Dear History members: In February, 2010, History boards will begin the process of upgrading our community message board software. We are moving to a new community software, KickApps, that will provide greater functionality and ease of use. This transition will take place during the last part of February; the last day that the current boards will be available to you will be Feb. 28, 2010. We realize that many of you have posted great content over the years and might want to save your posts. Please take this time to go back through the boards and save what you want to keep on your own computer. These boards will no longer be accessible after February 28, 2010. If you would like to ask a question about the new boards, click here: http://boards.history.com/forum/Message-Boards-User/108 There will be more details to come as we roll out the new community software. Thank you for your continued patronage. We'll see you on the new, improved boards! Rebecca Cooper AETN Community Manager
|
Posts:
28,703
From:
Flagstaff
Registered:
7/12/01
|
|
(82 of 119)
Nov 18, 2002 9:41 PM
|
Israel still had control, still controled the land, still controled the Palestinians.
Would Israel be satisfied with that if the rolls were reversed? I think not. People want their own country. Israel wanted their own country. To rule themselves. Do you think the Palestinians want any less than what Israel wanted?
Don't think Israelis are being killed with just the weapons Israel gave the Palestinians. I am sure they are sneeking plenty of weapons in, in spite of all the settlements Israel has to watch out for them. Israel caught one big shipment Iran sent. But I am sure plenty more have gotten through they didn't catch.
Israel is not afraid they will be chased off their land by the Arabs. I think they are afraid that it would work if they allowed a Palestinian state and they would have to give up the land in the West Bank and have nowhere to expand.
Gena, you know by now I am not anti Israel.I am not pro or anti Palestinian. I just think there is a right and a wrong and I think what Israel is doing is wrong in not allowing a Palestinian state and putting all those settlements on land ment for a Palestinian state. I think land means more than having peace with the Palestinians.Sharon has all but said that.
Let it be said, let it be written.
|
|
|
Posts:
633
Registered:
10/16/99
|
|
(83 of 119)
I didn't address them, because I got to the heart of the matter -- your points are interesting, but irrelevant given the larger point I made which is undisputed even by the Palestinians.
Nov 19, 2002 5:18 AM
|
However, since you insist, my comments are in brackets:
For some PALS to say they want "all of Israel" is about the same as you or I saying we "want" control of the Pentagon. [It's not just SOME -- it's MOST -- as I mentioned in my previous post. It's not the same as saying we "want" control of the Pentagon. It would be the same if we said we "want" control of the Pentagon, and we're going to go around washington, d.c. blowing up women and children until we get what we want].
Israel has by far the most dominant military in the ME (and among the top 5 in the world) with over 200 nuclear weapons and just in case that doesn't work they have the unconditional backing of the #1 military power on the planet. (you can probably guess who that would be) [You overestimate the number of nukes that Israel has -- you probably get that from an Arab source which describes what "the Jew" is up to. If Israel did not have a strong military, then it would likely be destroyed. Arab countries have launched four wars against Israel since its inception.]
Now what in the hell diference does it really make what some of the radical PALS might mouth off about forcing Israel into the sea or some such other nonsense? [NOTE: it's not SOME of the "more radical" -- it's in the Fateh constitution, which is the dominant party in Palestinian politics -- it's part of the Hamas written goals, too, and they claim to represent half of all Palestinians' views -- it's not some, and it's not nonsense. It's the avowed goal of the Palestinians -- unless of course you ignore what the Palestinians themselves say, and insert your own opinion in place --- I, for one, will take them at their word]. Israel should treat such statements as the USA does the ranting of the KKK or the nut cases in the Oregon and NC para-military camps [NOTE: The USA sends the FBI, DEA and ATF in to infiltrate those organizations and arrest their members, and their leaders are brought up on Racketeering charges -- they are arrested, jailed and civilly sued for the crimes their organizations commit -- If you're saying the same should be done to the leaders of Fateh and Hamas and Islamic Jihad, then I agree with you wholeheartedly!] and go about the real business of making the land and freedom concessions to the PALS that are necessary to reverse the flow of terrorism toward Israel. [NOTE: I'd agree with you if there was anything that could be offered to placate the Palestinians. I have yet to hear the Palestinians say "give us the West Bank and Gaza, and everything is settled." If they said that, I'm with you. They don't say that, because of my first point: that's not all they want, and presently they are not yet ready to settle for less then everything. But, I agree, if the Palestinians would settle for the West Bank and Gaza, I'd be 100% in favor of offering it to them immediately. But, they rejected that in 1993.]
