Israel/Palestine Conflict: Open Discussion

[JMS]

The real problem with this is that none of the Arab states want anything to do with the Palestinians except to use them. If they did, they would have been integrated and absorbed long ago.

Well the real problem is the people displaced by Israel are Israel's problem, not Egypts, Saudi's, or anybody elses.

If a religious inspired Cuba invaded and conquered Mexico, whould those deplaced Mexican people become the responsibility of the United States because we are secular? How much time would pass while those Mexican's suffered under Cuban occupation until we would recognize them as Americans?

Likely never. We would tell Cuba they would have to work out their own mess. Same thing the Egyptians, Saudi's and other Arabs are telling Israel.

[JMS]

this is wrong

It used to be that countries went to war and absorbed their newly conquered territories. Israel is free to annex the territory, it doesn't want to, because it wants to annex the territory without all the pesky Palestinians. If Israel were to annex the land like other countries have done when they won wars they would have to deal with a bunch of Palestinians living and working along side them and one day becoming citizens... Israel wants none of that. Israel's ultimate goal requires ethnic cleansing. But they won't do it overnight like the Serbs tried to do in Kosovo. They'll do it over many years by doing everything they can to make life **** for the territories until the Palestinians give up or die out. People want Israel to negotiate because they want Israel to either act like they won, or act like they lost, this limbo is not acceptable.

Actually it's a violation of international law to anex the territory of vanquished countries as you describe. We didn't annex Europe or Japan after WWII.

That's why their are UN resolution on the books calling for Israel to return it's annexed territory. Problem Israel is built on annexed terriory and she's got nearly five million folks living their now. She can't give back all the territory she's taken or she ceases to exist. She can't absorb the folks she displaced because they currently are a greater population than her jewish citizens. Israel would cease to be a jewish state.

Her options are exactly what she's planned for. few and poor and getting worse every day. Gives a lot of creadence to folks who don't want to compromise.

[Burgold]

Clearly the goal was ethnic cleansing to some extent. What else do you call displacing and wearhousing about 80% of the population of a country?

Now you can claim wearhousing isn't the same as murdering them... I would argue Israel has done both.

I don't think you can kinda sort of commit ethnic cleaning. The fact that you have to parse words is meaningful. I do think that they have engaged in warehousing and ghettoisation techniques, some of which were done punitively and inhumanely. One could argue that the Israelis were left with few options but to close them off for their own self-protection (they were not ghetoed in the 1970's for instance), but I dislike that argument as I feel it is a morally dangerous one.

Well the real problem is the people displaced by Israel are Israel's problem, not Egypts, Saudi's, or anybody elses.

I disagree. Much of the Arab world has professed brotherhood and support, sympathy for the Palestinian cause. If this was true then in the name of religious brotherhood it would have made tremendous sake and not outrageous hardship for them to absorb them into their territories. I agree that now the Palestinians are the Israelis problem, but as we have absorbed Jews and Haitans and other political refugees (often not eagerly) there should have been a humanitarian compulsion amongst the Arab states to help and give a home to their Muslim brothers. Especially, when you consider the geographical discrepensies.

[JMS]

Ummm... no. The goal of Israel has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing. Good grief. It's reverse bull like that this that helps prolong and promote the strife. The stated goal of Hamas is to wipe Israel off the map, not the stated or implied goal of the Israelis... or even the Israeli government.

Actually you are wrong. Israel is set up to be a Jewish state. A theocracy. A country established for and maintained by Jews.

You can't have such a jewish state with a majority Arab country. Necesitating removing that Arab majority.

Thus it was always the plan to "cleanse" the population. Which is exactly what was done, systematically. It's what is continuing to be done today... They're still confiscating land in Israel every day. Taking lands from Palistinians who have lived on it for hundreds/thousands of years, giving it to Jews who moved to Israel a few weeks or months ago.

Hell the Israelis even murded the UN peace envoy Count Folke Bernadotte(future Israeli PM Yitzhak Shamir) because it looked like he was going to get a peace agreement limiting Israel's ability to confiscate lands back in 1948 during the war of independance.

Bernadotte was a Sweed, responsible for saving more jews from the holocost than Oscar Schindler.

[Burgold]

Prosperity was correct that in my mind the terms ethnic cleansing and genocide are synonomous. I reject entirely the notion that there was ever a plan to wipe out and slaughter every Palestinian citizen.

