A tale of two miseries

[Classical_Liberal]

With its unique leverage over Israel, the United States could immediately broker a peace deal if it so chose. But this would mean taking on Sharon, and no American politician is willing to do this. But what American leaders, and the support-whatever-Sharon-says crowd who have intimidated those leaders, need to understand is that they are not helping Israel; they are destroying it. And they are doing something else: They are making us hated across the Middle East and the entire Muslim world. This is a much bigger miscalculation, in the age of global terror, than even Bush's Iraq debacle.

The issues involved here are bigger than just the Palestinians and the Israelis. For the last two weeks I have been traveling around the Arab world, visiting Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan as well as Israel and the occupied territories. The Arab people are unbelievably kind and generous to a rare American visitor -- and they are simply bewildered by our stance on the Arab-Muslim world in general and Israel and the Palestinians in particular. "I know Americans are kind people," said Mohammad, who drove me down to the Roman ruins and Palestinian refugee camps in southern Lebanon. "But why your government do these things?" I heard this again and again, from Cairo to Beirut.

Every American policymaker, every American who cares about human rights, or justice, or Israelis, or Palestinians, or Jews, or Muslims, or the Holy Land (the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the most sacred site in Christianity, was empty when I visited), or just naked don't-blow-me-up self-interest, should come to the Calandia checkpoint. They should come to the rubble-strewn streets on the outskirts of Ramallah. They should stand at the No. 19 bus stop. This is not their problem: It is our problem. And then they should walk through the gates and into the Old City of Jerusalem, that divine gray maze that all three great faiths regarded as the center of the world and the terrestrial link with heaven, and see how hollow a man's prayers ring when he has not done what is needed...........

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/26/mideastmisery/index1.html

[Jim Sagle]

1. I take issue with the very first sentence.

Although we do have great leverage over Israel, that's not enough. We have zero leverage over the Palestinian side, as Bill Clinton found out. Peace really does take two sides.

[Classical_Liberal]

3. How can you say we have no leverage over the Palestinian side

they offered all of the 1948 land.

[Jim Sagle]

6. Yer funny.

[bluesoul]

7. Maybe to you

but it's true. The British protectorate of Palestine

[Rhiannon12866]

2. This makes me very sad

We have such a marvelous chance here, to make friends and to engender peace, but we are ignoring it. The U.S. has got to rethink its priorities. Yes, we have so many chances to broker peace in this region. Clinton came so very close. Why have we been ignoring this chance for the past three years? We need more allies here and need to make more friends, not enemies.

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. Jim is right

You can't have peace until the Palestinians want it.

Right now, they refuse to accept reality that they won't get all the land they want and they won't get right of return. Until those realities sink in, we shall have violence.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Classical_Liberal]

8. Actually it is the Israelis that are refusing to surrender the 67

land, and are being totally obstinate. The Palestinians have surrendered all of 1948 but if the 1967 land grab isn't offered their can be no Palestinian state, it is that simple. If their is not state, mulitcultural Israel will be entirely Ariel's fault and an unavoidable.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. The Palestinians turned down peace

Arafat instead declared the Intifada. It rests on his head.

Israel is already multicultural, but it maintains its identity as a Jewish homeland. That will not be lost. Sooner or later the Palestinians will find a leader among them who wishes peace enough to fight the terror groups.

[sushi]

12. You think so?

Israel...maintains its identity as a Jewish homeland. That will not be lost

What happens if, not if but when, the number of Israeli citizens of Arab descent overtake the Jewish citizens? I wonder what percentage of Israeli Arabs are of child-bearing age.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. It won't happen in our lifetimes

The non-Jews in ISRAEL number about one million. The disputed territories don't count.

[bluesoul]

15. Disputed? LOL

what are some kind of Israeli extremist? Those AREN'T disputed. What is disputed is your sense of historical facts, and PALESTINIAN land that is NOT Israeli, and NEVER will be...