Those 3,500,000 refugees and the 1,200,000 legal Arab citizens of Israel are not going away any more than Israel is going away [NOTE: the legal Arab Israelis live just fine in Israel -- there are even Arab members of the Knesset -- try to be a Jew in the Palestinian territories or in an Arab state, and see if that would be allowed.... I realize that the Palestinians in the West Bank are not going away -- and I support their desire to form a State of their own, just not on top of present day Israel. And, as long as they commit monstrous acts like we've seen the last few years, I don't much care what their plight is (and, I'd feel the same way about any other people committing similar acts).] So if Israel really wants a true and lasting peace they need to get rid of leaders such as Sharon and his ilk (who are almost as bad as idiot Arafat) and head in the direction of some sort of political solution with the PALS. [NOTE: what is the Political solution you suggest? What was wrong with the one they had under Sharon's predecessor? The solution is very simple: Arafat says "All will be settled if we get a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza." That being said, the world would line up in support of that in a New York minute. Israel would have to give it to them. Then all that would be left is the details. No more suicide bombings, and the Palestinians would have a state within a couple of years -- 5 tops. They should take a lessen from the Israelis, who knew in 1947 to take a bird in the hand rather than two in the Bush. First, get SOME kind of state, and then see what develops after that. If the Palestinians can't see that, then they really would rather cut off their nose to spite their face. They'd rather die demanding everything, then live and receive something.]
Is it possible? Probably not. Even if it is, will it ever be a calm or perfect peace? Probably not. But one thing for sure--it's the only hope that sick and tragic "Holy Land" has for even a semblance of peace. IMHO. [NOTE: Your solution was "get rid of Sharon" and "negotiate some sort of political solution." That is what you are calling "it" -- is "it" possible. You have some pronoun trouble there, though. Since, your "it" is rather undefined. Sharon is going to be gone soon. No Israeli leader lasts for very long, and there will be a new guy to deal with. So, that part of your plan will come. The second part, the "political solution" of your plan remains undefined. What political solution do you suggest? You haven't said what you mean. Simply saying, "stop war and find a political solution," is not an answer. What, pray tell, will get the Palestinians to stop their monstrous acts? What is the political solution?]
|
|
|
Posts:
7,055
Registered:
8/16/00
|
|
(84 of 119)
Nov 19, 2002 5:20 AM
|
I know your position and I think you are wrong.
First of all Palestinians have their own country: Jordan.
Second - if they want another one they had a chance.
Indeed Israel had control over big tracks of territory when negotiations were going on (not over people - more than 90% of Palestinian Arabs were living under control of PA).
Let me remaind you (in case you forgot) what Israel had offered: Palestinian state on 95% of the West Bank and on 100% of Gaza (some of Israeli territory as a compensation for those 5% of the West Bank), administrative control over East Jerusalem and full material compensation for the lost property for Palestinian refugees in exchange for Palestinians to recognize right of Israel to exist and stop violence. That was very generous offer and it was still negotiable. (In other words Pals could get even more if they would be willing to negotiate Israeli offer instead of starting "second intifada"). I think it is even more that you (YOU) want Israel to offer. Correct? So, what do you want? To offer the same thing again? I don't know if Sharon's government is willing to give that generous offer but even he says: we will start negotiations immediately as soon as Palestinian Authority will start crack terrorist organization operating under their nose and often under their orders (Al-Aksa brigades belong to Arafat).
I can assure you that as soon as Israeli public will see Pals willingness to negotiate peace they will choose government that will do exactly that. Right now nobody in Israel expects that. Even the biggest "doves" in Labor party (like Mitzna) say that while they are still open (STILL OPEN) to the negotiations with Arafat, most likely scenario is unilaterily set up border and forget about Pals.
