News Focus
News Focus
icon url

brainlessone

04/05/03 7:27 PM

#13953 RE: optionking #13951

best thing for you to do is to read Sharons speeches, if you really want to understand. What he says is not what the media reports. they are available in the archives of various israeli papers
icon url

Zeev Hed

04/05/03 10:10 PM

#13968 RE: optionking #13951

I have not been a supporter of Sharon, I disagree with his policies. Real politiks, however dictates that "only Nixon could open China", only "Begin signed peace with Egypt", only "Shamir signed with Jordan", so maybe , only Sharon can make peace with Palestinians....

I disagreed with depicting Sharon as a blood thirsty beast, because he is not, he may be less "sensitive" to some issues than Beilin, or Sarid, of even Peres, but these have not been able to bring peace, so the Israeli chose a more doctrinaire leader who's philosophy is simple, unless there is a major cost to avoiding peace, the Palestinians will not come to the table and abandon their "from the river tot the sea" slogan, so he is exacting the cost, and mostly from the terrorists that chant that slogan, not from most Palestinians.

Is he right? I don't know, history will be the judge of his policy.

Zeev
icon url

mlsoft

04/05/03 11:16 PM

#13976 RE: optionking #13951

optionking....

I will of course let Zeev speak for himself, but I don't think you have read many of his posts on the subject.

Bush and Blair have outlined a roadmap for peace between the palestinians and the Israelis that meets the minimum requirements of the pressure on both of them by the arabs and europeans to force Israel to make concessions to the palestinians supposedly in order to gain peace. It may have a chance of working, but I personally doubt it because the palestinians do not want peace, they want the elimination of Israel.

Sharon has a different set of responsibilities, and the foremost of those is the protection of the State of Israel. He will accede to the wishes of the United States, Britain, and the rest of the world only to the extent that he does not feel it threatens the safety of Israel too much. He understands that the sine qua non for the arabs as a whole and especially the palestinians is the elimination of the State of Israel so he will not just cave in to "world opinion." He will want the palestinians to show good faith before granting them any form of statehood and I suspect he will insist that the statehood itself be limited to begin with and he will reserve the right (perhaps in private agreements) that if statehood does not end the terrorism against Israel then Israel will again take the areas over and invalidate that statehood. That is as it should be.

-----------------

"And you think Palis dont deserve a homeland but the Kurds do???"

The oft stated goal of the palestinians is the elimination of Israel, so no - they do not deserve statehood unless and until they are willing to live in peace with Israel.

mlsoft





icon url

Zeev Hed

04/06/03 1:31 PM

#14011 RE: optionking #13951

Option, in reading mlsoft reply to your post, I see I failed to address the question you asked about Palestinians deserving a state and Kurds not. You see, the Palestinians already have a state, it is called Jordan (70% plus Palestinians), thus as far as deserving, no they don't deserve a second state when the Kurds still do not have a single state. The real politiks of the situation is that after 1967, suddenly the West bank Palestinians decided they want an additional state (they never wanted such a state when they were occupied and annexed by Jordan. As far as the "moral issue", it is quite clear, Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 hoping to expand its state's border to the Mediteranean. They failed, and signed a Peace agreement between Jordan (the Palestinian state) and Israel that eliminated the annexation of the West Bank (from 1950) to Jordan. The parallel is Germany signing a peace agreement in 1945, resulting in the loss to Germany of East Prussia, to Russia and Silesia to Poland, and making permanent the solution to the the Alsace/Loraine dispute in favor of France. Why should the two situations be different?

From a moral point of view, the Palestinians refugees are no different that the Jewish/Arab refugees that were absorbed by Israel, thus the moral thing to do is indeed complete the population exchange that started in 1948 when Jews were expelled from all Arab countries, and relocate the Palestinians into the properties confiscated by the various Arab nations.

Is that a realistic solution? I am not sure, but it is the moral one.

Zeev
icon url

Zeev Hed

04/06/03 5:43 PM

#14020 RE: optionking #13951

Option, here is someone else's view on the need for a second Palestinian State:

exists
By Enoch Ziss April 6, 2003


An open letter sent to President George W. Bush and Sec. of
State Colin Powell:

The history of the Middle East, including the region once known as
Palestine, is a complicated one. Without going into too many
details, it can be summarized as follows:

The Balfour Declaration of Nov.2, 1917 issued by the British
government proposed the establishment of a national home for
the Jewish people.

The area in which that Jewish national home was to be
established was understood, at the time of the Balfour
Declaration, to be the whole of historic Palestine, which includes
the area currently known as the modern state of Jordan.

All of "Palestine" was supposed to be shared by both the Jewish
people and the existing Arab-speaking population. In other
words, historic Palestine was supposed to become the home of
two major groups: the Jewish-Palestinians and Arab-Palestinians.

In 1921, Britain subdivided the Palestine Mandate, drawing a line
along the Jordan River to the Gulf of Akaba. The eastern portion,
known as Transjordan, was renamed Jordan and became
independent in 1946. This state was carved out of almost 78% of
Palestine Mandate and approximately 80% of its citizens call
themselves Palestinian. No Jew has been allowed to live there or
to become its citizen.

Thus, the viable, independent Palestinian state already exists and
it is called Jordan.

In reality, a two-state solution for Palestine has been in place for
more than half a century.

As Prince Hassan, brother of King Hussein, said while addressing
the Jordanian National Assembly on February 2nd, 1970:
"Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is one people
and one land, with one history and one and the same fate."

Common sense dictates that the rest of the territory of historic
Palestine should become a Jewish-Palestinian state.

There are many arguments against the creation of a second
Arab-Palestinian state.

A mere glance at the map of the region shows both how tiny is
the size of the land east of the Jordan river and how contrived is
the idea of carving yet another state out of it. It should be
obvious that the Jordan River is the only natural eastern border
of Israel.

Judea and Samaria, or the west bank of the Jordan River, are the
heartland of the ancient Jewish homeland where most of the
Biblical holy sites are located.

As recent and painful events have shown (including the
destruction of Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, the desecration of the
ancient synagogue in Jericho, and the unlawful digging and
excavation conducted by Moslem Waqf on the Temple Mount), the
only way to ensure the sanctity of Jewish holy places is to place
them under the protection of Israel.

There is also a strategic military consideration. The proposed
creation of a second Arab-Palestinian state will leave Israel yet
again with only a 9-mile width at its midsection. Considering the
history and reality of the Middle East it is obvious both to laymen
and military experts that this would expose Israel to unacceptable
existential risks and leave the country with indefensible borders.

The scarcity of natural resources as basic as water is another
argument against dividing the area between the Jordan River and
the Mediterranean into two states, as this is clearly a recipe for
conflict.

Once the idea of a second Arab Palestinian state is rejected it will
become possible to concentrate on finding a creative solution to
the conflict.

Residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza have already been offered
broad autonomy in most spheres of cultural and economic life.

One possibility might be to offer financial incentives and help in
relocation may be offered to those who would opt to join their kin
in Jordan or other countries.

If tiny, embattled Israel with its limited resources has been able
to absorb millions of repatriates from all over the world (including
a million of refugees from Arab countries), than it is certainly
should be possible to resolve the problem of Arab-Palestinian
refugees as well.