Advocate, "However, the '67 war, in which Pals and others attacked Israel", the problem with that statement is that Israel attacked in a preemptive strike. You seem to think you can just revise history to suit your own self. "1967: THE U.S.S. Liberty was deliberately attacked in international waters as it monitored communications during the Six-Day War. Israel used U.S.-donated equipment to jam the ship's S.O.S., hoping to sink it and murder all aboard before word could get out. 34 sailors were butchered and 170 wounded in this blatant Act of War. The Liberty was part of the Sixth Fleet, a powerful group of men and ships paid for by U.S. Taxpayers to protect the Israeli's. What do the Jews think of our American Service Men, the descendants of the men who pulled their chestnuts out of the fire in World War II?
June 5, 1967: Israeli committed its biggest, most treacherous and premeditated aggression against Egypt, Syria and Jordan. After destroying Arab aircraft on the ground in a lightening attack, Israeli forces invaded and occupied the rest of Palestine, that is, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, the Syrian Golan Heights and the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. In the first days of its aggression and in plain disregard of the truth, Israel fabricated a charge of aggression against its victims and presented it in a dramatic manner to the U.N. Security Council. Western media spread this fabricated story and the whole world sympathized with the supposed victim. In 1967 the Israeli's made a third ruthless blitzkrieg attack upon the Arabs. This time they deliberately destroyed three quarters of a million dollar's worth of church property.
The great deception practiced by Israel on the U.N. and the whole world is now completely discredited, the Israelis, therefore, changed their tactics and rely nowadays on the argument that, they were NOT attacked by Egypt, they were in danger of BEING attacked, and hence they resorted to a so-called pre-emptive strike. Alan Hart quotes a former Israeli Director of military intelligence as telling him "if Nasser had not given Israel the excuse to attack the Arabs, Israel would have invented a pretext for war within six or ten months" because its military planners had decided that the time had come to knock out vast amounts of mainly Soviet-supplied Arab armor. Yitzhak Rabin, who as chief of staff planned this attack told Le Monde in February 1968, quite simply: "We knew that Nasser did not intend to attack."
link
Advocate wrote:I might mention that I visited the area just before the '67 war, and went all over Israel and the WB and Gaza. There were no checkpoints in the Pal territory, and there was extensive commercial intercourse between the two areas. There were many thousands of Pals commuting to Israel, or temporarily living and working there.
Israel put up with a lot of small and not so small attacks by the Pals, without invading the Pal territories.
However, the '67 war, in which Pals and others attacked Israel, changed this. Israel took Pal areas as a prize of war. It had to set up checkpoints, etc., because of unrelenting attacks, such as suicide bombings, by the Pals. In retrospect, it was a mistake for Israel to take much of the Pal land. But it had every right to do this. BTW, Israel found that the Pals had desecrated the Western Wall and many other holy places. The Pals paved over a very sacred Jewish cemetery in W. Jerusalem. Thus, Israel will never give up control of Jerusalem.
Prior to the 1967 War, the West Bank was part of Jordan. If there were no checkpoints on the border with Israel then, that is because the Jordanian government didn't impose them.
It is not true that the "Pals and others" attacked israel in the 1967 War. The fact is that this War was initiated by preemptive Israeli attacks on Jordan, Egypt and Syria. It is often said that propagandists eventually become the chief consumers of their own material. Perhaps that is true.
I don't dispute that a war was coming in 1967 and that if Israel had not acted peremptorily, her neighbors might have done so themselves. That, however is speculation.
I believe the dizzying success Israel achieved in that war caused them to lose their heads in a wave of euphoria. With the hindsight of history, it seems clear that the 40 year occupation of the West Bank; the expropriation of Palestinian property; and the denial of political; and civil rights to the population, were all grievous errors that have probably doomed any possibility of peace for at least another generation. This was the moment for the Israelis to establish a greater Israel with full rights of citizenship for all residents. This very likely would have meant that Israel would have to end its identity as a Jewish state with unequal treatment for non Jews. However it very likely could have preserved the right of Jewish immigration, and, equally importantly, a foundation of peaceful existence alongside other Semitic people of different traditions.
