does it not sound to you like a parent dealing with a child? It does to me. The Palestinians were the indigenous peoples when the Zionists came to Palestine. And now, you don't even want to give them table scraps without a certain set of rules and conditions. If I were a Palestinian, I'd tell you to go fukk yourself.
Many of the Palestinians are no more inigenous then the Jews. Alot of their ancestors where moving in to the area at the same time that the Jewish ancestors where moving in.
And then the Jews left.
As for a parent dealing with a child and offering table scraps - Most nations, throughout history, if they found themselves in Israel's poistion would knock the Palestinians around violently until they gave up, or at least simmered down.
Yes, that's true.....if it were mid 18th century America, they probably would take their scalps.
This has worked a lot in the past and it still can now but it requires you to be really callus about inflicting death and destruction and that can bring outside pressure or even intervention. Israel is more subject to outside pressure then many of the other countries in the area, and in any case I don't see the Israeli people supporting the killing of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
So what you are saying is that the spoils belong to the strongest even if the weakest happened to be there first. That means if we formed an army here in WA state.....we could march into OR and have whatever we could get by knocking heads. Right?
Israel is the stronger side. Usually when there is this much disparity in strength what is offered is not "table scraps" but nothing. But Israel offered close to as much as they can without greatly impacting on their security, ( they could give more in terms of water rights and control of the border and a few other issues but in terms of land they offered just about as much as they reasonably can).
That's the plan and you're falling right into it. They sent 300k settlers into the WB just so they could make such an argument. Well, once again, if I were the Palestinians, I would be p*ssed and would 'flip em' the bird.
The "rules and conditions" Israel has tried to impose are things like a cease fire before serious negotiations and a comitment to supress terrorism. Without those things there isn't much point in negotiations. Or they are details to be worked out in negotiations, like water rights or the exact border line. Or they are things that Israel can not be reasonably expected to offer such as a "right of return".
Where do they have much flexibility to give a lot more?
Palestine is supposed to be a separate and independent state from Israel. The Israelis don't really want that......they want more control that that.......and its bs. I may be nervous about Canada but I don't have the right to enter Canada with my army whenever I want nor should Israel have that right but they want it. Again, its bs.
The Israelis don't want suicide bombers but they don't want an independent Palestinian state near them either. Well, you can try to have your cake and eat it too but don't be surprised if it doesn't work out.
There are 29 Israeli settlements around E. Jerusalem, there are 42 in the Golan Hts., 25 in Gaza and 231 in the WB. As for number of Israelis in the settlements, there are 173k in East Jerusalem, 20k in the Golan Hts., 6.9k in Gaza and 176k in the WB.
The Israelis don't even consider those living in East Jerusalem to be settlers as they have annexed that land. The Golan is really an area of contention between Israel and Syria not a Palestinian area. Most of Gaza would be cleared out, its not strategically as important as some areas of the West Bank are and it is densly populated with Palestinians. Most of the West Bank settlers are either near Jerusalem or at the point where Israel is very narrow. The 3-5% of the occupied territories that Israel would like to keep contains most of the settlers. The rest would presumably have to move, or possibly take their chances with a Palestinian government being in control...
Apparently, the Palestinians are not real okay with the above. That may surprise you but it doesn't surprise me.
That's because the Arabs were already there.........they had been there for hundreds of continuous years. The Jews left two thousand years ago in the Great Diaspora. There were few Jews living there until the late 19th/early 20th centuries.
There where not a lot of Arabs living there before the late 19th century either (but yes there where a good deal more of them then Jews at that point) The arabs where moving in to the area as well. A lot of them at the same time. So te restriction on Jewish immgration was a tilt in favor of or to appease the Arabs.
There were a lot of Arabs........hundreds of thousands of them living in Palestine in the mid 18th century. The exact count is unclear because of poor census keeping data. The increase in the Arab population came mainly through births over deaths rather than in migration.
the Israelis got...the most developed urban infrastructure
The have the most developed infrastructure because they developed this infrastructure.
BS. The Israelis may have improved upon the infrastructure but originally Haifa and Jaffa were Arab ports.
The rest of the points you make are sensible, except one mistake you made, which if corrected supports your case better then the mistake. You said Israel has less arable land? Do you mean less arid land? Maybe more arable land?
I had thought Israel had more arable land but when I checked the percentage breakdowns provided by the CIA, they indicated that the WB had more arable land. the reason for that could be that in the north of Israel, there are forests.
And I contend not being fair is a major reason for the terrorism.
If the terrorism is really out of control then you can't negotiate because you can't gain anything from the negotiations. If it is just a controled tactic to try to lever more concessions then giving in to it only gets you more concessions. Lots of other people face unfair situations many a lot worse then what the Palestinians have faced. In fact per-intifada the Palestinians had it better in occupied territory then they had it in a lot of Arab countries.
Throughout human history, when the aspirations and freedoms of a society are denied, that society usually will revolt. The longer it is kept in check, the more frustration that builds and the more violent the revolt. And that's what we have here. We can wring our hands and trash the suicide bombers all we want but the bottom line is there are a group of people who, for a number reasons, have not been able to realize their goals for nearly a century.
Do you really think Arafat has control over Hamas? I don't.
That what does Israel get by talking to Arafat?
Not control over the Hamas, that's for sure. The leader of the Hamas is a 64 year old man named Sheik Ammin, I think. He has been crippled with polio since he was a kid. I saw him on tv. He says when the occupied territories are no longer occupied and Palestine is a free state, then and only then will the suicide bombers stop. When asked if Arafat told him to stop the suicide bombings, would he comply. His response [and I am paraphrasing]......"let Mr. Arafat get Israel out of the WB and Gaza and then I will comply; until then no". And be assured he said Mr. Arafat. It was chilling.
ted
Enter symbols or keywords for search:
QuotesStock TalkChartsNewsPeople Symbol Lookup
Subject Titles Only Full Text Go to Top
Terms of Use
Got a comment, question or suggestion? Contact Silicon Investor. |
