Mid east

[Bernadotte 0]

Where do I see hope?

Demographics.  The birth-rate continues to be much higher among Palestinian Arabs than among Israeli Jews and the rate of Jews moving out of Israel is also much higher than Jewish immigration.  I guess the Palestinians discovered that the best way to make war is to make love because the bottom line is this:  For the first time ever, at some point in 2002, the population of Israel plus the Territories will cease to be majority Jewish.  When this finally happens, Israel's extreme right (what got Sharon into power) will no longer be able to swoon over annexing those territories without mass deportations.

(Hmm... Mass deportations...  Where have we heard that term before?  Better call it population transfer instead. )

I pray that this inevitable turn of demographics will neutralise the Greater Israel ambitions of the rabid right and its settler following.  Maybe then, Ben-Eliezer (with Dalia Rabin) will have a chance against Israel's favourite embezzler demagogue, Netanyahu, in the next elections.

Where else do I see hope?

In the growing number of Jewish organisations that will no longer put up with one of the world's greatest religions being hijacked on their supposed behalf by a powerful group of fanatics.

Tikun Magazine

Not in My Name Coalition

Jewish Voice for Peace

Gush Shalom

Jews Against Occupation

Jewish Peace Fellowship

Truth, Justice, and Human Rights in the Middle East

Jews NOT Zionists

Yesh Gvul - supporting IDF reservists refusing to serve in the Occupied Territories

Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions

B'Tselem (Israeli Human Rights Group)

Bat Shalom, Israeli Women for Peace

Occupied Territory

Rabbis for Human Rights

Oz v'Shalom – Netivot Shalom (religious Zionist anti-Occupation)

Jewish Alliance Against the Occupation

Association for Civil Rights in Israel

Prominent Jews writing articles in Haaretz

Alliance of Middle East Scientists and Physicians

Visions for peace with justice in Israel/Palestine

Middle East Crisis Committee

Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel

..to name just a few.  

But, where do I see the greatest hope?

Right here.  An off topic thread on the Middle East reaching 138 pages in a video game forum just proves how much people care and want to see the conflict end.  I'm deeply grateful to every member who has kept this thread alive for over 3 months, no matter what your opinion may be.  And thank you for taking the time to read mine.

-- Bernadotte

"The Israeli government could solve the Palestine/Israel crisis tomorrow. It actually would be in the best interests of its citizens to do so because random acts of terrorism against Israelis would cease if Palestinian demands for a viable, independent state were accepted and compensation for Arab losses made. The position of the Jewish community in America would also be enhanced, not threatened, if the above program were adopted. We have been thoroughly assimilated into the mainstream of society and hold positions of power and influence in every field of endeavor. We do not need to be in a defensive mode anymore- we can afford to change. At the very least, the American Jewish community needs to let the Israeli government know that we will not support them (literally or figuratively) if they continue to jeopardize the chance for a just peace by further encroachments on Arab territory. And that all human rights abuses must cease at once."  -- Rabbi Michael Lerner of Jews for Justice in the Middle East

(Edit: removed Neturei Karta from list)

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

At least there is a debate in Israel over what to do ,a wide range of views/ groups etc

Whereas in the great majority of America,(though i dont want this to turn into an anti US thread) there is a near monopoly of (anti Islamic)

Christian fundamentalists and Jewish Zionists who have allied and have half the senators and house of representatives (both parties) on their payroll to repress such a debate/exert great pressure on those who think differently. I find that a little ironic. America supports Israel more than Israel does. well sort of.

Debate by all accounts(that i have read/heard) seems to be highly muted,

and that the American fundamentalists lobbying could help repress any chances of peace and thus bring destruction on less radical Israelis ( actually in Israel! ) seems like some kind of cruel joke,

like an incident in a report about this issue that i read of yesterday

 in The Independant

(no doubt to those fundamentalists,a socialist rag)

Some prominent Jewish peace campaigners were shouted at by Christian fundamentalists whilst going to some meeting or convention,

they called them terrorist lovers, haters of Israel,Jew haters

etc

So here we have a bunch of American Christians shouting at a bunch of Jews for not being Jewish enough (as theyde see it)

Its crazy i tell ya

'Israel is right. Palestinians are wrong (except they dont exist, theyre just arabs really),

you cannot talk about causes of violence (or non violent solutions) because that amounts to terrorist supporting and justification.

