Eye On Israel/Palestine

I meant to say your ideas are impressive--

You've alluded to them before--but this was my first look, I think.

I remember when we first started talking about it--I thought Israel would NEVER relinquish their right to return. I think it's already off the table.

They're tired.

They've accepted a Palestine. Another thing many thought could never happen.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

So, you don't think Hamas gets it's strength from the people's desire to rid the land of Israelis-- but mostly the humanitarian stuff?

I think it derives firstly from lack of Palestinian dignity in terms of self-determination, decades of military occupation and humiliation and the squalor that the occupation and internal corruption has kept them in.

I do think Palestinians want Israelis gone, but much more so from their roads and cities. Out of sight out of mind, the average Palestinian wouldn't be that bothered by Israelis within Israel if they didn't periodically coem over to kill Palestinians in retaliatory attacks.

I think the anger that fuels the Palestinians is sourced in their squalor, and lacking national pride from being occupied for longer than most of them have been alive.

I think Hamas' social network provides them a network to tap into the rage.

Eliminate the lacking self-determinantion and national pride and you cut most of the rage (assuming Israel stops killing them, as that causes significant rage).

Eliminate the Hamas social network and you eliminate a big part of their recruiting network.

Establishing a state with police and a military will undermine militias (this is good because it will cut their membership but bad because some militants will then be in governmental agencies).

Quote:

You don't think the Pal in the street would want to eradicate the Jews, under your plan...?

Nope. Assuming the occupation is ended, settlements withdrawn, statehood achieved, self-determination realized, and the squalor addresses AND Israel does not engage in provocative attacks (AND they manage to hermetically seal the border so they won't have things to retaliate to) then only the militants addicted to their gang-membership will still work toward that idiotically unreal goal.

Most Palestinians will be busy with their own pursuit of happiness and eliminating the squalor and the humiliation will open doors for them to work for their own happiness and not for a cause that will largely be realized.

Normalization with other Arab states will help drive home that the struggle is over, and now it's a new struggle to build their dream.

Quote:

I have no idea about the Pal in the street--except when they're all there, they look pretty mad.

Well, the assasinations and such have a provocative edge that is really hard for us to fully appreciate.

That exacerbates the existing rage at the expation of Israel and the military occupation of their land.

Military occupation in itself is a tough pill to awallow.

Military occupation with frequent assasination and lots of collateral damage is harder.

Military occupation that is seen as a stage for expantion on their land is harder to swallow.

No self determination is hard to swallow.

No national identity is hard to swallow.

Superlative squalor is hard to swallow.

Eliminate these things and most of the rage will evaporate.

Eventually their just be prejudiced against Jews like the other arab nations are and like the Israelis are against Arabs.

Years after normalization even this will subside. Normalization of trade will be the biggest tool toward normalization of attitudes.

I think it would be pretty easy to take the Palestinians to the point of other Arab countries. Not a big fan of Israel but also more interested in going on with their lives than ending it to attack Israel.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

But, with Hamas' goal--Israel will never satisfy them. They could go back to the initial borders, and still be terrorized.

This is such a tired and simplistic pseudo-argument. It's risible.

You do, of course, realize that it works both ways, right?

I could rephrase your statement and use the staunchly zionist outlook of many Isreali groups and individuals to support the idea that Isreal would never be satisfied with a two state solution, therefore, the "extermination" of all Jews is the only option, etc, etc, etc.

I'm sure you can also appreciate the counter-productive nature of increasing military operations in palestine - you're just giving more credence and recruiting power to organizations like Hamas by making thier anti-Jewish rehetoric into reality. Adding logs to the fire.

...I could elucidate further. However, the fight fire with fire approach has been shot down so many times on so many levels that it is no longer worth rebuttle.

Fuck basing Isreali policy on Hamas. The best approach is to make such organizations impotent by cutting off the support base they feed off. That support base is made up of sympathizers - everyday palestinians, not fanatics.