As it is now, I doubt that Israel will be able to long continue in its present form. It is indeed a supremely tragic irony that the admirable dream of the early Zionists has become so transfigured by the long struggle. In many ways Israel has become the Dorian Grey of the Western World; tragically propelled by its refusal to concede the benefits of its noble dream for its own people to the neighbors in its midst, to ever worse deeds of violence and oppression. Eventually we all do indeed become what we do.
Edit -- APOPOGIES TO BULEFLAME-- I HADN'T READ HIS POST WHEN I WROTE THIS.
Advocate wrote:Blue and CI, I assume you know that Arafat later said that he accepts the Camp David settlement. He then blamed Israel for rejecting the pact.
Palestinians Accept Camp David Peace Plan
HighMark Funds/Xinhua ^ | March 14, 2002
Posted on 05/14/2002 8:16:39 AM PDT by TomGuy
Palestinians Accept Camp David Peace Plan
GAZA, May 14, 2002 (Xinhua via COMTEX) -- Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said on Tuesday that the Palestinians accept the peace plan proposed by former U.S. President Bill Clinton two years ago at Camp David in the United States.
Arafat told reporters after meeting with bereaved Israeli families at his headquarters in the West Bank town of Ramallah that the Palestinians have never rejected Clinton's proposal to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
Arafat also accused both the former Israeli government under Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the current one under Ariel Sharon of rejecting the Clinton plan.
Israel said that Arafat was the one who rejected what had been offered to the Palestinians at Camp David and such an offer had never been proposed to the Palestinians before.
A Palestinian Intifada (uprising) erupted in September 2000 after Israel and the Palestinians traded accusations that the other side rejected what had been offered at Camp David.
More than 1,500 Palestinians have been killed and hundreds of thousands more injured during the uprising which is still raging in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, more than 500 Israelis have been killed and thousands of others injured.
Copyright 2002 XINHUA NEWS AGENCY.
Clinton didn't say that Israel rejected the terms of the 2000 Camp David talks. We know that Arafat walked out in 2000. We know that Bill Clinton, like many on the left, aren't predisposed with a bias in favor of Israel, so the only answer left is Arafat was full of crap.
blueflame1 wrote:Advocate, "However, the '67 war, in which Pals and others attacked Israel", the problem with that statement is that Israel attacked in a preemptive strike. You seem to think you can just revise history to suit your own self. "1967: THE U.S.S. Liberty was deliberately attacked in international waters as it monitored communications during the Six-Day War. Israel used U.S.-donated equipment to jam the ship's S.O.S., hoping to sink it and murder all aboard before word could get out. 34 sailors were butchered and 170 wounded in this blatant Act of War. The Liberty was part of the Sixth Fleet, a powerful group of men and ships paid for by U.S. Taxpayers to protect the Israeli's. What do the Jews think of our American Service Men, the descendants of the men who pulled their chestnuts out of the fire in World War II?
June 5, 1967: Israeli committed its biggest, most treacherous and premeditated aggression against Egypt, Syria and Jordan. After destroying Arab aircraft on the ground in a lightening attack, Israeli forces invaded and occupied the rest of Palestine, that is, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, the Syrian Golan Heights and the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. In the first days of its aggression and in plain disregard of the truth, Israel fabricated a charge of aggression against its victims and presented it in a dramatic manner to the U.N. Security Council. Western media spread this fabricated story and the whole world sympathized with the supposed victim. In 1967 the Israeli's made a third ruthless blitzkrieg attack upon the Arabs. This time they deliberately destroyed three quarters of a million dollar's worth of church property.
