There is simply NO way to deal w/ the Palestinians. Offered 90% of all their demands at the peace tables, they declined.
And what a deal it was. Limited water rights and a stranglehold on travel between the contained portions of a highly controlled (geographically) “state.” Here’s an excellent presentation (by an Israeli peace organization) that indicates exactly what the “10 percent” meant:
http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html"Palestinians" (there has NEVER been a Country of Palestine)
Nor had there been a "Jewish" state or an Israel on the same soil since biblical times. In fact, when Zionism was reborn in Europe in the late 1800s, Argentina was seen as a potential home for the new state because, as agents reported back to Theodor Herzl "... the bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man (local Arabs)." But, the emotional appeal was too strong and the Arab problem was just something to worry about later. According to Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, that has been the problem all along. In a nutshell: “Worry about the Arabs later… learn to live with us under our terms or else…”
In 1920, about the time of the Balfour Declaration, 90 percent of the population in modern Israel were either Muslim or Christian Arabs. An active policy of emigration among European Jews following the Balfour Declaration, particularly with the Nazi pressures of the 1930s through the immediate post war refugee period, changed all that, in a very artificial manner and created similar problems to other artificially created nations such as Yugoslavia.
There will NEVER be peace until the "Palestinians" are crushed.
It's not pretty, but there will be no peace until one side is the victor… will NEVER be happy, short of killing every Jew on the continent. Get it into YOUR idiotic head, there is simply NO way to deal w/ these people other than killing them.
So, you support ethnic cleansing Steve? I guess Israel should just sarin the bunch of them. Given the fact they are have been concentrated in refugee camps since 1967 it shouldn’t be too hard. There are some Israeli’s who disagree though, and offer a fair proposal:
Gush Shalom's Political positions:
* The Green Line (the borders before the 1967 war) will be a border of peace between two free and sovereign states: Israel and Palestine.
* All Israeli settlers in the currently occupied territories will return to Israel.
* Jerusalem will be an open city, and will serve as capital to both states: East Jerusalem will be the capital of Palestine; West Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel.
Both parties can reach a just and agreed upon solution for the tragedy of Palestinian refugees, based on these guidelines:
* Israel will acknowledge its share of responsibility for this tragedy, and will accept, in principle, the right of return.
* The refugees will be offered several possible venues of rehabilitation and compensation.
* One of these venues will allow a limited number of refugees the right to return to the state of Israel, based on a formula that will maintain the Jewish majority in the state of Israel.
These positions do not offer absolute justice, but rather a formula that can be accepted by the majority of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.
Most Israelis (according to at least three, fairly neutral polls) would support a pullback from the occupied territories. Unfortunately, as fanatical as organizations like Hamas are (and not necessarily working towards the same goals as moderate Palestinians), there are Israeli factions that are equally fanatical in their focus on a greater Israel that includes the West Bank. Sharon strongly supports continued Zionism and settlements in the occupied territories, and it can be argued that maintaining the status quo or even heating things up promotes the cause and is worth the losses in the long run. The initial provocation of the current Infatada began with Sharon’s inflammatory visit to the contested holy site Al-Haram al-Sharif. You cannot ignore this aspect of Israeli politics. Here’s one Israeli’s view of how Sharon uses terrorism to achieve his ultimate goals for the region:
Palestinian terrorism thus serves Israel's interests on both an international and a national level. Internationally, Israel's propaganda machine efficiently exploits every terror attack to strengthen Israel's image as a victim, and to obscure and justify the proceeding oppression of the Palestinians. Moreover, the Israeli use of terrorism has now been adopted by the American administration, that keeps sending Israel money – $200 million last week – for "fighting terrorism" (note that Israel may spend it as it wishes!); and, as the Washington Post put it (28.7.02), "the United States should not pressure Sharon's government while Palestinian violence continues."
… Keeping the Israeli people constantly exposed to fatal violence (and to "terror alerts", true or false) is the best way to ensure national coherence. Understandably terrified, most Israelis indeed back the most futile, absurd and fatuous – not to say immoral – operations of their government, misled to believe that its goal is securing their lives rather than perpetuating a murderous occupation that most Israelis do not want.
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h073102.htmlI believe there are alternatives short of exterminating Arabs already living in refugee camps. Unfortunately, both sides have to make concessions (right of return/west bank settlements) that neither (hard core elements, at least) seem interested in at the present time. In the meantime, I don’t think we, as a country, should support Sharon any more than we should Arafat.
Charon
