Palestinian statehood effort---From Clinton forward.

i dont mean to be argumentative about this but i lived in Saudi Arabia in 1947 when Israel was created and ANY understanding of present day conflicts with Israel/Palestine can't avoid that part of history. Israel was born of violence and its has never ceased in large part because of those early days and the inherent problems have mostly been ignored by the west.

I think it was dumb to plop the Isrealis down in their own state amongst the Palestinians (I really don't know the details though). HOWEVER, that was done and the past can't be changed.

dys--

I guess I tried to limit the time frame, so we could focus on the present day solution, rather than the blame.

Could I gather from your post that there can be no solution, because the Jews shouldn't be there in the first place?

littlek--Appreciate the comment.

no no not at all Lash i was only commenting that the original problems of the creation of Israel have never been addresed, i have no problem with Israel or its right to exist but that does not preclude a greater understanding of the tumultous history of the area.

I hear ya, dys.

The only reason I wanted to avoid it, is it's so damn complicated and drawn out.

But, for the sake of discussion, feel free to bring out whatever points you want to. I'm not a Zionist (if that means completely pro-Israel). I just thought the Israelis had made the offer Arafat had been demanding. When he rejected it, it made me think he had not been acting in good faith all along.

Do you know what arrangement the Palestinians would accept?

a) screw articles. I've read about this particular conflict for 18 years and don't want to read news (I do that enough) but want to hear your opinions.

My answer to your poll is that I think the way Palestine was partitioned could have been much better. The way it has gone is validadtion for Murphy's law.

But I don't care about the creation of Israel, I only care about ending the conflict.

I think your bonus question is exceedingly unfair. The Palestinians do not sit in the driver's seat and it's not about what they want to end the conflict.

Bu I'll amuse you, the Palestinians would be daft to be happy with just Gaza. Gaza is chump change and is one of the worst spots on earth. The Palestinians want the West Bank as well in its entirety. They won't get it.

They want East Jerusalem as well.

The stupid Palestinians want all of the land back. The slightly less stupid want at least what they were awarded in the division.

Isreal has its own idiots. The stupid Israelis are the ones who think God promised them all the land and that it's their destiny to have it all.

The dream of greater Isreal and greater Palestine are the impediments to an agreement. I think the Palestinians should settle for 100% of Gaza, 98+% of the West Bank (and Israel will have to give some of the strategic settlements back), symbolic control of East Jerusalem and disarmament.

Israel needs to fence itself off, accept an eventual armed state (initially I think the Palestinians should swallow their nasty pill and accept a fake state in which they can't arm). Israel needs to dismantle as many of their settlements as they have political capital to dismantle. The settlements are peopled with extremists who think that strategically taking the roads and water from Palestinian land will get them their goal of greater Israel. They need to be put in thir place. They are risking the identity of Israel for their stupid dream. Israel can't absorb all the Palestinians and remain a democracy. It will have to maintain an apartheid or engage in ethnic cleansing.

The zealots in both camps stall peace. The Palestinian zealots are always trying to spoil the cease fires. The Israeli zealots are always trying to give them all the motivation they need.

When there is a lull the Palestinian terrorists are waiting for any excuse to attack. The Israelis almost always scedule a "targeted killing" for any of these crucial moments. Whenever there is a lull an ill advised Israeli assasination or retaliation takes place.

Palestinian terrorists target innocent people routinely. This minimizes the Israeli peace camp. Israel often retaliates in a way that targets large portions of the population. After a particularly bad attack they'll lash out at even moderate Palestinians. The hate runs deep and the reactions on both sides are usually overkill (literally).

The Palestinians would accept foreign peace keepers but Israel won't. Foresign peace keepers would help greatly. Due to the animosities Israelis are the worst people to police the Palestinians. It only validates the complaints about occupation etc.

The reason there hasn't been peace is because it's hard to get both peace camps in power and willing at the same time. The Palestinians were stupid to reject the deal that Clinton tried to broker. They admitted it was a mistake but now Isreal has a PM that isn't too interested in making peace, he'd rather stamp out terrorism and then leave them waiting for a lenghty period.