The great deception practiced by Israel on the U.N. and the whole world is now completely discredited, the Israelis, therefore, changed their tactics and rely nowadays on the argument that, they were NOT attacked by Egypt, they were in danger of BEING attacked, and hence they resorted to a so-called pre-emptive strike. Alan Hart quotes a former Israeli Director of military intelligence as telling him "if Nasser had not given Israel the excuse to attack the Arabs, Israel would have invented a pretext for war within six or ten months" because its military planners had decided that the time had come to knock out vast amounts of mainly Soviet-supplied Arab armor. Yitzhak Rabin, who as chief of staff planned this attack told Le Monde in February 1968, quite simply: "We knew that Nasser did not intend to attack."
link
If you are going to paste from some other website, it would be nice to see the referenced link.
http://hnn.us/articles/369.html
Quote:Bamford: Describes the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty as "unprovoked."
Fact: He completely ignores that the United States had publicly announced to the world at the United Nations Security Council only two days before June 8, 1967 that it had no warships within hundreds of miles of the combat zone. The chain of reactions were started by an Israeli army report of explosions at El Arish. Since Israel controlled the air and the ground, they made the assumption that they were being shelled from the sea and a warship was in eye view. In view of the U.S. public announcement, it seems more logical for the Israelis to have assumed that a haze grey warship sailing within eye view of the ongoing combat was an enemy vessel rather than a U.S. ship.
Bamford: "Israel fighters and torpedo boats assaulted the ship for more than an hour."
Fact: The air attack lasted about 12 minutes and was terminated as soon as the Israel Air Force determined the ship was not an Arab ship. While the Air Force was initiating rescue operations, the torpedo boats approached, stopped, and began signaling to the Liberty. The response of the Liberty was to begin shooting at the torpedo boats which thereupon began the torpedo attack. It lasted less than 15 minutes during which time the navy torpedo boats believed they were facing an enemy who initiated the shooting at them.
Bamford: The Israeli attackers used "cannon fire, rockets, heavy bombs, burning napalm and five torpedoes"
Fact: No rockets were fired at Liberty. No bombs, "heavy" or otherwise, were used. The attacking aircraft were not armed to attack a ship. Had they dropped the standard 500 pound iron bombs normally used against ship targets, the Liberty would very likely have been sunk in minutes. (During the battle of Midway in World War II, U.S. Navy dive bombers using standard 500 pound iron bombs sank three Japanese aircraft carriers in ten minutes.) Four napalm canisters [bombs] were dropped by the attacking aircraft. At least three and possibly all missed. The Liberty's doctor reported no treatment of any crew member for napalm burns.
Bamford: "Israeli reconnaissance planes had positively identified the ship"
Fact: A routine Israel Navy reconnaissance flight at dawn on June 8 sighted Liberty at about 6:00 A.M. steaming southeasterly and south more than 70 miles further west of El Arish. Positive identification was made and the information passed to Naval Intelligence Headquarters and the Liberty was marked on the battle control board at Naval Headquarters. Five hours later, the Liberty mark was considered old information and removed from the battle control board. At 11:00 A.M., shifts changed and the information about the Liberty was not known to the officer who assumed command. At about 1:00 P.M., when the presence of a ship steaming west, 14 miles off the coast of the Sinai and reported to be shelling Israel Army positions from the sea became a tactical issue, the Navy Officer in command did not know about the dawn sighting of Liberty many miles to the west.
Bamford: "Throughout the attack, according to survivors, the Liberty was flying a large American flag,"
Fact: Immediately prior to the air attack, the Liberty had a 5 by 8-foot American flag hoisted but because of the light wind conditions it probably was not extended. This is the Finding of Fact number 2. of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry of June 18, 1967. As a matter of fact, a reference to the formula for visual acuity reveals that a flag that size, if fully extended in good light would not be identifiable beyond 1323 feet and the attacking aircraft never came that close. It is also the undisputed testimony of the Commanding Officer of the Liberty that the 5 by 8-foot flag was shot away on the first strafing run. A second, larger, 7 by 13 foot flag was hoisted after the air attack and prior to the torpedo attack but it was engulfed in smoke and thus was not an identification factor during the attacks. The first actual sighting of an American flag on the Liberty was made by an Israeli helicopter pilot more than 30 minutes after both air and sea attacks were over.
