The Palestinians wouldn't get the land for 30 years, so how could they give it back? They would just never get it. I'm not saying you hand over the land first (that would be dumb) - I said Israel would hand it over in 30 years ala Hong Kong - only afterwards. So the Israelis wouldn't actually being giving up anything unless peace is established first. They are making a committment to return the land in exchange for 30 years of peace - meaning the Palestinians have to prove they will live harmoniously for a generation. Israel isn't risking anything.
I was reading the New York Times today and one of the letters to the editor reminded me of our discussion here. To the Editor: Tom Segev points in his article to “Islamism” as the “driving force” among Palestinians that is helping perpetuate the conflict. But the political history of the Palestinian struggle, which spans 70 years at least, points to national aspirations as the moving force behind the Palestinian movement. These aspirations were and remain overwhelmingly secular, with the right to self-determination at the cornerstone of the Palestinian political movement, despite the victory of Hamas in the recent elections in the West Bank and Gaza. The means of achieving these aspirations have changed over time, and will likely continue to evolve: from family and tribal affiliations in the 1940s and 50s, to the socialist and quasi-Marxist movements of the 60s and 70s to the secular Fatah movement in the 80s and 90s and the recent rise in religious parties like Hamas. To reduce the driving force behind the Palestinian political and military struggle to religious extremism contributes to the continuous misunderstanding of the “Palestinian other,” thus decreasing the chances of a mutual peaceful accord between Israelis and Palestinians. Hana El Sahly Houston, June 5, 2007
Like I said, good luck getting anybody on the Palestinian side to agree to that plan. They wouldn't agree to the same plan without penalties for attacks when Israel offered it before because it didn't include "right of return" for "refugees". The Palestinians (and the Arabs as a whole) don't want there to be an Israel as we know it. They either want it gone completely, or failing that, dominated politically by Palestinians. They certainly don't want to end the conflict by handing over all the land to Israel and pulling up stakes, which would be the inevitable result as there is no way they are going to go 30 years without an attack. Personally, I think it is a great plan, if you could somehow sucker them into taking it.
Happy Anniversary to one of the greatest wars of our times!! I hear many arabs, both muslim and christian, say that there will never be peace until the "right of return" is established. Fact: Israel is a JEWISH state with a large number of other religions existing within its borders. Fact: The right of return (5-8 million palestinians returning to homes they left prior to the 1947 war) would make jews a minority in their own homeland. I think ROXRAN's post makes the future pretty clear. The Palestinians are pawns to their arab "brethren." The majority of the arab world wants "round 4" if Israel doesn't meet every demand. This rhetoric must stop or Israel will strike pre-emptively again. No, I do not agree with everything Israel does. But I would not blame them for defending themselves and also for maintaining a Jewish majority. Sacrifice "right of return" and you will get land and peace.
I stopped reading about there. I think we know where you stand on anything that has to do with Israel from your previous stances in the D&D, but at least in this case what Ottomaton said in a previous post applies to you: It works both ways...
It was an assumption (and meant to be inflamatory to stir debate). And I gaurantee you that the majority of arabs believe that if Israel (not jews) did not exist, the world would be a better place.
Israel didn't ever offer returning all the land. And a lot of it is symbolic more then rationale. The Palestinians and Arabs aren't actually seeking the destruction of Israel. I think they are seeking a perceived victory over Israel. In some ways, retribution for the 6 days war - which was always seen as a tiny little country kicking the entire Arab world's butt. You don't have to sucker anyone, because the Arab world would love a way out of this conflict and would claim a huge victory if Israel returned to 1966. They would be rejoicing in the streets. Negoiating the removal of settlements in exchange for ending the right of return will work as well. Hamas would declare victory and say it was them who made Israel finally agree. Fine. Now they have the incentive to stop. They get what they want - only they don't really for 30 years. Ultimately - it will work because both sides get what they want, and both sides can save face. Israel can claim it's ensuring peace before giving up anything. And Palestinians can say they got back their land and therefore they are going to make peace. You see - win-win.
That very well could be true. But I bet there's a lot of people who think if Arabs didn't exist, the world would be a better place too. He has a point about working both ways.
