New Israeli/Palestinian peace plan

[nicky g]

Not taking even more of someone else's territory does not consitute a concession.

[nicky g]

"Israel was attacked by Arabs, by Palestinians, by suicide bombers long before the dispute over the territories."

Long before the dispute over these territories you mean. I recall a small dispute over territories occupied by a million Palestinians who were driven out in 1948. That may have had something to do with it. It doesn't matter how small a percentage of the arab world Israel consititutes. That makes little difference to the people who lived their and have been in refugee camps for 55 years.

[MMMMMM]

Well that's a nice thought, but given the Palestinian Arab history of suicide bombing attacks, and the overall Arab history of military attacks on Israel, I don't believe it.

Israel was attacked before the settlements were even in place, Israel has been attacked at every stage along the way.

Suicide bombers are fanatics and not likely to rationally decide that all they want is Israeli withdrawal from the territories. The kids are being taught suicide-bomber glorification in kindergarten. This is a sick society.

The Hamas Charter calls for violence to scuttle any peace process until the right of full return, a euphemism for the destruction of the state of Israel.

Well...'til Monday;-)

[MMMMMM]

Yes it does...the neighboring Arab states were poised and determined to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth...Israel had the right to hold ALL lands gained from their failed war.

The aggressor can't just attack without risking something...all through history when a war of aggression fails, it often loses land along with its failed attempt at conquest. That's sort of the hidden penalty for wars of aggression, and it's how borders have often been redrawn.

If there were no risk of land for the aggressor in war--if the aggressor could try to take another country's land but not risk any of his own--that would be a helluva proposition. Sort of like betting a few dollars to win a house, rather than betting a house against a house. So when the aggressor wages war to take over another country, the aggressor is also betting his own land that he will win. You can't have aggressors getting the best of it all around...having the chance to win another's land but not to lose their own land if they lose the bet (the war).

America was non-imperialistic enough recently to NOT take lands from those who attacked us and lost. We could have taken Japan in WWII after their failed war of aggression against us, but we didn't and instead helped them rebuild.

[nicky g]

"The aggressor can't just attack without risking something...all through history when a war of aggression fails, it often loses land along with its failed attempt at conquest. That's sort of the hidden penalty for wars of aggression, and it's how borders have often been redrawn."

Firstly, That's not how I want to see a modern world work - might is right. I suppose not annexing Lebanon was a concession too.

Furthermore, Israel is not simply interested in holding the land - it wants the land minus its inhabitants. Which is known as ethnic cleansing or genocide. There is no right to expel the inhabitants of an area under any circumstances.

[B-Man]

Asked to comment on Hamas operations that sometimes kill civilians, Sheik Yassin said: "We are a people who condemn the killing of civilians. We don't see this [killing of civilians] is a good thing."

The civilians must be spared in the conflict," Sheik Yassin, who is also Hamas' spiritual leader, said in the telephone interview from his home in the Gaza Strip.

I've decided to try to stay out of the Israel/Palestinian threads for a number of reasons (principally because (a) their is no way to convince those prejudiced against Israel to view the situation reasonably, and (b) that I just don't have the time to post as much as I used to), but I can not sit by and watch you spread these blatant lies.

Palestinian terrorists (including Hamas) have repeatedly specifically targetted civilians. Arafat, the others leaders of the terrorists, and the anti-Israel crowd on this board can spread whatever lies and propaganda they wish, but there is a difference between (a) claiming that you are against the targetting of civilians, and (b) specifically targetting civilians (repeatedly!).

Arafat and his cronies have always said, in effect, "Judge me by what I say, not by what I do." The quotes you listed are further examples of that. People have wised up to the lies, Chris. They just wont fly anymore. Terrorists will be held accountable for their actions, no matter what spin they put on them.

[MMMMMM]

There has always been a huge gulf between what they have done and said.

I'm going away for the weekend so I won't be able to try to refute or clarify more in this thread for a few days at least.

I am really beginning to think that part of the Road Map should include provisions, if necessary, for the U.S. to work with Israel to eliminate all the regional terrorist groups (much like operations in Afhanistan and Iraq, but on a smaller scale). Have Israel withdraw somewhat and build a wall to keep the animals out. Give the Palestinians a full homeland too, but be prepared to zap any terrorist enclaves that emerge. And yes, I'm saying the terrorists are animals--that's how morally and spiritually devolved they have become.

[Cyrus]

"Israel exists and will continue to exist."

Check.

"Therefore defined boundaries are necessary."

Check.

"In order for there to be peace, large Palestinian factions cannot be avowed to perpetually attack Israel .... it simply isn't practical and it can't work."

Check!

...Now, I ask you again : What are the boundaries that would satisfy Israel?

[Cyrus]

"I've decided to try to stay out of the Israel/Palestinian threads for a number of reasons"

I can't fathom your "reasons" but you were in this very thread until I brought forth about half a dozen books, mostly written by eminent Jewish academics, that bring out the lie of official Israeli policy and propaganda.

Without for once claiming that things are black or white and without ever accepting willy-nilly that Arabs and Palestinians are right in all respects, I have tried my best to provide substance and rationality in my discussions. And what do I get in return? Either long texts of personal abuse or tent-folding in a huff. Is it my breath?..

half a dozen tons of evidence

[Chris Alger]

"I've decided to try to stay out of the Israel/Palestinian threads for a number of reasons (principally because (a) their is no way to convince those prejudiced against Israel to view the situation reasonably"

No, you have it completely backwards. All of the critics of Israel on this site have agreed that Israel should continue to exist in peace and security within recognized boundries. Yet neither you nor Bruce nor M have ever, to my knowledge, agreed that Palestinian Arabs have a legitimate political claim of independence and sovereignty to the land that is now Israel (which their leaders, unlike Israel's, have agreed to compromise), or even any claim of sovereignty to the 22% remaining under Israeli military occupation and tyranny. Since this can only be explained under some racial theory of national supremacy, it is your side that is unreasonably prejudiced against Palestinian Arabs. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could explain just what political rights the Palestinians have to their former homeland, and what Israel should to do to recognize those rights.

"Palestinian terrorists (including Hamas) have repeatedly specifically targetted civilians."

That's correct, and I think its just as wrong as the 100+ "targeted" assasinations carried out by Israel over the last three years, and all the other deliberate murder of civilians, cases of which I've repeatedly pointed out. The only difference is that the Palestinians acknowledge that this is what they're doing, and Israel denies it. Since you assume that Israeli officials must always speak the truth, you maintain that the thousands of civilans Israel has killed over the years are accidental "collateral damage." Here's yet another, taken virtually at random from an very large file: "On Saturday, Israeli soldiers shot and killed a Palestinian woman and her 12-year-old daughter in a field in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian officials said. The Israeli Army said that the two were in a prohibited zone near Gaza's fence, and that soldiers opened fire on them because they considered them suspicious. “Bethlehem Invaded Again, as Israelis Extend Control,” James Bennet, NYT, 5/27/02.

"there is a difference between (a) claiming that you are against the targetting of civilians, and (b) specifically targetting civilians (repeatedly!)"

Not when you do both at the same time, like Israel does.

"People have wised up to the lies, Chris. They just wont fly anymore. Terrorists will be held accountable for their actions, no matter what spin they put on them."

The only reason that Arafat is out of the picture is that Israel and the US refuse to deal with him. As he's been under house arrest for over a year, and can't say a word without Israeli intelligence learning all about it, it is ludicrous to assume that he's in charge of the terrorist campaign against Israel, a charge that not even Israel or the US has ever made (the State Department expressly denies it). This is merely a staple of the chauvanist pro-Israel press.