I don't think - it will be wise decision. I don't think it is a good idea - to let them do whateever they want, like start to buy Scuds from N.Korea and chemical weapons from Saddam without any acountability. Eventually everybody will suffer from such irrresponsible move, and not only in the Middle east.
|
|
|
Posts:
28,703
From:
Flagstaff
Registered:
7/12/01
|
|
(85 of 119)
Nov 19, 2002 6:30 AM
|
Camp David offer was very good. If I remember right, the hang up was because of of the right of return which I also agree that Israel could not do. Although compensation could have been given.
But I also remember reading after the official talks broke off, Israel and the Palestinians were still negotiating behind the scene until Sharon came to power and he broke it off almost immediately.
I believe I remember Arafat saying over a year ago that he would be willing to except that offer now without the right of return and never got an answer from Sharon.
I think in the Camp David talks, they did limit the arms that the Palestinians could bring in and did allow some settlements to remain for over a period of years. I think mostly to make sure the peace would hold and give Israel added security.
I really think Sharon is the holdup of any peace between Israel and the Arabs. As I said before, Arafat is willing to take the Camp David offer without the right of return. Most of the Arab states have said that they would recognize Israel's right to exist of Israel allows a Palestinian state and returns to pre 1967 borders. The holdup is Sharon that won't agree with any of it.
Let it be said, let it be written.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,055
Registered:
8/16/00
|
|
(86 of 119)
Nov 19, 2002 9:38 AM
|
. "As I said before, Arafat is willing to take the Camp David offer without the right of return"
No, he does not. He not only said, he even signed the document that states that Palestinian Authority will never try to get any weapons which were not allowed by Oslo agreement. And then Israel intecepted the ship filled up with such weapons. Israel even found documents with the signature of arafat's deputy ordering the shipment. Arafat, when he found out (he did not know that before, a?) not only did not panish perpetrator but tried to protect him. Arafat promissed many things but did none of them He said he will remove part of PLO programme that calles for the descruction of Israel but he did not. He said that he will make general elections in 4 years (he said that in 1994) but he did not.(Name me one). So, why do you believe that this time he is saying a truth? Why? Tell me the reason. Because you want to believe?
Even bigger question - why do you think Israelis should believe him?
He is the one of the biggest croocks in the world today (Even most of the Arabs agree with that). Soprano (what his first name?) is a kid in comparison to Arafat. I don't understand how somebody can believe him.
Sharon is democratically elected leader, you like him or not (important part is that majority of Israelis like him). Do you think that most of Israelis (over 60% at last polls) do not understand what they are doing? I don't know if he will be elected next time but at least at present he represents free will of the majority of Israelis.
As to the history of Camp David - here it is. Second intifada started in September of 2000, after Sharon visited Temple Mount. Final negotiations started in December of 2000 and continued to the last days of January of 2001, just a couple days prior to elections on which Sharon was elected. Barak was begging Arafat: please do something to stop violence against Israel that I could sell to Israeli public this offer to you. Arafat did nothing. Two Israeli reservists were lynched in a broad day light in Police station in Nablus. Not perpetrators, not policemen who allowed this crime to happen were arrested or prosecuted. Suicide bomber blew himself up in Central Israel killing score of civilians. Snipers in the sector of Jerusalem, which Barak gave to Arafat few months before that as a good gesture, were shooting at people at Jewish neighborhoods. (You had similar snipers in Maryland recently. What you would say, if this Malvo and Muhamad would do what they did under protection of, let say, international law? Would you allow to continue shooting or will you brake international law in order to arrest them?). Violence continued all the time final negotiations were going on. They actually increased by the end.
Sharon is main obsticle to peace? Common. Although, well, obviously - that is all fault of Israelis who choose wrong president. That always was and always will be the main reason for any evil on earth.
|
|
|
Posts:
157
Registered:
4/12/02
|
|
(87 of 119)
Nov 19, 2002 12:00 PM
|
I doubt that Isreal can ignore these threats "like the US ignores the rantings of the KKK", because the people who are mostly making this all or nothing statement are the ones blowing up themselves and their children in order to kill Isrealis. If the KKK were blowing up people on a weekly basis, would the government ignore them when they made threats? And, the US still keeps tags on the KKK,even if most of its threats do not bear fruit. However, suicide bombers threats are realized, often. They cannot be ignored because their threats are not just all talk.
|
|
|
Posts:
273
Registered:
11/1/02
|
|
(88 of 119)
Nov 19, 2002 2:06 PM
|
...you to my post titled "Horrible Debate."