Bamford: "Nowicki heard both the pilots and the torpedo boat crew members referring to the American flag during the attack,"
"Nowicki also heard the pilots talk about the American flag."
Fact: No reference to an American flag was made on any radio intercept until 1512, approximately 30 minutes after the attack was over. I have obtained transcripts of the Israel Air Force tapes which confirm this. I have an appeal pending before the National Security Agency for release of their tapes, which are the tapes described by Bamford. Release of these tapes by NSA will corroborate both what Nowicki originally told Bamford as well as the transcripts of the Israel Air Force tapes. That is the attack was a mistake.
Bamford: [The Liberty] "had its name painted in English in ten-foot letters across the stern."
Fact: The name Liberty on the curved stern of the ship was not larger than 18 inches and because of the curvature of the stern, was extremely difficult to read under any circumstances. The ships identifier, "GTR-5" was painted on both sides of the ship near the bow and near the stern but only the number "5" was ten feet tall. The "GTR" was substantially smaller. It was the sighting of these markings by the second wave of aircraft that identified the ship as not an Arab ship and resulted in immediate termination of the air attack.
Bamford: "Among those who never believed Israel's explanation are the survivors and the captain of the ship."
Fact: The captain of the ship, William L. McGonagle, testified under oath before the U.S. navy Court of Inquiry on June 13, 1967 "I realized that there was a possibility of the aircraft having been Israeli and the attack having been conducted in error." [emphasis added] [Court of Inquiry Record, p. 39] Bamford attributes rejection of the Israel explanation of mistaken identity to "The Survivors." This infers all the survivors. Again, this is not a true statement.
Bamford: "Among those who never believed Israel's explanation are ... Secretary of State, Dean Rusk and Chief of Naval Operations (and later Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) Admiral Thomas Moorer;"
Fact: Dean Rusk never accepted the Israeli explanation but when I asked him in an interview at Athens, Georgia on April 5, 1989 on what evidence he based his opinion, he conceded that he never read the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry findings, the CIA Report, or the Clark Clifford Report. When pressed further, he said, "I did not make a career of studying the evidence."
Admiral Moorer was Commander in Chief Atlantic on the day of the attack on the Liberty and became Chief of Naval Operations on August 1, 1967. In two interviews in Washington, D.C. on February 10, 1989 and May 3, 1990, he explained that the Liberty's identity could not be mistaken because she was the "Ugliest ship in the Navy" and was larger in size than the Egyptian ship for which she was mistaken. The CIA Report concludes the opposite, that the two ships could be mistaken. Ironically, the findings of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry were approved by Moorer's office while he was the Chief of Naval Operations.
Bamford: [The Liberty] never fired a shot."
Fact: This statement is a lie. The evidence has been undisputed for more than three decades that when the torpedo boats approached, stopped, and began signaling, the Liberty began shooting at them. Captain McGonagle, the commanding officer, testified to this under oath at the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry and reconfirmed it in a videotaped press conference on board Liberty when the ship returned to the United States. He may be observed on videotape telling of the Liberty firing at the torpedo boats in the Thames TV documentary, Attack on the Liberty, aired on British television on January 27, 1987.
Bamford: "The evidence that Israel's attack was deliberate is overwhelming." [He refers to] "the mountain of evidence in my book indicating that Israel knew the ship was American."
Fact: All attacks are inherently deliberate. The question is: did the Israelis attack knowing that it was an American ship. Ten official U.S. investigations and three official Israeli investigations have all concluded that the attack was a tragic mistake or that there is no evidence to establish that it was not a tragic mistake. Seven U. S. Presidents, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush, and Clinton have all accepted the conclusion that the attack was a tragic mistake. Still, more than two dozen conspiracy theories, most of which like Mr. Bamford's conspiracy theory, are based on false or erroneous premises, and have been circulating for years. They all start from the assumption that all the above investigations were wrong or a deliberate cover up; that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship; and the only question is: "Why". Bamford's book presents a mountain of allegations but no credible evidence to prove the allegations.