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Disputed

Disputes occur when two sides disagree. The Palestinians and Israelis clearly disagree about the nature of a potential border. For instance, the Palestinians want MORE land as evidenced by their demand for a corridor connecting the West Bank and Gaza. (See the Geneva proposal.)

That means BOTH SIDES want changes in the 1967 Green Line. That makes the border disputed.

[rdfi-defi]

35. can you answer the question about demographics?

even if the non-jewish israeli population won't outnumber the jewish israeli population in our life time, i would still like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. What question?

Could you clarify please?

[rdfi-defi]

38. sushi post 12: "what happens when the number of Israeli citizens

of Arab decent overtake the Jewish citizens?"

your answer to this question was, "it won't happen in our life time." that is not really an answer to the question. i was hopping to hear your thoughts regarding that question.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. Who knows?

The world will be completely different IF or when that happens.

I watched some of a program on Nostradamus last night, but alas, I lack his skill.

[rdfi-defi]

40. i did not expect you to predict the future,

i just wanted to hear how you would address that particular problem. but you refuse to answer the question. i am not nostradamus either, but i think i know why you find that question erelivent.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. You pose a scenario with no variables

I have no idea what the situation would be for Israel, for Jews in general, for the world, for the Arab world, etc.

So you ask the impossible.

Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people. It must remain so and all reasonable means (note the word "reasonable") should be employed to keep it that way. I don't see that as threatened, realistically speaking, ever.

[sushi]

44. In your opinion

what are "reasonable means?" Force the Israeli Jews to have more children? Sterilize the Israeli Arabs by force? You can't send the Israeli Arabs home because they ARE home.

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. Ethnic cleansing is not reasonable

Which is why it is so horrible that the Arab world engaged in it.

However, encouraging Jewish births or immigration are both reasonable.

[sushi]

46. Immigration?

Who moves? Where to? Forced immigration? Israel's goverment could also encourage Jewish births with financial rewards, but what if the Jewish couples don't agree. You can't force people to have more children, and the Jewish people already against their government will not be persuaded.

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Yes, immigration

As the Jewish homeland, Israel already encourages Jewish immigration. However, where that status threatened, I would think that would be one hell of a marketing tool.

How can you force IMMIGRATION? That's a silly question.

As for the rest, we'll just have to see.

[sushi]

50. Sorry, my mistake

I often mix up the two. I thought you meant people leaving
(emigration). Forcing people (Israeli Arabs) to leave. That's why I asked who moves and where to. I bet Israel's government would love to get rid of its population of Arab descent. That's one way to solve their problem, but it can't be done unless the Israeli Arabs themselves want to leave.

When the Palestinians have their country it's possible the Israeli Arabs will want to move there, and it would be nice if the Jews who now live in other countries move to Israel, but it would be easier to get them to move there when there is peace. So, get your hero to stop stalling and start negotiating.

[sushi]

43. It's going to happen sooner than you think

unless the Israeli Jewish couples of child-bearing age suddenly decide to have very large families and the Israeli Arab couples of child-bearing age suddenly decide to limit their families. In fact I read an article of January 02 about this very problem. I know I clipped the article and it's somewhere but, as usual, I can't find it now that I need it. I think it said if things stay the same there will be more Israeli Arabs in Israel before too long (within the decade or so).

Recently I saw a program about the Dutch government in the process of (trying) to "send home" (get rid of!) its immigrant population (Turkish, Moroccans, etc.) because they have 5-6 children per family while the native Dutch have 1.3 children. Apparently many of the immigrants in the Netherlands are 'new' arrivals, but the Israeli Arabs have been in Israel forever, haven't they? You can't send them home. Israel IS their home.

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. Israeli Arabs are Israelis

They ARE home. Israel does not wish to send them anywhere.

[Classical_Liberal]

17. Israel will lose it's identity as a Jewish homeland

if it doesn't give up everything beyond the green line, and it will never experience peace. If Israel had done that, none of this would be happening, and the Palestinians would be peaceful today.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. LOL

That is a humorously optimistic assessment.

First off, suppose Israel gives up 98% of stuff beyond the Green Line, how is its identity threatened? How about 96%? or 94%?