Once you meet some of thier basic and legitmate demands - like the ability to live free from constant oppression - that support base withers away.

0 Replies

Craven--

Certainly, you make good sense, and the items you require for your plan seem much more possible in the last couple of years.

One last question:

Who gets Jerusalem? (Along with all those 'holy sites'?) Wouldn't this loss of one side be enough to break the deal? Will the Muslims or the Jews be denied their most sacred site of worship?

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I meant to say your ideas are impressive--

Thanks, this is the political conflict that I am most interested in and I have followed it since I was 4 (literally).

Quote:

I remember when we first started talking about it--I thought Israel would NEVER relinquish their right to return. I think it's already off the table.

The Arabs have not yet fully done so. The Pals haven't weighed in on it in favor but other Arab nations have dropped the "right of return" terminology in favor of "fair and equitable settlement".

This doesn't yet rule out all return but implies that ither forms of compensation are possible.

So it's a big first step.

Quote:

They're tired.

Indeed. The sane Pals have been tired since one year after this intifada started and they realized that it was as futile as all the others.

Quote:

They've accepted a Palestine. Another thing many thought could never happen.

Sharon has, I never thought I'd see that but he has. When I heard that he pounded a table telling his cabinet that it was a fait accompli I almost cried.

But many of the Israeli parties haven't. Some still oppose any and all peace negotiations.

So while there have been big steps (R.O.R dropped, fait accompli and "illegal occupation" admitted) a lot of people are still not on board.

In my idea I do not wait for them to within a democracy. There's no vote and final resolution happens immediately.

The extremists on each side favor any delay and procrastination of settlement. Screw 'em. Their dreams die immediately and the dreams of the majority on each side (self-determination and statehood/no more terror) is realized.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Who gets Jerusalem? (Along with all those 'holy sites'?) Wouldn't this loss of one side be enough to break the deal? Will the Muslims or the Jews be denied their most sacred site of worship?

This is an overblown thorn. It's such a stupid part of the conflict that both sides put exaggerated importance in.

In my plan this is initially tabled for the very last phase of the settlement. I want it negotiated without the backdrop of terror, occupation and lacking statehood.

But to reveal the end game it would work like this:

1) It's Israel's because of the practical factor. "Facts on the ground" and all.

They stole it so well that they keep it.

2) Cut the edge by giving up the Arab portions and allowing the Pals to call it their capital as well.

3) Neither side get's it recognized as their capitals (e.g. the US has said we will not recogize it as Israel's capital till the settlement) until full normalization.

Ultimately, it's really gonna be like it is, with Israel ceding symbolic sections to Pals. Both get to call it their capital in what will be symbolism of the settlement.

It needs to be tabled till statehood because eliminating the impasse on other details means this will be negotiated more easily.

Ultimately there is no negotiation in my plans. Each side gets what the whole damn world recognizes as a reasonable compromise despite the wishes of the zealots on each side.

In other words the negotiations will be mainly dictated by third parties (think quartet led by the US with the Arab nations acting in the manner outlined in the saudi proposal).

They get to negotiate lil details like which settlements are exchanged for which territories and such.

If they ever can't reach a deal the deal is imposed by the arbitrating quartet+Arabs working in the Saudi proposal.

0 Replies

Have you thought of sending it--fleshed out-- to anyone? It's obviously important to you--and seemingly airtight.

Stranger things have happened.

0 Replies

Sofia, most of these ideas have been talked about ad nauseum.

It just depends on the US getting Israel on board.

Most of these compromises are already recognized by the international community, by moderate Arabs and by the US and Israel.

There is only one thing stopping it. Procrastination under the pretext of "not negotiating under terror".

Israelis who wish to put off this conflict gain a powerful argument with each Palestinian attack. Israel gets to insist on sequentialism and putt it off.

The hermetical fence is the start. Ending sequentialism for parallelism on all fronts is the key.

We just need a US president willing to lose his job over this.