You either are unwilling or incapable of even understanding the points I am making. As such, you really aren't debating anything. You're just standing on a soap box repeating yourself.
Answering a question about the positive and negative consequences of a policy change by saying, "What happened in the past didn't work" is not really debate. Why didn't it work? Why will YOUR plan work? What are the indicators that your idea will succeed where others have failed? How is the current Israeli policy not achieving Israeli goals? How is the current American policy not achieving American goals for that region?
If you can answer those questions without getting on a moral soapbox, then we can have a discussion.
|
|
|
Posts:
148
Registered:
9/29/01
|
|
(89 of 119)
Nov 19, 2002 8:24 PM
|
Let me say this: the post 1948 situation is over a s asolution. If I was around back in the early Balfour days, I probably would have required a different structure so that both people's knew they wuld have to live together in the same state.
But that is ancient history now and we can't go back that far becasue it would mean the end of Israel. Heck, the USA stole the land form the NAtive Americans. Do I want them to get their land back? -- its too late now.
I think we can deal with the land issue with money. If we offer say 200,000 dollars to each of the refugees, and let them go to the West Bank to live and set up a new life, I think most would take it. It would cost us (America would have to pay) tens of billions of dollars, but in the long run it would be cheaper than war and continued miltary spending to take ths issue off the table.
Would all Palestinians accept it. No, there will always be some who won't. But we can margnalize them, they will be left behind as the Palestinians build universitites, become Doctors and engineers instead of uneducated, and have a real life.
The Rab leagu already agreed to accept the 1967 borders. Withthe Arabs agreeing to that, it is already a fait accompli. Even the PA have indicated they recognize Israel's right to exist. It is already recognized.
So i thin they will accept it okay, most if not all. But beyond that is practicalities. Taking the West Bank makes you responsible fo the land and its people. You will suddenly be a minoroty of Jews controlling a majority of Arabs, and they get more numerous every day. Ypu can only deal withthat as a police state or becoem an Arab state.Why do that? And don't forgetthat the International Community never will accept the taking of the West Bank. OR The Golan Heights.
IT is a problem to be solved and we need to think about it with great hardness: what will bring peace. WHatever that is we must do it. Inthis case, it means enabling a Palestinian democracy and working wit them to getrid of the hate. That may seem like a fairy tale; actually it is the most sensible approach to take.
|
|
|
Posts:
807
Registered:
8/6/01
|
|
(90 of 119)
Nov 19, 2002 8:54 PM
|
(this will be much more concise) since we beat this dead horse to death.
I totally agree that some of the PALS and Arafat are evil. I would never defend or condone some of their actions. But Israel must bear equal and maybe even more of the blame. They are the interlopers in this deal along with being the 800 pound gorilla of the area. And incidentally, that 200+ nuclear weapon figure for Israel is not some Arab jibberish-it's an American government intelligence estimate. Thus, Israel must take the lead in any proposed solution.
Your proposition that the PA government stop terrorist acts is like blaming Bush for the Anthrax attacks. Sharon's actions have seen to it that Arafat and the PA have virtually no power to stop the hundreds and perhaps thousands of radical PALS who have lived under Israeli occupation, humiliation and domination their entire lives. Only a change in the present system might someday show results. And that change must come from Israel.
Sorry that I did not make the "it" clear for you. I thought it was obvious that "it' meant a true and lasting peace in the ME. I am usually a bit better with most two letter words!
packer
|
|
|
Posts:
807
Registered:
8/6/01
|
|
(91 of 119)
marine, you sound like an echo
Nov 19, 2002 9:08 PM
|
of my beliefs. I too initially was an ardent supporter of Israel. Well, not so much a supporter of Israel as a critic of the Arabs.