You give an all or nothing scenario that is unrealistic.

Secondly, no matter what Israel does, it will enver experience peace. Hamas and other Palestinian terror thugs have sworn to destroy Israel and recapture all the land to the sea.

Then there's a bit of trivia for you. If the Palestian Authority (successor to the PLO) only wanted the area beyond the Green Line, how is it that the PLO was founded in 1964? I guess those Palestinians used Nostradamus to predict losing the West Bank and Gaza in 1967.

[Darranar]

20. The past and the present are different things...

the PA has recognized Israel - that was one of the conditions for its existence.

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. That didn't address my point

If the PLO was founded to regain lost Palestinian territory, what territory did they wish to regain in 1964?

We all know that answer.

[Darranar]

22. What does....

the PLO of 1964 have to do with the PA of 2004, especially since the PA has recognized Israel's right to exist?

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. If that is the case

Where is the new charter? Can you point me to it?

[Violet_Crumble]

25. The PA has recognised Israel's right to exist...

Heard of the Oslo Accords? Was the letter recognising Israel's right to exist chopped liver or something?

http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/peace/isplorec.htm1

LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN:

September 9, 1993

Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history
of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the
following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and
security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful
resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all
outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through
negotiations.

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles
constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful
coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and
stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other
acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and
personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and
discipline violators

In view of the pormise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of
Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council
Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the
Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions
of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter
are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes
to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the
necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Sincerely,

Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The Palestine Liberation Organization

[rdfi-defi]

37. it seems you are grouping all Palestinians into one category:

"terror thugs." that is inconsistent with reality. not all Palestinians want to destroy Israel any more than all Jews want to destroy the Palestinians. when violence and murder is perpetrated on the peoples of both 'sides' it only reinforces to the people that, 'all of those people hate me and want to kill me.' that is simply not true for either 'side.'

peace loving people need to marginalize violent extremists on both sides of the conflict.

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. It is you who lump

I think the term "terror thugs" is pretty specific. If you think that applies to all Palestinians, you appear to have some biases.

So what has the PA done to, "marginalize violent extremists?"

[number6]

9. who's got the Military might and occupied land ?

You can't have peace until the Israeli's want it.

[Rhiannon12866]

11. They aren't the ones perpetrating the "targeted killings"

the latest of which is the major topic on this forum. The people all want peace and an end to the killings. How can they convince the governments?

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Those Israeli actions are a response to ongoing terror

If the Palestinians ended the terror threat, then there would likely be a peaceful settlement.

[Classical_Liberal]

18. The terror threat is a responce to Israelis intransigence at

giving up the west bank, not to mention the deliberate Jim Crow disenfranchisement of the Palestinians.

[Rhiannon12866]

27. "Targeted killings" aren't a "terror threat?"

When they killed Sheik Ahmed Yassin, seven other people were killed, as well. Who were they and why weren't they named? These people had lives and families, as well, and were probably just in the wrong place at the wrong time. So many times there has been close to a peaceful settlement. The people are desperate for it, but the government continues to let them down.

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. And if they sent in troops

and dozens had been killed in the ensuing battle, what would you say?

What did the world lie about Jenin?

[Rhiannon12866]

83. The world never found out the truth about Jenin

Israel never let in U.N. inspectors to ever learn the truth. So we will never know.

[Muddleoftheroad]

90. Oh come on

We've had how many post-Jenin, expose the Palestinian fraud threads? Did you miss them?

Here is the real truth about Jenin. Israel sent in troops to root out terrorists rather than just blast the bastards from the air like most states would do. Why? Because, while Israel needed to stop the terrorists, it still wanted to mimize civilian casualties.

The net result of this was several Israeli dead.

[Rhiannon12866]

24. I'm afraid I agree with the one that replied to you

The solution to all of this horror is a negotiated peace. These poor beleaguered people just aren't getting it, and they certainly deserve it. Think how many times they have have gotten their hopes up and they were dashed. Their governments owe these people better than they have been getting and their American allies need to have been intervening, as was their promise, per the "road map." They have certainly let everyone down. The people in this region appear to have lost on every front. It's about time someone woke up and realized that this is the most important conflict that our generation must solve.

