying to imply is that Hamas is Israel's fault -- surprise -- and would not have existed without Israels help.

In order to have a secure and peaceful Palestine and Israel, is Israel ready to leave all of the occupied territories, EXCEPT Jerusalem?

Yes or No?

Youre favorite kind of question

As you already know, Israel has removed all settlements from Sinai and Gaza, and made some pullouts when Netanyaho was in charge. Personally, I think that all small settlements should be removed, as well as others depending on how deep they are. Under cetrain circumstances, it is possible to have all pulled out.

However, the issue is the implication in your question: that "peace" will come only after a complete pullout, and we've seen what were the results in Lebanon, and to some extent with Gaza.

First the terror has to stop, and then there can be a pullout.

Does Israel want a strong Palestinian leader that can control all the militants or a pliant one?

Flawed question.

There should be no militants running around; there should be a security force which is under the control of a democratically elected official.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dna
Like I said, this ain't Hollywood: you can't drop a guy in the dead of night with only a toothpick and some breath mints, and expect him to take out several militants by tea time the next day.

You've yet to suggest any practical alternative -- only the assertion that there are alternatives, so I see no point debating this with you any further.

As for their leaders, now it's Israel's responsibility to weed out corrupt Palestinian leaders? What a novel idea.

It certainly isn't Israel's responsibility to kill excessively and at random, as they do now.

It is not impossible to have people on the ground, whether you say it is or not.

Even ignoring this option, I recall weapons other than rockets which can be used from helicopters. But the point to the attacks is not to kill the target, it's to scare the population into compliance out of fear that they may be next.

This is exactly the same goal as that of the suicide bombs. To cause terror, i.e. 'terrorism'.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: Narmer
That's because Israel wanted a weak Palestinian authority. You also forgot the Israel action of 1988 when they openly supported the birth of Hamas, to counter the PLO.

I'll keep this short: there was no Palestinian Authority in 1988; what was going on was the Intifada, so a divide and conquer approach seems rather logical.

I say this without commenting on what actual Israel did to support the "birth" of Hamas, since were missing details and context -- as usual. What you're really trying to imply is that Hamas is Israel's fault -- surprise -- and would not have existed without Israels help.

In order to have a secure and peaceful Palestine and Israel, is Israel ready to leave all of the occupied territories, EXCEPT Jerusalem?

Yes or No?

Youre favorite kind of question

As you already know, Israel has removed all settlements from Sinai and Gaza, and made some pullouts when Netanyaho was in charge. Personally, I think that all small settlements should be removed, as well as others depending on how deep they are. Under cetrain circumstances, it is possible to have all pulled out.

However, the issue is the implication in your question: that "peace" will come only after a complete pullout, and we've seen what were the results in Lebanon, and to some extent with Gaza.

First the terror has to stop, and then there can be a pullout.

Does Israel want a strong Palestinian leader that can control all the militants or a pliant one?

Flawed question.

There should be no militants running around; there should be a security force which is under the control of a democratically elected official.

Well, I'm glad you're being honest with me here. And I will agree with you for the most part. I've been on this forum for roughly 7 months now and that's the clearest answer I've gotten from you regarding this topic. It's a start.

Tell me, would you be in favor of a strong Palestanian leader that is capable of taking on all these militants and dealing with Israel? Would you favor some kind of union between Palestine and Israel? If not, would you grant a Palestinian state all the rights of a normal nation?

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
It certainly isn't Israel's responsibility to kill excessively and at random, as they do now.

This harks back to your posts regarding raw numbers. Several people challenged you on it, but you failed to formulate any reasonable argument. But by all means, carry on.

It is not impossible to have people on the ground, whether you say it is or not.

Weren't you one of those earlier crying over the "crowded neighborhood"? Do you think that anything done on the ground won't turn into something more devastating than a single helicopter strike?

Again, there are reasons why they hide in those neighborhoods.

Even ignoring this option, I recall weapons other than rockets which can be used from helicopters.

Enumerate them.