The bible tells us that the Jewish are the rightful inhabitants and must populate Israel for the second coming of christ ,so lets support them (though lets not mention that they must convert to Christianity once theyve finished (re)colonising)

I love Israel...have i ever been there? No.... have i ever met an Israeli? No... but i love Israel, its where our Lord Jesus came from, he was Jewish too you know...

That Arafat ,hes a bad man- Ariel Sharon said so. We like Ariel Sharon, he could almost be Christian....'

etc

Theres lots and lots of stuff from/about america that i love

, but fundamentalism isnt one of them and

this issue and the fundamentalists power is something that really does diminish the US state/+ much news media in my eyes (if not the people who the politicians represent)

(not only the US though ,you know who you are (>Rupert Murdoch<)

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0300/0003016.html

heres a site i quickly found related to the strange phenomena of American fundamentalists who support Israel but dont necessarily like Jews of themselves(havent checked the site for bias)

[bn880 5]

Picture's worth a thousand words...

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ July 13 2002,18:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[...] in the great majority of America,(though i dont want this to turn into an anti US thread) there is a near monopoly of (anti Islamic) Christian fundamentalists and Jewish Zionists who have allied and have half the senators and house of representatives (both parties) on their payroll to repress such a debate/exert great pressure on those who think differently.<span id='postcolor'>

For all those who care about the USA as much as I do.

[scout 0]

bernadotte:

quoting Netorei Karta, is  a minus not a plus. they are keen on the destruction of Israel no less the the Hamas or any other group for that matter.

and being a Zionist isnt a curse.

i pride myself to be one, and i dont see anyting wrong with that. Zionism is the ambition to be and live in Israel. the understanding that there is no way for a security for us as a people other then here.

the problem is that you decided that it is colonialism as a result of 1967, without any deep thinking into it.

and on that instant nothing else matters.

you said that the Oslo accords sign you that Israeli ppl wants peace.

yes we do. but the election of a right wing govt. needs to raise a BIG RED KLAXON bells and say:

Israeli ppl dont think it can be done no more!

most israeli ppl think there is no way we can negotiate with any representative of the PA.

everyday we uncover more and more evidence of a grand plan of the PA officials, to bring down and destroy Israel.

there are two options:

1. to retreat without any agreement. what will happen then?

probably we will have re-run of lebanon civil war.

as a result of this Israel will have to move in again in order to protect its civilians. there can be no re-run of the '50 and '60 when leaving your home after dark was a suicide.

2. to negotiate. but with whom? the PLO? the Hamas? with whom? who would agree to let us live in peace?

you blame us for all the mess but you cant offer any viable option.

you say we are in position of power. what is it? is it that only the US saves us? is it because we are hostages of the fact that the only way our civilians arent murdered (since '48!

is when we attack? when we show force? when we have to show that the price isnt worth it?

we are in a weak position. when we die you say that its our fault. when we respond you say we strengthen the extremists.

has been that way since '48, the six day war just gave another anchor to hold on.

you demand us to gamble upon our existance and our life and future from a safe distance, from the safety of your homes you never did have to defend.

you say that there cant be anything worse. i tell you there can be. much worse.

we cant gamble. Israel cant afford to lose in any war or any diplomatical gamble.

I for myself, cant see any solution. any way of an agreement.

i dont see any organization that wants a true peace, any kind of co-existance.

I am what is called a "Smolani" a leftist. i voted for "Meretz"

and i nor my buddies can see any kind of acceptance in the other side. any partner.

I cant criticize the  govt. because i cant offer any other way.

