Stefan,
Can your father explain to us the reason for Bush saying one thing in June 2002 and the State Dept., doing everything to about face the whole thing. Really would love to know why Colin finds Arafat so "special" especially :-)) after getting Arafat's boot stuck in a "pot hole" in his, Colin's, roadmap.

While this sounds all well and good, I'll believe it when I see it. Yet again, I think this is all smoke and no fire. The Israeli government has shown itself willing to absorb endless numbers of casualties for fear of angering Palestinians who, frankly, couldn't be angrier than they already are.

I'd love to be wrong, but I have little hope of that.

Appreciate your father's interesting and informative post.

I strongly support the construction of the security wall (call a spade a spade for god sake). But the decision to incorporate the far-flung settlements within the security wall is morally and strategically indefensible.

hmm, so a settler in ariel has no right to protection from a suicide bomber because jews are not allowed on certain lands? Odd that Arabs are allowed to live in israel and the territories but Jews can't.

Also, I am doing a report on Palestine, would you happen to know its borders. Also, its last few governmental officials, its currency, you know the basic sort of indicia of a state's existence. I can't find this information anywhere as to a state that I know must exist, because it is now being occupied, and all jews are going to have to be forcibly expelled therefrom.

Marcus,
1. Have a good look at the map.
2. Define "far flung"
3. Why is Ariel block strategically or morally indefensible?

I find it hilarious that people who defend the Al Asqa Mosque on the Temple Mount claim "we know historically it is the Temple Mount. But look what is there now - a mosque" are the same people who would want the settlements around Ariel dismantled.

One of a google of double standards, I reckon.

The phrase "Morally indefensible" in that context is psychological voodoo. For some people it is very hard to stand up and voice the obvious fact that israel is stading against an onslaught of evil, and that all that suffering on the other side is not their fault. In order to be able to voice an opinion sympathetic to Israel at all, it is necessary to make a phrase like that at the same time as a sort of magic protection against the natural retribution for violating the rules. A way of saying "I'm not all bad, don't hit me just for saying a tiny bit of what is right..."

Given the refusal of Israel to grant them citizenship and democratic political rights, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have a moral right to a separate state in most of the West Bank (at least 90%), all of Gaza, and some of East Jerusalem. In addition, the creation of the state of Israel was also CONDITIONED on giving political rights to all Arabs living west of the Jordan as well. Hence, the 1947 partition plan.
The alternative proposal put forward by Sharon and other Likudniks is an eventual Palestinian state in 40-50% of the West Bank. This would not be viable, and it would not be fair to give such a meager amount of land to a group that will soon outnumber the Jewish population of Israel. For these reasons, such a proposal is morally indefensible. And in the same regard, moves to legitimize places like Ariel - whose very existence precludes an agreement leading to a more expansive Palestian state that has some room to grow - is morally indefensible as well.

From another perspective, the settlements are morally indefensible from a zionist point of view -- they threaten the long term viability of Israel and international support that it ought to have. They also allow Arabs to pussyfoot around the question of whether they support the existence of a Jewish state within reasonable boundaries, i.e. a Jewish state that does not control and occupy lands where Arabs are currently the majority.

Unfortunately, this may have been old because I read they caved in and will not include Ariel in the fence, even though it was included in the Taba agreements. Note, at Taba territorial maps wasn't even 1 of the 5 issues causing problems.

THUS, THE PAL'S WAR AND MURDER IN RESPONSE TO AN UNREAL OFFER, AND NOW BCS THEY MURDER A DEFACTO BORDER WILL BE SET UP ENCOMPASSING LESS FOR ISRAEL THAN WAS OFFERED AT TABA?

**********************
Reply to Markus

Given the refusal of Israel to grant them citizenship and democratic political rights, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have a moral right to a separate state in most of the West Bank (at least 90%), all of Gaza, and some of East Jerusalem. In addition, the creation of the state of Israel was also CONDITIONED on giving political rights to all Arabs living west of the Jordan as well. Hence, the 1947 partition plan.

