Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (28760)	5/7/2002 6:05:10 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

Who is stopping short of questioning Israel's Jewish identity? The purpose of elevating 'right of return' to the number one demand, above even statehood, is precisely to negate Israel's continued Jewish identity Of course. But not everyone gets this. C2@it'sthebirthrate_lotsofbabies.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (28760)	5/7/2002 6:10:10 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Agha and Malley are inhabiting a diplomat's fantasy land. I thought they did a great job of explaining how to get the Palestinians to buy into this arrangement: A solution that satisfied the political demands only of the nonrefugees in the West Bank and Gaza while appearing to ignore the moral, historical, and political demands of the refugees, would be inherently unstable. It would have questionable legitimacy, would undermine the new Palestinian state, and -- most alarming from an Israeli perspective -- would leave open the prospect that a sizeable number of Palestinians would decide to carry on the struggle. Although denying outright the Palestinians' right of return might seem a way to end Israelis' immediate anxiety, it would not end the conflict; it would only transfer the seat of unrest to the Palestinian diaspora without eliminating the threat to Israel's security. The challenge is to find a stable and durable solution that accommodates both the refugees' yearning to return to the areas they left in 1948 and Israel's demographic fears. This can be accomplished by relying on two basic principles. First, refugees should be given the choice to return to the general area where they lived before 1948 (along with the choice to live in Palestine, resettle in some third country, or be absorbed by their current country of refuge if the host country agrees). Second, any such return should be consistent with the exercise of Israel's sovereign powers over entry and resettlement locations. Many of the refugees presumably want to go back to their original homes. But these homes, and indeed, in many cases, the entire villages where they were located, either no longer exist or are now inhabited by Jews. The next best option from the refugees' own perspective would be to live among people who share their habits, language, religion, and culture -- that is, among the current Arab citizens of Israel. Israel would settle the refugees in its Arab-populated territory along the 1967 boundaries. Those areas would then be included in the land swap with Palestine and thereby end up as part of the new Palestinian state. The land swap has not only these effects but also includes most settlements into Israel's boundaries and, in addition, thickens the wasp-waist of the center portion of the state. What's not to like? --fl