But the point to the attacks is not to kill the target, it's to scare the population into compliance out of fear that they may be next.

Flawed premise leads to a false conclusion.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
It certainly isn't Israel's responsibility to kill excessively and at random, as they do now.

This harks back to your posts regarding raw numbers. Several people challenged you on it, but you failed to formulate any reasonable argument. But by all means, carry on.

Other than saying 'the raw numbers aren't the whole story', no one had anything constructive to say. This argument is almost as bad as 'evolution is only a theory'.

Generally the knock on suicide bombers is that they kill indiscriminately. And they do - cafes, busses, and other crowded places. Yet Israel's 'targeted' strikes kill more people, and more children. Where is there any evidence that Israel is making any substantive effort to 'target'?

It is not impossible to have people on the ground, whether you say it is or not.

Weren't you one of those earlier crying over the "crowded neighborhood"? Do you think that anything done on the ground won't turn into something more devastating than a single helicopter strike?

Again, there are reasons why they hide in those neighborhoods.

A massive ground assault with tanks? Yes that might cause more damage. You're intentionally limiting the options to try to make the current one look reasonable.

Even ignoring this option, I recall weapons other than rockets which can be used from helicopters.

Enumerate them.

Do it yourself. You aren't stupid.

You're a zealot, but you're not stupid.

But the point to the attacks is not to kill the target, it's to scare the population into compliance out of fear that they may be next.

Flawed premise leads to a false conclusion.

It would, but the premise is fine.

I'll put back the rest of the post, in case you think my statement that Israel also practices terrorism was somehow a mistake, or hyperbolic. Terror is a standard tactic in conflict.

 

[Aimster]

shhh

let the two extremists battle it out.
it is good entertainment. No 3rd party!

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
A massive ground assault with tanks? Yes that might cause more damage. You're intentionally limiting the options to try to make the current one look reasonable.

You have yet to list any options besides the kill them "with a rifle" remark that you made at the very begining. You've also been coy about where the militants hide as if it were irrelevant.

Do it yourself. You aren't stupid.

It's up to you to prove your arguments, and not the other way around.

Originally posted by: Narmer
Tell me, would you be in favor of a strong Palestanian leader that is capable of taking on all these militants and dealing with Israel?

It seems to me like the only way forward is by applying external pressure on the illustrious leaders that the Palestinians have. This basically translates to cutting off the money supply, as that is the only thing that keeps them going.

Would you favor some kind of union between Palestine and Israel? If not, would you grant a Palestinian state all the rights of a normal nation?

I can tell you I'm not against it, but it is not practical, and probably won't be for at least several decades. As for full-rights, that will also require time in order to earn trust.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: halik
You're a fool if you think the hate is one-sided.

Can you give me a link to the news program where Israeli kids are interviewed about killing Palestinians? Now THAT would be a good retort...

There are such kids - have you ever seen the Israeli families who are happy to occupy the illegal housing compounds? The fact you don't seem them interviewed is media bias.

Israel has a far more powerful military than the Palesinians and billions in military equipment from the US. The Palestinians guerilla tactics.

By asking only about one side's tactics, you are biased and ignoring the wrongs the other side does. That's unfair and that bias helps cause the violence to continue.

You sure wouldn't want to trade spots with the Palestinians.

Americans are horrified by beheadings by the other sides, and could care less about, say, their reckless fifty bombings early in the war where Saddam might be that killed civilians.

The non-American side sees the US wrongs as horrible and couldn't care less about their own wrongs.

You are doing the same thing by looking only at the Palestinians as wrong. Each side needs to better understand its own wrongs.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
A massive ground assault with tanks? Yes that might cause more damage. You're intentionally limiting the options to try to make the current one look reasonable.

You have yet to list any options besides the kill them "with a rifle" remark that you made at the very begining. You've also been coy about where the militants hide as if it were irrelevant.

Do it yourself. You aren't stupid.

It's up to you to prove your arguments, and not the other way around.

Now you're into picking and choosing statements.

You want a good option?