[Rhiannon12866]

26. And why shouldn't they get their land back?

I just don't get it. Things should be equitable here. Everyone deserves equal treatment. Taking land from someone just isn't equitable. I know that right of return will never happen, but the apartheid wall land grab is doing nothing but inciting more violence. This needs to stop. They need to go back to the "road map," but the Bush* administration has never had any interest in Mideast peace, especially now, since they have an election to win.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Who gets what land?

Do the Native Americans get all their land back? Do the Irish? Or how about those in Tibet? Or how about the Italians? Don't they get back everything Rome had?

At some point, we all must move on. History is, well, history.

[Rhiannon12866]

33. I already said that I realize that right of return is not an option

It is a sad reality, but it has just been too long. But the settlements must be dismantled and the occupied territories unoccupied. There have to be concessions on both sides to ensure peace. Surely you cannot dispute this.

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Yes concessions must be made

But which ones? Which land?

Israel has a history of trading land for peace. The problem here is the Palestinians don't offer peace. That's sort of a disincentive to negotiate.

[Rhiannon12866]

48. The West Bank and Gaza

Sharon already said he will withdraw from Gaza. But when? And he is already backing off from that promise. The Palestinians don't offer peace? They have never been offered anything. What about the apartheid fence? They cannot even get to their farms and homes. The situation has gotten totally mind-boggling. All the people in this region have had their hopes raised so many times, just to find them dashed, yet again. Sharon has much to answer for.

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. The crux of what the Palestinians want is a state

They will never get it unless they offer peace. They are unwilling to do so. Mideast standoff.

If you want to discuss the Peace Fence, it is designed to protect Israeli civilians from the thing the Palestinians won't stop -- terror.

[Rhiannon12866]

54. The apartheid fence has had little impact in that respect

It had just annexed more land from the Palestinians, causing futher bitterness. This is not a pathway to peace.

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. The Peace Fence

Will provide a barrier between two essentially warring groups. Limiting contact between the two groups can only save lives.

As for a pathway to peace, there is none until the Palestinians actually offer the concept in return for statehood.

[Rhiannon12866]

81. Okay, muddle

I just don't think you realize that we truly agree on most things. I have a dream for this region. I think when an Israeli citizen goes into a grocery store, it is their right to be confident that the young girl entering the store with them isn't wearing a bomb around her waist. I wish that they can take a trip on a public bus without being terrified that someone won't blow it up before they are able to get home. My wish for Palestinians is that they can get up and go to work without having to negotiate numerous checkpoints, everyday, which makes them hours late, or being afraid, in the night, of missiles being fired in their neighborhood, or seeing their neighbors' homes demolished. My wish is for peace in this region. If it takes peacekeepers, so be it. Carter came close and Clinton, even closer. But Richard Perle sabotaged Clinton and Bush* has offered nothing. It certainly takes something more than is currently being offered and people continue to die and it is heartbreaking.;(

[Muddleoftheroad]

84. I have much the same dream

But to accomplish that we must have an end to terror. Without that, then Israel is offered nothing to take the risk of peace.

Personally, I think the Peace Fence is the way to go for now. Israel should disengage from the Palestinians as much as possible. That means no jobs, no border crossings into Israel, no communication, nothing. All joint infrastructure should be stopped at the fence.

Then and only then the Palestinians might realize they also depend on Israel. Then perhaps they will see the need in finding peace.

[Rhiannon12866]

89. The problem, as I see it, is that the Palestinians were there first

It will be a huge problem for them to back off. They need to be seen as equal partners in this struggle, which they are. Unless people are seen as equal partners, and granted the same rights and privileges, there will continue to be trouble. For a long time, black people were treated less well than white people in the U.S. This was not a good thing for the U.S. and anunequal partnership is not a good thing for Israel/Palestine. I wish for a two-state solution, if this is what will work best, but mostly just for peace and an end to the killings, state-sanctioned or not. It has just gone on far too long.