Slogans are nice, Ideals are nice. they araent the reality. all these organizations have goals. but the way to achieve it? non. no answers to very tough questions, to dillemas that are un-answered at  best. they have no way. and they are blind to it.

they rely on the kind heart of the leaders of the pals. the humanity. what an irony.

i cannot accept it. i want my people to live in peace.

i cannot risk their life or existance for a gamble.

nor would you if you'd have to.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bernadotte:

quoting Netorei Karta, is  a minus not a plus. they are keen on the destruction of Israel no less the the Hamas or any other group for that matter.<span id='postcolor'>

Where can I read more about Netorei Karta's plans to destroy Israel?  I thought their objections were strictly ideological/theological.  Nonetheless, you are right about them not fitting in very well with the 22 other organisations mentioned, so I'm removing them... thanks.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> ...and being a Zionist isnt a curse.  i pride myself to be one, and i dont see anyting wrong with that. Zionism is the ambition to be and live in Israel.<span id='postcolor'>

Originally, Zionism was to establish a Jewish homeland anywhere - it didn't have to be in Palestine (then under Turkish Ottoman rule).  I read somewhere that even Stalin 'kindly' offered some marshy part of Eastern Siberia.

Only with Britain's Balfour declaration did attention seriously focus on Palestine.  From then on, the plan worked like this:  The WWI Allies promised statehood to the various nations of peoples in the Middle East who had been under Ottoman rule for hundreds of years, IF they helped the Allies overthrow the Turks.  Under Zionist pressure, that promise was never offered to the Palestinians.  Thus was born in 1922, British Mandate Palestine and from then on, most Zionists ceased to look elsewhere for a homeland.  The fact that this was already a homeland for over 700,000 people didn't disturb the British colonialist mentality of that time.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the understanding that there is no way for a security for us as a people other then here.<span id='postcolor'>

By the way, 7 out of every 8 Russian Jews coming to Israel in the late 80's moved on to other countries (usually USA) as soon as they could.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the problem is that you decided that it is colonialism as a result of 1967, without any deep thinking into it.  and on that instant nothing else matters.<span id='postcolor'>

The colonialists were the Brits from 1922 to 1948.  It is the British who held the door wide open for Jewish immigration without the permission of the native people.  Naturally, the locals got angry.  It might have worked a hundred years earlier like cowboys vs. indians, but in the 20th century it was a gross injustice that still refuses to go away.  Everything that has happened since then has been a reaction (often over-reaction) to that injustice.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

there are two options:

1. to retreat without any agreement. what will happen then?

probably we will have re-run of lebanon civil war.

as a result of this Israel will have to move in again in order to protect its civilians. there can be no re-run of the '50 and '60 when leaving your home after dark was a suicide.

2. to negotiate. but with whom? the PLO? the Hamas? with whom? who would agree to let us live in peace?

you blame us for all the mess...<span id='postcolor'>

I only blame those who want more than what they had before the 1967 6-day war and refuse to compensate Palestinian losses.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

...but you cant offer any viable option.<span id='postcolor'>

How about this idea:<ul>

[*]Jordan should occupy and administer the West Bank all the way to the Green Line ('67 border) which includes E. Jerusalem.  Egypt should do same with Gaza.  Israeli, Jordanian and Egyptian forces should guard the Green Line co-operatively and this border should remain tightly sealed.  The Jordanian and Egyptian borders with Palestine should be open.

[*]What's left of the Palestinian Authority should be suspended, but Arafat or whoever the Palestinian people elect should remain President (mostly symbolic).

[*]Settlers can keep their Israeli passports and instantly become citizens of Palestine too or leave.

[*]An international peacekeeping force should deploy across the territories as they've already done in Bosnia/Hercegovina and Kosovo.

[*]Exiled/dispossessed Palestinians can submit claims for compensation to be settled in accordance with international law, following WWII and the Balkans conflict precedents.  Any Palestinian with a legitimate claim to return to Israel would receive priority over all other non-Jewish immigrants seeking to settle in Israel.