Bamford: Refers to Marvin Nowicki plus "another Hebrew linguist" who, he says, "is" confident that the Israeli attack was a deliberate attack.
Fact: Here again Mr. Bamford lies. Dr. Marvin Nowicki, the U.S. Navy Hebrew linguist on the NSA EC-121 aircraft who heard the Israeli Air Force pilots' radio transmissions and supervised their recording, told Mr. Bamford exactly the opposite, that is Nowicki is certain the attack was a mistake. In an e-mail letter dated March 3, 2000, a copy of which was provided to me by Nowicki and which will be published in full in my forthcoming book, Nowicki wrote to Bamford, "...we recorded most, if not all, of the attack. Further, our intercepts, never before made public, showed the attack to be an accident on the part of the Israelis." Dr. Nowicki's letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal published on May 16, 2001 unequivocally contradicts what Bamford attributes to him. Nowicki said in the Wall Street Journal letter: "My position, which is opposite of Mr. Bamford's, is the attack, ..., was a gross error." There are not one, but two other NSA connected Hebrew linguists that, according to Dr. Nowicki, have heard the tapes and share his - not Bamford's - alleged conclusions.
georgeob1 wrote:Monte Cargo wrote:Clinton didn't say that Israel rejected the terms of the 2000 Camp David talks. We know that Arafat walked out in 2000. We know that Bill Clinton, like many on the left, aren't predisposed with a bias in favor of Israel, so the only answer left is Arafat was full of crap.
Ilogical nonsense.
So what you are saying is that we should believe your version of the 2000 Camp David experience over the experience as recounted by the ex-president of the United States who was there and who organized the talks?
No. I am saying that your statement above was illogical.
Moreover, I regard the after the fact analysis of who said what and when following the Camp David meetings as pointless and silly. The whole event was plagued by excessive media attention, in part a result of Clinton's haste to get some kind of deal as a cap for his otherwise marred second term, and in part by the usual suspects in Arab-Israeli matters.
The important point is that Barak's offer was hugely distorted and magnified by the administration and by an uncharacteristicly credulous (at least when compared to other subjects) media. The offer was cynical in the extreme, and could not possibly have yielded a viable Palestinian state. It merely created a set of some 30 Palestinian Bantustands, subject to the now irresponsible control of the Israeli Master state. In short the perfect capstone to the Israeli strategy to keep as much of the land of the West bank as possible without taking any of its people.
Of course Arafat - and the great majority of the Palestinian people - summarily rejected it. What else could they do in response to such an offer - one that so clearly revealed Israel's contempt and intent to keep the Palestinian people in a dependent impotent condition. It didn't even merit a counter offer - and it didn't get one.
The only remarkable element in all this is the complete absence of any realistic accurate reporting of these events in the U.S. media.
georgeob1 wrote:No. I am saying that your statement above was illogical.
Moreover, I regard the after the fact analysis of who said what and when following the Camp David meetings as pointless and silly.
In other words, don't confuse a good story with the facts.
Quote: The whole event was plagued by excessive media attention, in part a result of Clinton's haste to get some kind of deal as a cap for his otherwise marred second term, and in part by the usual suspects in Arab-Israeli matters.
The important point is that Barak's offer was hugely distorted and magnified by the administration and by an uncharacteristicly credulous (at least when compared to other subjects) media. The offer was cynical in the extreme, and could not possibly have yielded a viable Palestinian state. It merely created a set of some 30 Palestinian Bantustands, subject to the now irresponsible control of the Israeli Master state. In short the perfect capstone to the Israeli strategy to keep as much of the land of the West bank as possible without taking any of its people.
Of course Arafat - and the great majority of the Palestinian people - summarily rejected it. What else could they do in response to such an offer - one that so clearly revealed Israel's contempt and intent to keep the Palestinian people in a dependent impotent condition. It didn't even merit a counter offer - and it didn't get one.