I understand Israel is refusing formal contact with the new Palestinian government. While not a permanently sustainable or desirable position, it is a good one.

The security wall, had it been built along relatively uncontroversial borders, would not have received the criticism it has from people like me.

Rifles are a good way to kill one person. Time of day and opportunity planning can minimize casualties when larger or explosive weapons are used. This might help 'targeted attacks' kill less than five (5) times as many people as the devastating random attacks on crowded areas that the suicide bombers manage.

 

[Turkish]

Its pretty silly when Americans, Canadians and the rest seem to favor one side over the other when they have no clue about what had, and has been happening in the ME. Maybe you should take a few months off and have a first-hand experience over there before you mambo jambo? :roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Turkish
Its pretty silly when Americans, Canadians and the rest seem to favor one side over the other when they have no clue about what had, and has been happening in the ME. Maybe you should take a few months off and have a first-hand experience over there before you mambo jambo? :roll:

I can't imagine somebody with no clue even having an opinion. I mean they wouldn't even know there is a ME.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I understand Israel is refusing formal contact with the new Palestinian government. While not a permanently sustainable or desirable position, it is a good one.

A goverment that does not wish to respect prior agreements, accept Israel's existance, or stop calling for the use of violence. I really wonder why would anybody refuse to deal with such a goverment.

The security wall, had it been built along relatively uncontroversial borders, would not have received the criticism it has from people like me.

Notice above comment. When you have nobody to talk to you take unilateral action; quite simple.

Rifles are a good way to kill one person.

Yeah, because they can really get that close...
Why not a knife? :roll:

Time of day and opportunity planning can minimize casualties when larger or explosive weapons are used.

You strike when you get the opportunity, as these people move around, and that's why sometimes they get hit in a building and sometimes in a car.

Still being coy about where they hide?

This might help 'targeted attacks' kill less than five (5) times as many people as the devastating random attacks on crowded areas that the suicide bombers manage.

You're nothing but a demagogue.

 

[6000SUX]

As far as I can tell, the Palestinians can single-handedly stop the violence if they wish. The Israelis cannot.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
As far as I can tell, the Palestinians can single-handedly stop the violence if they wish. The Israelis cannot.

All violence can only be ended personally. How is one side different than the other. When will violence end when it can only end personally and everybody always, ALWAYS, blames the other? All solutions to violence mean nothing unless they are about YOU, or in my case ME.

There is only love, but we have forgotten. All the world is bent in a mighty effort to make the other love us when all we ever had to do is love the other.

Everybody loves Jesus, it seems, but nobody will do what he said.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
As far as I can tell, the Palestinians can single-handedly stop the violence if they wish. The Israelis cannot.

All violence can only be ended personally. How is one side different than the other. When will violence end when it can only end personally and everybody always, ALWAYS, blames the other? All solutions to violence mean nothing unless they are about YOU, or in my case ME.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that every violent act committed by Israel is in response to a specific violent act committed by the Palestinians, and that Palestinians (at least sometimes) engage in violence against Israel without such specific justification. In this sort of situation, the two sides are different. Palestinians can cease attacking, and prevent all military action against them by Israel.

While AFAIK Israel has made some preemptive strikes, in the main their attacks have been in response to specific attacks by others. They do this in an attempt to show moral justification. On the other hand, Israel's enemies train their children in a culture of hatred, so that they want to attack Israel out of hate, with predictable results. We can quibble about whether a tit-for-tat approach is the most workable for Israel, but not over whether a "tat" caused a "tit".

I try to sidestep the issue of moral justification for attacks by Palestinians, since I think that's where these discussions often get bogged down.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I understand Israel is refusing formal contact with the new Palestinian government. While not a permanently sustainable or desirable position, it is a good one.

A goverment that does not wish to respect prior agreements, accept Israel's existance, or stop calling for the use of violence. I really wonder why would anybody refuse to deal with such a goverment.

The security wall, had it been built along relatively uncontroversial borders, would not have received the criticism it has from people like me.

