Response to Cyrus

It would remove the root cause of the current problem. The days when the organized Palestinian fronts like Fatah and the PLFP proclaimed their desire to replace Israel with a "secular" state are long gone. The central conflict now is that Israel is determined to isolate the Palestinians in the occupied territories into Bantustan-like enclaves seperated by a network of fortified settlements connected with Israel-controlled roads and superstructure (water, utilities, etc.), and sees little reason, in the absence of U.S. pressure, to consider any significant departure from this plan.


The Palestinians refuse to go along with it. What self-respecting people would?

--""The country of Israel is defined according to international law. The Palestinians are not defending a country. Maybe they should have a country, but they don't. The two issues, while interrelated, are not the same.""--


You're presenting only half the story.


The Palestinians who have been getting killed are not "outsiders" attacking Israel. The Palestinians who have been getting killed are not "guerillas", i.e. armed and dangerous, but ordinary civilians, including women, children and old men. Israelis kill indiscriminately - then are surprised when Palestinians respond to barbarism and terrorism with babarism and terrorism of their own, such as the discotheque bombings.


Note also, that Israel has been formally asked by the int'l forum specifically & uniquely empowered to execute International Law, which is the United Nations, to abandon land won in 1967, explicitly. It is Israel that is re-occupying now the land won in 1967 and supposedly handed over to the Palestinians after Oslo (not really, read the small print). It is the Israelis who have violated International Law many times over, not the occupied Palestinians, but Israel has avoided codemnation on the basis of ONE SOLE VETO. Guess what country vetoes automaticall any condemnation of Israel for 50 years now. Not that a unanimous condemnation would sweat the Israelis any, when not followed by real measures, but still! It goes to show you who's for the Law and who's not. Isn't that what you're after, the rule of law?

You wrote:


"We don't give aid to countries which refuse to engage in diplomacy or which insist upon violating the human rights of their people."


Bulls***!. Are you saying that Israel does not violate the human rights of it's people? Perhaps if those people are of Jewish descent but that's it. The number one principle that a democracy must abide by is to follow the Rule of Law. Meaning that all of it's citizens are treated equally before the law and that nobody is above the law. A country is not a democracy unless it does this! You cannot call Israel a democracy simply because it let's it's citizens vote every four or five years.. that is NOT enough!


I'll admit that this is a separate issue from the World Trade Centre attacks. I'm not saying there was justification for it. But to say that the U.S. only supports countries which don't violate human rights is complete nonsense.

Chris Alger wrote --"The central conflict now is that Israel is determined to isolate the Palestinians in the occupied territories into Bantustan-like enclaves seperated by a network of fortified settlements connected with Israel-controlled roads and superstructure (water, utilities, etc.), and sees little reason, in the absence of U.S. pressure, to consider any significant departure from this plan.""--


Precisely. Exactly.


But why quibble with fate?! It is kishmet, it is fate that Israel will win this battle. (That the U.S. will bomb the greater Afghani/Pakistani/Bellagiani area to smithereens will be totally irrelevant to the process.)


And the Palestinians shall be confined in reservations. And they shall breed and multiply and go forth. And they will get full sovereignty in their little 100-acre free lands. And they will struggle to get out of poverty and they will display their ancient culture's wares for the tourists. And they will sport their traditional garb proudly if sullenly. And their kids will be educated in Israeli schools and they will learn law, mathematics and business. And one day they will apply for a casino licence.


And then Palestinians will have their revenge.

But will there be peace? Yes or no. If no, why?

No, I'm not after the rule of law, per se, and I'm glad you provided some information of which I was not aware.


If Northern Mexico had historically been used as a springboard for terrorist attacks on the U.S., I bet we would occupy Northern Mexico too (if the attacks persisted after our fisrt massive response), and it might well be necessary as a means of self-defense. Is this a somewhat valid analogy?

--""If Northern Mexico had historically been used as a springboard for terrorist attacks on the U.S., I bet we would occupy Northern Mexico too (if the attacks persisted after our fisrt massive response), and it might well be necessary as a means of self-defense. Is this a somewhat valid analogy?""--


Analogy to what? The Israeli occupation of South Lebanon, perhaps? I don't understand.


..A general point, the most important point:


The Palestinian refusal to be quiet was accurately analyzed by Chris Alger (check my post titled "Crystal Ball"). But when do we move beyond the nationalist/irredentist claims on LAND, which have been keeping the whole world in a 19th century mindset with all this?! We are pro-Israeli if we believe that Israel has a divine claim on those or those lands, and we are pro-Palestinian if we believe that it's the Palestinians that have a historical claim on the land. I say be done with it!.. The world moves towards globalization, whether we want it or not, which involves the weakening of frontiers and the strengthening of ideas. Why is a secular, non-religious, all-race state, along the lines of a United States not an objective?


If only the Jews had created such a country in 1948!.. They would have truly been our saviors, literally. They would have truly become, by circumstance, the chosen people. A free country such as this would have ushered the whole humanity past our childhood, into a new age of reflection and enlightment.

Given 50 years of conflict I can't imagine that the unilateral acts of any side to this conflict could bring immediate peace throughout Israel and the occupied territories. It's really a question of whether the parties continue on their present course, which will certainly result in greater violence, perhaps even more unimaginable than what has already occurred, or whether they radically shift their efforts towards negotiating a reasonble solution.


This is all so much wishful thinking, as Israel's leadership is not inclined to alter their plans for territorial aggrandizement in the absence of firm U.S. pressure, which is probably less likely now. I note that Sharon today cancelled planned talks between Peres and Arafat, exploiting the political advtange to Israel provided by the WTC bombers.

50 years!!! I thinbk you've sadly revealed something about yourself, here.


Try a few thousand years.


Do you really think that the creation of the State of Israel is responsible for ALL the turmoil in the mideast?


I'm not saying Israel is blameless. I think they're continuing policy of settling the West Bank is doing nothing more than throwing gasoline on the fire. Still it remains, as M pointed out, that Israel is a recognized political entity on this planet. Those who are committed to her extermination, and try to bring it about through violence, are criminals.


I feel the Palestinians deserve a homeland. I feel Palestinians deserve to live in peace and should be able to live and raise their children in a world in which they'll have some stake. They refuse to live under Israel rule yet they desire to live in Israel territory. I just don't see a solution. I'm sure Solomon would have had difficulty as well.