[*]The US should commit at least $50BN to the reconstruction of Palestine, with a further $50BN coming from the international community.  (a bargain when you consider how much the price of oil will fall and how many skyscrapers won't  )

[*]Palestinian parliamentary elections would be held in 4 years with the election of a Prime Minister who may NOT also be President.  The new Palestinian government would then be allowed to replace the foreign admin as long as they've signed comprehensive peace treaties with Israel.  By this time, there would already be 4 years of full peace and recognition by all other Arab states in accordance with the recently proposed offer of Crown Prince Abdullah.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you demand us to gamble upon our existance and our life and future from a safe distance, from the safety of your homes you never did have to defend. [...]  i want my people to live in peace.  i cannot risk their life or existance for a gamble.  nor would you if you'd have to.<span id='postcolor'>

In 1967, Israel had half the army of its neighbours and still defeated them in 6 days.  Today your army is at least 30% more powerful than those of all your neighbours combined, plus you have nuclear weapons, plus you have the USA's absolute protection, plus you have peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan.  I really don't see the gamble you are talking about, especially when your people are already dying every day while you are not taking the so-called risk of dismantling settlements and withdrawing to 1967 borders.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I for myself, cant see any solution. any way of an agreement.  i dont see any organization that wants a true peace, any kind of co-existance.  I am what is called a "Smolani" a leftist. i voted for "Meretz" and i nor my buddies can see any kind of acceptance in the other side. any partner.<span id='postcolor'>

Perhaps it's too early to expect acceptance or partnership from the other side.  After all...

"One does not make peace with one's friends. One makes peace with one's enemy."-- Yitzhak Rabin

[scout 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Under Zionist pressure, that promise was never offered to the Palestinians. Thus was born in 1922, British Mandate Palestine and from then on, most Zionists ceased to look elsewhere for a homeland. The fact that this was already a homeland for over 700,000 people didn't disturb the British colonialist mentality of that time.

<span id='postcolor'>

of which 50000 came as a result of late 19th century settlements of jews from russia, from Syria and Leabanon.

Jewish and Arab settlement came about the same time. jew came on lower numbers thats all. no one wass here first except the Bedouins.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Jordan should occupy and administer the West Bank all the way to the Green Line ('67 border) which includes E. Jerusalem. Egypt should do same with Gaza. Israeli, Jordanian and Egyptian forces should guard the Green Line co-operatively and this border should remain tightly sealed. The Jordanian and Egyptian borders with Palestine should be open.

<span id='postcolor'>

on the peace accords with Egypt in 1979 we had offered them the Gaza strip. they refused.

in the years post 1967, secret negotiations were held with Jordan and Egypt to return them most of these territories.

Even then, Israel had understood the problems that come with the territory. both Egypt and Jordan said no.

the result was that only after 5 years did settlement began.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What's left of the Palestinian Authority should be suspended, but Arafat or whoever the Palestinian people elect should remain President (mostly symbolic).

<span id='postcolor'>

symbolic or not, thats a no go. the PLO must go. they planned and are still planning the destruction of Israel. and he will pull the strings as long he is in the area.you cant really think that by saying him that he arent allowed to play politics he wont.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">An international peacekeeping force should deploy across the territories as they've already done in Bosnia/Hercegovina and Kosovo.

<span id='postcolor'>

the UN has a really bad rep here. they failed every single mission in the area. from 1956 with Egypt till UNIFIL and UNRWA today.

more over the distinct anti-Israeli agenda (we're talking about more then 60% of decisions that had been ever made in the security council since 1948 are anti-Israeli)

makes it very unpopular here. ppl still remember the UNRWA official's room in Nablus is covered with photos of suicide bombers, or the way UNIFIL stood aside and didnt do its job in South lebanon.

we DONT trust it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Exiled/dispossessed Palestinians can submit claims for compensation to be settled in accordance with international law, following WWII and the Balkans conflict precedents. Any Palestinian with a legitimate claim to return to Israel would receive priority over all other non-Jewish immigrants seeking to settle in Israel.

<span id='postcolor'>

same as Jewish refugees from Arab states? no problem. Jewish property in arabs states exceeds pal property three folds. as to right of return, you cant expect me to bring in a people that are distinctly anti-Israeli. just as you wont want any ppl that want to bring down your own country.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By this time, there would already be 4 years of full peace and recognition by all other Arab states in accordance with the recently proposed offer of Crown Prince Abdullah.

<span id='postcolor'>

even in the best of days with Egypt and Jordan back in '95, peace was cold, and state sponsored media still printed anti-semitic books by the weight.

no normalization had ever occured between Israel and its neighbors.