Notice above comment. When you have nobody to talk to you take unilateral action; quite simple.

Rifles are a good way to kill one person.

Yeah, because they can really get that close...
Why not a knife? :roll:

Time of day and opportunity planning can minimize casualties when larger or explosive weapons are used.

You strike when you get the opportunity, as these people move around, and that's why sometimes they get hit in a building and sometimes in a car.

Still being coy about where they hide?

This might help 'targeted attacks' kill less than five (5) times as many people as the devastating random attacks on crowded areas that the suicide bombers manage.

You're nothing but a demagogue.

Learn to read. Start with the first sentence.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
As far as I can tell, the Palestinians can single-handedly stop the violence if they wish. The Israelis cannot.

All violence can only be ended personally. How is one side different than the other. When will violence end when it can only end personally and everybody always, ALWAYS, blames the other? All solutions to violence mean nothing unless they are about YOU, or in my case ME.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that every violent act committed by Israel is in response to a specific violent act committed by the Palestinians, and that Palestinians (at least sometimes) engage in violence against Israel without such specific justification. In this sort of situation, the two sides are different. Palestinians can cease attacking, and prevent all military action against them by Israel.

While AFAIK Israel has made some preemptive strikes, in the main their attacks have been in response to specific attacks by others. They do this in an attempt to show moral justification. On the other hand, Israel's enemies train their children in a culture of hatred, so that they want to attack Israel out of hate, with predictable results. We can quibble about whether a tit-for-tat approach is the most workable for Israel, but not over whether a "tat" caused a "tit".

I try to sidestep the issue of moral justification for attacks by Palestinians, since I think that's where these discussions often get bogged down.

I think you fail to understand the context of the situation and cannot sidestep Palestinian justification. What problems were the 'Palestinians' causing the Jews before the foundation of a Jewish State on land the people already there thought was theirs? The quibble is not about whether a tit for tat approach will work, or that a tit will cause a tat. It is all about, for the people there, whose tit and tat is justified based on who did the first tit.

One tit we can certainly consider is the foundation of a Jewish state on Arab land. It may turn out that it wasn't such a good idea. When an immovable object meets an irresistible force one or the other will be found to be ill defined. The way of the Tao is like water.

The Israelis will not allow the right of return or give up the Jewish part of the state. The Arabs vow to drive them into the sea. Each is like the other and will not bend. Each creates and reinforces the other. Each is absolutely right. Each acts from the highest morality in its own eyes.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
As far as I can tell, the Palestinians can single-handedly stop the violence if they wish. The Israelis cannot.

All violence can only be ended personally. How is one side different than the other. When will violence end when it can only end personally and everybody always, ALWAYS, blames the other? All solutions to violence mean nothing unless they are about YOU, or in my case ME.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that every violent act committed by Israel is in response to a specific violent act committed by the Palestinians, and that Palestinians (at least sometimes) engage in violence against Israel without such specific justification. In this sort of situation, the two sides are different. Palestinians can cease attacking, and prevent all military action against them by Israel.

While AFAIK Israel has made some preemptive strikes, in the main their attacks have been in response to specific attacks by others. They do this in an attempt to show moral justification. On the other hand, Israel's enemies train their children in a culture of hatred, so that they want to attack Israel out of hate, with predictable results. We can quibble about whether a tit-for-tat approach is the most workable for Israel, but not over whether a "tat" caused a "tit".

I try to sidestep the issue of moral justification for attacks by Palestinians, since I think that's where these discussions often get bogged down.

I think you fail to understand the context of the situation and cannot sidestep Palestinian justification. What problems were the 'Palestinians' causing the Jews before the foundation of a Jewish State on land the people already there thought was theirs? The quibble is not about whether a tit for tat approach will work, or that a tit will cause a tat. It is all about, for the people there, whose tit and tat is justified based on who did the first tit.

One tit we can certainly consider is the foundation of a Jewish state on Arab land. It may turn out that it wasn't such a good idea. When an immovable object meets an irresistible force one or the other will be found to be ill defined. The way of the Tao is like water.