To end the procrastinating sequentialism (one step forward two steps back) we would need to lean on Israel.

It would be for their own good but would not be seen that way stateside.

Pressuring Israel has long been seen as politically risky in American politics.

Some say Bush 1 lost re-election for pressuring Israel on settlements. I disagree but do recognize that there are a lot of powerful "greater Israel" dreamers over here, far from the conflict.

With our having been attacked by muslim terrorists it is even harder to get political capital to force a stubborn Israeli hand.

Some say it takes a second term president.

Everyone knows what to do. Only one nation (USA) can get Israel to compromise and within the US we are very reluctant to do so because it's a political bomb here as well.

So our politicians just make lip-service. I'd make it my state of the union speech because I think solving the problem is the biggest part of the 'war on terror'.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Screw satisfying Hamas. Satisfy the average Palestinians and they are nothing.

Works like this:

1) Get Israel in line. This is the biggest challenge. They need to accept the fair accompli of Palestine and the end of the dream of expanding to "greater Israel".

2) Knock out the territorial details. I could do it right here for you if you want. Basically it would be based on 67ish lines.

3) Right of return becomes right of return to the new Palestinian state.

4) Israeli withdrawal of Settlements and occupation.

5) Israeli contruction of a hermetical fence. Screw trying to keep Palestinian jobs, the Palestinians need a viable state and not temporary migrant work.

6) Establish a Palestinian state.

7) Accept the full-reconciliation offers of the Arab community (Saudi proposal). Establish a timetable for full normalization.

8) Work HARD on humanitarian aid to the new Palestine. It will have some of the most god-forsaken slums and the poorest regions on earth (Gaza is already just about the most depraved region on earth).

Doing so will undermine Hamas' own social work.

The key is this:

1) Getting Israel in line.
2) Getting rid of all occupation and settlement. This kills the average Palestinian's beef. They won't suddenly love Jews but they won't be seeing Jews pointing guns at the on the way to work every day.
3) Get Israel to withdraw from their illegal expantions.
4) Declare a state, this grants self-determinantion and national pride. Two things that work against Hamas.
5) Get non-hamas social structures in (schools hospitals etc).
6) Watch hamas foiled by a hermetical fence and reduced to lobbing inconsequential mortars as their support evaporates.

I glossed over a lot of details, I've been mind-simming this for years and know exactly what roads I'd change, what settlements I'd uproot, what diplomatic language in the accords I'd use in what cases etc etc etc

It's a piece of cake. All it takes is for the US to be willing to put the pressure on Israel to simply do it.

Quit the urging and backscene pressure on Israel, bring it to bear. Isreal either works immediately toward this or aid is cut and troops deployed.

Palestine gets no chance to deal, they are going to have their hand forced anyway. The reason they won't mind is because it will end occupation and bring them self-determination.

What Hamas wants is irrelevant, the fence keeps them out till they die off.

Craven,

I concur with most of your thinking on this but I also think that the Palestinians in all those refugee camps etc need a symbolic or token 'right
of return'. Eg. a small quota can be allowed to return and the rest receive some compensation for lost property etc. This would make it somewhat easier to 'let go' and would be more fair than simply saying 'your family fled their land? too bad.'

Unfortunately, the key ingredient in your prescription is for the U.S. to oblige Israel to accept this sort of settlement and no U.S. administration has ever had the stomach to do so. The truth is that in matters related to the Israel-Palestinian conflict the Israeli tail wags the American dog.

Just as the China lobby had a hammerlock on U.S. foreign policy vis a vis China for decades (until Nixon's opening to China ) the Israel lobby has a hammerlock on U.S. policy vis a vis Israel. American politicians who are critical of Israel have a short (political) life expectancy.(remember the firestorm over Howard Dean's saying he wanted to be "even-handed" in dealing with the Israelis and Palestinians?)
Sharon knows this and uses it for his purposes. As an example, press reports indicated that Sharon's office withheld a final decision on his recent trip to the U.S. until he was satisfied with the content of Pres. Bush's statement re the Gaza withdrawal plan. In the end he got what he wanted (maybe even demanded) and Bush got a visit with Sharon that he hopes will boost his stock with Jewish-Americans, and Evangelical Christians prior to the 2004 elections.