Actually, the majority of the world believes that, not just Arabs, at least if we infer from the polls: BBC World Opinion Poll ; you can also see what the Europeans think of Israel here: Poll of European nations ). Still, that has absolutely no bearing on your assertion, which is that Arabs are actively seeking another major conflict through which they can wipe Israel out. Do most Arabs believe the world would be a better place if Israel hadn't come into existence? Probably, yes. Does that mean they would like to try and wipe it off the face of the earth through military means? No...not the same thing. I am more interested in your initial assertion, not your second 'watered-down' revision of the original post.
It should be noted that what Palestinians want is not always -- or even often -- aligned with what the 'Arab World' wants. Heck, most Arab nations are hardly on the same page when it comes to anything.
True. Part of the problem is that they are not on the same page. But I do think everyone is somewhat sick of this conflict on all sides.
Touche... Those good ole jew-loving euros. This is exactly why there needs to be a jewish-majority state (something that won't exist if there is a "right of return" for palestinians). To escape persecution when it arises.
They should have created Isreal in a part of Canada or Australia, everything would be perfect. I mean a what 50 mile radius circle in Canada is nothing.
Well, it's not just the Euros, but you can choose to focus on that if you wish... I think most of the world has 'come around' on the idea of a Jewish homeland, I think most of the negative perception that people have of Israel has more to do with the secular policies of the state of Israel, not the fact that they're Jewish. I think one can be critical of Israeli policies and not be an 'anti-Semite', unless you're willing to label half or more of Israeli citizens who're highly critical of some aspects of Israeli policies as "anti-Semitic". Anyways, it's besides the point...I am still waiting for you to back up your initial assertion.
Sure, hating jews is popular in Japan, Africa, and if ya watched Borat, here in America as well. It only took 60+ years for people to come around... As I stated before, I do not agree with all of Israel's policy. I completely disagree that it is because of secular policies. It's the ultra-ultra-orthodox settlements (which need to go IMO) that put Israel in a negative light the most within Arab eyes... and the hatred towards jews/israel that is taught at a young age among a large percentage of arabs. The media doesn't help by blowing military retalliations out of proportion (ie: Jenin "massacre"). I do agree that one can be critical of Israeli policy and not be labeled "anti-semetic" or "anti-jewish" (the more appropriate term). Just like someone can criticize Bush and not be "anti-American." Don't have time to search for a poll in the arab world asking the question "Would you support a bloody conflict that would bring an end to the State of Israel?" It is MY OPINION that >50% would say yes.
Let's see: Japan is half a world away, not to mention that the Japanese are traditionally 'non-opinionated' about regional conflicts that have little to do with them. And Africa? Depends: North Africans aren't too fond of Israeli policies either. Of course, there is that whole disease, famine and genocide thing to worry about. Then you have South African figures who've not been too enamored with Israeli policies in general (See: Desmond Tutu calls for divestment; Nelson Mandela's speech back in 1997 ) In the U.S.? You have a 'divestment movement' amongst mainstream churches in protest of Israeli policies: Illinois Methodists, Anglican and Episcopalian Church, and Presbyterian Church Settlements of any kind are strongly 'frowned upon' by the international community, and eventually dismantling them is part of the 'road map' that the Israelis haven't quite lived up to (They continue to expand West Bank settlements that are taking an enormous toll on Palestinians). Of course, the Palestinians haven't lived up to their end of the bargain either. But that's par for the course when the two parties are involved... True, but it's also important to note that non-Arab Israelis have a generally 'racist' attitude towards their own fellow citizens of Arab descent (so-called Israeli Arabs): Poll: 62% want Arab emigration. It's a two-way street... Then we can agree on something... OK, so we've established that it's your opinion and nothing more, however misguided it might be.
That leaves the power in the hands of the suicide bombers and extremists. The better solution would be to give the land back right now this instant. Both sides understand that some extremists will still provoke, and attack no matter what. The better deal would be that no matter what suicide bombers do the land stays in Palestinian hands, but depending on the level of activity Israeli troops and security forces would still have permission to come in and go after the terrorist groups. The more peaceful it is, the less Israeli military would be allowed in to the Palestinian functions. If the hand over is on the condition of no suicide bombings, Israelis will provoke, and attack, and Palestinian terrorists will provoke and attack, because those groups aren't in favor of that kind of solution, and they will have all the power to decide if it is implemented. They should be given no power to decide about the justice of Israel returning to its '67 borders. No matter what they do, Israel should return to their '67 borders, because that is the right, fair, and just action to take. In addition it will bring greater peace and security to Israel, but in the short term nothing will eliminate 100% the extremists and terrorists who want war and violence.