Crown Prince Abdullah hadnt offered any thing new, and he immidietly balked from it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In 1967, Israel had half the army of its neighbours and still defeated them in 6 days. Today your army is at least 30% more powerful than those of all your neighbours combined, plus you have nuclear weapons, plus you have the USA's absolute protection, plus you have peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. I really don't see the gamble you are talking about, especially when your people are already dying every day while you are not taking the so-called risk of dismantling settlements and withdrawing to 1967 borders.

<span id='postcolor'>

a country can be destroyed in more then one way and the arabs are giving it a go:

1. the straion of holding a huge military and the economic loss because of instability and terror.

2. the flooding of Israel with 1-2 million ppl that dont aknoledge Israel's right to exist, and are prone on its destruction.

3. the attempt to weaken Israel by making it look like a pariah state.

all these are the ways the arabs and pals are trying to destory Israel.

since '95 more then 400000 pals entered Israel in "family unification" all of them distinct anti-Israeli. many had been caught while commiting or aiding acts of terrorism.

settlements ARE NOT the cause of terrorism against Israel. it is the existance of Israel itself. between '48-56 there was the worst terrorism wave Israel had ever experienced and as I said: ppl maybe dying now, but can you assure me that your soultion wont kill MORE? you cant. thats why its such a big gamble.

btw. Jordanian population is now 60% palestinians and growing. it'll be in 10 years or so, a second palestine.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Perhaps it's too early to expect acceptance or partnership from the other side. After all...

<span id='postcolor'>

then there is no point in dealing with them. peace is made with an enemy that is willing to accept you. not with one that waits for a chance to destroy you, as many PA officials had stated in the past

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By the way, 7 out of every 8 Russian Jews coming to Israel in the late 80's moved on to other countries (usually USA) as soon as they could.

<span id='postcolor'>

and everytime in the past 50 years that Jews were prosecuted somewhere, they headed for Israel. Israel might not be the eutopic choice but thats a safe heaven non the less.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

"The colonialists were the Brits from 1922 to 1948. It is the British who held the door wide open for Jewish immigration without the permission of the native people. Naturally, the locals got angry."

The British were indeed colonialists in this time (though they did not themselves colonise Israel/Palestine of course)

But actually i seem to recall that the British came under a lot of pressure from the US for NOT letting anywhere near enough Jews in , for trying too hard to appease the arabs etc

(which they indeed were trying to do according to government accounts)

,not to mention pressure from militant groups inside Israel.

From the accounts i have read the British proceeded quite cautiously with Jewish immigration, they were very much concerned with what arab opinion would be

(the last thing they wanted was an uprising)

And it was therefore far from an 'open door' policy. However it is also the case that Zionism could not have found an outlet through immigration to Israel without British military support.

The Brits were though aware of the contradiction between the Balfour declaration and previous allied agreements promising arab independance after the ottomans

Perhaps you have read different accounts?

(there always seem to be different accounts when it comes to the situation in the Middle East)

[scout 0]

 how didnt i see it?

damn.

between 1936-1948 GB had limited the amount of jews that allowed to Israel to 2500 a year, while not limiting any Arab imigration. even in the dark years of WWII jewish refugees were denied access to Israel and were turned or, in the best case were detained in Cyprus.

the "Hagana" had opened an illigal immigration operation as a result. GB had tied down many assets need for the war to keep jews out of Israel

edit: about Neturey Kartho, these ppl have no plan. but they are against any Non-religious Jewish country. they are awaiting the Massaiah to come and believe that the Israel is postponing him.

they burn Israeli flags and one of their Rabbis is an advisor to Arafat on Jewish matters.

here is a dispatch sent by them to the UN in '49. their opposing Israel is strictly on a religious basis

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">between 1936-1948 GB had limited the amount of jews that allowed to Israel to 2500 a year, while not limiting any Arab imigration. even in the dark years of WWII jewish refugees were denied access to Israel and were turned or, in the best case were detained in Cyprus.

the "Hagana" had opened an illigal immigration operation as a result. GB had tied down many assets need for the war to keep jews out of Israel<span id='postcolor'>

Umm... Israel didn't exist until 1948.

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has no problem posting this document which refers to the country of Palestine 50 times.