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. There first?

You seem to have missed a few thousand years of history.

The Palestinians are NOT equal partners. They don't have a country and they haven't set aside terrorism as their means of combat. Until they do they second, they wont' get the first.

And even then, just because they have a country does not make them an equal partner. What would they bring to the table for this partnership? The technological skill that Israel has? The agricultural skill that Israel has? The infrastructure that Israel has?

The Palestinians have none of that.

What rights and priviliges do you wish for the Palestinians? Do you wish Israeli citizenship as some here fantasize about?

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

96. As a collective entity

They don't have a state first of all. Then even if they do have a state, that state won't have the same resources and talents of Israel. Why should Israel treat with them equally?

Does the U.S. treat with Mexico equally? Nope. Mexico is a major labor pool for the U.S. and not much more. Does England treat with Ireland equally? Nope. Ireland is just a labor pool.

All states have certain rights. Beyond that, it is what they bring to the table. A new Palestinian state would offer little other than labor and gambling. (Gambling is the only business that was really flourishing prior to Arafat's Intifada.)

Nope, nobody is superior. The state of Israel is indeed superior to what would be the newly born Palestinian state. That's just a reality.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sushi]

29. Why not?

...they refuse to accept reality that they won't get all the land they want...

Why not? Don't they just want what's been taken from them? Are you saying Israel wants to keep what they have stolen?

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Time marches on

Israel exists. For Palstinians to get to return to Israel would end Israel as we know it.

So, they have two choices. Accept this reality or keep fighting and never get what they want.

They seem to like the second choice.

[sushi]

31. I'm not talking

about the right of return. I'm talking about Israel getting out of the occupied territories. You seem to forget that if the Palestinians won't accept this reality or keep fighting they won't be the only ones suffering. Israelis too won't have peace.

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Again, how you define it

And how many Palestinians define "occupied territories" appears to be quite different. Israel can do NOTHING to appease the radical Palestinians. And the Palestinians appear willing to do nothing to appease Israel.

Mideast standoff.

[rdfi-defi]

42. good try sushi, neither side will have peace until

the extremists can be marginalized. unfortunately, some people do not want any compromise, they only want to dominate the other 'side' and 'win.' i/p could be a great forum for kicking around some ideas that might help to get a real peaceful solution to the problems. instead there is hard headed fighting based on religious ideology or national rhetoric.

if people who say they want peace start acting peaceful, peace will come

[Rhiannon12866]

53. The Palestinians want peace. They are living in miserable conditions

They know that right of return is no longer an option. It has just been too long.

The Israeli people want peace. They have come so close, so many times, just to have it snatched away. It is not the ordinary people who are the problem here, but the governments, including our own.

Where is Bush*s commitment to the "road map," which is far from perfect, but a starting point? He has no interest, in that he has an election to win. This is not a winning issue. So all the people in this region, Palestinian and Israeli, alike, also lose out.

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. I want to date Tyra Banks

But that is only a theory. The reality is what am I doing actively to accomplish this and the answer is nothing. Much the same could be said for the Palestinians who want a state and offer nothing in return.

[Rhiannon12866]

57. You can date whomever you want. These people only want to survive

until tomorrow. What can they possibly offer in return? Everything they have ever had has been taken from them.

[methinks2]

58. Good job rhiannon

The palestinians are just people. They have been abused for multiple generations. The things they do in self-defense are re-actions, not actions. While I never condone deliberate acts of violence against civilians, I do believe that everyone has the right to defend their home against aggressors. In this case the pals are like sitting ducks in their homes and on their own streets. While they do fight back, they are grossly outclassed due to our support of IDF armaments. Their plight reminds me of David and Goliath. On the Isreali side, many are tired of the fighting and are also tired of feeling like sitting ducks. I think we should take all the support $$$ that normally goes to Israel for arms and give it instead to UN troops and send them to help protect both sides. And give the poor pals a little running water and re-build some housing for them.