0 Replies

jjorge wrote:

I concur with most of your thinking on this but I also think that the Palestinians in all those refugee camps etc need a symbolic or token 'right
of return'. Eg. a small quota can be allowed to return and the rest receive some compensation for lost property etc. This would make it somewhat easier to 'let go' and would be more fair than simply saying 'your family fled their land? too bad.'

Yep, that is something I think is necessary. And it's also something that the Arabs had in mind when they changed "right of return" to "fair and equitable settlement".

We get a couple of photo ops of some ole palestinian ladies who still ahve keys returning.

Israel is wary of this right now because they see it as a slippery slope to losing their identity.

So in negotiation they won't cede this, but in an imposition in which the bottom of the slope is guaranteed not to be an issue they'd accept.

So we get some symbolic return within "fair and equitable settlement" and we buy off the "right of return" demand.

Buying it off will not be too hard.

Quote:

Unfortunately, the key ingredient in your prescription is for the U.S. to oblige Israel to accept this sort of settlement and no U.S. administration has ever had the stomach to do so.

I agree with the first part but disagree with the second. The US has flat out told Israel that they'd be bombed "to kingdom come" by the Russians and we'd let it happen.

We have a bad recent record for being willing to do so but we have in the past (see Suez).

Quote:

The truth is that in matters related to the Israel-Palestinian conflict the Israeli tail wags the American dog.

I see it differently. I don't think this is entirely accurate. We have wagged their dog many a time.

But yes, there is a strong stateside lobby that is for greater Israel and has influence against policy that would stand in its way.

Quote:

Just as the China lobby had a hammerlock on U.S. foreign policy vis a vis China for decades (until Nixon's opening to China ) the Israel lobby has a hammerlock on U.S. policy vis a vis Israel. American politicians who are critical of Israel have a short (political) life expectancy.(remember the firestorm over Howard Dean's saying he wanted to be "even-handed" in dealing with the Israelis and Palestinians?)
Sharon knows this and uses it for his purposes.

I agree with most of this. But assuming a US president wants to get it done more than he wants to get re-elected it can happen.

As a nation we have influence over Israel. Support for greater-Israel has a lot of influence here but this can be circumvented if done correctly.

Ultimately we'd need to sell the Israeli lobby on the fact that ending the conflict is better for Israel than keeping the dream of expantion alive.

It can be sold. It just takes a comprehensive effort on all fronts.

Quote:

As an example, press reports indicated that Sharon's office withheld a final decision on his recent trip to the U.S. until he was satisfied with the content of Pres. Bush's statement re the Gaza withdrawal plan. In the end he got what he wanted (maybe even demanded) and Bush got a visit with Sharon that he hopes will boost his stock with Jewish-Americans, and Evangelical Christians prior to the 2004 elections.

IMO, that's a bit misleading. In international diplomacy it's not uncommon to hold out until the result is known. Meetings and votes rarely start without their result being known.

I think Sharon was holding out to make sure it would not be an egg on his face when he arrived and not to use the visit as influence.

Central to my disagreement is that I think a Sharon visit brings less political capital (and barganing power) than you do.

0 Replies

Craven,

I wish what you propose could happen.
I agree it would be in the long-term best interests of Israel as well as the U.S. and the Palestinians, but I think you underestimate the power of the Israel lobby.

Don't just think of the Presidency on this, think of the Congress. On a number of occasions the Israel lobby has demonstrated it's power by instigating congressional actions that were not welcomed or appreciated by administrations --an example that comes to mind is the insistence of congress on declaring Jeruselam the capital of Israel at a time when the administration was pleading with them not to do so.

I wish I were wrong and you were right on this.
If I am wrong. That would make me happy.