They should get a state only when and if they fully accept in words and deeds Israel's existence. Otherwise, creating a State there for them is asking for Armagedon? ARE YOU FOR THAT? Do you believe they have shown in any way that they will not quickly seek to arm up and try and destroy and murder Israelis?
DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD GET A STATE ANYWAY, WITHOUT THIS PRECONDITION?

If not then who is really to blame for their misery?

The Partition Plan was conditioned on all residents rights being respected, that would include, the Jews that were living in the not yet named West Bank, that were liquidated as well. Sidenote, the Arab Armies then attacked and tried to liquidate all of the Jews living everywhere, not just the not yet existent West Bank. What would the result have been if they had succeeded? Do you think the UN thought the Arabs were going to invade and succeed beforehand???

The alternative proposal put forward by Sharon and other Likudniks is an eventual Palestinian state in 40-50% of the West Bank. This would not be viable, and it would not be fair to give such a meager amount of land to a group that will soon outnumber the Jewish population of Israel. For these reasons, such a proposal is morally indefensible.

BULLSHIT. This is an offer to get IDF out of 40% of the territories and allow the Pal's to demonstrate, which they won't, that they have given up their War against Israel.

And in the same regard, moves to legitimize places like Ariel - whose very existence precludes an agreement leading to a more expansive Palestian state that has some room to grow - is morally indefensible as well.

Please learn something before making idiotic statements like this. Ariel was included in Taba and was not even an issue!! The Temple Mount's existence, Jerusalem and the Refugees ""coming home"" were.

From another perspective, the settlements are morally indefensible from a zionist point of view -- they threaten the long term viability of Israel and international support that it ought to have.

International Support? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

They also allow Arabs to pussyfoot around the question of whether they support the existence of a Jewish state within reasonable boundaries, i.e. a Jewish state that does not control and occupy lands where Arabs are currently the majority.

"Pussyfoot around"
THERE IS NO PUSSYFOOTING ABO8UT IT! ISRAEL DOESN'T EXIST ON 1 ARAB MAP ANYWHERE! UNDER ANY BOUNDARIES! AND ON MANY EUROPEAN MAPS EITHER.
ITS NOT EVEN REFERRED TO AS A COUNTRY OR ISRAEL ONLY AS THE "ZIONIST ENTITY OR STATE"

What have you been smoking lately?

Mike, aside from your correction about Ariel being included within Jewish territory in the Barak Taba proposal(I'll take your word for that), your response is too hysterical to warrent a response. So I'll just back down, and you can go ahead and assume that's because you are so right and I'm so full of it (and what's more, even I know it, that's why I don't respond!!!)

after you are done gloating and basking in your self-righteousness, I'd encourage you to contemplate just why it is that even though your client is so completely innocent, down to the last chopped down Palestinian olive grove, and your clients enemy is so guilty - so few people across the world see things this same way? If the Israeli/Palestinian dispute is nothing more than a Manichean struggle between good and evil, if your cause is so utterly just, how is it that your powers of persuasion are so ineffective that hardly any of the world outside of a narrow majority of Jews (maybe not even that many) and a larger majority of evangelical Christians share this view?

Markus you'd have to address any one of my points specifically. You slyly say you can't respond but then note that -
"Well everyone sees Israel as wrong so you're (implied) probably some zealot with his eyes closed" (as would be the humble correspondant keeping this blog, by the way)

Whether or not I went over the top or not I addressed most of your points in detail and you did not do the same in return. Is there a reason for this?

1) Do the Pal's deserve a de-facto boarder better than Taba for turning down all offers and planning and setting off a war dance of death and mutual destruction? and training a generation on hate that Goerbells would admiring of?

2) If Israel's decision is preventing suicide bombers from blowing up pizzerias and buses with babies and women in it with nail bombs laced with rat poision by building a fence that in some places will destroy some Palestinian farm land - what do you recommend they do?

3) If the Palestinian have a moral right to a state, which I feel they do, should they get that state at the price of setting up future mutual destruction and Armageddon? or at the least quickly destroying any semblance of a peaceful life for Israelis? one that would make the present situation seem like a panacea? Would you be willing to bet your savings that this at the present situation as is, isn't a STRONG possibility?