Israel is not mentioned at all.

My favourite part...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Article 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.<span id='postcolor'>

[scout 0]

when i was talking about Israel i meant the territory that Israel resides today, as opposed to palestine : the west bank and gaza.

british mandate term for palestine included also what is Jordan today.

do you mean the pals have claim to it to (as a result of the mandate)?

you apparently didnt understand what i was saying

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002,17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">no one wass here first except the Bedouins.<span id='postcolor'>

...don't forget the Canaanites.

...ok ...ok ...forget the Canaanites.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002,17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">on the peace accords with Egypt in 1979 we had offered them the Gaza strip. they refused.  in the years post 1967, secret negotiations were held with Jordan and Egypt to return them most of these territories. Even then, Israel had understood the problems that come with the territory. both Egypt and Jordan said no.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm only suggesting that they administer the territories for a few years as they did pre-1967.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002,17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the result was that only after 5 years did settlement began.<span id='postcolor'>

I totally agree that Israel needed to occupy the territories (and the Sinai) as buffer zones against Jordan and Egypt.  But, they should have resisted the temptation to settle.  (It can't be easy to give up resorts like Sharm el Sheik )

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002,17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">... he will pull the strings as long he is in the area.<span id='postcolor'>

These days with Internet and cell phones, Arafat will pull strings from wherever he is sent as long as his people are suffering.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002,17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the UN has a really bad rep here. they failed every single mission in the area. from 1956 with Egypt till UNIFIL and UNRWA today. more over the distinct anti-Israeli agenda (we're talking about more then 60% of decisions that had been ever made in the security council since 1948 are anti-Israeli) makes it very unpopular here. ppl still remember the UNRWA official's room in Nablus is covered with photos of suicide bombers, or the way UNIFIL stood aside and didnt do its job in South lebanon.  we DONT trust it.<span id='postcolor'>

I very much agree (especially after what happened in Qana) and that's why I didn't mention the UN.  An international protection force like KFOR and SFOR would never have allowed what UNPROFOR let happen in Srebrenica .

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002,17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">same as Jewish refugees from Arab states? no problem. Jewish property in arabs states exceeds pal property three folds.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think Israel should justify stealing from the Palestinians because the Moroccans (and others) stole from them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002,17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...as to right of return, you cant expect me to bring in a people that are distinctly anti-Israeli. just as you wont want any ppl that want to bring down your own country.<span id='postcolor'>

A just settlement and end to suffering should neutralise most of the anti-Israeli feelings.  Just think about all those Israeli settlements in the territories that have been constructed by Palestinian labourors who simply wanted to live a bit more comfortably.  In fact, very few people will suffer for an ideal when they already have the opportunity to live comfortable lives.  (And by the way, right of return is nearly a dead issue for the Palestinians so it probably won't even come up in the final deal.)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002,17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> ppl maybe dying now, but can you assure me that your soultion wont kill MORE? you cant. thats why its such a big gamble.<span id='postcolor'>

Look what has happened in Northern Ireland since British home rule ended and the British troops were replaced by Irish.  It worked in the Balkans and so far it's working in Afghanistan.  (It = sealing borders and introducing a temporary administration and protection force)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002,17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">then there is no point in dealing with them. peace is made with an enemy that is willing to accept you. not with one that waits for a chance to destroy you<span id='postcolor'>

There's really no need to make peace with anyone willing to accept you because that is when they cease to be your enemy.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ July 15 2002,17:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">From the accounts i have read the British proceeded quite cautiously with Jewish immigration, they were very much concerned with what arab opinion would be (the last thing they wanted was an uprising).  And it was therefore far from an 'open door' policy.<span id='postcolor'>

But, 300,000 Jewish immigrants arriving 1922 - 37 ain't exactly a 'closed door' policy.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002,19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">when i was talking about Israel i meant the territory that Israel resides today, as opposed to palestine : the west bank and gaza.  british mandate term for palestine included also what is Jordan today.<span id='postcolor'>

...but only for a few months in 1922 because most of the population in what became Jordan was not Palestinian.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 15 2002,19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">do you mean the pals have claim to it to (as a result of the mandate)?