This wall (seperation wall) will only cause trouble, as it cuts across private property, including that of various Christian churches. This mess only get worse, not better, with time.

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. Many groups have been abused in history

How many have subgroups out there strapping bombs onto children?

[methinks2]

61. the actions of few radicals in some neighborhood

do no represent the entire neighborhood. 10 years ago some neighbors' teenager murdered the clerk at the 7-11 in our subdivision. That did not mean that the stupid teens parents were to blame or that my family one block away was to blame. The mistakes the Sharon supporters keep making is to blame the entire populace and hold them responsible for the actions of a few. If that line of reasoning holds water, should we bomb Israeli settlements when a few over-zealous settlers get a little out of control? Of course not! How about the parents and former neighbors of Timothy McVeigh? What about the former neighbors of Ted Bundy?
Individual responsibility means holding the individual responsible for their own crime. "Lazy" military people just bomb the whole building and bulldoze entire family houses because they are lazy and because they are true killers in their hearts. Killers kill. Lovers of Peace find other means to get the job done. If you advocate killing, you are no better than those who kill. That holds for all sides in the conflict.

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. Would that it were only a few radicals

What did the latest survey indicate? 53% Palestinian support for terror?

[methinks2]

64. Surveys and Polls

I read surveys and Polls all the time. They are only the opinions of a few people who happened to be available when the poll was taken. I don't know about you, but I have to search out a poll. No one ever calls my house or comes to my door to ask my opinion on current events.

Peace can still happen if the war mongers on both sides are kicked out. Spain did it. The people were tired of the crap and they kicked the corrupt politicians out of office. All politicians should heed the lesson of spain and pay more attention to what the people want. Or they may find themselves updating their resumes.

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. And the opinions of the terrorists like Hamas?

I have seen no attempt by the Palestinians to kick out any of the terror groups.

[Rhiannon12866]

82. Of course not. They see these groups as their only defenders.

They have no one else, nor nowhere else to turn. My cousin said to me "there is nothing more dangerous as those who have nowhere left to turn." This is truly the way these people feel. We need some intervention here, though it's, obviously, not going to come from the Bush* administration.

[Muddleoftheroad]

85. What will intervention gain?

I don't see it.

[Rhiannon12866]

87. Fewer deaths on both sides.

I definitely think this is a gain, don't you?

[Muddleoftheroad]

92. I don't think that would be the result

I think it would definitely mean fewer terrorist deaths, but given the lack of any clampdown on the terrorists, I think Israeli deaths would increase.

[Rhiannon12866]

72. That has always been my take on this situation

But, obviously, the sitting U.S. administration has other ideas. The construction of the apartheid wall and the "targeted killings" will only exacerbate the violence. We need to intervene and try to wage peace here, as both Clinton and Carter did. In almost four years of the Bush* administration, they have done nothing but given Israel monetary aid, expecting no concessions, promoting peace, in return, and vetoing U.N. resolutions against Israel which condemn their use of violence. It boggles the mind. There was a plan to bring in U.N. peacekeepers, but Israel rejected it. So the violence not only continued, but escalated, yet again. We need a new administration that is objective in this conflict, condemns violence on both sides and aggressively seeks to promote peace.

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. UN peacekeepers

Why would Israel agree to this plan?

The peacekeepers would only protect the terror bases, not Israel.

Here is why:

* Peacekeepers would not move against terror bases, they would merely serve as a buffer between the two sides. Funny, but that's what the Peace Fence is designed to do.
* Peacekeepers lack experience is stopping terror attacks. That means that they couldn't supplant Israeli forces.
* Peacekeepers would keep Israel from moving against terrorists, giving them free rein to build and plan in safety.

[Rhiannon12866]

75. Because peacekeepers would be there to keep the peace

No, they would not move against either side; they would be there to keep the peace.

I don't know why you would think those chosen would be inexperienced in this. They would be there to keep the peace. That includes preventing attacks by both sides.