The only remarkable element in all this is the complete absence of any realistic accurate reporting of these events in the U.S. media.
The mainstream media in this country is in favor of the Palestinians and extremely critical of Israel.
I think that your perception of these talks, and not Clinton's, is what is skewed. Anti-Semitism is making a big comeback in this country. It used to be fairly confined to Germany about seventy years ago.
Not that Israel is perfect, but they didn't dance in the streets with joy when 3,000 of us got killed by extremist Arab terrorists five years ago a year after a president from this country tried to effect the first peace talks since 1994.
You are merely changing the subject and attempting to cloud the central issue with your scurrilous and baseless charge of anti-Semitism. You demean yourself.
The question is not which side applauds us the most frequently. It is, was there anything remarkable in Arafat's rejection of Barak's offer for a settlement. The answer is no.
I must say this thread had gotten really interesting since georgeob1 joined in, he'd made some interesting points/posts, i'm even learning new things...Thanks georgeob1.
Talking about anti-semitism, look at this :
Quote:More Evidence That Mearsheimer and Walt Are Largely Right
1) They've sent around a roughly 80-page response to their critics, which is largely compelling even though I am one of the people they refute.
2) This
New York Times article quotes no one at all in support of Carter's position, only critics. Since when does the Times write in its news pages about controversies entirely from one side of the controversy, particularly when it's about someone who was president of the United States?
I'll tell you since when. It's since he criticizes Israel ...
huffiingtonpost
georgeob1 wrote:In short the perfect capstone to the Israeli strategy to keep as much of the land of the West bank as possible without taking any of its people.
georgeob1 has really gotten to the heart of the matter. If they keep the land and the people, they either lose the democracy or they lose the Jewish nature of the country (this is why some people say that those who want them to restore rights to the Palestinians want to destroy Israel). The only way to avoid taking the people and keeping the land is to have an apartheid state, commit genocide, or expell all of the Palestinians. All of these options would create a humanitarian crisis and all are counter to democratic values -- none would be acceptable to the international community. This is why the problem has never been solved.
The egg is hopelessly scrambled and a two state solution now seems impossible. So what is left is a one state solution, with equal rights for all of its citizens and residents.
FreeDuck, one state would be a sign of great enlightenment imo. But that would be a secular solution and highly unlikely. "Against the One State Solution"
Posted by Rabbi Michael Lerner (Friday, December 08 2006 @ 09:23 AM PST)
Raafat Dajani discusses why the binational approach to the Israel/Palestine conflict will not work.
Abandon the Notion of a Binational State in Palestine
Reprinted Courtesy of The Daily Star
December 7th, 2006
As progress toward a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
stalls, an old idea has gained increased currency in some circles, that of one
binational state for both Israelis and Palestinians. There are a number of
variations on this argument, but proponents essentially call for foregoing the
concept of two distinct national entities. Instead, they advocate that
Israelis and Palestinians share the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the
Jordan River.
The idea of a binational state is not a new one. Several prominent Jewish
intellectuals in mandatory Palestine between the two world wars advocated such
an arrangement, though they had little political influence. Originally, the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) advocated the establishment of a
democratic Palestinian Arab state in all of mandatory Palestine, with Jews as
citizens of this state. In 1987, the PLO and the Palestinian National Council
formally embraced the two-state solution, calling for the establishment of a
Palestinian state in all of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. This
continues to be the position of the PLO and Palestinian President Mahmoud
Abbas.
The recent resurgence in discussion about the binational concept is
essentially due to the lack of movement toward a negotiated two-state
solution, coupled with what are deemed irrevocable Israeli facts on the ground
in the Occupied Territories, making the possibility of a viable and
independent Palestinian state remote.
