Tim, where did you read that? My understanding is that many of the Arabs are indigenous........that their families go way back.
Many of them do go way back. But a lot, maybe a majority do not.
First of all, the equivalent would be if Mexico attacked us and we took Cuba in retaliation. Syria did not own the WB. Taking the Golan Hts make sense as a form of punishment against Syria but the WB?
Jordan also attacked. Back then it was called Trans-Jordan because it had land on both sides of the Jordan.
As for the Native Americans, we have paid significant reparations for taking their land. And I believe we paid Mexico for TX as well.
So if Israel gives the Palestinians a few billion everything will be ok? As for TX I don't think we paid a dime. We bought the Gadsden purchase which was a small bit of the area that's now America that used to be Mexico but I don't think we paid for most of what we took.
Sooooooo.......wouldn't you think it reasonable that the Palestinians get some kind of reparation for the land, businesses and property taken from them during the 1948 war? I know the US would not be allowed to get away with such an inequity.....why should Israel?
I'm reluctant to go along with the idea of reperations many decades later. I think it can open up a can of worms. But I think the can would be smaller then what Israel has to deal with now so if I thought it would work I would support the idea.
Originally, back in the twenties and thirties, the WB was part of the land that was promised to the Palestinians
You said Israel misrepresented the situation because all of the WB was supposed to go back. Israel didn't exist in the 20s and 30s.
I disagree.........by your definition, any revolutionary including the American colonists is a terrorist
No terrorists target and intentionally kill civilans to inflict terror as a matter of policy or plan. I don't think all the American colonists where pure and good but they didn't as a group plan and carry out attacks which where intedned to kill civilians.
The evil stems from his motivation which is that we do not deserve to live because of our negative attributes. By making that judgement, he and his colleagues have set themselves above the rest of us.......and the evil flows from their arrogance. I think he is a very different animal from Arafat and most Palestinians.
The evil is intentional killing of civilians. Specifically and delibertly targeting them for death. I would not call arrogance evil. Murder is evil. Arrogance can lead to evil but I wouldn't say we should attack someone just because they are arrogant.
In any argument, there are two sides. For a long time, the US seem to only listen to the Israeli side. However, now, I think its in our best interest to listen to both sides.........and I mean really listen. I don't believe the Palestinian story has been well presented in this country.....and it needs to be.
I can agree with that, even if it doesn't mean I will agree with most of hte Palestinian side, but your point doesn't deal with the simple fact I raised. If no one among the Palestinians can stop the violence then Israel has no one to negotiate with. I don't have a high opinion of Sharon but at least he can end the violence from the Israeli side. If some agreement is reached for cease fire or peace then he can make the Israelis stop shooting. Sadat did the same thing in Egypt when Israel signed a peace treaty. You have to negotiate with someone who actually has the power to deliver what he promises.
Tim |