As for the wall, that has only served to exacerbate the violence, preventing farmers from accessing their land and people from moving about freely. It has prevented no terror attacks, nor the "targeted killings" which still prevail. George Bush* even opposes it, though he sides with Sharon in all other things.

Experienced peacekeepers would be a step up from the unchecked violence which still prevails in this region.

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. But they wouldn't keep peace

Right now, the way things work, the terrorists strike at Israel and Israel strikes back at their headquarters and bomb-making sites. (Those of you who have a skewed view can choose to see that as the reverse.) In any case, the terrorists would still hit Israel inside Israel because it is impossible to prevent such actions 100%. But the "peacekeepers" would prevent Israel from striking back.

Even Israel, which is by far the most experienced in dealing with terror, can't prevent it 100% because that can't be done. So there is no question the peacekeepers would fail periodically. But they would succeed at preventing Israel from stopping such attacks.

So what citation do you have to indicate the Peace Fence has prevented no terror atttacks.

[Rhiannon12866]

77. It is impossible to prove a negative

But I do recognize that the construction of this fence had incited great anger, which is what leads to violence in the first place.

Peacekeepers can't do worse than what is currently going on here. Is there peace? No. Are people continuing to die? Yes. There could be far worse solutions, like none, which seems to be what is currently taking place.

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. It's easy to prove this one

The peacekeepers always serve as a buffer and take no action. That means Israel would suffer attacks and be unable to respond.

So yes, that would be far worse than what we have now. Which is why NO state would allow it.

[Rhiannon12866]

80. So U.N. peacekeepers would be worse than the continued carnage that

continues to rock this region everyday? Just because Israel would be prevented from perpetrating their side of the violence? What this would offer and my reason for recommending it is that this would STOP the violence. That is the point of peacekeepers. All violence, both sides. For good. Israel would have no attacks to respond to. That's the solution that I believed that we all wished for the people of this region.

[Muddleoftheroad]

86. Yes, because they would ensure carnage for one side

They would simply because security guards for the terrorist infrastructure. That is unacceptable.

The problem you seem to not understand is that no one can completely stop terror. Those who are closest to it -- the Palestinians -- have the best chance because they have the most information and have easier access. But no one can completely stop the lunatic fringe from strapping on bombs and blowing up babies.

However, there is no substitution for experienced troops as guards and as troops designed to take down terrorists before they attack.

Again, that means terror attacks would not just continue with the UN, but would likely grow because nothing would impede the growth of the terror infrastructure. They could have open air bomb factories and thumb their noses at Israel.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluesoul]

105. If there is

going to be intervention, don't hold your breathe too much..

[Rhiannon12866]

103. This is not a good post

No one on here is anti-Semitic. I did not hit alert, but will if this happens again. Cursing, I can understand, if you really become emotional, but such name calling is just not okay. We are all of one mind here, for the cause of peace, at least I thought we were, and if I am mistaken, perhaps I am the one on the wrong forum.;(

[Muddleoftheroad]

104. Name calling

I only call names as a response to incessant attacks. You can easily tell how many attacks there are simply by going through a few of the threads and looking for my name. After my name, you will see an endless stream of deleted posts.

Sooner or later, you just have to speak up.

And, for the record, we are NOT of one mind here. Not in this part of DU.

[bluesoul]

107. You mean

like your deleted posts Muddle? Don't tell me there haven't been...

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rhiannon12866]

114. I have never had a deleted post, nor even a warning on DU

I observe the rules. This is supposed to be a civilized discussion. I attempted to tell you that I believe we are both on the side of peace. If you are not, then this discussion just isn't worth it. End of discussion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

115. In case you hadn't noticed

The mods cleared out a whole swath of posts and responses to posts.

The problem, ultimately, is if we all go at it this badly here online, and are unable to figure out a solution even we agree on, can you imagine how it is for folks on both sides in the Mideast?