What makes the one-state argument seductive is that it sounds theoretically
reasonable. Israeli facts on the ground, primarily settlements, control of
vital resources, and the appropriation of critical parts of a future
Palestinian state, including East Jerusalem, through the separation barrier,
are serious challenges to the two-state concept. The idea of "one man, one
vote" is fundamentally democratic. The land in question is small and the two
societies are intertwined to some extent.
But however well intentioned proponents of a binational state are, their
argument suffers from fatal flaws. The first is that international support for
the idea barely exists. By and large the international community, including
the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and the Arab League,
support a two-state solution. More importantly, most Palestinians continue to
desire to express their national aspirations in an independent state of their
own where they will not be second-class citizens.
On the Israeli side, the binational idea, predictably, has no support. To
assume that Israeli Jews would willingly give up on the idea of a Jewish state
is to show lack of understanding of the existential need of Jews for a state
of their own after centuries of persecution, culminating in the Holocaust. To
Israelis and Jews, a binational state means a state where they will be a
minority, equating in their eyes calls for their destruction.
For Palestinians, the danger of talking now about a one-state solution is that
it diverts critically needed energies from the still-achievable goal of two
states. It also seeks to destroy decades of work toward achieving
international recognition for a Palestinian state, returning Palestinians to
square one. Since it is unrealistic to assume that Israelis will willingly
give up on the idea of a Jewish state, the one-state proposal condemns the two
peoples to decades of conflict in the pursuit of an unachievable goal.
Even if such a state were to miraculously come into being, Palestinians would
very likely form an underclass in it. Worse, with such a bitter history of
violence between Arabs and Jews, it is easy to foresee a degeneration of their
relations into inter-communal conflict.
What is required at present is a refocusing of efforts toward surmounting the
challenges facing a two-state solution, the parameters of which are well known
and have been accepted by all parties: a Palestinian state based on the 1967
borders with its capital in East Jerusalem, and a negotiated settlement of the
refugee issue. In terms of Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian
territory, though these are all illegal under international law, it is also
recognized that some Israeli settlement blocs, accounting for 4-5 percent of
the West Bank, could be incorporated into Israel as part of a negotiated and
equitable land swap. The rest of the settlers would return to Israel proper.
Negotiations and the application of political power can separate settlers from
the settlements and bring down walls. This is achievable because a majority of
Israelis realizes that the settlement enterprise has been an obstacle to
peace.
Time is running out on a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
That's why Israelis, Palestinians and the US need to shoulder their
responsibilities to create a viable and contiguous Palestinian state living
alongside Israel in peace. Such a state is the only way to fulfill Palestinian
national aspirations and address Israel's security and integration into the
Middle East.
Achieving a two-state solution is admittedly difficult, but replacing it with
something far less achievable is not the answer. The alternative to two states
is continued and expanding conflict with the real danger of degeneration into
a holy war between Muslims and Jews. At the end of that fight, there will be
neither one nor two states.
Raafat Dajani is executive director of the Washington-based American Task
Force on Palestine. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR
I think a two state solution would be better for Israel, but the fact of the matter is that there are very strong forces in Israel that will make giving up any of the territories nearly impossible. The longer it takes to reach a two state solution, the more likely a one state solution is to come about since Israelis will continue to create and expand settlements on the best land, making it even harder to give it up.
Yes " there are very strong forces in Israel that will make giving up any of the territories nearly impossible". And they are religious zealots with a history of violence even against Israelis including the Rabin assassination. They will never give up their dream of a Jewish state. To bad. A secular one state solution wpuld solve so many problems that will only be solved with cooperation all around. Water distribution, food, jobs, economy etc that will take Palestinians and Israelis working for the betterment of all. Eventually even in a 2 state solution they're gonna need each other.
Who says otherwise? Of course, I don't know of many Israeli suicide bombers.
You don't have to use suicide bombers when other nations give you billions of dollars to buy military equipment which does the same job, without having to sacrifice your own life.
Cycloptichorn
Suicide bombing is a tactic of the powerless. Israelis are not powerless.
Do you guys defend suicide bombers? Their victims are typically women, children, and the elderly.
You're trying to change the subject again.