Now, if you want to argue that Jews were willing to take, create, and hold a Jewish land that they called Israel by force of arms or that some of the earliest Jews acted like terrorists themselves, I'd probably agree with you. But I do not not believe there was ever a plan to systematically wipe every Palestinian human being off the face of the planet.

[JMS]

I don't think you can kinda sort of commit ethnic cleaning. The fact that you have to parse words is meaningful. I do think that they have engaged in warehousing and ghettoisation techniques, some of which were done punitively and inhumanely. One could argue that the Israelis were left with few options but to close them off for their own self-protection (they were not ghetoed in the 1970's for instance), but I dislike that argument as I feel it is a morally dangerous one.

I don't think I minced words at all. I stated that Israel did ethnically cleanse the territory to make it able to host their jewish population.

They just used more than one tactic to pursue that goal... They killed folks and committed attrocities. They scared folks to leave. They also used their military to forceable remove folks who wouldn't leave.

It's was all about confiscating lands, something Israel continues to do today.

If I came up to you and slapped you around and took your home, necessiting you and your children live in a corner of the front yard of your previous family home. How many decades would go by until you recognized my right to your home? That's really what's going on here.

I disagree. Much of the Arab world has professed brotherhood and support, sympathy for the Palestinian cause.

Well that's pretty self serving for Israeli's to believe the Arabs should fix thier mess isn't it. Sympathy, and support for the Palestinian cause doesn't make the displaced people Saudi's, Egyptions, or Syrians problem....

I'm sure Americans would have sympathy and support for the 100 million Mexicans warehoused by the Cubans too. Still doesn't make them Americans or Our problem! If we had out own disputes with the Cubans it would make "assisting" them in their mess even more difficult and unpalitable.

If this was true then in the name of religious brotherhood it would have made tremendous sake and not outrageous hardship for them to absorb them into their territories.

In the name of your religous brotherhood, you should assist me in expelling and disposessing your religous brothers?.

Because Mexico is a majorty Christian country... Does that mean in the "name of religious brotherhood" we should absorb the refugee's Cuba created when they invaded? We are a majority Christian country. Hell why even have passports... Most of this hemisphere and Europe are majority Christain?

Nobody here would buy that argument. It's only makes sense to the Israeli's because they've got theocracy on the mind. Citizenship and Religion are synonomous. The refugees are unacceptable citizens because they aren't jews. Meanwhile they are undergoing massive immigration from Europe to inflate their populations numbers with folks who have never even seen Israel before.

I agree that now the Palestinians are the Israelis problem, but as we have absorbed Jews and Haitans and other political refugees (often not eagerly) there should have been a humanitarian compulsion amongst the Arab states to help and give a home to their Muslim brothers. Especially, when you consider the geographical discrepensies.

Fact is the Arabs don't want to help Israel. They never thought creating a religously exclusive country in place of the secular Palistinian state was a good idea, especially one which discriminates against Moslems. Why should the Moslem Arabs subsidize it?

That's been their position for sixty years. The refugees are Israel's doing, and Israel's problem.

[JMS]

Prosperity was correct that in my mind the terms ethnic cleansing and genocide are synonomous. I reject entirely the notion that there was ever a plan to wipe out and slaughter every Palestinian citizen.

Now who is parsing words? Do you think their was ever a plan to wipe out some peaceful Palestinian citizens? Not because of what they had done, but because they weren't Jewish and were living on land needed for the recreation of the jewish Israeli state?

Take Aryal Sharon for instance. Dynomiting the homes of defenseless women and children at Qibya (1953) as they coward in their basements seeking shelter from his commando's.

You don't call that ethnic Cleansing, by your definition, because he only killed 70 people and not every Palistinian?

Do you think their was a plan to remove a large percentage of the population of Palistine to make way for Israel?

If not it's certainly a pretty significant coincidence that's exactly what happenned.

How many attrocities do you have to commit to scare a majority of the citizens of an area to flee for their lives?.... Not to many. That's the number Israel committed and that's pretty much why Israel committed them.

Now, if you want to argue that Jews were willing to take, create, and hold a Jewish land that they called Israel by force of arms or that some of the earliest Jews acted like terrorists themselves, I'd probably agree with you. But I do not not believe there was ever a plan to systematically wipe every Palestinian human being off the face of the planet.

I totally agree with you. They didn't need to wipe Palisitnians off the face of the plannet. They just needed to remove them from their homes. Which is what they did. They killed a few. They scared off or forceable relocated most of them, some they let remain, but they took most of their lands too.