But sometime during the late 60's or early 70's I began to question and look at what was going on. The more that I paid attention to the facts and events going on, the more my position changed.
I still think that the Arabs and especially the PALS do some of the most stupid and horrific acts imaginable but I also truly believe that Israel is at the root of most of the evil. They are the cause of much of the current problems and since they are the 800 pound gorilla of the area and have the backing of the most powerful nation on earth (guess who) Israel both logically and morally must take the lead in setting the groundwork for a solution.
And it must be political. The idiots who think a military solution is possible must be oblivious to the events of the past 55 years in that un-"Holy Land". One might think that the leaders of both Israel and the USA might look at the past 55 years of turmoil and say "gee, this doesn't seem to be working".
Instead, we give Israel more money and the latest and greatest weapons and wring our hands because the violence continues while criminals like Sharon create more "settlements". That is senseless.
packer
|
|
|
Posts:
807
Registered:
8/6/01
|
|
(92 of 119)
Nov 19, 2002 9:24 PM
|
because you evade the real issues and make no valid point or suggestions.
Simply ask yourself the same questions you posed. Are you actually so naive that you think that the Israeli and USA actions over the past 55 years have created a better climate for both the Israeli and American people? If so, you are a fool. Sharon's policy has put Jews at more risk than ever and anyone who thinks that 9/11 had nothing to do with USA policy and backing of Israel is in denial.
As for a plan, I most certainly can give you a groundwork for what should be attempted. Will it be complete, perfect or even workable? Probably not. But it will be one hell of a lot better than for the USA to keep sending tax dollars and the latest and greatest weapons to Israel and for Sharon and his ilk to keep promoting the evil "settlements".
My plan "might" not work. The present plan "will" not work. Or do you believe the past 55 years to be an aberration and a blip on the radar screen with good things about to happen in the very near future?
Tell you what--you list your plan and suggestions for concrete actions and I'll list mine. That should get us off that "moral soapbox" you mention.
packer
|
|
|
Posts:
807
Registered:
8/6/01
|
|
(93 of 119)
Nov 19, 2002 9:38 PM
|
Many inconsistancies in your post that I will address later since I'm heading for bed.
But your assumption that I place no blame on the stupid and horrific acts of the PALS is totally wrong.
Also, did you ever hear of Zionist acts such as the King David Hotel terrorist act?
And why did you spend so many words in your post but fail to answer my final and very simple question? Instead, you list your "Bottom line" paragraph which is off base at best and immoral logic at worst.
packer
|
|
|
Posts:
28,703
From:
Flagstaff
Registered:
7/12/01
|
|
(94 of 119)
Nov 20, 2002 6:59 AM
|
how you feel about Arafat. The man is scum. I can understand the reluctance to want to deal or trust him.
Up to a point I think Barak's offer was a good one and should have been excepted. I think because it didn't deal with the right of return or compensation, was the main reason it was refused.
I think Israel should try returning to pre 1967 borders except for a few settlements they will need to keep there for their security and allow the Palestinians a state because I see no other way of ending this senseless killing between the two sides outside of the total elimination of the Palestinian people from the West Bank. We both know the world would never allow that.
There could be U.N. troops, heavily armed at both the Israeli and Palestinian borders to make sure the Palestinians do not try and bring in heavy weapons later on. Israel would be as secure, if not more so than she is now.
I don't think you can deny people the same thing that you have and expect them to be satisfied. Israel is never going to be able to stop these suicide bombings and shotings as long as these people are determind to do it and there is no pressure from the Palestinian people to stop it. The people are not going to put on any pressure as long as they have nothing to look forward to but Israeli domination over them.
Israel has nothing to lose by trying it except land. The U.S. has stated that they will never let Israel be defeated.The U.N. can block any heavy weapons from coming into Palestine. The Palestinian people may put heavy pressure on these terrorist to stop once they have their own state and freedom.Do you have a better way of trying to put an end to the killing? A way that the world would except?