PS On another matter entirely.
(at the risk of discomforting/embarrassing you)

I attended the recent San Francisco gathering. It was a sort of A2K lovefest. Naturally we talked about other A2k people who weren't there including you. As we talked about how much A2K means to us, it was impossible to ignore the debt of gratitude we owe to YOU and also to Jes. I just want to say thanks for this thing, this A2K that you have given us.

I know, I know, others have done a lot yada, yada, yada, ... that's all true... but YOU have been the indispensible one.

I preceded the San Francisco part of my vacation with four days visiting friends in Oceanside. Later, when I got to the SF gathering and mentioned Oceanside someone said, 'Craven is in San Diego'.
and I said 'Sh*t! if I had remembered that I'd have taken him to lunch.
So, sorry you didn't get the lunch but a sincere thanks for all you do.

-jjorge

0 Replies

Well.
He'll never come back now.
<grins>

0 Replies

Craven,

While I think that your remedies and analysis do not lack for thought, I am forced to disagree here. In the interests of time at this moment I will not include quotes, partially because there would be too many points to address.

The inconguity between our views stems from some fundamental points and outlooks. For starters you tend to look at the Israeli-Palestinian issue as a political, diplomatic, and territorial matter. All of the remedies you subscribe to would have a shot at success, given proper attempt, should this be merely the case. However, you are completely ignoring the pathologically hatred each side holds for each other.
Remember, this conflict (in Gaza and the West Bank in particular) did not start because Israel was an occupying force. The Arab world attempted to annihalate the state of Israel 3 times before the current landscape took shape. Are you saying that clear political divisions and Palestinian sovereignty will stifle thousands of years of animosity? I think such a concept is high-minded but without validity or precedence in all of history.
Force and force alone has kept the peace in similar situations throughout history where two cultures vehemently opposed to each other have had to exist in such close proximity. Give the poor Palestinians schools and hospitals and will that magically eliminate their beliefs in Jihad, anti-Judaism, Islamic fanatacism, social oppression? Will they in suddenly cease to commit violent acts against what they see as the children of the Antichrist?
I do not pretend to know what will solve the dilemma, but I do know that words, roadmaps, theories, protests, have all dragged this issue out for almost forty years. This intifada (initiated by Palestinians, by the way, in response to a simple visit from someone they detest - Sharon) will end the way it began - through force. Either Israeli force, or an international peacekeeping force, but it will require boots on the ground and guns in the air to separate the two sides. No peace plan will work until sufficient force is in play to compel the warring parties to heel. And since it is vastly easier to get the democratic government of Israel to control their own, the problem will almost certainly continue to be one of the Palestinians making.

(P.S. Israeli expansion? They haven't budged their borders for nearly twenty years, and the last "expansion" was the taking of a couple hills of enormous strategic importance after suffering and ultimately beating back an invasion. If they are "expansionists" they measure their gains in square meters.)

0 Replies

One other thing.

For all of those who hate terrorism, Rantisi's death should bring the quiet pride of a day when, in a war with innumerable enemies, one of the loudest and brashest terrorists in the world met poetic justice. He died in fire and blast just like numerous civilians he actively targeted and murdered over the years.

0 Replies

jjorge wrote:

I wish what you propose could happen.
I agree it would be in the long-term best interests of Israel as well as the U.S. and the Palestinians, but I think you underestimate the power of the Israel lobby.

I agree in that the way I expressed it doesn't take the democratic functions into consideration. But those are the plans, the way to get them accepted require several times.

Quote:

Don't just think of the Presidency on this, think of the Congress.

I do, but that depends on the congress at the time and would have to be far more involved.

Quote:

PS On another matter entirely.
(at the risk of discomforting/embarrassing you)

Thankee..

But now let's never talk of this again. ;-)

0 Replies

Lusatian wrote:

For starters you tend to look at the Israeli-Palestinian issue as a political, diplomatic, and territorial matter. All of the remedies you subscribe to would have a shot at success, given proper attempt, should this be merely the case. However, you are completely ignoring the pathologically hatred each side holds for each other.