Also I would argue those early Israeli "terrorists" are still poping up as PM's even today and their tactics haven't really changed just their goals. Sharon for example. Today they want to hold what they got and take a little more, before they wanted to take a lot and were responsible for holding less.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Zeus can suck it!

I wrote several papers in college arguing both sides and that is my only conclusion

[JMS]

My point would be it doesn't really matter what the base conflict was...

Clearly both sides have valid complaints today. clearly both sides could have handled things better in the past.

Today Israel is definitely on top... but how long would that continue if the United States ended our onesided support for them? (Not that I'm suggesting that occur)... How long would it continue if the Hamas, Hezbollah figured out how to hook up a guidence system on their rockets? Israel fought their longest war since Independence 2006. Arguable their first loss in a major war.

Both sides have long term interests seved by settling this dispute, and we could help them both understand that.

I'm more interested in a solution, realizing that both sides need to make sacrifices they won't be happy with to address their problems so they can move on.

I would argue that America has to be part of that solution because we've been such a huge part of the problem to date, and if we walked away things would get worse not better for all involved.

I think the window has set on the separate country solution. The Palistinians are a majorty today. I don't think they want a separate country anymore. I think they want representation in the country they've lived in now for 50-60 years. Which is going to get increasingly hard for Israel to deny to them.

Ultimately...

• I think you are going to have to come to a property settlement with the Palistinians for the lands confiscated and some of those folks are going to have to be allowed to return to their homes.
  
• I think all the people in the lands Israel has occupied for nearly fifty years are going to have to be given the vote. Which means an end to the theocracy. A huge monster change from today.
  
• I think regional governments from the occupied territories will need to be set up and incorporated into the Israeli network of governments.
  

I think the fact of the matter is, Israel has a very stong hand today; but their are no scenarios where that can continue for another 50-60 years. Israel either figures our a peaceful way to coexist with all the people within her boarders, or she will become a crusader state.. a state with a life cycle of 100-120 years which is eventually overwhelmed by the hostal people both within and outside her boarders.

[Thiebear]

Step 1:

Stop shooting people.

Then move on to step 2.

[Perky72]

I disagree. Much of the Arab world has professed brotherhood and support, sympathy for the Palestinian cause. If this was true then in the name of religious brotherhood it would have made tremendous sake and not outrageous hardship for them to absorb them into their territories. I agree that now the Palestinians are the Israelis problem, but as we have absorbed Jews and Haitans and other political refugees (often not eagerly) there should have been a humanitarian compulsion amongst the Arab states to help and give a home to their Muslim brothers. Especially, when you consider the geographical discrepensies.

Some Arab states have set up refugee camps, or given aid. I totally agree that most should do more, and that they exploit the problem for their own political or rhetorical goals, but historically they've done about as much as other countries have done. Jordan in particular has arguably done more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugees#Refugee_statistics

The number of descendents of Palestinian refugees by country as of 2005 were as follows:

• Jordan 1,827,877 refugees
  
• Gaza 986,034 refugees
  
• West Bank 699,817 refugees
  
• Syria 432,048 refugees
  
• Lebanon 404,170 refugees
  
• Saudi Arabia 240,000 refugees
  
• Egypt 70,245 refugees[1]

There are about 4,000,000 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, so about as many refugees outside it as there are Palestinians in it.

There are also about 250,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, and this number is growing:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3195205,00.html

It's an Israeli land-grab of Palestinian territory, and so a slow version of ethnic cleansing. The borders of course are disputed, but every country aside from Israel agrees that the borders do not include current settlements. Hell, even the US agrees, but I guess that's not enough to stop sending aid that allows Israel to continue and face little economic risk. And not enough to allow UN resolutions critical of such policies to be passed.

For all the fear of Hamas pushing Israelis into the sea, that's only a possible future risk. Israel is RIGHT NOW pushing Palestinians into a smaller and smaller territory.

All that said Palestinians' violent reaction is appalling, and they don't deserve to be championed or anything. Instead, both sides should rightfully be sanctioned, or at least not continue to receive billions in aid, until they can grow up and solve the problem. As an American I consider myself morally culpable for this sickening crap, since my country and politicians support its continuation.

[JMS]

Step 1:

Stop shooting people.

Then move on to step 2.

That's sounds simple.. But it's actually a very astute comment. I agree with you that's the first thing that has to happen. We need to put the clamps down and try to get them to stop shooting at each other.