The Middle East is a hotbed now and this conflict has a lot to do with it. Muslims hate our guts for the total backing of Israel. Israel is hated for the way they treat the Palestinians. We have to do something to try and end it. I believe a Palestinian state and Israel returning to pre 1967 borders is a way to do it. I see no other way it could possibly work
Let it be said, let it be written.
|
|
|
Posts:
28,703
From:
Flagstaff
Registered:
7/12/01
|
|
(95 of 119)
Nov 20, 2002 7:16 AM
|
I have read many of your posts and I do think we see things pretty much the same.
But I do support Israel up to a point though and I can not support the Palestinian's way of killing innocent people or the way so many Muslims interpret the Koran.But I know in my heart what is right and what is wrong.I know what both sides are doing is wrong and I don't see any other way of trying to put this killing to an end but by giving the Palestinians a state of their own that is not full of Israeli settlements winding all over it with road blocks.That is no state at all. I'd like to hear someone that has a better idea of ending this that the world would except.
Let it be said, let it be written.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,055
Registered:
8/16/00
|
|
(96 of 119)
Nov 20, 2002 9:06 AM
|
I will tell you - why.
"Muslims hate our guts for the total backing of Israel. Israel is hated for the way they treat the Palestinians."
First of all - this is not correct.
It is 180 degree opposite. Muslim (Arabs) see Israel as an outpost of Western imperialism-colonialism, as an American servant. In the past they saw it as the servant of British colonialism and now as American, as, let say, American military base on the Middle East to put up by Americans to subdue Muslims to USA. USA. In their minds - that is the core of the problem. Not what you think. Opposite.
Why do they say - we hate Americans because they support Israel? The reason is that for them it is the same as to say: we hate Americans because they maintain military base in Saudi Arabia. Remove the base and we will stop to hate USA. Remove Israel and we will stop to hate USA. They are sure that there is no differnce betwen these two notions. Why do they think that way? It is a long story, I can not explain in 2 words. You may read some books, particularly of Bernard Lewis, professor of Prinston on the ME and considered to be the biggest expert in the West on Islam.
Second - UN.
Don't say - UN can control supply of weapons. Isn't example with Iraq didn't convince you. UN could not control supply to Iraq for 5 years and only now reluctently started and only under enormous pressure from USA, under the threat of war. Common. UN is a joke.
As to security of Israel I think I already mentioned. If Israel will return to pre-1967 borders there is a streatch in the middle, let say, of about 20 miles long which is less than 10 miles wide. If you are neighboring friendly country - that does not matter. What is 10 miles? In first 2 days of war in 1967 Israeli army moved 300 miles (for comparison). Definitely USA will come to help, I have no doubt. The question is - if it won't be too late?
Israel must rely on its own. That what every country should do. There is no reason to put Americans life in geopardy.
(I remember long time ago palestinian hajakers captured American marine. They demanded from Israel release from the prison members of the gang that murdered 30 persons in Lodd airport. When Israel refused they killed marine. After that Bob Doulle (sp?) American senator gave a speech which harshly critisized Israel and demanded from USA government to punish Israel by stopping aid. That is for murder of 1 marine (not by Israeli) What - if more? Friendly fire? How much controversy is going on around "Liberty"? Who needs it?)
Israel for economical problems can not maintain big army and relays on reservists. It relys on the ability to increase military force twice in the first couple hours of war and 10 times in the first 3 days. And in its part - it relyes on mobility and good communication: person who has his unit in the North of country can be on vacation in South, person whose tank waits for him in Southern desert could be visiting his relatives on the North. It has to be assumed worst situation. This is not theory - war of 1973 is prove that Arabs can choose the best for them moment to start the war. If they will be able to cut in the middle - they can celebrate the victory. Noone will help Israel than, not even USA. If some of Israeli prime-minister will decide to move to the pre-1967 borders in that particular place without any additional (and very much concrete) guaranties (obviously not promisses from Mr. Arafat) he will take enormous responsibilities. Comparable maybe to Kennedy during Cuba crises - believe me. (But Kennedy did not have much choice, Israeli prime-minister does).
There many other security reason associated with pre-1967 borders (like snipers shuting across the street) but it will take time to explain all of them
The bottom line is this (in my understanding): what you are asking is extremely risky for the life of people in Israel and benefits of it are extremely problematic.
|
|
|
|
|