And if the case then why don't the Tibetans and many others deserve a state. The Tibetans are peaceful and don't even threaten to take up armed struggle against China if given a state and have never resorted to saddling up teenagers with suicide belts to blow up innocent Chinese?
WHY IS THIS. THE CHINESE ARE FAR MORE POWERFUL THAN THE ISRAELIS?

And as far as accusing me of "being over the top"
Here is your statement again -

And in the same regard, moves to legitimize places like Ariel - whose very existence precludes an agreement leading to a more expansive Palestian state that has some room to grow - is morally indefensible as well.

'Legitimize places like Ariel? and precludes an agreement? Really?'

Land exchange and maps were not even 1 of the top 5 issues at Taba, Israel's existence was disguised in the "Refugee Return" and that the "Western Wall" is a made up Rabinnical fantasy and Jerusalem.

And finally, you try and imply that the Arabs are pussyfooting around "accepting" Israel's existence. So who is living in Fantasy Land YOU OR ME?

This is the #1 issues. THEY DON'T ACCEPT NOT 1 IOTA ISRAEL'S EXISTENCE.

Mike

Mike, the main reason I didn't respond point by point to your earlier post was that I'm at work and I really shouldn't be spending too much time on this stuff! (since I'm in the office most of the day, I don't have internet access at home)

But quickly, it is a matter of historical record that Palestinians, the PLO, the Palestinian Authority have embraced since the late eighties a two state solution stating that they accept Israel's existence. Your problem with this is probably that the Palestinian acceptance of Israel is grudging, equivocal, ambivelant, and CONDITIONAL. Apparently, for you and others, this lack of unabashed Palestinian enthusiasm for Zionism is proof of eternal Arab duplicity. To me, it is an counterproductive but understandable response from a proud, repeatedly humiliated group of people who have gotten their asses kicked in every war that they have ever started with the Israelis, and who have been rotting in refugee camps for fifty five years as a result.

You are correct that the most difficult issues when Israelis and Palestinians were sane enough to actually talk to each other prior to the election of Sharon were the refugees and Jerusalem. The biggest blunder in my view was that both sides had put off discussing them until the last possible moment.

By the way, under the right circumstances, and for the sake of peace, are YOU willing to compromise to some degree on either of these two issues? If yes, good for you. If not, what makes your intransigance any less of an obstacle to peace than Palestinian intransigence?

But quickly, it is a matter of historical record that Palestinians, the PLO, the Palestinian Authority have embraced since the late eighties a two state solution stating that they accept Israel's existence.

This false rhetoric is so tiring already. In what ways have they "accepted"? Does Israel exist in textbooks? are children taught that the way to peace is to accept Israel? are Arab children even given a glimpse into the vast Jewish history there? or are they taught the Jews are apes and pigs and thieves and zionism is 100% false land stealing colonialism and that the Temple Mount is a Rabinnical fantasy? No, they haven't demonstrated - 1 IOTA NOT 1 - of even begrudging acceptance. Instead of the new generation becoming less radical than their parents the opposite is true. I remember reading a story of when an Islamic Imam Zionist went to the Temple Mount and asked the Waqf guard what the Hill was and he said, the site of the prophet Solomon's Temple, he replied but that's not what your government says, and he quietly replied, "I do not get involved in politics" I'm sure the kids (wink wink) understand this, LMAO!
What did Arafat say on Jordanian tv after signing the "Declarations of "principle""?
What did Faisal Husseini say in an Egyptian interview in Kuwait in 2001 right before his death? (A moderate hero of the Israeli Left as well!)
DO YOU KNOW? So please cut that tired bullshit.
UNLESS YOU'D LIKE TO JUST CONTINUE BELIEVING YOUR FANTASY, IN WHICH CASE DON'T LET ME RUIN IT WITH REALITY.

Your problem with this is probably that the Palestinian acceptance of Israel is grudging, equivocal, ambivelant, and CONDITIONAL.

NO - IF IT SUCH A THING EXISTED CAMP DAVID/TABA WOULD HAVE BROUGHT A BUILDING PEACE AND PROSPERITY FOR BOTH PEOPLES. AGAIN, DON'T LET ME RUIN YOUR FANTASY LAND THOUGH.