You can grow moderates on both sides, just like you can grow radicals. 1999 was the last year no Israeli died due to terrorism and it's not a coincidence that that was the year when peace talks were active and showing promise of fruit.

There are moderates on both sides of the devide, figuring out how to empower them and not weakening them starts with stopping the shootings and killings.

[JMS]

Some Arab states have set up refugee camps, or given aid..

Yeah but that's not what the Israeli's are talking about. Those countries have set up camps to house the refugees. That really doesn't help Israel. Israel wants those countries to absorb those refugees into their own population, which helps them with the huge and growing refugee problem they face.

Jordan has absorbed many palistinians, but many of the Palistinians living outside the occupied territories remain in camps caught in limbo waiting for Israel to let them return to their homes. Something Israel can't really do and remain true to why she was created... To be a jewish country and home for jews.

[JMS]

There are about 4,000,000 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, so about as many refugees outside it as there are Palestinians in it.

That's the real issue today.... Even if you leave out the refugees in the arab countries, something Israel has always done.... Just the number of Palistinians being occupied by Israel; along with those Arab Israelis give you a majority Arab State that's getting larger every day...

4 million palistinians in Gaza and West Bank + 1 million Arab Israeli's has become slightly larger than the 5 million jews who live in Israel today. How long can Israel claim to be a democracy when she denies representation to the majority who lives within her boarders. That's the question which drove the Clinton peace talks in the late 1990's on the Israeli side.

How long will it be before Israel faces the type of international pressure which made South Africa reform itself? It's really just a matter of time. Also what motivation for hard choices do the Palistinians have knowing they are the majority of the people in a country which calls itself a democracy. Why should they want a separate country? Why not hold out for the vote in the contry they've been living in now for fifty sixty years.

That's not even accounting for the 4 milloin Palestinian refugees who live outside of lands Israel controls.

[Ryman of the North]

5- the Arabs had overwhelming superiority in almost every facet in all 3 wars yet got handled and the Palestinians did nothing.

• Haha superiority my!@#$... The reason the Arabs lost the first war was because they worked to their own national interests. The only thing the Arabs had that was superior at the time was the population count. Israel has always had military superiority against its Arab neighbors.

((this statement alone tells me you have been reading biased histories, even the most biased military historians wouldnt say what you just said. the only war that the Israleis could have possibly been considered to have better equipment and training was the last one and the arabs had the advantage of surprise and superior numbers. FFS go read a book that wasnt written by an arab apologist making excuses for why they performed so terribly, its a FACT that Israel had a make shift military for much of her existence early on and its a FACT that early on the US and Brits hindered more than helped them, that they survived at all was a minor miracle.))

You claim to have read the issues from both sides but your obvious bias shows me that you did not. I studied it for 5 years in university and have debated and spoken to several experts from the ME and the consensus has always been that until recently Israel wanted peace but the arab nations did not until they regained "face" and land. that has only VERY recently changed.

also any American who even thinks of talking about this situation BEFORE learning their own history should be slapped. YOUR country and mine both have nothing to say about stealing land.

• Okay, Okay… #1 I used to be just like you and most of the other posters here that supported Israeli self defense against the Arabs. After hearing another side to the story I decided to stop believing what I was “TOLD” and start searching for information on my own. I have heard the arguments from both sides and I agree that both sides had opportunities to reach out for peace and did not. The problem is that after surveying in detail the history of the region since the first Jewish migration in the late 1800’s I can pin point the steps the occurred by Jewish instigation of the native population that has led to the conditions we have today.

#2 – It’s irresponsible to make a claim that because we live in the USA and Canada (which I am Nova Scotian fyi) that because of our national history, that we ourselves had nothing to do with, we somehow have no legitimacy to question a nation doing the same thing currently. I say this because we ourselves can’t change the past, but we are seeing this happen right before our eyes and we can do something about what’s happening now before all the Palestinians are killed.

((LOL the past being 100 years ago? are you really that dense? so its ancient history because it happened here but recent because its over there?))before speaking try reading, I suggest you go read about road allowances and the metis, or the farming experiment in saskatchewan in the 1800's that succeeded so well that the government went back in and removed all farming tools because the indians did too well. your ignorance is appalling. Dont forget that our country actually did try a genocide with res schools and smallpox blankets.