<span id='postcolor'>

Nope.  I don't think that any ethnic or religious group representing a minority within a population should be able to declare statehood for itself without at least consulting with the rest of the population; no matter what the League of Nations or the Bible may have promised.

[bogo 0]

I thinks one of the saddest thing about this tragedy in the middle east is that american media is sow partial it's reporing over and over only the tragedy on the israely side. When some palestinan are killed you barely hear it on the news but when and israeli is killed hi makes the headlines. It brings to belive that they have no sympaty for the palestinian. By the record the death toll in the latest intifada is about 600 on the Israeli site and over 2000 on the palestinian. My god i RELLY SEE HOW MUCH THE ISRAELI ARE SUFFERING for evry palestinian the israeli army kills 4 palestinians. HMMMm

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bogo @ July 17 2002,15:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...By the record the death toll in the latest intifada is about 600 on the Israeli site and over 2000 on the palestinian.<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm... seems a bit high.  According to a reliable source it's more like 1,361 Palestinians killed and 40,229 injured up until 15 July.

What really gets to me is that 250 of those killed (or nearly 1 out of 5) were children.  

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Something needs to be done! I think it might take foreign interference to stop the carnage. Both sides arnt going to give up. The Palestinians will fight until they have their own state, and the Isralies until they have firm control of the area.Both sides have a worthy cause, but in my opinion, both sides arnt going about the best way to get what they want. Detonating yourself in packed buses and the like is no way to get a state. Using tanks to crush towns is no way to deal with the problem. I have no magic wand to change it, but the fact remains, it must be changed, and permantly if possible. Every week there are reports of bombings, air strikes, tanks moving into the Gaza Strip, men women children KIA and WIA for petty reasons. Make the Violence STOP!

[bogo 0]

Well the only solution that is there now are the americans. As evrybody in the world knows that they are the only one wich can pressure both sides to site at the table. But this dosen't seem to likely with the presiden't Bush i am not trying to offence any americans but this president isen't that bright when it comes to foreign affeirs he isen't that good at it. And i can see peace will he is in the office.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Hey I dont think you have to worry about offending anyone, If Americans are anything like New Zealnders and Australians. Down here, we insult the politicians all the time, espicialy if we didnt vote them in! (well Im to young to vote! I belive you mean there WONT be peace while Bush is in office. And thats likely.

[--V--ac 0]

i dont have much of an opinion on this subject.. havent read up much on it or watched the news lately, but i will always side with a peaceful resolution in any situation.. killing people just isnt worth it over anything...

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (][V][ac @ July 19 2002,16:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i dont have much of an opinion on this subject.. havent read up much on it or watched the news lately, but i will always side with a peaceful resolution in any situation.. killing people just isnt worth it over anything...<span id='postcolor'>

How can you say that, have you nothing that you would fight and kill to defend?

Sometimes you have to kill for survival, and to defend that which you hold dear.

[scout 0]

here is a study made on Israeli and palestinian casualties since oct. 2000.

you will find some very interesting data there.

have a nice reading.

oh, here is the site.

done by the International Institute for counter-terrorism.

[Bernadotte 0]

LOL...

Thanks Scout for the 40 (in words: forty) graphs and pie charts.  However, I prefer my sources to answer the question a bit more directly.

[bogo 0]

Weel scout your source is a israeli one and i tend not to trust sow much the sources coming from either side. There is to much propaganda on each side. Therefor each time i am looking for some info i tend to look at medias wich are neutral.

[Bernadotte 0]

You always have to wonder who can be trusted.

On 6 May, 2001, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz printed what it claimed to be "the text of the Mitchell Report."  Unfortunately, their version only had 4300 words whereas the actual report has around 9200 words.  I guess Ha'aretz must have decided that the Israeli people didn't really need to read about half of the original report.

Before the link to that Ha'aretz article could be switched off, it was reprinted here and also here.  Anyone curious about which 4900 words got left out by Ha'aretz can compare it with the original unedited (uncensored?) version of the Mitchell Report straight from the US government web site.

In my opinion, this report is one of the most important and best documents ever written on the conflict because it summarises all the issues that both sides can agree on.  It's a pity that it wasn't good enough for Ha'aretz.