Apparently, for you and others, this lack of unabashed Palestinian enthusiasm for Zionism is proof of eternal Arab duplicity.

You really like to hear yourself and your own dillusions speak don't you.

To me, it is an counterproductive but understandable response from a proud, repeatedly humiliated group of people who have gotten their asses kicked in every war that they have ever started with the Israelis,

I note the bolded part there for you. A proud people? that have rejected any compromise or peaceful arrangement that didn't constitute a full loaf in the past? Proud? Stupid? Warlike? Self-destructive? Dillusional?
What would you classify it as?

and who have been rotting in refugee camps for fifty five years as a result.

This is the most tired tripe of all!!! Rotting in refugee camps due to their own people on 99.99% of the Middle East land and note a mainly nomadic people to begin with! AND WHY! Well the King of Syria and Jordan told us in the 1950's and 60's! Maybe you never read those quotes. Again, don't let reality ruin your fantasy righteous images built up in your own mind!
By the way can the Sudetan Germans go back?
The Pakistani Hindus?
The Indian Muslims?
The Turkish Greeks?
The Greek Turks?
Do the European Jews get back their land in Europe?
Do the Sephardic Jews get back their 2000 yrs of property, land, memorabilia, heirlooms and money?
NO?????????
WHY THE FUCK NOT?

Why have the only refugees with their own UN Agency not been assimilated into lands where they speak the same language, have the same customs, eating habits, and culture while all other >100 MILLION REFUGEES since 1948 all been assimilated and not gotten a dime from the UN?????????????????

I'M SURE YOU WON'T FULLY ADDRESS this, so we'll leave that at that.

You are correct that the most difficult issues when Israelis and Palestinians were sane enough to actually talk to each other prior to the election of Sharon were the refugees and Jerusalem. The biggest blunder in my view was that both sides had put off discussing them until the last possible moment.

The Refugees aren't difficult. ITS SIMPLE. They are not going back to Israel proper. END OF STORY! Jerusalem was almost solved and then Arafat said that the Western Wall was a made up Rabinnical fantasy. That was his only newly added insite at Camp David! THIS NEW DISCOVERY OF HIS!
No shared control of the Mount. Only PLO control so they can speed their Nazi quest to destroy every remnant of 3000 years of World History from it and say in 20 years that no Hebrews or Byzantines ever existed there! SANITY AGAIN.

By the way, under the right circumstances, and for the sake of peace, are YOU willing to compromise to some degree on either of these two issues?

REFUGEES. ONLY AS A LAST THING AFTER EVERYTHING IS FULLY RESOLVED. Any Refugee still alive from 48, and there are only a few 100,000 left - Are you aware of that? can apply for residency cards, but not citizenship.
Jerusalem, the answer above pretty clearly explains that.

If yes, good for you. If not, what makes your intransigance any less of an obstacle to peace than Palestinian intransigence?

Again, stop smoking the stuff. JUST SAY NO.
Respectfully (:-)) -
Mike

Palestinian Liberal Columnist on All or Nothing Arab Strategy
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD57303

Markus: But quickly, it is a matter of historical record that Palestinians, the PLO, the Palestinian Authority have embraced since the late eighties a two state solution stating that they accept Israel's existence.

Perhaps, but the problem is that the "two states" that they insist on are: (1) a Palestinian Arab state and (2) a bi-national Jewish/Arab state that must permit the "right of return" of Arab "refugees" that would quickly to lead to an Arab majority and an end to Israel.

Stefan you know that even your above statement is just parsing reality. Its another way of saying I don't want to kill you, I just want to see if I stick this knife in your chest if there is a way you might live?

Your just parsing bullshit, for C*** sake they tell you in Arabic exactly what they are doing and what they want.
1) Phased Approach
2) Negotiate and War Negotiate and War
3) Vietnamese KGB advice. A peaceful front to your org and a War Front. Always keep arm's distance in appearance between the two. Start org's in the enemy's homefront that will raise sympathy for your 'stated' cause. Bleed your enemy, a democracy can not stomcach any death or violence. VIETCONG HOW TO DEFEAT A DEMOCRACY.

Lebanon withdrawal in 2000 sound ring a bell?