He prefers sequentialism when parallel action is needed. Parallelism benefits both peace camps but peace kills the dreams of the extremists on both sides and they make this difficult.

IMO the only way to solve it is for an American president to take a bold move. We need to deploy peace keepers regardless of what either side wants. We have the leverage to do this. Israel needs to unilaterally withdraw and allow the peace keepers to deploy in the territories.

Palestine should be granted statehood immediately. Statehood is just symbolic at first, until they rebuild and define their borders they have no real state. The borders come next and this is the trickiest part.

I detailed the way I think the land distribution should go. I don't think it's fair but simply the best chance at an accord.

I fault both sides almost equally for the conflict. I fault the Palestinians for being stupid. If they had pulled a Ghandi they'd have a state. I fault Israel because they have the power to move toward an accord but are more interested in "teaching the Palestinians a lesson".

I think any president who leans too hard on Israel will commit political suicide. The israeli lobby is many times stronger than the Palestinian lobby. So in addition to alligning the Israeli and Palestinian peace camps you need a 2nd term US president who is willing.

Fat freaking chance.

Since there were no "Palestinians" at that time, how could this be a crime against them?

Craven--

No intention to frame an unfair bonus question. I had reasoned that the Palestinians were the ones making the demands and creating the aggressive mayhem, but I will admit the possibility of bias on my part. I feel I have tried to see the Pals side fairly, but unintended bias may be a factor.

I greatly appreciate your thoughtful response. I must take time to digest before responding.

Thanks.

(Your comments tend to address each player with fairness. Deserves my attention and respect.)

In the present political atmosphere, the best we can hope for is more of the same.

Some may assume for whatever reason that there were no palestinians in 1947 the U.N resolution 181 thought otherwise.By 1931 as Zionists encouraged Jews to migrate to Palestine and buy up Arab land, out of Palestine's population of 1,033,314, 174,606 were Jews; the vast majority were native Muslim and Christian Arabs. After World War II as the people in League mandates pressed for independence (which they were ill prepared for by the imperial powers), and the number of Jews migrating to Palestine rose, the question of partitioning Palestine arose. After the British turned the task over to the United Nations, in 1947 it put forward the Palestine partition plan . This gave the new Jewish and Arab states each three enclaves (with two crossover points). The majority Arabs would get only about 42% of the land, and the minority Jews about 55%, with the area around Jerusalem administered as an international zone.
Although the Jewish Agency signed the partition offer of the U.N., it (like the Arabs) was not satisfied with what it had been given. Its paramilitaries, who had long been mobilized, armed, and trained, planned to convert all of the Palestinian homeland into Greater Israel. In 1948 they not only seized most of the Arab communities that were to remain inside the Jewish state, but also -- fending off ineffective troops from neighboring Arab countries -conquered half of the territory earmarked for the Arab state, leading to the ethnic cleansing of some 700,000 Palestinian Arabs, after which Israel claimed to be a democracy.

dys - Please show me Palestine on a map predating the creation of Israel. (Heck, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.)

... ???

here you go http://palestiniancommunity.com/directory/maps/partition1947-49.html

tress,

Is the logomachy that important? Who cares about the name? There is no legal precedent for this so it's not like you need to find a loophole.

Partitioning the territories (I don't give a whit what they were called) was not a crime. There is no law against it.

It might not have been the best time and thing to do and some of the actions that followed was indeed criminal.

But what I fail to see is what point people are trying to make with the old "there is no such thing as Palestine" argument. It might validate the partition to you in some way but what relevance does it have to the ending of the conflict?

If we really want to look at the arguemtent, let's go back to 25 b.c., but then again, I agree with Kraven - what does it matter. We have to deal with today!

By the way, I did not vote because all the answer are the most accurate answer!

I simply have a hard time abiding convenient untruths. I have no problem accepting that today we have a group who call themselves Palestinians who are demanding a homeland next to Israel. But I do have a problem with people claiming that these people represent a distinct ethnic group displaced by the creation of Israel.

And why do you have a problem with this Mr T?

BillW--
Incredibly thoughtful statement about the possible validity of each of the poll responses.

Makes one think.

Because it is not true. (Wasn't that reason evident in my previous statement?)