The Israelis will not allow the right of return or give up the Jewish part of the state. The Arabs vow to drive them into the sea. Each is like the other and will not bend. Each creates and reinforces the other. Each is absolutely right. Each acts from the highest morality in its own eyes.

I understand all of this, but I feel that it's not necessary to go into the wrongs done to the Palestinians to assess whether they can one-sidedly end the conflict. They can, and that's all I was saying.

Whether its creation was right or wrong, the state of Israel is not going away, barring some sort of nuclear annihilation. From the standpoint of efficiency, needless conflict is undesirable, and the terrorist acts of the Palestinians cannot possibly improve the situation. Of course, I don't expect them to stop, feeling as they do.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Learn to read. Start with the first sentence.

This kind of retort only shows that you have nothing to say, and comes as no surprise after you've failed to back your own assertions (helicopter magical weapons?).

Well done, have a

EDIT
I may have misread the first sentence as sarcasm, but you used that as an excuse to avoid all my other remarks, which are in no way dependant on the first one.

No surprise though, as this isn't the first time you're dodging certain aspects of the discussion.

 

[sothsegger]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Narmer
It's ok to kill them with machine guns and Apache helicopters but not with suicide bombs? WTF is the difference? A dead man is a dead man all the same. You get no sympathy from us.

the difference is that Israel does not purposely target civilians, the other side purposely targets them. That is the difference between a civilized society and a barbaric one.

Too bad for most of the world that many muslims fall into the barbaric side, worse for the majority of muslims who live in fear of these maniacs as well

But if you can't afford a military--and palestine cannot afford a military to match the israelis--then you have use whatever means is at your disposal--even suicide bombers. All is fair in love and war.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
As far as I can tell, the Palestinians can single-handedly stop the violence if they wish. The Israelis cannot.

All violence can only be ended personally. How is one side different than the other. When will violence end when it can only end personally and everybody always, ALWAYS, blames the other? All solutions to violence mean nothing unless they are about YOU, or in my case ME.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that every violent act committed by Israel is in response to a specific violent act committed by the Palestinians, and that Palestinians (at least sometimes) engage in violence against Israel without such specific justification. In this sort of situation, the two sides are different. Palestinians can cease attacking, and prevent all military action against them by Israel.

While AFAIK Israel has made some preemptive strikes, in the main their attacks have been in response to specific attacks by others. They do this in an attempt to show moral justification. On the other hand, Israel's enemies train their children in a culture of hatred, so that they want to attack Israel out of hate, with predictable results. We can quibble about whether a tit-for-tat approach is the most workable for Israel, but not over whether a "tat" caused a "tit".

I try to sidestep the issue of moral justification for attacks by Palestinians, since I think that's where these discussions often get bogged down.

I think you fail to understand the context of the situation and cannot sidestep Palestinian justification. What problems were the 'Palestinians' causing the Jews before the foundation of a Jewish State on land the people already there thought was theirs? The quibble is not about whether a tit for tat approach will work, or that a tit will cause a tat. It is all about, for the people there, whose tit and tat is justified based on who did the first tit.

One tit we can certainly consider is the foundation of a Jewish state on Arab land. It may turn out that it wasn't such a good idea. When an immovable object meets an irresistible force one or the other will be found to be ill defined. The way of the Tao is like water.

The Israelis will not allow the right of return or give up the Jewish part of the state. The Arabs vow to drive them into the sea. Each is like the other and will not bend. Each creates and reinforces the other. Each is absolutely right. Each acts from the highest morality in its own eyes.

I understand all of this, but I feel that it's not necessary to go into the wrongs done to the Palestinians to assess whether they can one-sidedly end the conflict. They can, and that's all I was saying.

Whether its creation was right or wrong, the state of Israel is not going away, barring some sort of nuclear annihilation. From the standpoint of efficiency, needless conflict is undesirable, and the terrorist acts of the Palestinians cannot possibly improve the situation. Of course, I don't expect them to stop, feeling as they do.

