As I bid this thread farewell for the night, I have two more observations. 1. <b>Boy</b> won't answer my very simple question- what does Israel have to do to obtain lasting peace? He won't answer my question because we both know there is only one answer. Israel can only achieve permanent peace with the Palestinians by <b>ceasing to exist</b>. 2. <b>Timing</b> won't answer my questions either. I have already conceded that the Israelis have been very nasty while defending their lives. That is a given. Perhaps if I ask the questions one more time in a very nice tone? Timing, if we could magically end the violence, and procure a one month ceasefire, which group do you think would restart the violence first? Which group walked away from the last round of Peace Talks? Which side started the hostilities in the first place?
Otto, you and I are not communicating. If the question is- <b>should</b> Jerusalem be a holy place for Moslems based on the tenants fo the Islamic faith, the answer is clearly yes. Boy has demonstrated why this is so. If you are asking if Jerusalem should be a holy place for Moslems based on the tenants of the Jewish faith, the answer is "who cares what the Jews think about this subject?". If the Moslems feel the city is holy, and international law gives the Moslems certains rights to the city, then that answer is good enough for me.
Thanks for your post Cabbage. I can only argue that Israel has never felt safe enough to give the lands from the 1967 war back, because those disputed lands are the buffer zone that has enabled Israel to exist. When the Palestinians fulfill their end of that bargain, which they have not, then maybe Israel can return the lands. Asking Israel to abide by that UN resolution today is analogous to asking a citizen in a crime ridden neighborhood to leave his doors and windows open every night. In reference to the photographer, he is a Palestinian who may very well have been playing the propaganda game. If a Palestinian gunman actually killed the child, and the Palestinian photographer reported that as fact, how long do you think that photographer could survive in Arafat controlled territory?
Logically, the Palestinians would probably restart the violence first because there are many groups who may ignore any instructions from the PLO. Israel, one would assume, has more control over their military than the PLO could ever have over countless groups of activists. You've asked a loaded question to get a desired answer. You've said here that the fact that Israel was given control over these lands is irrelevant. How in the world could that be irrelevant to the people who have been oppressed, mistreated, and murdered? That fact is very relevant. These "peace talks" are headed by US efforts. The US is Israel's biggest ally. Why should Palestinians even bother with it? Do you think Israel would bargain with the PLO if it were Syria heading the peace talks? They're being murdered by the very weapons that are provided by the US who is now heading the peace talks. Okay...
Rodney I was thinking about what you said and honestly the only conclusion I've come up with is I don't know. I'm not Palestinian I can't tell you what they'd like. I personally don't mind Israel's existance given on the grounds that Israel gives back the land of the Jewish settlements, gives most of the land which i guess would be the West Bank, Gaza, and those areas. East Jerusalem=Israeli/West Jerusalem=Palestinian with Aqsa/Western Wall being in secured by UN and that neither side can have a military near it and both sides can come in and go out freely. Also that Israel demilitarizes given the security of UN of course. Also Palestinian refugees should be allowed to back to their nation if it is made. That for me would be ok. However I can't speak on behalf of those who have been living in these conditions for decades. And Rodney I really dispute that Arafat even has that much control. Hamas doesn't trust him. Most Palestinians I've met think he's a crook. He has no control. He cannot control the Palestinian 'intifadah' period.
Why should Israel be demilitarized. That is an extreme measure enacted against countries that engage in wars of conquest (Nazi Germany and Japan). What has Israel done to deserve such. Maybe the coalition of Arab nations that tried to invade a fledgling country (and had their asses handed to them) should be the ones who are demilitarized. My simple yet mostly unpopular solution to the problem is based on the idea that comprimise leaves both sides unhappy. Have the Palestinians who cannot accept Isreali rule move to one of the many neighboring countries that are controlled by Muslim Arabs. Obviously if it comes to an all out war, most people would bet on Israel to win, so the Palestinians sould concede defeat. This makes no judgement on who is right or wrong. As you can see from the debate on this board (in America consisting mostly of people completely unaffected) determining who is right is an exercise in futility. Instead we could have peace in Israel and if anyone has a problem with it, they can fight a real war instead of this chicken-**** terrorist crap. I am sure at least some civilian lives would be saved, Israeli and Palestinian alike.