I don't see this as merely a diplomatic rift. It's quite obviously much more. But don't downplay the territorial matter in this conflict. People like to get all Biblical and say this is a conflict that lasted thousands of years but that's inaccurate. The territorial dispute is the major factor.

In addition, it's not a pathological hatred. I suspect you are using the word rhetorically but it's important to remember than in most cases it's not pathological.

Quote:

Remember, this conflict (in Gaza and the West Bank in particular) did not start because Israel was an occupying force.

The intifadas are nearly entirely fueled by resentment of the occupation, but yes, the larger conflict pre-dated it.

Quote:

The Arab world attempted to annihalate the state of Israel 3 times before the current landscape took shape.

Indeed, and would you not say that was very much about a territorial dispute (i.e. carving up land tends to piss people off).

Quote:

Are you saying that clear political divisions and Palestinian sovereignty will stifle thousands of years of animosity?

Ahh, the thousands of years of animosity thing. To put it simply, yes I do to some degree.

Will they suddenly want to hold hands and roll in the feilds? No. Both sides will maintain a healthy degree of racism for years to come (ameliorated slowly by normalization of trade).

But remember that in these "thousands" of years of animosity this type of conflict has only taken up a small part of that time.

I think it can easly be reduced to the level of animosity of, say, Israel and Jordan.

They might not be bosom buddies but they are not killing each other.

Quote:

I think such a concept is high-minded but without validity or precedence in all of history.

Huh? There's all sorts of precedence. See the evolution of their relationship with Egypt for just one example.

Quote:

Force and force alone has kept the peace in similar situations throughout history where two cultures vehemently opposed to each other have had to exist in such close proximity.

Who says my plan id devoid of force? I said I'd deploy troops if needed. There are also different kinds of force, while you seem to only call military force by that name.

Witholding aid is a manner of force, building fences is a manner of force. Imposing a peace would be done with as much diplomatic force as military force if needed.

Quote:

Give the poor Palestinians schools and hospitals and will that magically eliminate their beliefs in Jihad, anti-Judaism, Islamic fanatacism, social oppression?

No, not magically. But by eliminating much of the incitement from religious schools. Coupled with removing the occupation that fuels the anger yes, the animosity will subside.

Quote:

Will they in suddenly cease to commit violent acts against what they see as the children of the Antichrist?

Not suddenly, but gradually. And if Israel hermetically seals itself (instead of leaving the borders open under the pretext of not inconveniencing Palestinians who work in Israel) the attacks will be reduced to the ineffective types of attacks that we have seen from the north and from the rockets and mortars.

Eventually these too will subside in my plan as the new Palestinian government and military will need to assert it's authority. Right now it has neither the authority nor means and that would have to be changed.

Quote:

I do not pretend to know what will solve the dilemma, but I do know that words, roadmaps, theories, protests, have all dragged this issue out for almost forty years.

Sequentialism and the desire to postpone territorial negotiations have held it up.

The plans are not at fault, not implementing them is.

Quote:

This intifada (initiated by Palestinians, by the way, in response to a simple visit from someone they detest - Sharon) will end the way it began - through force.

This is innaccurate. It was a response to a failed negotiation. Idiocy on Arafat's part in response to a clever, but fatallay flawed, offer made to the Palestinians.

It was not about the visit.

Incidentally, you have a way with words. I'd not describe a visit that results in Israelis killing a Palestinian child in one of their holy sites as "a simple visit".

When you come by in a week or so, make sure it is not "a simple visit" ok?

Quote:

Either Israeli force, or an international peacekeeping force, but it will require boots on the ground and guns in the air to separate the two sides.

I would deploy an international force. An Israeli force would be counterproductive to say the very least. Their force gets to stay on their side of the fence.

Quote:

No peace plan will work until sufficient force is in play to compel the warring parties to heel.