I would think the Egyptians could have made the same case against the Jews, no.

It is how people feel that determines how they act. If the way they feel does not change, neither will the way they act.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
As far as I can tell, the Palestinians can single-handedly stop the violence if they wish. The Israelis cannot.

All violence can only be ended personally. How is one side different than the other. When will violence end when it can only end personally and everybody always, ALWAYS, blames the other? All solutions to violence mean nothing unless they are about YOU, or in my case ME.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that every violent act committed by Israel is in response to a specific violent act committed by the Palestinians, and that Palestinians (at least sometimes) engage in violence against Israel without such specific justification. In this sort of situation, the two sides are different. Palestinians can cease attacking, and prevent all military action against them by Israel.

While AFAIK Israel has made some preemptive strikes, in the main their attacks have been in response to specific attacks by others. They do this in an attempt to show moral justification. On the other hand, Israel's enemies train their children in a culture of hatred, so that they want to attack Israel out of hate, with predictable results. We can quibble about whether a tit-for-tat approach is the most workable for Israel, but not over whether a "tat" caused a "tit".

I try to sidestep the issue of moral justification for attacks by Palestinians, since I think that's where these discussions often get bogged down.

I think you fail to understand the context of the situation and cannot sidestep Palestinian justification. What problems were the 'Palestinians' causing the Jews before the foundation of a Jewish State on land the people already there thought was theirs? The quibble is not about whether a tit for tat approach will work, or that a tit will cause a tat. It is all about, for the people there, whose tit and tat is justified based on who did the first tit.

One tit we can certainly consider is the foundation of a Jewish state on Arab land. It may turn out that it wasn't such a good idea. When an immovable object meets an irresistible force one or the other will be found to be ill defined. The way of the Tao is like water.

The Israelis will not allow the right of return or give up the Jewish part of the state. The Arabs vow to drive them into the sea. Each is like the other and will not bend. Each creates and reinforces the other. Each is absolutely right. Each acts from the highest morality in its own eyes.

The state of Israel was created with the "blessings" of the surrounding Arab states.
And the acceptance of those Arab states to groom the Palestinian section for eventual statehood.
A fact that seems to be forgotten.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I would think the Egyptians could have made the same case against the Jews, no.

It is how people feel that determines how they act. If the way they feel does not change, neither will the way they act.

I think that a better solution, in creating a Jewish state, could have been to grant them half of Germany, although I am sure that many Jewish people would have found the territory loathsome in the extreme at the time. However, now we have a problem somewhat analogous to the old moral problem faced by us Americans with regard to native Americans, who had their land taken away through a series of justifications: based on a denial of their status as fully human beings, the "might is right" concept, etc. Somehow I doubt that the Palestinians would be forever happy with a little pocket of their own "nation" surrounded completely by the territory of Israel.

Still, like it or not, Israel is not going away. If you're flatly denying that the situation can ever be solved without destroying Israel, I think we should keep trying for a solution. As we search, it is not improper to note that the local enemies of Israel can one-sidedly end the bloodshed. In a way it's just stating a corollary of the mostly defensive posture of the Israelis.

I also don't necessarily agree that the feelings of a people cannot change over generations. The Palestinians hate Israel; the Palestinians are poor, and probably have no more than ten iPods among the lot of them. Perhaps if we can successfully encourage them to suckle at the Western teat, they will grow sated and lethargic.

 

[sothsegger]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The state of Israel was created with the "blessings" of the surrounding Arab states.
And the acceptance of those Arab states to groom the Palestinian section for eventual statehood.
A fact that seems to be forgotten.

What? I read that the Arab states were opposed to the UN Charter that created the state of israel. The called it a nakba (which means catastrphe). Can you back up your assertion?

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The state of Israel was created with the "blessings" of the surrounding Arab states.
And the acceptance of those Arab states to groom the Palestinian section for eventual statehood.
A fact that seems to be forgotten.

I think I may have read this at one time, and forgot. My knowledge of that region is based mostly on recent events.