Israel is here, they are in the dominant position and unlikely to give up with out a fight. BTW why dont you quote your sources? I have seen many of your quotes and frankly the websites they came from are not exactly unbiased.

The truth is you have an agenda and are trying to couch it in a reasonable manner but im not motivated enough to educate you, for every single so called atrocity you cite the arabs perpetrated several, for ever religious zealot you "quoted" I can find a thousand quotes by arabs talking about killing all the yehudis or pushing them into the sea.)))

[Perky72]

That's the real issue today.... Even if you leave out the refugees in the arab countries, something Israel has always done.... Just the number of Palistinians being occupied by Israel; along with those Arab Israelis give you a majority Arab State that's getting larger every day...

4 million palistinians in Gaza and West Bank + 1 million Arab Israeli's has become slightly larger than the 5 million jews who live in Israel today. That's not even accounting for the 4 milloin refugees.

Yup, which is why we may see more calls for annexation as a solution even by moderate-radical Palestinians. Israeli Zionists are already worried about being bred out by Arab Israelis.

Right-of-return should be about as dead as continuing settlements in a peace process. It's not only a giant point of division which the sides won't budge on, but it would actually destroy the identity of Israel. Which assuming everyone had both states' interests in mind (lol) would be a lousy achievement. It sucks that displaced Palestinians and their descendants were forced out, but aside from some of them and radicals I don't think the average Palestinian would have a problem with recognizing a Jewish state, or accepting that it's okay for Israel to try to maintain it as that within a properly bordered Israel. And of course without applying overly-Draconian policies on current Arab Israelis.

[Perky72]

How long will it be before Israel faces the type of international pressure which made South Africa reform itself? It's really just a matter of time.

I'm surprised it hasn't already. Are there any non-Arab countries who practice a divestment policy towards Israel? Maybe since it's a strong US ally whereas South Africa wasn't they're much more hesitant to anger that alliance.

[JMS]

You weren't responding to me but I'll take a whack at responding to you.

((this statement alone tells me you have been reading biased histories, even the most biased military historians wouldnt say what you just said. the only war that the Israleis could have possibly been considered to have better equipment and training was the last one and the arabs had the advantage of surprise and superior numbers. FFS go read a book that wasnt written by an arab apologist making excuses for why they performed so terribly, its a FACT that Israel had a make shift military for much of her existence early on and its a FACT that early on the US and Brits hindered more than helped them, that they survived at all was a minor miracle.))

Israel has fought six major wars in her history so far. ( countless battles).

• 1948 War of Independence
  
• 1956 Sinai War
  
• 1967 Six Day War
  
• 1973 Yom Kippur War
  
• 1981 Lebonon invasion occupation
  
• 2006 Winter war
  

Of the first three wars, Israel started two of them. In 56 she conspired with Britain and France to steel the Suez Canal from Egypt. In that war She attacked Egypt and had an agreement with Britain and France for them to move in and take the canal. She took the Sinai. Which she did, and all three got ejected by the Eisenhower and the United States.

In 67, Egypt closed Israel's only Red Sea port cutting Israel off from Iranian Oil. So Israel again attacked first and destroyed most of Egypts hardware on the ground.

So clearly Israel wasn't the inferior country as you claimed. She acted as the agressor in two of the tree wars and the third the war, the war of Independence we will call it a draw for who shot first.

and the third we will say it's too close to tell who started it. But Israel certainly didn't back down.

To tell you what an advantage it is to attack first, In the 73 war Egypt attacked first. In 73 Egypt routed Israel in the first few days of that war. The mistake they made was not pressing their advantage. Egypt and Sadat just wanted to reclaim the territory they lost to Israel in 1967 so when they acocmplished that they stopped. Israel regrouped and kicked their butts.

If Egypt had continued to drive into greater Israel and not ended their advance, they likely could have won that war. At least severely harmed Israel's ability to mount a counter attack which ultimately destroyed them.

This is one reason why Israel today maintains airforce and navy assets outside her boarders in Turkey and India to safeguard her retaliation in the event of her being overrun in a lightning attack. Something which is only sensable seeing as how Israel is about 4-5 million jews sourounded by more than 150 Arabs and Persians who have all been at war with her in the recent past.

((LOL the past being 100 years ago? are you really that dense? so its ancient history because it happened here but recent because its over there?))before speaking try reading, I suggest you go read about road allowances and the metis, or the farming experiment in saskatchewan in the 1800's that succeeded so well that the government went back in and removed all farming tools because the indians did too well. your ignorance is appalling. Dont forget that our country actually did try a genocide with res schools and smallpox blankets.