[Rhiannon12866]

116. Absolutely. That is my point here. It isn't easy for anyone

on either side of this issue. There need to be concessions and a certain level of trust. This whole scenario just rips my heart out. I said I wouldn't discuss it again, but the trials of these people do hurt me a great deal. We need to find a peaceful solution. Evidentally, you and I will never agree on where it may be found, but then, it is not up to us. Hopefully, the next administration will bring in Carter or Clinton or their own peacemakers. I just hope that it is soon and before another spate of violence. There has just been too much here for anyone to live with.;(

[Muddleoftheroad]

117. I know it isn't easy

But it's possible for two reasonable people to disagree 100%. At this point, I doubt anyone is completely unbiased on the topic.

I honestly don't see peace in the I/P conflict in my lifetime.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluesoul]

120. Ah

whatever...

[sushi]

119. Have you seen

Thomas Friedman's "Straddling the Fence" on CNN? His conclusion is that the wall, which is built to separate the two sides, will probably result in a single state for all, which means the Palestinians get to vote. Wouldn't that be something!

[Muddleoftheroad]

121. That's a fantasy

The reality is neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis wish that result.

And, since the Israelis get to decide who votes and who is a citizen, it won't happen.

[sushi]

124. Have you seen "Straddling the Fence?"

Choices will have to be made before too long if Israel wants to remain a democracy. It will be impossible to ignore the increasing number of Palestinians.

[Muddleoftheroad]

125. What increasing number of Palestinians?

You mean those Palestinians in the disputed territories?

Well, they aren't now, nor will they ever be Israeli citizens. So the demographic problem you describe is a non-issue.

[bluesoul]

126. Disputed? LOL

You mean Palestinian. No they'll be Palestinian citizens. They won't need Israeli citizenship, why would they?

[Muddleoftheroad]

127. No, I write what I mean

I mean disputed. One day, when everything is settled, some of that territory will be officially Israel. Most of that territory will be officially the state of Palestine.

In the meantime, it is disputed.

[bluesoul]

128. Dream

on...

[sushi]

122. I suggest you count to ten or whatever

if you want to type something unfriendly. Then you won't do it.

It's difficult for both sides in the Mideast because they're not led by the right people. One doesn't want to negotiate, and the other gets ignored by the extremists.

[Muddleoftheroad]

123. This thread was way past 10

And I think the mods made that kind of obvious.

Even if both sides negotiate, I don't see how they can settle their differences. The reality is that they both want the same land and are locked in a death grip with one another over it.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. They can offer peace

what a concept. That means an end to terror and terror groups.

[sushi]

66. I'm sure they'll offer peace

in exchange for all the occupied territories forming a real state, and not a dependency, where Israel controls everything. Why don't they get together to negotiate. Or is Israel's leader avoiding negotiations because he's worried the Palestinians will offer exactly that, peace in exchange for ALL the occupied territories?

[bluesoul]

67. I guess someone

wants to cling to his idea of Big Israel and claim all the OT as Israeli. That's why he doesn't want peace and kills any moderate Palestinian leader or politician. Go figure...

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. Moderate leader or politician?

Since the only name Palestinian who was killed by Israel recently was Yassin. Do you mean to imply the founder of Hamas was a moderate?

[bluesoul]

70. Yassin wasn't the only one killed

Israel has killed plenty of Palestinians, no matter how moderate they were. Sharon wants war and Palestinian land, not peace. Something you will never realise, because you look away from the core issue...

[Muddleoftheroad]

71. So who do you specifically mean?

If we are to discuss them, it would be fair to say who we are discussing.

[Rhiannon12866]

73. Seven other people were killed when Yassin was assassinated,

presumably just innocent people also attending religious services who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. But they, like so many others, are expendable. And we wonder at the bitterness?

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. I note you never answered

[Rhiannon12866]

106. No, he was not

Seven other innocent souls, just attending religious services, were also blown into oblivion. How do you think their family members feel about this.:shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. They haven't up to now

I am all for a real Palestinian state, not a dependency. That way it can be held accountable for what it does or does not do.

However, the Palestinians might look to Ireland and recognize that the can be stages in state creation.