I don't know where you get the idea that I'd not want to employ force. I would be perfectly happy to declare war on either side to impose a peace.

Quote:

And since it is vastly easier to get the democratic government of Israel to control their own, the problem will almost certainly continue to be one of the Palestinians making.

Yes, I think we can control the Israelis diplomatically. What you don't seem to take note of is the effectiveness of hermetically sealing the border to prevent Palestinian attacks.

Palestinian attacks are usually only possible because of the Israeli's letting Palestinians in to work.

I'd not allow that at all and the declining militant groups would be reduced to lobbing manure-fueled rockets that only land in manure-filled fields. Thereby reducing much of their danger to manure.

I'm being sarcastic but think about the value of being a hermit. Look at the effect it has had in the past.

You'll see that Is Israel is willing to close a border without concerns that it'll become static they can drastically reduce the Palestinian militant threat.

A good example is Gaza, Israeli's never really wanted that land and they have done a pretty good job at sealing it off. Seal it completely from land and it'll be even better.

Israeli's have long resisted sealing the West Bank (some who dream of greater Israel still reject the fence, arguing that it'll become a border by default) because of the tug-o-war between those who want the end of the conflict and those who want to continue to settle.

Quote:

(P.S. Israeli expansion? They haven't budged their borders for nearly twenty years, and the last "expansion" was the taking of a couple hills of enormous strategic importance after suffering and ultimately beating back an invasion. If they are "expansionists" they measure their gains in square meters.)

Not square meters. Square miles. Israel has expanded nearly every single year and strategically settle roadways and waterways.

Lusatian, examine the maps, examine the satellite photos. There are groups that track it and all of this info is publically available.

Israeli settlers strategically settle and what they can't do in land volume they achieve by seizing prime real-estate in an attempt to "create facts on the ground" (a term that in this conflict means by putting people there they eventually won't be moved) and to deny contiguous Palestinian land.

The word I made bold is the key. The settlement is systemic, strategic and aimed at denying the Palestinians their prime real-estate, roadways and waterways.

It's an attempt to make any future Palestinian state a farce and lacking control of their water and airspace.

This is widely acknowledged by almost all sides.

0 Replies

Its time the zionist experiment in Palestine was wound up as a failure.

0 Replies

I wouldn't care less whether this Rantissi guy was blown to hell. What I fear, are the consequences of these actions: what will it mean for the peace process? Does this assasination actually help to bring stability and peace to the region? You can say on short term: the new Hamasleader is dead, and that can mean less or even no suicidebombings anymore from Hamas (although I doubt the last thing). But the point is: the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a long term conflict. And in that case, the assasination of Rantissi will only mean more hate feelings, a deeper gab between Israelis and the Palestinians and a negative impact on the peace process.

0 Replies

Rick d'Israeli
Peace process, what peace process are you talking about? Until both sides, if ever, decide that they have had enough there will be no peace process.
I would agree with Craven in one respect to build a security fence and keep all Palestinians on their side. I would however note, if the terror groups continue to infiltrate and bomb, Israel would in self defense not stand idly by, fence or no fence. IMO peace will only be achieved when and if the acts of terror cease.

0 Replies

Rick d'Israeli wrote:

But the point is: the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a long term conflict. And in that case, the assasination of Rantissi will only mean more hate feelings, a deeper gab between Israelis and the Palestinians and a negative impact on the peace process.

So in other words Rick, we should always avoid killing a mass murderer/ terrorist out of fear of his familiar's retaliation, or their lingering rancor in the years to come.

Brilliant.

Then perhaps Osama Bin Laden should be given some kind of amnesty to appease the millions of supporters of his throughout the world. And while we're at it why not spare Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic from justice as the conflict in the Balkans is based on feelings of hate and deep gaps between Serbs and Bosnians.

He who spares the bad, injures the good.
Publius Syrus

0 Replies

Eye On Israel/Palestine

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know