Actually the Indian wars ended about 130 years ago. They started about 400 years ago.....

Palistinians can't really be compared with native American Indians in the 1600's anyway. Your argument is basically might makes right. Israel has the might, so they have the right. An argument which didn't defend the Germans very well for their actions during WWII.

[JMS]

I'm surprised it hasn't already. Are there any non-Arab countries who practice a divestment policy towards Israel? Maybe since it's a strong US ally whereas South Africa wasn't they're much more hesitant to anger that alliance.

I believe the Palistinians only recently became the majority of the people inside the control of the Israeli's, .... Last few years; and that's only if you count children. It's been a projected issue for decades. In the 1980's Israel settled about a million european jews from Russia 20% of their total population, to forstall this event for a few decades. ( this was part of the Jonathan Pollard motivation for stealing US secrets and why they ended up in Soviet hands). It's also one of the primary motivations on the Israeli's part for pursuing the Clinton peace initiatives of the late 1990's.

One last thought, South Africa was a strong US ally. We are the ones who kept them afloat even in the face of decades of sanctions from other countries. An internal US movement finally changed that by systematically targetting and boycotting American companies and Universities which continued to invest and do business there.

When those companies and universities pulled their support, apparthied was doomed.

Israel could be subject to the same type of movment. A pretty terrifying thought for Israeli's because it would mean an end to their own control over their destiny. Problem is it's also something that would be potentially disasterous for the region.

[JMS]

Yup, which is why we may see more calls for annexation as a solution even by moderate-radical Palestinians. Israeli Zionists are already worried about being bred out by Arab Israelis.

Agreed.

Right-of-return should be about as dead as continuing settlements in a peace process. It's not only a giant point of division which the sides won't budge on, but it would actually destroy the identity of Israel.

That doesn't really make much sense for the Palistinian side. They've taken 80% of your homes and land and warehoused you for generations... so give up your right of return which every nation on earth including the United States supports in exchange for keeping the status quo???

Fact is, if the majority Palistinians just make the case for the vote and get it.... They've already destroyed the identiy of Israel. That ship has just about saled. Many Palistinians are already asking for the vote.

Which assuming everyone had both states' interests in mind (lol) would be a lousy achievement. It sucks that displaced Palestinians and their descendants were forced out, but aside from some of them and radicals I don't think the average Palestinian would have a problem with recognizing a Jewish state, or accepting that it's okay for Israel to try to maintain it as that within a properly bordered Israel. And of course without applying overly-Draconian policies on current Arab Israelis.

My point is the sun is setting on the two state solution. Why should the majority of the people living in a democracy accept a two state solution from the minority who refuses to give them the vote? That's a simple case to make in the world community. It's an argument I think even most Americans can understand.

[Perky72]

Thanks, I didn't know or forgot that the US was a late-comer to action against South Africa.

My point is the sun is setting on the two state solution. Why should the majority of the people living in a democracy accept a two state solution from the minority who refuses to give them the vote? That's a simple case to make in the world community. It's an argument I think even most Americans can understand.

Gotcha, and it goes back to your (I think it was yours?) previous point--pick one or the other. Either Israel should negotiate a two-state solution, or a one-state solution. If you're right that the sun really is setting on the two-state, that should give Israel a lot of motivation to get that before it sets, or the only solution they'd have left really would destroy them as a Jewish state.

I'd say I'm slightly more optimistic after learning your points, but hopes for Israel-Palestine are really hard to keep up. I've been on several optimistic waves over the decades but each one eventually crashes. Very fatiguing and depressing.

[GhostofSparta]

Donate Israel to Archaeologists and don't allow occupation of the land ever...

Well see then you'll have archaelogists fighting over specific spots, and the cycle will start all over again...

[Jrew1223]

5- the Arabs had overwhelming superiority in almost every facet in all 3 wars yet got handled and the Palestinians did nothing.

• Haha superiority my!@#$... The reason the Arabs lost the first war was because they worked to their own national interests. The only thing the Arabs had that was superior at the time was the population count. Israel has always had military superiority against its Arab neighbors.

((this statement alone tells me you have been reading biased histories, even the most biased military historians wouldnt say what you just said. the only war that the Israleis could have possibly been considered to have better equipment and training was the last one and the arabs had the advantage of surprise and superior numbers. FFS go read a book that wasnt written by an arab apologist making excuses for why they performed so terribly, its a FACT that Israel had a make shift military for much of her existence early on and its a FACT that early on the US and Brits hindered more than helped them, that they survived at all was a minor miracle.))

You claim to have read the issues from both sides but your obvious bias shows me that you did not. I studied it for 5 years in university and have debated and spoken to several experts from the ME and the consensus has always been that until recently Israel wanted peace but the arab nations did not until they regained "face" and land. that has only VERY recently changed.

also any American who even thinks of talking about this situation BEFORE learning their own history should be slapped. YOUR country and mine both have nothing to say about stealing land.

• Okay, Okay… #1 I used to be just like you and most of the other posters here that supported Israeli self defense against the Arabs. After hearing another side to the story I decided to stop believing what I was “TOLD” and start searching for information on my own. I have heard the arguments from both sides and I agree that both sides had opportunities to reach out for peace and did not. The problem is that after surveying in detail the history of the region since the first Jewish migration in the late 1800’s I can pin point the steps the occurred by Jewish instigation of the native population that has led to the conditions we have today.

#2 – It’s irresponsible to make a claim that because we live in the USA and Canada (which I am Nova Scotian fyi) that because of our national history, that we ourselves had nothing to do with, we somehow have no legitimacy to question a nation doing the same thing currently. I say this because we ourselves can’t change the past, but we are seeing this happen right before our eyes and we can do something about what’s happening now before all the Palestinians are killed.

((LOL the past being 100 years ago? are you really that dense? so its ancient history because it happened here but recent because its over there?))before speaking try reading, I suggest you go read about road allowances and the metis, or the farming experiment in saskatchewan in the 1800's that succeeded so well that the government went back in and removed all farming tools because the indians did too well. your ignorance is appalling. Dont forget that our country actually did try a genocide with res schools and smallpox blankets.

Israel is here, they are in the dominant position and unlikely to give up with out a fight. BTW why dont you quote your sources? I have seen many of your quotes and frankly the websites they came from are not exactly unbiased.

The truth is you have an agenda and are trying to couch it in a reasonable manner but im not motivated enough to educate you, for every single so called atrocity you cite the arabs perpetrated several, for ever religious zealot you "quoted" I can find a thousand quotes by arabs talking about killing all the yehudis or pushing them into the sea.)))

1. Britain helped set up the institutions a state needs to get Israel off the ground and also trained their troops in military tactics BEFORE the 1948 war.

2. Every counter argument you are making is lacking context. You claim that I don't know my history, but Ive not only read the books youve read but all the others as well. The difference between you and I is that my facts come from a collage of sources... Your facts seem to come from very narrow minded sources that don't put history in context.

[Jrew1223]

Hey JMS...

This guy Ryman of the North can't be this misinformed can he? When I read his messages I think I've taken a crazy pill or two...

[JMS]

If you're right that the sun really is setting on the two-state, that should give Israel a lot of motivation to get that before it sets, or the only solution they'd have left really would destroy them as a Jewish state.

The sun setting on the two state solution is why Ariel Sharon backed the two state solution and broke with the Lekud party nearly a decade ago.

Today it's a done deal. Even the Israeli's admit the Palistinians (in total) outnumber the Jews in Israel. The only issue is many of the Palistinians are still children. Anyway that was the entire premise of Jimmy Carter's last book on the subject. Peace not Aparthied.

He was making the case that the sun is setting on the two state solution deal. Many Many in Israel realized this and were motivated to make a deal. The majority of the people I believe. Problem is the parlementary system used by Israel, and much of the democratic world, favors the minority parties when the opinions are diverse.

So even though Ariel Sharon's old party which favors a two state solution won more seats in the Knesset in the last Israeli elections.... They weren't asked to form a government because the second and third vote getters were opposed to land for peace deal and they outnumbered the Kadima party seats.

I'd say I'm slightly more optimistic after learning your points, but hopes for Israel-Palestine are really hard to keep up. I've been on several optimistic waves over the decades but each one eventually crashes. Very fatiguing and depressing.

I don't know if I would go that far. The protests involving south africa took a good 30 years to penitrate our culture. The South Africans also had Nelson Mandella and Bishop TuTo waiting in the wings to accept power.

The Israeli situation could turn out much worse than SA.

I preffer a negotiated settlement. It's clean and much more predictable. But I really don't think there's anybody on eather side now who can or will negotiate a deal.